Macs Son

Well I usually like to make it a general rule not to finish applying a passage context on a comma So Father God blessed us in the heavenly places with every Spiritual blessing so that we might be holy and blameless, this accepted in the Beloved Son of God, Christ Jesus.These blessing are not earthly blessing but heavenly blessings. I automatically think of the blessings we have received in Christ. we are born into the new nature, as we put on Christ nature that is forming us to reflect His image through the Holy Spirit who is working in us and through us. That work both edifies us and provide a light unto the world that is sourced in Christ. Therefore the work done in the Spirit is not our work but the Holy Spirits and this we are double blessed because we can render God's blessing unto a lost and dying world and receive the blessing of being moved in God through His Work by a simple act of obedience. The Spiritual blessings, unlike our temporal blessing on earth, which He also gives, are eternal because they are sourced in the Heart of God who commands His love toward us and through us. - Hallelujah! For it is the free gift of our generous, kind and very Good God, un-earnable since it by His grace alone. In Christ, Pat

I was going to add more on the other gifts but wanted to provide more time in case anyone wanted to respond - know the post is long. May the Lord Bless In Christ, Pat

Hi Reformed Baptist,Except the Jewish day, unlike the Western day, begins in the evening, when the moon rises. This has always been the case and it is the same way they count the days of Genesis ("evening then morning the first day") Jesus was crucified on Preparation Day, Thursday but died in the afternoon and was buried in the evening. His burial, still officialy on preparation Day, was hurried, because they could do nothing once it became Passover. So officially it was still before Moon Rise and therefore before the Sabbath rest. In AD30 the Passover started on Thursday Evening at Moon Rise and Christ was crucified just prior to the Sabbath rest. But the Sabbath they are speaking about happens the Day after preparation Day and that was the Sabbath of Passover and not the ordinary Sabbath. So:Day#1 Thursday evening before moon rise started the Sabbath to Friday Evening (Thursday evening was the Sabbath of Passover in AD30. Day#2 Friday evening to Saturday Evening (The ordinary Sabbath - 2 in a row makes it a high Sabbath) Day#3 Saturday evening to Sunday Dawn - the 3rd Day, less that 72 hours but 3 days and 3 nights In Christ, Pat

By letting Scripture interpret Scripture In Christ Pat

I did in a previous post but I think Kensie said it quite succinctly already I think the proof of this is in what the apostle Paul said: Not the sins of Adam, which changed the nature of man and gave us propensity toward sin, but our own sins condemn us and cause us to fall short and miss the mark. Angels as well - it was and is a matter of choice.In Christ, Pat

Let every man as he hath received the gift, minister the same one to another, as good disposers of the manifold grace of God.

I mostly use the NASB but many time use the ESV and the NKJV. Of course nothing compares to the Psalms in the KJV they are simply majestic. As to which one is more accurate - most agree with one another and where they don't I consult the Greek texts. I like to think that God didn't make all the Scriptures easy to understand because some of them He wants us to mine more deeply. Any way - may God bless you all, Pat

The territory it was shot down over was controlled by pro Russian separatists and CNN news is reporting they are already at the site picking through the rubble. Don't think they're going to leave many clues for an international - just a guess. Hand held missiles cannot reach that height but Russia was supplying the separatists with missiles that could take a cargo jet out so this could have been one of them. Regards, Pat

I think God dis write a history book, it's His Story.I don't think the U.S. is in Revelation which probably doesn't bode well for us. Nations Rise and Fall but our God reigns eternal. In Christ, Pat

