Kansasdad

Look at post number 3. If you need more, I will provide them. That is your argument???????????? THat is talking about a living person. The cloth is NOT a living person...it is something that was used in His burial that is a great proof that He was who He said He was...that verse does not prove your point to me. Now if you were talking about that idiot in Florida who is claiming to be Jesus...then you could use this verse... If the Shroud of Turin were authentic, how would that prove that He is the Savior of mankind? If you would like more verses, I will provide them. If you don't want to hear what the bible has to say....do a websearch on "The Shroud of Turin real or fake". And verses I posted refers to more than the living. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A little off topic....but you should really stop calling people names. Don't let your anger guide your steps. Actually I have looked at the verses you provided and one would have to streatch them out of context to make them apply. Sorry but the verses you provided really don't apply.

thats what i'm talking about. I saw that , but then I saw another report that said this report was a hoax. Does anyone know the latest. I just saw a small bit about it again on TV very recently and it seemed to call into question the conclusions of that report. God Bless, K.D.

I don't fit into your original qualities of who you were looking to respond, but I am interested in the topic. I apologize that I don't know the players, like Marcus Ross. Please give us some of his thoughts, on How evolution, the science, can fit into a 6 day creation? I think the creation story itself shows us that creation was a process, I believe guided by God. A process that took time. How do we fit that into a literal six days. Personally I think most "time" references in the Bible are to convey a concept. What is a day to God. The phrase that a day to God is a 1000 years, in my opinion, is not a literal 1000 years either. It is a concept, a message. So I don't think we have to fit it into 6000 years either. But I could be wrong.

Actually I was wondering the same thing, Why such a powerful negative reaction from the above posters. I have no idea if it actually is, but claiming it is from the devil just makes you sound wacko. Sorry guys, just the impression I get.

Thank you Rebekah, I am 100% positive that what I believe is right.....at this point. It's become much clearer after reading all the scriptures regarding this and some other viewpoints, arguments (both Christian and Jewish); to be honest only a few years ago I didn't think about all those verses because unfortunately the loudest voices on this issue don't mention but one or two; I'm sure they're bound to know about the others though and by omitting them I do question how honest these men are in other areas; on other issues. I've started keeping my own folders on different issues and as I come across a verse that applies to the issue I'll save it to the file. -- To give credit where credit is due I only had about half of the verses listed in the first post but I read that post elsewhere and it had many more so I saved it and added to my file folder. I also saved the answer that that poster got which I put in post #2. -- The Bible is such a big book and all, and not everything on an issue is right together; it's spread throughout. Boy, when you start putting topical verses all together it sure makes a difference; it makes things a lot clearer. Thank you for being so sweet about it; it's hard to go against the tide sometimes; it makes people mad. I do reach out; everyday. Sometimes I wish I could just take an illness on myself and take it away from somebody else. Hypathia, I know my opinion doesn't hold any weight , but you offered yours so I will offer mine. I have read every verse you have given and considered them in context to the surrounding verses and the writers and language they were written in. I am 100% positive that you are completely wrong. The only way to justify your position is to take every single verse you have given completely out of context. I will pray that God will open your eyes to his word and that you will stop listening to any other influence. And yes you can pray for me as well. This is truly an evil evil practice from the very beginning of the process. God Bless, K.D.

Thank you Rebekah, I am 100% positive that what I believe is right.....at this point. It's become much clearer after reading all the scriptures regarding this and some other viewpoints, arguments (both Christian and Jewish); to be honest only a few years ago I didn't think about all those verses because unfortunately the loudest voices on this issue don't mention but one or two; I'm sure they're bound to know about the others though and by omitting them I do question how honest these men are in other areas; on other issues. I've started keeping my own folders on different issues and as I come across a verse that applies to the issue I'll save it to the file. -- To give credit where credit is due I only had about half of the verses listed in the first post but I read that post elsewhere and it had many more so I saved it and added to my file folder. I also saved the answer that that poster got which I put in post #2. -- The Bible is such a big book and all, and not everything on an issue is right together; it's spread throughout. Boy, when you start putting topical verses all together it sure makes a difference; it makes things a lot clearer. Thank you for being so sweet about it; it's hard to go against the tide sometimes; it makes people mad. I do reach out; everyday. Sometimes I wish I could just take an illness on myself and take it away from somebody else.

yes, this is correct according to Fox's Book of Martyrs the apostle Peter was crucified upside down as he thought himself unworthy to be crucified in the manner of our Saviour. I would recommend the Fox's book of Martyrs to anyone who is a student of the bible it is a tremendous resource to have in one's personal library. Also I think it is an inspiration to us all as well being Christians ourselves who suffer persecution for the cause of Christ. OC Hence the upside down cross on the Popes chair... I think it is his chair, might be wrong on where it is at?

