Phil.2:12

Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are based on a blood covenant between God and man. In the Old Testament the blood covenant was cut between God and Abraham with all subsequent individuals entering into the covenant relationship by way of circumcision. In the New Testament the blood covenant was cut between God and Jesus when He shed His blood on the cross and all subsequent individuals entering this covenant relationship did so through their acceptance of Jesus as their Savior when His Blood could then wipe away their sins. The first covenant between God and man was broken over and over by those who were made a part of this relationship between God and Abraham by rite of circumcision. The second blood covenant can never be broken because it was made between God and His Son, Jesus. Those who enter into this covenant relationship between God and Jesus do so by accepting Jesus as their Savior and it is their heart that is circumcised, not an external body part. Our sins will separate us from Jesus, but they do not break the blood covenant between God and Jesus, hence this covenant will never be broken as the first one was. Since the concept of a Blood Covenant is central to our even being a Child of God, what are your views as to this central concept within the Christian experience. Is this concept even valid anymore in our day and time? Have we moved on to a more modern concept than the ancient concept of a blood covenant? If so, what is it? What is your understanding of a blood covenant? Does it still play a role in our salvation? Questions to ponder and answers to give.

You are quoting Bishop Earl Paulk which actualy says it all. He has been out of mainstream Christian thought for years and few, except for his "followers", take him seriously anymore. This is just another example of the "far out" theological musings of this man who would be a prophet.

Overalls or suspenders.... Both!! Can't be too careful you know. Maybe throw in some gym memberships as well.

By the way, do you know where this so-called "fad" started? It started in our penal system. (edited by moderator, too graphic for mixed audience) It came out of the prison environment through the rap route that glorifies rebellion against the current culture. First, rappers wore low baggy pants, imitating the inmates but this time the request went out to both men and women. From the examples of the rappers spewing their brand of "gangsta rap", the teenagers picked up the style of the low-riding saggy pants and adopted this style as their "rebellion" to all authority. I doubt if any of them realize the origin of the saggy pants within the penal system. And the defenders of rap music, all venues, say that their music has no lasting impact on the youth of America. Yeah, right

Not to worry, the legislation was totally zipped up before it became a law. Now, where are they issuing the mandated belts for all of our misguided youth? Probably in some huge warehouse next to all the FEMA trailers never issued.

Well, I grew up learning that demons were the angels who followed Satan in his rebellion against God. It wasn't until I interacted on the message board that I heard different beliefs about this. As far as I know, they are two different terms for the same thing. But then again, a "spirit" can be an angel, a demon, or the Holy Spirit. But the Holy Spirit is also called the Holy Ghost. But ghosts are more likely than not demons maifesting themselves as dead people as a means of tormenting the living. Then, of course, you have a spirit (that is, you have a body, a soul and a spirit). But I've never heard anyone say you consist of a body, soul and ghost. But then again, the KJV says when Jesus died He gave up His "ghost." Confused enough now? The confusion between the term "spirit" and "ghost" is due to the improper translation of the Greek word "Pneuma". This Greek word, the basis for our English word Pneumatic, etc. is properly translated as "spirit", for it basically refers to the element of "air", the root meaning of "pneuma". Therefore, pneumatic tools are tools driven by air, even the wind is refered to as "pneuma" (cf John 3:8). So the proper translation of "pneuma" is "spirit" and every time in the KJV that you see the word "ghost", the Greek word is "pneuma" and the word should be translated "spirit" not "ghost". There is no Scriptural basis that I'm aware of to substantiate the belief in or the existence of ghosts. IMHO ghosts, and their manifestations, are simply deceptions put out by Satan to confound and confuse humans, both the lost and the saved. Hope this helps lessen the confusion somewhat.

