biblicalthought.com

Yikes! Is this like the prayer of Jabez.. If you pray enough time God will hear you and you will be blessed indeed? A BRAND NEW CAR!!!!!? No?

Isn’t this a book written by one of Oprah’s New Age gurus?

Does it rival this little piece of New Age stupidity by Wayne Dyer?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=35OE05-d_t4

BOC

This really shows your ignorance of truth, you would rather trust an unbeliever in matters of scripture than a christian trying to uphold scripture, even if you disagree with him.

What teachings are you familiar with?

What blasphemes are you accusing us of?

May God continue to sanctify.

BOC,

I would encourage you to listen to Dr. Moreys sermon on the CHURCH, it answers this question, and quite well. I think you, being in support of Isreal would appreciate it. He states the Ecclesia has been around since Adam and Eve, do a study on the word, and read Hebrews 11 So when you say “when the church wasn’t even formed at that time” i will disagree.

As far as Jesus and Dr. Bob go, they are both rough sometimes because they need to be, Jesus was perfect in his “pompous attitude” Dr. Bob is following his lead, Dr. Bob isnt perfect and would never claim to be.

Also

Harold has a good post on John 3:16 about the structure of the greek syntax.

Here it is

“As for the idea that only “few” will be saved, that is explicitly stated numerous times in Scripture, especially by Jesus. How can such an explicit statement of detail be so often overlooked or discarded?”

Harold, would you mind citing the references you speak of? Perhaps we can address them in turn.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Chad, here are a few that explicitly state that the final number of those saved will be “few.” I take few to mean “few compared to all,” not as in a small number. Scripture reveals that the elect are like the sands on a shore, meaning very many in number. Verses are from the ESV. If there are complaints with the ESV’s rendering of certain words or phrases, I have the Greek text of the NT (NA27) as well as the Intertestamental literature where much of the context is found.

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few. – Matt. 7:13-14

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness. – Matt. 7:21-23

But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who had no wedding garment. And he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot and cast him into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen. – Matt. 22:11-14

And someone said to him, “Lord, will those who are saved be few?” And he said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow door. For many, I tell you, will seek to enter and will not be able.” – Luke 13:23-24

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Chad, I need your fax number. The memo was sent quite some time ago…

>>>>>With regards to John 3, are you suggesting that the Reformed position has won the day when it comes to a clear understanding of what “world” means? (if so I must have missed that memo

Actually, the argument is now being taken from another angle. Rather than focusing on kosmos, the grammatical argument is based on the adverb “houtos” and how it should be rendered when joined with the coordinating conjunction “gar.” This changes the perspective when rendered according to the modern “vernacular” - “For in this way” or “For this is how God loved the world.” It is impossible to derive a universal atonement from the grammar/syntax; at the very least, the atonement is limited to “the believing ones” only as a conditional clause. “Whosoever” is somewhat spurious because it no longer carries the meaning that it did in the 17th century (1611 - hint hint), and today implies something else.

I am satisfied with this translation: “For this is how God loved the world, He gave his unique Son, so that the believing ones wouldn’t perish but have life everlasting!”

1. It doesn’t imply that God unconditionally loves all people of all time in all places with an identical redemptive love.

2. It avoids Arianism’s claim that to be begotten implies a beginning (monogenes huios - one of a king/unique).

3. It points to the “way” in which God loved the world, thus “For this is how, or for in this way God loved…”

4. It avoids all of the spurious interpretations based on English texts that read “whosoever” which is not in the Greek.

And many more including the implications of “life everlasting” (something you and Jeff, and most Emergents will love - more on that later), avoiding the popular novel idea that salvation only concerns the soul being rescued from the flames of hell - and nothing else!

More later - wife and I going to dinner!

ou[twj ga.r hvga,phsen o` qeo.j to.n ko,smon( w[ste to.n ui`o.n to.n monogenh/ e;dwken( i[na pa/j o` pisteu,wn eivj auvto.n mh. avpo,lhtai avllV e;ch| zwh.n aivw,nionÅ

(testing to see if Greek fonts display on this blog)

BOC,

Did you even read my post?