I disagree with you that the Christians were the aggressors in this conflict. This is why I keep pointing out to you the well documented 500 year history of Islamic jihadist aggression over North Africa, the Middle East, Eastern Europe, into the Germanic provinces, Eastern Asia into Afghanistan and to the Black Sea, the Islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Western Europe from Portugal to Spain and as far as France, Italy, even up to the Alps. How much aggression do we need to see before we recognize how hard pressed these people were. Clearly the track of invasions here leave no doubt as to just who the aggressors were! Stating that the Christian nations were the aggressor in the wars that followed is intellectually dishonest. I also have made it abundantly clear that I am not trying to justify any horrendous sins that took place on either side of the conflict but that I was simply stating Christian nations did have a right to protect themselves, as well as recover the lands that had been stripped from them. As far as the reckless and horrendous injustices that some of them perpetrated upon other peoples, including other Christians, all I can say is they will no doubt be judged by God. However I do not think it is very righteous for us to lump every Christian who participated in a crusade as being a devil, especially without factual information to indict them of clearly being under the influence of the devil. Quite frankly There has been a clear bias of half truths over the centuries and it wasn't until I did some digging that I began to change my opinion on some of this. Perhaps now with hundreds of kidnapped girls, airplanes driven into the World trade center and Pentagon, the storming and bombing of embassies, the suicide bombings, the abuse of woman, the beheadings of Christians and secularists, the burning of Churches, the unlawful occupation of lands and murder of civilians who disagree with their tenets of jihad, and the ill treatment of women we might begin to have some perception of just what it might have been like for these Christians who were fighting against jihadists in their own lands. We simply weren't there so let's let God judge whether they were justified in acting against this onslaught perpetrated against them or not. Even Francis of Assisi in 1219 participated in one of the crusades and tried to evangelize the leader of the armies positioned against them. http://www.christiantimelines.com/franciscrusades.htm Now you mention above that the Jews were the rightful rulers of Jerusalem, even though Christ gave a vivid prophesy against Israel, knowing they would reject Him, the very one who was the cornerstone of their covenant. And as far as being aggressors, we know the Jews who rejected Christ did not do so quietly at that time. It is well documented that they carried out no shortage of aggressive tactics against the early church, including murder and imprisonment. Now Jewish aggression against Christians continued for centuries after the resurrection. The killing didn't just stop with Stephen, the first martyr of the Church, but they also got Herod to put James, the brother of John, to the sword. Afterwards when Herod saw that it pleased the Jews he locked Peter up in order to do the same thing. We also have the voice of Paul who told us that he gladly threw men and women into prison for following Christ, that is until the Lord knocked him off his high horse. After Saul became a Christian most Christians were suspicious of him except a few the Lord endowed with the courage to befriend him as a brother in Christ. Jewish persecutions also scattered the Church for and wide. When Gentile came into the Church filled with the Holy Spirit many Jewish Christians thought they should be forced to follow the Jewish rites of circumcision. The first church council ruled against this mandate however, and simply admonished them to abstain from sexual immorality, the strangulation of animals, and food sacrifice to idols. The Jewish leaders of the newborn Christian Church recognized that it was simply faith in Christ, that fulfilled our participation in the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant. Christ then was the fulfillment of all the Jewish rites that foreshadowed Him so what mattered was the ubsance and not the shadows of what had already come. Yes the Jewish Christians would retain their customs but they would not lay that burden upon Gentile believers. Now Paul tells us later that there was friction with some elements of the Church who still mandated that Gentile Christians needed to be circumcised. Still with all his admonition to Gentiles to steer clear of those who desired to Judaize them there was no talk of super-cession. Paul certainly did not preach super-cession to the Gentiles and evidence that he preached against super-cession appears later in his ministry when he wrote his letter to the Romans. So we learn here that: 1. it was jealousy of the Gentiles that provoked them, 2. that God would leave a remnant representative of those coming through the Mosaic covenant, 3. and if their "falling" prepared the way for the Gentiles to be grafted into Abraham then their fullness would be the coming of the Lord. You will remember, however, the covenant itself id not only contain blessings to Israel but also curses: So the possession of the land and of the Lord's blessings were conditional and the actual history of Jerusalem and Israel was thus 1. Before they entered the promised land God wiped out all of the original generation he took out of Egypt 2. During the time of the Judges they cyclically went in and out of God's favor, freedom & slavery to their oppressors. 3. They were uprooted from the land by the Babylonians. 4. Then the Greeks under Antiochus Ephiphanes again subjugated them until the Maccabean revolt 5. Then the Romans in 60 BC once again subjugated them 6. Their Temple was again completely destroyed by the Romans in AD70 and their culture, lands and people decimated 7 After the Jewish Bar Kochba War against the Rome ended in AD135 they were banished once more from Jerusalem. The question we must ask ourselves is was their banishment directed by the hand of Lord and did they reap what they sowed? A few Scripture passage would seem to infer that: Now the Kingdom of God started with Israel and even Jesus says in John chapter 4 that "Salvation is of the Jews. But above He is clearly saying the Kingdom will be put in the hands of those who bear fruit for it. Now their animosity towards Christ and Christians wasn't just in the Apostolic age either, for even in the mid 2nd century Justin inferred that the Jewish people still stirred up first hand and second hand persecution against the Christian Church. So apparently Jewish contrivances against the Christians of the 2nd century, who were also being persecuted by the Romans, were still bery much still happening in the 2nd century since,according to Justin, the violence of Jews against Christians was prevalent. But during these years I still here no talk of super-cession and Romans 11 is clearly one of the masterpieces respected by the Church and was still speaking its truth by the Holy Spirit that God's plan also involves the return of Israel, who had hardened their hearts against both Him and His Church. Now there have been discoveries of Jewish tombs that date back to the 3rd and 4th centuries, which were found in Jerusalem. There are also records of pilgrimages to Jerusalem in that era as well. So the Jewish people were certainly allowed back. However, we can infer that there were problems however during the reign of Constantine; for several warning an decrees were made including that he again expelled them from the city, probably because of violence propagated against Christians. This we are told by an 11th century chronicler, which is admittedly late. But we do have some of the edicts issued in the early to mid 4th century. Their expulsion, if there was one however, did not last long however. When the Islamic invasion of Jerusalem came in the 7th century it came with violence against the Jews, as the rhetoric of the Quran clearly mentions slaughtering Jews. By the time of the crusades, however, it is assumed that the Jews lived peaceably alongside the Muslims in that city. There are inferences, however, that they were still fighting with Christians. None of the animosity towards Christians, however, justified what some of the unruly mobs did in slaughtering innocent people, which included Jews. Some of those mobs even later went on to plunder Christians and slaughter them as well. So obviously these mobsters never knew Christ but were following the dictates of unbridled hatred and greed. All this said in response; I do very much love Israel and pray for its return and recognition of their promised Messiah, who has already come. God may have punished her but I know He also longs for her as a lost child. I also believe the time of the Gentile is nearing a close and that the time of Israel's coming to Christ will be soon, even at the door. I think I'm pretty much done talking about the crusades for now - I had only planned to answer the question about the causes of the crusades and did not think I would spend quite as much energy on explaining my perspective which I still maintain is true. But overall I believe Joe and Kwikphilly have already answered better than I in summing things up. In Christ, Pat

