Trust & Obey

This is not true. There are different kinds of works. Works OF THE FLESH are diametrically opposed to the Fruit of the Spirit, but not the good works we are commanded to do. Good works, which we are commanded to do, are how the Fruit of the Spirit is manifest in our lives. It is good works the Holy Spirit leads us to perform. The Fruit of the Spirit is the product of a life of good works empowered by the Holy Spirit. Fruit is what is seen as we live out the character of Christ before men. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. (Matthew 5:16) For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (Ephesians 2:10) Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not highminded; nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; (1 Timothy 6:17-18) All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded. In all things showing thyself a pattern of good works: in doctrine showing uncorruptness, gravity, sincerity, Sound speech, that cannot be condemned; that he that is of the contrary part may be ashamed, having no evil thing to say of you. (Titus 2:6-8) Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. (Titus 2:13-14) And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful. (Titus 3:14) Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. (1 Peter 2:11-12) We are expected to maintain good works in order that we are not unfruitful. We are not saved by good works, but our works should be the demonstration of the faith we proclaim. We claim to be Christians, then our lives should show it through our deeds. The Fruit of the Spirit is manifest in us, when we live in obedience to the Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Shiloh, I guess to sum up my point it could be restated that works are what we do, and fruit is what God does. You never see an apple tree working to produce fruit. You never see a tree straining and struggling to pop out an apple. It is a natural byproduct of being connected to the trunk. Likewise, the fruit of the Spirit is the natural byproduct of being connected to the True Vine, Jesus Christ. Works are what we do... fruit is what God does as we are connected to him. We can never "work fruit" in our lives.

nebula, fruit and works are diametrically opposed. Works are what we do proactively... fruit is what grows in our lives naturally as we remain in Christ. Paul makes the distrinction this way in Galatians: Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Works and fruit are contrasted. However, as a figure of speech I guess one could say that works are the fruit of our salvation.

Fiosh, funny you should mention this. Because I was ready to tell you to tell me what YOU believe and not what the Catholic Church believes.

Works are what we do in response to our faith. We work because we believe.

Here's a great article on the subject. _________ Hearing and Recognizing God's Voice

T & O, Stoning is no doubt a very brutal death but where the scripture speaks of stoning it speaks in plain terms. I don't see that God "acknowledged" stoning. He was giving His people His law...had He wanted beheading (for example) to be the means of execution He would have said so. I would have to say, then, that not only did God approve of it, he ordered it. If we struggle to understand that in light of "God's Love" then how are we to comprehend Hell? Surely no torment is greater. Perhaps we misunderstand God's love...who it is given to, what it entails. Perhaps we compartmentalize God, forgetting that He is One...ie. being loving in no way deminishes His Righteous Justice and Judgement. I don't know. Before a slew of people jump on me, though, reminding me that we live in the age of Grace and throw hypothetical/rhetorical questions at me ad infinitum like "So you think we should stone people?"...allow me to say that I tend to be anti-capital punishment. It is plain, however, that in that instance (Israel receiving the Law) God ordered executions by stoning. I must accept that as Just and Right. Just my two cents. In Christ, Eric <{POST_SNAPBACK}> If the Ten Conmmandments say we should not kill, how come God told pppl in the OT to kill? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The "do not kill" is better translated "do not murder." The idea is killing for personal reasons between people. The "government" and/or collective body has always had the responsibility for executing those who commit capital offenses.

