rich08

What does "there is neither male nor female" mean? Neb raises a very valid point. The same argument of logic is used to defend homosexuality based on the words you have highlighted. Isn't the point of these verse to underline the inclusivity of the Christian message, that it is for all and doesn't depend on your racial heritage, position in society or gender? (I would argue that Paul's statement is significantly more impactive in the first century because of the stark differences and treatment someone received because their position in society was so dependant on these things.) It is important too to read the verses to the end. Paul defines what it means to belong to Abraham. You are a descendant of Abraham if you belong to Christ, regardless of that racial heritage, position in society or gender. This is one of the verses quoted by those who argue for 'replacement' theology, the view that the church is the new Israel and God's promises are now fulfilled in the church. The trouble with that view (at least at face value) is like a husband saying to his wife, 'You know all those promises I made to you on our wedding day; well I've met someone else so I'm going to break them.' And if he then makes the same promises to the new bride, how can she trust him to keep his word when he hasn't in the past? (He rejects Israel for a new bride, the church.) The alternative (dualistic theological) approach is not without it's problems too, that is the argument that the promises to Israel run alongside and in tandem (maybe overlapping and maybe not) with that of the church. Is God saying to Israel, 'I know you are my people - and you still are - but I've got a new set of people called the church?' As someone who has only recently (when I started this topic) started looking in depth at the arguments for and against, it would appear the the apostle Paul has 'wrestled' with the same dilemma in his epistle to the Romans, specifically chapters 9 to 11. Of course the whole argument needs to be read in context (and for that matter within the whole book of Romans) but I do note that: Paul placed a major emphasis on salvation through faith regardless of Jew/Gentile background Paul underlines God's faithfulness to his promises and commitment to Israel (for example 11v1 'I ask then has God rejected his people? By no means!,' 11v26 'All Israel will be saved' and 11v29 'the calling of God are irrevocable.') Paul defines what it means to belong to Israel - so we see in 9v6 'For not all who are descend from Israel belong to Israel.' Paul speaks of his purpose for Israel being tied up with his purpose for the Gentiles (for example 11v11 'Rather through their salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous.') Throughout Paul quotes OT scripture to defend his arguments. It is not the easiest piece of Scripture to grapple with. But I feel it is relevant to the arguments about Israel on both sides. Please note, I haven't decided where I stand yet - I am just trying to make sense of the arguments: please feel free to comment.

Thanks guys. Makes sense now.

Strangely enough your pointing out the same word as 5547 and 5548 are both forms of the same word. One is an adjective form the other a verb. Similarly 5545 is the noun version which speaks about the Holy Spirit of God indwelling believers. Many will claim to be anointed with the Holy Spirit and speaking in the name of Jesus and deceive many. The truth of the matter is that having Christ in us is our hope, that we might be the anointed of God who live and walk in the Spirit of God preforming the will of God here upon the earth. In Jesus Name, Gary Guys, Help me out here. What on earth do the numbers mean? Thanks.

I have also consider the reference to many and few contained in the video. This appears as a polemic against large congregations. I make the following comments: Again this comes down to how you define few and many. In the context of the passage there is a comparison in numbers between those who end up in heaven (the 'few') and those who do not (the 'many'). Those are relative terms. If we are have a social gathering at our house twenty people would be 'many' (especially if I am having to cook!); conversely if we were talking about a crowd at England's national football (soccer) stadium a turn out of 50,000 would be described as a 'few.' The terms 'many' and 'few' are relative terms. Jesus' parable is a good warning. It is possible to be on the wrong road and we need to be sure which path we are on. I wonder how the narrator would feel if even a small proportion of the big mega-churches decided that the narrator was right and turned up at his church - would he turn them away saying that his church cannot be 'big'? What is the right size for a church to be? [*]What would the narrator make of passages in Acts where several thousand people are recored as coming to faith in Christ (for example the three thousand in Acts 2:41)? Can they worship together or do they need to break up into smaller churches? I wonder how the narrator would define my church in this regard. A small church with an average congregation of about 50 people, but part of the church of England with I guess a word wide membership of several million.

