thomas t

Hi N2thelight, while I wait for Jeff to respond to the discussion you're having with him, let me answer this opinion of your's: .. I'm one of the people who believe that this flood was the flood of Noah's day. Even if some living beings did survive this, the world I believe to have been destroyed by the flood. Here is why. Reading the passage in context*, it can be seen that both the word "creation" and the word "world" are used - two different terms in Greek language, also. So I think they refer to different subjects. This would be the simple way of interpreting the Bible, I think. Whenever two different words occur in the same Bible passage, I believe them to describe two different things. Otherwise, the Bible would be misleading, I think. I believe, creation means more than world. Maybe creation comprises the spiritual world, too, which can't be destroyed by floods. So, creation is as old as the fathers like Adam and so on (see below), whereas this world is just as young as Noah when he stepped into the ark. That's at least my opinion. Peter's aim in this passage, as I see it, was to refute the opinion, that everything has stayed the same from the beginning of creation. This is why, in my opinion, he cited an example of what effectively did change: the world, we live in. So, in my opinion, both wording and context point to the interpretation that the world has been destroyed by the flood of Noah's day. Regards, Thomas * And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Dear community, this is a spin-off from another thread. Hi N2thelight, I think you raised an interesting question asking why God hated Esau. The passage concerned is Romans 9:11-13. "(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Although Esau hasn't been born yet, he was instantly hated by God, as is announced by that passage (my interpretation). And now you ask: " If God knows [...] why are we going through this, that would be an act of a cruel God, yet I know for a fact that He is just..... " My answer to this would be: Esau didn't have a bad life, in my opinion, as he had as many as three wives - Gen 28:9. In my view, even if it's true that God hated Esau determining that he will serve his younger brother... he was given a good life, that's how I read the story. And then you ask (same posting): " Why didn't He kill satan when he rebelled? " God doesn't like to kill, I think. This, in my opinion, is apparent from the fact that in the Garden of Eden there wasn't death - see Romans 5:12: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: " Best regards, Thomas

Dear Wingnut and Retro, just a few answers to Keras, as a little break in your discussion, I hope you don't mind... Hi Keras, Just want to point out that Romans 11:26 as understood in a litaral manner seems to claim the opposite: "and in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, 'The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob'" Romans 11:26 ... we've discussed Romans 11:26 here, just want to point that out, no need to go through the whole debate again. "all their ancestors..."? Abraham, for instance, got to know Jesus personally if I know well. He did the very opposite of rejecting him. Romans 9:6, in my opinion, solely explains that not every Israeli is really an Israeli. Part of them doesn't really belong to them, according to this verse... but part of them does. In my opinion, it looks like the opposite is true: "but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. " Romans 5:8. Regards, Thomas

Dear community, I need to clarify: The refugee friend, I was writing about in my last thread*, didn't ask for money. I just assume that he expected the church and/or church members to give him money, because he complained so much about not having enough, and he told me so often how disappointed he was to see how much other refugees get in other churches while he is not getting any financial support from the church. But I found the last thread interesting and since scripture has been given on how to deal with persons who ask for money, I wanted to leave it the way it was - without the additional information, that he didn't explicitely ask for money. As a quick reminder: my friend is a refugee smoking practically barred from seeking employment doesn't have much to do over the day basic needs covered by the municipality Would you give him money? Thomas *

Hi Robert, ... would you want to hold me responsible for what Germanic tribes did among them 2000 years ago? Jews of today won't kill anyone for saying their opinion. Other Hebrew friendly co-posters might be busy with dealing with the consequences of the storm Irma, today, so I hope it's ok for me to jump in the debate. Thomas (p.s. I just shortened your quote a bit...)

