Jason Gastrich

Thanks to those who have expressed interest in becoming a moderator on our new discussion boards. The launch is set for June 7. We are still seeking a couple more moderators, though. I'll post a link to the forum after it launches. God bless, Jason

In other words, the ministry allows the free flow of ideas from people all across the denominational spectrum. It is not only to Baptists, Methodists, Pentecostals, Wesleyans, Adventists, etc. As long as you are a Christian, you are welcome. The only ones that would be excluded would be those in cult religions. so does interdenominational include people who believe replacement theologies? Here's a good rule of thumb that should answer any question. "In the essentials unity, in the non-essentials, liberty." I don't believe it's our job to major on the minors. The essentials include the essential doctrines for salvation. On these, we won't move. However, on the non-essential doctrines (even though they seem "essential" to some), like sprinkling or immersion for baptism, we don't have to believe exactly the same way; although I believe the scriptures are pretty clear about baptizo meaning to immerse in water. God bless, Jason

Hi Butero, Nice to meet you. The best way to learn about JCSM is to visit http://jcsm.org . It's very large, but the main page explains it quite well and you'll see how we are different from and alike other sites. JCSM is an interdenominational ministry. We have a detailed and sound statement of faith, though. Please tell me a bit about yourself and if you are considering moderating our new discussion board. God bless, Jason

God has been prompting me to re-launch my ministry's internet forum. Last time, it got large and was very successful, but it became a burden because I was the only moderator. So, I'm wondering if anyone might like to help me moderate the discussion board. Thanks for your prayerful consideration. If you want to make sure I quickly receive your reply, you can send it at http://jcsm.org/contact.php God bless, Jason Gastrich, Ph.D.

Arben, Have you had a chance to visit, yet? God bless, Jason

Hi Jessy, Thanks for your encouragement. Also, I'm happy to bless you with our weekly devotions and midweek message. God bless, Jason

I understand, Tah. God bless you, Jason

Thank you Elkie and Brandli. God bless you guys. Sincerely, Jason

Dear Friends, I hope you

If you answered this one I didn't notice. Just a reminder in case you missed it. Thanks, Douay Hi Douay, The word "call" in "call on the Lord" isn't a casual call. It means to trust, believe, and accept Christ as Lord and Savior. The next passage can be understood in context. It is referring to a lukewarm believer that isn't actually saved. This week's devotional message is called "The Pretend Christian." I mention one of these passages. You can read and hear the devotional on JCSM. Listen: http://jcsm.org/ADA/Devos361.mp3 Read: http://jcsm.org/Devos/Devos361.htm God bless, Jason

Hi and thanks for your question. 2 Samuel 10:18 indicates David killed 700 men in chariots. 1 Chronicles 19:18 indicates he killed 7000 men in chariots. This omission is very similar to the one in 2 Samuel 8:4. The author of 2 Samuel simply indicated the number of companies (or leaders). There were 700 companies with 100 in each. Therefore, there were 7000 men in chariots. These horsemen were also trained as footmen. Therefore, 2 Samuel 10:18 calls them horsemen and 1 Chronicles 19:18 calls them footmen. These same men were both. God bless, Jason

With all due respect, I think you are just plugging me for answers without doing any research. You could easily find information about Dan's idolatry with a Google search. Please consider doing research when you have questions, then ask them if you cannot find the answer. See this page and read the bottom 1/4 of it for some information on Dan's idolatry. Link: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=26&letter=D Which passage in Ezekiel are you talking about? Ezekiels words had a present meaning for Israel. However, some of his words were also prophetic. If you need some Bible resources, see here: http://study.jcsm.org . The JCSM Study Center has nearly 1GB of Bible resources, literature, maps, etc. God bless, Jason

Hi and thanks for your question. In Revelation 7, Dan is purposely left out. The tribe of Dan was the first to practice idolatry and consequently judged by God as inappropriate inheritors and instruments of His grace. Manasseh was Joseph's firstborn son and grafted into this line of people by God. God bless, Jason

You're welcome and God bless, Martin. Sincerely, Jason

Thanks brother John. Sincerely, Jason

Hi Martin, Thanks for your message. Recently, I was in a debate with an atheist regarding the post-resurrection accounts. I turned my arguments into a web page and posted it on my site. You can see my answers to the post-resurrection accounts here: http://www.jcsm.org/BibleLessons/Barker17.htm . God bless, Jason