Yes. I don't see how basing ethics on the physical world makes it unravel. If there is more to man than his physicality then basing ethics on just the physical aspect of man is ignoring the spiritual aspect of man. You kill the body AND the spirit when you kill an embryo...thus you have killed human life. You can't believe it's okay to kill an embryo or a young baby and turn around and believe in a soul. The ideas are mutually exclusive. You kill the spirit and the body of REAL people when you stand in the way of research that could help them. Scientifically, ethically, biologically and BIBLICALLY there is no reason to stand against embryonic stem-cell research. If you believe in the Bible and you believe in the soul then the Bible should be your reference guide. It's obvious from scripture that "ensoulment" does not occur at the moment of conception. It seems to me that this issue is one of those where science and scripture are in sync with each other; people should stop creating conflicts where none exists and let the scientists get on with their job of saving lives, saving live; babies, children and adults. Those who are attempting to prevent this are part of a "death-cult" despite the political speak. Wake up people. There in lies your misunderstanding. You are correct in that the underlying issue is not the physical state of the human but the spiritual state. Where you have gone astray is trying to interpret the verses on breath into a statement that the soul is imbued when the human takes a breath. There are two areas where you are taking the word out of context. First the Bible talks about Gods breath giving life. This has nothing to do with the human breathing. Human breath and Gods breath are vastly different, you can not equate the two as being the same. Second is you are not taking the phrase "when the breath leaves the body" in historical context. You must understand what the writer means at the time it was written. To hold to your interpretation that the soul arrives when the human takes a breath you must take every verse completely out of context. This is a dangerous thing to do. One that in this case leads people into justifying the murder of innocent humans that indeed have a soul given to them by God. In your statement above you reference "Real" people, implying that the developing pre-born human is not a real person. Many atrocities have happened because some group of people have decided that another group were not "real " humans. This line of thinking leads to unthinkable evil. God Bless, Kansas Dad You are the one who has been lead astray KansasDad. The atrocity here is that real people are suffering and dying and it is primarily due to the unthinkable evil of people like the Pope and James Dobson who do indeed twist the scriptures or omit them altogether to gain support for their "warped" personal wants. I only have a moment here. More articles from another perspective but you always have the Bible to rely on. Jew On First - Many articles on stem-cell research This is a matter of life and death people; please ponder and most of all PRAY! Also this: Most definitely keep that in mind. In context, Jesus was specifically talking about CHILDREN, those who he had around him as the example. The ancients knew what Children were, Jesus knew what Children were.......Jesus never mentioned the "unborn"....especially those that never made it to a womb which was specifically pointed out in scripture as part of the "life" process. The rest was your opinion. If you prevent this research you are harming children and you will be held accountable to HIM. Think about it. Maybe because we should not be playing God and trying to start life outside of the Womb in the first place.

I am not, I agree with everything Wayne said! What did Wayne say anyway? I have it on good authority, of absolutely no substance, that SilentPrayer is indeed not insane. Evidenced by the total lack of coherence and mindless babble of her post. This is strong evidence of the most inconsequencial kind that her post are absolutely crazy with no meaningful logic. Therefore proving with out a single doubt, the she is possibly, completely, sane. I say this with the utmost confidence because I have absolutely no clue what I am talking about. I hope this has cleared up the issue so that you are completely confused, thus having complete understanding of SilentPrayers mental capacity, or lack there of. ya know I luv ya God bless, K.D.

