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

.....One cancels out the other...The moment we say,"Lord , if i do this for you, will you do that for me?" This is why many Christians cannot get hold of the power of God...God's power cannot come by any other channel than God's grace. Why should this happen to me?" with the implication, "I've been living the kind of life that deserves more than this. God shouldn't do this kind of thing to me." That shows they have been trying to bargain for the grace of God but you cannot do it. You can have all God's power freely if you do not try to bargain for it. He will give it to you, but you cannot buy it at any store. You can have all you need if you will just take it. If you present yourself, and say, "Lord, I'm not much, but here I am, and all I am I put at your disposal," then he will take the greatness of his Being, displayed in many, many ways, and put it at your disposal, saying, "Whatever you need you can take." That is what grace does. The tendency to bargain is therefore found in the complaints of christians who keep falling out of the grace of God.. God is able to provide...But for that you must allow Gods grace to work in you..He does not put you on rations and say, "Sorry, you can only have a little bit, there's not quite enough." No, you can have all it takes, any time. He will give you exactly what you need, but never too much. Yes..exactly what you need..remember the manna from heaven...Just enough for the day, never enough for the next day The bread and fishes that our Lord multiplied were enough for everyone and a little bit left over, but everyone had all they needed. "As thy day, so shall thy strength be," { Deut 33:25 KJV} So many Christians fails to get this as 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. There is the formula to change the world. Just too many thoughts....les time..Be back

Dan...I have been reading your posts with great interests..And in some way i can relate to your experiences...I have some thoughts for you And God is able to make all grace abound toward you; that you, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to every good work. {2 Cor 9:8 KJV} Notice that the apostle begins where we should always begin in our thinking about Christianity -- with the power of God: "God is able," he says. There is nothing more evident today than the present weakness of the church. I am glad to see encouraging signs of renewal occurring here and there throughout the church, but in many places and in very many ways the church is exceedingly weak, and it is weak because it has forgotten or lost sight of the power of God. That is the basic problem with the church. It has only one kind of power it can operate on, and that is God's power. If it loses that, it is reduced to the same power the world or any worldly organization has -- the power of numbers, the power of political maneuvering, or the power of moral constraint..It is only the power of God that can do that kind of thing. But 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: "God is able to keep you from falling." God is able to subdue all things unto himself. "And God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance What is grace? Remember the small boy who was asked in Sunday school, "What is grace?" He thought the man said, grease, and replied, "It's what makes the face shine." He was right, because grace does make the face shine -- better than grease. Grace is a general term for all that God is, made available to us. It is God's character, God's virtue, all God's Being made available to us. "To make the invisible Christ visible," that is God's grace. The life of Jesus Christ in us, supplied to us, living through us, ministering to our every need, that is grace, the glory of Christianity. If your Christianity does not have that note in it, it is a false Christianity. That is what Christian faith is all about. "Christ in you, the hope of glory" {Col 1:27} Grace has one peculiar mark about it. It is a gift. It cannot be purchased, it cannot be worked for. It is unmerited. That is the problem. That is why a great many Christians do not know anything about the power of God, because that power comes only through the channel of grace. They keep trying to bargain for God's power, but if you bargain for it, then it is no longer grace. To bargain with God is like turning off the tap. You cannot experience the power of God if you are trying to earn it. Paul, writing to the Romans, says, "It is either grace or works. And if it is works, then it is no more grace; if it is grace, then it is no more works," { Rom 11:6}. to be contd...

Any nation that attacks the people of God is serving the cause of satan..The church of Smyrna is mentioned in the book Revelations(2:8), but I am not doctrinated enough to comment on any fulfillment of its prophecy satan has power, but limited But JESUS has unlimited power...Amen Let us continue to pray for the families of our departed brothers, and may God give them the courage to deal with these difficult times also for our fellow Christians in Turkey! Let us constantly encourage each other, in the Name of Jesus! Amen

Hell is all consuming fire....So then according to some, those who enter hell shud be more worthy to enter heaven again to thru the front door, as they are more purified than the prurgatory fire...is that so? I believe that initial judgement is by faith and faith only! The second judgement is of works and once we enter heaven, I think we are incapable of sinning again...so whats the point of purgatory fire any which ways? And if our prayers(the ones who lives) can change the destiny of somone else who has died and gone, then Christs atoning scarifice is in vain! Now that is serious fallacy!