I have not yet read anything that someone stated from scripture that I needed to duck that even comes close to what scripture has stated. So, far, all I have read is a persons own interpretation of a Book which does not align with what has been understood regarding those same scriptures from the beginning. you better go back and read that again. I states just the opposite. It is the protestants view that it is not the Gospel once given. It is continually being given and added on to in time and drastically changing what was given to the early Church. Your view is of only a Book rather than that Truth that was given to the Apostles which they taught to the early Church long before any of the current canon was written and a much longer time before it was adopted as canon. You better check your history again. The RCC church began unofficially in 1054 when the Roman Bishop separated himself from the other 4 Sees. It was not really until the Council of Trent that the RCC was more or less formally established. I might add that it seems it is your missinterpretation of the word Gospel. It is not refering to the Gospels, the written Books. No, it was part of the Catholic Church. It might interest you that the western, the RCC, has never been Roman. The western part of the Roman Empire fell back in 475, which is the start of the separation, but by the time the Roman Bishop split, it was a German Pope that instituted the RCC Church in the west. The church is neither Roman, nor is it catholic any longer. They have established a central organization with a Vicar, and earthly representative of Christ over an organization. Can you find that in Scripture? Was that found in the first 1000 years? Just some questions for you to follow in your study of history and the theology of the first millennium. the Catholic church divided, with the Eastern taking the name of Orthodox which tells a lot, and the single See, the Roman Bishop became the Roman Catholic Church. It became an Organization in its own right. The Eastern Churches still do not have an organization. They remained as the Early Church was established through the first 1000 years. Check up on your history. Check up on the theology that explains the unchanging faith of that early Church through time which is today embodied in what is known as Orthodoxy, or the Eastern Orthodox Church. It is the ONLY Church that has faithfully maintained the meaning of Apostolic Succession. Not just a linear succession but more importantly, the succession of that faith through that linear succession and the authority through the laying on of Hands. What your view needs is a revisit to the history books and the study of the theology of the first 1000 years. A large assertion which you and others have yet to show to be so. Also, I challenge you to show that history actually supports your understanding of the RCC and its development. Like OneLight, I have nothing further to say to you either.