Good morning Qnts For the record you have me quoting this in the preceding post but that was actually you I feel I already answered this truthfully. So to answer your last post Wiki is far too simplistic, as it made no mention of the previous 500 years of violence propagated against Christians in Easter and western Europe as a major cause of the crusades. I haven't got much response on that as being causal, even though it is completely factual. I think you failed to address this as well. I think many have responded here with some pretty emotional hyperbole instead of factual information. I believe the truth is always deeper than surface. That is not to say I agree with the crusades although I certainly do not agree with the swift judgment we have accused those generations who participated in either, much without the use of eyewitness data, which the Bible asks us to render judgment on.But I do have a question to ask you. If Jesus prophesied of the downfall of Jerusalem who are you implying Jerusalem Biblically belonged to? Thanks In Christ, Pat

Hi Wildfire, The original question was not directed towards the execution and prosecution of the Crusades but towards the reasons for the crusades. What brought them about. We're simply stating here what were the underlying causes for Christian nations to band together and go on the offensive. It seems clear, to me at least, that the underlying reason were the consistent attacks of land grabbing jihadists who sought to put their yoke upon the Christian nations of that era. Surely we see some of that in the news today as well. I'm certainly not defending the prosecution of the crusades but I am trying to bring clarity to the truth of what caused them. Again just stating these attacks are what caused the response to unite Europe against them.In Christ, Pat

Hi Parker,Yes, I agree that there were plenty of horrendous sins to go around on both sides during this period. Still not all Christians during this period were following mob rule as the site you referenced shows. Again I'm certainly not defending everything that happened during the crusades just the fact that the causes aren't simplistic as implied and what most were taught in school. For the record there were also Jews fighting against the Crusaders. The fact that some protected Jews while others lumped them all together and persecuted them however doesn't prove out a theory of super-cession as causation for the crusades. It just proves that in every war, unless there is a strict chain of command, that there is always an element of mob mentality. That shouldn't however change anyone mind from logically drawing the simplest conclusion for the cause of the Crusades being 500 years of Islamic aggression. Are we to ignore 500 years of documented historical encroachment for someone's pet theory? It doesn't seem like a point that we should ignore just to follow the status quo on the conclusion. Regards, Pat

A good policy for establishing truth from Paul: Hi Qnts2 Firstly let me say there were many, many, many things wrong with the crusades but the point here is the western world has totally lost the context of why they actually occurred and has turned the blame totally on the Christian people who lived in that era. In doing so they have put themselves totally above the fray and somewhat condescendingly judged the people of that era as unrighteous bigots and nothing more. We at least owe it to those generations to dig a little deeper into their predicament before we hand out those kind of indictments. I said before the crusades had nothing to do with super-cession and everything to do with the violence being propagated against countries and cities that were Christian. Now no one is invading Montpellier today but in 739 the Muslim Jihadists were and in many cases they were putting Christians to the sword, something that was done on and off during the 500 years of jihadi attacks upon Eastern and western Europe. The factual background on the previous 500 years seems to be totally lacking from this debate. So how can we hope to understand motive when most don't even realize what was transpiring in the half millennia of Islamic aggression prior to crusades themselves? To me this is simple cause and effect principle. So, basically, I don't think all your questions are really relevant to the times in question. Fighting disparate local engagements was not seen as something that was going to solve this ongoing 500 year old problem and this was recognized on a global scale by both Eastern and Western Christian nations. The aggression was not going to stop if they said let's play nice and you can keep Jerusalem. That said I'll answer your questions. 1. It wasn't a war to kill unbelievers but a war to liberate Christian people who were being slaughtered and conquered for nearly 500 years from jihad. That said many crusaders did have wrong motives, just as in all wars there are mixtures of motives and good and bad decisions. Some might look at World War II as a just war in liberating Europe from Nazi's tyranny, and I would agree wholeheartedly with that assessment. That said there were darker elements to it that the liberating forces might wish they could take back. It gets very hard to judge. Many Americans think Vietnam was an immoral war and turned their backs on America's soldiers but at the same time said nothing when 10's of thousands Vietnamese refugees known as boat people drowned or were attacked and killed in the South China Sea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnamese_boat_people Some injustices just seem to get buried when it's not convenient to see there are two sides to every story. Now this could turn into a huge moral discussion but at its most basic ethical level if you saw a criminal attacking a peace loving woman or child with deadly intent and you were the only one around, would your conscience tell you to step into the fray and protect? Of course that is a hypothetical question and some might not think it fair but that is precisely my point, especially when not armed with all the facts. 2. No, it is not but one might have a pretty good argument that Jerusalem was not a Islamic city in the first place or the second place for that matter. After Titus the Roman general in AD70 fulfilled Jesus prophesied that Jerusalem and the temple would be destroyed. Now the subsequent decade saw Jerusalem's gradual reoccupation by the Jews but the temple was never rebuilt. Then 50 years later the city became completely off limits to the Jews, which Justin Martyr also records for us in his dialog with Trypho. That edict did not come by the Christians but by the Romans Emperor Hadrian, who was pagan. Christians in fact would continue to be persecuted by the Romans for almost another 200 years at that time. But it did eventually become a Christian city after Constantine made it so. Afterwards it remained a Christian city for 300 years until it was conquered by Muslim Jihadists in AD 637, so we can hardly infer it was an Islamic city or that Christians had no right to claim it as theirs. In AD 800 they gave the rights to the Frankish king for Christians to worship there but all that changed in AD1070 when rival Islamic faction, the Seljuk Turks, captured Jerusalem from the Fatimids, and began oppressing and persecuting Christians. This became one of the factors in deciding to retake the city. 3. That's simple, the answer is "no" and no where in the Bible does it teach that. However the same might not be said of the Quran nor the Hadith but I'm not sure the western world is really cognizant of that. I make no other comment here as to whether any of the above verses are actually believed by the Muslim community but it is in there, just as it was during the Islamic invasions and the crusades. Anyway my main point is to know this volatile time better before rushing to judgment. I think all of history has something to teach us if we examine it more closely.Regards, Pat

