CaliforniaJosiah

1. How as the Bible formed? 2. Who inspired it? 3. Who wrote it? 4. How was it compiled or canonized? 5. Why was it compiled or canonized? Feel free to answer one or all the questions. 1. How was the Bible formed? SCRIPTURE began with the two tablets, literally written by God on Mount Sinai, perhaps around 1400 BC. Other writings came to be seen as Scripture (written by God - albeit indirectly) AND as canonical ( a 'rule' or 'measuring stick' for evaluating the validity and truth of positions) - and thus the "collection," the "library" (the meaning of the word "Bible") slowly grew..... No one knows for sure WHEN all this happened.... In Jesus' day, all Jews accepted the Pentetuch (the first 5 books, sometimes called the Torah), many also accepted the Prophets and History books, some the "Wisdom Literature." The LXX, a Greek translation common in Jesus' day, had some 80 books in it - many of which are unfamiliar to many today (for example, Psalm 151). The Jews "settled" all this at the Council of Jamnia in 90 AD - ending up with the same CONTENT as the typical Protestant OT, but this of course was a Jewish meeting that had little impact on Christians. Today, all Christians accept the content of the 39 books that all always accepted and that Jamnia officially embraced. But there are additional books, considered "secondary" (the meaning of the word DEUTERO); The Oriental Othrodox Churches accept several of these (and ALWAYS has), the Eastern Orthrodox fewer (and always has), and the Roman Catholic Church now accepts just 7 of them (made official at it's meeting at Trent in the 16th Century). The Anglican Church has more of these than the RCC but regards them as under the others. These "extra" books are called "DEUTEROcanonical." Most don't consider them or their content of particular significance and so there has historically been VERY little debate or interest in this subject or disagreement: the "extra" DEUTERO books don't seem to be of much significance. The New Testament was written over a MUCH shorter time. James is often considered the earliest, around 45 AD. Paul's epistles were likely written in the mid 50's to mid 60's. Matthew, Mark, Luke and Acts probably about this same time, maybe a year or two later - the epistles of Peter also about this time. John's Gospel, epistles and Revelation are often dates as last, perhaps as late as 90 AD. Paul's 13 letters were accepted as Scripture and as canonical almost immediately; the 3 "synoptic" Gospels and Acts also very shortly after their creation. There were, however, several debated: 2 Peter, Jude, Hebrews, Revelation are examples of questioned books that finally got in. There were a few unfamiliar to us today that were consider Scripture for awhile. While about 20 books were accepted almost immediately, it took awhile to "settle" on an exact group of 27. This was pretty much complete by the end of the 4th century - although for centuries after that, Revelation was questions, and for some 1000 years, Catholic Bibles often contained 28 NT books - the Epistle to the Leodiceans appeared in some Catholic bibles as late as the 17th century. 2. Who Inspired it? The belief is that God did. HOW this happened is a mystery..... The penmen (most unknown) often SEEM unaware that they were penning Scripture - the written word of God, but sometimes - they seem very aware, even stating, "Thus says the Lord." 3. Who Wrote it? The "penmen" are mostly unknown..... The men WE attribute are mostly by tradition. For example, nowhere in the Gospel of Matthew identify Matthew as the penmen - that Matthew wrote it is just ancient tradition. The same with the Gospels of Mark, Luke and John. Most of the Epistles DO state the penmen (and often note that others were involved, too). Some Old Testament books: the Pentetuch, 1-2 Kings, etc. seem to be compelations. 4. How was it complied? See above.... It was a slow process, mostly of CONSENSUS. For Jews, the OT was "set" in 90 AD - but among Christians, it's still a matter of some dispute (although not one any considers very significant). For the NT, it was less formal but quicker. Most (20) of the books were embraced by 100 AD or so. Other books (Hebrews, James 2 & 3 John, 2 Peter, Jude, Revelation) were not universally and solidly affirmed - that took awhile, and some others were bounced around that eventually were not embraced. Certainly by the late 300's, it was done - but again, not ENTIRELY. The Epistle to the Leodiceans shows up for 1000 + years in Catholic Bibles (but not OOC or EOC ones), Revelation doesn't always appear or if it does, isn't always considered equal to the others. Today, the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Anglicans have unique Bibles - but the difference is those disputed DEUTERO books that none seem to regard as terribly significant. 5. Why was it embraced? We can only speculate...... With the Apostles dying or dead, with the Apostles not able to speak to all congregations in a rapidly growing faith - Scripture came to be the divine witness: solid, objective, black-and-white, divine, written words (in a sense, like those two tablets Moses brought down). We see the same in the OT: Prophets wrote down their story and message near the end of their lives - an everlasting, objective record. I hope that helps! - Josiah .