Article Bill Would Permit DNA Collection From All Those Arrested By Jonathan Krim Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, September 24, 2005; Page A03 Suspects arrested or detained by federal authorities could be forced to provide samples of their DNA that would be recorded in a central database under a provision of a Senate bill to expand government collection of personal data. The controversial measure was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee last week and is supported by the White House, but has not gone to the floor for a vote. It goes beyond current law, which allows federal authorities to collect and record samples of DNA only from those convicted of crimes. The data are stored in an FBI-maintained national registry that law enforcement officials use to aid investigations, by comparing DNA from criminals with evidence found at crime scenes. Sponsors insist that adding DNA from people arrested or detained would lead to prevention of some crimes, and help solve others more quickly. "When police retrace the history of a serial predator after he is finally caught, they often find that he never had a prior criminal conviction, but did have a prior arrest," Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said in a statement. "That means the only way they are likely to catch such a perpetrator after his first crime -- rather than his 10th -- is if authorities can maintain a comprehensive database of all those who are arrested, just as we do with fingerprints." Privacy advocates across the political spectrum say the proposal is another step in expanding government intrusion. "DNA is not like fingerprinting," said Jesselyn McCurdy, a legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "It contains genetic information and information about diseases." She added that the ACLU questions whether it is constitutional to put data from those who have not been convicted into a database of convicted criminals. The provision, co-sponsored by Kyl and Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), does not require the government to automatically remove the DNA data of people who are never convicted. Instead, those arrested or detained would have to petition to have their information removed from the database after their cases were resolved. Privacy advocates are especially concerned about possible abuses such as profiling based on genetic characteristics. "This clearly opens the door to all kinds of race- or ethnic-based stops" by police, said Jim Dempsey, executive director of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a digital policy think tank. Originally, the federal DNA database was limited to convicted sex offenders, who often repeat their crimes. Then it was expanded to include violent felons. Several states, including Virginia, also collect DNA from those arrested for violent crimes. "It's a classic mission-creep situation," said Jim Harper, a privacy specialist with the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "These guys are playing a great law and order game . . . and in the process creating a database that could be converted into something quite dangerous." Typically, DNA is taken from suspects via a swab of saliva. A DNA "profile" -- or unique numeric signature -- is generated, which can be stored without including private genetic information. But privacy advocates say they are unclear how the growing number of state and federal samples are being handled, recorded and secured. The Kyl measure was added to a bill to strengthen penalties for violent acts against women and was approved without a roll-call vote. McCurdy said she hopes that negotiations among Judiciary Committee members result in changes before the legislation is voted on by the Senate. ___________ Notice how first it was used for this... now it's being used for something else? What will it be used for in 5 years?

There's nothing wrong with being a Messianic Jew. You are a fully completed Jew, as God intended Jews to be. When a Jew gets saved they do not need to forsake their Jewish roots. That is who they are. But, their supreme identity must be Yeshua, not Israel/Jewishness.

Spoudazo comes from the TR. He is simply mistaken on the meaning of the word. It would be like every time you read the word "gay" in the KJV you automatically understand it to mean "homosexual." "Gay" did not mean that back then... just as "study" did not mean what it does today. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hi Trust and Obey, the Greek word spoudazo has several meanings, and one of them is clearly "to study" and this with the modern sense. By the way, the word spoudazo is not just found in the TR; it is in all texts. Here is a bit more on this word and the correct CONTEXTUAL meaning as found in the King James Bible. 2 Timothy 2:15 "STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." So even if you thought that "study" should be "be diligent", what are you to be diligent in? - the answer is in the verse - "rightly dividing the word of truth". That's why contextually it makes perfect sense to translate as "study". Not only does the KJB render this word as 'study' but so also do Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible, Green's interlinear and his Modern KJV 1998, the KJV 21st Century Version, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible. Even the Italian Diodati has 'study' spelled 'studiati' The word is spoudazo in Greek and I have a modern Greek dictionary that has nothing to do with the Bible at all. It is like a Spanish/English- English/Spanish dictionary you buy in the stores. If you look up spoudazo it says "to study". Also the well known lexicon of Liddell & Scott on page 1630 lists one of the meanings of spoudazo as 'to study'. The noun form means 'study' and another noun form spoudastees means 'a student'. To me the difference is: 1. new versions: "do your best" ===> "present yourself to God as one approved" 2. KJV: "study" ===> "approved unto God" In the new versions it almost rings of Bible study vs. good works dichotomy - Perhaps the reason the Bible Relativists are enamored with "do your best" - "work hard" etc is due to a fundamental difference in one's appoach to God's Words - The Bible Relativist - Bible Corrector approach: Presented with a Bible text, the Bible corrector approach is to gear up for a rigorous Bible reconstruction project, since they have no Bible they can trust completely they must work hard, sweat nails to ferret out every greek nuance, every learned scholar's conjecture - they first consult 50 different versions, Cardinal martini, Von Soden, then consult Thayer, Kittel, Driver, etc. if needs be look for some fragment from an Egyptian garbage dump, Ugaritic tablet, Dead Sea scroll etc. - anything that could aid the never ending search for what possibly God may have maybe kinda said so as to reach a tentative speculation on the meaning to the text, pending Cardinal Martini's next Nestle-UBS text of course. Much like Cain's sacrifice in Genesis they can proudly proclaim to God, "Look at what I've done with your Words!" In contrast - the Bible Believer is blessed to have God's inerrant preserved words in the King James Bible and they study God's words. The Bible Believer praises God that He has providentially preserved His words so we can read them today in the KJB. So the modern versions that change this word here to "be diligent" or "do your best" or whatever, have neglected the context of the verse and made a change only for the sake of changing things to get their copyrights and make money. Will Kinney <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Here's another example that demonstrates that the word "study" in the KJV era did not mean only to "read and learn. 1Th 4:11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you; 1Th 4:12 That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing. Is that passage saying to read lots of books on how to be quiet? Or, is it saying to be diligent to be quiet? Obvioulsy, it is the latter. Now, the Greek word here is notspoudazo... that is not the point of this post. The point of this post is that the English word "study" meant something different then than it does today as is demonstrated by this passage.

