completedbeliever1
-
Posts
181 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by completedbeliever1
-
-
41 minutes ago, Ezra said:
It is my understanding that on most Christian forums (including Worthy) anyone who rejects the fundamental Christian doctrines (including that of the Trinity), or promotes false doctrines, cannot be allowed to post where Christians discuss Scripture. Christadelphians are definitely opposed to fundamental Bible doctrines and are regarded as a cult.
This is the reason why I believe what I do. I am not a follower of "mainstream" christianity because it has serious flaws. One serious flaw is the trinity. There is something wrong when a preacher is kicked out of a place because he does not conform to the "norm". I equate myself to the prophets of old.
As I have told people for a long time...just because it is a rule, it does not mean it is right.
The trinity is a lie. And folks, we need to really understand where it came from.
Do you celebrate Easter? Do you hide eggs for the children to find? Stop. But why? Because it is a pagan fertility ritual, after the "goddess" Ishtar.
Do you believe in the trinity? Do you say that there are three in one? Stop. But why? Because it was introduced by those who were trying to get all people in all lands to get along, and stop war.
We need to really do some serious research to understand why we believe what we do, (for me, I do not need to worry about that anymore).
Lets reason together... -
On 2/2/2016 at 1:24 PM, simplejeff said:
Yes, it is a lie. No*, it won't be stopped. As it is written,, the wicked continue to get more wicked, while the righteous ((by faith in Messiah Yeshua, Yahweh's DOing)) continue to get more righteous.
*Except in those seeking Truth. Those who seek Yahweh find Him, that is His Promise of His WORD.
Then we need to take our children out of secular schools, and homeschool them.
It is the only way to keep them away from this error. -
23 hours ago, siegi91 said:
My question is: do you think that evolution is a lie because God exists and cannot possibly have used such a wasteful and amoral process, which also contradicts Scripture (I agree that evolution is incompatible with Christianity), or because evolution cannot possibly have taken place on earth?
IOW: do yoy think it is a lie because of your belief in God, or for reasons that are independent from your faith? In case of the latter, what are your objections?
it is possible that the answer is contained in one of your previous posts and I cannot see it on account of my poor English.
sieglinde I KNOW that evolution is a lie due to several things...
First, we (as believers) have the problem with sin.
"Evolution and the Bible most seriously conflict...(their respective views of death, which are central to each viewpoint). If evolution (or even just the concept of an old earth, with death and fossils predating man's sin) is correct, then death is natural, death is normal, death produced man.
Most importantly, in this view, death is not the penalty for sin, for it preceded man and his sin. But if death is not the penalty for sin, then the death of Jesus Christ did not pay that penalty, nor did His resurrection from the dead provide eternal life.While belief in creation and the young earth may not be essential for salvation (many Christians wrongly believe and do many things the Bible teaches against), if evolution is right, if the earth is old, if fossils date from before man's sin, then Christianity is wrong!
These ideas destroy the foundation for the Gospel and negate the work of Christ on the cross. Evolution and salvation are mutually exclusive concepts.Many times evolutionists understand this issue better than Christians. In his article, "The Meaning of Evolution," atheist G. Richard Bozarth claims that "Christianity has fought, still fights and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, for evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of God. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing" (American Atheist, September 20, 1979, p. 30).
Thus the issues of death and time reveal the utter incompatibility of evolution, in any form, with Christianity.But the story doesn't end there. The Bible reveals not only the origin of death, but how this issue will one day be resolved.There will come a time when this world, so marred by the effects of sin and death, including fossils and graveyards "shall melt with fervent heat, the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up.... Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness" (II Peter 3:10,13)."
Evolution and the Wages of Sin
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.
For us, the problem is death before sin.
Secondly, we see that Almighty set patterns, symbols, types, shadows, and cycles to show us how things work in the universe.
And last, it is not I who has a problem with evolution. Everyone has the right to believe whatever they want, so long as they keep their theory to themselves and do not teach my children.