You said “which encompasses the entire universe”

So let me get this right, God has loved everyone and everything since the beggining of creation? Can you show me where Gods love is for Esau? Or are you going to do what you told me I cant do? With “kosmos” by saying “hate doesnt mean hate” I guess this would be a good a good time to understand the greek.

Does Kosmos always mean “entire universe?” Have you done a word search?

I didnt answer your question because I dont understand what your getting at. I see scripture talking about God all the time, David, Isaiah, Moses etc say his name.

To Travis-
You said “I see scripture talking about God all the time, David, Isaiah, Moses etc say his name.”
Not the name YHWH. The only time that name is used is in Exodus and with Moses. If you study Judaism (which is where Christianity stems from) you would know that Jews don’t use that name for God because they were never told how to pronounce it. Out of all the names for God YHWH is the only one they never use because it is so holy. My point is maybe there is some validity to “The Moses Code”. We pronounce it Yahweh, which is blasphemes to the Jews. We don’t even know how to pronounce it correctly.
You also said-”So let me get this right, God has loved everyone and everything since the beggining of creation? Can you show me where Gods love is for Esau? ”
Sure I’ll show God’s love for Esau–by the fact he didn’t turn his butt to ashes the minute he sold his birthright! Genesis 33:9 “But Esau said, “I already have plenty, my brother. Keep what you have for yourself.” Where did his plenty come from? The devil? Or was it God? Why would God do such a thing for someone he hated so much? Did he hate Esau or did He hate what he did. We wrestle not against flesh and blood, bro so why would God hate his own creation, knowing He created it that way?? If he hates individuals, why not just change His little plans for predestination and make it right? Because God doesn’t go against His word, right? God has the right to change His mind, doesn’t he? Genesis 6:6 “The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. 7 So the Lord said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth–men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air–for I am grieved that I have made them.” Why would He be grieved if He predestined it all anyway? Another point–does the bible mention where Esau is right now?

To Stephen
“The New Covenant is the final form of the ekklesia.”
Where and how has it been in existence since Adam and Eve?

“You wouldn’t have asked God had you not been regenerated. You would not have been regenerated had you not been elect. You would have not been elected had God the Father not given you grace.”
Joel 2:28 “And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. 29 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days. 30 I will show wonders in the heavens and on the earth, blood and fire and billows of smoke. 31 The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord. 32 And EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED; for on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will be deliverance, as the Lord has said, among the survivors whom the Lord calls.

Grace is available to everyone!

You guys give me a headache! Good night!

And can you show me where Grace is available to everyone? he verse you quoted is only for thase that call, so it cant be for everyone.

Travis-
Just to let you know I am not ignoring you. I had a real tiring day at work and need some rest!

My response is coming!!

Travis said “you use one verse and create a doctrine out of it”.

My point exactly! It’s been happening for centuries and continues until we realize where we have strayed. And the straying came when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. and the Gentile church ran to the hills and left the Jews to fight the Romans. The Gentiles started their own religion and called it “Christianity”. Oh, that didn’t happen, you say? Why do we not celebrate Passover and The Feast of Tabernacles and Rosh Hashanna and others when these celebrations are commanded of God–Exodus 12:14 “This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord–a lasting ordinance.”(speaking of Passover in this verse). You have to realize we were Jewish before we were Christian and there is supposed to be no difference between the two. It is what Jesus taught and it is what I live.
The church is so far separated from it’s roots it is pathetic. And the task is hard to unlearn these silly doctrines that have sprouted up in the meantime, some of which your good Dr. Bob teaches here.

On Gods omniscience in salvation. Can you see in front of you when you are driving on the interstate? You are looking at the future. It is temporal. What you have to realize is God sees from eternity which is something we cannot comprehend in this earthly body. To to explain that from a mind of flesh would only be introducing some new ridiculous take on predestination and there is enough foolish out there on the subject already. It is our choice in salvation, not God’s. Look in Genesis 2 for the first instance of free will, commanded be God Himself–16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden;” “Free to eat from any tree” implies he had a choice. Deut 30:19 This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live.”
We will never understand the the mind of God and I will not try to explain Him. Eternity is incomprehensible. John caught a glimpse of it and even he couldn’t explain it! I know what He has spoken to my heart and that is what my message is all about!
Gotta get my kids in bed!!
Later—

Hi folks,

Recently took in the Moses Code presentation, at a suburban RC church,
here in Oz … it presented some disturbing assumptions and promoted
some rituals, akin to the RC “Mother Mary, Mother-of-God” chants.

