Metropolitan

Traveller and Botz, you cant possibly imagine how touched and blessed am I with your responses especially the last couple of them...The story about the Samaritans, goes on to show that it you dont need extra ordinary people to impress our God... Ordinary people from every day situation seems to have evoked a "wow' from our Saviour 1) The Roman Centurion 2) The Poor Widow (with the poor box offering) 3) The woman who poured the perfume on the Lords head(Alabaster jar) 4) The Leper who came back and offered his praise and gratitude(10 leper parable) I may have missed a few in the above, though they are not all Samaritans, but it is very evident, that the Lord never forgets such acts...So much so that it has found a special mention in His parables, and we still talk about them 2000 years hence! They will never be forgotten, for sure....I am so blessed brother!

Infact, Jesus was so impressed by this tribe, that he has spoken more of these guys than any other in his parables...The parable about the 10 lepers, where the only fellow who returned back and expressed his gratitude to Jesus for healing him, was also a Samaritan!

Interesting to know, would be the traditional Jewish opinion about 'Thanksgiving'. After all, we do celebrate "First Fruits" and Harvest festivals in our church

Thanks Botz, for sharing the info... Its very clear here that the Samaritans were settlers brought in by the Assyrians at the fall of Samaria, who accepted the culture and religion of the land they were brought to.. Theres couple of points that I want to ponder upon 1) There are many instance in the Old Testamant which says that the Israelites inter-married with alien settlers in captivity....and that included even the Persians...So I will not be very surprised if the locals intermarried the settlers as well...In which case there could be direct descedents of the Samaritans having mixed blood with the local Israelites 2) If these Samaritans were known to have co-existed since around 500BC, and following the same customs as the locals,probably intermarrying with the locals(after they returned back from exile), worshipping the same God, why is that they are in a minority today? Hmm...think theres to more to it, then

I must confess i dont know much about them to even start a topic on the subject..All I know that there was a "Good Samaritan" in one of Jesus famous parable, and Jesus' encounter with a Samaritan woman...Also about a province called "Samaria"(is the place related to the Samaritans, I have no idea) Just wanted to know a lil bit more of this tribe from ancient Jewish history..Are they also the children of Israel?..Also where are they now, if they exist anymore!

Always wanted to ask this , but dint know where to ask. What is the relation between theology and philosophy? What has Plato and Aristotle got to do with Christian doctrines? How did they influence Christianity? Positively or negatively? While Im aware that both Plato and Aristotle belonged to the pre-patriarchical period, but their thoughts and influence did have an influence on the early church...what was it? Some answers please...May God Bless you all

Pakistan is fast acquiring a notorious reputation... I dont know how to frame this, but Im very sure God will not forget the injustice meted out to HIS children! My heart goes out to all my fellow brethren in Pakistan...Praying to God to strengthen them to face all these persecution in the Grace and strength of our Mighty God!

I beg to differ. Any doctrine not found in the bible (which you acknowledge this one is not found in the bible) is NOT the quintessential expression of the Christian faith. If the Apostles never knew of such a doctrine, if Jesus never taught such a doctrine, and if the doctrine is not found in the scriptures, it is a later addition (as history validates, and so does your post), so how could such a late addition be anything other than men's ideas expressed in a creed? The real reason why any Christian must confirm the sola scriptura doctrine should be because the scriptures are the Word of God, and all other words, no matter how well expressed, no matter how much I agree with them or not, still, all other words are not the scriptures. The "modern Christian" is not an improvement, in my opinion, over the old time ones that held the scriptures tightly. what i meant is the 'the nicene creed' in its entirety or a continous format ...You cant expect every doctrine to be present in the bible as clear as the "lords prayer"..else we would never had a theological college or a church seminary or even an ecumenical council for that matter.. Anyways, I would like to know which aspect of the nicene creed is not found in the bible, according to you ?

First of all Im no O.T expert..So if there is something that I need to be corrected , I will be only glad to do so.. Technically Saul was considered to be the first King of joint Israel...He ruled for approx 40 years and was considered to be a 'bad 'ruler..David and Solomon reversed that trend, and were recorded to be good rulers for 80 years(40+40)...But after the split in the kingdom....Israel had mostly terrible rulers from 930 bc untill the fall of Samaria(722 bc), while Judah had the best of the lot The Kingdom of Judah had a better record than Israel, as Jerusalem did see some better rulers in the form of Asa( 910 bc), Jeshoshaphat (872 bc), Joash ( 835 bc), Azariah ( 792 bc), Jotham (750 bc), Hezekiah( 715 bc), Josiah( 640 bc) ...The worst ruler was Manasseh (697 bc)...But Zedekiah finally led them to misery untill the fall of Jerusalem My observation is that Israel never even a single ruler worth mentioning from the split untill the fall of Samaria( 930 bc to 722 bc) What could have been the possible reason for that? Does the trend continue to this day? Your say...

I can understand why the early church fathers were so concerned about the doctrine of trinity, as it is not such an easy doctrine to understand...Therefore I have to rely on church interpretations and the Nicene creed(adopted in the first first Ecumenical council of 325 , revised in the second council of 381) still holds good for me "We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth...." "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father ..." "And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son..." 3 distinct personalities! The only reason why some Christians who confirms to the sola scriptura doctrine, rejects this creed , is because it is not found as it is in the Bible...But to the majority of modern Christians inlcuding me, the Nicene Creed is regarded as the quintessential expression of the Christian faith. PS: The LDS and JW are among the ones who reject this doctrine

George...This has caught my eye, and I think this is very very serious...Im a lil troubled in spirit for our Christian brethren in pakistan...I just hope and pray that somehow this law doesnt get enforced, or else we cud see a mass persecution for Christians, in a society which is already heavily biased against them! Lets all pray for them!

