Omegaman 3.0

Genetic variation is a pre-programmed feature. There was only one kind of tomato in the wild, yet we have a lot of varieties today, but, they are all tomatoes. How many types of dogs are there, apparently all descended from wolf like ancestors. I would point out, that the differences there, are far greater than differences in race. A Chihuahua and a St. Bernard, are both dogs. Race is a human construct, we like to divide things into categories. To me, there is one race, called the human race, with all of us included in their genome. Variety sometimes comes from mutations, like my blue eyes for example. As long has a mutation does not prevent survival, it can survive, and so we have blond haired, blue eyed people. Why do we think a different skin tone, is so much different than a different eye or hair color? Beats me! Maybe God just likes variety! Why do people cultivate so many kinds of flowers? I don't know, but I enjoy variety. Things that are identical clones, are sort of boring. Vive La di!fference

Good job I think. My only reservation about it is the use of the long ending of Mark. It is not that some of us pick and choose which textual variants we like or don't like, but that we lack confidence that that particular passage was originally in the gospel, and therefore may not not properly be the word of God. I suspect that might have been an accidental inclusion. However, I "thumbs upped" the video.

All right, I'll bite! Generally I shy away from questions regarding God that start with "Why"! Why would be an okay question, curiosity is not harmful, but don't expect too much. Basically, if the test itself does not say "why" then any answers are just guesses! Never the less, I'll make a guess. The Ethiopian was already interested, wanting to know more about God, sincerely. He was having difficulty understanding a passage, and not having been educated (most likely) in the religion of the Hebrews, and not having the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, he needed help. I think we have a somewhat parallel situation in Acts 18: 24Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit,d he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. 27And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, 28for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus. When the church was in it's infancy, there was no New Testament yet, the only scriptures were the Hebrew scriptures (and a Greek translation of them), so only a few people to begin with had a lot of understanding. God used Priscilla and Aquila to tutor Apollos, so that he could understand, what he did not yet understand. In the case of Philip, God used him with the Ethiopian and that led to his conversion and baptism, presumably now a Christian, indwelled by the Spirit of God. he could grow from there and so for Philip, mission accomplished, so God wisked him off to whatever he had for him to do next. That is my guess!

A Christian believes in the man Jesus Christ, who in His preincarnate state (as the Word) created all things, and who now lives to intercede for his sheep, those who believe in and trust Him, and love and obey Him.

I met one once, with whom I never discovered a theological disagreement, but I consider that an extreme anomaly! Every pastor whom I accepted as my pastor, whom I have learned from, and to whom I have made myself accountable, I have had some disagreements with. Disagreements are normal, we are in unity, but that does not mean uniformity, we are not clones of each others, and as long as we have some remnants of our sin nature, we won't be clones of our Lord either! The thing about having disagreements, is that we do not let them divide us from the one body, all true believers have a part. Paul said in 1 Cor 11: 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized. Now, I may be mistaken in my thinking, but I have always understood that to mean that without those differences, we could not recognize the wolves among the sheep. There are people who have some quirky pet doctrines, but ones who are so far our of orthodoxy, can be dangerous to the babes in Christ, so there need to be shepherds there to protect them from serious heresies. Here at Worthy, there are wolves, and sheep, and shepherds. The challenge is to see that the babes know who to listen to, and who to ignore. Another challenge, is to try to show the wolves a better way, so that they can become sheep and perhaps even shepherds one day.

