Tyler John

Well maybe everyone should stick to the truth then and stop spreading false doctrine The Bible declares God as three persons. IMO, all this talk of love love love is just an excuse to accept sin. The love of God does not accept sin. So, should we be concerned about people's salvation or should we just buy 'em a Starbuck's gift card and say 'I love you man...' God, sent thousands of people to death, including children, at the hands of the Israelites. God has not changed. He hates sin and does not accept it. Is that love? You know, there are many Christians who don't like to be reminded of that. They consider the fact that God is Holy just another four letter word We are not to bring down God to our level of understanding. His Words lift us up to a higher level of understanding In case I have not made myself clear , God does not accept our polluted offerings of love. He already gave us His best love and it was perfect and without sin God says to be holy because He is holy. What does that mean to you? I'll tell you what it does not mean... it does not mean God understands and just accepts our corrupted idea of love because it makes us feel gooshy and gives us goosebumps I agree with much of what you say, but take issue with two things. First, 'all this talk of love, love, love' comes from Jesus, not us lot! Just because some people talk about love in a sentimentalised way (e.g. 'buy 'em a Starbuck's') does not make redundant the principles of love as set out and demonstrated by Jesus. Second, and returning to the isssue of the thread, I cannot agree with your statement that 'The Bible declares God as three persons.' This is simpy not true. The bible reveals him as three persons and explains him as three persons, but never 'declares' him so. Surely, if we trust scripture we should represent it wholly, but not make claims beyond that which it claims itself. John said of his Revelation, we should neither add nor take away from what it says, and the same is surely true of all scripture.

What do you think? Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. 2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy[a] all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” - 1 Samuel 15:1-3 God apparently has no problem with the killing of infants if it's in the right context, like revenge. My point in posting this is that it's not like the Bible is free from questionable or confusing killings and other actions. If we think that things like the active killing of infants is always wrong, perhaps we should conclude that we are the immoral ones for thinking that we should never kill infants. Just food for thought. The problem surely comes from taking small pieces of scripture out of context to prove one's own point. When we perceive the bible as a narrative unfolding of Yahweh's plan rather than as a rule book or mechanical manual then the change from child sacrifice and genocide to animal sacrifice and separation, and then to self-sacrifice and loving our enemies makes sense.

If I am not mistaken, I think what Danielzk is saying is that the Trinity is the Truth. It is difficult to explain the Holy Trinity, but even the Old Testament say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. Isaiah 9:6 For there is a child born for us, a Son given to us and dominion is laid on His shoulders; and this is the name they give him: Wonder-Counsellor, Mighty-God, Eternal-Father, Prince of Peace. The Holy Spirit has been called the "Counsellor" in the New Testament, so He is a person in the Holy Trinity. Sometimes, in today's society we need to define certain things as Christian doctrines. For example, I once got into a debate with a poster who stated that "homosexuality" is not in the Bible and therefore should not be a sin. He is correct that the word "homosexuality" is not in the Bible. The word "homosexuality" is a modern word, but the Bible does show that having relations with persons of the same sex is immoral. He twisted the biblical scripture in Leviticus where it stated that a man should not lie with another man as though he was a woman to support his case for homosexuality. What you say about the use of the actual word 'homosexuality' makes a very good point, which I completely accept. I think I got a bit worked up in my initial post about the use of specific words, rather than focusing on wher terminology fits into the great scheme of things. Well done, you guys, for putting me right! I am not quite so convinced by what you say concerning the Trinity! The quotation from Isaiah is not a direct reference to the Trinity and, in fact, offers four, not three, facets. Your example of someone twisting scriptural texts to confirm their own viewpoint is precisely what I am talking about in my final paragraph. The issue is that we almost all seem to do it. Perhaps we should make less use of individual quotations and pay more attention to the overall message of scripture.

I agree with you on that point, but I still am curious why sundown to sundown, and what you would do in a place where it remains dark for over a month, and daylight for over a month? This is one of those things that will continue, because there is error on both sides. One group says Sunday is the Christian Sabbath, and another says we must worship on Saturday. They were arguing about that when Christianity was just getting started, which is why it had to be addressed in Romans. Those who observe the Sabbath do so unto the Lord, and those who don't do so unto the Lord. Sure, people have always argued about things like this. So what? It doesn't make the argument any less daft! The bible has nothing to say on the subject of which day of the week is the seventh, but a lot to say about stopping arguing! As to 'observing the sabbath', I wholly agree with the two of you.

What sort of thought, if not 'debate for or against'? Incidentally, beware of news reports about papers that are 'about to be published'. Publication is not the end of the scientific process, but a half-way house. It is the further attempts to replicate research upon which it triumphs or falls. If every news report we read was true the world would now be using cold-fusion for power, but the fact is that a range of published data claiming successful cold fusion turned out to be unreplicable and unreliable. Of course, this particular research you report may turn out to be correct!