A lot emotional replies...But I need some that confirms to the scriptures attesting to the New Covenant Let us read Gen 17 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk in my ways and be blameless. I will establish my covenant between me and you and I will make you exceedingly numerous. And you shall no longer be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham and I make you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fertile and make nations of you and kings shall come forth from you. I will maintain my covenant between me and you to be God to you and your offspring to come. I assign the land you sojourn in to you and to your offspring to come, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting holding; I will be their God. God further said to Abraham: As for you, you and your offspring to come throughout the ages shall keep my covenant. Such shall be the covenant between me and you and your offspring to follow, which you shall keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin and that shall be the sign of the covenant between me and you. And throughout the generations every male among you shall be circumcised at the age of eight days. Thus shall my covenant be marked in your flesh as an everlasting pact. And if any male who is uncircumcised fails to circumcise the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his kin. He has broken my covenant. Can someone revisit these verses, and give an exact account of what actually it means to the Jewish faith? And also what exactly happens/or would happen if a Jewish infant doesnt get circumcised on the 8th day, in the light of the New Covenant? If we are justifying it for medical or cultural reasons, I would not be interested...But if its for religious reasons, then I really really want to know! PS: I do agree Jesus was a jew and even He would have been circumcised...But lets not forget, that even the ones who crucified him were also 'law abiding ,devot ,circumcised Jews'!

Grace to you, Vickilynn Thanks for your reply! In the Book of Galatians, Paul answers the question: "Is it necessary to be circumcised in order to be saved?" Why did Paul feel compelled to answer this question? Simply because this question was of primary importance to believers of the early church, both Jewish and Gentile Gal. 6:12-13: "As many as desire to make a good showing in the flesh, these try to compel you to be circumcised, only that they may not suffer persecution for the cross of Christ. For not even those who are circumcised keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh." Apparently, these Jewish believers did not keep the whole law, but still believed that circumcision was necessary. Such was the importance of circumcision in the mind of some Jewish believers. A similar problem had occurred in Antioch, and we read of this in Acts 15. The Jerusalem conference was called to settle this question of circumcision. A letter was written to the Gentile believers, to be delivered by Paul and Barnabas, accompanied by Judas and Silas. Acts 15:24: "... we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, 'You must be circumcised and keep the law' -- to whom we gave no such commandment ..." We see, then, that it was not the apostles at Jerusalem who had sent these men to tell the Gentiles at Antioch that they must be circumcised. Rather, these men from Judea had taken it upon themselves to do this. The same was the case in the churches of Galatia. Certain ones had taken it upon themselves to spread this wrong teaching regarding circumcision. Finally, I would like to quote Gal 5:6 "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love." According to me, getting an infant circumcised is like 'infant baptism'...those who are against this form of baptism, it will be interesting to know their opinions as well..Also getting an infant circumcised, is a show of 'faith' for the parents, but nothing in at all for the child.

I was pondering on this aspect for a while, and I thought perhaps this is the right forum which can come to my rescue....I understand that this is a very touchy subject, and one over which even Peter and Paul sparred sometimes! Since we are all under the new covenant, why would the covenant of circumcision still valid for the converted jews? Paul has touched on this aspect in Galatians, but that was for defending the gentiles not having to be circumcised...But Paul very tactily has avoided to this as to not to unnerve the new 'jewish ' by not hinting at the new converts outside Jerusalem I dont know much of the present Jewish traditions, may be somebody who knows can throw some light on it! God Bless you all!

I am often surprised to find many Christians who do not believe in God's power to do other things. They do not say this, but it is reflected in their attitudes and comments. There are half a dozen verses in the New Testament that use the phrase, "God is able." It is helpful to think about what is stated in those verses: There is that well-known one in the 24th verse of Jude, "God is able to keep you from falling." I wonder how many Christians really believe that God is able to keep you from falling? I find a number who seem to reflect the attitude that God is not able to do this, that there are circumstances they can get into from which he is not able to deliver them and that there are pressures that are too great for them to bear and God cannot help them. This is reflected in what they say: "I can't help myself, I have to do this thing." "I lose my temper and I can't help it." Or, "I get subjected to pressure and after awhile I can't stand it any more. I give up." Which means, of course, that they do not believe that God is able to keep them from falling. But the Scripture says he is. He is able to keep us from falling. They think that the blessings of the Christian life are designed to make them happy. They always want a good feeling. That is why some people come to church. They only want a good feeling, something that makes them feel a little better as they go out, and they are satisfied if it has done that for them. Some want a riot of emotionalism, to work up a sort of religious "jag" once a week, which will serve to carry them until the next week. But this is not what God is aiming at. It is that you may be involved in doing good works, as the Lord Jesus, who "went about doing good," {Acts 10:38}. That was his purpose. That will involve speaking the truth, and practicing love, self-denying love, toward another. Thats what we as Christians should portray ourselves to the world And thats why I agree with Smalcald "Remember we are to be seen as a gentle people, blameless and harmless; we are to love our enemies. Christians will often be called weak because we don