Seminary

Abstractlength: 115 words i DEDICATION DEDICATION ForthelastseveralyearsRev.Baineswasfulfilling hisministerialobligationswhilehewa sapatientat RoswellPark CancerInstitute.Althoughhewasundergoing aggressivetreatm entsforcancer,hecontinued topreacheverySundayseldommissing achurchservice. Mywife,Connie,would oftenbethenursewhotended to Rev.Bainesduring hisappointments attheinstitute.FromconversationswithConnieheknew thatIwasinministryalso.Despitet heseverityofhisillness,heneverfailed to ask about myministryorofferwordsofencour agement, to bepassed along.

An examination of the book of Genesis, chapter 14, is considered by many scholars to contain one of the most complex episodes in the whole Bible. David Elgavish, quoting Muffs declares that, “no chapter in the Bible has been more widely studied than Genesis 14.”  And the reason is that it presents an encounter between Abram and a man called Melchizedek. This Melchizedek is one of the most peculiar figures in the whole Bible. The Old Testament meagerly refers to him, but his impact is indeed substantial because in the New Testament, his figure is used as an argument to establish the superiority of Christ. Scholars throughout centuries continue to diverge in identifying who this person is and it seems that a reached unanimity will not happen so soon. Nevertheless, Melchizedek, who according to Wayne K. Purcell, “is the first Holy Man mentioned in the Bible,  should be regarded first and foremost as a human being who was king and priest, who lived and interacted with Abram, who died, and whose identity continues to deserve much attention and investigation.

Almost all textual scholars agree that the pericope of the Adulterous Woman in John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original manuscript of the Gospel of John. For hundreds of years this passage has been a challenge to biblical scholars since most of the early manuscripts of the New Testament do not record it. Nevertheless, according to E. A. Blum, most commentators would consider this pericope as historical, and if this is in fact correct, this is indeed “a rare extrabiblical authentic tradition about Jesus.  As Kenneth E. Bailey notes, quoting Bruce Metzger, “this account has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church.”  D. A. Carson points out that even though the narrative itself presents aspects that are foreign to the rest of the Johannine style, such as numerous expressions and grammatical constructions,  its coherence and spirit demonstrate that the pericope grants truthful insights into the known character of Jesus and can be accepted by the church as an agrapha, “an unwritten story known to the church and passed on in oral form and finally recorded in some copies of the Gospel of John.”  Therefore, this paper will follow a conventional exegetical approach to unpack this marvelous passage, first analyzing its textual dilemma, scriptural context, and its complicated textual history, and finally, a thorough and final analysis of the content of the text.

At a time when evil is rampant everywhere, in our schools, in our cities, country, and all over the world, one would easily deduct that evil is unavoidable and without remedy. If this is the case, evil poses a great threat to Christianity’s fundamental claims about God’s attributes and His relationship to all He created. Understandably, it appears that when things go wrong and the reality of evil is presented in catastrophes, human depravity, death and so on, it becomes even more difficult to convincingly describe what evil is and what it represents. On one hand, skeptics such as Lorkowski defend that the Problem of Evil is the most powerful consideration there is against theism, since it argues “not that God’s attributes themselves are incompatible, but that they are incompatible with an aspect of the world.” On the other hand, theists offer theodicies, which at times bring more questions than answers, consequently giving even more reason to antagonism. The bottom line is that evil does exist, and if it represents a spiritual reality to believers, and if it undergoes changes in its nature due to evolving humanity, the focus perhaps should not be in achieving a final answer about the nature of evil, but to understand its origin and how God has been dealing with it since it was introduced into His creation. Therefore, a proper understanding of the nature and origin of evil may shed light on any attempt in resolving the alleged inconsistency between an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, and all-loving God and the undeniable reality of evil in the world.

It is widely held that 2 Corinthians is one of Paul’s most difficult letter to understand. To most students of Pauline texts, this letter stands out as exceptional for elsewhere one may feel at home amid an atmosphere of pastoral concern and theological reflections so common to the apostle, but here, as Price notes, “suddenly, the apostle ascends into the heavens and takes the unsuspecting reader with him.” Here, the perplexed exegete finds out that Paul is breaking a secret he was protecting for fourteen years and adduces it in such a way that it seems he is even  having a bit of fun at the expense of his rivals and himself in disclosing it. The perplexed student does not know what to do with what he is reading because nowhere else does one see the apostle so comfortable in disclosing his weakness and his limitations. It is here that the apostle decides to talk about his otherworldly experiences and the “thorn” he was given by God so that his exclusive mystical experiences would not be the cause of his own self-justificatory glorification. Paul’s “thorn,” Garland observes, “was an effective cure for any mistaken euphoria that visions might evoke, and that this thorn punctuated any pride that might had surged within him because of his grand entry into heaven.” Nonetheless, Garland continues, “the result was that he dealt with others with the meekness and gentleness of Christ (10:1) rather than the arrogant puffery of Satan.” Therefore, the aim of this exercise is to demonstrate that Paul’s interest in telling his readers about his vision and his subsequent “thorn” was not in identifying the nature of this “thorn” no one doubts he had, but that his readers would focus not on the incident or the nature of his “thorn” but on its significance. Thus, no matter the nature of Paul’s thorn in the flash, and the countless explanations it might have, Paul’s thorn is a lesson that divine power is best displayed against the backdrop of human weakness.

The aim of this paper is to argue that as tongues were a sign of judgment on the nation of Israel in the Old Testament, it also became a sign of judgment on God’s people in the New Testament, and with the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, its purpose ceased in the first century.

Before the 18th century little was done to understand the Jesus of history outside of understanding the Jesus of faith. The Enlightenment has changed this way of thinking. A concerted effort began to discover the Jesus of history, but in doing so, much of the biblical record was ultimately dismissed as myth. However, other work has been done to better understand the biblical record by exploring the context in which Jesus ministered and taught. This was born out of a desire to understand the Scriptures with in a proper historical context.  One such example of an attempt to better understand Jesus’ teaching ministry has been the connection of the format of the parable of the sower, found in the Synoptic Gospels, with the rabbinic teaching concerning students (disciples) and sages found in the Pirke Avot. This research examines how this connection has been treated since the beginning of the twentieth century. The project also examines how the rabbinic connection has influenced the interpretation of both the parable itself and Jesus’ own interpretation given after the parable.  This research concludes with the implications on the interpretation of the parable of the sower when understood as finding its form in the rabbinical writings.

In Partial Fulfillment of Seminary at Liberty University Rawling"s School of Divinity
      This paper was written in a discussion board in reference to Contemporary Theology in regards to Enns "The Moody Handbook of Theology."  It speaks about how women are more in the Pastoral roles and have always been an important part of God"s ministry work throughout Biblical History. That does not mean that women are now giving up there roles of wife and mother for a position of power, or at the heads of their homes and marriages. It just shows that God has always used women in some form of Ministerial work and continues to do so today. Women are not so much at home raising children; today, they are in the workforce as strong powerful Children of Gods ministry and work.            Things are changing and so are the roles of women, whether society chooses to acknowledge it or not? This does not lessen or deny the facts of the Bible, it just shows the  facts of how times are changing.

This paper attempts to show there are many concepts and issues that one needs to garner in order to build a solid and stable spiritual formation. To have a biblical model built, and grounded solidly on a spiritual foundation, one must first establish a model of spiritual formation. It takes much more than just to believe in something in order for it to work, it takes action, reaction time and again to get it right. So too does the building of a biblical spiritual foundation, founded on the word of God.