I accept "total depravity" because that's what Scripture says. I reject a LOT of HUMAN logic because fallible human logic is not normative for me as a Protestant (Scripture is) and because some of that TULIP human "logic" seems to run head on with Scripture. I documented that with OSAS. Thank you. - Josiah .

VIEWS ON 'ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED' Gospel: Romans 8:29-39, For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. " Mark 13:22, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible. John 4:14, "but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 20:28, I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 1 Thess. 5:24, "The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it. Hebrews 10:14, "because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. Rev. 3:5, "I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels." Law: John 15:4-7, "Remain in me, and I will remain in you... If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." Rev. 2:10, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life. Matthew 10:22, "He who stands firm to the end will be saved." 1 Timothy 4:1, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." Luke 8:13, "They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away." John 8:31, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really My disciples." Luke 21:19, "By standing firm you will gain life." Hebrews 8:9, "They did not remain faithful to My covenant, and I turned away from them" Gal. 5:4, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." Col. 1:23, "If you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel." Hebrews 10:26, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." 2 Peter 1:8-10, "But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure." 2 Peter 3:17, "Be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position." Rev. 3:5, He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. Luke 12:8, "He who disowns Me before men will be disowned before the angels of God." As so often in theology, we find there are "two sides of the coin." To ME, the approach is NOT to take all the Scriptures, subject them to our limited, fallable, sinful, human LOGIC and force them to "fit" and "make sense" to US. To ME, the approach is to accept both "sets" of scriptures at their face value and allow them to stand in all their truth and power just as God inspired them. The approach, then, is in how to APPLY them rather than in how to force them to fit together according to our fallible, limited logic. Not in accepting one "set" and explaining away the other in the light of it. . MY view... - Josiah

There are other options that the two "human logic" ones of TULIP and Arminius Here's one other paradigm: TULIP: A Response from Calvinism, Lutheranism and Arminianism Calvinism has summarized its position in the famous acronym TULIP, and this serves as a useful way to approach the issue (being logical Calvinism is, if nothing else, easy to follow): T: "total depravity" Calvinism: Man after the Fall has no ability to cooperate with God's grace in conversion Arminianism: Man after the Fall can cooperate with God’s grace in conversion Lutheranism: Agrees with Calvinism on total depravity Relevant Bible passages: Romans 3:9-20; Gal. 3:22 U: "unconditional election" Calvinism: Before the world was created, God unconditionally elected some (the elect) for salvation and the others (reprobates) for damnation. Arminianism: Before the world was created, God foresaw those who would choose Him of their own free will and elected them to salvation Lutheranism: Before the world was created, God unconditionally elected some (the elect) for salvation but did not reprobate (chose for damnation) any. Relevant Bible passages: Romans 9:11-13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Mat. 25:34, 41. L: "limited atonement" Calvinism: Jesus only died for the elect, objectively atoning for their sin, but he did not die for the sins of the reprobates. Arminianism: Christ died to give all the possibility to be saved. Lutheranism: Christ’s death objectively atoned for all the sin of the world; by believing we receive this objective atonement and its benefits. Relevant Bible passages: John 1:29; 1 John 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 19. I: "irresistable grace" Calvinism: In all of God's outward actions (preaching, baptism, etc.) there is an outward call which all receive, yet there is also a secret effectual calling which God gives to the elect alone. This effectual calling alone saves and is irresistable. Arminianism: God gives in His outward actions the same grace to all; this grace can be resisted by all. Lutheranism: The question is not answerable; for the elect, grace will irresistably triumph, yet those who reject Christ have rejected that Grace; yet the grace is the same. Relevant Bible passages: Eph. 2:1-10; Acts 13:48; James 1:13-15 P: "perseverance of the saints" ("once saved, always saved.") Calvinism: Salvation cannot be lost. Arminianism: Salvation can be lost through unrepentant sin and unbelief. Lutheranism: Salvation can be lost through unbelief, but this legal warning does not cancel the Gospel promise of election Relevant Bible passages: 1 Cor. 10:12. 2 Peter 2:1, 20-22. Sorry if God doesn't seem to follow YOUR sinful, fallen, LIMITED "logic." Our "job" is NOT to make God make sense. Or to "answer" all the issues God does not. Our "job" is to trust Him and believe all He says. . .

