Lionroot

Greetings Leonard, Is this an idea for a litmus test? If so, is it personal? Else, how would it be applied practically? Already someone appears to have added to this definition. If thats what it is... God Bless, Robert

Brothers, The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word "Christian": n: an adherent of Christianity adj: 1)of or relating to Christianity 2)based on or conforming with Christianity 3)of or relating to a Christian 4)professing Christianity People frequently apply this word to themselves, to describe their beliefs. However when you see the phrase used to describe others, it is frequently a judgement. In the positive it suggest agreement, and acceptance. In the negative (i.e. "not a Christian") it connotes disagreement, rejection, and that the person to whom it is directed is not saved. I had thought the term meant, follower of Christ. It is certainly more important to follow Christ than the religion known as Christianity. Christianity is itself merely a socio-political body of imperfect people, that seems highly influenced by current customs, trends, power, and even money. (Historically speaking) We must remember that ones salvation is not tied to ones Church, but rather to ones relationship with God. Imprecise labels, and insults merely serve to divide people. If you have a truth to share with someone, do it with love. Perhaps then you might positively impact their life, and maybe even their salvation. God Bless, Robert P.S. I leave you with a few Biblical considerations... Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. - 1 Peter 3:15b-16 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ."- Ephesians 4:16 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters. -Romans 14:1

Jen, Its just so much easier to debase then to defend. Who cares if we are told to be ready to give a reason for the faith that we have, or that we are supposed to correct in meekness, and with love. Sorry Jen, but you will find little of that stuff here. God Bless, Robert P.S. On a side note I think I would know you from Adam.

Homebild, Yes, it is absolutely true that I do not know the Greek language. As a result I do depend on literally 100's of translators, to give me their best interpretations. Your translation, or at least your understanding of the Greek, flies in the face of all generally accepted English translations. Now somebody is not telling the truth. I think I will stick with the translations I have. Thanks. God Bless, Robert

Hey WhySoBlind, I think perhaps you are a bit premature, to suggest that these fellowservants were human. Not that I disagree with you, but I do not think you have established it well. The LORD has servants, many of which might be considered "non-human" by some, despite their human appearance. I am thinking of Abraham speaking with the LORD about Sarah and Sodom, and the two "men" that were with him. I think you would be hard pressed to find many believers who think they were "human". I just wondered if you might expound more on the point. God Bless, Robert

SDAinFLA, Sorry I thought your questions here were rhetorical. I can absolutely see the point you are trying to make here. Unfortunately it is hard to be conclusive on what the text means with regard to the conditions of these two men. (That is Isaiah 63:16) It is important, I think, to note that the speaker is not the LORD, but rather Isaiah. Now that doesn't mean Isaiah does not know what he is talking about, only that we would need more text to establish that a) he knew Abraham and Jacob's condition, and b) that he was commenting on their condition, and not more about the way he (Isaiah) felt about current conditions. Which is the context of the text throughout the rest of the chapter. Of course I believe Jesus already established the condition of these two, which we addressed earlier in the thread. I thought the term "soul sleep" was an acceptable term for "unconsciousness at death". Just by way of stray thoughts, at the transfiguration, were Moses and Elijah, spirits or were they resurrected? What do you think? God Bless, Robert This is possible...maybe Jacob was alive at the time, but what about Abraham? How could he be ignorant of his children if he were still living at that time? I don't know about soul sleep, but I do believe in unconsciousness at death. Like yourself, I do believe in the resurrection, so I think we agree on this point. But whether Abraham is alive or not doesn't really effect our salvation...but I was just curious what you think. Thanks for taking the time to read and reply. <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Homebild, It is certainly clear that this is a concept to which you will adhere to without regard to scripture. This whole thread is against the simplist and clearest language . If you happen to be right then the scriptures are at once incomprehenciple, and God becomes a god of confusion. Which the scriptures say, in equally clear language, that He is not. Examine you arguments. The word "men" is used to address both sexes? However when he meant both he said, men and women as in Acts 2:18, 5:14, 8:3, and more. Your second argument does not even address the issue raised, but misstates the facts, they were waiting for the Holy Ghost, not gathering for the purpose of replacing Judas. How have you independently decided the Peter, is not setting a precedent? I thought that the first action of a leader usually does set precedent. What would he have to do to set such a precedent. The scriptures absolutely do specify that a "man" was all they were looking for, additionally only two men were nominated. (And by men I mean two males). You have made your position clear to even the casual reader. I am left with only one question. Are there any words that would convince you that women are not permitted "to teach or have authority over a man; she must be silent."? Or would you ignore them although they are printed in black and white? God Bless, Robert