Well, let's take a look at the scriptures in question. 2 Thess 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." I don't accept anything but the King James Bible, so I am going to answer according to it's wording. In the KJV Bible, the word "spoken" does not appear. It simply says, "by word." Either way, there is no way Paul is making a blanket statement that they should give credence to every tradition and every word that has been spoken. There were many false teachers around with traditions, and he wasn't encouraging them to heed to their teachings. In Galatians, he comes against those who said circumcision was necessary to be saved. That was being taught by some, but was false. The only traditions and teachings we have to hold to are those in the 66 books of the cannon. To believe otherwise would mean we would have to give equal weight to all other traditions and teachings, including gnostics and Mormons. Romans 13:7 "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their converstation. This is merely teaching us to respect those in authority over us in the church that speak God's Word. That would mean the things taught in scripture, not conclusions they came to outside of scripture. Many people sit under false teachers in the Mormon church. I certainly don't believe the Bible is teaching us to follow them. Romans 13:17 "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." This is teaching obedience to those in authority over us once again. Excellent stuff Butero! Now we are talking...Can you explain your last statement? Sure. Let's say I am a member of the Pentecostal Church down the street. I am the Sunday School Teacher. I want to go straight through the New Testament but the leadership wants me to use a particular Sunday School book of lessons instead. I may not agree, but I obey those in authority. Those in positions of authority have the final say. That is a small matter, but it can be applied in other areas of dissagreement as well. Basically, we are not to be rebels. So that explains the eucemincal councils and their traditions...Then there really is no harm, for the catholics submitiing to the Pope and likewise! Their traditions too are given by leaders who have authoirty over them! Dont get me wrong...This will not turn to a catholic apologetic thread! Jesus told the disciples to observe the things the Pharisees said because they sat in Moses' seat. I would not tell anyone they are not free to submit to church authority because I don't happen to agree with that particular church. At the same time, it is a good idea to know if the teachings of the church you are part of are correct, because your soul is at stake. The only harm would be if you are being taught to do something contrary to scripture. I was part of a church at one time that I agreed with when I joined. Later on, the Pastor changed in his doctrinal positions. Since I could not go along with the new positions he took, I left. Since I was no longer under his authority, I didn't have to submit to his leadership. If I had remained however, I would have had no choice but to have submitted, regardless of my personal feelings. I would have been wrong to have stirred a rebellion up against him. Butero..You just said , what i have been experiencing myself..Maybe we have similar excperience..Got to go now..But I will continue later..I really enjoyed reading your posts!

Butero..I too come from a protestant church...we too have traditions...like the incense, the cassock, the church order of worship..And I have been a lil skeptical of them, so far! But looks like, they arent all that bad!

Well, let's take a look at the scriptures in question. 2 Thess 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." I don't accept anything but the King James Bible, so I am going to answer according to it's wording. In the KJV Bible, the word "spoken" does not appear. It simply says, "by word." Either way, there is no way Paul is making a blanket statement that they should give credence to every tradition and every word that has been spoken. There were many false teachers around with traditions, and he wasn't encouraging them to heed to their teachings. In Galatians, he comes against those who said circumcision was necessary to be saved. That was being taught by some, but was false. The only traditions and teachings we have to hold to are those in the 66 books of the cannon. To believe otherwise would mean we would have to give equal weight to all other traditions and teachings, including gnostics and Mormons. Romans 13:7 "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their converstation. This is merely teaching us to respect those in authority over us in the church that speak God's Word. That would mean the things taught in scripture, not conclusions they came to outside of scripture. Many people sit under false teachers in the Mormon church. I certainly don't believe the Bible is teaching us to follow them. Romans 13:17 "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." This is teaching obedience to those in authority over us once again. Excellent stuff Butero! Now we are talking...Can you explain your last statement? Sure. Let's say I am a member of the Pentecostal Church down the street. I am the Sunday School Teacher. I want to go straight through the New Testament but the leadership wants me to use a particular Sunday School book of lessons instead. I may not agree, but I obey those in authority. Those in positions of authority have the final say. That is a small matter, but it can be applied in other areas of dissagreement as well. Basically, we are not to be rebels. So that explains the eucemincal councils and their traditions...Then there really is no harm, for the catholics submitiing to the Pope and likewise! Their traditions too are given by leaders who have authoirty over them! Dont get me wrong...This will not turn to a catholic apologetic thread!