Then on to the second point. I reject that. While I accept the concept of Election, I reject the idea that God gets off and is gloried by seeing people fry for all eternity in hell. If we believe, it is solely because of God. if we don't, it's soley because of us. Those in heaven have Christ to thank. Those in hell have self to blame - not God. I don't thank God for seeing people fry for eternity in hell. And I don't think He smiles or laughs or is pleased with such - I do NOT believe such is His glory and desire. Who said anything about God taking joy in the death of the wicked. You draw a conclusion based on your human logic. God says directly that He takes no joy in the death of the wicked. This is a question of God's sovereignty and not how can we rationalize the scripture to our puny thinking process. Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: grace and peace I agree with Eph. 1:5 which is why I reject TULIPS' double predestination. So how do you define predestination? It is a biblical term. How do you define election? Is election based on something man does or is it based entirely on the will of God? If you are going to discuss this them try to positively state your position. I have heard all the arguments against my position and have not found any that are able to positively present an alternative. It is funny how all the debate is centered around showing why the Calvinist position is incorrect and not very much on the pro-Armenian position. You have stated you reject both. What is your alternative? Without an alternative your statement is meaningless. I define "DOUBLE predestination" as God chose some for heaven AND some for hell. No, it's not biblical. Election is the application of the GOSPEL that we were loved as His own before the foundation of the world. TULIP begins biblical enough - but then applies a LOT of fallible, sinful, LIMITED human "logic" in an attempt to have a nice, neat set of doctrines - that conflict with much of Scripture. Arminianism begins biblical enough - but then applies a LOT of fallible, sinful, LIMITED human "logic" in an attempt to have a nice, neat set of doctrines - that conflict with much of Scripture.

Then on to the second point. I reject that. While I accept the concept of Election, I reject the idea that God gets off and is gloried by seeing people fry for all eternity in hell. If we believe, it is solely because of God. if we don't, it's soley because of us. Those in heaven have Christ to thank. Those in hell have self to blame - not God. I don't thank God for seeing people fry for eternity in hell. And I don't think He smiles or laughs or is pleased with such - I do NOT believe such is His glory and desire. Who said anything about God taking joy in the death of the wicked. You draw a conclusion based on your human logic. God says directly that He takes no joy in the death of the wicked. This is a question of God's sovereignty and not how can we rationalize the scripture to our puny thinking process. Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: grace and peace I agree with Eph. 1:5 which is why I reject TULIPS' double predestination.

Apple Boysenberry Crumb.... But I voted for apple - being the closest.

your information is wrong. I am not calvinist, but I do not believe that one can lose their salvation Then you may accept ONE point of TULIP (as I do) - and (as with me) you are ergo not a Calvinist. .