some snippets from Mounces Greek dictionary regarding ekklesia: Noun: ἐκκλησία (ekklēsia), GK 1711 (S 1577), 114x. ekklēsia is derived from ekklēsia (“to call out”), so the church is the “called-out ones” of God. The prototype of the NT ekklēsia lies not in Greco-Roman history but in the assembly of God’s people in the OT (cf. Acts 7:38), which developed into the Jewish synagogue as the gathering of the community of God. In these gatherings the great stories of salvation history were regularly rehearsed and the wonderful promises of God to Israel recounted (cf. Num. 14:7-9). But while the ekklēsia may find its roots in the synagogue, it is not a subset of it but becomes the new term used for the gathering of various groups of Christian believers. It is noteworthy that the only occurrences of ekklēsia in the gospels are in Mt. 16:18 and 18:17. Jesus promises to build his church, and he instructs his followers to practice discipline in the church. Luke uses this word only in Acts. ekklēsia is basically a Pauline term (more than half of its NT uses are in his letters). Paul never thinks of the church as a physical structure but as a dedicated group of disciples of Jesus Christ (cf. Phlm. 2; also Col. 4:15), whom he has purchased with his blood (cf. Rev. 5:9). The apostle sees the church as a new race, which he lists it alongside Jews and Greeks in 1 Cor. 10:32; it is sufficiently equipped with leadership and gifts to fulfill God’s purposes on earth 12:28); and it is the avenue through which the wisdom of God is made known (Eph. 1:22). The writer of Hebrews uses the phrase “church of the firstborn” to refer to believers in general who make up this body—the redeemed whose names are written in heaven (Heb. 12:23). James sees the church as a source of divine healing during times of illness through the prayers of local ministers (Jas. 5:14). John uses the term throughout Rev. 2-3 in the letters to the seven “churches.” These were actual churches in Asia Minor at the end of the first century, but they also serve as models of various churches today.

Is the right? Or, would it be more accurate to say that now one knew the time, 2000 years ago when Jesus said that? Do you think that He still does not know? Did He say that no one will ever know? Sort of a tease to give so many clues about the events to occur and to watch for, so that those watching will not know when His return will become imminent!

Just to be clear, I indicated that there were several reports about it, and I asked that you consider toning it down, if not dropping the subject altogether. I wouldn't anyone getting the impression that I was making overbearing demands! Thanks for your consideration, but there is no censorship going on, just a request basically to cease campaigning on the subject!

Thanks! Question: Would this poll be for women only, or is Raw Steak/Carolina Reaper quiche a contender?

All right Jen, what did you do with Jadey!

That would be good, and for the one there is, to have more energy, more time and much more wisdom!

Yeah, I know, I do that a lot I guess!

I suspect that distance will not be an issue in Heaven, and a cubicle there, would be better than any mansion on Earth. In any case, the word mansion gives us a sort of distorted view of what the text originally said, tabernacles, tents, dwelling places. In the 1600s, the word mansion in the old meant a place to dwell or stay. The word mason (one who build with stone) is related. The homes or dwellings built with stone (mansions) were permanent dwelling places, not temporary like a wood home built with thatching and straw and cow dung.

I am also not in the habit of categorizing sins. There are times when we might find it appropriate to look at the impact it has socially etc. but the "tiniest" of sins committed against a great God, the owner and originator of everything good is big deal. In my opinion, the smallest white lie, the theft of a paper clip, exceeding the speed limit by one mile per hour, is enough to separate one from God for eternity (apart from forgiveness of sin in Jesus, the Christ). One is either purely and totally righteous, or one is a sinner. It is basically black and white, not shades of grey. The lightest grey you can imagine, is still not white. That is what I think on the purely moral/spiritual aspect of sin. In the practical sense, I think it is important to treat some sins in a hierarchy. I would hate to live in a society, that thought the murder of a baby is not worse the cruelty to a puppy. Oh, wait a minute, I guess I do live in a society like that! I think the church (people of God) in general, is making a mistake to act as though the sin of committing homosexual acts is somehow more horrible that other sexual sins. Some churches may (I don't know) not knowingly tolerate having people among them who commit such acts, but will tolerate men and women living together as though they were married (or unmarried men and women not living together who still participate in activities reserved for the married). The specific wording of your question, makes it a little difficult to answer. As far as I am concerned, marriage is the joining together of a man and a woman, to live in a partnership, a union, which is holy in God's site, has His approval, and is a life long commitment. If my understanding is correct, then there is no such thing as same sex marriage, there are only people of the same sex, living in a domestic partnership arrangement hoping that society will see that as legitimately equivalent to actual marriage. If they want to have the same rights as married people, like some tax deduction, or discount on insurance or something, I don't have a real beef with that, but I am never going to view that as a marriage, nor is such an arrangement, going to legitimize their sexual sin. In the adultery aspect of divorce and remarriage, I think we ought to note that not all divorce and remarriage is adultery, in case the is any confusion about that. When the divorce and remarriage is unbiblical, such that it is adulterous, then I'd say that that and homosexual practice are both sinful, but they are not the same thing. it is hard to make an equivalency. To me it is a little like asking: "Is gluttony the same as envy?" No, they are not the same thing. Yes, they are both sins. I think if is important to note, that it is not the job of Christians, to judge non-Christians for their sins. That does not however, mean that we cannot speak out about them, nor inform then that they are sinning against God.