You are confusing a lot of things here. We were not given the Bible. We were given the Gospel. Some of this Gospel was written down. All of the teaching of the disciples is for us. Not any of it is excluded. But when one takes a portion of the whole, the written, which came long after the Gospel was given orally, and extracts it from the whole content and the context do you really expect to arrive at some understanding? We must also take the explanations, the understanding of that Gospel as it was given. Not just the written texts which came much later. It is not your personal interpretation that makes the Gospel, but what was ONCE given. We were not left without the entire Gospel being interpreted. Corinthians and most of Paul's letters are corrections relative to the Given Gospel. Most of it is not explained because they knew what it already meant. The only thing you get from the Bible is what the early churches did not either understand correctly or were abusing that Gospel and thus Paul's exhortations. The history of protestantism for 400 years is a clear answer as a comparison. When you speak of the Gifts that the Holy Spirit gives it is not ALL Truth. Why would He need to give ALL Truth again? Would it be because He failed to preserve His Gospel from the beginning? If you do believe that, then we might as well throw it all away. The point of His purpose was to give Us Himself and His Gospel which He did 2000 years ago. He does not need to come again to give us more or a different gospel. He does not give it to individuals as well. You have totally misunderstood the context of those texts and conflated a lot of things as being the same. He is definitely active today as He has been for the last 2000 years. He indwells believers who are in the Body of Christ. He is still preserving that Body and His Gospel. He gives to each what each needs according to his faith to mature as a believer. It is the Body, the ecclessia, the Church, which Christ rules as Head in which the Gospel is preserved, not in a Book - I Tim 3:15. I do not believe in a Book, but I believe in Christ, I also believe in the Church, which is Christ. The problem is that you have developed a whole new gospel from your personal interpretation of the Bible. That is why it is against what the NT actually teaches and has taught for the last 2000 years. You have extracted verses to shore up a false premise and then overlook clear versus which condemns what you are doing and states quite clearly when the Gospel was given, ONCE. Jude 3 supports it. Let me ask you a clear doctrinal question. If the Early Church believed in the Incarnation of Christ, and that understanding was upheld in the Ecumenical Councils, could you explain to me why and where the Bible changed that meaning? Why would Christianity now, for the most part within protestantism, actually deny the Incarnation through the theology of other parts of the plan of salvation? Did the Holy Spirit change that Truth, and Why? Did Christ come again and this time was not Incarnated, which must have been declared to you privately and this is now a gospel, confined to your view and a few others, which makes Christianity an individual religion rather than a universal Gospel? I say that because there are many others who will believe something entirely different, again a private gospel, not universal in the least, on the same texts, and also claim the power of the Holy Spirit in that new revelation. How could that be? Since hundreds can receive revelation privately, how do you know yours might even remotely be correct, or again, does it really matter? Just using the common name of "Christ" makes it legitimate. The Bible does not need to even be logical and reasonable and surely having contradictions should not prevent one from developing a new faith. Can you show that your view is aligned with scripture and has the universality of the Gospel and has been the Gospel of Christianity for the last 2000 years or is that not important either? If what you are explaining is the Truth, then you should have a barrel of historical witness to that Truth. Can you show that it was always believed, practiced, understood the same from the beginning? If the Gospel and Christ is relative, then what is the purpose of knowing Christ and being of like mind. It seems that understanding Him the same way is not really important in your theology. I have a ton of other questions along the same lines but I'll leave these for now. It surely is the teaching of THE CHURCH of which I am a member. It is the teaching of Christ from the beginning and preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church of which I am a member. The Holy Spirit only teaches those who are IN Christ, those who have submitted fully to Him and His Gospel unreservedly. That it is the ONE True Church has been it's claim from the beginning. Can you disprove it? If you can, then you should look elsewhere for that Church that Christ established on this earth and has been preserving it from the beginning, Pentacost relative to the NT. as well as His Gospel. If you cannot find one, then I would presume that the Holy Spirit failed and it would all amount to a waste of time anyway. I can understand your confusion now, that you also do not believe that All Truth was once given as stated in Scripture. But if scripture is correct on that score, then all these new truths that keep popping up in protestantism is new revelation. It was not known before, it was never understood by any Christian up to the time it was received by this particular 20th, 21st century Christian. You are actually doing two things, receiving new revelation, a new gospel, then you go about teaching it. You have no historical witness for it, since all prophecy has historical witness, all revelation has historical witness, yet your gospel does not. How come? Again, your questions are not relevant to the subject matter of All Truth. Conviction of sin has nothing to do with all Truth, except that ONCE given Truth is what that person is directed to, not given. If this were so, then every single unbeliever is being given ALL Truth as well rather than led to it. The problem you face is that each is being given entirely new truths within your theological perspective. His being in Us, is to help us work out our salvation, to be conformed to His image, not to receive doctrinal knowledge. It is to live according to that ALL Truth that was given for every Christian, uniformly, the same, believed and practiced in UNITY of the faith. It is to deepen our living IN Christ based on the uniform Gospel once Given for all, for all time. It does not change. Yet this is the modus operendi of protestantism and the method of sola scriptura with the authority given to each individual. None of which is supported by scripture, which most, if not all protestants, claim as the sole source of faith and practice. Again your whole statment is based on your personal interpretation of scripture, yet you cannot show anywhere that it was so believed, except by you. the ONLY Church that HOLDS that Truth is the Body of Christ. Do you find it stated differently in Scripture? And just how is man replacing the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit who is using man, believers in which He indwells, by which He preserves that Body and His Gospel. Can you find a different meaning in scripture? It is precisely the Holy Spirit preserving His Truth and not man. He uses man, but it is not man's truth or man's interpretation of His Truth. I asked this question before but no one tried to answer it - Can you find any truth that was developed by a single individual in the history of the Church? Or even a group of individuals that became Gospel? Not scripturally and theologically stated correctly. According to the Gospel once given those that reject Christ have not been a member of the Body of Christ. I am a member of that Body, so it is according to the Gospel once given by Christ Himself, that He is the ONLY way and it is IN Him that we are saved. One cannot be saved OUTSIDE of Christ. That is what scripture is saying. It has nothing to do with me personally. Only those IN Christ will recieve that wisdom, the Gospel preserved by and through that Body, the ecclessia for the salvation of those who enter into His Kingdom. That Gospel is for all. It is open to all, there are tons of material, that has been preserved by that Church as well, to assist all those being led by the Holy Spirit to belive IN Him. Do you know that by any meaning of scripture, this is blasphemous of the Holy Spirit. You are ascribing the work of the Holy Spirit actually to the devil, that Christ cannot preserve His Gospel in His Church the Body of Christ. What you cannot go against is your interpretation of the scriptures, not what the scriptures has actually taught for 2000 years. You are simply saying that you would rather accept your interpretation of a Book, then believe Christ, who is Head over His Church and preseving His Body and Gospel in this world. Reading your posts, Thaddaeus, is like playing dodgeball. You twist this way, then duck that way, every time someone throws an idea from Scripture at you that disproves what you are saying. The whole scene is quite entertaining, to say the least. You are no longer on the same wavelength as the Protestant posters in this thread. It even seems that you are bucking to become a "chosen one" within the Greek Orthodox denomination so that you will be in a more favorable position to defend the faith that you believe is the faith based on the Gospel that was ONCE delivered to the saints. Not only have you challenged all who stand up to you, often with twisted logic, but now you have gone so far as to exclude all of the New Testament outside of the Four Gospels as not being part and parcel of the Gospel ONCE delivered to the saints. As I said, the more you write, the deeper you dig your hole and the more ridiculous are your rationalizations that try to substantiate your reasoning. The belief that the Gospel (meaning the Four Gospels) have come down unchanged through 2,000 years of History demands a certain suspension of belief in its own right. The Gospels, as we have them today, came down through the Roman Catholic Church and only entered the Orthodox tradition when the Great Schism in 1054 occured, the split that was the begining of the Orthodox tradition. Before this date, the Orthodox tradition was simply the Eastern half of the Roman Catholic Tradition. In 1054, it was the Western half of the RCC that became the RCC, while the Eastern Half of the RCC became the Orthodox Tradition. There is no direct link between the Orthodox tradition and the first century without going through the Roman Catholic Church, which has its own problems in preserving the Gospel. Your position requires much suspension of historical data in order to have as clear cut a view of the history of the Gospel as you propose. So, please keep on writing, each post reveals more of your twisted beliefs to support a history that history itself does not support.