It was good.

Okay guys/gals, I'm a hypocrite. My wife got me to watch it this week.

Fiosh, my understanding is that they rejected Yeshua as the Messiah because they were expecting a conquering Messiah, not a lowly one. They weren't expecting the Messiah to come and call into question their entire faith... their overly-legalistic observance of the law. Christ denounced all that they were and stood for. Therefore, they despised and rejected Him. As a result, they have been smitten with blindness and God has turned His attention to the gentiles. John 12: 37 But although He had done so many signs before them, they did not believe in Him, 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke: 

Oh, brother. Now we're appealing to cute little anecdotes.

Funny you mention "shooting in the head." This website had pictures of just that going on in China. In China they shoot them in the head so that they don't damage the rest of the body. Why? Because they want to harvest thier organs and then traffic in them. Those pictures were nasty too. One picture showed a teenage girl lying dead on the ground with the top portion of her head, everything above the nose and eye sockets, completely gone. I agree that lethal injection is the most civilized. That isn't letting them "off easy" either. As Tess said, their soul then belongs to God.

T & O, Stoning is no doubt a very brutal death but where the scripture speaks of stoning it speaks in plain terms. I don't see that God "acknowledged" stoning. He was giving His people His law...had He wanted beheading (for example) to be the means of execution He would have said so. I would have to say, then, that not only did God approve of it, he ordered it. If we struggle to understand that in light of "God's Love" then how are we to comprehend Hell? Surely no torment is greater. Perhaps we misunderstand God's love...who it is given to, what it entails. Perhaps we compartmentalize God, forgetting that He is One...ie. being loving in no way deminishes His Righteous Justice and Judgement. I don't know. Before a slew of people jump on me, though, reminding me that we live in the age of Grace and throw hypothetical/rhetorical questions at me ad infinitum like "So you think we should stone people?"...allow me to say that I tend to be anti-capital punishment. It is plain, however, that in that instance (Israel receiving the Law) God ordered executions by stoning. I must accept that as Just and Right. Just my two cents. In Christ, Eric <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Eric, thanks for your comments. I completely agree with you on the Hell thing. I was thinking about that last night. Stoning is nothing compared to the 2nd death. I guess this speaks to the ultimate level of God's righteousness and holiness. God is so infinitely holy and righteous that Hell is what it takes to pay the debt for a lifetime of sin. What we find as "not that bad of a life" God sees and utterly deplorable. This is due to the difference between man's perceived righteousness vs. God's. We tend to judge ourselves with ourselves, and the Bible says that is not a wise thing (2 Cor 10:12). Sometimes when I watch the news and see the "Palestinians" and other Middle Eastern people parading down the street or participating in some type of demonstration they'll be burning flags, saying "down with Israel...death to Israel..." I've seen footage of 7 and 8 year old kids singing songs that say things like "I want to be a martyr and spill Jewish blood" I think to myself, "what a brutish people." I thought the same thing when I saw that stoning in Iran. What a barbaric people. How uncivilized. But, then I thought, "wait a minute... God commanded stoning in the Bible." Maybe it is us in the Western world that are the odd ones. Perhaps we are too soft, too lenient, too cuddly. Does God want us to be like them? I have a hard time seeing Christ parade around like they do. As a matter of fact, when given the chance Jesus refused to participate in a stoning. True, the circumstances were that they were trying to entrap Him. But, can anyone envision Jesus stoning someone under any circumstances? I guess the answer lies in the fact that in Jesus' 1st Coming He came as a Lamb. At His 2nd Coming He'll come as a Lion... and the stones will be flying.

