unworthyservant

Now that's a concise and to the point summation of the entire question and I heartily agree. Well said.

I read the article. Some interesting points. Personally, I was more impressed with the way the questioner laid out his case than the answer from the host. The questioner posed very valid points in a concise manner while the answer was somewhat rambling. The reply included a quote from the first century historian, Josephus that was sort of cryptic in spots and didn't even cover the question. The reply also says "when the Jewish canon was later officially ratified, the number of books was 22, suggesting that in the first century a sort of unofficial, de facto Hebrew canon already existed". That doesn't make much sense. How could the ratification of the canon circa 200CE in any suggest what the 1st century Jewish sects were reading? We know for a fact that all the sects but possibly the Saducees were reading the books of the Apocrypha. The only reason there's doubt about the Saducees seems to be another Josephus cryptic passage (I have read it and am not convinced that it says that the Saducees only believed that the Torah was sacred scripture). The reply stated emphatically that after the prophetic line "failed" (not the word I would use) that all histories written after that, "however accurate, do not possess the authority of the earlier books". That's his opinion and doesn't necessarily reflect the beliefs of 1st Century Jews or Christians. I saw nowhere in the entire discussion where anyone addressed the idea that, as a Pharisee, when Paul says "all" one could could reasonably expect that to include the Apocrypha. As there was some debate even this early in the church about certain of those books at the time, it kinda sounds like Paul wanted to make clear that all scripture was sacred including the Apocrypha.

In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul says to Timothy; "15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." I want to hone in on the phrase "all scripture". We know that Paul was a Pharisee. The Pharisees, like the majority of Jewish sects, believed in all OT scripture, including the "Apocrypha". I know most Protestants don't believe that Apocrypha is inspired scripture for various reasons. The question is, as a Pharisee when Paul says "all scripture" does it not follow that would include the Apocrypha? While many Protestant denominations reject these books, the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox churches still accept most of them. Many were included in early Protestant English Bibles. Luther's Bible of 1534 published them as a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. They were included in the Geneva Bible with the following preface ""These books were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church and did not serve to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same". The Anglican Communion accepts the Apocrypha "for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine". These Protestant Bibles actually included three books; 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh that are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles. To this date, the Apocrypha are included in the lectionaries of Anglican and Lutheran Churches. Modern Anabaptists still use the aforementioned Luther Bible with the Apocrypha included. The Revised Common Lectionary, used by many mainstream Protestants including Methodists, lists readings from the Apocrypha in the liturgical calendar. The original 1611 King James Bible included them in a separate section. It wasn't until the early 19th century that these books were removed from most Protestant Bibles. For many years the The American Bible Society forbade their inclusion until the restriction was lifted in 1964. So, the question is simply, did Paul exhort us to study the Apocrypha and if so are the Protestants who deny these books missing the boat?

I know from my own research that there's no consensus on the subject. Yes, Christ told us that we could know His followers by their fruits but some who espouse "Eternal Security" believe that once one asks God to forgive them and accepts Christ as their Savior, then they are saved regardless of any lack of fruits or continued sinful behavior. They use terms like "backslidden" to explain someone who in this situation.

I'd like to hear some opinions on the idea of "Eternal Security". I'm familiar with it from a Baptist and Methodist point of view but I know there are lots of varying beliefs on the subject. I am familiar with some of the verses that are the cornerstone for the basic idea, such as John 3:16, John 5:24 and John 10:28-29 to name a few. (I've recently been studying the Gospel of John which I find to be the most intriguing of the Gospels for study). I've also studied those verses people quote against the idea, such as 1 Corinthians 15:1-2, Hebrews 3:14, 2 Peter 2:20-22 and of course Matthew 24:13 where Christ says “But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”. A theoretical question for those who believe in the concept. If a serial killer comes to Christ by saying the "sinners prayer" or something along those lines and is baptized (as many believe baptism is key) and the engages in another killing spree, is that person really "saved"? Let's say this time at least each time he kills he asks God for forgiveness, does that change things? There's an old story that illustrates the way many people see Christianity. It goes something like this; "I asked God for a bike. I was disappointed when I didn't get one. Then I went to church and the pastor there told me that's not how God works, so I stole a bike and asked God for forgiveness." So, is eternal security some get out of jail free card for sin? What do you believe?

You quote the Strong's summary for the Hebrew word Kashaph. It meant to practice sorcery, divination or necromancy. I was curious as to your take on how the Greek word Paul used "Pharmakeia" became witchcraft in 16th and 17th century English Bible translations.