Greetings homebild, Why didn't you include the scripture from which you get this "MUTUAL" submission? 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of selfcontrol. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. -1 Corinthians 7:4-6 Could it be because the verse is about intimacy between a man and his wife, and not about the ministry at all? Perhaps you were thinking of another verse? Just a thought, God Bless, Robert

Greetings Homebild, I was reading in Acts Chapter 1 today and found some interesting scripture, I was hoping you could reconcile to what you have been teaching. There is a prayer meeting of men and women in Jerusalem.(13-14) Peter stood among the believers(15), which is clearly a general term for both the men and the women in the room. What is interesting here is that he addresses just the men, with the term "Brothers".(16) He explains that a replacement is neccessary for Judas. Specifing that the replacement must be one of the "men" who had been with Jesus since John's Baptism, He ignores the women who had also been with Jesus during that time.(Luke 23:49,55) Why would he do that if a woman could be an apostle, and take this type of leadership?(20) It would appear that we are no longer talking about Pauls practice, but Peter's as well. God Bless, Robert

Greetings SDAinFLA, I was reading Acts tonight, I was wondering what you make of this verse: But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. How can there be "agony" in an unconscious state? God Bless, Robert

Greetings SDAin FLA, Thanks, I find it rather restrictive and even worse, chaffing. Thats why I have employed the ignore feature. Its great for those people who cannot express themselves in love, thus revealing their true spirit. Than such a topic cannot be applied to those already ressurected, correct?. Which was the point that Jesus was making to the Saducees. Jesus makes it clear

Greetings, I was reading that other thread, and I thought you did not establish much of what you now present as a given. You did not deal with the fact that this was Paul's practice, not just counsel to Timothy, or that it was built on principles much more universal than any particular church. I thought a deacon was a waiter, and a deaconess a waitress. Was that not what they were set apart to do, feed the widows? It was not established that Junia or any other woman was an apostle. The text you cited does not support it in any absolute way. Without more supportive text it is risky speculation at best. Priscilla did not act alone, but rather in union with her husband. Isn't that right? I think it is a bit premature to build something on these premises. The idea of equality of roles is very popular with the world, but the scriptures just do not seem to support it. Rather we have different roles to play in the ministry. Just my thoughts, God Bless, Robert

Greeting icdchillin1, Is that , I see the chilling one? About your question. 1) Let's be clear, there is no "if", God does not change. I the LORD do not change. (Malachi 3:6a) and of course if this is the point of your posting there are many more references that support the assertion. 2) The men of God did not practice Chattel slavery. It was this stark difference between the servitude of the OT and what was being being practiced in the US, that led Quakers to be the first to free their slaves. 8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers

I am thinking of another city that God was about to destroy, but this time God worked differently. He sent Jonah to them, and they repented, and avoided Judgement. I hope we do not miss our "Jonah" should the LORD be so inclined to send one. God Bless, Robert

You know thats the second time you have argued with my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Perhaps I should just throw it away... God Bless, Robert

Greetings Dave, I get excited when people are this close to verses that illustrate the unchanging nature of God and his purpose. The word "kill" in the KJV (exodus 20:13) did not adequately describe the word "ratsach" and is now translated "murder" in most contemporary translations In the same way "adultery" does not adequately describe "naaph". One might say then, You shall not lay with another mans wife, would more adequately describe the thought.

Shiloh, May the Lord forgive you. God Bless, Robert

That may not be so farfetched, in that there are places where such a struggle exists. I read a book recently called, The Heavenly Man. It is about Brother Yun's walk with God in China. When the book starts no one in his town had ever seen a Bible. After having a dream about an old man offering him bread, he gets a Bible and begins to memorize it. Its an excellent book. It also details his excape from a maximum security prison, what a miracle. I highly recommend it. You will appreciate the freedoms we have here(in the US) all the more. God Bless, Robert

Hey Bob, I love the KJV, and I grew up with it, but it is not without flaws. One of the most recent ones that occurred to me is that the KJV mentions unicorns six times. This is not just a simple mistranslation, it is an overlay Greek and Roman mythology. As far as I know there are no Hebrew unicorns. This clearly came from the cultural influences on the translators. Talk about adding to the word... Just a thought, Robert

