Soapbox - Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

23,150 Excellent

About shiloh357

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Standing for Israel and defending Israel from Islam, anti-Zionism and Replacement theology.

Recent Profile Visitors

15,760 profile views
  1. Most Messianic Jews in the US are members of local churches. They might meet in Messianic Jewish congregations over the Sabbath, but they also attend local church services. Also, they open up their Messianic congregations to Gentile believers as well. I know of Gentile pastors who are also in leadership roles in Messianic Jewish congregations. Even in Israel, there are churches made up of believers who are both Messianic Jewish and Arab as well other types of Gentiles, as well. So, to say they isolate themselves from Gentile Christians is nonsense.
  2. Kindness being a sin or not, depends on the motives. Parents have to be unpleasant and in a sense, "unkind" when they discipline children, but that is to make them better. Jesus was unkind, but He was not trying to be a jerk, but it was from a motive of wanting to make people better and to bring them to repentance., Being unkind just because you take pleasure in being a jerk makes that unkindness a sin due to impure motive. And as far as meekness goes, meekness isn't weakness. Meekness, biblically speaking is living in fully submitting and trusting God. Back in the day, when men rode horses into battle, a "meek" horse would run through fire and not buck its rider because the horse was trained to trust the rider.
  3. If sinner and saint, meant opposite things, we could not be both, but they don't. So they are not mutually exclusive terms.
  4. Sorry, but he says it in the present tense, so your argument is with him. He doesn't say he was the chief of sinners, but is the chief of sinners. It says what it says and that fits the context.
  5. "Saint" and "sinner" are not opposite terms. "Saint" is a word that simply means that we are set apart. It doesn't operate as a replacement for "sinner." The NT doesn't have a doctrine about being a "saint" vs. being a "sinner." So we can both sinners and saints at the same time.
  6. but no one is blaming God for poverty. You are accusing us of that, but none of us have made that claim. The prosperity claimants have only two extremes in their misguided theology. For them there is no middle ground. They say, "If you don't believe in prosperity, you believe that God wants every one poor." It's either believe in prosperity or claim that God is the cause of poverty. You cannot seem to grasp that we believe in full provision of our needs. We believe that God meets all of our needs. That is all He has promised to do. That is not poverty. But you can't seem to frame our position correctly. You resort to dishonest tactics of argumentation.
  7. You are going to have to refresh my memory on that, because I really don’t know what you’re talking about. And I will need to review that to see if your recollection of that event is correct. Again, I never compelled you to get a new dictionary. If you are talking about our previous soapbox, I would remind you that you were trying to use an English dictionary a opposed to using a dictionary that deals with words the way they are used in Scripture. I never claimed to be an expert on anything. But my answers have been very consistent. Demonstrate where I have been inconsistent. I answer you point for point and I answer as precisely as I can. You may not like the answers, and you may not really be able to refute them, but I have answered you as clearly as I can. If you feel otherwise, show me where I did not answer you and I will try to do a better job. You ARE slandering God and yes, I do take your arguments to their logical conclusions to show their absurdity. I am not the one with the burden of proof that needs defending. My role in this debate is refute the claim that God is the author of moral evil (sin). You say that God created sin and makes men to sin and to destroy them. You say that God ordains sin. That places the burden of proof on you, not me. My role is to refute and debunk your position. If you can’t prove that God creates sin, then the default Christian position remains true, namely that God is holy and is not the author of sin. I don’t have to defend a counter position. I have not offered a counter position, really. My role is to blunt yours. No I am not twisting anything tammim covers both motive and deed. He was tammim in all his ways, inwardly and outwardly. That’s how the word is used in Hebrew. Hebrew is far more nuanced and precise than English and in cases like this one, the English fails to reflect how the Hebrew word is used. I understand the nuances of the language and Bible often has a tendency to say in one word what it takes pages in English to communicate. He was perfect, inwardly and outwardly in all his ways. Our behavior doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It is revelation of our heart. People who are inwardly honest, don’t practice outward deceit. The Hebrew word, tammim reflects that reality. It carries the connotation of perfection in the entire being, not just outwardly. No matter how you try to spin it, I am correct on this. Just having Vine’s dictionary is no substitute for having a working knowledge of biblical languages. Now that we have that out of the way, and once again I have shown that you didn't prove Lucifer was made perfect, but he was only perfect in his behavior, I will go back through some of your other arguments. Many of them don't give real answers. First of all, I need to once again go back to Revelation 4:11. The origin of sin in Lucifer is Lucifer. It came from him. It originated in his will. The origin of sin on earth is Adam. Adam willingly and consciously disobeyed God. Rom. 5:12-21 lists Adam as the origin of sin in