He told some who were healed to show themselves to the priest at the temple because Christ adhered to Old Testament Law, and I believe that we too should follow His example. I look at the example of healing as something that I'll deal with when I find myself in a position to be the recipient of such a healing or the conduit for the same. Otherwise, I think it serves as a reminder that Christ taught us that the Law would stand "Until heaven and earth pass away". His sacrifice on the cross did fulfill some of the law and the prophecies and He did clarify a couple of points in the law, such as lusting is committing adultery, calling another names in anger is just as damning as murder and that divorce did not mean one could remarry. I believe that the mountain moving was meant for every follower of Christ. It was geared to the disciples when they were unable to cast out a demon from a boy. He spoke of faith. "If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you." I believe that Christ meant what He said for all of us. If we could only have that kind of faith, nothing would be impossible. I don't pretend to know what that faith would be, as I've never moved a mountain, but since Christ says it's possible, I believe it. What words do you believe were intended for Israel and not for us? You ask me to clarify what I mean by the "teachings" of Christ. I see the teachings of Christ as everything He said that relates to any situation that I may find myself in and believe His teachings are not only found in His words but in His actions.

I believe that the entire modern idea that we must, can or should give a proper name to God is problematic to say the least. When God told Moses to tell Pharaoh to free the Israelites we read the following exchange in Exodus Chapter 3; 13And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? 14And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. So God didn't give a proper name, only the cryptic "I am" or "I am that I am". This kinda sounds like God didn't want to be known by a human name. It is in Exodus Chapter 6 where we first see the name that became Jehovah in English translations. There we read; 2And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I am the LORD: 3And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. As noted in another reply, the Hebrew word that ended up being translated "Jehovah" was actually, when transliterated letter by letter, either YHWH or YHVH. Notice these words really have no definite pronunciation as they contain no vowels. Given the aforementioned “I am that I am”, it was a Jewish custom to never utter a name for God and many believe that is why the word itself is basically unpronounceable. The Latin Vulgate Bible of the 4th century translated YHWH as Dominus, simply meaning Lord. So, how did YHWH or YHVH ever become Jehovah? It seems that’s quite a story. Early English translators expanded the word to “Yahweh”. Later English translators felt they had to have a name that was more English friendly. So, instead of transliterating the actual letters, they transposed the four constants YHWH with the vowels of another Hebrew word transliterated Adonai. The word Adonai was a more generic word that’s translated in most English bibles as Lord and was never meant to be a formal name for God himself. As a matter of fact there are several words in the Hebrew Scriptures to describe God that are not names for God. Among them in transliterated and translated version are, El Elyon (God Most High) Shaddai, (Almighty), Ehyeh, (I am) and Tzur, (Rock). There is also reference to YHWH Tzvaot meaning Lord of Hosts. Christ referred to God as "Abba" in Aramaic, an informal term for "father". Never did Christ use a name for God aside from Father or our Heavenly Father. Then there are the words “El” and “Elohim” which are often used to refer to gods other than the Almighty. This conundrum is all the more baffling considering in most English versions of the Holy Bible the word Jehovah only appears 6-7 times. The exception to that rule is the New World Translation, a Bible published by the Watchtower Society of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. There it appears over 7000 times. (That is a Story for another day and time). At any rate, man’s attempts to name God with earthly names is not only futile but is evidence of man’s arrogance that he can define and name the Most Holy God. As for the name of the son, His earthly given name was Jesus. Since Christians believe He is the Christ, He's also known by that name as well. I use them somewhat interchangeably unless the conversation dictates otherwise. I don't know that naming Christ is as much a conundrum as naming the Almighty!

I agree it's a conundrum and didn't mean to imply that we can "justify ourselves by works as to being worthy to receive salvation" but rather that Christ taught that the world could know our faith by our works as noted in Matthew 7:16-20, Matthew 12:33-37 and Luke 6:43-45. I am curious. I see you quote the KJV version of Paul's list of "works of the flesh". I'm curious as to what you think of the idea that witchcraft is listed.

I believe that was my first post when I was here before. Your comments on Uzzah are right on point. I'm back for another go around.

I have for some time now, studied the teachings of men and compared them to the teachings of Christ and the commandments of God. It is these teachings and the traditions that emerge from them that have splintered the "Christian" community into an estimated 45,000 denominations worldwide. I find that they permeate every denomination which I have researched to some degree or another and compromise the bulk of beliefs in many. The Gospel of Christ and the commandments of God are fairly self explanatory when you take away the teachings and traditions of men. Unfortunately,men have had over 2000 years to add their own 2 cents worth to those teachings and sometimes it's difficult to convince those who wish to follow Christ that 2000 years of tradition may indeed be wrong or sinful in the eyes of God.

