Free Theology Courses, Master and Doctor degree

Some fundamentalists are not like Christ

This school states its conservative position, which is a worry. When stories such as the Baptist preacher who held up signs stating, "God hates fags" at the funeral of a victim of gay bashing, you have to wonder who they are trying to emulate, God or Satan. The Christ I learned about was inclusive in his circle of friends, keeping company with a prostitute and tax collector. I doubt if Jesus would condone preaching hate as some of these so-called fundamentalists do. Christ was open-minded and if he came back to the twenty-first century to live as a man or woman, I'm sure he/she would embrace liberal ideology, ie. Love thy Neighbor.

I would like to find a school that actually teaches about the life of Christ.

 

Re: Some fundamentalists are not like Christ

Haven't recent editions of the Bible been published that remove all gender bias etc. Just read that one.

Why are most Christian schools on the conservative side?? Because those are the people that, for the most part, are interested.

The Christian College of Lifestyle Choices may not have a large student body.

 

<<Do we really need anything but the four Gospels and, perhaps the Book of James insofar as the New Testament goes?>>

Yes. Actually we do. Even if you were to put aside important (but not necessarily essential) topics like election, nature of evil, end times, etc... There are still many other essential teachings not found in the gospels and James. For example, the nature and work of the Holy Spirit, baptism (not John's baptism of repentence), instructions on how men and women should treat one another in marriage, etc.

Tony

 

<<The Christ I learned about was inclusive in his circle of friends, keeping company with a prostitute and tax collector.>>


Wrong. Read again. The Christ you learned about was inclusive in His circle of friends in that He didn't exclude anyone that repented and followed His teachings. He kept company with FORMER prostitutes and FORMER tax collectors. He excluded EVERYONE that rejected His teachings: Lu 12:51 "Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division." Doesn't sound inclusive to me. If you really think the Bible teaches that Christ included people into His circle without demanding adherence and obedience to a particular message and life style, you've missed the entire point.

Tony

 

<<Not taking one side or the other...but simply keeping in mind that all of the NT references to "Scripture" are regarding the OT not the collection of NT writings>>


This is not entirely true. 2 Peter 3:15-16 says "and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures."

Notice here that Peter considers Paul's epistles scripture.


Tony

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: My knowledge of bible is limited

May be playing with words, but: "is the Bible the Word of God or does the Bible contain the words of God?"

 

<<May be playing with words, but: "is the Bible the Word of God or does the Bible contain the words of God?>>

That depends on who you ask. There are many different views on this:

1) The Bible is the Word of God. Most evangelicals hold to this view in some form. This view holds that the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God, is inerrant (at least in its original autographs), and remains the final and infallible authority in all matters.

2) The Bible contains the Word of God. This view holds that the Bible is a human record, account, or interpretation of God's special revelation to man.

3) The Bible becomes the Word of God. This view holds that the Bible becomes the Word of God as it manifests itself in the heart of the believer.

4) The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God but requires a divine interpreter. This view is similar to #1 with the added belief that the Bible can not be properly understood without the assistance of a divine interpreter. (The Roman Catholics and Mormons both hold this view.) This view also allows the divine interpreter to essentially add to scripture.

Personally, I believe the first is true. I believe the Bible to be the divinely inspired Word of God. I do not believe the Bible was inspired through some form of divine dictation (as many believe), but rather God allowed the writers to express their own personal writing style and point of view, without sacrificing the truth and inerrancy of the whole.

Tony

 

Jesus gives us the instruction on how men and women should treat each other in marriage, "Do unto others..." as well as all His teachings on love, light, and salt.

If all these extraneous issues are of such great importance, why then didn't Jesus address them?

 

Please don't put words in my mouth, Bill. I said nothing regarding the issue of predestination.

I simply made reference to the fact MEN determined what would and would not be canon.

Your authoritative church fathers selected many verses of Scripture that many scholars today say were not in the original or the earliest manuscripts.

1. Matt. 16:2-3

2. Matt. 21:44

3. Matt. 24:36 (some leave out "nor the Son")

4. Luke 22:43-44

5. Luke 23:34

6. John 7:53-8:11

Again, Bill, everyone has an opinion.

 

To Zvavda

Zvavda,

You appear determined, for some reason, to give this school legitimacy.

If you really want to receive a degree from an unaccredited school that is not only tuition free, but completely free, then I suggest you look into Nations University as their undergraduate credits will provisionally transfer to at least one regionally accredited school's graduate program.

 

Re: To Zvavda

NationsUniversity looks like a challenging program. In the MRS program a 1 credit course, as most of them are, requires 2 or 3 books which are reasonably priced, like $30 not the $100 I usually pay.