What is the source for your quote? Just a memorable quote from a long ago history lesson.Similar are found with an internet search of crusade, Jewish, killing, or the Rhineland Massacre. Perhaps memorable to you but most likely apocryphal and more than likely just meant to stir peoples emotions up. It's sometime amazing to me how little verifiable history is actually taught. The popular versions of history are sometimes very poor judges of what actually happened but I do believe that God will judge all history in truth and leave us no doubt as to what the truth is when He tells His Story on judgment day.Pat

Hi Parker1I see no evidence that the Crusades were ever based on Supercession (aka replacement theology). They had nothing to do with the nullification of Abrahamic covenant but everything to do with Islamic Jihad and Islamic territorial aggression. Prior to the Pope Urban the 2nd calling for Christian nations to band together in order to go on the offensive against this aggression most Christian nations had been decimated and by force brought under the yoke of Islam. Unifying and fighting it off was really what was at the root of unifying Christendom with the goal of recapturing Jerusalem, which was once under Byzantine rule but had fell to the Islamic invasion in the 7th century. I posted a link above which basically captures the prior 500 years our present day history classes don't teach you any longer because of political correctness - here's a summarized version I think there was little doubt enough was enough and the conclusion was a unified force vs. mere pockets of local resistance was needed to reclaim the native lands of Christians. He did set a goal to recapture Jerusalem which had been taken centuries earlier as well. It's academic why Europe got behind the crusades since almost every single country had been attacked. Its easy to sit back knowing how out of control these war would get but we should at least try to understand that 500 years of attacks, pillage and execution had taken their toll on these people and on their nations. Regards, Pat

The Archangel Michael may be a study you may want to consider doing. He is in the Book of Daniel. Michael also appears later in Revelation So you could say one of the functions God has given to angels is in the role of defender. I like these episodes as well out of Acts 5 and Acts 12 as well So two more cases where angels protect the people of God. They also lead us to act in the work of the Lord as well, as in Acts 8 & 10. So there are many functions of angels including messengers. We could go on but that is a start. In Christ, Pat

I realize the answer I gave you was only laying the groundwork for your own discovery and edification.If you want my opinion it is this: The reason for the crusades was to check Islamic aggression against the territories within Christendom which had been plundered for over half a millennia. Up to this points there were local and nationalistic defenses against this aggression but the Pope sought to unify Christianity not only against the onslaught of Islamic jihadists but also go on the offensive and reclaim lands lost centuries beforehand, with the goal of Jerusalem being centric to his plan. However the crusades themselves went far beyond that plan by opportunists within these armies who really were seeking worldly gain by them. In Christ, Pat