Thaddaeus, I've wondered why you left Protestantism and, after much study, joined the Orthodox church . Now I know. You have been bugged by all the interpretations of God's Word that you found within the various Protestant denominations and so you determined to do something about it. Instead of getting into the Word yourself, you decided that you could not handle that task alone, so you sought out a denomination which had a "lock" on interpreting the Word of God for thousands of years. Thus, the Orthodox church which has as its main claim to fame that they have preserved the Gospel ONCE given to the Apostles popped up on your radar screen. At last, someone who has the irrefutable Truth of God in their very denominational DNA. And you became committed to the Orthodox viewpoint, failing to realize that their viewpoint is essentially tailor made to fit their particular point of view. Not to worry, at least there is now only one voice, the voice of the Orthodox church, that you have to listen to. Makes life so much simpler when you don't have to dig out the doctrines of God out of His Word as the Holy Spirit teaches you. You just listen to what the Church teaches you and you've got it made. No wonder you are such a strong advocate for the Orthodox position. They say that there is no one worse on a smoker than a recent non-smoker and this truism follows in your case. There is no Orthodox churchman that is more supportive of the Orthodox position than a former Protestant. And I'm glad you have truly found a path that you can follow, but please don't ask the rest of us to believe as you now do, for some of us are not nearly as confident as you are that the path you chose is indeed the right path. Now that I know what drives your posts, I can read your posts with a more educated eye.

