Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 16 FirstFirst ... 34567891011 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 159
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,566
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    (I presume this included the original creation of the angelic realm too, before the fall of Lucifer/Satan).
    Hey there dp,

    As explained in my last post, there is no "fallen angel" named "Lucifer" in any original or accurately translated version of the Bible. That name is nothing but a mistaken importation of a Latin mistranslation of a Greek translation of an ambiguous Hebrew word in Isaiah 14:12.

    Just thought you should know.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Here is an EXACT quote you made in the year 2008 AD (in the 49th post of the thread "the bible wheel?" over at www.christian-forum.net) ...


    "Now one of the PRIMARY objections people raise is the charge of "cherry picking". They suggest that the bible is such a book that anyone can make connections with anything, and therefore nothing like the bible wheel could have any real meaning. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE. God established the connections for us in the alphabetic verses, and the specific content of the books is an objective fact."


    So you were ALREADY claiming that one of the PRIMARY objections to the bible wheel was that it involves cherry picking AND you dismissed those charges as untrue (and then proceeded to explain why it was untrue). Now, as soon as I argued that even if ALL the problems you have with the bible were true, it would only demonstrate fallibility, all of a sudden you do a 180 and claim the bible wheel is a result of cherry picking the biblical data under the 22 spokes of the bible wheel.
    What's your point? The mere fact that I rejected the charge of cherry picking proves nothing. It doesn't mean that I was right then or wrong now for changing my mind. And it certainly does not prove that I did a "180" in response to your ludicrous argument that the biblegod could be true in spite of the self-contradictory properties stated in the Bible. First, I did not do a 180 - I merely SAID what I had been thinking about (and saying) for a long time. Second, I didn't give your argument a second thought because it was patently absurd on many levels. The only reason I keep explaining your error is that you keep repeating the argument. The really sad thing is that you have not even responded to my explanation as yet! You continue to think that the OTHER GOD you have invented, which has different properties that the biblegod, is the same as the Biblegod. That's your error. I've explained it many times and you have never responded. Very, very wierd. It's like you are literally blind to things you don't want to see.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    When I said that there is no "fallen angel" named Lucifer, I was not talking about "metaphors of satan." I was talking about the fact that there is no "fallen angel" named "Lucifer" in any accurate version of the Bible. The name got imported into the KJV from the Latin Vulgate. It is classic mistranslation based on a translation of the original Hebrew heylel to the Greek eosphoros in the Greek LXX to Lucifer in the Latin Vulgate which was copied into the English KJV. Look at that chain of confusion!

    Hebrew => Greek => Latin => English

    Anyone who thinks there is a real "fallen angel" named "Lucifier" is simply ignorant of the Bible. Of course, that includes probably at least 95% of fundamentalists.

    And there's a great irony here. The Latin Vulgate which introduced the word "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 used the same word in 2 Peter 1:19 -

    KJV 2 Peter 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star [Lucifer] arise in your hearts:

    Vulgate: 2 Peter 1:19 et habemus firmiorem propheticum sermonem cui bene facitis adtendentes quasi lucernae lucenti in caliginoso loco donec dies inlucescat et lucifer oriatur in cordibus vestris


    The Latin Bible tells you that you should pray for LUCIFER to rise in your heart!

    Richard, I do not accept the correlation between the Latin lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 and 1 Peter 1:19. It is obvious from the words in each text that they can't possibly be talking about the same thing. One is a fallen angel, the other is the rising of Christ in the heart, much like the rising of the day star (I am presuming sun).

    Here is a case where one strains at a gnat and swallows a camel. It is obvious that the occult secret societies know full well the Lucifer they are following in their hearts. And it certainly isn't the risen Lord Jesus Christ. So for someone who takes pride in shooting straight, this is quite the curve ball. You can't possibly think this refers to the same person in each case.