The history speaks for itself - by their fruits you shall know them.Just a few points: 1. The new covenant given to us by Christ was meant to restore the soul of mankind from its fallen state its goal was never to enrich itself in this world but in the promise of eternal restoration to God in the next. It's mandate was call sin for what it was, the destructive force that degrades us and ruins us with its decadence and greed, an abomination in the sight of our Holy God who sees it all. The New Covenant endowed us with the Holy Spirit that would ennoble us to foretell of the coming judgment for sin. It also proclaimed the Gospel, and taught the Words of Christ, that we could find true repentance with God because of the cross of Christ. In coming to that Truth, enriched with Life, we had the Way to be washed clean by His sacrifice, once and for all, as well as the promised renewal of God's living presence abiding within us. Please read the post on the new covenant. 2.So then pure Christianity is a religion for the redemptive conquest of men's souls. It was never intended to be a religion of the physical sword. If we live by the sword, as Jesus said, we shall die by the sword. I do not take that however to mean we cannot defend our homes and families or defend the oppressed from the oppressor. So it does not mean we cannot bear the sword at all as some pacifists would imply. 3. Christianity by AD600 was the dominant religion of Europe, the Mid East, parts of Asia and all of North Africa. It also had far reaching outposts into Asia including India and China. For the most part the Church of Christ the Gospel was still being preached although wolves and deceivers had also crept into the Church, as St. Paul had prophesied. At this time there was no such thing as Islam. 4. When Islam did come on the scene it was immediately a religion of the sword and military conquest, sacking cities, peoples, and countries, executing its detractors, whether Jewish or Christian in a great many cases. 5. These conquests continued unabated for about 500 years with pockets of Christendom fighting mostly defensive wars against its expansion into their homelands. There were some wars to recoup their lands which had come under Islamic domination. 6. This then was the lead-up to the crusades 7. The Crusades began when the Pope declared Christendom should fight back with a goal of retaking Jerusalem. This is usually the point where most secularist history picks up the crusades and ignoring the previous 500 years they begin to claim this was uncalled aggression on the part o Christendom against a peaceful Islamic Caliphate. There is little doubt however, as the others here have already attested to, that some very worldly politics and very worldly men did see political and economic gain in liberating Jerusalem. They even went as far as sacking Constantinople the capital of the Byzantine Christians. Clearly many were acting out of ruthless greed, so Jesus was speaking truth when He said, 'By their fruits you shall know them." 7. There is a very good timeline on the history leading up to the crusades and the crusades themselves by which you will b able to give you a baseline to judge this whole period for yourself. It is very informative and exposes where the aggression emanated from. See below http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/imperialism/notes/islamchron.html In Christ, Pat