Dear Community, one refugee friend of mine wanted money from the church and/or people from the church and he told me that some other churches give money to the refugees they have. However, he is addicted to cigarettes and for refugees, the cost of living is assumed by Germany's social system (by the way, taxes are high in Germany). While their asylum proceedings are still ongoing, they pratically can't seek employment. I believe the state to have calculated the living expenses without any grave and systematic error and I don't expect the state to give them too little money to survive. My friend says that currently, life for him consists of going to the gym and smoking cigarettes. Regards, Thomas

Hi frienduff thaylorde I meant equality within the meaning of James 2,1 ("not with respect of persons"): " My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. " KJV Thomas

Hi Neighbor, that's interesting, I think. Blending different cultures in music for worship could mean that culture can't divide Christianity, it just means some little work for the musicians to somehow come to a result that sounds nice. Just the way, Yowm said... I think, culture still is of importance, as it it is given some thought in the Bible. Solomon, for instance, approached only internationally renowned artists in their specialities constructing the first temple. But cultural differences can't hinder the faithful from praising God toghether. Furthermore, if refugees can become team members of the music team at church, they can feel more integrated, I think, and have the feeling of being able to contibute something rather than staying at the receiving end. I think, they finally would be able to feel equal to the others. Thomas

Dear community, the German Christian online newspaper Pro has reviewed a movie classified by the Guardian as blasphemous. * Pro joined the laughter and wrote „lustig“ (funny) judging the movie in total **, leaving it open if the film was blasphemous or not, arguing that „[the film] could be blasphemy for some Christians“ - „[der Film] könnte für manche Christen einer Gotteslästerung gleichkommen“. I think it is not fair to laugh when someone is ridiculed. However, the newspaper noticed that it was wrong by the film to blame sin on God arguing "one could ask oneself why God of all persons should be blamed for all evil things in the world" ("wenn man sich fragt, warum ausgerechnet Gott für das Übel auf der Welt verantwortlich gemacht wird"). The reviewer of the periodical Pro didn‘t have anything to say against the apporach of speaking about someone – in this case: God - instead of speaking to them (like Christians do in prayer). The author seemed not to care if someone makes money using blasphemy. However, I don't want to say anything against the author himself, as I appreciate his oeuvre a lot. I don't want to speak out against the newspaper Pro as a whole, either, as I like it very much! I think, when Christians don't have anything to say against blasphemy, they won't have anything to say when their fellow brothers and sisters get slaughtered verbally. This might be especially true for the weak members of Christian society. Can a film having used blasphemy even be chic? The critic wrote that the film could be good for philosophy while praising the asserted beauty of this movie, an "unbelievably beautiful and poetic film" on the one hand, and "profound and philopshic" on the ohter. ("ein unglaublich schöner, poetischer Film," and "einen tiefgründigen, philosophischen,[...] Film"). I hope that this topic complies with the community standards in regard to blasphemy... * (if any moderator prefers to do without the link, please correct) https://www.theguardian.com/film/2015/may/19/the-brand-new-testament-review-cannes-film-festival-2015 ** https://www.pro-medienmagazin.de/kultur/film/2015/12/03/brandneu-im-kino-das-brandneue-testament/

Hi, I want to give thanks to the Lord that one of the refugees has now joined the music team/ worship team playing percussion. He still needs to complete the required number of rehearsal participations, but the worship team leader already gave the green light to his collaboration. I personally appreciate very much a strong use of percussion in music/ worship. The music team leader invites him perform in oriental styles so worship music at church will result in a blend of different cultural influences. I am particularly thankful for this. The music leader knows his way around in world music. By the way, songs at church, here, are very much the same as in the States or in Canada or so. However, the refugees gernerally are, alas, not treated in a fair and equal manner in this church. That's what I think. They should be treated the same as Germans in church. Unlike the refugees coming to the US perhaps, the ones of our church never wanted to leave their countries. They have been under death threat, that's what they tell me at least. Once left, in general they didn't even plan to come to Germany, as far as I know. So, German is not the language of their dreams, I would say. Hence, for service, they should be offered a translation into their language, I think. But they are not provided with anything in their language except for Bibles. The church should offer translations, in my opinion, in order to make sure the refugees won't have to have any feelings of being "inferior" or "of second class". Even if the church would have to reach out and hire an (atheist) translator from somewhere for Sundays. Nevertheless, a lady from the church is offering them Bible lessons weekly. Thanks to the Lord, I'd say. May God bless you Thomas