I have often wondered why the government has so much say over what my child is going to learn. Mother and I are the parents, who raised and nurtured. We are very well equipped to teach our children right from wrong, and 1 + 1 = 2.
I also know quite a lot about science, and other subjects. A child is confused when introduced to an opposing belief system. That is why truth of YAH and the origins of man need to begin at home.
Science is not at odds with the bible. People just need to understand the types, symbols, patterns, cycles, and shadows.
-
54 minutes ago, siegi91 said:
First we need to address your concerns. Which, apart from identifying evolution as a lie or a poison, are not very explicit.
So, what are your rational concerns about evolution?
siegi Thank you for your reply.
I have replied to this in another post (I think) in this thread. -
6 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:
This is an interesting theory but it cannot be backed up by Scripture. Why do you believe it? And, yes, I AM cognizant that you have a right to your opinion.
We are to believe that he gives us signs in heaven and earth to know what is going on around us.
Halley's comet, and Israel. 1910 (HC), 1917, 1948, 1967, 1986 (HC), 2001, 2028, 2061 (HC).
We are to believe that he does things in patterns, symbols, types, shadows, and cycles.
120 years, 70 years, 50 years, 40 years, 7 years, and more. Noah's flood = baptism. Moses and Israel and the sea of reeds = baptism. John the Immerser, and Yashua = baptism
Ishmael = old covenant, Isaac = new covenant. Esau = old covenant, Jacob = new covenant. Moses = old, Joshua = new. Elijah = old, Elisha = new. John the Immerser = old, Yashua = new.
We are to believe that he shows us things to come before they happen so we can know that he is doing them.
"Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new things, before they spring forth I proclaim them to you." Isaiah 42:9
We are to love one another as he loved us to show the world that we are who we say we are.
"...love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another, by this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." John 13:35 -
Since "hell" is the grave, it is meaning that a person will be there eternally. Hades, means a place under the ground, where the dead are.
Gehenna is the valley of Hennom in Jerusalem where they threw their trash to be burned. -
20 hours ago, Teditis said:
right... I corrected my math... so how do you get 2068?
The reason for 2068 is because of the 120 years from 1948. The issue is with signs in the heavens, and on earth.
The sign on earth was Israel, 1948. The sign in heaven is Halley's comet, 2061. There are 7 years after this event, and 2068 is 120 years from the previous event.
There are several times where 120 years has a very important meaning.
The time of Noah and the flood of the earth for baptism, 120 years.
The time of Moses. Egypt prince for 40 years. Shepherd for 40 years. Deliverer of Israel for 40 years. 120 years.
The time of Saul 40 years, (was in "egypt", (bondage) with his sins, and hatred for David). The time of David, 40 years, (the shepherd). The time of Solomon, 40 years (The land had peace for 40 years). 120 years. -
1 hour ago, hmbld said:
Baptism is an act we do in obedience, to represent the old man has died-the act of obedience itself is not what forgives the sins or gives new life. To say a Christian is no longer able to sin leads me to think we must be perfect at all times. Where a Christian is forgiven, it does not mean we don't have struggles.
Having struggles and sinning are two different things.
"...you be perfect even as I am perfect...".
To say YAH gives a command that we can not follow is contradictory.
We are asked to stop sinning and that is what baptism is for.
-
2 minutes ago, Teditis said:
Help me understand your math... doesn't 6000 years minus 3930 years put us at 2130?
6000 - 3930 = 2070
-
Actually, baptism is very important.
It shows that we have died to the old man. The ways of the old man.
The sins of the old man.
While a human lives, they are able to sin. Whenever they want.
Once a person dies, they are no longer able to sin. It is impossible.
They are buried, and in the grave. (Hades, hell, the grave.)
Then they are resurrected WITHOUT sin.
Then, they live to the almighty.
All of their sins from their past life are gone.
Now the life they live MUST reflect the spirit. -
The "final" 7 years started in 63 A.D. and ended in 70 A.D. The next "final" 7 years will be 2061 and end 2068.
