Willa

Yes to all.  Yes, Jesus ate fish.  He even ate fish after his resurrection!

Luk 24:40  And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.

Luk 24:41  And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"

Luk 24:42  They gave him a piece of broiled fish,

Luk 24:43  and he took it and ate before them.

Welcome to Worthy, BPPLEE.   Obviously, God has changed His mind.  This happens most often when people change their minds about God and about sin.  That is what it means to repent.

Happy Pacha to you as well.  

Thank you so much for your prayers.  I still have intermittent chilling but no other symptoms.  Just get very hard chills and head for bed for a few hours and this has been occurring every few days.  Bless you all for being faithful.

I chilled very hard last night.  Went to bed @ 4PM in afternoon and slept till noon the next day.  Better today.  If I have a fever again tonight it will be bad.  Last time I didn't learn till months later that it had caused kidney damage.  Please pray for God's healing.  I had just been notified that I was due for a covid booster so didn't get one this time.  

You sure play piano better than I can.  (envy)    

Also praying.  Asking God to heal and help you to get it all under control.  Hi protein and count calories. If you have a diabetes registered dietitian to help you, it really helped me, and using My Fitness Pal to keep track of food helped as well.  It took a lot of work at first but my A1C is now at 6.3.

2 hours ago, Michael37 said:

We are not told the extent of the knowledge of good and evil that they gained from eating of the forbidden fruit, but we can be sure it was experiential. An immediate change took place. They knew they were guilty of disobeying God and were ashamed now that they had lost their covering of innocence and the countdown was on for their bodies to age and die.

They had disobeyed God's spoken word so they knew evil.  Period.  We have no need of knowing the extent of the knowledge of good and evil.  Satan lied when he said God knew both good and evil.  God is light and in Him is no darkness at all.  Only satan and his minions knew both and he became evil because of his pride.  We avoid pride by being thankful.  

Being curious about sin, or forbidden fruit,  just gets us into trouble.  It is temptation.  We can't seek God with all our hearts, souls, strength and minds if we are curious about evil.  

Grandson is feeling better but flunked the test by the state that he needs to pass to keep his job.  He gets married tomorrow.   

He still need prayer should he be allowed to retake the test, that he will study the right things so he can pass it.  Thank you all for praying.

It may be compounded by stress.  He is getting married on Saturday.  Meanwhile on Wednesday he has to take a state required test that is job related. He has had no time to study because he has had medical tests every day in addition to work and wedding preparations.  Important things like marriage license, tux, rehearsal and rehearsal dinner.  

Please pray that God give him peace.  Asking God to help him think clearly and to somehow pass the test.  Also asking that God give the doctors wisdom and help them to find the source of the breathing problem, and that God heal him.

  "Cast all your cares upon Him, for He cares for you."   Thank you all for caring, too

It may be compounded by stress.  He is getting married on Saturday.  Meanwhile on Wednesday he has to take a state required test that is job related. He has had no time to study because he has had medical tests every day in addition to work and wedding preparations.  Important things like marriage license, tux, rehearsal and rehearsal dinner.  

Please pray that God give him peace.  Asking God to help him think clearly and to somehow pass the test.  Also asking that God give the doctors wisdom and help them to find the source of the breathing problem, and that God heal him.

  "Cast all your cares upon Him, for He cares for you."   Thank you all for caring, too

I haven't seen any around here since covid.  

Jesus, the Logos made flesh, is the expression of the invisible God.  Logos is therefore much more than what we can comprehend.  That Logos spoke everything into existence.  I also don't thing we can condense Him to human logic.

On 3/23/2022 at 10:16 AM, Deadworm said:

Origen has a complete copy of this apocalypse and he identifies it as the source of his quotation.

Origen was a heretic.  

When I was first saved I placed myself under the law.  It was horrible bondage and by doing so I removed myself from God's grace.  It took` several years to shake myself free from that. It was like I was never saved.  It was not till I learned to walk in the Spirit that I was totally set free.    You may worship on whatever day you want and obey in whatever way you see fit.  Just don't impose these things on others.  Each of us answers to our own Master.

I am not Jewish and I walk in the Spirit.  

Gal 5:18  But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

We have been over this time and time again with you.

Act 15:24  Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, "You must be circumcised and keep the law"—to whom we gave no such commandment—

Act 15:28  For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:

Act 15:29  that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.

On 2/16/2022 at 12:24 PM, Saved.One.by.Grace said:

There 1963 NASB version is a revision of the 1901 ASV.  The Lockman Organization authors of the 1963, 1977, 1995 and 2020 version says this about the 1995 version:

Since then, the 2020 version of the NASB is available.  I have all versions including the 1901.  Holding up the 1963 version to a higher standard is just as bad as the hypocrites who hold to the KJV-Only, in my opinion.  I apologize for ruffling anyone's feathers but that's how I feel.