Hi Tristen,Thanks for your response. I agree that there is a large segment of scientists that, for whatever motivation, attempt to explain the physical world with both cause and effect, strictly within the confines of the physical world itself. But that should not surprise us. Physical experimentation and proof are all they have to work with. Admittedly we can never truly get to the beginning via any form of science. The best we can do is unravel some of the Glory that God put into creation an I believe scientists down through the ages have done that in part for us. Yes, there are some who said they are in no need of a hypothesis that has God as creator but we know from Romans 1 that is just foolishness. However, though you may disagree with them, they are not the enemy; for we do not struggle against flesh and blood. We were not asked to compete for souls using man’s wisdom and tools to win the battle but by being true to The Word, by the power of the Holy Spirit God has put within us. That is so freeing as well because that means it does not depend on me. It all rests in the power of God. We just keep trusting, obeying and it is always interesting to see how God pulls it off. Usually, even though I believe and expect, He does that in ways that contain great surprise. I believe the movement of God's Spirit through His people will convict the world of sin and the coming judgment, and of the righteousness of Christ alone - which He induced in us who by faith believe. Jesus told us that as recorded by the Apostle John So yes, if I was to put a pareto list together then some of the major divisions I'd have, among those whom we reason with might be: 1. The entrenched a. Sincere enemies of the cross and all it stands for. Haters of God with an agenda that seeks to have sin and the pleasures of this world overtake the Gospel of Grace and promise of the world to come through Christ our Lord. They want sin to continue its deadly mortal reign. These practice a sort of natural selection by intellectual pride and I usually find them to be self-deceived in their struggle, hoping somehow that their half-truths and obfuscated smoke and mirrors will win the day over “the Truth”. We both know that is not going to happen, since the gates of hell will not prevail over those who trust in the Way, the Truth and the Life. We can rest in that, being assured of the outcome. b. There is another form of the “entrenched” however that won’t listen to any semblance of truth that comes from the other camp, and that unfortunately that is a grave mistake. Quite frankly that type of entrenchment is counterproductive in our warfare for truth because truth and reason are not being weighed in the balance with a true search for truth as its arbiter. There is no doubt physical investigations are secondary knowledge as compared to what the Holy Spirit has to say but as Romans 1 states the world manifest its witness of God to us. But if we were to interrogate ant witness we need to follow ground rules for getting to the truth. I think Bacon had the correct genesis for the scientific method and I think Christians and non Christians can agree it has served us petty well. Since our faith is a reasonable faith, than reason we must when the state of some theories is in flux. with regard to redemption the Lord, Himself, calls us to reason together with Him and I know He does that quite patiently since He is still working on me after all these years. Not every argument that come from the naturalistic camp is a bold faced lie. I think we just have to be patient enough to sift through it and be confident the truth will eventually come out, if we persist. While I believe it true that we can unlock a lot of mysteries with weapons of truth I don’t expect we’ll be able to unravel and prove out all mysteries, whether Biblical or physical. The battle for the pearls of the universes physical witness is a rather time consuming venture, especially when we have a dying world where we want to bring as many to Christ as we can. Still it does hold a witness to God's glory that I believe we can translate for the good of all. So we can both battle for the truth of God and His Holy Word and we can debate with secularists all we want for the truths that God's created universe speaks to us. God has a ready supply of truths we can plumb in order to do so but we can’t lose sight of the goal either and I know I myself caught up in it. Sometime I think I can be sleeping like the apostles did the night Jesus was betrayed - unaware of the bigger event, my mind caught up in other details. I always need to remind myself of the prioities. 2. There are also a great many who are seeking the truth, as we once did. They are most likely looking in all the wrong places. This then is a great opportunity. I believe we need to be open to the physical truths God has placed in the universe that are apparent too along with exegeting Scripture more carefully; else we risk the pitfall of taking our own interpretation of Scripture as God’s truth when He might be saying something entirely different. We know some pretty good exegetes have gotten that wrong in the past (e.g as in the case of both the Catholic and Protestant church with Copernicus, Galileo, etc.) God’s Word is pretty deep; I tend to think much deeper than the universal mysteries we still haven’t been able to fathom yet. But it is exhilarating to be discovering both the great pearls of wisdom the Bible has to offer us, as well as what the universe itself is witnessing in shouts and whispers to us every day. 3. There are still yet others who are deceived by the vast amount of intellectual and imaginations concocted in this never ending cycle of explaining away difficult concepts. Many out there are caught up in half-truths. They perceive the man instead of the argument on the table. They gravitate towards renown and popularity rather than good old fashioned truth; hence, failing to check their own logic that God has endowed them to reason with in the first place, they draw incorrect conclusions. There may not even be a conclusion yet but they jump to it quickly. Yep, pareto camp #1 - I've read some.No doubt we are locked in a spiritual struggle. I’ve read of some of the accounts, seen "Expelled" and know this is the case. But this didn’t happen overnight; that #1 campers took over Christian institutions of higher learning like Harvard and Yale. It happened because we stopped having the discussion and made the public perception that there was a war between real science and Christianity. We as Christians must burden some of the blame for a lack of good apologetics and deeper love of the truth that inspired the Christians who pioneered the science of today. Our divorce from the scientific community is appalling. There is no war between physical truths and Spiritual truths, as I said before all truth belongs to God - we simply just haven't discovered them all yet. At least we do know all the truths we need to do battle and obey Christ's lead in preaching the Gospel. That distance between the heart and mind seems to loom pretty large at times but the Bible say we have the mind of Christ (1 Cor 2:16)so I choose to believe it and pray God will point me in the pursuit of His objectives and not mine. I take comfort with all His wisdom some of the Pharisees were never going to believe Jesus, sand even though He knew that He still never gave up on them. God gives us time to work with and that includes time to repent. But with regard to our present conditions in the search for the truths the universe itself is speaking; I know the seeds of an anti Christian worldview were planted long ago in academia but don’t forget the ratio of scientists who were also Christian was much higher years ago. That long line of Christians who sought after truth in the temporal world, as well as in the eternal truths of God and Christ included a great many and the science we know today is still shaped by a great many of these. That truth has always been there I think we just stopped talking about it and divorced ourselves from mainstream science and therefore the debate. 1. Newton, 2. Bacon, 3. Occam, 4. Vesalius, 5. Da Vinci, 6. Mendel, 7. Copernicus, 8. Brahe, 9. Kepler, 10. Leibniz, 11. Pascal, 12. Ohm, 13. Ampere, 14. Faraday, 15. Kelvin, 16. Lavoisier, 17. Dalton, 18. Priestly, 19. Carver, 20. Galileo, 21. Harvey, 22. Boyle, 23. Pasteur, 24. Lister, 25. just to mention just a few who were committed Christians as well as committed scientists. I’m afraid that’s all I have time for tonight. May the Lord Bless you and your family and may you rest well and sleep well in the knowledge of Your Savior, In Christ, Pat