One of the signs will be Halley's comet. It is going to usher in the final 7 years of this current age. This will occur in 2061.
Everything YAHVAH does, is in cycles, patterns, types, symbols and shadows.
The cycle began when Adam was 130 years old. This was 3930 B.C.
Earth has 6000 years to work, and will rest the 7000th year. This starts in 2068.
As believers, we need to remember that he works in cycles, patterns, types, symbols, and shadows. -
On 11/2/2015 at 4:43 PM, Riverwalker said:
I used to care. I used burn, I used to rage against the liberal and immoral path the world is racing down. I used to bleed the conservative message.
... I used to care.
Then about 12 months ago, I could no longer carry the burden of a society that literally wants to go to hell.
I unplugged the cable, I stopped reading the news, I changed the radio channel from Rush Limbaugh to KLove
I just could no longer fight a losing battle. You cannot save those who do not want to be saved.
I decided instead to focus on the Christian Message, and shine the light in the darkness, to pull as many people from the soon to be wreckage of this world.
Am I silent, no...not at all. But now instead of striving for liberty, and equality and freedom and all the good things that used to make this country and world great, I now strive for the morality and liberty of Christ in the hearts of those who seek Him
In my mind has gone from a country and a world in danger, to a country and a world collapsed, and I am no longer looking to right a ship that seems by all accounts to be capsized, instead I am running a search and rescue operation.
Have I pulled the plug too soon? Is there hope for the world to return to a sane and reasonable place? Is revival possible,? Or are we on the final glide path to tribulation?
Seeking opinions here
I was that way, and I did what you did.
For where we are at in this time, we need to be strong, and stand up for what we believe.
I was in prison for 10 years, and was a lot like the worldly christian that we see today.
Now I am doing things to change the minds of atheists, agnostics, and those who sit on the fence.
We need to remember that it is the death, burial, and resurrection. That is the gospel.
It is a full time job, and I am loving it.
To those who are scientists, we need to show them these things where they are.
For those who are atheists, we need to meet them where they are. We need to show the proof of the hope that is within us.
For others on the fence, we need to show them why they need to get it together. -
1 hour ago, Cody91 said:
what is the reason for this "death, burial, and resurrection"?
Death to the old man, burial of the body that no longer sins, and resurrection to life of the new man who is washed of his past.
Once we rise out of that water, we are a new creation. We have put ourselves IN the anointing, into salvation, into the kingdom.
"The kingdom of YAH does not come with observation, (things you can see) the kingdom of YAH is within you." In your heart, and mind.
"You be transformed, by renewing your mind."
Al things must be cleansed. -
On 1/22/2016 at 5:49 PM, Cody91 said:
Is not the Good News Agape?
The good news is that YAHVAH, "...loved the world, that He gave (handed over) His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish (be lost), but have eternal life (a quickened spirit). "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him"
It is the death, burial, resurrection. -
The Hebrew people used the greek Septuagint, to convert their brothers. Though they gave their children Hebrew names. Since "Jesus" is only a letter translation, it loses its meaning. Both Yosef, (Joseph) and Miriam, (Mary) were from the tribe of Judah, and gave him a Hebrew name.
The Hebrew people who hated that the "christians" were using Psalm 39 (40) "a body you have prepared for me" decided to change the text. After time, it was "you have pierced my ear". This Psalm is quoted in Hebrews 10, and is from the Septuagint.
The Hebrew is Yashua, and means YAH is salvation. Jesus actually has no meaning. Names in Hebrew did mean something, but not the greek to english letter translation. -
14 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:
You weren't attacked. You made a claim and I examined that claim and pointed out the error of that claim. You made your self claim, that bias never affects the information you share, a subject of discussion. Trying to show you the error of such a claim is not a personal attack. The error means you have blinded yourself to a state we all are subjected to - being influenced by our biases. When we are unaware of their influence, we are even more influenced by them. To address the rest of your post in any meaningful way, it seems to me this self claim needs to be addressed first.
you said:
What gospel is it when one is affected by biases they aren't even aware of?