Thanks for all your thoughts. I really appreciate the thoughtful replies. As Gary says, I can see both sides of the issue, or perhaps more than two sides! Leaf's introduction of the word terminology is a great help. I wish I'd used it in my original post - much clearer concept than my clumsy efforts. Selene - I totally agree with what you say about coming to recognise the three persons of Yahweh, but when Daniel says 'the Holy Trinity is Fact', it brings me back to the issue of what scripture actually says. It does not say that the Trinity is fact; it never actually refers to 'the Trinity', although there are many texts that point that way. (I don't agree that references to 'Father, Son and Holy Spirit' are in themselves evidence of the concept of a Trinity, any more than, for instance, referring to 'police, firefighters and para-medics' points to a unified emergency service. Such references, however, do support the concept.) I guess that the underlying concern in my original post was the issue of how we use scripture. Even though I believe the concept of a triune God is it right to suggest that the bible actually states this to be the case? If I may put forward a clearly crazy comparison? - there is more direct evidence in the NT that the concept of slavery is acceptable than of the concept of the Trinity. Yet, I would certainly not try to claim that the NT makes the acceptability of slavery a fact! We seem sometimes to pick and choose our doctrines and then use the bible to confer acceptability, rather than read what the bible actually says and then decide our doctrines.

Ha ha! Nice one! The word 'bible' merely means 'book'. I would happily call it a book, but that would confuse the fact that it is made up of many books. 'Scripture' really means 'writing', although we probably all accept its meaning as 'divinely inspired writings'. Similarly, I can acept that the word 'bible' refers to the 'divinely inspired writings accepted by Christians'. But, Oh! this is getting complex! Of course, in a sense you've caught me out. However, I don't equate the bible with doctrines that claim biblical justification. To clarify, therefore, the question I am raising is about doctrines, not words per se.

I was discussing biblical truth with a friend a short while ago. He believes that the bible 'has all the answers and tells all the truth'. Okay, fair enough, but where does he stand on the idea that some widely-held doctrines are not actually defined or mentioned in the bible? Of course, when it came to the Trinity, a word never used in scipture, he was able to quote all manner of texts to support the concept and why we should accept the doctrine. If the bible does not use the word and so, clearly, does not define it, how does this relate to the idea that the bible holds all the answers? Personally, I am of the opinion that we should not use words that, again in my opinion, re-define what the bible actually teaches. Although texts can be used to 'prove' the existence of purgatory, this is not something the bible ever mentions and so I am simply not prepared to accept that it is a valid 'Christian' term or doctrine. Why should I treat the doctrine of a holy 'Trinity' any differently? Now, don't misunderstand me! I believe that Yahweh is revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit and these divine facets are inextricably linked and inseperable. But I believe this from interpreting a range of passages and drawing inferences; and, except in the context of posts like this, I refuse to refer to the idea by some post-biblical name invented by a Roman insitution that had already abandoned the message and body of Jesus. (I refer here to the church institutionalised by the Roman Empire, not the later Roman Catholic denomination.) In other words, my belief is based upon what the bible actually says, not the doctrinal teaching of others who invent new words and rules. I would be very interested to know what others think, but prefer to keep it all polite and respectful!

Please read the Qu'ran, at least the relevant parts, and you will see that I'm telling you the truth. Reading the Qu'ran is not really helpful as we all read texts, especially those that are new to us,with preconceptions. Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus, etc. will all read texts from the bible and interpret them differently from one another and us; and let's face it, even we interpret texts differently. So it is when Christians read religious texts from world religions. And, of course, none of this is relevant! The basic argument, that Islam is the enemy, is not an important issue. Jesus did not call us to identify enemies, but to share his love. Reading the Qu'ran IS helpful....that book spells out in plain words what is required of muslims and the agenda of islam. Even if you never read ANY holy texts in your life it's meaning would be clear. Yes, of course it is. But the bible is equally easy to use as a means of denigrating Christianity if you choose the right parts. My point is that the 'plain words' chosen, the way in which the context is used, and the preconceptions of the reader make a significant difference to the interpretation. I have no love of Islam, but for us to misuse it to prove points of our own making is as wrong as misusing the bible with the same motivations. What matters, of course, is not whether Islam is good or bad, but whether we are willing to share the love of Jesus with everyone in every circumstance.