the earth. Yo My take on evil and sin are in the mainstream of Christian thought, faith and practice. You’re the one on the fringes, here. At any rate, God’s virtues come from Him. He was never created, thus His values, attributes, etc. are as eternal as He is. I think that is pretty clear, isn’t it? Take away those virtues and what fills the void? You don’t have create sin because sin is the absence of presence of God. What I said about darkness was meant to make the point that moral evil isn’t a created thing. I used the analogy of turning off a light. Turning off the light isn’t turning on darkness. Darkness is what is left when the light goes out. If God were to remove his presence from the world, he would not have make the world evil. The world would implode on itself at some point because God would be not here to restrain anything. Without God, the earth would descend into chaos and destruction. Moral evil (sin) exists uncreated. It is not a “thing” to be created. Just like self-evident truth is not a created thing, either. My previous response to you was not rhetoric nor was it a speech. My previous response to you goes to the bizarre nature of the question. You asking me a rhetorical question about how a person would be looked upon if they created a monster that they knew would murder innocent people. I say that the question is rhetorical because it answers itself. So if God creates people He knows will be murderers, is He guilty, as well? Does He bear any of the guilt? If God allows someone to murder is God culpable and guilty as an accessory to murder? That is basically what you’re asking isn’t it? The problem with the question is what I brought up before. You hold God to be the author of sin, and even creates people to sin, but you don’t hold God accountable for sin. Your argument above is that God is still righteous even though He created sin and creates people to commit sin and creates people to destroy them. Your question is meant to hold the monster maker criminally liable for creating a monster he knew would kill people. The assumption is that if God created people He knows will murder others, isn’t God also criminally liable? That’s what you’re getting at. But in light of your justification for God actively creating people to commit murder, the question your asking makes no sense. How would God be criminally negligent for knowing someone will commit murder, but not criminally negligent for creating someone for the express purpose of committing murder? I really don’t grasp the logic behind your argument. If I knew someone was going to commit murder and I said nothing, I would be held criminally liable. If I committed the murder myself, I would be just as criminally liable. You need to explain how God can be wholly righteous and create sin, create people to commit sin, and then judge them for being obedient to His will. That’s what needs explaining. How, exactly, does creating sin and creating people to murder, rape, etc. not compromise God’s holiness? No, you completely misrepresented my claim. I didn’t say that God as a perfect and imperfect will, first of all. Your response changes what I said just so you can have something to knock down. “Perfect” simply means “ultimate.” God’s ultimate will is that no one murder. He said so. One of things that God hates according to Proverbs 6:17is “hands that shed innocent blood.” God’s permissive will allows murder to happen. You misrepresent my argument by claiming that I said that it was God’s will for Satan to torment someone or for someone to commit murder. That is a perversion of what I said. God’s permissive will only allow something to happen. God’s permissive will does not ordain sin. When we say, in normal parlance, that something is God’s will, we are referring to the perfect or ultimate aspect of His will. It is not the case that God’s permissive will is also an indication that God still wanted someone to murder. That is absurd. God permits what He hates, but that permission is in no way a condoning of sin. No one in mainstream Christianity believes that or characterizes God that way. And that leads me to make this point regarding this debate. Your argument is based on a complete rejection of established Church doctrine regarding God and His relationship to sin. The notion that God is the author/creator of sin is not found in any literature of any time period in Church history. No mainstream Christian theologians accept that God is responsible for sin. No one. What makes this debate hard is that I am responding with what is generally mainstream Christian views on God and sin. Your argument is a wholesale rejection of biblical theology. You and I have no common points of reference doctrinally about sin because your argument is based on a very bizarre theology that you cooked up on your own. I have looked high and low and I cannot find one commentator, early or modern, liberal or conservative, that holds to the claims you are making here. I cannot find, not one KJV commentary that holds to your theology. I have been to KJV only websites and listened to a excerpts from sermons by KJV only people and none of them. The ONLY people I can find that hold to your view are Atheists, Agnostics and unbelievers who are haters of God. I cannot find any Christian who thinks God creates sin and that God is responsible for all of the sin of the world. It is like you concoct this theology of yours and you just run with it as true without testing it against established doctrine. In your mind, it’s true, because you say so, period. That is not a healthy approach to theology/the Bible. God judged Israel for their sins, as a nation. But before God did that, He sent prophet after prophet calling upon Israel to repent. The prophets spoke of God weeping and mourning over His people. He pleads with them to seek Him, to turn from their wickedness, over and over