    If you were at all biblically sound in the past, you know full well how the Roman Catholic Church has used their Latin translation of the Vulgate to bully any truly Bible believing Christian. I know that for the sake of you rejecting all of Christianity, it is very convenient for you to use the RCC as a valid representation of Christianity. But I think in your heart you know that is not true. As if Jesus would approve of the Inquisition, responsible for the deaths of more Bible believing Christians than all false religions and atheist atrocities of the world combined. Add to that the grossest of distortions of Christian doctrines imaginable. And I don't want to push this any further lest I come across as a Catholic basher. That is not my intent, but neither is denial of the facts healthy. I love many honest living and peaceful Catholics, as some of them are the finest people I have worked with.

    If the KJV was so intent on importing and using lucifer from the Latin, why did it translate Isaiah 14:12 as Lucifer, and 2 Peter 1:19 as day star? The LXX of Isaiah is ewsphoros, and the NT is phwsphoros, and I am not sure of the exact correlation between the two, but they are not the same. And even if they were, context would still make them as different as day and night.

    dp
    Last edited by dpenn; 08-29-2014 at 06:42 PM.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,566
    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Richard, I do not accept the correlation between the Latin lucifer in Isaiah 14:12 and 1 Peter 1:19. It is obvious from the words in each text that they can't possibly be talking about the same thing. One is a fallen angel, the other is the rising of Christ in the heart, much like the rising of the day star (I am presuming sun).

    Here is a case where one strains at a gnat and swallows a camel. It is obvious that the occult secret societies know full well the Lucifer they are following in their hearts. And it certainly isn't the risen Lord Jesus Christ. So for someone who takes pride in shooting straight, this is quite the curve ball. You can't possibly think this refers to the same person in each case.
    I never said that they were the "same person." My point was that the word "lucifer" is not the name of a person (or angel) in either case. In the case of Isaiah 14:12, it was copied from the Latin Vulgate which was translated from the Greek LXX which was translated from the Hebrew heylel. There is no reason anyone should interpret the word "lucifer" as the name of a fallen angel in that verse. That is a gross error based on multiple mistranslations and false assumptions.

    In the case of 2 Peter 1:19, the word is an accurate translation of the Greek phosphoros which means "light bearer" (as does lucifer) and which also was the Greek name of the planet Venus, also known as the "morning star." It seems pretty obvious that Peter was using it as a symbol of the "light of Christ" rising in one's heart. The reason I showed that verse was to "break the spell" of ignorant Christians who have a superstitious fear of the name "Lucifer" based on the errant copying of a translation of a mistranslation of an ambiguous text that was interpreted (without justification) as applying to Satan. In other words, I was showing that the preachers who preach about "Lucifer" as a "fallen angel" are grossly ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches.

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    If you were at all biblically sound in the past, you know full well how the Roman Catholic Church has used their Latin translation of the Vulgate to bully any truly Bible believing Christian. I know that for the sake of you rejecting all of Christianity, it is very convenient for you to use the RCC as a valid representation of Christianity.
    I did not "use the RCC as a valid representation of Christianity." The Latin Vulgate was THE Bible of the entire Western Christian world for about a thousand years. It deeply influenced the translators of the KJV, as if obvious by their fallacious inclusion of the name "Lucifer."

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    As if Jesus would approve of the Inquisition, responsible for the deaths of more Bible believing Christians than all false religions and atheist atrocities of the world combined.
    As if Jesus would approve of the slavery practiced by the Protestant Christians in the American south? Oh .. wait ... I guess he would have approved of that. Indeed, the most powerful arguments supporting slavery came from the Bible. For example, take a look at this thread: DeBow's Review (1850) Argued that the Bible Supports Slavery.

    Do you think there has ever been a group of believers that Jesus would have "approved"?

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    Add to that the grossest of distortions of Christian doctrines imaginable.
    It would be very interesting to know what doctrines you think define Christianity. Are you a member of any particular denomination or group? Or do you just think of yourself as a "Bible believer"?