TULIP: A Response from Calvinism, Lutheranism and Arminianism Calvinism has summarized its position in the famous acronym TULIP, and this serves as a useful way to approach the issue (being logical Calvinism is, if nothing else, easy to follow): T: "total depravity" Calvinism: Man after the Fall has no ability to cooperate with God's grace in conversion Arminianism: Man after the Fall can cooperate with God’s grace in conversion Lutheranism: Agrees with Calvinism on total depravity Relevant Bible passages: Romans 3:9-20; Gal. 3:22 U: "unconditional election" Calvinism: Before the world was created, God unconditionally elected some (the elect) for salvation and the others (reprobates) for damnation. Arminianism: Before the world was created, God foresaw those who would choose Him of their own free will and elected them to salvation Lutheranism: Before the world was created, God unconditionally elected some (the elect) for salvation but did not reprobate (chose for damnation) any. Relevant Bible passages: Romans 9:11-13; 1 Timothy 2:3-4; 2 Cor. 5:14-15; Mat. 25:34, 41. L: "limited atonement" Calvinism: Jesus only died for the elect, objectively atoning for their sin, but he did not die for the sins of all. Arminianism: Christ died to give all the possibility to be saved. Lutheranism: Christ’s death objectively atoned for all the sin of the world; by believing we receive this objective atonement and its benefits. Relevant Bible passages: John 1:29; 1 John 2:2; 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 19. I: "irresistable grace" Calvinism: In all of God's outward actions (preaching, baptism, etc.) there is an outward call which all receive, yet there is also a secret effectual calling which God gives to the elect alone. This effectual calling alone saves and is irresistable. Arminianism: God gives in His outward actions the same grace to all; this grace can be resisted by all. Lutheranism: The question is not answerable; for the elect, grace will triumph, yet those who reject Christ have rejected that Grace; yet the grace is the same. Relevant Bible passages: Eph. 2:1-10; Acts 13:48; James 1:13-15 P: "perseverance of the saints" ("once saved, always saved.") Calvinism: Salvation cannot be lost. Arminianism: Salvation can be lost through unrepentant sin and unbelief. Lutheranism: Salvation can be lost through unbelief, but this legal warning does not cancel the Gospel promise of election Relevant Bible passages: 1 Cor. 10:12. 2 Peter 2:1, 20-22. .

This verse has always puzzled me....... I apprecaite the posts here..... I assume that they were naked (I think that IS the most likely interpretation). And it DOES seem (at least) that God is suggesting such was bad. Why? I have no intention of getting into the "naked - good or bad?" debate, but those who view it as bad do so because they think it promotes lust in fallen people. But prior to the fall, there were no fallen people (they was also only one couple - essentially married - commanded to have sex). To me, this just makes the verse even more of a puzzle. One rather liberal Christian years ago gave this explanation: Quite uniquely among the Jews, nudity was considered very wrong - this is not really biblical but a case of a cultural morality; Jews were well known for this morality. This just got "fed BACK" into Scripture as this account was developed. That would make a lot of sense and explain much, but I don't share that view of Scripture. ???????????? .

Who said anything about God taking joy in the death of the wicked. You draw a conclusion based on your human logic. God says directly that He takes no joy in the death of the wicked. This is a question of God's sovereignty and not how can we rationalize the scripture to our puny thinking process. Eph 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: grace and peace Then you reject Calvin's double predestination and agree with me? If so, you reject TULIP. .

. Christmas is the celebration of the Nativity of Our Lord, the birth of the Savior. There's nothing pagan about that. Easter is the celebration of the Resurrection and victory of Our Lord - and the salvation and life that is ours in Him. There's nothing pagan about that. HOW we celebrate may have elements common to pagans - like eating, singing, giving/recieving gifts, gathering as families - but that doens't make the festival "pagan." Think of a Sunday morning worship service in a typical Christian Church.... people coming together.... singing..... listening to a speech..... having coffee and refreshements after...... Nearly all of it are activities commonly found in pagan activities, too. So what? That's my perspective.... Pax - Josiah .

I believe miracles happen CONSTANTLY - for believers and nonbelievers alike; we just need to recognize God's grace. Indeed, our very existence is a miracle. Life is a miracle. Last Sunday, in church, a two-week old baby was baptized! The baby... the baptism..... MIRACLES!