Tess, I agree that stoning will not surface in America. I agree that our capital punishment system is not executed swiftly. I also understand the reasons for this. I understand that someone who is sentenced to death should be afforded the opportunity to appeal and prove their innocence. There are times where justice is wrong... innocent people do get wrongly convicted. Fortuntately, DNA is making this less of a reality, but it still happens. Should this fact completely eliminate capital punishment as being an option? I don't think so. The fact that stoning is happening elsewhere still bothers me. People are people, whether from the US, Europe, Asia, or Africa. Your point with BTK is an interesting one. Should worse offenders receive worse methods of execution? Or, should we have one method for everyone? The lethal injection is certainly the most human thing I can think of and that is what most states in the US do. I do believe that stoning is torture. It is a torturous death by all accounts. I do see how stoning could also be a very, very powerful deterrent. But, does stoning, and torture for that matter, line up with the character of God? Do you consider stoning to be "torturous?" I guess one can pray they take a good shot to the head right off the bat and go out rather than take 5-10 minutes of rocks being thrown at you. And, these are big rocks... probably 3-5 pounders. Regarding chemical castration... I do not think it should be mandatory. I believe that a person should be able to accept that "treatment" as a condition for parole. I'm a father of 2, soon to be 3, and know all too much about the sexual predator problem. We have a lot of that where I live and quite a few neighbors have rallied together to try and do something about it. I think we are way too lenient on them. Their recidivism rate is alarmingly high. I think that after the 2nd offense they should be locked up for life. But, then again... the situations of incorrect conviction. I remember reading an article where a family took film into a Wal-Mart to get it developed. On the film were some pictures of a little girl nake and the father kissing her belly button. Now, that is not abnormal to do with an infant. But, they called Child Protective Services... the child was ripped from this family... the father was arrested for making child pornography and molestation. He finally was vidicated when the Attorney General looked at the photos and saw that there was obviously no mal-intent. It was harmless. Still... sexual predators are a cancer to our society and must be dealt with harshly. I know that. What do you think about the stoning method of execution? Do you think God approves of it or does He just acknowledge its existence? I'm not trying to bait you or anything. I'm just curious. For a long time I thought that stoning was loving in the way that it prevents crime... that is showing love for society. But, after seeing a live stoning it is apparent that the purpose is to cause severe pain and suffering to the person as they are dying.