    Quote Originally Posted by dpenn View Post
    And I don't want to push this any further lest I come across as a Catholic basher. That is not my intent, but neither is denial of the facts healthy. I love many honest living and peaceful Catholics, as some of them are the finest people I have worked with.

    dp
    Point well taken.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Gambini View Post
    Here is an EXACT quote you made in the year 2008 AD (in the 49th post of the thread "the bible wheel?" over at www.christian-forum.net) ...

    "Now one of the PRIMARY objections people raise is the charge of "cherry picking". They suggest that the bible is such a book that anyone can make connections with anything, and therefore nothing like the bible wheel could have any real meaning. BUT THIS IS NOT TRUE. God established the connections for us in the alphabetic verses, and the specific content of the books is an objective fact."

    So you were ALREADY claiming that one of the PRIMARY objections to the bible wheel was that it involves cherry picking AND you dismissed those charges as untrue (and then proceeded to explain why it was untrue). Now, as soon as I argued that even if ALL the problems you have with the bible were true, it would only demonstrate fallibility, all of a sudden you do a 180 and claim the bible wheel is a result of cherry picking the biblical data under the 22 spokes of the bible wheel.
    Thanks for finding that post Gambini. Here is the correct link. And here's another quote from that post:
    Now the real miracle of the Bible Wheel shines with its greatest clarity when we examine the specific content on each Spoke in light of the Alphabetic KeyWords that God established in the Alphabetic Verses of Scripture. The Alphabetic Verses are the passages that God designed on the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet. The most notable example is Psalm 119 which has 8 stanzas for each letter giving a total of 176 (= 8 x 22) verses. And what is the theme of this, the largest chapter in God's Word? It is none other than the WORD itself! And how are words written? With the Alphabet, of course. We find therefore that God designed the PSALM of HIS WORD on the pattern of the Hebrew Alphabet, and this establishes the pattern for the large-scale pattern of His entire Word in the form of the Wheel. But there is more! There are many profound correlations between the Alphabet KeyWords and the specific content of the books on the corresponding Spokes.
    I then presented one of my favorite examples of the "profound correlations" - the connection between the symbolic meaning of Tzaddi (righteousness) and the content of Spoke 18.

    So let's evaluate the evidence. I asserted that the Alphabetic KeyWords used in the Alphabetic Verses establish "the large-scale pattern of His entire Word in the form of the Wheel." Is that statement true? Did I find sufficient evidence to support such a broad claim? That is the hypothesis that must be tested. In the post you quoted, I gave evidence only from one spoke relating to only one of the symbolic meanings of Tzaddi. So to evaluate the claim, we need to examine ALL THE DATA and see if it fits with my hypothesis. That's how science works.

    As it turns out, the answer is "no." The hypothesis is not true for most alphabetic keywords. There are very few places where we get connections as clear as what we see on Spoke 18. I searched for such connections for many years and the truth is that there are very few. Far too few to warrant any claim of deliberate design, especially from an almighty omniscient being who chose to create such a design. And worse, there is no way to know how many of the connections we do find would be expected by mere coincidence.

    I have begun reviewing my work and have found many examples of a subtle (and often not so subtle) selection bias running throughout. I really thought I was being careful to avoid it, but I really don't think anyone can because of the psychology of belief. That's why science is so obsessed with PEER REVIEW. That's the one of the most effective ways to avoid deluding ourselves with our biases.

    Here's an example of what I'm talking about. One of my favorite Alphabetic KeyLinks was based the ayin verse of Psalm 34:

    AV Ps 34:15 AYIN The eyes (ayini) of the LORD are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry.

    This verse is quoted in one and only one book of the Bible, 1 Peter on Spoke 16, corresponding to Ayin:

    1 Peter 3:12 For the eyes of the Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.

    This is the definition of an Alphabetic KeyLink - a unique link that appears only on the Spoke corresponding to the Hebrew letter. I thought this was strong evidence of design. But there is one little fact that I ignored. Peter also quoted the Peh verse! But it's on Spoke 16 instead of 17 where it "belongs" -

    Psalm 34:16 PEH The face (pani) of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth.