For most Christian scholars, it really is a non-event, as proving their
claims on the origins of the chant would be nigh on, impossible …..
….. making it the ideal vehicle for another cult to emerge !~!

—–

Which brings us to Morey’s pdf file on Bible Numerics … while much
of what he writes may make sense (and some of it may even be true),
there is very little hard proof (ie examination of known FACTS) in his
presentation ….. certainly not enough to discount all numerics and
numerals, found in the Bible … ie Daniel 12:11-12.

Since Morey denounces the literalists KJV, then his own interpretations, using a more dynamic version should clearly
spell out, where he is coming from … he can’t have it both
ways, saying that the Bible should be read literally without
man-made interpretation (including numerics), on one hand
… yet saying, that a more dynamic interpretation (NIV) is
more desirable, on the other hand.

“Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Matthew 24:4) Morey
quoted this verse … and he should take heed, that it cuts
both ways, as it is assumed that he is just a mortal man.

Morey states:
“Cabalism was one of the fruits of the rediscovery of the works of
the ancient Greek philosophers, particularly Pythagoras, who believed
that ultimate reality was composed of numbers.”

What Morey fails to convey is the fact, that the Septuagint or LXX
was translated by Pythagorean Jews in Alexandria … now, if they
had their own agenda, like withholding “mathematical secrets” from
their persecutors and ensuring those details were passed down to
succeeding generations, then what Morey says about the Pentateuch
(in Hebrew) may be true, but that does not necessarily ring true
in the Greek version, especially if the translators did have such an
agenda … !~!

“Did the biblical authors ever use the letters of the Hebrew alphabet
to represent numbers?” Probably not, but if the TRANSLATORS had their own agenda, then the Pythagorean codes may well have been
used in the Greek translation, at that time.

In fact, here’s Morey’s quote from Zondervan, with which presumably
he does agree:

“This sort of magical nonsense arose during the Hellenistic age ….. ”

….. at least, he was targeting the right era … !~!

—–

“He had to accept their validity by a leap of pure faith.” This is an
amazing statement, coming from any Christian … let’s face it, to
believe in a guy, who ran around Gallilee some 2000 years performing
miracles (that cannot be done by anybody, today) is surely the
biggest leap of pure faith … !~!

When Morey can perform miracles, then he will have every right to
denounce others’ beliefs in Bible numerics …..

… his blanket approach towards denouncing all numerical values in
the Bible is nothing short of un-Christian … !~!

Definitely NOT worth the money we paid for the download.

blessings

paul

Hi B.O.C.

I thought I would intelligently answer your questions since you asked them. You seem somewhat emotional though and may refuse to understand (emotional feelings fog up rational reality).

You asked a while back about the world in john 3:16 being the elect via Morey. Well, Morey is right. Here’s a very fast way to help you understand.

1) John’s use of the word World (cosmos) is different via context
2) John 1:10 has world used 3 times. Each world is different.
3) Revelation 12:9 (also by John) uses world for non-elect. Reversal of John 3:16
4) John 2:1-2 is via the whole community of the elect (see col 4:16).

You can’t pour 21st century meaning into 1st century terminology. That would be like saying when Paul talks about running the race he actually means NASCAR. This is just as absurd as saying word means 1 thing only because my emotions and experiences want it to. This is humanism.

Jean Cauvin

im not going to have a lot of time here anymore just brief comments and questions, im starting school, and fighting a war, kinda cool how the internet is used.

BOC you accuse Jean with not reading scripture in Jewish eyes, can you then explain these usages of the word kosmos? and How we can explain scripture in your terms, with out the origiinal text since (from what I understand) the scripture we have is written years after the original Jewish writes lived. Mabey you can enlighten us on how you interpret scripture, with the mind of a Jew. Start with the scripture listed.

