Theology

[Hari Raghu]

One of my top interest is theology. This means understand what scripture means. Commentaries, lexicons and historical texts, these provides the tools that I use to help my understanding of the God's word.

[The disciple_Leon Camero]

Nika Vladilen

One of my top interest is theology. This means understand what scripture means. Commentaries, lexicons and historical texts, these provides the tools that I use to help my understanding of the God's word.

What is it you like to know more about? The book that tells us who the Father is, or the Father himself?

[Hari Raghu]

I study I bible scripture I use 1) the bible 2) commentaries, 3) the original sources and 4) historical theological texts to dig deep. This creates a through exegesis.

[Sugarbeary]

The best way is to think in systematic theology. How does this portion tie in to the gospel? What picture of the gospel is represented here?

[Mea quidem sententia]

LoveLoud837

The best way is to think in systematic theology. How does this portion tie in to the gospel? What picture of the gospel is represented here?

Systematic theology is great and all, but the main problem with it is that it takes a collection of various authors and assumes they all believed in the same thing. They didn't.

[Sugarbeary]

Mea quidem sententia

LoveLoud837

The best way is to think in systematic theology. How does this portion tie in to the gospel? What picture of the gospel is represented here?

Systematic theology is great and all, but the main problem with it is that it takes a collection of various authors and assumes they all believed in the same thing. They didn't.

examples?

The gospel is all over the book of Esther, and God isn't even mentioned anywhere.

[Mea quidem sententia]

LoveLoud837

examples?

The gospel is all over the book of Esther, and God isn't even mentioned anywhere.

The Hebrews didn't believe in the soul until later on. There is no mention of the Hebrew word satan until Numbers 22:22, and the referent is the messenger of Yahweh. There was no salvation from sin, since everyone ended up in sheol, the Hebrew word for "grave". The reason I say this is because there was no punishment in the afterlife. The righteous and wicked ended up in sheol. You could take Esther and say that's a prophecy of the Holocaust, but that's because of confirmation bias.

[Sugarbeary]

Mea quidem sententia

LoveLoud837

examples?

The gospel is all over the book of Esther, and God isn't even mentioned anywhere.

The Hebrews didn't believe in the soul until later on. There is no mention of the Hebrew word satan until Numbers 22:22, and the referent is the messenger of Yahweh. There was no salvation from sin, since everyone ended up in sheol, the Hebrew word for "grave". The reason I say this is because there was no punishment in the afterlife. The righteous and wicked ended up in sheol. You could take Esther and say that's a prophecy of the Holocaust, but that's because of confirmation bias.

John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God.

It doesn't matter that they didn't know it was a baby named Jesus that would die on Calvary. The gospel is throughout scripture.

Lets go to Esther, and I'll explain it.

Here's my personal spark-note version of the story (I wrote this)

Okay, so you have the King throwing a party, and he tells his wife to come to the party, wearing only a crown so he can show her off. She refuses to be degraded, so the King leaves the Queen and seeks a successor. Esther, who was beautiful and being taken care of by Mordecai, her uncle, was taken and given a year-long beautification process. Esther was a jew, but did not make that known. The king decided to take Esther over all the other virgins as the queen. Haman, the court jester, if you will, was not bowed down to by Mordecai. This caused Haman to be filled with rage, and ask the king to be able to kill all the jews, via manipulation. The king approved. Esther, after learning about this asks the king to have a banquet with just the king and Haman. The king approves this. Haman sees Mordecai after learning he is getting a special banquet with the King and queen. Haman then sees Mordecai again, and becomes angered. Feeling like the better man though, Haman decides not to attack him, and instead tells them to make a 75 ft. Gallow. Mordecai learns of an assassination attempt on the king and reports it. Now, the banquet started with Haman. The king asks, what should be done for a man that deserves honor? And Haman goes, that man should get a robe and a crown and a horse and chauffeured to the city square by a prince to be honored. The king says great, take all that and give it to Mordecai! And then at the banquet, Esther pleaded with the king, Haman made you plan to kill my people, and Haman was hanged on the gallows meant for Mordecai, and Mordecai was promoted. The king gave them permission to fight back against the army sent to kill the jews, and the Jews destroyed the attackers.

What are some things to take out of systematic theology here?

You really see God's divine intervention with irony and humor. Haman thought he was going to be praised, Haman built gallows for Mordecai. Yet, Haman was made to praise his enemy, and was hanged on the gallow meant for his enemy.