Yeah, I don't know if I have been called that (never to my face), but I have been called a heretic. That does not necessarily put people into a bad category, all of the early church were considered heretics!

I would not categorize him that way either, I'd even say he is a gifted teacher, even though I would disagree with him one some points. Having a few errors in our peripheral theology, is typical, I would guess 99% of the people in this forum fit that description, and I don't know who the 1% might be. If I did, I would join them.

Well, is would seem to indicate that at least whatever spiritual gifts Paul was aware of (which certainly include the ones we have mentioned) should be expected to exist until the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, that would be the second coming after the end of the tribulation. I don't think the second coming has happened yet, so I think this speaks to the continuation of gifts which must then be still in existence.

Well, I am probably done with this dialogue for now, it is the time of night (for me) that I usually spend updating the Bible Club here, so it was nice talking with you NotW!

That is fine. Curiosity killed the cat - just don't be a cat!

I believe there are, but I am also certain there are counterfeits. It could me that demonic activity mimics real gifts, but real gifts should glorify God and advance His kingdom, not draw attention to ourselves. It could be that there are people, who counterfeit gifts for the desire to seem more holy than others, or to fit in with the spiritual crowd they hang out with. The could be some, who are not counterfieting gifts with any ill intent, but are just trying hard to be gifted, and to not even realize that what they are manifesting, is not the genuine article. That is my opinion, based on observation and some guessing. One thing though, I do not see any thing in the Bible that convinces me that the gifts have yet ceased. I myself, do not have any of the so called sign gifts, like speaking in tongues, prophesying, not healing of others, but that does not mean that I do not think there are those who do have such gifting.

it is worth knowing these things, and pondering them, reading scripture and trying to gain understanding. I don't think God gave us this stuff to confuse us, but to shed light on it. Still, these things are not merely learned from simple quips and quotes, it takes some work and spiritual discernment. We cannot muster up discernment (that comes from God) but we can cooperate and develop gifts when we are open to His leading, and swallow our pride and be attentive, serious students. I think all we NEED to know spiritually, is in the book, but it is not always there to be understood by everyone. Some things are hidden except to whom God has chosen to reveal them. One think I keep in mind, is that any theory of doctrine we are considering, is not right if a single verse refute it. If our doctrine is contradicted my scripture, then we have bd doctrine, or, we are misunderstanding what scripture is saying. That is to be expected, after all, we are only human.

Oh wow, that is an active, and touchy topic for many. Here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/forum/253-soteriology/ and Here: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/forum/284-calvinism-vs-arminianism/ would be your best bets. The issues have be controversial for many centuries, especially since the protestant reformation. I look at it this way though: If this has been debated in the church for many hundreds of years, we are not going to solve it on Worthy. I think the issues are somewhat important, since God hae inspired but of the Bible to be written regarding them, and indeed, they even reflect on the nature and character of God. That being said, understanding them is not critical to salvation, and there is no reason for people to be so passionate about these things, that it becomes divisive. When people start getting angry, they are showing some immaturity and a lot of pride, so, beware! Otherwise, I hope you learn a lot there, just don't get too sucked into it all, lol!

yeah, I figured as much, though he is a believer in the TULIP, is disagrees with some positions that others who are of the reformed persuasion hold. As I recall, is his big on Bible literalism (like you) and pre-tribism (like you), I think he is a cessationist (the spiritual gifts are not for today), I don't recall off hand many of his other positions.

True, but one, is one too many!

Smiles to see mm quote a 5 point Calvinist!