1) John’s use of the word World (cosmos) is different via context
2) John 1:10 has world used 3 times. Each world is different.
3) Revelation 12:9 (also by John) uses world for non-elect. Reversal of John 3:16
4) John 2:1-2 is via the whole community of the elect (see col 4:16).

Maybe Jean could pick up the rest

I dont understand what you meen, you said it is the same everywhere, which it meens earth, but salvation encompasses all the universe.

Of course his partying was awsome, the fact that he, being the God/Man could dwell with us is great, but not just dwell, die in our spot, for our sins.

awsome!!

yeah Im in the military

Thank you, Travis, for your commitment and sacrifice for our country! Let all your buds know how much we appreciate what you all are doing for us! I Spent 8 years in the Navy and my 13 years in the Air Force. I am with you, bro!!!

Thanks everyone for your support, we shall kill all the terrorist we can and allow them to meet their creator.

MCUMC,

well you keep praying, as will I, while I sit over here praying, im keeping my M4 and 9mm locked and loaded, so i dont die, why dont you say that sitting in a bunker or driving down a a road full of IEDs or as you watch your men go into buildings loaded with exposives, weapons cache, and insane people ready to kill you and everyone they can.

Who is exalting war? im just trying to stay alive, in that process we are AT WAR and I will kill every terrorist I can to keep YOUR MOUTH FROM BEING SHUT, unless you would rather have people die on our soil, because they are going TO KILL EVERY INFIDEL THEY CAN, IE. YOU ME AND EVERYONE HERE ON THIS BLOG.

Shame on you MCUMC!!

This brings up a question, how should we evangelize terrorists?

I have heard great stories of chinees/korean terrorist being converted.

I want these men, women and children to know our Lord also, I ask how you expect me to tell them, becuae I will, if it were not against the law for me to talk to terrorists.

I think you should have the evangelists at your church (men and women) come to Afghanistan, I know a few locations they can evangelize terrorists, I hope you dont mind if they dont come home though. Im not saying evangelism is easy it will cause death sometimes, and at the same time the spirit of God can move and I pray that the Spirit will, are you MCUMC willing to come out here and do the work of an evangelist.

So MCUMC if a man comes to your house and wants to shoot you are you just going to let him or if he wants to shoot your family are you going to just not going to do anything?
Luke 22:36 says
“And He said to them, ‘But now, whoever has a money belt is to take it along, likewise also a bag, and whoever has no sword is to sell his coat and buy one.’”
Even the Lord Jesus knows that sometimes killing to protect ourselves and/or others is unavoidable. Its called self-defense.

Kat,
The passage you quote is Jesus using metaphor, which the disciples, as usual, take literally.

He also said, those who live by the sword, die by the sword.

Let me reverse your hypothetical and make it a real life scenario:

Suppose a group of armed guards come to you in the middle of the night. One of the one among them comes and kisses your cheek. They seize you, and as they do one of your friends pulls out a sword and cuts off an ear of one of the guards. Knowing you could lead your followers into a sure fight and knowing that you even have an ace up your sleeve (all the angels of heaven), you rebuke your friend and choose the way of peace. Even when asked later to defend yourself, you remain silent, choosing to be beaten and flogged and then killed rather than defend yourself.

To answer your hypothetical question: I don’t know that I am even an ounce as strong as I would hope to be in that situation, and so yeah, I may do the weaker thing and choose to strike back. But that is not to say that that is the right move to make. I would pray that God would give me the strength to say “I forgive you” even as they pulled the trigger. Dang if being a Christian doesn’t completely take the “I” out of your game. The world and it’s ways tell us “self defense” is perfectly OK. This is why the Kingdom of God is so counter-culture, Kat.

Does it even matter that Jesus just prayed to the father that his will be done, knowing he had to go to the Cross to suffer and die? Knowing they had to take him at that exact moment. (This is not a rebuttle to your comment) just a question.

I wonder what Jesus was thinking when he whipped people out of the temple? This isnt war, but thats pretty mean, he could have killed some one doing that, im sure we could make the assumption that people got hurt.