Then on to the second point. I reject that. While I accept the concept of Election, I reject the idea that God gets off and is gloried by seeing people fry for all eternity in hell. If we believe, it is solely because of God. if we don't, it's soley because of us. Those in heaven have Christ to thank. Those in hell have self to blame - not God. I don't thank God for seeing people fry for eternity in hell. And I don't think He smiles or laughs or is pleased with such - I do NOT believe such is His glory and desire. .

I 100% reject BOTH of these. They both go "too far" They both subject Scripture to WAY to much HUMAN, sinful, fallen "logic." They both embrace SOME Scriptures, put too much into them, and then largely "dismiss" others because they don't seem to agree. I think there is "mystery" here - and that's okay. We don't NEED to understand; we NEED to trust/rely. I don't UNDERSTAND how or why all these things "crank out." God does. That's all that matters. I believe that because I believe, GOD did that. ALL good things from God. ALL related to salvation is God's doing. I believe that we are justified by Grace, because of Christ, through faith - and that's ONE inseparable doctrine and article of faith. HOW GOD does that - I don't know (fully). I thus reject TULIP and DAISY. I am currious as to how long you have been thinking about this. Take just the first point in Tulip & DAISY. Total depravity or Depraved but just partially. You personnally, where do you see yourself? Grace & Peace On that SINGULAR point, I'm with the Calvinists.

I 100% reject BOTH of these. They both go "too far" They both subject Scripture to WAY to much HUMAN, sinful, fallen "logic." They both embrace SOME Scriptures, put too much into them, and then largely "dismiss" others because they don't seem to agree. I think there is "mystery" here - and that's okay. We don't NEED to understand; we NEED to trust/rely. I don't UNDERSTAND how or why all these things "crank out." God does. That's all that matters. I believe that because I believe, GOD did that. ALL good things from God. ALL related to salvation is God's doing. I believe that we are justified by Grace, because of Christ, through faith - and that's ONE inseparable doctrine and article of faith. HOW GOD does that - I don't know (fully). I thus reject TULIP and DAISY. .

Can't get the quote feature to work, but it was stated: So, I ask everyone to do the following: If you know you are butting heads with another member, be the first to offer an olive branch and be the peacemaker. If you notice that you are getting heated by another’s response, walk away from the thread until you know you have His peace back in your life over the issue. If you feel strongly about an issue between you and another member, offer to debate it in the Soap Box forum so the two of you can focus on each other’s response and not all the other posts of those who want to be involved. Check your attitudes as you post, ensuring that what you are posting is exactly what you want to post. Watch your words. Using passive aggressive statements are just as cutting and demeaning as an outright insult. Ensure that you are discussing the issue, not the person. If you have a personal statement to another member, take it private and remain respectful. Take the time to ensure that what you think someone is saying is what they are saying, not reading into another’s post. Ask questions for clarification when a statement is unclear instead of assuming you know what someone is saying is advisable. Back up your words with supporting Scripture. If you don’t, one could easily see a post as “cause I said so”, which goes absolutely nowhere. If you witness a wayward post or thread, please report it. We cannot be everywhere at once and there are far too many threads to read through to catch everything. I would rather have to filter through many reports then to have anyone think we are playing favorites by allowing a member to blast another member, or that a topic is allowed when it should not be. Always seek the guidance from the Holy Spirit as to how to reply to a post. Last, but far from the least, post as if you are posting to Jesus, because He is with you and everyone else My reply.... EXCELLENT! One of the best summeries I've ever seen.... I've been on staff at two websites similar to this, I've trained and supervised staff - and it is AMAZING (and disturbing) how people can treat each other..... PUBLICALLY..... I've GOT to believe they would NEVER say these things face-to-face, they'd NEVER treat a fellow church member like this..... Sometimes people get "caught up" in things, sometimes emotions take over, but I think a lot of the times.... they just aren't thinking. One guideline I've used: READ what you've written twice before you hit the "post" button; ask yourself - is this to the point, does this contribute something, and I proud of this (AND how's my spelling!)? All "rules" at all websites boil down to: speak to the POST not the POSTER (discuss the POINT rather than the PERSON). DISCUSS the point, don't flame the poster. We ALL can forget....... a blend of forgiveness and accountability are needed, the rightful application of Law and Gospel. My philosophy was to speak helpfully and carry a very small stick - but at times, well.... I'm a newbie. I will TRY (TRY!) to be a part of the solution and not the problem. I will fail at times..... My thanks to the staff, It is a HARD, time-consuming, totally THANKLESS job - usually done with no compensation at all. All grief - no reward. Done ONLY because good communications between Christians is valued. I appreciate the work! I HOPE it never involves me or my posts as the topic. - Josiah