again. God waited hundreds of years for the nation to repent, but it sunk deeper and deeper into wickedness. For God to send the prophets, to issue call after call for Israel to repent, when in reality God was actually causing Israel to commit those sins, as your argument suggests, makes God a fraud. It has God playing both sides of the field. God is pretending to be grieved over the sins, that He is actually causing to happen. It is an irrational approach to God pure and simple. You can call that propaganda, but that's what you call it that to deflect attention from the fact that you can’t refute it. No, it doesn’t make God a fraud, at all. He wasn’t pretending a fake outrage over sins he was also forcing people to commit so He could destroy them. He was demonstrating the righteousness of His judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah. I didn’t say it was awful for you to say that God creates some people to be saved and others to be destroyed. I said it was untrue and doesn’t reflect the justness of God’s character. Some people get saved on their deathbed just before death after living a life of sin. Some good people go to hell and the worst thing they ever did was eat too much pizza. God is just in both cases. As long as you have a pulse and can respond to the Gospel, you can be saved. A person can be a good and upstanding person, a pillar of the community and do many good things. But God sees their unregenerate heart. If they remain in that condition, they will go to hell because of their separation from God. Evil works don’t send us to hell, and good works don’t send us to Heaven. Hell is full of “good” people. Many people are deceived into thinking that their good life earned them a place in Heaven. A lot of people go to Hell, not because they are prostitutes or thieves or murderers, but because they never were. There good people on earth today who strutting right into hell because they are trusting in their own righteousness and not the righteousness that comes by faith in Jesus. I am not claiming to be infallible, but I don’t need infallibility to know that your theology about God’s relationship to sin is heretical to the core and should be rejected by everyone. The difference between OSAS and what you’re teaching about God and His relationship to sin is that OSAS or anti-OSAS doesn’t go against established church doctrine. Your position on God and sin DOES go against Church doctrine. The OSAS debate doesn’t touch on Church doctrine because there is no official theological position on that. It’s like the rapture issue. We can disagree over the timing of the rapture and over other things that don’t fall into the category of official doctrine. There are issues like that which Christians can debate vigorously over and it is not a problem. Because OSAS isn’t part of Church doctrine the charge of heresy cannot be laid by either side of that debate. Heresy is a departure from established Church doctrine. In this case, your view of God’s relationship to sin is heretical because it departs in a major way, from Church doctrine. You view heresy as a pejorative, but it’s not. By ANY standard of measure, claiming that God is the author of sin is heretical to the core. It is a vile, slanderous doctrine of demons. Sure, it’s easy to understand. The problem is that it is not true because it assumes what needs to be proven. You have not provided any Scripture that says that God created some people to be destroyed. When pressed for Scripture all you can provide are verses that demonstrate God using evil people for His purposes. I agree that some people think they’re saved but are not. But I believe that for different reasons. A lot of people are trusting church attendance, good deeds, being a “good person,” etc. The view that only those chosen by God to be saved will be saved, is that it pretty much defeats your anti-OSAS view. If God’s will and choice of who will be saved cannot be violated, then that person is eternally and unconditionally secure. The other problem with your argument in this area is that the Bible gives us the basis for our assurance and yet fails to mention that we were created to be saved. I John 5 gives three reasons we can know we are saved: The eternal sacrifice of Jesus; The abiding presence of the Holy Spirit; The testimony of the Father in His word. John in I John 5:11-13 said that he was writing that letter so we could know that we have (present tense) eternal life. John never mentioned having been created to be saved. John also said in His Gospel, (5:24) that we have (present tense) passed from condemnation to eternal life because we believe upon Him who the Father has sent. Eph. 1:13-14 tells me that the Holy Spirit is the proof and guarantee of my future inheritance. Rom. 8:16 tells me that I can know (present tense) that I am a child of God because of the indwelling Holy Spirit. I know I am saved and based on the Bible, it has nothing to do with being created to be saved. That is simply not a biblical argument. No, it doesn’t; not by a long shot. No, it doesn’t; not by a long shot. I have already addressed this hermeneutically, twice at this point. I am not going to keep repeating myself. No, I never simply claim you’re wrong and then move on. I provide a hermeneutic explanation, which you can almost never offer up any kind of hermeneutic refutation of. It’s always, “I reject your claim and stand by what I said.” Yeah, that’s not debate and it’s not a refutation. Anyone can provide Scriptures to back up what they think the Bible says, but the problem is that much of the time, it is retro-active interpretation. They are trying to use the Bible to back up their arguments, rather than letting the Bible shape their arguments. That’s what you’re doing here. You are trying to mold the Bible around your argument to give the appearance that your argument is biblical. Where