Knowing all the characters and situations in the Old Testament in 3 credits as is the New Testament. Not a gimme.

 

<<Jesus gives us the instruction on how men and women should treat each other in marriage, "Do unto others..." as well as all His teachings on love, light, and salt.

If all these extraneous issues are of such great importance, why then didn't Jesus address them?>>


Jimmy, come on. Are you serious? Jesus didn't talk about a lot of things that are of extreme importance. He didn't talk about the nature and work of the Holy Spirit, He only said he would send it. He never talked about incest or beastiality. Are you suggesting it's okay to father a child with your sister as long as it is consensual? After all, consensual sex, even with your sister, wouldn't violate the "do unto others..." How about to have sexual relations with your dog or horse? Jesus came as a sin sacrifice for all that believe in Him. His ministry was not intended to include every single teaching on every single subject of importance.

And why just accept the gospels and James? If you accept the gospels, why not Peter? Peter was an eye witness to Christ's ministry. Why rule out his letters? If you include John's gospel, why would you then exclude John's other letters?


Tony

 

===



Yes. And you express yours freely. Often with no evidence.

But on this occasion please be good enough to go to the thread in off topic addressed to you and there provide evidence for your statement that I use creeds and Luther to prove my Theology and/or Bible interpretations.

 

Re: To Zvavda

I don't think that was Zvavda's intent. He/she has only made four posts to this thread. One directed our attention to this school, one pointed out its accreditation claims, and the other two expressed Zvavda's opinion that it probably isn't legitimate and that it might not be legal in India.

 

Regarding 1 Cor 14, I can believe Paul that what he wrote was the Lord's command, but what does that mean. He wrote of women remaining silent in church - but many don't follow that command. He wrote of prophesy and speaking in tongues - but many feel that time has passed.
In the context of 1 Corinthians 14 these ideas are addressed for the establishment of church order. So Paul has given us instructions for church and he believes these ideas come from God. I have no problem with that, but is here declaring that his "commands" for a worship service are on equal footing with all of the OT writings? I see no such claim.

Secondly, there are at least 2 issues with 2Peter3 that may not give it the meaning that you have invested in it.
1) Scriptures (graphe) often referred to a larger group of Jewish writings than what we have in the OT - it was the spiritual writings of the community - and so Peter may have been equating Paul's writing with those.
2) It has been argued (from comparison with 1Thes 4:13 that "others" is used to set apart to different groups, not combine them into one. If this is true in this passage then Peter would not be including Paul's writings as Scripture.

Plus James 4:5 directly quotes from "Scripture" - only problem is no one has ever found that "scripture" in the OT or NT. Oh they've found similar ideas in the OT and NT but no direct source. Which means that James too could have seen other sources as Scripture - without them being a part of the OT, and he was simply quoting from one of these sources.

BTW - I believe in the inspiration of Paul's writings, and I still appeal to them as authoritative in my own life.

brad

 

word of God?

What I believe may be included in a combination of all that Pugbelly has already sugested on the this topic:

For me it boils down to something from communication 101. These are the basic elements of communication:

1) A Sender
2) A Message
3) A vehicle for the message
4) A receiver

Plus for communication to take place the "receiver" must understand the "message" exactly as the "sender" intends.

So in that model I have:

1) God
2) The Word of God
3) The Bible, Prophecy, Creation (and any other form that communicates any portion of His Word to us).
4) Us

I feel like the church has lost sight of the fact that there is a difference between the Word of God, and the various vehicles that He uses to communicate that Word to us. So for me the Bible is just the vehicle for the word, not the word itself.

Plus for me to "hear" or "receive" the word of God from Scripture or any other source, I must understand it exactly as He intends. I can listen to a tape of the NT, but if I don't "hear" what God intends, then I'm not "hearing" the word of God....

brad

 

I guess I am going to have to not even read the posts because of my inclinations to repsond.

You raise some good issues.

James 4:5: You are correct, no such Scripture can be found in the Old Testament. James may have been quoting an apochryphal work or a lost variant of an Old Testament Greek version.

Second Peter 3: Don't forget many scholars consider Second Peter a pseudonymous letter. It refers to a collection of Paul's letters (3:15-16) which did not exist until the end of the century.

There are other problems with Second Peter.

While we are on the subject, let's not forget the mention of the Book of Jasher in Joshua 10:13 and Second Samuel 1:18.

This book is called the "Book of Songs" in the Peshitta.

 

Re: To Zvavda

Thank you for your suggestion it seem interesting program.

 

Re: Re: To Zvavda

What program you attend now? How long you spend for each credits? How about any experience with this school you got?