Just for understanding purposes, Alexander Campbell, Thomas Campbell, Barton Stone, Walter Scott, Moses Lard, and a whole host of other denominational preachers came from various denominations for the expressed purpose of getting away from the denominations and their teachings. Their expressed purpose was to get away from what they were being taught under each denomination and getting back to what the bible actually teaches and not what the denomination has for its doctrine. They did not start up another "denomination". They developed a certain saying, "Where the bible speaks we speak and where the bible is silent we are silent". As the history of the W's dictates that there were quite a few people in various denominations that did not want what was being offered in denominational doctrines and wanted to get back to the bible. They came from different places in the US and found out that they were of the same mind and teachings of the bible and same mind of getting away from denominationalism. Here are some of the Christians who were part of the Restoration movement with Alexander Campbell and why they did it - Barton Warren Stone - He was licensed as a Presbyterian preacher but was confused by many of the abstruce doctrines of Presbyterianism. He later declared an entire abandonment of all authoritative human creeds and held to the Bible alone as the only rule of faith and practice in religion. After accepting the Gospel way of salvation as it is taught in the Bible he started into evangelistic work, which proved effective, as several churches of Christ were established in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. Walter Scott - was born into a strong Presbyterian family...Being sprinkled as a small child, he learned that he had not been scripturally baptized and was immediately immersed by a friend. He continued to search the Scriptures with an earnest desire to know the will of God and a strong determination to follow the Word of God where ever it led him. Without doubt, Walter Scott played a dramatic role in the Restoration Movement of the nineteenth century. Thomas Campbell was born February 1, 1763, in County Down, North Ireland. Possessing a deep religious character, he developed a love for the Scriptures. He spent much time in Bible study and as his knowledge in Scripture increased, his doubt in Presbyterianism became stronger. Finally he declined "all ministerial connections with, or subjection to, the Associate Synod of North America." While in Ireland, Thomas had no connection with any Restoration Movement, but in America, he found himself teaching and preaching a complete return to the Bible for all belief, doctrine and practice in religion. He believed in accepting only the Bible for all things in matters of faith in religion. He preached and taught only the Bible. He started no new religion nor any new church but preached only that everyone must believe and obey the Word of God. Alexander Campbell - was born in County Antrim, September 12, 1788. At the age of twenty years, he enrolled in the University of Glasgow, became proficient in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, French and English literature, Philosophy, Logic and Church History. In his study of the Bible he discovered that Presbyterianism, the religion of his family was not the doctrine of the Scriptures and therefore, proposed to take the Bible as his only guide in matters of faith. He also believed it was possible to restore the church of the New Testament by using the Bible as a blue print. On September 29, 1809, he came to America where he found men that were already involved in pleading for the complete restoration of the first century church of Christ, to speak where the Bible speaks, to be silent where the Bible is silent and renounce the practice of calling themselves names after their earthly leaders, that everyone obeying the Scriptures should be called "Christians." (Acts 11:26), and would be, by the Lord, added to His one church (Acts 2:47). In his zeal to restore New Testament Christianity he was not without persecution, being accused of starting a new religion, but neither he nor any of the early restorers ever had in mind any other than a complete restoration of the New Testament church of Christ. You will see that Alexander Campbell did not start the Churches of Christ. When he came here to America he found that there were already people with the same mindset that he and his father, Thomas, had. If you look at the history of what was called the, "Restoration Movement", you will see where these great preachers debated just about every denomination here in the US and even atheism. Their purpose was to get back into to the bible for our doctrine and not use books or creeds that only surround specific denominations. So, the expressed purpose by those who were members of the the Restoration Movement and members of the Churches of Christ was to get away from denominational doctrine and back into the words of Christ as our only doctrine to follow. There origins were not the same as those of Martin Luther, the Wesley brothers, John Smyth, John Calvin, Mary Baker Eddy, etc. Many people today believe that we are all part of the Church because of our faith in Jesus and it doesn't matter if our doctrines differ, but that is wrong. Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Now, if our faith comes from hearing the words of God, then what kind of faith do we have when our faith began with the different doctrines we were either brought up in or are currently apart of? I.e. If I was brought up a baptist then my faith in God is according to that doctrine. If I was brought up a Catholic then my faith is according to the Catholic doctrine. If we apply this to every denomination the we can see a pattern of were each others denominational faith is going to be different not only from each other, but also in how we have faith in God. When I am a baptist I have faith God the way that the baptists teach. When I am a Lutheran I have faith in God in which the Lutherans teach. This can be done with every denomination. I know it can be said about the Churches of Christ too, but if you will look at its foundation you will see that is if supported by getting away from these denominational creeds and doctrines and basing our faith on scripture only. 2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Our faith in God comes from this. ALL SCRIPTURE is what is supposed to be used for our doctrine, to reprove us, to correct us, and to instruct us how to be righteous before God. My wifes' family is Lutheran. Her grandmother had a huge fit when I did not want our children to be baptized. The grandmother believed that the children would not be safe if they were not baptized. Not to start an argument on baptism, but look at the division in just baptism. You have some who believe that baptism is necessary part of salvation, some don't, some believe that baptism is essential to a Christian, but no saving properties, some who believe that infants must be baptized and some who don't. There are even divisions on how to even baptize. Is this all a part of God's plan of salvation to mankind to give us varying and contradicting understandings and doctrines? 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Jesus was the "Word" for a reason. To teach us by his words what God's will towards man is and what he requires from us. Every denomination has the "will of God" different from each other or they drop it all the back down to its base of "faith" as to how all "Christians" are unified and dismiss the varying doctrines. The "Restoration Movement" in the 1700-1800's was started and based upon coming out of denominationalism and getting back into the words of God as our guides for our Christian salvation and living. You can add the name of Martin Luther to that list above who was a reformer whose only interest was to reform the Roman Catholic Church, not start a denomination with his name attached. And all that this proves is that man is the basis of all denominations, not God. Thus the central idea to this thread is finally agreed to, that denominations are not something God started and therefore should not be supported by those Born-Again believers in Jesus who desire to go very deep into the things of God. However, being the human beings we are and desiring the support that an organization (no matter how loosly formed) will provide us, we will cling to our denominations and our pseudo-denominations (the loosly formed organizations outside of official denominational structure) because "birds of a feather flock together" and there is a certain strength that like-minded individuals draw from one another. There will always be denominations or pseduo-demominations because that is the nature of man, but to say thse organizations are ordained by God is, IMHO, just plain wrong. Yes, we will always have denominations or pseudo-denominations and NO, they don't come from God who is never the author of disunity. He wants all of His children understanding His Word the way He wrote it, not the way some denomination interprets it. Only the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, can carry out this awesome task of keeping the body of Christ in unity, but for that to happen, we must first acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit within today's body of Christ, a task that seems an impossibility in some major denominations today. Because of this, we will be forever probing the question of who is the final arbiter in all maters of faith. Who, indeed, among us is wise enough to determine just what the members of the body of Christ should unite around? Only the Holy Spirit can fulfill the role of the Unifier of faith within the body of Christ, a fact overlooked time and time again within the posts in this thread.

