Jump to content

stillseeking

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

86 Neutral

4 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sure, but which ones, and why or why not? How do most Christians end up coming to the conclusion that eating shrimp is ok whilst other things are not ok? The only Christians I am aware of who strive to keep all the Old Testament laws are Messianic Jews (Jewish believers in Yeshua as the Messiah) and those caught up in the Hebrew Roots movement. Is this sort of thing the philosophy that you advocate? I will post those verses here. They do not seem to say what you suggest; do you mind clarifying how you derived the meaning of "essential laws" and how you believe those verses instruct us to adhere to those things specifically? Hebrews 6:1-8 - 6 Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2 instruction about cleansing rites,[b] the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment. 3 And God permitting, we will do so. 4 It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, 5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age 6 and who have fallen[c] away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 7 Land that drinks in the rain often falling on it and that produces a crop useful to those for whom it is farmed receives the blessing of God. 8 But land that produces thorns and thistles is worthless and is in danger of being cursed. In the end it will be burned. 1 Timothy 4:1 - 4 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
  2. What makes a law essential or non-essential? I've already stated the case both ways (for and against it being "essential")--so why do you believe the argument for it being essential is stronger? What do you believe is the definition of "porneia" (the Greek word translated as "sexual immorality" in both the Acts 15 example I gave and the Corinthians example you provided)? And, since you believe that (otherwise permitted) sex is NOT permitted if the woman is on her monthly, then do you also believe it's unlawful to touch her during that time? (Because that's part of the same sexual purity law, as I showed by including both Lev. 20:18 AND Lev 15:19 in my post above). If it's NOT ok to touch her, do you then adhere to that by never shaking hands with a woman ever? If it IS ok, then why do you follow that sexual purity law insofar as prohibiting the act of intercourse itself but not the "don't even touch her" part? This terminal cancer reference is a bit confusing, and seemingly off topic. Can you explain what you're getting at? I have more questions for you but will leave it at this short list for now
  3. How can we be sure which ones are essential vs. non-essential?  . GALATIANS.5:19-21 (NKJV) = 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Thank you for your reply. However, I do not see how this answers the question. It reiterates that certain acts are sin but does not preclude the possibility that breaking other parts of the law are not sin. We don't have a surefire way to classify "moral" versus "ceremonial" laws, as I've heard many claim. This distinction is man-made. For an example of the lack of clarity in these distinctions, consider the following: Should a husband and wife have relations during the wife's period, (assuming both want to)? Supposedly "clean and unclean" doesn't matter anymore, making it a ceremonial matter. However, it could be argued that it's a moral matter as well: In Acts 15:28-29, the apostles clarify that the gentile believers don't have to follow all the Jewish laws, but they DO give them a small handful to keep: 28"It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond these essential requirements: 29You must abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” The word translated above as "sexual immorality" is the Greek word "porneia", which was understood to refer to all of the Old Testament ("biblical", at that time,) sexual sins. Having relations with a woman on her period certainly appears to be one of them: Leviticus 20:18 - 18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people. In fact, it was "unclean" to even touch her: Leviticus 15:19 - 19 “‘When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. So, the distinction is not clear. I appreciate your reply but still have this question (of which laws are essential/non-essential, ceremonial vs moral, etc)!
  4. How can we be sure which ones are essential vs. non-essential? Jesus didn't seem to make that distinction in Matthew 23:1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. And James seemed to think that the 4 initial prohibitions to the Gentiles were just a "starter kit" and that they'd pick up the rest of the Jewish rules by attending synagogue (Acts 15:20): 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
  5. No one "does" the will of the father perfectly, so how can we determine who is counted as "doing"? Look at youtube for this video where someone change water into wine: Yif Magic水變酒 [官方HD] Water to Wine If he does it in the name of Jesus it will be like this : Look at youtube : Shocking miracle !!! Water turned into wine, history has been repeated. I'm not sure those examples count...the verse mentions those who PERFORMED MIRACLES, not APPEARED TO do so. Echoing @Pollycy's question. Then how is it possible that many will perform miracles in Jesus' name and still go to hell? We don't know if they did or didn't. What's terrifying to me is that it seems frightfully easy to accidentally believe the wrong thing and accidentally be sent to hell. It's incredibly difficult to figure out the truth...ask 6 different scholars and get 6 different answers And yes, that can be 6 different Christian scholars...I verified this myself by asking a number of different pastors, "Who are the people who, in Matt 7:21-23, get sent to hell even though they did good things in Jesus' name?" Praying for wisdom and discernment on this doesn't seem to help. God is silent on that so far. And those with explanations can never seem to provide sufficient reasons why their interpretation is correct and others are wrong. It's a huge frustration for me that the entire Christian experience is a joyless fear of accidentally going to hell for accidentally being deceived.