Yes. I don't see how basing ethics on the physical world makes it unravel. If there is more to man than his physicality then basing ethics on just the physical aspect of man is ignoring the spiritual aspect of man. You kill the body AND the spirit when you kill an embryo...thus you have killed human life. You can't believe it's okay to kill an embryo or a young baby and turn around and believe in a soul. The ideas are mutually exclusive. You kill the spirit and the body of REAL people when you stand in the way of research that could help them. Scientifically, ethically, biologically and BIBLICALLY there is no reason to stand against embryonic stem-cell research. If you believe in the Bible and you believe in the soul then the Bible should be your reference guide. It's obvious from scripture that "ensoulment" does not occur at the moment of conception. It seems to me that this issue is one of those where science and scripture are in sync with each other; people should stop creating conflicts where none exists and let the scientists get on with their job of saving lives, saving live; babies, children and adults. Those who are attempting to prevent this are part of a "death-cult" despite the political speak. Wake up people. There in lies your misunderstanding. You are correct in that the underlying issue is not the physical state of the human but the spiritual state. Where you have gone astray is trying to interpret the verses on breath into a statement that the soul is imbued when the human takes a breath. There are two areas where you are taking the word out of context. First the Bible talks about Gods breath giving life. This has nothing to do with the human breathing. Human breath and Gods breath are vastly different, you can not equate the two as being the same. Second is you are not taking the phrase "when the breath leaves the body" in historical context. You must understand what the writer means at the time it was written. To hold to your interpretation that the soul arrives when the human takes a breath you must take every verse completely out of context. This is a dangerous thing to do. One that in this case leads people into justifying the murder of innocent humans that indeed have a soul given to them by God. In your statement above you reference "Real" people, implying that the developing pre-born human is not a real person. Many atrocities have happened because some group of people have decided that another group were not "real " humans. This line of thinking leads to unthinkable evil. God Bless, Kansas Dad

By finding the latest time after conception at which there is no doubt that the embryo/fetus has no awareness at all. We aren't discussing who is human, we are discussing when a being deserves moral consideration. We, collectively, have to make the choices. Earlier on in this thread someone made the comparison to your thinking and the Nazi's. I know you didn't see the connection, but it is right here in this statement. Your position is that the collective gets to decide when a human deserves moral consideration. That is exactly what the Nazi's did. As a collective they decided which humans received moral consideration and which did not. Now you have placed the "mark" at a level which you think is reasonable, but so did the Nazi's . When human value can be measured by some one or some collective we set ourselves on a path of inevitable evil. It is absolutely imperative that all human life be treated as precious, God made, and God owned. We as humans can never determine the moral value of another human. To do so in and of itself is an act of evil. You nor any collective ever have that right. God Bless, K.D.

Cool

You can error on the side of caution. When it comes to embryos there is really no doubt that they cannot feel pain. Tell me how do we error on the side of caution, one day, one week, one month? And who gets to decide that feeling pain is a prerequisite for being human?

Keep us posted on how this goes!

That is a question for scientists to answer: when does a fetus gain desires? I'm sure the brain and central nervous system are developed before birth. I've heard numbers around 20-25 weeks so that is probably in the ball park. Ballpark? is "close enough" ok when you might be killing a human being. How can we know what day specifically for each non born human. If they have desire and can feel pain one day before 20 weeks and you kill them are you less responsible. Are they any less dead. What magically changed in one day. Who gets to decide when you are human and when you are not? God Bless, Kansas Dad

Now you are trying to imply a legalistic view point. Do I think we should apply the essence of every message and example the Apostles give us in scripture.....YES Absolutely. Do I think we should follow every gesture, NO that would be thinking like the Pharisees. For you to imply that our logic dictates such a notion is only a tactic to try and confuse the issue. What is the essence of the message. Simple, not just any Tom, Dick or Harry can read scripture, and then start leading Jesus's Church. It will be led by men who have been trained by the Apostles through every generation. Unless you can show me scripture that tells us anything different, I think I will follow scripture.