    This means that the Peh verse is an "anti-keylink." It is a unique link that is NOT connected with the corresponding spoke. This example, which I thought was one of the best examples CONFIRMING my hypothesis, actually contains evidence that refutes it! This shows how blind believers can be. And I'm not talking just about religious believers. All humans have beliefs and all humans are subject to bias. That's the genius of science - it is based on EVIDENCE and PEER REVIEW which are essential to the discovery of truth and reality.

    I am in process of reviewing all my work to see how much was skewed by similar biases. It should prove very enlightening.

    Richard
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This means that the Peh verse is an "anti-keylink." It is a unique link that is NOT connected with the corresponding spoke. This example, which I thought was one of the best examples CONFIRMING my hypothesis, actually contains evidence that refutes it! This shows how blind believers can be. And I'm not talking just about religious believers. All humans have beliefs and all humans are subject to bias. That's the genius of science - it is based on EVIDENCE and PEER REVIEW which are essential to the discovery of truth and reality.

    I am in process of reviewing all my work to see how much was skewed by similar biases. It should prove very enlightening.

    Richard
    I just reviewed my second "favorite" Alphabetic KeyLink that I have listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks page. It too has an "anti-keylink" in its immediate context, just as my "favorite" KeyLink mentioned in the quote above. That's one "miss" for each "hit" so far.

    The primary claim of the Bible Wheel book is that God designed the Bible in the form of the Wheel and in accordance with the Hebrew alphabet. The primary evidence that I presented supporting this claim was the existence of KeyLinks. I defined two kinds:

    KeyLinks are defined as words, sets of words, phrases, and even whole verses are found distributed only on a given Spoke of the Wheel. These KeyLinks are extremely common in Scripture. I currently have 1,897 recorded in my database.

    Alphabetic KeyLinks are defined as unique links between the content found on the Spokes with the content found in the corresponding Alphabetic Verses (those portions of Scripture explicitly designed upon the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet).

    With these definitions in mind, let's review mysecond "favorite" Alphabetic KeyLink that I have listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks page. It is based on the Shin verse of Psalm 34:

    AV Psalm 34:20 SHIN He keepeth (shamar) all his bones: not one of them is broken.

    I was very impressed by the fact that this verse is quoted in one and only one book of the Bible, John on Spoke 21, corresponding to Shin. I thought it "confirmed" my hypothesis that God had designed the Bible in accordance with the pattern he established in the Alphabetic Verses. But let's look at the context:

    John 19:36 For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. 37 And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.

    That second citation is also KeyLink because it appears in two and only two books of the Bible (Zechariah 12:10 and John 19:37). But it's actually an "anti-keylink" because the books are not on the same spoke, which directly contradicts my hypothesis.

    So why didn't I notice this before? Because of SELECTION BIAS. I reported only the "hits" and usually ignored the "misses." And not only did I ignore reporting them, I ignored the fact that they contradicted my whole thesis! I am stunned to see how deluded I was. If it was a keylink, I would have shouted it from the rooftops as more EVIDENCE that God designed the Bible. But it didn't fit the pattern I was looking for, so I ignored it.

    I was deluded because I really truly believed that the Bible was designed by God in accordance with the Bible Wheel. But now even a cursory glance at the actual evidence proves me wrong. How could I be so blind? That's the power of belief coupled with cognitive bias.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,566
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    I just reviewed my second "favorite" Alphabetic KeyLink that I have listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks page. It too has an "anti-keylink" in its immediate context, just as my "favorite" KeyLink mentioned in the quote above. That's one "miss" for each "hit" so far.

    The primary claim of the Bible Wheel book is that God designed the Bible in the form of the Wheel and in accordance with the Hebrew alphabet. The primary evidence that I presented supporting this claim was the existence of KeyLinks. I defined two kinds:

    KeyLinks are defined as words, sets of words, phrases, and even whole verses are found distributed only on a given Spoke of the Wheel. These KeyLinks are extremely common in Scripture. I currently have 1,897 recorded in my database.