You see God's protection of the Israelites. The Israelites at the time had no king, no rulers, no direction, yet were able to completely destroy the attacking enemies. They flourished, even with no human direction.

God has a plan for everyone, and God can use you in any situation.

[Mea quidem sententia]

LoveLoud837

John 1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and the Word was with God.

It doesn't matter that they didn't know it was a baby named Jesus that would die on Calvary. The gospel is throughout scripture.

Through the Christian lens you possess, sure. In reality, all that's occurred are theological paradigm shifts. Yahweh turns from a war-oriented minor god of Canaanite pantheon into the god of Israel, who then became a transcendental, universal being who wants to gather all to him when the Jews were held captive by the Babylonians.

Instead of Yahweh being defeated by a Babylonian god, Yahweh was the one who put the Jews into captivity to humble them and then bring them out of it. What the ancient Israelites believed is not the same as what the Jews believed in the first century, nor are the beliefs the same of the Jews today. It's waaay different than Christian views, that's for sure.

[Hari Raghu]

I tip of my hat. One does not know the unforeseen results till they happen. Thus, kudos to those who open this discussion and keep it going. Yes, the gospel is presented through out the bible. Try proto gosspel where God that Satan will be destory and then and Revelations even Paul mention that. One does not need to go to the Sypotioc Gospels in order to encounter the truth. He is everywhere in scripture. Paul first sermon is fantastic.

[Mea quidem sententia]

Nika Vladilen

I tip of my hat. One does not know the unforeseen results till they happen. Thus, kudos to those who open this discussion and keep it going. Yes, the gospel is presented through out the bible. Try proto gosspel where God that Satan will be destory and then and Revelations even Paul mention that. One does not need to go to the Sypotioc Gospels in order to encounter the truth. He is everywhere in scripture. Paul first sermon is fantastic.

That is entirely a Christian concept. The ancient Near East has motifs involving serpents, such as the serpent eating the plant of rejuvenation in The Epic of Gilgamesh, or the Myth of Etana, or Apep, an Egyptian god who fought Ra. I take it this is just the Hebraic way of explaining why humans and serpents were hostile towards one another. No one associates Eve's birth pangs to any future event in the same way they associate Adam's disobedience and the serpent to an eternal battle between Yahweh and Satan.

Furthermore, Satan is not mentioned once in Genesis 3. There is no hint of the serpent being Satan, let alone being an instrument of Satan. (That's because satan just means "adversary" or "opponent" in Hebrew. It's first mentioned in Num. 22:22 in the Torah.) It's all just Christian interpretation and probably later Jewish interpretation before that. Of course, not even Josephus explained Genesis 3 in a manner of the serpent being Satan, nor do the targums. So I guess it's on whichever person you think best agrees with your interpretation.

[VeganIncubus]

Nika Vladilen

One of my top interest is theology. This means understand what scripture means. Commentaries, lexicons and historical texts, these provides the tools that I use to help my understanding of the God's word.

You might be surprised to learn that the Bible and history don't actually match up. Spoiler.

[Rumblestiltskin]

XxRagingHomosexualxX

Nika Vladilen

One of my top interest is theology. This means understand what scripture means. Commentaries, lexicons and historical texts, these provides the tools that I use to help my understanding of the God's word.

You might be surprised to learn that the Bible and history don't actually match up. Spoiler.

Neither do the bible and science...or the bible and morality....or the bible and continuity.

[Hari Raghu]

Rumblestiltskin

XxRagingHomosexualxX

Nika Vladilen

One of my top interest is theology. This means understand what scripture means. Commentaries, lexicons and historical texts, these provides the tools that I use to help my understanding of the God's word.

You might be surprised to learn that the Bible and history don't actually match up. Spoiler.

Neither do the bible and science...or the bible and morality....or the bible and continuity.

Actually, the bible does match up. smile One has to dig deeper.

[Rumblestiltskin]

Nika Vladilen

Rumblestiltskin

XxRagingHomosexualxX

Nika Vladilen

One of my top interest is theology. This means understand what scripture means. Commentaries, lexicons and historical texts, these provides the tools that I use to help my understanding of the God's word.

You might be surprised to learn that the Bible and history don't actually match up. Spoiler.

Neither do the bible and science...or the bible and morality....or the bible and continuity.

Actually, the bible does match up. smile One has to dig deeper.

No, it doesn't. And saying I have to "dig deeper" implies that I don't know what I'm talking about when I say this...and I do. It doesn't match up with science....or are you going to explain why god thinks bats are birds instead of mammals, as opposed to it just being a mistake that the people who wrote the book made...