Im not damning you to hell for saying I need to repent, I cant damn you to hell! For all I know you are my brother, i dont know much about you, but if you believe in the Catholic form of Salvation, you believe in the wrong christ, so i would say you are no my brother, but I will not damn you to hell, but I will say you need to repent or you will end up in hell.

If you notice i said, ARE YOU? my response to you if YOU WERE telling me to repent, is SCREW YOU.

Did you not say that you repented of it, and are you not the one saying it is wrong to fight. The only thing I can do is you are telling me to repent, on the grounds of your repenting and your acusation that scripture says we should not fight, or kill.

As far as the rest of the guys and gals go here, they wouldd only say someone is on there way to hell, or is an apostate or a heritic if SCRIPTURE warrents it. Would you not agree that some people are heretics and apostates and some or on there way to hell?

MCUMC
I know and completely understand that we must forgive. If someone murdered my mom, I must forgive them because it is an act of love which we as believers must have toward everyone. However it isn’t a matter of forgiveness.I’m talking about protecting yourself and others (like your children). Killing out of rage is wrong but doing for the sake of protection is not. You’re just going to let them kill your children or rape them or torture them without doing anything? If you can avoid killing them then do it but if the only way to stop them is to kill them then that is unavoidable.

I understood completely. I understand that you might do something to protect your family but the thing is you said that that’s the weak thing to do and I totally disagree with you on that one. Oh and please clarify to me more in dept on how that passage is a metaphor and what is this “metaphor” implying?

MCUMC said

Also, I would much rather fashion my theology about how I should act as a disciple of Christ around the cross rather than over one story about a temple clearing. Wouldn’t you? Yes and No, I like to look at the Cross and the entire life death and resurection of Christ, if you just look at the Cross you miss everything Jesus talked about on the road to emmaus, or in the temple, or sitting on a boat going accross the sea. I want to immulate the life of Christ.

But, it seems you do what you said not to do. By stating this

They seize you, and as they do one of your friends pulls out a sword and cuts off an ear of one of the guards. Knowing you could lead your followers into a sure fight and knowing that you even have an ace up your sleeve (all the angels of heaven), you rebuke your friend and choose the way of peace. Even when asked later to defend yourself, you remain silent, choosing to be beaten and flogged and then killed rather than defend yourself.

You use this example of not fighting to make a doctrine about how it is wrong, but I use both the temple example and Kats example and your example to HELP complete the understand that Christ did both, he was kind and obedient but he was also angry and obedient, he fought for his fathers temple and didnt fight the Romans. We cant isolate scripture the way we want we have to see all of Christ, his Love, his correction, his commands, his healing.

MCUMC
Just because you and I might be too weak to lay down our lives without hurting another doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do,

If your are going to hold to this I would be glad to have some of your church members come to afghanistan and Pakistan and evangelize the terrorist here. Here is whats going to happen. you will be captured (which isnt a bad thing, because you will be able to preach the gospel, which I am for) then you will be killed, weather by beheading (which is fine because you are preaching the gospel, and death happens) then the US will get involved, and we will send our special forces in (not all believe in Christ) some may die and go to hell because of your actions (this shouldnt stop us from preaching the gospel just giving a scenario), Now tax payers are paying for your evangelizem experience and you may or may not get a chance to actually spread the gospel, because you will most likely be killed before you get there.

In saying this I really am asking how we evangelize terrorists. (its not about life or death, im just curious how to do it)

I think a good movie to watch would be the new Rambo, perfect example of what would happen and happens a lot, to Christians.

Travis, watch the language. I know you’re a good brother, but we can’t allow that language here. It wasn’t so much the words but the spirit in which the words were used. You should apologize to MCUMC and ask his forgiveness. I’m sure this won’t be an ongoing problem with you, but I need you (and all) to know that BT can’t condone that.

Thanks Travis.

Travis, first of all, thank you.

Scripture does indeed warrant Christians to serve in the military.

Jesus dealt with Jewish and Roman soldiers and never once commanded them (or even hinted at) to leave the military. Scripture reveals that Jesus was never one to overlook sin, in fact, He immediately rebuked it. If it were morally wrong for Christians to be in the military and engage in wars, He would have rebuked it like He did every other sin in whomever He saw it.

He also said that wars would remain as a normal part of the human experience until the end of the age (Matt. 24:6-7). He had the perfect opportunity to condemn all wars, but did not do so.

He also never condemned the just use of force as taught in Scripture. He spent much time in correcting wrong views of the (now looking back) Old Testament era (such as the Law, etc.) but never once denounced the principle of just use of force by way of war (national).

Dr. Morey’s book “When is it Right to Fight” has an excellent chapter (2) titled “Jesus and the Gospels” where although he admits at the start that only the most probable answers can be logically inferred, it is wrong to assume any one position simply because we want it to be so. He gives about twenty logical arguments that, to this day, have not been refuted - nor has anyone even come close!

Lots of dialogue since I last logged on, but not my battle fight.

Jean-
If you want to impress me with your knowledge of Latin, please learn to spell the words correctly!
I don’t need to show you anything other than the Bible was given by God, to Jewish men in the Hebrew language. The New Testament was canonized by who? Gentiles! When Paul penned it, was he aware it would become the Bible or was he simply writing a course of instruction based on the Torah for Gentile churches? I believe the latter. Because I carry a message you don’t agree with I am throwing a temper tantrum? You, my friend should study your Jewish roots, let God speak to your heart and you’ll realize that Christianity is a bastardized religion–illegitimate. No matter what I say you will disagree. Why? Because your mind is clouded with lies while the truth is in your Jewish roots. Don’t blame me that our Savior is Jewish, practiced Judaism, lived the culture and kept the Law. Are we not supposed to be like Him? The church is nothing like Jesus!
Don’t worry, I am not expecting a response from you because you have no answers for my questions other than religious babble!

BOC, how do you explain Peter’s view of Paul’s writings as Scripture?

Stephen-
Where does it say Peter refers to Paul’s writings as scripture. The only reference close to what you say that I can find is 1 Peter 3:15 “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.”
Did God give Dr. Bob wisdom? Absolutely! Are his writings scripture? NO!! Show me the reference where Peter calls the writings scripture!

Travis-
Spiritually we are Jews. We have been grafted in to the root of the Jewish people. We can just as easily be removed. Read Romans 11, and then ask a Messianic Jew to interpret that chapter for you! Do not ask a Replacement Theologian, which there are plenty of around here! Check out these websites-
http://www.icnministries.org
http://www.dickreuben.org
http://www.messianic.com/

Question-
Do you realize Passover is this week? Do you realize that this week is the anniversary of our Savior’s death and rezurrection and that it wasn’t on the pagan holiday that the church has replaced it with, adding further to my point of the church separating itself from it’s Jewish roots??

Amen. Very true.

Agogley said:

**MCUMC makes a major error in concluding from Christ’s persecution and death that Christ taught a doctrine of pacifism. In Matthew 26:52, Jesus does say: “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.” But he goes on to say “Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?” So I ask, is Jesus’ primary concern to be an example of pacificism or is it because “Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” **

A few things to point out with this line of thought:

1 - What, then, do you think IS being taught if not non-violence?

2 - Agogley and others here make the mistake of thinking that they can pick and choose which things about Christ they would imitate. Your argument here rests on the uniqueness of Christ’s mission and if I hear you correcly you wish to argue that Christ went to the cross for a purpose and to fulfil his Father’s will and mission, but that is not for us to do, right?

Here is the fallacy with that: What if I want to say that I don’t need to preach the good news because that was Christ’s job and mission? What if I say that I don’t want to “turn the other cheek” because that was for Jesus to do, not me? What if argue that it was Jesus’ mission, not mine, to minister to the sick and the poor and the hungry and the oppressed? See the point?

You dont’ want to make the mistake of saying that Jesus’ path to the cross has nothing to do with how we should live today because he was on a unique mission or else you completely drain every other teaching and action of Jesus of any authority and relevance for today as well. Jesus did tell us to “pick up our cross and follow him” and he did say that we should turn the other cheek and pray for those who persecute us. What sort of “doctrine” is that if it is not one of non-violence? Care to redefine it for me?

MCUMC: Before you go talking about the OT and how it supports your view you better be prepared to confess that you observe every jot and tittle of the Law in other areas as well.

AGogley: Really? So we just throw out the OT as irrelevant? That’s what you are implying… But, of course, I didn’t mention the law, only that God not only allowed warfare but commanded it in the Old Testament. God commanded his people to use force. He would never commande something immoral or unjust in principle. God himself has always used force to overcome evil, this means it is in principle moral and just to use force. Nowhere in Scripture is the State told to disarm.

MCUMC: What, then, do you think IS being taught if not non-violence?

AGogley: I already answered that in length in my last post.

MCUMC: Do not resist an evildoer? Can’t I kill them? No. Make fun of them? No. Don’t resist them, Jesus says.

AGogley: So this means all evil all the time? Does a father tell his daughter to not resist the rapist? Father to daughter being raped: “Don’t resist the evil man, honey. Remember, Jesus said, ‘Love your enemy.’ If he wants you for one hour, stay with him two.”

MCUMC: Here is the fallacy with that: What if I want to say that I don’t need to preach the good news because that was Christ’s job and mission? What if I say that I don’t want to “turn the other cheek” because that was for Jesus to do, not me? What if argue that it was Jesus’ mission, not mine, to minister to the sick and the poor and the hungry and the oppressed? See the point?

AGogley: No, I just see you chasing your tail. You exhibit a lack of understanding of the structure of the Bible. It doesn’t matter what you “want to” do or what you want to argue. What matters is what is Scriptural and I have already provided a Scriptural basis for my position.

MCUMC: You dont’ want to make the mistake of saying that Jesus’ path to the cross has nothing to do with how we should live today because he was on a unique mission or else you completely drain every other teaching and action of Jesus of any authority and relevance for today as well.

AGogley: You’re assertion is ludicrous. You are using at least half of the “tricks of the trade” that Pacifists use to justify their position. The Sermon on the Mount (Mat. 5-7) does not lay down rules for governments but principles for an upright heart. The command to not avail oneself of “an-eye-for-an-eye” is not a strictly New Testament concept. Many falsely presume that this is a New Testament teaching which opposes Old Testament teachings. However, the command to avoid personal vengeance was just as applicable to Old Testament believers as to us. “Do not say, ‘I will do to him just as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work” (Prov. 24:29). Graciousness from the believer in his personal life is an enduring virtue and not a new concept. In this very sermon Jesus made the distinction between individuals and governments: “Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny. Mat. 5:25-26 Jesus did not tell the judge or the officer to turn the other cheek or to void the law. God wants the governing authorities to uphold the law without mercy (Heb. 10:28; Rom. 13:3-4).

MCUMC: What did Paul say? “Imitate Christ.” (1 Cor. 11:1).

AGogley: I hope your Bible is still in good enough shape to read after all the violent ripping of verses from it. Verse 11:1 should be taken in context of the preceding chapter. Paul is not saying that we follow Christ in the sense of enduring agony and pain in Gethsemane at at Calvary. Rather we obediently walk in his footsteps by showing our love and thankfulness to him and by keeping his precepts.

Stephen-
Scripture, according to Strongs-
Graphe-1. a writing, thing written
2. the Scripture, used to denote either the book itself, or its contents
3. a certain portion or section of the Holy Scripture
The original King James does not capitalize the word, there making the meaning either from the 1st or 2nd definition rather than the 3rd. The 3rd is referring to a specific part of Scripture. The only word the Jewish people considered scripture was the Torah and the rest of the Old Testament. For Peter to even equate Paul’s writings to the Torah and the other books of the O.T. would be blasphemes. And according to what I read, the meaning of the word, the context and by whom it was written, you have answered the question wrongly and have twisted it to match your anti semitic views.

NOW the problem is solved!!

B.O.C…..are the letters Paul the Apostle wrote, Scripture?