Hi Neighbor! Yes, I agree with you that they must be strengthened in Christ before they are given a vote at church. Thank you for your encouraging words! By the way, if the overall percentage of Christians in the world is 6%, there must be hundreds of refugees thronging to the churches of our town here. There are barely one hundred of them going, I estimate. Some of them are non-believers, too, who enter the local assemblies just ouf of interest. So you could ask: where is the rest? In my opinion, it would be even pessimistic to assume that the percentage of those who believe in Jesus and accepted Him to be their own savior is just equal to the global 6%, because many of the refugees coming to Germany are here for being persecuted Christians. So I think that refugees are underrepresented at the local churches, and I wish them to grow fast in their personal development in faith. God bless you, too, Thomas

Hi Yown, thanks for your answer. Let's come to talk about the language barrier. Some of them speak a little English, they understand some words of German but they don't speak the language, yet. As soon as the refugees can speak and understand a little German, I find it perfect for them to start to communicate more about the Gospel. I think all of them read their Bible on a daily basis. For now, they receive a language coaching that is focused on the words Jesus uses in His Bible. The aim of the coaching is to enable them to understand at least something of the service in German language. They teach Bible at church, here.

Thank you so much for all your wishes for the church, Neighbor. You tell me that there is " a great danger in making feel everyone welcome" and then running the risk of ending up with a couple of people running the church without being true children of God. The refugees we have at church didn't flee their country for economic reasons or so, but for the simple reason of being endangered, in peril of death if they would have been baptized in their country, as they say. So, they are not. And I think, right from the start of their personal development in faith with Jesus, they have been persecuted. The moment they came to Germany, they have given up their entire lives. Home, status, money, families, friends. In Germany they are a nobody, they are aware of that fact, they don't speak any Western language fluently, they don't like the food (well, some of them don't), they dislike the weather; the raining, to be more secific. They like Germany as a whole, however. To me, just coming here for reasons of their faith is telling. So I must believe them in a sense that they are Christians. The church doesn't alter Biblical teaching so that they can feel at home. To me, it seems to be rather the other way round: the refugees are so very much trying to avoid any sort of potential conflict that, at the moment, they simply say yes to everything they are being told. Trying to hear what they really think in order to be able to enter into a deep and good conversation is challenging, too. As far as I know, their culture forbids them to say "no", and they keep telling me this. At the moment, however, I only can have a good and deep conversation with three of them because the rest doesn't know any English or German. God bless you, too. Thomas

Hi Neighbor, thank you so much for your nice welcoming words! And thank you for your wishes! Yes, in my opinion, it was Jesus himself who made it possible that the body of Christ has increased that easily in my town, which is chosen by the government to be home of refugees in their thousands, many of them Christians heading to the local assemblies. I think, that's great! However, they are at the very beginning when it comes to their personal walk in faith, at least for those coming to my church. All they want is to be fully accepted by everyone in our church. Most of them don't have wives. Just one of them belonging to my church has a wife and a daughter and is trying to do his very best to make them come to Germany, as well. Thank you so much for your prayers, Thomas

Refugees from a muslim country have arrived at our church. They're a blessing, I think. I want to give thanks to the Lord that they are growing into parts of our church. They make it clear to me that christianity is international and not focused on our country we live in. And it becomes clear to me that (most of) the church is persecuted nowadays, I think. However, they are only men. I pray to God that he may send women from other countries to church, as well. Best wishes, Thomas

That was from the ToS, you, however, wrote: I didn't resort to name calling, you did. Stop this finally! Thomas [...] You have demanded a reply to my statement and reply was given. Not my fault if you find something in it of personal effect. the "fool" was your part, rjp... I asked you something, that's true, but my demand was not meant as a demand to leave the subject level in part of your answer. When you came up with insulting, I would be glad if you could not write such things as "not my fault". Thank you. Thomas

Good day Willamina, look: this discussion came to a close for me the moment I was getting insulted. So please understand that I am not going to answer your question.... For me it's that simple: one insult => finish.