Well, let's take a look at the scriptures in question. 2 Thess 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." I don't accept anything but the King James Bible, so I am going to answer according to it's wording. In the KJV Bible, the word "spoken" does not appear. It simply says, "by word." Either way, there is no way Paul is making a blanket statement that they should give credence to every tradition and every word that has been spoken. There were many false teachers around with traditions, and he wasn't encouraging them to heed to their teachings. In Galatians, he comes against those who said circumcision was necessary to be saved. That was being taught by some, but was false. The only traditions and teachings we have to hold to are those in the 66 books of the cannon. To believe otherwise would mean we would have to give equal weight to all other traditions and teachings, including gnostics and Mormons. Romans 13:7 "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their converstation. This is merely teaching us to respect those in authority over us in the church that speak God's Word. That would mean the things taught in scripture, not conclusions they came to outside of scripture. Many people sit under false teachers in the Mormon church. I certainly don't believe the Bible is teaching us to follow them. Romans 13:17 "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." This is teaching obedience to those in authority over us once again. Excellent stuff Butero! Now we are talking...Can you explain your last statement?

I don't see how you got that from her last post. It appears to me she is saying that just like the Old Testament is scripture, God used men like the Apostle Paul to write the New Testament, and that it is also scripture. If I am wrong Floatingaxe, feel free to correct me, but that is how I took your post. Greetings to you, Butero! I may have missed that from FA's post! Ok, there has been many councils which were called by church fathers, from as early as the 3rd and the 4rth century...What was their relevance? What was the confusion all about? What was the intentions of those councils? Did they really discuss the all sufficiency of the written word, then? God Bless There are numerous writings by the apostolic Fathers as well that go back to just after the Bible was finished. They discussed many differen't issues, but they were no more significant than any other group of Bible scholars getting together to interpret scripture or make decisions regarding the direction of the church. The things they said are not the words of God. The Word of God is complete. The only significance would be in the way their councils affected those who gave credence to their conclusions. I have been part of denominational churches in the past. Every so often, they would meet together and discuss the direction they would go over the following year. They would discuss matters relating to doctrine. At the same time, one assembly will dissagree with the conclusions of another assembly and will revise their previous positions. This just goes to show that this is not God speaking through people, but men trying to discern things to the best of their ability. When it comes to the 66 books of the cannon, everything written is settled. It cannot be changed. Whatever conclusions were made will remain stable. We cannot get together and go through the book of John for instance and vote to strike certain verses. I know there are some that have done that in some new translations, but the actual text is the text. Whatever God said originally stands as eternal truth. So how do we view the foll verses ? "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter". (2 Thessalonians 2:15) Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith...Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you. (Hebrews 13:7,17) Pauls teachings were primarily recorded as letters which we call as Epistles...What then is the spoken word of God?

I don't see how you got that from her last post. It appears to me she is saying that just like the Old Testament is scripture, God used men like the Apostle Paul to write the New Testament, and that it is also scripture. If I am wrong Floatingaxe, feel free to correct me, but that is how I took your post. Greetings to you, Butero! I may have missed that from FA's post! Ok, there has been many councils which were called by church fathers, from as early as the 3rd and the 4rth century...What was their relevance? What was the confusion all about? What was the intentions of those councils? Did they really discuss the all sufficiency of the written word, then? God Bless