Good grief...
You know what, since you cant see your error, I will show it to you.
A way to distract from the issue is to bring up an issue inside an issue that is not ORIGINALLY part of the argument.On 1/16/2016 at 0:33 PM, completedbeliever1 said:But, in order to teach, one must be qualified. None of us can teach our opinions.
This was Morning Glory. And why did she say this?
Because I said this...
"Preaching is standing and giving something to a group of people without anything in return. That is why I like teaching. Because it is interactive, and the student asks questions, and there is a genuine respect derived from that."
And this...
"What I wrote was a snippet of the whole meaning. Just making it known that I would rather teach, than preach. That is all.
I love input, questions, and debate even."
Now, was I teaching my "opinion" as she said?
Kerux = Preacher = "One who discourses publicly on religious subjects."
Didaskalos = Teacher = " An instructor; a preceptor; a tutor" 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary
Preaching is proclaiming, heralding and announcing news to people – the gospel – especially (but not exclusively) to those who haven’t heard it before. Teaching is explaining things about the gospel that people don’t understand, and instructing them on how to live in light of it.
Preaching Example... “Hear ye! Hear ye! The Emperor has declared an amnesty to all slaves!”
Teaching Example... explaining the implications of the news, helping people with concepts and ideas they don’t understand, and telling people what they need to do in response, given their various situations.Andrew Wilson, elder at Kings Church in Eastbourn.
The problem with that is it WAS a personal attack. How do I know?
A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself.
Was what Morning Glory said "abusive"?
Defamation can take one of two forms: slander or libel. Slander covers oral defamatory statements while libel addresses the written version. Defamation is an abusive attack on a person's character or good name.
Now, was what she said abuse of character? Saying that something is my opinion is not abusing my character. Did she attack my integrity? No.
Was what you said a personal attack/abusive? YES! You dont just say I am biased, you attack my integrity.
"To say there has never been a time bias has bent the information one brings reveals a very deep error in judgment about your own self and your own limitations and your own bias about yourself.
When one is blind to their own biases, then it is a fairly sure given what they are bringing to the table is indeed bent by their biases.
I can only hope and pray that you come to understand the folly of such a position and strive to remove this blindness to your own biases and assumptions."
That is uncalled for.
In earlier posts, I have said that you lack a fundamental understanding of the MEANING of the Old Testament, because you are not able to show proof against my arguments, (ie. sin, baptism, the trinity, and on and on).
That is not abusive in that I attacked your integrity, but your UNDERSTANDING of what something means. If you were to have said that I do not understand something, I would see my error and change my mind, or look for proof that sustains my belief. I wouldnt be happy about it, but at least you wouldnt be attacking me PERSONALLY.
You say that my judgement is in error, and my motives are in error, just like another person here. That is disrespectful, defamation of character, libel.
I am asking you to stop calling my INTEGRITY into question, because I know where my heart is!
You need to be held accountable for your words here in this forum... -
On 1/22/2016 at 0:32 AM, Omegaman 3.0 said:
Not sure what you are saying there, but to me, the idea that that verse says "married only once", is exactly what succumbing to legalism is:
‘BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’I do not disagree that a preacher should have these qualities of character, but I think to say that a preacher must have them, as is taught for overseers, is again, going beyond scripture. We are all (beleivers) being sanctified, in the sense of growing, but the maturity of overseers, is a higher standard in growth, since it is about managment of those under your care. However, all believers should preach what they know, well before they are in charge of looking after the flock. The writer of Hebrews lamented that his readers, were to ignorant, and had to go back to boot camp, when by know, they should have been teachers. Implications there, is that people are at different levels, and different levels, have different requirements and responsibilities. However, anyone saved and aware of the gospel, has at least that much to share, to preach to others, while thier life might take some time, before they catch up enough to looking after the spiritual care of others, that is my point.
All of that though, still belongs in a topic that is not titled, "Looking to become a preacher".