Personally, I feel well equipped reading/studying any version of the NASB.  But I normally read the ESV and once in a while the NIV.

 

I use the NKJV, the ESV and the AMPC.  First version I read was the Amplified Version in 1958.  I couldn't understand KJV or ASV due to archaic language, and I still don't read them.  My parents bought the RSV for me in 59, which I could read better but it is a poor translation.  ESV is much better, readable, and often translates progressive verbs better.  It is a conservative translation that includes many verses the RSV and NASV left out or marginalized, depending on the edition.  I no longer use the NIV but I still refer to the Amplified early editions and occasionally the NASV. Young's literal translation, and the Literal translation, as well as an interlinear that are translations of the Textus Receptus are preferred.

Some of the later editions are gender neutral, which is fine when changing man to mankind.  Some have really changed it calling God a she.   Just because it is newer doesn't make it better.

It is better to read a version that you will read, and through which God speaks to you, even if it is a bad translation.  One just has to remember that it may not be as accurate or reliable.  But what good is owning a Bible you never read?

6 hours ago, Hobie_ said:

And so if men claim a tradition was given by a apostle or 'church father', but it goes against scripture, which one would you follow..

Church fathers included all the disciples of the 12 Apostles.  Doctrine can only be based on the Apostles and Pauls words or the words in Scripture, which is the Apostles words written down.  All is inspired by the Holy Spirit or God Breathed.  There was no need to use any tradition once the New Testament was written.  Nothing can be added to Scripture.  I follow the Bible.  

On 8/12/2020 at 1:58 PM, Markesmith said:

What about tradition? 
 

2 Thessalonians 2:15

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

I believe that only the tradition given by the apostles themselves were reliable.  The Scriptures are full of warnings of false apostles and bad teachings coming into the church. So unless the teachings were from the Apostles or the testimony of their followers as to the authenticity of the Epistles, the oral traditions were unreliable if not false and dangerous.

traditions —(Jamison, Faucet & Brown) truths delivered and transmitted orally, or in writing (2Th 3:6; 1Co 11:2; Greek, “traditions”). The Greekverb from which the noun comes, is used by Paul in 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3. From the three passages in which “tradition” is used in a good sense, Rome has argued for her accumulation of uninspired traditions, virtually overriding God’s Word, while put forward as of co-ordinate authority with it. She forgets the ten passages (Mat 15:2, Mat 15:3, Mat 15:6; Mar 7:3, Mar 7:5, Mar 7:8, Mar 7:9, Mar 7:13; Gal 1:14; Col 2:8) stigmatizing man’s uninspired traditions. Not even the apostles’ sayings were all inspired (for example, Peter’s dissimulation, Gal 2:11-14), but only when they claimed to be so, as in their words afterwards embodied in their canonical writings. Oral inspiration was necessary in their case, until the canon of the written Word should be complete; they proved their possession of inspiration by miracles wrought in support of the new revelation, which revelation, moreover, accorded with the existing Old Testament revelation; an additional test needed besides miracles (compare Deu 13:1-6; Act 17:11). When the canon was complete, the infallibility of the living men was transferred to the written Word, now the sole unerring guide, interpreted by the Holy Spirit. Little else has come down to us by the most ancient and universal tradition save this, the all-sufficiency of Scripture for salvation. Therefore, by tradition, we are constrained to cast off all tradition not contained in, or not provable by, Scripture. The Fathers are valuable witnesses to historical facts, which give force to the intimations of Scripture: such as the Christian Lord’s day, the baptism of infants, and the genuineness of the canon of Scripture. Tradition (in the sense of human testimony) cannot establish a doctrine, but can authenticate a fact, such as the facts just mentioned. Inspired tradition, in Paul’s sense, is not a supplementary oral tradition completing our written Word, but it is identical with the written Word now complete; then the latter not being complete, the tradition was necessarily in part oral, in part written, and continued so until, the latter being complete before the death of St. John, the last apostle, the former was no longer needed. Scripture is, according to Paul, the complete and sufficient rule in all that appertains to making “the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2Ti 3:16, 2Ti 3:17). It is by leaving Paul’s God-inspired tradition for human traditions that Rome has become the forerunner and parent of the Antichrist. It is striking that, from this very chapter denouncing Antichrist, she should draw an argument for her “traditions” by which she fosters anti-Christianity. Because the apostles’ oral word was as trustworthy as their written word, it by no means follows that the oral word of those not apostles is as trustworthy as the written word of those who were apostles or inspired evangelists. No tradition of the apostles except their written word can be proved genuine on satisfactory evidence. We are no more bound to accept implicitly the Fathers’ interpretations of Scripture, because we accept the Scripture canon on their testimony, than we are bound to accept the Jews’ interpretation of the Old Testament, because we accept the Old Testament canon on their testimony.