How do you know you are doing everything the way the aposltes did? How do you even know that all fo the apostles agreed on every point? What about the problems between Peter and Paul? Paul and Barnabas? What about the divisions that occurred early on about the importance of circumcision? I'm not OneLight, but I"ll take a crack at these questions, Shiloh357, if you don't mind. First off, these are valid questions to ask. The earliest Apostles DID have disagreements recorded in Scripture, so they did not agree on every point. However, as a result of tbeir disagreement, they did not start the Pauline denomination, the Peterine denomination, the Barnabian denomination, the Jamiesian denomination, the Johannie denomination, etc. They got their heads together and hammered out, within the leadership of the Holy Spirit, just what doctrines God wanted taught and they stuck with these doctrines. Paul even came down hard on the Corinthian church for trying to start the Pauline denomination, the Petrine (Cephus) denomination, the Appolian denomination and the Christian denomination, all out of one church. Denominations always arise because someone disagreed with someone else within a given church within a given denomination. If you have ever studied in depth (more than a one day googling effort on the 'net) the origins of the various denominations, you will soon discover that every single denomination was started the same way those groups within the Corinthian church were started. People who disagreed with Brother or Sister So-and-So, began to gather around themselves other brothers and sisters who thought like them. Pretty soon, that new group pulls away from the main group and other like-minded groups from the main denomination that have pulled away begin to join together and, Voila!, a denomination is born. When you realize that 95% of all denominations in existence today came into existence within the past 150 years, you begin to realize the enormity of this recent (historically speaking) surge in denomination formation, and they all arose because people within the known denominations began to disagree with the denominational stance on any number of topics. For example, the Methodist came about because of the methodical way the Wesley brothers approached theological ideas and spread through the great revival that swept America in the mid 1800's. Then the Nazarenes arose because some of the Methodist's learned about the doctrine of santification that the Methodist's didn't teach, so they broke away on this issue and called themselves "Nazarenes" after the home town of Jesus to distinguish themselves from the Methodist's they had just left. Alexander Campbell gets a "better idea" and the Church of Christ is born. And so it goes. Every known denomination today can trace their beginings to a disagreement within another group (denomination) that caused the new group to pull away from the old group. So then, how is this pattern of denomination forming even remotely Scriptural? They are, by definition, formed out of strife and this reflects the love of God how? Paul shot down the nascent denominational forming exercise in the Corinthian church because it did not express the love and unity that God requires of His children. So why is this disunity O.K. in our day? Makes me wonder.

