Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Jbarrax

Members
  • Content Count

    1,111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Jbarrax last won the day on September 7 2010

Jbarrax had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About Jbarrax

  • Rank
    We're still here?? Oh poop. Stupid Mayans!
  • Birthday 09/10/1961

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sherman, TX
  • Interests
    Religion, politics, basketball, cars, art, comic books, science fiction, and fusion jazz,

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That's a distinct possibility Ham.
  2. Um....Thanks, I think. :-) And thanks for sharing your insights. I envy you the opportunity to make biblical studies a serious undertaking. If I understand you correctly, it sounds like the shift from "Systmatic theology" to a multi-dimensional approach is what's been going on in my head for the past few years. I've come to believe that there are various disparate and contradictory views and beliefs espoused in the Scripture (particularly with regards to salvation) but don't feel that invalidates the Truth of the canon or the reality of the Christian experience. So, as you have time and
  3. Waysider, I didn't communicate that clearly. I'm not advocating using "Scripture Buildup" to make John agree with the book of Acts and the other gospels. On the contrary, I'm wondering if John's presentation of the ascension of Christ, the giving of holy spirit and the commissioning of the Apostles is just a completely different, and perhaps irreconcilable, narrative.
  4. Hi Greasespot folks. Long time no....see? I was going to post an Easter quote to my facebook status and flipped to the gospel of John to pull something succinct about the resurrection. As I read through chapters 20 and 21, it occurred to me that John's story of the events after the resurrection doesn't flow with those of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The first thing that bugged me was a verse that's always caused me to pause, but never to pause long enough to give it deeper consideration. 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and
  5. It's certainly a fine theatrical production. One of Jimmy Stewart's best performances. Like you said, there's no right or wrong. I just found it intriguing thinking about all the biblical parallels. Cheers!
  6. Howdy greasespots. Long time no post. My wifey is involved in a local theatre production of It's a Wonderful Life. As part of their preparation for the show, the cast members were encouraged to see the movie. Deb and I went a couple of weeks ago and I was stricken by something I'd never seen before in the film. It appears to be an allegory for Christ. I know, not a big surprise seeing that it's one of the few movies that features an angel. Anyway, it seems to me that George Bailey is an messianic figure; an allegory for Christ. Here are the comparisons I see in the film. • Let's start wit
  7. Verrrry interesting. I've been toying with this concept too for a couple of years now. Can't quite make up my mind about it because there are scriptures on both sides of the issue. I even attended a UU Church for a while and sought help from their ministers in putting it together from the Scriptures. That didn't work very well since most UU folks don't know the Bible very well (wonderful people though). The main reason I see for adopting a Universalist view is my inability to accept the traditional belief that the Bible presents the hope of Christ's return as an event in a vague future. To m
  8. I guess I see it as a matter of cause and effect. The effect we're chatting about is the sudden deaths of all of Job's sons and servants. The cause is that Satan moved God to 'destroy them without cause'. Why did He do that? To prove that Job didn't fear God just because he had a cushy life. I never meant to imply that their deaths were unjust or that God is unjust. I'm only pointing out something in the Old Testament that flies in the face of VP and Bullinger's idiom of permission. The idiom doesn't hold water because its underlying assumptions are not necessarily well grounded in Biblical
  9. But...if you don't have certainty, how do you have "real direction"? I'm not following you there Ham.
  10. I stand corrected. How about if we substitute the words "perfect and upright"? The fact that Job was perfect and upright in the sight of God is the whole point of the story. Satan accused Job of only loving and serving God because of his abundant life. God said Job was a unique man, perfect and upright, a man who feared God and eschewed evil. Apparently this was something noteworthy and important to God because he broached the subject with Beezlebub. Job 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that [there is] none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright
  11. Speaking of nuts, here's my nutty view of the book of Job. Job, as you know, is presented as exhibit A by the Idiom of Permission advocates because it shows bad things happening to a good man, other people attributing those events to God, but pulls back the divine curtain to reveal that it's really Satan doing all the evil. But, as Nate has pointed out, the book of Job also says that God allowed Satan to do what he did. At one point, it says God admits that Satan moved him to destroy Job without cause. Job 2:3 ...and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him,
  12. IMHO, No, that is not possible. What is possible is that God's perspective and ours are not in agreement. Since He created us and everything else, if either party needs and attitude adjustment, it's us not Him.
  13. I'm not familiar enough with mainstream Christian thought to offer any insight on the original question about whether other people believe this. But I'd like to toss my two cents' worth in and say that this is one of those Waybrain concepts I don't think holds up to careful scrutiny. I understand the thinking behind it, which you have all presented well. But, as Twinky said, I think this is something that grows from the Western mindset that God is incapable of doing anything we would consider evil. We have defined the terms of goodness and therefore decided that God is incapable of violating
  14. Good insights and info Steve. I might quibble about the degree of division in the early Church based on the attempts to murder Paul by the "Christians of Jewish background" in Jerusalem. You and I agree that the Gentiles were added to the Church as equals, but a sizeable number of the Israelitish believers didn't accept that truth. But in the end, different people see things from different perspectives.
×
×
  • Create New...