  6. Even in the days of Polycarp, there was a discrepancy about the proper date to celebrate Easter. Right now, it's thousands of years later, and there are lots of theories out there supporting a Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday crucifixion. Spirit-filled Christians believe all any one of them, depending on the individual. On the other hand, though, I'm not sure that God is concerned with which specific days we honor Him, beyond what he's specifically stipulated (controversially perhaps Sabbaths, biblical feasts, etc...and there's disagreement even among these!) He wants us to honor Him either way: Romans 14:4 "Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. 5One man regards a certain day above the others, while someone else considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes a special day does so to the Lord; he who eats does so to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God"
  7. Is this what you're referring to? Still don't see an issue. The Bible doesn't say what day he was or wasn't crucified, so I see no issue with the Bible. Why are you looking for support of a Friday crucifixion?
  8. I don't see a discrepancy here. Jewish days began in the evening of what we'd call the previous day. Sabbath began on Friday evening and ended on Saturday evening. Practicing Orthodox Jews and Seventh Day Adventists still use this idea. With that same schedule, the first day of the week, Sunday, actually began on a Saturday evening.
  9. Regarding the idea of remarriage after a divorce: It was allowed in Old Testament times, even though it wasn't the ideal. A remarried woman should stay with her new husband. Deuteronomy 24:1 "“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens [a]that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, 2 and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 and if the latter husband [b]turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God gives you as an inheritance." Regarding the validity of the second marriage: The biblical definition of marriage, echoed by Jesus in the new testament, is this: Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Note the lack of any specifics regarding ceremonies or licensing. In fact, government registrations of marriages (as an additional requirement BEYOND a regular marriage) didn't even exist until very recently. Even church marriages didn't exist for hundreds of years in the early church.
  10. Here are some of the evidence points which were game changers for me: The universe is so finely tuned, to the point where mathematicians have dubbed the utter improbability of a number of speeds, distances, sizes, etc. to be mathematically impossible, that a designer at work makes more sense than assuming random happenstance The arguments that the sources about Jesus are simply unreliable don't make sense once you understand that we have even less to go by for most other events and persons from ancient history. For example, the sources we have on Jesus are closer to his life and greater in number than Tiberius Caesar or Alexander the Great. Mainstream scholars recognize a number of facts about the historical person of Jesus. These include that he died by crucifixion, that his followers and others claimed to have seen him in body, that Christianity began because of such claims, that the followers of Jesus believed he had risen to the point they were willing to die for their beliefs, that the resurrection story and message began to spread almost immediately after the crucifixion, that Jesus' own unbelieving brother James became a Christian because of his experience with the resurrected Christ, that there was no body in the tomb following the resurrection event, and that the Jewish leaders and Roman authorities who wanted to squash the new movement also admitted there was no body in that they themselves ended up trying to explain it away. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies about him, many of which he had no reasonable control over, such as where he'd be born, how he'd be betrayed, how the betrayal reward money would be spent, and how he would die.  And see the post I made right before this for a list of positive trait and actions which were displayed toward me, by someone who I consider to have been a big help.
