hey matt,
sorry for sending this to both of you emails, but i dont know which is your primary. lol
but ive been reading exodus for my quiet time for about a week now, and i found something
you might be interested in. you know how you came up with that "Zeus" thing? well check this out
and tell me what you think:
i believe it is exodus 23:13.
i dont want this to sound like im pickin at ya. i just know i would want someone to tell me something like this.
and if you find something that applies to me, dont think twice and dropping me an email, ok?
oh well hope this helps,
aaron
to be honest, i don't think it matters much, if at all. not that the word of God doesn't. (by the way, i'm in exodus too. ch 34-35 tomorrow) but there are several OT laws that we no longer follow, such as the end of lev. 19:19 "..., nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." look at your tags and see how many shirts you have that follow that law. very few if any. i think the exodus verse is saying don't worship the pagan gods, its not speaking against actually using the name zeus or cupid or hades or anything like that. the bible itself uses the term hades over and over again. granted, it uses it as a place, not a god, but hades is the greek god of the underworld. and daniel and the other three we called by pagan god's names, if you remember from the daniel study. and they had to learn all of the babylonian (sp?) literature, which most likely included pagan god's, as most ancient literature does. in acts 17:23 paul uses the pagan gods to proclaim God. paul uses the "unknown god" that they serve to explain the true God that was unkown to them (this one might be a stretch, but i don't think so, honestly) not that it means a whole lot to you, but we're made to study greek mythology in school, somewhat like daniel, though i doubt on the same lever. i for one find mythology very interesting. so, bro, there you have my take. let me know what you think. i love you, have a good night at church.
matt
so, that's it right now. we'll see what he says back, and i'll update this accordingly. i know my last blog sucked, but oh well. this one might not be better as far as what we're supposed to actually be doing, but i want to see what you guys think (fellow christians, mainly, but anyone is welcome to join in) of the convo. do you guys think i'm mistaken in my stand? I guess i should explain what's going on. i was hanging out with my youth minister and a friend of our's, and we were talking about movie's based on greek battles and such, like troy (never seen it, but would like too). zack mentions that it doesn't use "Jesus Christ" (used as a curse word, usually called taking the Lord's Name in vain) because, historically, Christ hadn't been born yet. so we were joking around about saying "Zeus dangit!" instead of the "Gd" word. if you guys don't have Bibles and need me to cite the verses, just let me know. i'm interested in what you guys have to say on the matter.
ok guys, the rest of aaron and mine's convo.
to be honest, i don't think it matters much, if at all. not that the word of God doesn't. (by the way, i'm in exodus too. ch 34-35 tomorrow) but there are several OT laws that we no longer follow, such as the end of lev. 19:19 "..., nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together." look at your tags and see how many shirts you have that follow that law. very few if any. i think the exodus verse is saying don't worship the pagan gods, its not speaking against actually using the name zeus or cupid or hades or anything like that. the bible itself uses the term hades over and over again. granted, it uses it as a place, not a god, but hades is the greek god of the underworld. and daniel and the other three we called by pagan god's names, if you remember from the daniel study. and they had to learn all of the babylonian (sp?) literature, which most likely included pagan god's, as most ancient literature does. in acts 17:23 paul uses the pagan gods to proclaim God. paul uses the "unknown god" that they serve to explain the true God that was unkown to them (this one might be a stretch, but i don't think so, honestly) not that it means a whole lot to you, but we're made to study greek mythology in school, somewhat like daniel, though i doubt on the same lever. i for one find mythology very interesting. so, bro, there you have my take. let me know what you think. i love you, have a good night at church.
matt
so, that's it right now. we'll see what he says back, and i'll update this accordingly. i know my last blog sucked, but oh well. this one might not be better as far as what we're supposed to actually be doing, but i want to see what you guys think (fellow christians, mainly, but anyone is welcome to join in) of the convo. do you guys think i'm mistaken in my stand? I guess i should explain what's going on. i was hanging out with my youth minister and a friend of our's, and we were talking about movie's based on greek battles and such, like troy (never seen it, but would like too). zack mentions that it doesn't use "Jesus Christ" (used as a curse word, usually called taking the Lord's Name in vain) because, historically, Christ hadn't been born yet. so we were joking around about saying "Zeus dangit!" instead of the "Gd" word. if you guys don't have Bibles and need me to cite the verses, just let me know. i'm interested in what you guys have to say on the matter.
ok guys, the rest of aaron and mine's convo.
hey matt,
thats cool i just thought you might find it interesting.
but yeah ive often thought about the clothes of mixed materials.
its some cool food for thought. you never know.
ive also thought of 2 others.
like in the new testament, it says men should uncover their head in prayer. that
we do still do. but in like the next verse it say women should have their heads covered.
the other i thought of is men shouldn't wear womens clothing and women shouldnt wear men's. but with our culture clothes a generic. i dont now though. but like i said, food for thought. any how, check ya later man.