The Bible: I'm assuming that the context here is the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. There's a lot here that we could discuss but if it is too simple the difference may be missed. Conversely, if it's too long, it may not be succinct enough for clarity. So I'll try and cover it therefore by making the major points and hopefully be able to provide you some of the foundational Scriptures. I still would recommend an in depth study in order to truly glean all the meaning of it and get it into your heart. The Lord will teach you this if you ask this. As Jesus taught us, what father would give his child a snake if he asks for a loaf of bread? Even we in a fallen nature still know how to give good gifts to our children. How much more then will your Heavenly Father give good gifts when you ask. So certainly asking for better understanding of His Holy Word is a prayer He will answer, for He gives the Holy Spirit freely. Essentially there were two covenants that God made with us;: 1. The covenant of Moses, which is the Law and the prophets and 2. The New Testament, which is the New Covenant, given by our Lord Jesus. Now with respect to#1, the Old Testament and Old Covenant a.k.a. the Law and the Prophets, you may recall that Jesus spoke of this many times when He instructed the Jewish people and taught His disciples: But the Old Testament, which speaks of the Old Covenant, was broken by Israel. Yet still it was fulfilled by Israel's prophesied Son of David, the Son of Man. The Old Testament by prophesy also pointed them to the New Covenant, which back then was still to be revealed. In like manner the New Testament also points us to the fulfillment of the Old Covenant by the person of Christ Jesus. You may say, "how did Israel break the Old Covenant?" Well the Old Testament itself is littered with examples but let's just look at couple of passages. So now who could hope to restore the promise of the Old Covenant that God had established with the Jewish people? It was still a mystery before Christ's coming but yet the Jewish fulfillment was clearly stated by the prophets. There was to be the promised eternal covenant which the Father would make with the Son of David, "King of the Jews". Now Solomon was the son of David by the flesh but the prophesy was not to him. Solomon ran off the rails with many women who led him away from God. But the "Son of David" was prophesied to come from the seed (singular) from the lineage of David and He was to be "King of the Jews", the very thing written on the Cross of Christ, who stated His Kingdom was not of this world. So the Son of David was a messianic term for the promised Christ who was still yet to come, whom we know to be Jesus Himself. It is therefore Jesus who joins the Old and New Covenant together within His own Body on the cross. He not only fulfilled the Old Covenant but He also provided the open way into the New Covenant, which has God's Spirit dwelling in us. No more would we ever need a temple made with human hands, for Christ is that Temple. Our temple though destroyed by those who crucified Him was rebuilt in three days when Jesus arose again in glory. We ourselves are now God's Temple for He sent the His Holy Spirit to indwell those who would believe in Him through His Word, and the word of His apostles. (Read this chapter in your Bible [John 17; the prayer of Jesus]. The New Covenant begins by God giving to us His only Son, the temple not built with human hands, and the Son of God in this New Covenant He established became the mediator between the Father and us who believe. Now as I said the Old covenant was the Law and the Prophets. Jesus perfectly fulfilled that covenant in Love and obedience. We can read in the Old Testament the prophecies testifying to the coming New Covenant which Christ established. This is all over the Old Testament so far too many verses to quote of the coming promise of the Christ. But the following passage talks of the promise of this New Covenant that was yet to come more than 5 centuries before its fulfillment in Pentecost. When Israel read though their Old Testament and came across that passage you can almost visualize the great hope and joy it brought. Their spirit was yearning for this covenant to crystalize and appear. They waited for the Christ to come with great longing in their hearts. You can almost hear the prayers of ancient Israel in the Christmas song, "O Come O come Emmanuel and ransom captive Israel". Yes, there will come a day O yes O Israel, when the promise of the Lord shall be fulfilled and God will live in our minds and hearts! And John the Baptist prepared the way for His coming and the new Covenant God would make with their yearning souls. And so the Law and the prophets was yet to be fulfilled as God commanded and so Israel waited. So how was the Law and the prophets ever to be fulfilled? It seems that when you read the OT its a never ending cycle of Israel turning to God only to fall away again into sin and even apostasy. But the Law and Prophets was completely fulfilled by the Son of David, Christ Jesus, by their true King and our Savior and Lord. As prophesied our sins were paid for and forgiven in Christ. He will remember them no more! They would be cast as far as the east is from the west. All that the prophets spoke of and that the Father had commanded of Israel was fulfilled in the promised Christ. He truly was and still is Emmanuel, God with us. Jesus was revealed as the pure and Holy Son of God that perfectly fulfilled the Father's Will. And showing us the great love of God He gave His life for His friends by sacrificing Himself for us. So Jesus is the Son of God, the God Man, and at the same time He is the Son of Man, the very long awaited redeemer of men. As Adam was the father of all men who caused the fall and corruption of all men by sinning against God. Jesus, as Paul says, can be likened to the 2nd Adam, for He was sinless, pure and obedient to the end honoring His Father, ending the Old Covenant with the words, "It is finished". Out of love for sinful men He gave His life and took our sins upon Himself restoring us so that we, who believe, are no longer fallen creatures. Just as we are crucified with Christ we as well one day rise just as He did - and the new covenant will be fulfilled and complete! And so it was Jesus, whom the Law and the Prophets pointed to, who brought us the new covenant between God and Man. It isan everlasting covenant and union between the Church and Christ by which even the gates of hell shall not prevail against. This is the difference between Old and New May the Lord Bless you, Pat

Lyrics of Mighty to Save Well everyone needs compassion, A Love that's never failing Let Mercy fall on me Well everyone needs forgiveness The kindness of the Savior The hope of Nations Savior, He can move the mountains My God is mighty to save He is mighty to save Forever, author of Salvation He rose an conquered the grave Jesus conquered the grave So take me as You find me All my fears and failures And fill my life again I give my life to follow everything I believe in Now I surrender Yes, I surrender Savior, He can move the mountains My God is mighty to save He is mighty to save Forever, author of Salvation He rose an conquered the grave Jesus conquered the grave Shine Your Light in Let the whole world see Singing for the Glory of the Risen King Jesus, shine Your Light in Let the whole world see Singing for the Glory of the Risen King Savior, He can move the mountains My God is mighty to save He is mighty to save Forever, author of Salvation He rose an conquered the grave Jesus conquered the grave. Shine Your Light in Let the whole world see Singing for the Glory of the Risen King Jesus, shine Your Light in Let the whole world see Singing for the Glory of the Risen King Jesus! Jesus! Jesus!