I have watched otter families in our rivers nearby.  They are very entertaining but I wouldn't trust them near our dogs.  Wild ones can do a lot of damage with those sharp teeth.  They loved to play in the currents where an underground river empties into the Columbia.  

I owe my love of nature to Thornton Burgess, a naturalist who wrote books for children ages 4-10.  Little Joe Otter was an adventure story book that detailed the life and personality of an otter.  Paddy the Beaver gave detailed instructions on how a beaver dam and house are constructed.  Hundreds of books.

7 hours ago, Your closest friendnt said:

When their parents are baptizing their children they are baptizing children that belong to God, they are not baptizing their children so they can be included in the family of God, not for that reason it cannot be believed they already belong to God because of their parents. 

That's why some groups they dedicate their children to the Lord because they belong to him already, being born to parents who believe that Jesus Christ died for the forgiveness of our sins. 

I really liked what you said down to these last 2 paragraphs.

 1Co 7:14 NKJV  For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Is sanctified in the wife (hēgiastai en tēi gunaiki). Perfect passive indicative of hagiazō, to set apart, to hallow, to sanctify. Paul does not, of course, mean that the unbelieving husband is saved by the faith of the believing wife, though Hodge actually so interprets him. Clearly he only means that the marriage relation is sanctified so that there is no need of a divorce. If either husband or wife is a believer and the other agrees to remain, the marriage is holy and need not be set aside. This is so simple that one wonders at the ability of men to get confused over Paul’s language.

Else were your children unclean (epei ara ta tekna akatharta). The common ellipse of the condition with epei: “since, accordingly, if it is otherwise, your children are illegitimate (akatharta).” If the relations of the parents be holy, the child’s birth must be holy also (not illegitimate). “He is not assuming that the child of a Christian parent would be baptized; that would spoil rather than help his argument, for it would imply that the child was not hagios till it was baptized. The verse throws no light on the question of infant baptism” (Robertson and Plummer).  Robertson's Word Studies.

Moreover, those who don't baptize infants normally do so because they believe in believers baptism.  A believer is one who has chosen to follow Christ as his Lord and Master and who believes that Christ is risen from the dead, which infants are unable to comprehend.            

  In baby dedications Parents dedicate themselves to raise the child in the Christian faith by both example and precept, and dedicate the baby to God. (Baptist, Calvary Chapel)                                                                         However, many of those who baptize infants believe that babies receive the Holy Spirit at that baptism and are thereby born again.  (Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist)

Got Questions:  Old covenant vs new covenant—what are the differences? (Summary)

In summary, the Old Covenant was governed by a law that prescribed correct behavior and that the people continually broke. It contained a sacrificial system that only temporarily removed sins. The sacrifices were administered by priests who represented the people of Israel to God, but the people could not enter God’s presence themselves.

The New Covenant is governed by a law that is internalized by the people of God and energized by His Spirit. The sins of the people are forgiven and removed once and for all by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the people of God have direct, intimate access to Him. Finally, Gentiles who believe are included in the New Covenant.

We used to sing this in the Lutheran church.  It is one of the songs I miss so very much.  Thank you for blessing us with this.  Now if you could record the Gloria.  ...the other song I miss.

11 hours ago, Elihoenai said:

t appears you didn't answer the question. Is the practice of Pentecost/Feast of Weeks works under the Law? Did the Apostles practice Pentecost/Feast of Weeks to receive the Holy Spirit?

I said no there is no mention of them leaving the upper room to go to the Temple to make offerings or sacrifices.  Instead they obeyed the Risen Lord's words to stay and pray.  It did occur on Pentecost but they were following Jesus' instructions in Acts 1 instead of the commands of Leviticus.  I thought that answered your question.  

Elihoenai asked:  Do you agree that those who want to receive the Holy Spirit must do likewise works under the Law? 

No legalism is involved.  In Acts chapter one they were told to wait or tarry.  They did this, the 12 disciples plus the women who had ministered to them.  All were in one accord or agreement and while they waited they prayed earnestly, humbly begging God .  

apostles whom He had chosen,  Act 1:3  to whom He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.

Act 1:4  And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, "which," He said, "you have heard from Me;  Act 1:5  for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now."

Act 1:12  Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is near Jerusalem, a Sabbath day's journey.

Act 1:13  And when they had entered, they went up into the upper room where they were staying: Peter, James, John, and Andrew; Philip and Thomas; Bartholomew and Matthew; James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot; and Judas the son of James.

Act 1:14  These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.