this debate is concerned, I don’t think you will find any denomination that possess an interpretive system that would agree with you. It’s not like we are holding equivalent positions, here. Your view would be rejected by every mainstream Christian denomination. Go to a Christian bookstore and look at the books about suffering and overcoming hardships and tribulations in life. Go to the section on theology that deals with the problem of evil (Theodicy), and what our response to moral evil should be. Go look at the section that has the books on grief and how to handle grief over a loved one that was killed in an accident or how to deal with the grief of a loved one who died without salvation. There will authors from different denominations represented in those sections and you won’t find a mainstream Christian view that blames God for sin, or claims that God created people to destroy them, or anything that you claim. So, it is not the case that it is just a matter of why you should believe me, or my denomination. It’s a matter of my view reflecting what everyone else is saying on the subject of God’s relationship to sin. Your view is not just “uncommon.” Not even mainstream Calvinists teach predestination the way you do. You stand alone (Well, not totally alone. Atheists will prop you up). I don’t need a commentary for this. I Chronicles 21: 1 also records this exact same event in the life of David. Here is what it says: And Satan stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel. (1Chron. 21:1) So, we know that the Bible doesn’t contradict itself; rather, the Bible is self-interpreting. The Lord moved against David in II Sam. 24:1-2 in the sense that He allowed Satan to provoke David to number Israel in I Chron. 21: 1). This goes back to what I said previously about a Metonymy. It is a figure of speech that portrays God doing what He merely permitted to occur. That happens a lot in Scripture, and that is what we see in I Sam. 24:1-2. It’s just part of how Hebrew thought patterns work.
  8. Marriage isn't just about religion. It is the foundation of a healthy society. Sorry, but real marriage has a religious component, but it also has a secular component, as well. No one has to be a Christian in order to be in a married according to the biblical model. Even the ancient Greeks, most of whom were faggots, ended up having to have laws that forced them to marry women so that Greek society would not become extinct. Marriage, as the Bible defines it, is good for society and gay "marriage" is not and should be banned.
  9. None of that has anything to do with prosperity. It simply means that the Lord is the one who takes care of our needs. I can never be in the prosperity crowd because they pervert the Scriptures and lead people down the wrong road by appealing the wants and desires of the flesh.
  10. He didn't say that he would make you more beautiful than the lilies. He said if God will clothe the lilies, how much more will he clothe thee. When he compared Solomon with the lilies, he was using hyperbole. It was a figure of speech to make the point that God will take care of us and we don't have to worry about our needs not being met. Abundant life doesn't mean being wealthy (unless you look at scripture through the eyes of the flesh). It means full provision, no needs being unmet. God has always promised to meet our needs. He said he leads us into green pastures. Again, the picture there is not being wealthy. It is about not being in want. I believe the Bible, not false teachings like the prosperity "gospel"
  11. No, that is not what Jesus said. Jesus said that the same God who was faithful to provide for flowers of the fields, will look after us and provide for us. He did not say we would be more beautifully clothed than the flowers or lilies of the field. You are perverting God's word and misquoting it,
  12. No, He said that the Solomon was not arrayed as beautiful as the lily of the fields.
  13. No one is preaching poverty. The problem, as I have said. You accuse us of preaching poverty simply because we don't buy into the prosperity doctrine. Do you not understand the concept of moderation? It is perfectly fine to drive a good, economic car that is in a good state of repair and not breaking down. There is nothing impoverishing about traveling in coach on the plane. There is nothing wrong with a pastor getting a moderate salary to care for his family. The problem is that you have this narrow view that says, "it's either be rich or be poor" and that is simply not the case.
  14. i don't listen to them. But I am familiar enough with them to know they are frauds. Same reason I don't listen to Joseph Prince. That is snazzy rhetoric, but it is also false teaching. False teaching always sounds slick, but in the end it is poison. That is only conflating the issue. No one is saying that Christians should starve. No one is saying that preacher should not get paid. But at the same time, there is no biblical mandate for preachers to be filthy rich, either. This passage is not about prosperity. I would also add that Paul took very little from the churches except when he was in prison. When Paul was not in prison, he was a tanner and a maker of tents and he funded his own ministry. Paul was wealthy at all. He funded his missionary journeys by the sweat of his own brow, so that he would not be a burden on the churches.
  15. It's not a religious sacrament, unless your a Roman Catholic or some other denomination. Biblical marriage is the foundation of a healthy society. Homosexuality is unhealthy and destructive to our society. Homosexuality is an abnormal, filthy putrid lifestyle. It creates unhealthy societies and it should not be rewarded with benefits. We should do nothing to reward, legitimize or promote homosexuality because it is to our communities what flesh eating bacteria is to the human body.