Results 61 - 80 of 86
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: ischus Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115341 | ||
SUEDE, Yes, we agree here. What I meant, and what the people were doing here, were in fact blood sacrifices, but not vicarious ones for atonement of sin (burnt, tresspass, and sin offerings). You recall that several others sacrifices- which I label under the general heading of "Peace Offerings"- called for blood-animal sacrifice as well, such as the Thank Offering, Votive Offering, and Free Will Offering (Lev.7:11-15,28-34). I believe that these were the sacrifices being offered by the Jews. [AND] You also recall that this is the same type of offering that Paul demands of all believers, including Gentiles, but as a "Spiritual Sacrifice" instead of a physical one (Rom.12:1). ischus |
||||||
62 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115334 | ||
Thanks, Colin. I know the verses are there somewhere, it's just that when I'm in the moment its hard to stop writing and look them up. :) I really should do a better job of that. Thanks, for the Romans 14, and the others as well! ischus |
||||||
63 | Intermarriage | Ezra 9:2 | ischus | 115330 | ||
PART 3 5) As Ezra continues to misapply scripture in his prayer and address to the nation, we come to verse 12. "So now do not give your daughters to their sons nor take their daughters to your sons, and never seek their peace or their prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good things of the land and leave it as an inheritance to your sons forever." *** Let's contrast this verse with an actual command from God, found in Jeremiah 29:6-9. "Take wives and become the fathers of sons and daughters, and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; and multiply there and do not decrease. 'Seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf; for in its welfare you will have welfare.'"For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, 'Do not let your prophets who are in your midst and your diviners deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams which they dream. 'For they prophesy falsely to you in My name; I have not sent them,' declares the LORD." --- Is this not the exact opposite of what Ezra is suggesting, followed by an ironic warning against a different message than this? Isn't it ironic that Ezra and Jeremiah both use 'shalom' (peace, well-being, prosperity), but in opposite commands? Which do we honor as God's revelation- Ezra's opinion, or Jeremiah's 'thus says the LORD?' I would take Jeremiah here. FOUR MORE VERSES, AND THEN I AM DONE. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LONG POST, BUT THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. :-) 6) Now, let's go to chapter 10 verses 2 and 3. "Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, said to Ezra, 'We have been unfaithful to our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. So now let us make a covenant with our God to put away all the wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God; and let it be done according to the law.'" AND ALSO VERSES 11 and 12. "Now therefore, make confession to the LORD God of your fathers and do His will; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.' Then all the assembly replied with a loud voice, 'That's right! As you have said, so it is our duty to do.'" *** A couple of things need to pointed out here: Sheconiah seems to think he has a good idea here, and the people believe his words (again, like Jeremiah spoke of). However, it is intersting that THE ONLY PROPHET to EVER speak about mixed marriages is Malachi. Read ALL of Malachi chapter 2 in context and see what God thinks about it. *** Now, in verse 11, the people are told to separate (the term that later became the word for pharisee) from their wives...They are told to DIVORCE them!!! Is this from God? May it Never Be! --- Already we have seen in Malachi that God Hates Divorce! Let's also look to Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7. I will not quote the whole chapter, BUT READ IT. You know these verses! God would have never commanded the people to do ANY of the things found in Ezra 9 and 10! This passage it a representation of man's failure, and his abiblity to twist God's word into his own desires. I strongly believe that Ezra and the others are mistaken. They are SINCERE, but SINCERELY WRONG. ischus |
||||||
64 | Intermarriage | Ezra 9:2 | ischus | 115329 | ||
PART 2 3) Let's look to verse 1. "Now when these things had been completed, the princes approached me, saying, "The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands, according to their abominations, those of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites." *** and now compare this with Duet. 7:1. "When the LORD your God brings you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you..." --- Notice any differences? Ezra adds three groups, The Ammonites, Moabites, and Egyptians, to the original group in Deuteronomy. Plus, the original idolatrous groups in Dueteronomy no longer exist in the time after the return from exile. *** Ezra takes this verse out of context, adds three groups of people to the list, and misapplies it to the people of his time! 4) Now verse 2. "For they have taken some of their daughters as wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has intermingled with the peoples of the lands; indeed, the hands of the princes and the rulers have been foremost in this unfaithfulness." *** God's commandment in Deuteronomy 7 was in light of religious idolatry. BUT what is the concern of the people in Ezra 9? Not Religion, but RACE! Religion was not the issue here. They simply do not want to be mixing with other people. This is RACISM! --- Ezra, with a good heart and conscience, is utterly appalled with this news. He tears his clothes and is sits in astonishment. Then he offers a sicere, but unnecessary prayer to God. He wants so much to honor God, and he feels that sins have been committed. Ezra was sincere in his heart, but he was sincerely wrong! |