Where did Paul give only Titus the right to appoint elders? I do not see that stated anywher in the text. He certainly gives Titus instructions and asks him to do it, but it does not say that only he is allowed to do this. Where is that in the text? In 1 Timothy no such statement is made. Only qualifications for elders are listed. You seem to me to be guilty of making an historical logical error. It only makes sense that since the original apostles were alive, that they would have trained and selected leadership. It was in fact an historical neccessity. You have made a logical leap that because the text reports this, it is a requirement for all time. It is a logical fallacy. Again, you are avoiding the issue. Certainly there was to be leadership in the church. Paul (in 2 places in scripture) lists the requirements for selecting such leadership. In none of the places is the concept of apostolic succession even hinted at. Since Paul lists the requirements for selecting leaders (and does not introduce the concept of apostolic succession) any argument that it is there is an argument from silence. These letters were written to individual church bodies (or leaders in them), and were instruction as to how those bodies were to select leadership. In termso of Matthew 18:18, here is the whole passage in context: "If your brother sins against you, go and rebuke him in private. If he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he won't listen, take one or two more with you, so that by the testimony of two or three witnesses every fact may be established. he pays no attention to them, tell the church. But if he doesn't pay attention even to the church, let him be like an unbeliever and a tax collector to you. assure you: Whatever you bind on earth is already bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth is already loosed in heaven. Again, I assure you: If two of you on earth agree about any matter that you pray for, it will be done for you by My Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there among them." Matthew 18:15-20 HCSB As I read this passage, I do not see any mention of leadership here. What I see is a discussion on how each of us should deal with a person who has wronged us in some way. Here are the instructions: 1. If we feel a person has wronged us we are to go directly to them. 2. If the person does not listen to us, we arfe to take back 2 or three witnesses and approach him again. 3. If he still will not listen, we are to then take it to the whole gathering of believers of which we are a part. 4. The result of this step is that the person in question is now to be treated as an unbeliever. Jesus then affirms the fact that whenever you (the same you that was addressed in "if your brother sins against you") complete this type of church discipline, it is backed by the authority of heaven. There is nothing mentioned here about a special office. These instructions are given to all believers, and tell us how we should deal with conflict in the body. Again, You have not shown me a definitive text that indicates that there is a special apostolic office that will be handed down. One would think if that was important, Paul would have included it in the 2 lists he provided to local churches on how they should select and discipline leadership Once again, I am wating for a prescriptive text that speaks of apostolic succession and lists this as a requirement Titus 1:5 For this reason I left YOU in Crete so that YOU might set what remains to be done and APPOINT PRESBYTERS in every town as I directed YOU Paul appoints Titus the one who appoints presbyters. Now, why couldn't a whole bunch of folks just get together, study, and set up their own pastorship? Why could not anyone who fit the bill call themselves an overseer? Because Paul knew that it was IMPORTANT to set aside the one HE APPOINTED to do the APPOINTING. I do not know what more kind of definitive answer you want here. All you have provided here is a passage that says Paul left Titus behind to select leaders (A historical statement). You have added to this that Titus is the only one who could do this, and that there is succession implied. Again, you are guilty of commiting a historical fallacy. We would expect early on in the church for those who were selecting leadership to be limited in number, because the church was young, and there were no many so qualified. That is just as plausible an explanation as your for the historical events. You still have not provided a passage that spells this out as a command. The only commands we have are the qualifications Paul spells out in 2 places. I guilty of no such thing. Why would he say it the way he said it, if there were other folks besides Titus??? Where you believe that I am guilty of historical fallacy, you are guilty of not following the example of the apostles. Again, still waiting for a prescriptive passage. I will gladly obey any passage that commands me to do as you are suggesting. However, there are many things that people did that are described by the bible, that we were never intended to copy. I am still curious as to how you decide which historical events are to be copied and which are not. Your method seems inconsistent to me Then, let's have a fair trade, shall we? You show me a prescriptive place where it says we should not follow the lead of the chosen ones of Christ Himself, and I will show you a verbatim place where it says, "You must appoint others." Otherwise, my church will continue following the lead of the Apostles, and you can go on believing that we need not follow their lead. That is not a fair trade. Essentially you are attempting to argue from silence. Your logic is because the text does not tell me I can't, its OK. The logic you have presented is this: 1. The apostles did certain things 2. Unless we find a prohibition from doing what the apostles did, we should in all cases proceed as if their actions were commands. You you see the problem here? You are making a jump from action, to command. Do you apply this consistently (do everything the apostles did?) Oh I see, so you don't have any scripture to suport your position. Intersting.

Are you telling us that we must follow the lead of only those who can trace their bloodline back to the original apostles? That is preposterous. God never had that in mind. In fact, it is a heretical belief. Jesus gave the ordr for us all to make disciples of every nation. The a[postles took up that challenge and we continue to this day, anointing each other in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit into the high calling of the Lord Jesus Christ. We are a Royal Priesthood! Hallelujah! Soon He will be coming for His Church and will be finding a few faithfully serving in this way....thank God. No body said anything about a blood line. Where did that crazy notion come from? Do you actually take the time to really read the post or are you jumping to conclusions before you have finished? Scripture tells us how pastors were appointed. This is an indisputable fact. It is there in writing, and historical text. Paul does not give it as a suggestion, he is telling his disciples "This is how it will be done" period. If you choose to follow something different, that is your choice, but you are not following the traditions set forth by God. You are following a tradition set forth by Man. If this is not correct then show me where scripture sets forth how your pastor was appointed. After all don't you constantly preach that the Bible is ALL that is needed , and that it gives you everything you need. Show me scripture that supports your position. I have shown you scripture that supports mine. If you can't give me scripture then it is nothing more than your opinion.

Is 19 minutes an eternity? I'm still waiting for any definitive scripture... Then you are not reading my post. Unless you are choosing to just ignore the example scripture gives us for how to become a pastor. I guess then some scripture you can just choose to ignore.