???

No offense, Thomas, but this is your usual modus operandi as soon as people challenge your ideas. Good morning MG, no, please don't tell false things about my modus operandi, thanks. In general, I don't have anything against challanging my ideas. However, it is important for me that people stay on the subject level. I made it clear in my post # 26, where the insult was, in my opinion. Perhaps you could read it (again?). My disussion partner wrote this: [....]It's time to eat of the dish you've prepared for others. "A fool hath no delight in understanding, But only that his heart may reveal itself." [...] The reason for this is that the same person could insult me again.

ok Paul, so I wish you a nice journey. Thank you for wishing me the peace of God. [red color mine] Therefore? I don't see any causal link in there. I agree: Can't be both one and seven days. That's more than clear to me. But then what should the "therefore" mean? I don't see any reasoning behind it. However, don't feel forced to answer. Just wanted to get my scepticim across. Good day John, my point here is that one day stays one day in the creation account. Greetings, Thomas

Good day Paul. ? And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: Gen 1:14 KJV That's your assumption. 1 day (mentioned in Gen 2:4) would equal 7 days (mentioned before). This would be perfect confusion, I think. Paul, process is the translation of the Hebrew word qets. Your statement comes across as if the four words of "in process of time" can be assigned to the one word of yawm. Anyway, this passage stands afterwards, as discussed in the other thread. The other passages you cite come in behind, I wouldn't discuss them now. The first chapters of Genesis, in my opinion, are an account of creation or God's log, as Joe would put it. In Gen 2:4, He wouldn't use a word, in my opinion, that can mean anything and everything from little instant up to eternity. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. You said this in the other thread, already. There I wrote: The moment sun and moon were introduced in Gen 1. the use of day remained unchanged. The wording in its context did not change whatsoever. And the evening and the morning were the third day. Gen 1:13 KJV And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Gen 1:19 KJV I hope that we can avoid going round in circles.. Thomas

Good day Openly, thanks for your efforts. ... but that's not what I thought or what I've said. I'm aware of the fact that heaven and earth are mentioned in Gen 2:4 as opposed to man who is not mentioned in this verse, as I see it. You seem to be referring to Gen 3:20 (KJV) and you seem to interpret "all the living" to be humans only. However, Eve was not Adam's mother obviously. Other Bible translations say "became the mother of all the living". This would have been correct after the flood, anyway. Thomas

"In the day" was a manner of speaking, an expression, if you will. It uses "the day" to refer to a particular season or time period. You could say "at the time" when the Lord made heaven and earth. Good morning Shiloh, the problem I have with this is that my KJV Bible with Strong's Dictionary attributes all the three words of "in the day" to the one Hebrew word of "yawm". So I conclude that the use of the Hebrew word "yawm" didn't change at all compared to when it was used in Gen. 1. Are you telling me that the mere Hebrew word of "yawm" was a manner of speaking, in your opinion? If you answer with "yes", then next question I would be asking you is, do you think that the other days in Gen.1 were just expressions, too? If you answer this with "no", I would like to ask you why you make a difference between the single days in Gen. 1 and that one here, Shiloh? You might be right. I totally agree that there might have been dozens of years in between. However, who were the other people? (I don't want to have this discussed here, ok? But feel free to say your opinion to this once again, it's just that I won't answer this any further, because I think this could get us away from the OP, here) Thomas

Good day Openly what you're trying to convey here is that 1 day as mentioned in Gen 2:4 equal 7 days. To put it simple, it means 1=7 according to what you wrote. Did I get you wrong? I find this disturbing. For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 1.Cor 14:33 Thomas

Jesus first