By the way, typically when I reply like that, completedbeleiver1, I am not teaching the poster (you in this case) a lesson, and I am not making a comment on your ignorance as you imply. I am doing so for the sake of others who read these threads, and do not want your inserted interpretation, represented as though it is the word of God, that could lead others to misunderstandings.
You do know what I am saying...
I was talking about teaching the doctrines of men. That is why we have over 1000 denominations.Preachers are required to be accountable to Yashua, because he is a representative of truth.
The topic, "Looking to become a preacher" is exactly what I am saying, and hold to these same truths.
I ask you to be mindful of how you reply. This is a personal attack to my integrity, and could be seen as libel.On 1/22/2016 at 0:32 AM, Omegaman 3.0 said:I am doing so for the sake of others who read these threads, and do not want your inserted interpretation, represented as though it is the word of God, that could lead others to misunderstandings.
-
On 1/21/2016 at 4:39 PM, thereselittleflower said:
This comment is highly revealing:
We all have biases, and we all bring our biases to what we understand and share.
To say there has never been a time bias has bent the information one brings reveals a very deep error in judgment about your own self and your own limitations and your own bias about yourself.
When one is blind to their own biases, then it is a fairly sure given what they are bringing to the table is indeed bent by their biases.
I can only hope and pray that you come to understand the folly of such a position and strive to remove this blindness to your own biases and assumptions.
Again, it is interesting to see that you skip over the entire post, copy the piece where I am defending myself, just to attack my integrity.
If anything is HIGHLY revealing...
Do you ever just say to yourself, "you know what, Im going to respond to the post, and not attack this individual personally."? -
-
2 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said:
Actually it doesn't.
The underlying Greek puts it in the opposite - they gave Paul a fair hearing and searched the scripture because they were more noble, more noble minded, more open minded, etc, because they were more open to receive what Paul said than the Thessalonians were.
This is about comparing two responses to Paul by two different groups and this verse tells us why their response was different - because of their open mindedness, fair mindedness, noble mindedness.
We probably are using "open minded" differently. One translation uses "fair minded" which maybe captures it better for you.
If it were not for their open mindedness, or fair mindedness, they would have treated Paul like the Thessalonians did.
One must never close off their minds to truth.
That is what I said, they listened to Paul because they were more mentally mature than those in Thessolonica. Just because I didnt say "more than those in Thessolonica" does not mean I didnt compare the two.
The inference should have been obvious.
Yeah, one must never do that... -
1 hour ago, thereselittleflower said:
Well I would like to share what I found. When I look at this more closely, I find this:
-
These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.
The writer is making a comparison between the Bereans and the Thessalonicans. This translation says "fair minded" - and since much importance was placed of 'noble minded" in your response, and your claim that this does not mean more open minded, so I've looked at multiple translations:
-
New International Version
Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
New Living Translation
And the people of Berea were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, and they listened eagerly to Paul's message. They searched the Scriptures day after day to see if Paul and Silas were teaching the truth.
English Standard Version
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
Berean Study Bible
Now the Bereans were more noble-minded than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if these teachings were true.
Berean Literal Bible
Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all readiness, on every day examining the Scriptures, whether these things were so.
New American Standard Bible
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
King James Bible
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Holman Christian Standard Bible
The people here were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, since they welcomed the message with eagerness and examined the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
International Standard Version
These people were more receptive than those in Thessalonica. They were very willing to receive the message, and every day they carefully examined the Scriptures to see if those things were so.
NET Bible
These Jews were more open-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they eagerly received the message, examining the scriptures carefully every day to see if these things were so.
Aramaic Bible in Plain English
For those Jews who were there were nobler than those Jews who were in Thessaloniqa, and they were hearing gladly from the word every day while they were distinguishing from Scripture whether these things were so.
GOD'S WORD® Translation
The people of Berea were more open-minded than the people of Thessalonica. They were very willing to receive God's message, and every day they carefully examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true.
New American Standard 1977
Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so.