I would argue that it depends on your culture and who you are. What could constitute irreverence for one person will be another's act of reverence. In the UK we have a variety of churches of different flavours and different nationalities (especially in London). In certain churches people will be applauding throughout and calling out during the services contributing to prayers and adding to the sermon. In other churches these very acts will be seen as rude interruptions detracting from one's worship. I also observe a difference between young and old in this country; generally younger congregations are much more relaxed about things. Now clearly there are somethings that should never form part of worship. But I would argue it is largely an individual's choice. I would also argue that whichever form you go for it must be genuine. Personally I have been able to worship God standing in a twelfth century church with a large church organ singing hymns over two hundred years old in a very formal setting and to worship in a recently built church, singing songs written in the last year with lots of clapping and noise. I don't think one is necessary right or wrong.

I am not sure I can agree with your argument here. I looked up the Greek word 'Christos' in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature by Frederick Danker (based on the original version by Walter Bauer and others) Two meanings are given to the word (which I quote below) Fulfiller of Israelite expectations of a deliver, the Anointed One, the Messiah, the Christ The personal name ascribed to Jesus, Christ For each meaning numerous examples are given of how the word is used in these ways, predominately from the New Testament, but also from Septuagint (the Greek Translation of the Old Testament) and from contemporary literature. The Lexicon lists the uses of Christos in Matthew as belonging to the former (definition 1). As I have already said the Greek NT uses the definite article 'the' before the word Christos, so I think it entirely appropriate to capitalise the word 'Christ.'

Sorry OneLight - you've lost me with this bit - could you try explaining that again?

I watched the video back to see if that's what they might be saying; it just says 'teaching in the name of Christ' rather than claiming to me the physical messiah or being anointed by the Messiah/Christ. I did have a quick look at a Greek NT to see what it says (not that I am a Greek scholar) - the word Christ has the definite article in front - i.e. 'The Christ'. The chapter as a whole appears to make a distinction between false Messiahs and false prophets and is set in the context of the return of the Son of Man (i.e. the real Christ). Not sure if that helps or not.

I have observed that a large number of people often quote or link to websites on the internet to make their points. And I have often seen facts quoted as objective that bear little resemblance to the results of a quick google search or (being old fashioned) picking up a book on a bookshelf. The thing with the internet is it is very easy for anyone to pretend to be anyone or present something as true and to get it widely circulated - so how do people work out what is what? At the end of the 17th century it became common practice in England to publish books in the name of your enemies making the 'author' (note inverted commas) say things to disprove their 'own' arguments. And it was common to spread rumours and gossip to undermine someone. For example when James II became king there was a lot of civil unrest because he was a Catholic; there was great concern that he may produce an heir (who would almost certainly be Catholic) and the Protestants in England didn't want this. James II's wife bore him a son and a conspiracy was hatched stating that the baby had died in child birth and another baby had been smuggled in to replace the dead baby so that this baby wasn't the rightful heir. Detailed information was circulated stating how this has been done (in relation to how the baby was smuggled in and which route) - which when looked at would have been impossible; also to ensure that a real baby had been born the poor queen gave birth in front of several witnesses. Ultimately it led to war and eventually a protestant king (William of Orange) on the throne. Ok this isn't the 17th century - but my point is to show how information can be misused and circulated and in some cases has a significant impact. So how do we decide what information to trust? And not to trust especially in this internet era?

Interesting. I agree with the concept that are are many false teachers and plenty of false Christians in false churches. The video appeals to Scripture repeatedly throughout, which I would normally applaud. It is with great irony that when launching a video about false teachers they seem to have done that themselves. I've read through Matthew 24:5 a few times (and checked the surrounding context too). It says (I shall use the version quoted in the video) 'For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.' The narrator questions the word 'many'. The narrator argues that if you look at all the people who have claimed to be Christ there aren't actually that many, so what does many mean? Ok - thinking through the verse and trying to interpret it - thus far so good: I always encourage people to ask what the Bible text says. But then (if I have understood the logic correctly) he changes the verse from those who come in Christ's name and say 'I am Christ' to those who claim to come in the name of Christ and present his teaching (albeit that that may be wrong). To me the verse is quite clear - it specifically says 'saying, I am Christ.' If the narrator wants to put us on guard and make a point about false teachers why use a verse that need to be adapted to fit his arguments? There are plenty of other verses that would equally serve that purpose (for example Matt 7:15). I think the video (when watched in full) does raise some valid points and some tough questions especially in relation to several aspects of what it means to be church (at times I applauded it). But I feel that the arguments are weak and can easily be countered for example the outcome of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) or the Paul's epistle to the Galatians. Always happy to see what others have to say.