aaron
very true. some women still do the whole cover the head thing. from what i've heard on facebook, some churches do that. there is so much like that that most ppl don't ever realize. and i struggle with the wearing a hat while i pray. i don't think God doesn't listen just cuz you have a hat on, cuz there are times that you might have to pray with a hat on. and then there is the whole pray without ceasing thing (pretty much why i don't think it matters, at least not all the time.) i think formal prayers you should uncover your head (you know, when you do the whole close your eyes bow your head thing) but the pray w/out ceasing i think its ok to wear a hat. idk. we won't have to worry about that eventually. love ya bro.
thanks for the input guys, i appreciate it.
very true. some women still do the whole cover the head thing. from what i've heard on facebook, some churches do that. there is so much like that that most ppl don't ever realize. and i struggle with the wearing a hat while i pray. i don't think God doesn't listen just cuz you have a hat on, cuz there are times that you might have to pray with a hat on. and then there is the whole pray without ceasing thing (pretty much why i don't think it matters, at least not all the time.) i think formal prayers you should uncover your head (you know, when you do the whole close your eyes bow your head thing) but the pray w/out ceasing i think its ok to wear a hat. idk. we won't have to worry about that eventually. love ya bro.
thanks for the input guys, i appreciate it.
13 comments:
I'm a little bit confused as to what your question is, though I'm interested in hearing more. Are you saying that we shouldn't SAY the name of false gods, or that it's okay?
i'm just asking yall's take on the situation, is it or is it not ok to say the name of false god's. i'm saying that its ok. i don't see anything wrong with it. i've got a message back from him, i'll put it on later, i don't have much time left on break.
i think your post was really interesting. sometimes it can be confusing because the Bible has a lot of rules that don't really apply to us any more. i guess that what I usually do when I get to a part of the Bible that gives directions that confuse me is to consider what the command meant in that time period. Then I consider the attitude that the action displayed in its biblical context and decide if doing it today means the same thing. To address your question, I think that false god's were taken a lot more seriously in Biblical times and so saying their names carried a lot of weight. Today, since there really aren't any major religions that actually believe in Zeus or Hades or anything like that, i think that when we say those names its in a joking manner, we are not actually trying to call on them or curse people like they would have a long time ago. because our attitude is completely different I don't think we are actually disrespecting God by saying those names.
well said, lauren. i agree.
wow lauren you really know your stuff. i completley agree with just about everything you said. and matt i completley agree with lauren and about how you feel
I think it could be interesting to turn this discussion towards your statement (in your profile) of the infallibility of the Bible. Infallible is infallible, and if that's the case, then it's not okay to use those words. So, what does infallible actually mean? It's such an important word in many of our professions of faith, and yet, I'm concerned that we don't really take into account its implications when we use it. Another case of needing to truly examine the power and effect of words.
very true, wendy. even more food for thought.
I think that it is important to remember that we are no longer under the law but under grace. We so often get bogged down with laws and rules that we forget what saving faith really is. I agree with Lauren when it comes to the actual meaning of this law, and I think it would be wise to question what practical application this law has on your Christian walk. I think argument about such laws divides us and diverts us from our ultimate task of loving others and spreading news of salvation. I hope that I didn't stray too far from this subject or overlooking something important that's going on here. I'm glad you brought this up.
are you asking if we can even utter the name of a false god out of our mouth? why wouldnt we be able to? as long as you dont worship a false god.
yeah emily, pretty much. that's what the verse my friend aaron gave me in the email said. though i think you have to take it in context. and sam has a good point. we are under grace, now the law. Christ changed some of the laws that we have to follow. we no longer do the "eye for an eye", but now we should "turn the other cheek". in the old testament, they couldn't eat whatever they wanted too, but in the book of acts, that is changed, i think its with peter that God declares all things clean. so, there are examples that the new testament negates some old testament laws. the word testament means covenant. since we (by we i mean mankind in general) broke the first covenant (the old testament), God was free from His end and made a new covenant with us. why He choose to do the first one when He knew it wouldn't work out (because God is all knowing) i don't know. but then again, if i understood Him fully, what kind of God would He be?
This may be a quibbling point, but Jesus did not change the Law. He said that He came to fulfill it. I think that that is importantly different.
While I completely understand the impulse behind Lauren's assertion that we have to look at Biblical law in it's historical context (I actually wholeheartedly agree with this), that can be a slippery slope. The New Testament (a designation that was not established until over a thousand years later) was also a product of its times. Paul was a product of the world he lived in, as were the other apostles and writers of the NT. That is why we have different stories within that text. There are chronological differences that may not be that important, but Paul's differing points of view on the role of women is pretty important and salient.
Anyway, sorry for the ramble. I'm not sure if I actually made a point of not.
ok, well, i think i messed up a bit, but there is a new covenant. luke 22:20 says "And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, 'This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'" Mat 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." is the verse of what wendy said. so, my outcome is still the same, but the way i described it coming about was wrong. Christ came and fulfilled the covenant (something i should have known off the top of my head. duh matt), allowing God to make a new one.
Post a Comment