Jubilee Bible 2000
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all diligence and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
King James 2000 Bible
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
American King James Version
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
American Standard Version
Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily, whether these things were so.
Douay-Rheims Bible
Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.
Darby Bible Translation
And these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, receiving the word with all readiness of mind, daily searching the scriptures if these things were so.
English Revised Version
Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the scriptures daily, whether these things were so.
Webster's Bible Translation
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
Weymouth New Testament
The Jews at Beroea were of a nobler disposition than those in Thessalonica, for they very readily received the Message, and day after day searched the Scriptures to see whether it was as Paul stated.
World English Bible
Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of the mind, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
Young's Literal Translation
and these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, they received the word with all readiness of mind, every day examining the Writings whether those things were so;
A few translations actually say "more open minded" so I looked at what it actually say in the Greek:
I found this doesn't mean what you think it means. It has to do with rank, station:
- †εὐγενής eugenḗs, yoog-en'-ace; from G2095 and G1096; well born, i.e. (literally) high in rank, or (figuratively) generous:—more noble, nobleman.
So they were either more noble BORN, well born, high in rank than the Thessalonicans, or they were more generous than the Thessalonicans.
- These were more noble - εὐγενέστεροι eugenesteroi. This literally means more noble by birth; descended from more illustrious ancestors. But here the word is used to denote a quality of mind and heart. They were more generous, liberal, and noble in their feelings; more disposed to inquire candidly into the truth of the doctrines advanced by Paul and Silas. It is always proof of a noble, liberal, and ingenuous disposition to be willing to examine into the truth of any doctrine presented. The writer refers here particularly to the Jews
- The Jews of Berea did excel those of Thessalonica, not so much in birth as in disposition: they were not so prejudiced and obstinate; they patiently heard Paul; they seriously thought upon what he had said, and compared it with the Scriptures. And thus God gave them the preparation of the heart; and they brought their empty vessels. No wonder then that the oil of grace ran into them, and filled them. The Jews call their learned men, the sons of nobles; and according to that expression, these Bereans, that had acted so ingenuously and wisely, were said to be more noble.
-
They had a freer thought, and lay more open to conviction, were willing to hear reason, and admit the force of it, and to subscribe to that which appeared to them to be truth, though it was contrary to their former sentiments. This was more noble.
They had a better temper, were not so sour, and morose, and ill conditioned towards all that were not of their mind. As they were ready to come into a unity with those that by the power of truth they were brought to concur with, so they continued in charity with those that they saw cause to differ from. This was more noble. They neither prejudged the cause, nor were moved with envy at the managers of it, as the Jews at Thessalonica were, but very generously gave both it and them a fair hearing, without passion orpartiality. (Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible, p. 2141)
Either way, literally or figuratively, they were those of high rank, nobility were better educated, exposed to new ideas a great deal more than the Thessalonicans, and so would be predisposed to be behave more generously toward Paul and his message. In contrast the Thessalonicans drove Paul out of town and refused to hear him.
Also what is interesting is this Greek word translated "noble minded" "open minded" here I found is only used a total of 3 times in scripture. Here are the other two times it is used in all of scripture:
-
1 Co 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
Luk 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
In each of these other 2 instances, it is clearly referring to one's station in life, which would, by direct and obvious inference, include education and upbringing appropriate for that station in life. .
Again, Matthew Henry, in his Commentary on the Whole Bible has something interesting to say about this verse in Luke:II. The good character of the Jews in Berea (Act_17:11): These were more noble than those in Thessalonica. The Jews in the synagogue at Berea were better disposed to receive the gospel than the Jews in the synagogue at Thessalonica; they were not so bigoted and prejudiced against it, not so peevish and ill-natured; they were more noble, eugenesteroi - better bred.Luke is emphasising not only the fact that they were "better bred", but als the fact that the results of their being better bred (which can be a confusing term today for some) were evident.
Here are some definitions from Webster that apply specifically to what Matthew Henry said, and help us see how the usage of this Greek word in Luke ties in with the other two instances it is used in the NT:-
Websters:
Bred
BRED, pp. of breed. Generated; produced; contrived; educated.
