Jump to content


Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

176 Excellent


About thilipsis

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 05/11/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Apologetics, Creationism and especially, Bible study
  1. Genesis ch 1&2

    The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God. Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary) It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) , has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31). Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s Dictionary). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52). Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is regularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'. Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc. The creation account has great significance for the rest of Scripture and how these terms are used in the original and their natural context is essential to really following the text as it was intended to be understood.
  2. Welcome to the forums, hope you enjoy your stay.
  3. Thanks Lou, hope your enjoying your time here. Some nice people post here.
  4. My Grandfather used to say, you can't outrun that radio. Wonder what he would have thought of a teletype. I guess there is only so much you can do. Such a senseless crime, I can understand wanting to bring them to account. I'll bet you do, it's always comforting to know guys like you are out there. For some reason I used to hate the cops, thought they were kind of arrogant. One day a friend of mine was riding around on his motorcycle and had this hand with a middle finger up, he was just messing around but a cop noticed it. He pulls him over and they are giving him the business, he says, it's not offensive it's how you take it. A Sargent comes out and says it's a free country and let us go. I remember thinking, these guys are alright. Guess you had to be there.
  5. If I were a criminal I would hate to have you coming after me. But seriously, thank you for your service and I wish you great success in your recovery. With your background and education I imagine you could be a great teacher, maybe an author.
  6. Welcome, hope you enjoy your stay.
  7. The Holy Trinity?

    All I can tell you is what I have come to discern as the distinction of the Holy Spirit. It's something you have to develop over time, which is the best way I can describe it: Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’ So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest. (Heb. 3: 7-11) My problem was the incarnation, God becoming man was too much for me. Over time I came to think about the voice of the Holy Spirit as something indicating personality and I can only express this as a personal conviction. I heard his voice so real in the Psalms, distinct and at the same time in harmony with the Father and Son. There is the personal pronoun 'he' which is often cited but for me it was more about something like a sound. The Father is more authoritative, the Son more conciliatory, both saying the same thing but in ways that were discernibly distinctive. The Holy Spirit I have long thought is more personable, I hear it clearly in the Psalms, not so much in the Law. I realize this is my perception in a lot of ways but it's important. You can take the verse a lot of ways I suppose but consider this: But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions. (Heb. 1:8-9) The Father says this of the Son, later the Spirit speaks. I don't have a road map here nor I pretend to have the proof text. But what I am seeing is a conversation between the members of the Trinity, sometimes with one another and sometimes concerning you. This is my take on this and I realize we all have things we work out over time. Sure, at the baptism of Christ the Father is speaking from heaven, Christ is on earth and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove. The Father isn't saying listen to him as you would me, or listen to me period, he is saying you must hear and head the words of my Son. Jesus was all the time saying he did the will of the Father and if he spoke from his authority it meant nothing. So how does that work if God incarnate isn't using the same authority as God speaking from heaven? In John 1:1 where it says the Word was with God and was God it actually means, literally, face to face. You see, for me it came down to the incarnation and the distinction between Father and Son was a very big deal. The Upper Room Discourse is an important point to consider. Look at the distinction Jesus makes between himself and the Holy Spirit. I didn't write it and I can't tell you what to make of it but it's very clear. Jesus is telling them, I am leaving and the Holy Spirit will come, but I will return. In addition he promised them the Holy Spirit would be with them forever, even though he would soon be leaving. It's simply not an easy doctrine to wrap your mind around. I can tell you what I think and how I came to believe the way I did but I think it will come down to you doing the work of learning the Scriptures. The Upper Room Discourse is a very key place to start. May God guide you in your understanding and I'm happy to discuss this at any length. Grace and peace, Mark
  8. The Holy Trinity?

    At baptism the Holy Spirit descended in the bodily form of a dove, the Father spoke from heaven. The Holy Spirit was with them because the Holy Spirit was with him. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit took charge of the church and one day Christ will return. The Apostles were upset that Jesus was leaving but he was telling them the Holy Spirit will come, if I don't leave he wont, but he will and be with you forever. Then sometime later I will return. It makes sense if you can juggle some of the confusing overlap.
  9. The Holy Trinity?

    That really doesn't fit the Upper Room Discourse, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. (John 14:10) “If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:15-17) There are a number of examples of this and it's very consistent. Some pretty general statements, let's see where you go with this. I assume the reference to 'God' is causing some confusion. Got to be honest here, I went through something a lot like this years ago. My thing wasn't the Holy Spirit or the Father but the Incarnation. I did all the cross referencing and for the life of me I couldn't see it for quite a while, actually a year or two. Eventually the opening verses of John's Gospel and Hebrews began to sink in but what broke through was Jesus' before the High Priest convinced me. The Trinity is one of the great paradoxical doctrines of the New Testament, the Old Testament puts so much emphasis on God being one and then with the New Testament revelation emerges with all the elements of three persons all being the one eternal God. I do a lot of debate, I can understand if you find it tiresome and tedious, you'll have to work this out over time. Just a word of advice, not interested in being confrontational here because believe me I can empathize. Find a text like the Upper Room Discourse and take some time to do a careful exposition, the cross referencing will come in time. Take as much as time as you need and let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I enjoy this kind of thing, sorting through expositions is one of my favorite pass times. That's a solid point, sound Biblical support. Every now and then a point like that just needs to be allowed to sink in. “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:” (John 16:7-8) Grace and peace, Mark
  10. Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums. Hope you enjoy your time on here.
  11. People forget the forces that forged the scientific revolution and the rise of democracy had their roots in the Protestant Reformation. I think in the wake of the American Revolution there was a religious lateral drift into a more emotive sensibility. Our seminaries have gone to seed and after generations upon generations we got wave after wave of philosophical atheism and naturalism put in theological terms. A Christian moral consensus would be a profound force in US politics except its working in reverse. That's not on elected officials it's been far too much compromise on doctrine and moral issues and that fiasco is on professing Christians selling out to the spirit of the age.
  12. Welcome to WCF discussion forums. Some nice folks here hope you enjoy your stay
  13. The Day of the Lord