Well, you just had to go and do it, OneLight. You had to stir the puddin'!! Actually though, the question is not a bad one at all. I've read thru this thread and the one thing I find missing (possibly because of lack of knowledge) is the fact that in the early 1600's (when the KJV first came out) that translation was every bit as controversial to those folks as the "Messsage" seems to be to us. After all, the KJV was actually written in the language that the common man spoke, not in the learned prose of earlier translations. It took over a hundred years for this translation to find acceptance among the masses, in fact the Pilgrims (when they came to America) carried the revered translation of their day, the Bishop's Bible. Nary a copy of the KJV could be found among our forefathers in Massachusetts. I've done a continuous study of the Message, comparing it to the KJV, often verse by verse. My copy of E-Sword has a feature called "parallel" which alows two translations to be viewed side-by-side. So I use the KJV and the Message because I wanted to see just how different the two versions are in a verse-by-verse comparison. Strangely enough, there is little difference between them with the Message tending to be acting more like an Amplified version in that it expands the idea expressed more broadly than the KJV might. So far, I have found no significant difference in the two versions that would make me throw away my Message. I don't use the Message for studying, it's not designed for that purpose. I use it to read the Bible as I would read a fine book written in today's language. Before anyone tosses out the Message cavalierly (that is out of hand), they should read the first few pages of the Message where the background of Dr. Peterson is discussed and the rationale for even attempting a new paraphrase is given. Mighty good stuff there. Remember, when the KJV was first written, it also was a paraphrase of the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible as well as a literal translation (as far as it was able to be) of the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. This is one of the reasons it was not immediately embraced with the enthusiasm and reverence we give it. The KJV held up to the test of time and replaced both the Bishop's Bible and the Geneva Bible as an authoratative translation of the Scriptures from the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Perhaps, in time, so will the Message Bible be so respected.