"There is none so blind as he who will not see! The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know." (John Heywood)

What does the chronological order of Roman Emperors and Christ have to do with the price of eggs in China or for that matter, anything that I said? I didn't mention any chronological order as it's totally irrelevant to the point (or any point I have made). If all you're saying is that you're knowledgeable on the chronology of Christ and the Roman Emperors, then congratulations. I'm somewhat impressed. If somehow you find that knowledge relevant to the issue at hand please advise as to it's significance. umm...God bless

And the Ds know how ruthless and lacking in absolute morals the Rs are, so what's your point? Neither party has a monopoly on ruthlessness or moral bankruptcy. My point is simple. Are you willing to cripple your Christian testimony to Dems everywhere over mean spirited partisan political rhetoric?

There's lots of things that both sides should quit doing for moral reasons that are a little more relevant to me than who actually repeats their talking points. All I'm saying is when Christians engage in public hyper-partisan rhetoric they are running the risk of damaging their Christian testimony with those on the other side. I don't begrudge anyone their right to believe about politics as they wish and vote their conscience, but as Christians we should think about our testimony before engaging in hyper partisan public discourse. I will comment on actions that I find morally reprehensible regardless of the party affiliation but try and make sure to not cross that line of attacking someone just because of their political beliefs. And BTW I vetted your claim that the Dems are hiring paid actors to voice their opinions (or talking points) publicly. My research found a fairly equal number of accusations of that very thing on both sides for years. I couldn't find any hard numbers that were verifiable but while some differed over who spent the most it looked like a close race to me, so when you fail to mention that the Republicans do it too that makes it a partisan statement when in reality it seems that it's a problem on both sides. I'm just saying...God Bless

Actually if you'll check, he doesn't give it to charities but rather to Government agencies such as the SBA, etc. And if you're suggesting that I should praise him for giving his paycheck (which is a pittance compared to his wealth) to Government agencies only after he has a reelection campaign to think about after a lifetime of well documented notoriously miserly giving you're living in a "fool's paradise". I'd be so much more impressed if he would, as Zacchaeus did, say “Lord, I give half of my goods to the poor; and if I have taken anything from anyone by false accusation, I restore fourfold.” and then do it. That might actually help in a meaningful way.

I'm sure God can and will handle it! I just don't think Christians should defend it. Let God handle it!

God does put our leaders in power according to His will. He put Nero and Caligula in power but I'd never defend their actions either. He put George Washington and Barack Obama in power as well and I would call out any of them if they acted in this manner. God put Caligula in power but he abused it. Then you say "that is the same as God because Christians do His work..or are supposed 2 anyway" so now you're seeming to compare Trump to God and if that's the case then I rest my case that hyper-partisan rhetoric isn't in any way productive to a Christian witness. And if you're suggesting that Christians supposed to do Trump's work just as they are supposed to do God's then that's another issue all together.

I feel what we really need is a way to hold all politicians and elected officials regardless of party affiliation accountable for everything they do and quit the hyper-partisan rhetoric that will serve only to alienate those who have opposing party opinions.

You were probably referring to that guy behind that tree. If it's surely not you and certainly not me it must be that guy behind that tree.

I just don't think it's something to play around with.

Same here in the good old USofA.

I watched again and he didn't roll them, he turned them to the heavens head and all.

First I don't know of an instance where I made judgemental comments about any person about money. I call out the actions but not a person. I knew that wasn't popular long ago but when I talk about actions such as the use of wealth it's not any personal attack on anyone but a hope that someone somewhere might see that they have fallen into the money trap and have a change of heart. And sometimes it's when people see that the actions that I describe are those in which they participate that they think it's personal but that's only because the actions are personal not because I said anything personal about the person. I wasn't insinuating that it was a joke as I rook it quite serious. I was simply pointing out the fact that it was insensitive given the modern usage and could be taken as offensive by someone else who was unfamiliar with your definition as I was and while it's going to be like water off a ducks back for me it might not be so for the homosexual who had the same reaction. So, I'm always on the side of caution when it comes to such things and still think it was insensitive even if no double entendre was intended. BTW, only God knows your intentions, I can only speak to my interpretation of the words and my concerns that someone more sensitive than myself (someone who might see it as personal) might see it and become disillusioned about the sensitivity or compassion of us as Christians. That's all God bless

All I'll say is that I'm compelled to call out what I believe to be problematic behavior or rhetoric every time I see where it could even possibly unnecessarily have any detriment to anyone's ability to witness to anyone, and in this case it's obvious that regardless of your intention of definition your statement has the possibility of being interpreted as a derogatory term for homosexuals and thus undermine any efforts to witness to any homosexual who might take it as such. So I'm calling it as I see it. The only culture I wish to cultivate is one of God's love and it can't be imposed on anyone. I just wish everyone could be more sensitive about words that could be seen as derogatory attacks on persons. While I believe in calling out actions and words I try my best to avoid language that could possibly be seen as personal attacks on anyone. That's all God bless