    The 'day of the Lord', appears to be final judgment day. It's also called the Great White Throne. The OT tends to speak of it as a day when God destroys his enemies in one final decisive battle so one wonders if this happens at the return of Christ.
  14. Kerry says settlements endanger peace

    According to some uncustomarly detailed references from Wikipedia: "The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law." (Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. American Society of International Law.) "the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars." (“Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". (In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law. 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Pertile, Marco 2005) "The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation." (Barak-Erez, Daphne 2006. "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press.) That's a short list with quotations, for more see the references for: International law and Israeli settlements, Wikipedia. Look, I don't agree with the legal reasoning or the international consensus but it's real. Grace and peace, Mark
  15. Lyman Stewart, mobilizing a network of conservative evangelical writers into a movement in defense of the inspiration and authority of the Bible and the core doctrines of traditional Christian faith. The 12-volume series of book-length journals contained 90 essays commissioned from leading theologians and religious leaders broadly representing conservative and evangelical Protestantism. (The Untold Story of the Fundamentals, Biola University) I saw a definition of, 'evangelical', once in a Websters Dictionary it said that evangelical is an attempt to have one's thoughts begin and end with the Scriptures. At the time I thought is was a pretty apt description of a Christian but over the years I've come to realize that Christian scholarship has drifted further and further from the Scriptures as the standard for doctrine, discipline and most importantly, redemptive history. To me evangelical theology is the idea that the gospel is more then a social theory but the collective prophetic and Apostolic witness regarding God's sovereign rule in the affairs of man since the beginning. I have spent a great deal of time dealing with Liberal Theology, Darwinism and the modern bias against anything remotely supernatural. What I have learned is that modern academics demeans and deprecates the Scriptures at every turn and the final straw for me was when I learned that most Christian seminaries are soaked with a naturalistic philosophy put in theological terminology. What I intend to share here are my thoughts on the first essay in the series, 'The Fundamentals', (see BLB, Text Commentaries. R.A. Torrey). We hear all the time about Islamic Fundamentalists doing horrific things in the name of Allah and at times fundamentalist Christians can be colored in the same light. The truth is that a Fundamentalist Christian, an evangelical, treasures the testimony of Scripture and seeks the will of God. We are not suicide bombers and we are not interested in forcing people to submit to a religious code against their will. We are simply Bible believing Christians. The rise of Modernism, Liberal Theology, Post Modernism and this nebulous contrivance known as Emerging Theology has never had their roots in Biblical or traditional Christian theism. A hundred years ago there was a network of Bible believing scholars who exposed the bias behind, 'Higher Criticism', the famous JEPD theory. These are echos from that time when naturalistic philosophies were starting to pass themselves off as Christian. The strangest part for me as a Christian is that so much of our scholarship has defected to this profoundly worldly philosophy. The dominant men of the movement were men with a strong bias against the supernatural. This is not an ex-parte statement at all. It is simply a matter of fact, as we shall presently show. ( (The History of the Higher Criticism, Anti-supernaturalism) What we think of as supernatural is perfectly natural for God. The Incarnation, Resurrection, miracles of the Bible and the epic panorama of redemptive history seems little more then myth and legend to the modern mind. So how does Christian theology get inundated at the dawn of the twentieth century with the naturalistic assumptions of modern academics? Apparently the trail leads back to the French rationalist Spinoza, who was an unapologetic pantheist. Pantheism is the idea that everything is God so what does that have to do with the rise of Higher Criticism? 1670, Spinoza came out boldly and impugned the traditional date and Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch and ascribed the origin of the Pentateuch to Ezra or to some other late compiler. (The Fundamentals, Torrey) Ezra was the scribe who returned with thousands of Jews from Babylon, during that time the Temple and the walls of Jerusalem were rebuilt and complete under the authority of Nehemiah. The Old Testament canon was closed around that time, the last books of the Protestant Old Testament were composed including the Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah. Malachi would be the final installment but the modern scholar goes further then that. They believe that the entire Old Testament was somehow complied at that time. Thousands of years of redemptive history is dismissed as just so stories. This did not start with Christian or Hebrew scholarship, this began with the musings of a European rationalist who was really just a philosophical atheist. This goes through stages from the French-Dutch, German and then finally British American theologies that were becoming increasingly naturalistic in their orientation. 1. They were men who denied the validity of miracle, and the validity of any miraculous narrative... 2. They were men who denied the reality of prophecy and the validity of any prophetical statement… 3. They were men who denied the reality of revelation…constructed on the assumption of the falsity of Scripture. That's the gist of it and I can tell you from personal experience that it is alive and well and passing itself off as Christian on an epic scale. I've tried to make this concise and to the point in the hope of opening a discussion on the subject of Fundamentalist and Evangelical theology as it relates to Christian apologetics. This is just a sample intended to see if there is any interest in the subject matter. Grace and peace, Mark