||||||
65 | Intermarriage | Ezra 9:2 | ischus | 115328 | ||
Steve, Ezra and his contemporaries were absolutely wrong in saying this. Read the Ezra 9 carefully with me, and please read all of my comments which I will have to post in multiple parts: 1) First of all, we must decide if this text is presciptive or desciptive... is this what God was commanding, or is it a description of Ezra's interpretation of the circumstances, and his reaction to it. I would like to prove to you that it is the latter, and that God took no part in this situation and prayer by Ezra. The reason it is in the bible is to show the ignorance and misinterpretation of the people at this time, so that it would never happen again. 2) Now, let's look at the context. As you know, the people have returned from exile, and they ant to be absolutely sure that this never happens to them again. What would be the sure way to avoid exile in the future? Get rid of the Gentiles, who led them astray, and who are just like the oppressors that they have just been freed of. This is their reasoning. However, as I will now point out, it was wrong and against God's will. |
||||||
66 | What if Jesus was born in 1971? | Matt 22:42 | ischus | 115327 | ||
Brother Aixen, it is good to hear from you. I felt very bad about my comments as I went to bed last night, and could not sleep with the burden that the Spirit was putting on me- that I had not honored God with my words, and offended my brother in Christ. I am truly glad for our reconciliation and look forward to many more conversations with you! God Bless! ischus |
||||||
67 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115325 | ||
SUEDE, You post a fair question. I respect your Preteristic view, and I'm sure that you are aware of the other views, so I won't discuss them with you. To get to the point, I have already stated that the Law was given as a revelation of God's nature, and that those principles apply to us today. I have also stated that the Law was also, on a different level, a very civil-social-cultural law that was meant for the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews to follow, since God was their Suzerain, and they were the vassals. The sacrificial component of the Law was fulfilled in Jesus, so it was no longer valid. The same can be said of the social-cultural aspects as well. However, it was obviously fine with God that they continue in these systems (excluding sacrifices for atonement) since it was central to who they were as a people and a culture. They were no longer bound to the written code, but were still required to follow its principles (as are we). Paul demonstrates this by following the Law when with the Jews, but not following it while with the Gentiles. ischus |
||||||
68 | "and on their heart I will write it" | Matt 5:17 | ischus | 115318 | ||
For instance, look at the story of the Exodus. God's people were faithless and polytheistic in Egypt, yet God delivered them, by His Grace, out of Egypt, through the water, and away from their slave masters. This salvation was completely by God's Grace, with no strings attached. THEN, 50 days later (or about that), He asked the people to come into a covenant relationship with him. He desrcibed what kind of relationship he was looking for (the Law), and THE PEOPLE AGREED TO FOLLOW THIS, and ratified this covenant with God. The Law was not given TO save, it was given BECAUSE they were saved by His Grace! ischus |
||||||
69 | SavingFaith vs. non-saving Faith in John | NT general Archive 1 | ischus | 115314 | ||
Rowdy, I appreciate your advice, but my research is restricted to John's gospel (I'm writing a paper for school). What I am looking for are works on John's portrayal of those who only had momentary faith in Jesus the healer, and those who had true faith in Jesus Christ, the son of God. ischus |
||||||
70 | What if Jesus was born in 1971? | Matt 22:42 | ischus | 115252 | ||
Finally, although the sun has already gone down, I would like to say that I hold no anger in my heart towards you. I know that we have our differences here, but I can live with that. I would like to ask for your forgiveness if I have offended you. Before I am a student or theologian or exegete, I am a christian, and I resolve to keep such priorities towards you, as I have done my best to be such up to this point. ischus |
||||||
71 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115250 | ||
Ok, looking through our notes from the beginning, I think that we are saying the same thing in different ways, and with different points of emphasis. I am willing to leave it at this. I don't think we are going to agree on terminology, and that is what we are stuck on. We both have our own opinion here, and that is ok with me for the time being. Is there another aspect that we can discuss? ischus |