Breed
BREED, v.t. pret. and pp. bred.
6. To educate; to instruct; to form by education; often, but unnecessarily, followed by up; as, to breed a son to an occupation; a man bred at a university. To breed up is vulgar.
7. To bring up; to nurse and foster; to take care of in infancy, and through the age of youth; to provide for, train and conduct; to instruct the mind and form the manners in youth.
The Bereans were well born, better educated, better brought up and instructed, had better manners. . . we see this all evidenced in how they responded to Paul, unlike the Thessalonians (who Luke compared them to) who were closed minded, prejudiced, and treated Paul very poorly.
In keeping with all this, here are some notes from Biblical scholars on this verse and this word:
-
Noble-minded, open-minded ou|toi h\san eujgenevsteroi tw`n ejn Qessalonivkh/ these were more open-minded than those in Th. Ac 17:11 A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, 2nd ed., rev. and augmented [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979], 319).
Thus the Jews of Berea were more noble [in character] than those of Thessalonica in their welcome and cordial treatment of the apostles (Celas Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publ., 1994], vol. 2, pg. 94).
eujgenhv", ev": a willingness to learn and evaluate something fairly¾willingness to learn, to be open-minded, to be noble-minded. ou|toi de; h\san eujgenevsteroi tw`n ejn Qessalonivkh/ the people there were more open-minded than the people in Thessalonica Ac 17.11 (Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains ed. by Johannes Louw and Eugene Nida [New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1989], no. 27.48).
Originally refers to nobility of birth, it came to denote those qualities which were expected in people so born, in the same way as Eng. noble. Moffet renders more amenable, LC (better) more generous, . . . It is the equivalent of Lat. generosus, noble, liberal, free from prejudice (F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975], 238).
Additionally:
- Bereas position overlooking the Haliacmon plains, and its proximity to the natural springs at the base of Mount Bermius, made it one of the more desirable towns of the region. Its people were of high social standing, as indicated by inscriptions archaeologists have unearthed as well as Lukes account in Acts, which describes the people as "more noble."
Evidence of the higher social standing of the bereans is even reflected in Acts:
-
And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few.
Luke, in speaking of these honorable women is speaking also of their high social standing - using the same phrase he used in Acts 13:30.
- Act 13:50 But the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.
Other commentators have this to say about the use of the term 'honorable women in Acts 17
-
Honourable women - See the notes on Mar_15:43. Women of influence, and connected with families of rank. Perhaps they were proselytes, and were connected with the magistrates of the city.
Albert Barne Notes on the Bible
Of honorable women which were Greeks - Probably mere heathens are meant; and these were some of the chief families in the place.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the bible
That's all this is saying - they were more open minded than the Thessalonicans.
What I found is Luke was saying here is not that they were more noble because they searched the scriptures, but because they were more noble, more open minded, etc, they were willing to hear Paul and search the scriptures UNLIKE the Thessalonicans.
The word of YAHVAH says they were more noble because they searched the scriptures to see if Paul was correct in his teaching. They were more mature. They were eager to learn.
Social standing aside, rank in office aside, this is about mental maturity.
Barnes, Poole, and Henry all show that it was of education, not breed. (And of course my mother was a horse handler and bred Arabians for a living. The "better bred" is not an argument seeing that the word is talking about mindset, not "nobility".)
Maybe the definition of "open mindedness" differs between you and me, but as of today, we see that to be open minded is to allow false teaching to edge its way into our belief system.
I find it interesting that we are off on a rabbit trail...
Lets get back on topic.
-
-
5 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:
A Berean was someone who, because of the cosmopolitan city they lived in, had developed an oepn minded appreciation of the views of the various peoples and cultures that came through there - it was a major junction in the meeting of multiple cultures as people traveled through in trade and commerce. This broadened their horizons and made them more receptive to giving Paul an honest hearing, which included searching the scripture to see if the passages Paul used said what he actually said. Bereans were open minded people, not closed minded as those were whom Paul had just left
That is what being a Berean is about - being open minded with a desire for truth and diligently verifying what is said.