Mario-
According to the men who canonized the writings, yes. Paul has a lot of opinions in his writings, and he states them as such yet we hold his these opinions as the word of God. That is like calling Dr. Bob’s writings scripture. The Torah, however, was given to Moses by God and not through inspiration. God spoke directly to the O.T. prophets. Funny thing is, Mario, is Paul quotes the O.T. a lot, too. Ever wonder why? If you have a red letter bible, everything in red ink can be found in the O.T.–hmm, interesting! Along with the Holy Scripture, the Jews have a book that is called “The Talmud”, which interprets the Bible. It is not the Bible, however religious Jews hold it more sacred than the Bible. It is the rules and regulations set in this book that Jesus fought against and was eventually killed for. Not the laws of the Torah, but the Talmud (the man made rules). The religious Christians hold Paul’s writings and teachings above everyone else and sometimes makes Paul to be the Savior and not Jesus.
So with that said, in MY opinion, Paul’ s writing are instructions for a Gentile people to learn the ways of the chosen people of God in order that they may sustain a life grafted in to the root of Israel. The only Books in the N.T. should be the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation and they should be added to the O.T. because it is one Bible, not two!

Let’s hear how wrong I am, Mario!

To All,
I reviewed this string and concluded it has become a waste of time because ignorance and prejudice spoiled what could have been a good discussion.
1. Some bloggers went to the mud pits and called me names. They could not aswer my arguments, so they attacked my character and motives! Ad hominem attacks are unacceptable.
2. Statements go by without anyone pointing them out. For example, “the Septuagint or LXX was translated by Pythagorean Jews in Alexandria.” This truth claim assumes
(a.) the myth of one LXX
(b.) translated by Jews in Alexandria,
(3.) who were philosophically Pythagorans.
Where is the evidence for any of these things? Nowhere.
The comments wandered from rabbit hole to rabbit hole with people chasing each other down the holes!
Is there anyone out there who can sustain an intelligent conversation without ad hominem or nonsense?

Dr. Bob–
Check out what Jean said about me–
“So if you have an intelligent, non-emotional response to counter the exegetical points mentioned, so be it. If you want to continue to act immature, then via the laws of logic I do not need to respond anymore because your temper tantrums are logically invalid (Invalidity does not require a response).

You may wear your kippot if you’d like while you answer. I have extra ones if you need to borrow one.

My lack of response will mean that you invalidity is thick.”

She inciting that I am an “invalid”, not mention her sarcastic, anti semitic remarks about wearing a kippot.
I am not whining about it, although I do question why she can get away with such condescending remarks, yet others “attack your character”. Heads up, bro–you have to have character in order to be attacked in that area.

I’ve sown the seeds I have–
enjoy your rest of your predestined lives! You can contact me on my website if you have any comments–just click my name to reach me or my email address
steve40d@yahoo.com

Peace out!

Umm…the BOC…Jean is a man…it’s French I believe…lol

Seems like names are deceiving on this website just like the teaching!!

Shalom!

Stephen you should add a bunch of emotiocons like on myspace, maybe it would help, I dont know what do you think.

Gods Holy People!! Can I make fun of you, since you are not of the “holy People” you are just an off shoot. Or are we, being the off shoot the royal priesthood now the Holy people with the believign Jews? Or is that verse not apart of the inspired text.

From what I see here the ultimate problems with Chad and BOC are their hermanutics, there is no specific way to interpret scripture, we can take from it what we want, but yet thats what we are accused with.

So, either one of us is right, or none of us are right, there is no other options. And from what understand from Chad, since We here at BT dont reject Christ we are alright even if we are Jerks, God will just give us small crowns and that will be that.

I guess the entrance into heaven is all about how we define Love, and how we difine knowing God.

I serve one God, humbely, so we better define our terms

Love

Humility

Mercy

Justice

Judgement

Image of Christ

I will define my terms later if you want to you can start if not I understand

Travis,
I’m afraid I was not so clear in the above. What I mean is that salvation is not dependent upon how well you can mentally define something. Our discipleship and sanctification will differ based on definitions, but not God’s saving grace. God help us if we are only saved based on our knowledge.

peace

++If I say God Loves the world, it means something totally differnt then when you say God loves the world.++

Yes, in this case it does. You (like all Calvinists), allow your theology to dictate what the Bible clearly says, not the other way around. God loves the world. God desires that none should perish. God desires that we love others as ourselves. God calls everyone our neighbor, not just the elect (or chosen). God demands we pray for our enemies.
I agree with you that you guys change the definitions to fit your theology.

++Again one of us are right or none of us a