You bet, facedown. I'll be happy to answer. God bless, Jason

As promised, here are some more answers. In 2 Samuel 24:1, this Hebrew word is translated "moved" and not "tempted." God let David be tempted to take this census. Since God is sovereign and in control of all things, even when He allows something to happen, it may be said that He made it happen. Consequently, He didn't literally tempt David, but He let him be tempted. 1 Chronicles 21:1 indicates that Satan tempted David to take the census. This is exactly what happened. The scripture in Exodus was written to and for the ancient Israelites. It was dealing with capital punishment. Capital punishment was the consequence for a variety of things that are not applicable to New Testament believers. Incidentally, you can read Romans 13 for a New Testament passage on capital punishment. If you are wondering how to interpret the scriptures and why the verses in Exodus and Leviticus apply to the ancient Israelites and why the verses in Matthew and Romans apply to the church, check out my page on hermeneutics: http://jcsm.org/Education/hermeneutics.htm . In the KJV and NJKV, 2 Samuel 21:19 corresponds with 1 Samuel 17:50. There is consistency. Some manuscripts or translations may not indicate "the brother of," but even in those, the meaning is surely implied and known. After He received the vinegar, John states that Jesus said (in a regular voice), "It is finished." Matthew 27:46 records Jesus crying, before receiving the vinegar, in a loud voice, "My God, why have you forsaken Me?," but clearly says He said something else in a loud voice (Matthew 27:50) before He died. Luke 23:46 records Jesus crying, in a loud voice, "Into your hands, I commit my Spirit." These are all complementary statements that happened at different times. They are clearly given by people who are in different proximities from Jesus' crucifixion. John was near Jesus, but only recorded one of His statements. Matthew was in the general vicinity of Jesus, before He said, "My God, why have you forsaken Me?," then He moved further from Him and couldn't record anything else He said. Luke was eventually in the general vicinity and recorded Jesus' very last words. None of the disciples made "mutually exclusive" statements that would nullify any of the other accounts. All of these statements were made by Jesus Christ and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John compiled an account of them. Were there more statements that were not recorded? All of these answers have been copied from my book - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained - http://sab.jcsm.org . God bless, Jason

Hi Marc, These verses read: "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. 35And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." Recently, I created a web page for 10 hermeneutical tips for understanding the scriptures. Please check it out and let me know how you would interpret this verse. Afterwards, I'll give my input. Link: http://jcsm.org/Education/hermeneutics.htm . God bless, Jason

In the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons. As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. - Adam Clarke You are making an argument from silence. We see a couple of omissions. Omissions are not necessarily errors and surely not errors in this case because both accounts harmonize. God bless, Jason Well Jason, I guess you will just have to wait on questions to arrive that you feel like answering. I personally dont doubt the inerrancy of God's word, But only posted the questions up since they were used by an atheist on these forums to give credibility to his beleifs. I thought maybe you could address them and provide a rebuttal to the claims. I guess they dont meet your criteria, as they are cut and pasted. But thanks anyway! And thanks for addressing the first two questions. Hopefully you will get some of the more appealing questions you feel like answering soon. From the thread, I gathered that no one was asking questions that you considered to be acceptable either. These were legitimate questions concerning subject matter that some consider to be inerrancy. Maybe you should clarify just which questions you will answer, and maybe include what format you would like them in as well. We sure dont need anything else to stand in the way of you being able to answer the questions that you so eagerly asked for us to present to you. Rick Hi Rick, I wasn't notified of your message, so that's why I didn't respond until now. The questions you asked were perfect. They were just the kinds of questions I was seeking. Thanks. How has your research been going? Surely, you have been researching those questions and looking for the answers. Yes? When time permits, likely Monday, I'll return and answer a few more of those questions. Someone sent me a private message and encouraged me to answer. He said it would encourage Cerran. You mentioned something similar. It is normally my policy to avoid long copy and paste lists from people because the people who post them are usually disingenuous and it amounts to question bombing. However, I'll make an exception in this case because of your sincere request, the requests from the private messages, and from the prompting of God's Spirit. Incidentally, if someone wishes to have nearly 4,000 answers to the tough questions about the Bible, then they can purchase my book. You can download a free sample and see more about it here: http://sab.jcsm.org . Have a great weekend and I'll see you soon. God bless, Jason

Hi Rick, Thanks for your message. While I'm sure your heart is in the right place, I didn't come here to answer long lists of copied and pasted statements. I have answers to all of those and did answer the first two in this message, though. In the genealogy described by St. Luke, there are two sons improperly such: i.e. two sons-in-law, instead of two sons. As the Hebrews never permitted women to enter into their genealogical tables, whenever a family happened to end with a daughter, instead of naming her in the genealogy, they inserted her husband, as the son of him who was, in reality, but his father-in-law. - Adam Clarke You are making an argument from silence. We see a couple of omissions. Omissions are not necessarily errors and surely not errors in this case because both accounts harmonize. God bless, Jason

Thanks Angel and God bless you! Jason

I'll quote my book, The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained on this one. John 19:14 clearly says it was "about the sixth hour." In this verse, there are even distinct Greek words used for "about," "sixth," and "hour." John forgot his watch, so he had to guess. This is why he was approximately 2-3 hours off. God bless, Jason

Hi traveller, Ok. Let's go. In the list of generations in Matthew 1:2-6, there is an omission. This is allowable because the Greek word "genao" that has been translated into "begot" doesn't have to indicate father/son relationships. It can indicate lineages and skip generations. The same answer is true here. God bless, Jason

Hi Wayne, God bless you and thanks. I look forward to more fruitful discussions. Serving Him, Jason