I find that when I apply their approach to your claims, your claims don't stand up.
Acts 17:11
"The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so. Therefore many of them believed..."
Noble-minded (KJV noble) = having or characteristic of an honorable, upright, and superior mind.
Eagerness (KJV readiness of mind) = enthusiasm to do or to have something
Noble mindedness does not mean to be open minded.
But why with "eagerness"?
This is saying that the people there were honorable and righteous more so than others in the area. And didnt believe or disbelieve on a whim. But why?
Berea (Veria) is only about 45 to 50 miles, depending as shown on Google maps, from Thessaloniki. Since the apostles were already in the area, it is obvious that the word of Yashua was spreading. They must have heard about these men who "turned the world upside down" before they even got there.
"These that have turned the world upside down are come here also..."
But how did they know they had turned the world upside down?
Roughly from Aleppo, Syria to Veria, Greece, there are 1,120 miles. Paul stayed in cities for several weeks teaching while other disciples went elsewhere. To say that "the word of God" was limited to those places they preached, is to say that people were not mobile back then. Gossip is what gossip is, and sometimes, (unfortunately) it runs faster (horseback, boat, chariot) than the truth.
This "are come here also" was just a few verses before. If the men in that city (Thessolonica) said the word "also" then that means they knew about it beforehand. This is the reason the Bereans "...received the word with great eagerness..." They wanted to know if what these men, who turned the world upside down, were saying was true. They gave them an audience and listened. And THEN searched the scriptures.
Paul was in Thessolonica for three weeks before being sent to Berea.
"...they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue. As was his custom, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures."
That was plenty of time for those in Berea to know about Paul, and the "gospel".
But even there Paul got sent out because of the men from Thessolonica.
"But when the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, some of them went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up." -
10 hours ago, thereselittleflower said:
No - just no. They are your private interpretation which ignores the context, which is the creation of man, of Adam and Eve.
No...
You lack a fundamental understanding of the MEANING of the Old Testament.
Just stop and be a Berean. It is not hard to go search these things out to see if they are true.
That is my challenge to all here...
-
28 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:
I do not know of any translation that says: "married only once". In fact, that is not a translation, it is just an interpretation.
In fact, the Greek is 'present indiciative active' of one wife,
in other words all it is saying there is that he be currently not married to more than one woman, and many translations assume that to mean that he is faithful to his wife, but there is no reason in the Greek to force the text to say that he cannot have been married more than once. The passage is stressing that the person has to have good character and good reputation, and is not seeking to restrict a man from being an overseer, if he was viciously divorced through no fault of his own, or is a widower who remarried. That is going way beyond what the scripture says.In any case, the OP asked about being a preacher, not an overseer. A preacher, is one who speaks up and out, about the things of God, all believers are called to be preachers, and to be a legit one, we only need be knowledgeable enough to preach the word with accuracy. Our legitimacy comes from the authority of Jesus Himself, in the great commission.
Now, if the OP means to say that He/she desires to be a pastor as in the chief shepherd in a local body of believers (a church), perhaps that question should be asked, but it should be asked in another part of the forum.
BTW, welcome Kris!
You are pushing this well beyond what is said and meant.
A preacher is subject to these things said in Timothy, and it is by no means restricted to deacons and overseers.
While well thought out, your response was intended to "teach me a lesson" in which you, (along with others), think, or believe, I am ignorant.
Since many christians are ignorant when it comes to old testament/new testament ties, symbols, types, shadows, and patterns, and cycles, they compensate with word studies.
While this is great, they forget that cycles and patterns are more important than succumbing to legalism.
-
45 minutes ago, other one said:
Whatever you did on that post, don't do it again....
To whom is that directed?
sieglinde
Is the doctrine of the Trinity biblical?
in Defense of the Gospel
Posted
And further, I am dispelling lies, so I should be most welcome.