I'm not so sure you could produce reasonable statements from credible people who are anti-zionist. Why don't you try to find some anti-zionists who are not anti-semitic (nor part of this extremely small fringe group of orthodox jews) Yod - please bear with me here. I am trying to examine the issues and placing ultimate importance in understanding what scripture says. You start from the presuposition that your position is correct; therefore based on the position you argue the anti-Zionists are anti-semitic by their very nature. If however you believe that Scripture should not be interpreted to mean a physical return of a nation of Israel to her historic lands (I know you will disagree with me) I cannot see how to state that this is your understanding of the Bible makes you anti-semitic. And how do you define credible? Yes I listen to wise Biblical scholars - but they are not infallible - and often disagree. A quick google search will show famous people taking different positions of both sides of the argument. A position is not in itself right because someone famous says it is - it is right because Scripture says it is (and that's why I keep emphasising the importance of looking at what Scripture says). ???? That is an unrelated topic, so I'd like to know why you think there is any linkage? To me, that is as unrelated as asking who will vote for Romney based on the color of bread in Somalia during the 13th century. Well having researched Christian Zionism some argue that the same theology and scriptures (used to argue for a physical return to Israel in this age) also advocate that Jews can be saved without a faith in Christ based on promises in the OT Scriptures ( a position called dual covenant theology).

Okay so we have a debate about whether Christian Zionism is anti-semitic or not. I'm sure it's possible to produce multiple quotes from people on different sides of the argument too. Personally I'm still undecided and trying to future out what the Bible says on the matter: one thing I am still trying to get my mind round in relation to the Christian Zionist position is this question: 'If I am a Jew living today in the third millennium, and I do not believe in Jesus Christ, then where do I stand in terms of my eternal destiny?'

Neb, Thanks for uploading the link again - no been able to watch it until now. It's part of a BBC documentary (a much longer programme). I've tried to locate the original to see the whole programme but have been unable to. It is very very very worrying. But I will say this: this is not an everyday occurrence in this country - there are some areas (like Luton) which have become heavily populated by Muslims some of whom hold these views. (I do find it very ironic that they say they have freedom of speech to give their side of things but don't want the other side to be heard - imagine if Christians undertook a similar march in many Islamic countries.) I believe it is part of the decline of the Christian faith in this country (from probably the end of the 19th century). Remember Great Britain has gone from once having the largest and most powerful empire the world has ever seen to be a relatively small player on the world stage with every decreasing influence. But praise God there is still an active church in this country - the evangelical movement may be a minority of the population but it is growing and people are being saved (Alleluia!!) and this at the same time though it is getting harder and harder to live as a Christian in this country.

This is quite timely for me in a way - it follows on from a conversation my wife and I were having a couple of days ago. I became a Christian at university. I went to many evangelistic events at the University and also started going to a large Baptist church with an internationally renowned preacher as its minister who was widely respect in the Evangelical world as one of the best preacher of his generation and often spoke at Christian Union meetings. He was very influential in my early Christian life and he was the minister who baptised me. About six years after I left University he suddenly resigned from his ministry (and the different Evangelical bodies he was associated with): it was announced he had left his wife and had moved in with another man. It was in the national news in this country. He is now a key proponent of the gay evangelical christian movement (if that is a contradiction in terms). I was devastated. And in a way it still has a big impact on me. I still have some of his books; I can remember reading them, bible open in the other hand, making notes, learning and praying as a young Christian. But what now? Is he a false prophet or teacher? Clearly I would not agree with his current stance on homosexuality. What about the rest of his teachings? Ironically I can even remember him preaching against homosexuality in one of his sermons - I can even remember where I was in the church - front row of the balcony in the middle block of seats - slightly to the right of this block (it's funny what you remember). It was devastating for the evangelical movement in this country, but it hit me very hard personally too.

Being anti-zionist does not automatically make one anti-semitic. There are jews who are anti-zionist. I owe an apology - I agreed with yod earlier but hadn't picked up the bit in bold above. I do agree that being anti-zionist does not make you anti-semitic. Thank KatyAnn for spotting that bit.