I agree.... The "just say no cuz...." thing doesn't work very well. And it USE to be girls had reasons to put up a stop sign: she's the one who got pregnant, she was often the one who wanted marriage. Both of these are gone. Birth control works, abortions are free and easy. Women seem to be no more committed to the idea of marriage than guys are. There needs to be a MORALITY here, an ETHIC. IMO, it has to do with RESPECT: of self, of others, of sex, of marriage. I'm 25 and a virgin. I was first strongly "encouraged" when I was 14 - and many times since. I realized then - and now - it very likely would not result in a child and would be a whole lot of fun. The "just say no" thing frankly doesn't loom so overwhelmingly. There needs to be an internal, personal reason. One that has nothing to do with docilic obedience or fear. All this was much easier when I was high school age: many girls were virgins, too. Many respected the idea of "wait" (a STUPID concept that doens't work at all).... Now, at 25, it's just part of dating. And to be a virgin is..... WEIRD (for a guy anyway) and suggests something is...... wrong, Biologically perhaps but probably socially and psychologically - or maybe, he just is really bad at it and is lying about being a virgin. I do NOT bring this up (nor do I except the girl to be a virgin).... I just don't bring it up. But she will Usually, by means of making it obvious it is what she wants and expects. All this happens amazingly early. Explaining my position is not easy - and MAY be viewed as "he's one WEIRD dude!" in which case, it's probably good the relation ends (in that sense) anyway; values are critical to a relationship. Occasionally, the girl (virgin or not) respects this. They may want to continue the relationship - but usually, not (even if they do really respect my position). I've found no significant difference between Christian and non-Christian in this sense. It seems to be FAR more related to what I'd call "traditional" or "modern" in terms of their sense of marriage/family, their social philosophy. Girls who are close to their families, who have two happy married parents, who just think "long term" - they seem to be ok with this REGARDLESS of their religious views. Those focused a lot on the physical just fine me..... frustrating. .

Pretty good! I have a written budget. It includes 15% into savings/investments and 15% to charity (10% to my church, 5% to other things, not all of them Christian or ministires). I SAVE for some thing, putting money ASIDE each month for some things: Vacation, Christmas, etc.). When those needs come, I just transfer the savings to my checking - the money is there. I have few bills: my rent (I have a lease on a 2 bedroom/2 bath condo), car payments (I recently bought a Mazda Miata - I made a 50% down and I'm paying the rest over 3 years, with a 0% loan the dealer offered). I have my home utilities - including internet, and my cell phone. I have all of these on autopay - which makes it easy; the rent payment is at times the only check I write and the only bill I mail; even my church offering is done by auto transfer, electronically. My advise: BUDGET. And be a slave to it. Works for me. - Josiah It works.