  11. Exactly--conversion was a result of personal research, and a result of my seeking God. No one pushed me into seeking, or into belief. Sometimes it was brought up respectfully in conversations, but once I expressed disinterest in it, the person who I'd say helped me the most NEVER pushed it further. This person did demonstrate admirable Christian behavior and was super patient with first my debates with him and then later my Bible questions. You're right; I haven't supplied a list of positive traits which were helpful, as in this thread, I've mainly focused on things I hope people will stop doing which people might not be aware of--especially to an audience of people whose primary stumbling block is God's very existence rather than anything beyond that. A short list of helpful things might include displaying Christian behavior to the point where the person wonders how one person can possibly be so loving, educating yourself on the rational arguments which exist for God's existence and the resurrection, leading conversations in gentle ways that make the other person think about whether God exists, praying for them, and being available to enthusiastically answer any questions that come up. In support of the above: "the person wonders how one person can possibly be so loving" 1 John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." Matthew 5:16 "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." "educating yourself on the rational arguments which exist for God's existence and the resurrection" 1 Peter 3:15 "But [a]sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a [b]defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and [c]reverence" "leading conversations in gentle ways that make the other person think about whether God exists" 1 Corinthians 3:6 "I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth." 1 Corinthians 9:22 "To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak; I have become all things to all men, so that I may by all means save some." "praying for them" Matthew 9:28 "Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.”" Colossians 4:2 "Devote yourselves to prayer, keeping alert in it with an attitude of thanksgiving; 3 praying at the same time for us as well, that God will open up to us a door for the word, so that we may speak forth the mystery of Christ..." "being available to enthusiastically answer any questions that come up" 1 Peter 3:15 (again) "But [a]sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a [b]defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and [c]reverence" An honest examination of myself and all the evidence I'd accumulated didn't result in a eureka moment until after almost 10 years of debating and researching. Yes, I'm stubborn I just thank God that He didn't go send me to live in a forest like a wild animal (Daniel 4:33 style) before I came to belief.
  12. That very well may be true. However, the purpose of this post is not to identify who is to blame for someone's missed salvation--it's to identify how we can be more effective with people so they don't miss salvation. How you say something ultimately makes all the difference in whether or not someone will listen and take you seriously. How you practice love and patience will determine if that person sees you as a hypocrite or a genuine person. If we're serious about reaching the lost, these are the things we'll care about.
  13. In that case I'm confused about your statements here: Generally, exaggerated punctuation coupled with false accusatory questions such as the above comes across as angry, especially on an internet forum So, apologies if I misunderstood your intention, but understand how it came across. Thanks. This interaction is actually a perfect example that illustrates some issues with approaches which I see. I've tried to calmly explain what they are, but I've been met with impatience, accusations, and anger. If your intentions are truly as pure as you claim, a quick "I'm sorry that came across wrong" would have probably fixed it. Instead, I see an angry sounding post with lots of exaggerated punctuation and accusatory questions. Maybe you can understand how I reacted to you when you see that you reacted to someone else the same way: Now why are you advising me to pray for mercy... I believe Jesus and trust in the Atonement he secured for me on the cross... I already have His mercy.. The above example is one where you also interpreted a potentially neutral Christian admonition as something further. I mention it only to help you understand that what you just did here is similar to how I reacted to you; maybe you can see how it's possible for things like this to come across in ways other than which we intended. I hope going forward we can practice humility and patience in our interactions.
  14. Little confused here. I see a lot of anger in you post. That's exactly the thing that makes people not want to confide in you or answer you about salvation, and that's kind of been the whole point of this thread. You are also over-exaggerating what you imagine to be my reaction to your question. Why? As I've stated before, the only issue I have is the way people go about evangelism--and presently, the way you're going about this. I read your posts and sense impatience and anger. You must feel you are owed the answer you expect to your personal questions to me; otherwise you would not respond with such anger when you fail to get it. This information is not owed to you. I answer to God, not you. (Not that you're owed this information, either, but another forum member managed to pose a similar question to me which WAS met with my response...in a private message. It's all in how you say it.) I don't need to defend my salvation to you anymore than Jesus needed to defend his lordship to those that questioned him...or the same way a mother would never feel obligated to answer a stranger off the street saying, "Do you even know HOW to take care of that baby?" or to the girl who just bought a sports car, "Do you actually know how to drive that thing?" etc. A question that puts people on the defensive generally isn't very 'loving'. Similar questions could be asked under different circumstances and prove far more effective when delivered with love. In summary, demanding answers to personal questions at inopportune times and then getting angry when people don't answer is *not* loving. This is the sort of thing which drives people away and makes them not really want to talk to the aggressors.
×
×
  • Create New...