That is not a sick joke, but a cleverly devised trap of Satan to convince us that God does not really love us as the Bible clearly states. The tip-off was in the beginning of this article where we were instructed to check out all the verses in the Scriptures on love without any regard to the context of each verse. If you take Matthew 27:5, Luke 10:37, John 13:27 in order and completely out of context, you will see a Scriptural basis (so called) for committing suicide by hanging, with the added admonition to do it quickly. This is an example of just how ridiculous people can get when they string verses out of context together to prove a preconcieved point. When Jesus, in John 3:16, stated that "God so loved the world", that pretty nmuch sounds like a universal statement to me. If "God so loved the world" is not a universal statement, then I do not know the meaning of a universal statement. God proved this statement on the Cross where He who knew no sin became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21). The love of God is now forever out there for all to see and those who accept the sacrifice of Jesus in just payment of their sin will quickly see and feel the love of God. The bottom line is that we become the chosen of God when we accept Jesus as our Savior. When we choose to ignore the gift that God has extended to us, not only are we not the chosen of God, but we damn ourselves to an eternity in Hell. God has never sent anyone to Hell at any time, we willingly choose this eternal abode when we reject the free gift of salvation that God offers to all, regardless of wealth, position, or social stature, for God is no respector of persons. God displayed His love for all to see when He sent His only Son to die on that cross in our place. We display our desire for a relationship with God when we accept His free gift. Only within that relationship can we really experience God's true love for us, for only then will we be receptive to God's love within our lives. Without that relationship, we have no need to feel the love of God that He has placed in the world, for we do not care about the things of God. There is no "universal salvation" available to mankind apart from accepting Jesus as your Savior, another lie formed in the pits of Hell and loosed on mankind. The one thing Satan cannot do is love anything. So, if he is able to convince others that A) God does not really love all, or B) God so loves everybody that He will not let anyone go to Hell, then he has stolen the one thing that totally separates him from God and that is Agape, unconditional, forever there love that only God has. Please don't be led into this satanic trap by the fanciful rationalizations of others. Remember, whenever you are required to string a series of verses together out of context, run, do not walk, to the nearest exit. Wait a minute. You said above: "There is no "universal salvation" available to mankind apart from accepting Jesus as your Savior, another lie formed in the pits of Hell and loosed on mankind" I thought that was the only way to be saved? Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, the life." Anyone that confessed with their mouth the He is Lord and believes it in their hearts, right??? I'm confused... The above sentence could also be stated as; the only way to have salvation is by accepting Jesus as your Savior, which rules out "universal salvation". I think the phrase "apart from accepting Jesus as your Savior" may have thrown you. When you remove accepting Jesus as your Savior (which is what the word "apart" is referring to) from the "universal salvation" formula, you have no salvation. That is what the above sentence is referring to. Sorry for the confusion, there is no salvation for mankind except the salvation Jesus offers us through the free gift of the payment of our sin debt that He tenders to us.

That is not a sick joke, but a cleverly devised trap of Satan to convince us that God does not really love us as the Bible clearly states. The tip-off was in the beginning of this article where we were instructed to check out all the verses in the Scriptures on love without any regard to the context of each verse. If you take Matthew 27:5, Luke 10:37, John 13:27 in order and completely out of context, you will see a Scriptural basis (so called) for committing suicide by hanging, with the added admonition to do it quickly. This is an example of just how ridiculous people can get when they string verses out of context together to prove a preconcieved point. When Jesus, in John 3:16, stated that "God so loved the world", that pretty nmuch sounds like a universal statement to me. If "God so loved the world" is not a universal statement, then I do not know the meaning of a universal statement. God proved this statement on the Cross where He who knew no sin became sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21). The love of God is now forever out there for all to see and those who accept the sacrifice of Jesus in just payment of their sin will quickly see and feel the love of God. The bottom line is that we become the chosen of God when we accept Jesus as our Savior. When we choose to ignore the gift that God has extended to us, not only are we not the chosen of God, but we damn ourselves to an eternity in Hell. God has never sent anyone to Hell at any time, we willingly choose this eternal abode when we reject the free gift of salvation that God offers to all, regardless of wealth, position, or social stature, for God is no respector of persons. God displayed His love for all to see when He sent His only Son to die on that cross in our place. We display our desire for a relationship with God when we accept His free gift. Only within that relationship can we really experience God's true love for us, for only then will we be receptive to God's love within our lives. Without that relationship, we have no need to feel the love of God that He has placed in the world, for we do not care about the things of God. There is no "universal salvation" available to mankind apart from accepting Jesus as your Savior, another lie formed in the pits of Hell and loosed on mankind. The one thing Satan cannot do is love anything. So, if he is able to convince others that A) God does not really love all, or B) God so loves everybody that He will not let anyone go to Hell, then he has stolen the one thing that totally separates him from God and that is Agape, unconditional, forever there love that only God has. Please don't be led into this satanic trap by the fanciful rationalizations of others. Remember, whenever you are required to string a series of verses together out of context, run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.

Never quite heard it put that way, but I must agree as I ROFLOL . However this only holds true as they retain their numerical position. If they ever assume a theological position (outside the offering plate) all bets are off!