Is 19 minutes an eternity?

You are completely ignoring the scripture I gave you. For it is exactly what you have asked for. "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage we have the second generation, in Timothy, The future in faithful men whom Timothy teaches, and then even further in the future for the fourth generation that these men teach. This passage is the very prescription you are denying. It shows a continued prescription for preparing the church leaders one that is on going and continual. How many generations do you need Paul to describe. I think four generations should be enough for you to get the point. This is not a suggestion. This is the method given to us by the Apostles which bears out in historical fact. What you are prescribing has no basis in scripture. Again This succession is following the very traditions of scripture. What you have described is a tradition of man.

thats why Im a believer of seminary schools. Paul was trying to organize, preach, and teach the good news. He did this without a bible, on foot under a time constraint. If he would of lived another 200 years he may be would of opened one.... 3xR0c|<stAr How does an institution become a seminary school. Who are the teachers. Would not those same teachers also need to be able to trace their teaching back to the Apostles. Who taught the teachers? If the seminary school does not have its roots in the progression described from the Bible would this not be a tradition established by man? I think it would be important to know a little about the seminary. What is its history? No, the teachers would need to be able to demonstrate that they know the word of God which was handed down to us thru the Apostles directly from God himself Show me scripture that tells us this or demonstrates this..Otherwise it is just your opinion, and a tradition created by man. I would rather follow a tradition started by the Apostles who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. You can follow whatever example you want, I will choose to follow the example given to us by the Apostles through scripture. God Bless, K.D. So, do you choose your overseers by lot then? That was the way they replaced an Apostle but not the way they ordained pastors. Why are you trying to confuse the issue? What scripture give us is how the Apostles ordained pastors of the various churches. It gives us this example through 4 generations. You still have not given any scripture that says anything different for how to become a pastor. Your example only shows what scripture tells us about the qualities of a pastor. This is a tradition clearly outlined by Scripture. Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). And we also know through historical record that this is exactly what they did for generations. Who decided to change this and by what authority? Pastors were never just anyone who studied scripture and proclaimed themselves to be a pastor, or a self proclaimed authority able to teach others. Scripture gives us this tradition, are you following it or are you following one created outside of scripture. God Bless, K.D.

I don't get this: either you have a time machine that youre going to go back and get taught by Apostles or you're in a religion that has a perfect history without a blemish on its 2000 year track record. Which perfect institution may that be? ... 3xR0c|<stAr Where does the Bible say that the Church pastors would be perfect? I never said that was a requirement nor does the Bible say it will be so. Where did that idea come from. All I have pointed out is what the Bible tells us on the subject. It give us an example of how the Aposltes and the next 4 generations appointed the pastors of the church. This is directly from scripture. This is a tradition established by Scripture. Unless you can show me something different in Scripture than anything else is a tradition established by man. God Bless, K.D.

you want to see documents on paper that trace back on "who taught who" tracing back to the Apostles? you want to see the "laying of hands" documented to do what? make you feel that you are assured salvation and kept all traditions? K.D.--> I never said that or implied that. This was how the Apostles did it. It is the example they gave us. Who's example are you going to follow. One created by men or one given to us from the Bible? I dont get it. ... 3xR0c|<stAr you have scripture in the palm of your hands and youre asking for "who taught who?' (But then again that is a bad thing because people think that makes them an expert). The question is how do you become a pastor. All I have done is given you scripture examples of how the Apostles did it from scripture. I would assume that if this is how the Apostles, who are being led by the Holy Spirit, tell us it is done, and no where in scripture does it tell us that this has changed, then doing anything different would not come from God.

thats why Im a believer of seminary schools. Paul was trying to organize, preach, and teach the good news. He did this without a bible, on foot under a time constraint. If he would of lived another 200 years he may be would of opened one.... 3xR0c|<stAr How does an institution become a seminary school. Who are the teachers. Would not those same teachers also need to be able to trace their teaching back to the Apostles. Who taught the teachers? If the seminary school does not have its roots in the progression described from the Bible would this not be a tradition established by man? I think it would be important to know a little about the seminary. What is its history? No, the teachers would need to be able to demonstrate that they know the word of God which was handed down to us thru the Apostles directly from God himself Show me scripture that tells us this or demonstrates this..Otherwise it is just your opinion, and a tradition created by man. I would rather follow a tradition started by the Apostles who were indwelled by the Holy Spirit. You can follow whatever example you want, I will choose to follow the example given to us by the Apostles through scripture. God Bless, K.D.