JOSIAH יֹאשִׁיָהוּ m Biblical, English Means "YAHWEH supports" in Hebrew Always liked my name (although when I was young, guys would shorten it to "Joe" - which I didn't like but never said anything) - Josiah

MY VIEW ON 'ONCE SAVED, ALWAYS SAVED' Gospel: Romans 8:29-39, For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified. What, then, shall we say in response to this? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all--how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who is he that condemns? Christ Jesus, who died--more than that, who was raised to life--is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written: "For your sake we face death all day long; we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered." No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. " Mark 13:22, "For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect--if that were possible. John 4:14, "but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life." John 20:28, I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 1 Thess. 5:24, "The one who calls you is faithful and he will do it. Hebrews 10:14, "because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. Rev. 3:5, "I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels." Law: John 15:4-7, "Remain in me, and I will remain in you... If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned." Rev. 2:10, "Be faithful, even to the point of death, and I will give you the crown of life. Matthew 10:22, "He who stands firm to the end will be saved." 1 Timothy 4:1, "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." Luke 8:13, "They believe for a while, but in the time of testing they fall away." John 8:31, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really My disciples." Luke 21:19, "By standing firm you will gain life." Hebrews 8:9, "They did not remain faithful to My covenant, and I turned away from them" Gal. 5:4, "You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." Col. 1:23, "If you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel." Hebrews 10:26, "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God." 2 Peter 1:8-10, "But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure." 2 Peter 3:17, "Be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position." Rev. 3:5, He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. Luke 12:8, "He who disowns Me before men will be disowned before the angels of God." As so often in theology, we find there are "two sides of the coin." To ME, the approach is NOT to take all the Scriptures, subject them to our limited, fallable, sinful, human LOGIC and force them to "fit" and "make sense" to US. To ME, the approach is to accept both "sets" of scriptures at their face value and allow them to stand in all their truth and power just as God inspired them. The approach, then, is in how to APPLY them rather than in how to force them to fit together according to our fallible, limited logic. Not in accepting one "set" and explaining away the other in the light of it. MY view... - Josiah

Ditto..... I've had the gift of faith for longer than I recall..... I was sung Christian songs, prayed for, etc. while I was still in my mother's womb - and like John the Baptist, I believe I heard..... and God gave me faith. My parents at home have the OLD graining video tape of some children's program at our church. I honestly don't remember anything about it, but Dad was there with that HUGE video camara he loved so much.... And there I am. Maybe 5 or so. Cute, blonde/blue little boy (I look ALL like a girl), white shorts.... talking about "what Jesus means to me." When I was a teen, alone at home, sometimes I would dig out that video - and watch that kid.... listen to that boy..... STUNNED by his faith..... envious..... That little boy and I are "on the same page" again. Soli Deo Gloria. Pax - Josiah .

Words can confuse - especially since in PRACTICE, they change meanings.... IMO...;. Dating - a causual "getting to know" each other. It may or may not be exclusive. Traditionally, it didn't involve sex but heaven knows, it may now - within an hour of the start of the first "date." Courting - an old fashioned word for "exploring the appropriateness of marriage together." Such like look like dating, but it's clearly focused on whether they should get married. .

In MY opinion.... I don't think the STATE should regulate consenting adults in terms of where they live, with whom they have sex (again, assuming CONSENTING ADULTS) or with whom they may own property, etc. POLITICALLY, I have nothing against what is commonly known as "civil unions" - what legally is a "personal partnarship" - where LEGALLY and ECONOMICALLY - the result is the same as being married. ONE of the things that bothers me about same-sex "marriage" is that it's not. There IS some historic, cultural basis for polygamy, but virtually none for two same-sex persons, for that being regarded specifically as MARRIAGE. Frankly, I'm not sure why "marriage" is any of the governments' business anyway - for thousands of years, in every culture ever in existence, this was a FAMIILIAL and often RELIGIOUS issue, families (often the parents) and the religion of the people were the issues. I think it might be better to return it to that. Why should the government be involved in religious issues like this, anyway? It CAN and SHOULD regulate LEGAL and ECONOMIC behaviors, covenants, contracts, partnerships - not religion or society. And it certainly should not just entirely REDEFINE a precious word and institution that is THOUSANDS of years older than any government in existence today, an institution that is global not just in that jurisdiction. .

LOL! Who was it that said he didn't want to be a part of any club that accept him as a member? Yup. One hospital for sinners..... - Josiah