jason I am leaning that way as well. I agree that homosexuality is a sin, but I fear that far too many Christians concentrate on it because it is an "easy" sin to pontificate about. If you are not gay, then it is OK because you are "safe" from that sin. You can "preach" from the "moral high ground". Jesus drew a line in the sand over 2000 years ago. We should be looking for what He wrote then. Do those who attack homosexuality do the following or have they in the past (thank the Lord for Grace)....... Lie? Cheat? Commit adultery? Eat too much? Drink too much? Gossip? Are quick to anger? Divorce for any reason? Fornicate? Cheat on Taxes? Etc? Bingo we have a log jam in a myriad of eyes. Well said! Far too much effort is spent on attacking this one plank while ignoring a whole lot of splinters, including and particularly, pride. Too much time is also spent attacking, which leads to condemnation, instead of loving, which leads to salvation. Jesus came to save, not condemn. He did it through sacrifice of self, not criticism of others.

Please read the Qu'ran, at least the relevant parts, and you will see that I'm telling you the truth. Reading the Qu'ran is not really helpful as we all read texts, especially those that are new to us,with preconceptions. Muslims, Bhuddists, Hindus, etc. will all read texts from the bible and interpret them differently from one another and us; and let's face it, even we interpret texts differently. So it is when Christians read religious texts from world religions. And, of course, none of this is relevant! The basic argument, that Islam is the enemy, is not an important issue. Jesus did not call us to identify enemies, but to share his love.

Our taks is not to attack or undermine what some people may believe; it is to demonstrate to all people the love of Jesus. Most people respond defensively to having their beliefs challenged; most respond positively to being shown love. Jesus commanded us to share his love; he never commanded us to attack anyone.

To the message board in general... What utter, unadulterated nonsense! What on earth (or for that matter in heaven) does Bornagain think she is doing by basing her arguments on inaccurate definitions and suppositions of what "evolutionists" "believe". Of course, there may be some people who argue in the terms she suggests, but, speaking as a scientist, I have to say that I know very few. It is always dangerous to assume that one knows or understands other people's arguments, especially when one's opinions are based on self-selected texts, many of which are far from being primary sources. With my science hat on, I can assure Bornagain that her assumptions cannot be taken as generalisations and do not reflect the evidence-based opinions (not "beliefs") of the vast majority of scientists. As a committed follower of Jesus I have to say that this type of argument is both unproductive and distracting. It produces no helpful insights into the rights or wrongs of evolutionary science, and distracts people from what truly matters, which is not evolution versus creation (a wasteful and pointless argument if ever there was one) but the love of Jesus. To Bornagain personally... I am perfectly willing to accept, Bornagain, that you have the right to believe whatever you want, the right to express your own beliefs, and the right to dispute with individuals about their views. However, you should be sticking to what you believe, not falsely defining what others think, and especially not generalising about other people. As ambassadors and children of the living God we have a duty to represent him wisely, and he has given us the Holy Spirit to enable us to do so.

I understand your point and agree for the most part. I would also point out that in most of my posts, I change “ye” to “you”, etc. and delete the “th” endings on words such as “commendeth” to read “commends”. I also do that when I read from the KJV aloud. Not just “a day of rest”, but the same day of rest for the entire nation. All were to rest and worship, study and hear the Word read, pray and praise in unison. That has been lost today with each doing what is right in their own sight. Are you saying Israel’s day of rest was arrived at by tradition or are you referring to Christianity today? I believe they are timeless, if not in letter, then certainly in principle. Just because your neighbors don’t have oxen doesn’t take away the timelessness of the commandment. There are people all over the world that have neighbors with animals that may need help on Sabbath, even the dogs that your own neighbors have. One thing that is definitely timeless is that none of Yahweh’s people should work and all should rest. BTW, I don’t apply cars and BBQs into the equation. They are not alive with health or life in danger. How do you show your love for Yahweh and your neighbor? I show it by keeping the Ten Commandments. I know that if I steal from my neighbor, that I don’t really love him. The same holds true for breaking any of the 10 to the detriment of my neighbor. I totally agree with your last statement. Salvation is by grace, not law keeping. Yet, salvation by grace leads to doing good works that were prepared beforehand to walk in (Eph 2:8-10). Your first comment is an assumption. Yeshua taught men to obey the commandments out of love for Yahweh and man. Your second comment about strict adherence is bewildering. What are you referring to? Are you saying Israel’s day of rest was arrived at by tradition - Yes! No mention of days of the week in Genesis! I don’t apply cars and BBQs into the equation. They are not alive with health or life in danger - This commandment was about envy none of Yahweh’s people should work and all should rest - Including Jesus? salvation by grace leads to doing good works - Confusion of translation; the single word 'works' is used to translate a dozen or so different words from Koine Greek. My fault for generalising. My apologies! Your first comment is an assumption - No it wasn't! Check out when Jesus replied to the Pharisees who admonished his disciples for working on the sabbath. Your second comment about strict adherence is bewildering - Ditto. The Pharisees tried to adhere to the Law, but their strict interpretation of some laws led them to break others. Jesus and NT writers made it clear that the Law can only lead to failure. each doing what is right in their own sight - Are you doing right in your own sight? Yes! We all are! You interpret scriptures one way, I another. Each of us attempts to use our divinely given talents and the wisdom of the Holy Spirit to get it right. Are you right, or am I? I think we may have to agree to differ, but in the knowledge that our love for Jesus is greater than our differences of opinion. I reckopn it's time to end this particular part of the overall discussion - while we still have a few things on which we agree! Great debate - thanks!