I'm doing some research on the internet and have come across some very disturbing footage of a stoning conducted in Iran. On the video you can see that a man has been put in a potato sack type of bag and tied so that he/she cannot get out. Then, a mob proceeds to stone this individual. We all read of stoning in the Old Testament and just carry on... not thinking too much about it. But, after seeing this footage I am disturbed. How does this fit into the love of God? I am pro-capital punishment. I believe that capital punishment should be available and reserved for terrible offenses. I believe it serves as a deterrent to crime. Does the method of capital punishment matter at all? I mean, is there a responsibility to carry out the sentence with mercy? Beheadings, although they look grotesque, are quick and virtually painless. Hanging, although not immediate death.. is rather quick and doesn't seem as torturous as a stoning. The electric chair is certainly a very cruel method. So, my question... does the method of execution matter? Would it be okay for the government to start throwing people into a furnace and burn them alive? I know that has been practiced at times throughout history? What about "the rack" made famous on Braveheart? I'm hesitant to post the link for the stoning as the footage is quite disturbing. I know there are young people on this website and I don't think it is appropriate for their eyes. If someone wants the link they can PM me. It is not "graphic" at all in the sense of blood or anything. You simply see them throwing rocks at a sack that is moving (because there is a person inside suffering). Any thoughts? Did God condone stoning? Or did He simply recognize that it was the method of execution at the time similar to God's recognition, not endorsement, of slavery as a cultural reality?

Article Link Sale of Human Organs in China Michael E. Parmly, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor Hearing Before the Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights, House International Relations Washington, DC June 27, 2001 Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear at this important hearing to address the issue of the sale of human organs in China. The removal of organs from executed prisoners without proper permission from family members along with the trafficking in these organs is a serious, deeply disturbing subject that raises a number of profoundly important human rights issues. The State Department welcomes the opportunity to update the committee on our assessment of the problem and what the Department is doing to encourage China to put an end to this abhorrent practice. As you know, reports of Chinese authorities removing organs from executed prisoners in China, without the consent of the prisoners or their families, are not new. The Hong Kong and London press carried the numerous reports as early as the mid-1980s, when the introduction of the drug Cyclosoporine-A made transplants a newly viable option for patients. Our concern about such practices is also not new. We repeatedly raised this issue with high-level Chinese officials throughout the 1990s, pressing for changes in Chinese policy and practice, and urging changes in China

It's called the Olivet Discourse and its found in Luke 21, Matt 24, and Mark 13.

Well to quote Harry Truman "the buck stops here" and the president even told us that he was at least partially responsible for the things that went wrong. Personally, I think Bush's "part of it is my fault" speech was simply political because people wanted to hear it. The problem is with Louisiana. People are so used to getting a government hand out whenever something goes wrong that they blame that same government for the problem that happened in the first place. Our government has created a welfare state and those under it are completely dependent upon Big Government to sustain themselves. I say the Fed has no responsibility to do anything, fix anything, or bring anything to Louisiana. Now, if they choose to do so it is very appreciated. But, they don't owe. it. Now, that is the idealistic view. The practical view is that they tax us to death and so by golly they do owe it! Nope... keep them red pills in your pocket.

KayAnn, I have to agree with everything you just said. The only thing I'd like to add is that Clinton indeed was worse. This isn't a "Republican vs. Democrat" thing. Both parties are controlled by the Establishment. It does appear that Bush is very pro-life and is working, perhaps a bit stealthy, to overturn Roe. I give him BIG kudos for that. I hope and pray that Roe falls to its demise.

China is going to be our major adversary in this century. We should immediately cease all economic trading with them... bring back our manufacturing... stop selling them technology... and stop issuing visas to their spy-students. We are loading the rifles of the Red-Chinese with our insatiable hunger for cheap Chinese goods. It's going to come back to bite us.

You make a good point... one that I've made before regarding the Pres. The major problem I have with Bush is that he put his hand on the Bible and took a "so help me God" oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. In return, he has systematically destroyed it. I'm really hoping that his Supreme Court nominees help to overturn Roe. I do believe that Bush has a very tender heart for people and for the children. I do believe that, deep down, Bush is a good man with a good heart. But, having said that, it still isn't a good thing to use political office for selfish ambition.

Kerry gets attacked quite a bit. So does Kennedy.

Nobody knows his faith like he does so one cannot judge his eternal state. All I can say is that if he's a born-again believer he must be reading a different Bible than I do.