I took my kids to see Robots last Friday. It was a great movie, and your review was right on. I thought it was curious the way the upgrade was only a shell. The ads for the upgrades reminded me of plastic surgery, and gym commercials. Life is like that people hide behind their clothes, body types, careers, and other superficial things. Fortunately, God sees the heart, and what is hidden will be exposed. Just some Christian themes I saw. God Bless, Robert

Shiloh, Mikhail has given you a definition based on the word 'naaph", the Hebrew word translated "adultery" in the OT. Which was what I had originally assumed that you knew. It is the reason you will always find a married woman in biblical adultery. The mans marital status is immaterial. naaph - woman that breaketh wedlock God Bless, Robert

Greetings Luke, Thanks for your reply. BTW feel free to call me Robert. I absolutely agree with what you wrote here, probably more than you can know. Of course we know that God told the Israelites not to follow the ways of the people they left, or the people they would find in the land he was taking them to. During their time in the wilderness they were severely punished for violating God's law. So what was the culture of the Israelites that left wilderness? One does not have to go into the past to find men that still treat thier women this way. However this is not the way men of God treat their women. While men are still given headship over their wives, this is a stewardship of loving service. Not an excuse for abusive behaviors. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church- for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." Certainly the Word of God is and should be infinitely more important to the believer. I think it is curious that while many contemporary believers have criticized the polygamy practiced by the Patriarchs and other men of God. There has been no condemnation of the contemporary practice of serial monogamy. I find that to be a strange dichotomy. God Bless, Robert

Hey Shiloh, Oh, how I wish I had more time. I found this sentence, to be the most interesting in your posting. This statement suggest that you have an understanding of the word "adultery" in its original context. Perhaps you care to explain how a man can marry a second wife and not commit adultery in the proccess. I should be around more next weekend. God Bless, Robert

Hello nebula, OK, let me begin by saying this is my last response to you. That should assure you, and others, that I have no personal agenda regarding you. You engaged me first on this issue, and you are welcome to the parting shot. It was in fact a very "easy task" for a long time Internet user like myself. Worthyboard uses a very typical interface. There was nothing "random" about my search. I was in fact looking for consistency in your positions. Using a persons prior writings is a fair debate tactic, not a personal attack. Certainly you have seen people backpeddle as they faced challenges. Unfortunately, it turns out most of your posts are trivial. I have never said that the LORD gave a "mandate" per se. I said it was not a sin. There is no absolute "mandate" to marry, as there is no absolute mandate for celibacy. If you looking for a mandate though read about Levitical law, and you will see that occassionally a brother may have to take his deceased brothers wife, without regard for his current marital status. That really avoids the question I asked you, but let me not be so timid. There is absolutely no doubt that divorce is Biblically not permitted, and is sinful. A man unhappy with his wife can live on the roof or sleep in the desert, or marry another(Duet 21:10) but he cannot divorce her, short of her adultery. Conversely the Patriarchs did not divorce, they did not "remarry". Actually, I have responded to those quotes in Timothy. As I said the face value reading does suggests the practice of polygyny in the early church. First of all let me say that I am sensitive to your experience. It is without a doubt the reason for your reaction to my postings. However lets be fair, you do not know me. Isn't it unjustified for you to disparagingly reflect your experience upon me? Men (and women) all over are increasing their sexual partners through infidelity. Sadly the rate of infidelity among Christians is almost identical to the population at large. If my interest were merely a sexual one, there are many avenues that offer a more immediate gratification than debating theology with you. I have been faithful to my first and only wife for 17 years now, with no end in sight, short of death to separate us. So that brings us to the Patriarchs and the other men of God that actually practiced. Do you think they were sex crazed men just advancing their pleasure? Do you really think that would be the kind of man in whom God would delight.(Duet 30:9) or on whom He would set his affection?(Deut 10:15) Was David just another sexual predator? Or was he a man after God's heart, who kept the LORD's commands all the days of his life - except in the case of Uriah the Hittite as the scriptures say? Was Moses confused when he wrote, " You shall not commit adultery" (BTW punishable by death) then just 22 verses later says "If a man marries another woman...". Remember the Lord says he spoke to him "face to face" as a man speaks to his friend, perhaps you think they did not go over "God's Perfect Plan for Marriage"? I strongly encourage you to reconcile these inconsistencies. You just cannot have it both ways. Either they were Godly men, or they were evil sex crazed men seeking to satisfy their lusty desires. Which is it? God Bless, Robert