Isa 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, says Yahweh, so shall your seed and your name remain. Isa 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, says Yahweh. Correct. Yahweh wants His people to do that on the seventh day. To work on the seventh day is a misuse or abuse of the Sabbath command. It does not please Him to do so. There are Sabbath keepers all around the world that have no problem keeping the Sabbath holy. Man-made time zones have no effect on the Sabbath which begins and ends at sunset. Yahweh, in His wisdom, did not allow the Sabbath or His Feast Days to be influenced by man’s calendar or method of keeping time. Even though there are evil men who seek to change Yahweh’s times and laws (Dan 7:25), Yahweh’s faithful people will not conform to such manipulation of truth. The work of salvation was completed on the day Yeshua died which was not the seventh day and the resurrection was completed on the first day, not the seventh day. However, if you are referring to the ultimate completion of those works when all that will be saved are resurrected from the graves unto eternal life, then yes, that will take place on the typical seventh day, the Millenium (6,000 years for man to work and 1,000 years for him to rest). That is the exaltation of the traditions of men over the commands of Yahweh resulting from misunderstanding NT verses concerning events on the “first day of the week”. Following my previous posts concerning language... Do you, in your everyday life and work, talk in the same language that you use for discussing doctrinal questions? For instance, would you say to someone,'This is a great incentive! It will encourage us unto higher performance.'? Unto?! I suggest that the common use of translations such as KJV encourage us to use jargonistic language that makes our message to non-believers sound unpalatable and out of date. That is why I would prefer we all cultivate the habit of speaking about Jesus in normal, everyday language. After all, he is with us today, not just in the past. If Jesus were here now, in an Englsih-speaking country, would he speak in Tudor language? I very much doubt it. I didn't know "unto" was an archaic word. Doesn't everyone know what that means? I understand your intent and the need to make our message clear to unbelievers, but I am not addressing unbelievers in this forum. Everyone who reads me should fully understand my meaning even though I may quote the KJV. If they don't, they need to learn because many believers still use it. It seems to me that you are "disputing about words" (to use a modern translation) rather than focusing on the issue of the Sabbath. Let's not get off topic. My point was that it is rarely used in everyday speech, and the problem with using it (and other uncommon expressions) during discussions like this is that we cultivate bad habits. Language that is virtually unique to any particular specialism is jargon, and jargon should always be discouraged! No, I am not 'disputing about words', but about the principles of how we use words that can and do affect people's lives. Now, I think I am on the subject. The two issues are very much connected, for both have their roots in an unhealthy addiction to past forms - a past form of language and a past form of spiritual requirement. The fact that many believers use the KJV, or any other translation, does not validate it; many believers pray to Mary and saints, but that is no validation of the practice. I am not suggesting that the KJV actually equates with such nonsense, but showing that the argument of mass usage is unhelpful. The issue should be one of quality, not of quantity. Lovely though the KJV may be, it is archaic, much misunderstood (because language has changed over the past 500 years) and less accurate than some more up-to-date translations. Similarly, the 'observance' of a sabbath should be about time, not timekeeping. The rule, like many others, is there to ensure that everyone in ancient Hebrew society had a day of rest and worshipped weekly. The actual day of the week was not laid down, but arrived at by tradition, and Jesus asks us to worship daily. It is often argued that the commandments are timeless, but they are not; my neighbours have no oxen or donkeys. The usual argument is that we should interpret this in the modern context to mean cars and BBQs, but if we are to reinterpret one, then we must be allowed to do so with others that have an equally temporal context. Jesus summed up the commandments in two simple statements - effectively: love Yahweh with your entire being, and love other people in the same way that you love yourself. Love is the key, not adherence to each individual Hebraic law. It is quite clear what Jesus felt about 'working' on the sabbath - it was unimportant whether one did or not so long as love and justice were maintained. Strict adherehce to individual laws cannot be maintained without breaking other laws. The NT writers made this very clear and we should surely all accept that it is by grace, not lawkeeping, i.e. the 'works' to which Paul refers, that we are saved.