There was a kjv found among the dead sea scrolls? Imagine that. They were ahead of their time. I feel confident he means there was a complete copy of the TR found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but he did say a KJV was found there. Even so, I know what he meant. That is impossible because the TR is based on Eramsus' Greek NT manuscript known as the Novum Instrumentum. So it is impossible for the Textus Receptus would not have been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls contained OT Scriptures, not NT Scriptures and the TR is only for the NT. You will have to take that up with the person that said that, because I didn't make that claim. BTW, that is an interesting point Shiloh. If these older manuscripts they have found and used in modern translations are all OT, how can they claim they are finding NT manuscripts that are supposedly older than the TR that don't contain portions of the text found in the TR and used in the KJV Bible? What manuscripts are they speaking of? What manuscripts left out the last portion of Mark chapter 16? I believe for the most part we are just trying to get it right, as Jesus said So clearly it is the Word of God that is Truth and which sanctifies us and the Word was given for a testimony to these men So the reason why we want to restore our translations to the earliest and most reliable manuscript copies is because we want to get as close to the original autographs of the apostles as possible and eliminate marginal notes that somehow crept into the main text. It would seem that this is a good goal since Jesus said for those who believe in Him "through their word". That is the Word that is ultimately the most important to us and not commentators who had MS' that were centuries removed from the original hand. Just my 2 cents.In Christ, Pat

Later you went on to say: Hi Again Tristen, Let's get the Calvin and Luther thing off the table. I wasn't trying to imply Calvin was "in the Bible" when I said he was a Biblical giant. The context for the term "Giant" was as a Biblical exegete and I'm sure many commentators would agree with that assessment. Anyway to your first point only. Let's see where this takes us. 1. You believe you see motivation and intent to eliminate God from His Creation by men and women that use the scientific method to eradicate God as a factor, but this seems to be rather a sweeping prejudicial and predilection against science and scientists who are actually very much real believers. I Think there's a world of difference between astronomy and evolutionists (some, no doubt who may fit the mold of motivations which you propose). Actually, in the case of astronomy, the thing that got them into science in the first place was a love for creation and a desire to both investigate and examine the glory of God's great creation. Now for centuries it was men of faith who actually achieved the lion's share of great discoveries. I love this quote by Francis Bacon. I think this is so true because the universe itself also testifies and witnesses to us the Glory of God's handiwork. I even see this as Einstein progressed in trying to unravel some of the mysteries of the universe. Einstein, who certainly was NOT a Christian but one who also said he was quite taken by the luminous figure of Jesus left us little doubt that his source of inspirational pursuit was the desire to discover the truths of the universe and what He perceived to be the grand intelligence of God, the designer and architect of the physical world. Compare this with Luther and Calvin Obviously Luther was not immune to misinterpreting Holy Scripture. Few of us these days would disagree with Heliocentric theory but it was dangerous in those days to disseminate the truth of what the heavens were telling us and no one was quite willing to think the Scriptures were saying something quite different than most of the zealots of the day were proclaiming as the truth. No one today I believe has a problem with the Scripture that was a stumbling block for them. I know I don't. I've never been able to see why this has become such a sticking point for us or why we think that longer periods of the days of creation go against the Bible” - earlier post from Pat So let's start by addressing point #1, which I believe is an inference or at least some suspicion on your part that there's some sort of massive sinister plot or work to undermine the God of the Bible. This really is not much different than what history shows us took place back to the days of the inquisition and the early protestant reformation. As I said in an earlier post, "all truth is God's truth", and investigating the truth I believe is a good thing. There have been many errors in interpretation of Scripture which have taken Christianity and the Church down some pretty bad roads in the past and these by some rather skilled exegetes who rose to prominence, probably not intentionally, as somewhat the final arbiters of God's Word. It's my hope that we can see through the lens of 16th and 17th century Christians, that they too had mistakenly thought the motivations of these early pioneers in astronomy and science were misguided creants who were attacking God's Word, when in actuality they were simply Christians who both read their Bible but also sought out the truths that the Universe itself was witnessing to us about God's wonderful creation. I propose that it is no different today. Sure there are detractors to be sure who, as you say, try and eliminate God by sophistry and slight of hand hiding behind complex string theory and quantum mechanics but their arguments are circular. Einstein by his own words would have condemned them as mere egotists with no eye towards the unraveling the real beauty and mystery of the universe. As Paul's letter to the Romans implies deep down we all know when we look out upon the heavens that their was a grand hand, the hand of God, behind it. I'll leave the post to point #1 alone until we achieve resolution or just agree to disagree. Good night and may the Lord Bless you and your family.In Christ, Pat

Hi Wildstar,Not sure where you received that particular understanding but it is not according to Scripture. May the Lord Bless, Pat