||||||
72 | Does the Holy Spirit work differently? | Bible general Archive 2 | ischus | 115249 | ||
OK- I'm with you now. Sorry for the confusion. :) ischus |
||||||
73 | What if Jesus was born in 1971? | Matt 22:42 | ischus | 115245 | ||
Aixen, I don't understand why you are having such difficulty with my comments. I regret nothing, and I truly think that my comments would serve you well if you took them to heart. I have pondered your questions, I have reviewed all of your notes, and the conclusion that I came to was my previous note, which you took as a joke. I am delighted that you take such pride in your eldership over me, I thank you for your encouragement and guidance in this matter. I see no value to the questions that you submit, nor do I see the value in continuing on in this manner with you. You are my brother, and we will be spending a lot of time together in heaven. I don't want to have these comments hanging over our heads while praising God then. Can you just accept the fact that the majority of the people here neither understand, nor grant significance to your questions? Call it immaturity or heresy or whatever you wish. You can even consider my comments to be useless and prayerless. That's great. But please, lower the level of maturity so that I can at least participate in something beneficial for my growth in the Lord. I am new to this forum. I do not wish to gain a reputation of heartless debate and harsh refutes. I apologise for presenting my thoughts in a manner that you took to be argumentative and belittling. Let's forget this and move to a different stage of conversation. ischus |
||||||
74 | Does the Holy Spirit work differently? | Bible general Archive 2 | ischus | 115243 | ||
Sorry Ray, I didn't mean to use "it" in refering to the Spirit. I'm not sure that "He" is correct either. Are you sure that pneuma and ruach always occur with a masculine article? The bible seems to have no issue with the gender of the Spirit, and I don't think we should focus on this either. ischus |
||||||
75 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115241 | ||
SUEDE "Things that were valid in the OT, the Law, aren't any longer." This is absolutely false. The Law, apart from its cultural components, is completely valid. Where do you think Jesus got his priciples from? Why did he say that Loving God and your neighbor are the foundations of the Law? I am not saying that we need to run away to a safe city when we kill someone on accident, or that we can take some food from the corners of a farmers field; I am saying that God's principles and His nature are represented in the OT in a very unique way, and the NT cannot be a sufficient substitute for this. The OT is not intended to give us information about the past, it God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. ischus |
||||||
76 | What if Jesus was born in 1971? | Matt 22:42 | ischus | 115231 | ||
I think a better question would be, "what if Jesus was born in 2971?" This lends itself to even more wonder and speculation. What kind of treatment would he get (if anyone noticed he was there)? How would they plan to proclaim the gospel: his death (if it was still beneficial), his burial (if it was still possible), and his resurrection (if it was still necessary). If this is too easy, we can bump it up to 3971. What do you think? | ||||||
77 | What if Jesus was born in 1971? | Matt 22:42 | ischus | 115227 | ||
Aixen, Perhaps a book other than the bible would be of help here. The DSM IV lists, under Axis II, the characteristics and features of a Paranoid Personality Disorder, which you are exhibiting quite accurately. I would encourage you to seek God's help in this matter. ischus |
||||||
78 | A distinction without a difference? | 1 Cor 12:10 | ischus | 115189 | ||
In defense of JP, I would agree that Election is more central of a topic than tongues, although I would disagree with the conclusions that I have read concerning his theology on the matter. However, in light of the fact that I do not have the history that you all share together, I will make no further comment, other than the fact that there are several other threads which are in need of your efforts, rather than this one against the Reformed Pilgrim. ischus |
||||||
79 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115188 | ||
What can I say, kalos? You are a breath of fresh air to me! Keep it up- You encourage me daily. Praise God for His ENTIRE word! ischus |
||||||
80 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | ischus | 115176 | ||
SUEDE, We cetainly do disagree here. I do not deny that the bible contains history, but when it does, the point that the authors make is the way in which God works in history- the bible is not objective history (nor is any history, for that matter)- it is a theological interpretation of events that show God's divine work. Each section of the OT demonstrates God's desire for a relationship with his people in spite of their failures; each book shows God's love, mercy, faithfulness, justice, holiness, grace, and his universal love for all people, including gentiles and pagans. These are not historical- they are Gospel! I am sorry to hear that you do not see the OT in this way. ischus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |