PDA

View Full Version : Online Group Bible Study?


Vinnie
01-04-02, 11:36 PM
I was thinking Galatians and starting with the first chapter. Any thoughts?

ManInBlack
01-04-02, 11:46 PM
utwhever...I'm down.

Blessings,
Zechariah

Vinnie
01-05-02, 02:31 AM
Everybody who wants in, pray and read Galatians chapter 1 ;)

Vinnie
01-05-02, 02:38 AM
Galatians 1

NKJV --
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GAL+1&language=english&version=NKJV&showfn=on&showxref=on

KJV --
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GAL+1&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on

NLT --
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GAL+1&language=english&version=NLT&showfn=on&showxref=on

NIV --
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GAL+1&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on

NASB --
http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=GAL+1&language=english&version=NASB&showfn=on&showxref=on

Breni Sue
01-05-02, 08:07 PM
Love the idea! Count me in! I will probably have to wait until later tonight, that is usually when I make time do my bible reading. ;)

So how are we going to do this? Discuss what we think it means, how it applies to today? Or maybe how we ourselves apply the words to own lives? I am in a women's study and that is usually how we do it. But we do it however you think is best. :)

Orpheus42
01-05-02, 10:59 PM
I'll post my thoughts within the next couple of days :)

Breni Sue
01-22-02, 12:53 AM
This little thread sort of became forgotten about, so I thought I would revive it! :)

My thoughts on Galatians 1:

Paul is condemning the people who are accepting a distorted version of the Gospel, hence turning away from Christ. They are heeding the words of man rather than the Word of God.

How might we be guilty of this in our own life?

Reading a book by a Christian author (or any author) and heeding their advice without comparing it with what Scripture has to say about it. Or taking Christian advice from a minister (or a friend) who does not back it up with Scripture, or again, not 1st comparing the advice on our own with God's Word. Human interpretation is not 100% fool-proof, sometimes people will intentionally - or even unintentionally - distort God's Word and ultimately mislead people into believing something that may not be true. Which we all know can be a very dangerous thing. But it does not have to be that way if we can put our trust in the God-inspired Gospel, and following His advice instead of relying solely on the words of man. And when sharing the Gospel with others, be sure that we are preaching what God wants us to preach, and not what we want to preach.

Just my thoughts.. :)

Vinnie
01-22-02, 03:57 AM
Paul is condemning the people who are accepting a distorted version of the Gospe

So what is the Gospel that Paul teached?

They are heeding the words of man rather than the Word of God.

What do you mean by Word? Most of the NT texts weren't in existence so it can't mean the Bible. Not the NT anyways. Paul did believe Jesus died according to the scriptures (OT but that doesn't mean he thought there were "poof-texts" delineating the event. By "accoding to the scrriptures" I believe he meant thats the way the OT was going as a whole. As whole it set the stage for God's ultimate act.

I like Galatians 1. It appears to be strong evidence of the resurrection and validity of the Christian faith to me. Paul stated:

For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers . . . They only heard the report: "The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy." And they praised God because of me.

Paul was very zealous and dedicated in his former life as a Pharisee. What was Saul of Tarsus like before that fateful journey down Damscus road, an event that is of major significance for subsequent world history?

[Paraphrased from N.T. Wright What T. Paul Really Said]

Saul's persecution of the church and the word 'zeal' which he uses to describe it puts him firmly on the map of a certain type of 1st century Judaism. Saul was not just a Jew, but a Pharisee, but not just a Pharisee, but as a Shammaite Pharisee and perhaps one of the strictest of the strict.

What is a Shammaite Pharisee? During the reign of Herod the Great (36-4 BC) a division took place in Pharisaism. There were two schools of thought that developed after their respective teachers Hiillel and Shammai. The Mishnah (codification of Jewish Law (200AD) tells us that Hillel is the lenient one while Shammai is the strict one.The Hillelites by 200 generally won out but in Paul's time he would have grown up in a world of fierce debate and party loyalty. Today Paul would be classified as a militant right winger. The Pharisees thought many Jews were seriously compromised with Pagans.

So what were they lenient and strict about? The Mishnah gives us the impression that they were stricts about the personal observance of the Torah. But this is misleading to us for things were not as simple in Paul's world. At this time the personal observance wan't just a matter of personal religion or private piety. The key issue was as much political as it was theological. It was about the aims and agenda for Irael, the people, the land and the temple.

In this time the Hillelite adopted the live and let live approach. Let the Herods, Pilates and the Caiaphases rule the world and even Israel politically as long as the Jews are allowed to study and practice Torah in peace.

The Shamaites believed differently. They thought the Torah required Israel to be free from the Gentile yoke, free to serve God in peace, calling no one master except YHWH, the one true God Himself.

The Shammaites were very zealous. Zeal for most of us concerns something we do on our knees or evangelism or charity works but for a first centry Jew, Zeal was something you did with a knife! The first-century Jews who longed for revolution against Rome looked back to Phinehas and Elijah in the OT, and to the Maccabean heroes two centuries before Paul, as their models. They saw themselves as being zealous for YHWH'. zealous for Torah, and as having the right and duty to put that zeal into operation with the use of violence. "Zeal" thus is close to holy war.

With the caution and danger of anachronism to look into the world of a Shammaite Pharisee we go back to 1995. Look at the philosophy which inspired Yigal Amir to shoot Yitzhak Rabin in Tel Aviv on November 4. Amir was described as a law student and that doesn't mean he was training to be a solicitor or barrister in the Western sense but that he was a student of Torah. It came out pretty clearly that he believed with the backing of some senior rabbis in Israel and America that Rabin was a traitor, that he had sold out to the pagans, because he was prepared for the sake of peace to trade one of the greatest ancestral symbols, namly land. That is a 20th century example of Saul of Tarsus. He knew he was right and he thought his case was completely logical. The whole land including the west bank (called by Jewish settlers Judea and Sumeria) belongs to Israel because the Torah says so. Those who compromise are 'apikorsim', traitors. The Zeal for God and Torah is was not piestic or apolitical to Paul. Nor was it non-violent. He was acting as god's agent to rid Israel of corruption just as Amir was.

It should be noted that some think a few passages along with Acts 22:3 listing Gamaliel (A Hillelite) as one of Paul's teachers tell us Paul was a Hillelite before conversion but that can't be the case. Gamaliel would not have approved of Steven being stoned or of riding off to Dmascus to haul Christians to prison and death.Paul may have learned from him but he most certainly did not share his live and let live view.

[/NT Wright paraphrase]

I find the story of Paul's conversion remarkable and think it serves as godd evidence for the resurrection and validity of the Christian faith. Its a remarkable story.

In Paul's own words:
I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. . . . I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie
Paul states that he isn't making up this Gospel and his previous way of life and conversion attest to the accuracy or at least the honesty and integrityof what Paul said.

I'll reiterate my previous question, what was the Gospel that Paul preached that had been corupted? It might be slightly different than what some of us think.

Breni Sue
01-22-02, 04:32 AM
I'll reiterate my previous question, what was the Gospel that Paul preached that had been corupted? It might be slightly different than what some of us think.I am assuming the Gospel of Christ, although I don't think it actually ever says what exactly God revealed to him (I admit I am no bible expert! :) )

I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel--which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ.

What would you say it was?
What do you mean by Word? Most of the NT texts weren't in existence so it can't mean the Bible. Not the NT anyways. See above. :) But I do think it in a way holds true for today as well - people taking Christian advice from people alone rather than the source.

I do agree however that Paul's conversion was pretty amazing. I think his was the biggest 180 out of any person in the bible. To me, it says that if he can become a Christian, anybody can.

cujo95
01-22-02, 11:58 PM
Hi all,

If I might add something.
Paul is not condemning the Galatian Christians for accepting a distorted gospel. Paul is condemning the false,legalistic gospel of the Judaisers that adds human effort to being saved on top of simply receiving by faith the good news of their salvation through Christ, alone. (Gal 2:16, Gal 3:1-9)
The gospel that Paul speaks of is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (1 Cor 15:1-5) And what this gospel means is, we are saved when we believe God about what Jesus Christ has done for us. (Eph 1:13)
Paul is telling the Galatians that if they start believing a distorted gospel that mixes the law and grace then what benefit is the saving work of Christ to them.


cujo

Vinnie
01-23-02, 01:55 AM
Originally posted by cujo95
Hi all,

If I might add something.
Paul is not condemning the Galatian Christians for accepting a distorted gospel. Paul is condemning the false,legalistic gospel of the Judaisers that adds human effort to being saved on top of simply receiving by faith the good news of their salvation through Christ, alone. (Gal 2:16, Gal 3:1-9)
The gospel that Paul speaks of is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. (1 Cor 15:1-5) And what this gospel means is, we are saved when we believe God about what Jesus Christ has done for us. (Eph 1:13)
Paul is telling the Galatians that if they start believing a distorted gospel that mixes the law and grace then what benefit is the saving work of Christ to them.
cujo

I think that is missing something. Paul's Gospel may be slightly dfferent than we think. There is nothing wrong with the way we use Gospel today but I think Paul used it slightly differently though he'd agree with the theology behind the meaning of today's 'Gospel' I do believe he meant something different. [NT Wright Paraphrase] The Gospel today in older theology would have been called ordo salutis, an order of salvation. The Gospel is supposed to be description of of people get saved, of the theological mechnisms whereby, in some peoples language Christ takes our sin and we his righteousness, in other people's languages, I admit my sin, believe that he died for me and commit my life to him. In many church circles, if you hea something like that, people will say that the gospel has been preached. I am perfectly comfortable with what people normall mean when they say Gospel i just don't think tha is what Paul means. In othr words, I am not denying the usual meanings are thing people ought to say, preach about, to believ. I simply wouldn't use the word "gospel" to denote those things.

For Paul's own shorthand summary of the Gospel see Romans 1:1-5. That is paul's Gospel in a nutshell.

Vinnie
01-25-02, 12:24 PM
Last call on Gal 1......... :)

trixiepup
01-25-02, 04:23 PM
it seemed to me that paul was writing about people that were like himself before his conversion. he was vehemently opposed to christianity initially, because it deviated from the traditional ways of the jewish faith.

i think what paul is trying to get to in this chapter is to establish that to be a christian, people don't need to follow the rules of the jewish faith.

i think it was written in response to people that were teaching that one had to live the ot rules of living, along with faith in jesus for salvation.

cujo95
01-25-02, 08:17 PM
Excellent post trixiepup.

I think you hit the nail right on the head!

"You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was crucified. I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain you goal by human effort? Have you suffered so much for nothing-if it really was for nothing? Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you have heard?" (Gal 3:1-5)

Christians are no longer under the law. The law is no longer in effect because Christ completely fulfilled all of it and completely satisfied all its requirements on our behalf. The law can only serve to convict and condemn the unbeliever in order to lead him to Christ. When the law has done this, it has fulfilled its purpose. "Before the faith came, we were held prisoners of the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." (Gal 3:23-25)
And the law not only includes the cerermonial and dietary laws but also the ten commandments.
Yes, we as Christians are not under the ten commandments. Instead, we are under guidence on the Holy Spirit. And He leads us in obedience in the principles of those commandments. " Are we beginning to commend ourselves again? Or do we need, like some people, letters of recommendation to you or from you? You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such confidence as this is ours throught Christ before God. Not that we are competent in ourselves to claim anything for ourselves, but our competence comes from God. He has made us competent as ministers of the new covenent--not of the letter but of the Spirit: for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters of stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness!............Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with everincreasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Cor 3:1-18)


















And that includes the ten commandment. The commandments were given to the Jews exclusively. But the Christian is to be lead by the Spirit in obedience to the principles of the commandments.

bigkat
01-25-02, 09:03 PM
Hi! Just a quick comment. A lot of NT scholars would say that Paul's Damascus experience was not necessarily a 'conversion' experience, but rather a commissioning. In other words, Paul didn't 'become' a Christian. But rather, he had gained new insight into his role as a Jew.

Also, even a very strict Jew of the time would not necessarily have said that one had to follow the rules of the OT for salvation.

Breni Sue
01-26-02, 08:23 PM
I think we are ready to move on to Galatians 2! ;)

trixiepup
02-01-02, 02:04 AM
first my disclaimer....a lot of paul's letters irk me a bit, but i realize this is probably because i don't have a huge background in theological stuff...

so paul and titus travel to preach among the gentiles. titus wasn't circumcised even though he was a greek and previous greeks were circumcised in similar circumstances (acts 16:3, mom was jewish, father a greek, traveling to high density jewish area). so paul boasts about the freedom they have in jesus now, and how the message was not hurt by the spies being there, nor by the important people present.

so the apostles agree to preach to the jews, and paul should preach to the gentiles. paul is happy, and the apostles are happy.

then paul yells at peter for not wanting to sit with the gentiles, and says that it is basically wrong to make a gentile follow jewish customs, and that salvation comes from faith.

i just don't understand paul. he seems to be selective in what he talks about, and what he will support in a given circumstance. i wish he would have emphasized less of the ot teachings and rules (and all the fightings and bickerings sprouting from which laws are proper and which aren't) and talked more about things that jesus actually said and did. there are good verses hidden in paul's letters, don't get me wrong, but they seem to be really embedded in useless gossip and bickering. but that's my opinion.

cujo95
02-01-02, 09:29 PM
Hi trixiepup,

I would like to ask you a couple of questions:

Do you understand the difference between the old covenent and the new covenent?

To put it another way; do you understand the difference between the Law and Grace?

I don't want you to feel offended, but in your post you seem confused about the "what" and "why" of what the Apostle Paul did and wrote.

If you only look at isolated events in Paul ministry rather than the larger picture of mission God had for him, then it will be confusing.

The same holds true if you try to compare what Christ taught during His earthly ministry, and then compare it with what Paul taught. There are many instances where they seem to contradict each other. And there are reasons for this.


cujo

gzuznme
02-02-02, 05:07 PM
God Bless All,

Have just joined the ILJ Boards and getting the hang of everything. Would like to join the discussion on Galations. Will ready chapters 1 and 2 tonight. Let me knw where I go from there. I AM HUNGRY, AND WANT TO BE FED!

your sister in Christ
Deborah

trixiepup
02-06-02, 02:06 AM
hey cujo,
don't worry i'm not offended. i'm not quite sure what my question is, exactly. i am familiar with the law-grace discussion, though.
give me some time so i can figure out exactly what my question is, and i'll post it (probably next week after midterms and comps are over).

GodBroken
02-06-02, 10:10 PM
maybe we could use a little praise and worship first!

Jesus, Ur my firm foundation
I know I can stand secure
Jesus, Ur my firm foundation
I put my hope in Your holy Word 2X(yeah!)

I have a living hope (ladies echo!)
I have a future (echo...)
God has a plan for meeeeeeeee
For this I'm sure, For this I'm sure....



Whew! Ok, I'm pumped up for Galatians 2! :cool:

Breni Sue
05-21-02, 04:08 AM
*bumping up to compete with a similar thread in the College forum! ;)

Maybe we could start over with this one since it's been so long. Anyone have any suggestions?