    Alphabetic KeyLinks are defined as unique links between the content found on the Spokes with the content found in the corresponding Alphabetic Verses (those portions of Scripture explicitly designed upon the pattern of the Hebrew alphabet).
    I just reviewed my third "favorite" Alphabetic Keylink listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks page. It is based on the the Aleph verse of Psalm 34:

    AV Ps 34:1 ALEPH I will bless (avarakah) the LORD at all times: his praise shall continually be in my mouth.

    The word "avarakah" appears only in another alphabetic verse (AV Psalm 145:1) and in Genesis on Spoke 1:

    Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee: And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless (avarakah) them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

    This keylink was a not "exact" in the sense that the keyword was prefixed by the conjunctive vav, but I didn't (and still don't) think that was particularly significant. But the thing that is significant is that this verse contains an anit-keylink. The promise that "in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed" is quoted in one and only one book of the Bible:

    KJV Galatians 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

    So there it is. Each of the first three "favorite" examples of "divine design" of the Bible Wheel that I reviewed contain within themselves evidence that directly contradicts my hypothesis! That's three strikes in a row, from my "best" evidence!

    I am thrilled. This is amazing. I was in bondage to the Bible Wheel delusion for well over a decade. It has taken about three years of serious thought to even begin to free my mind. This shows how difficult it is for believers to break free from their delusions.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    14,566

    The Bible Wheel Debunked!

    I have now reviewed the fourth and final example of an "Alphabetic KeyLink" listed on my Alphabetic KeyLinks page. It does not have a strict "anti-keylink" like the others, but it it is close to an "anti-keylink" because the shin verse is uniquely linked to two off-spoke books. It is based on the Resh clause of Psalm 111 (which has two alphabetic clauses per verse). Verse 111:10 begins with the clause corresponding to Resh:

    AV Psalm 111:10a RESH The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom:

    The word order of the English translation is reversed. The Hebrew begins with "Reshit chokmah." Here's what I say about it on that page:

    As a final example - perhaps the most significant of them all - we have the unique appearance of the phrase Reshith Chokmah (Beginning of Wisdom) found only in the Resh verse of AV Psalm 111and the Twentieth Book, Proverbs, the premier "Book of Wisdom" to be found in the Bible. It is actually a double Alphabetic KeyLink, as discussed at length in the Synopsis of the Twenty-two Spokes in the Bible Wheel book and on this site in the Spoke 20 article The Beginning of Wisdom.

    Now let's look at the whole verse:

    Psalm 111:10 RESH The fear of the LORD is the beginning (reshit) of wisdom: SHIN a good understanding (sekel) have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

    The word "understanding" is sekel, a shin keyword. The phrase "good understanding" is sekel tov. This phrase is found in three other verses of the Bible (if we allow for the vav prefix). It is found in Proverbs 3:4, 13:15, and 2 Chronicles 30:22. None of those books are on Spoke 21 corresponding to Shin. This is strong evidence AGAINST my hypothesis that God designed the Bible on the pattern of the Bible Wheel.

    I have little doubt that all the evidence I presented in the Bible Wheel book will fall by the same sword. It is evident that selection bias played a HUGE role in my formulation of the evidence supporting it. I have no reason of any kind to believe that any of the evidence will stand under scrutiny. I conclude that the Bible Wheel has been debunked.



    FREEDOM!
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  9. #69
    I've changed my ideas and decided to remove this post. Rest assured I still love and believe in God <3
    Last edited by Nothing; 04-29-2017 at 01:09 AM.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    In the case of 2 Peter 1:19, the word is an accurate translation of the Greek phosphoros which means "light bearer" (as does lucifer) and which also was the Greek name of the planet Venus, also known as the "morning star." It seems pretty obvious that Peter was using it as a symbol of the "light of Christ" rising in one's heart. The reason I showed that verse was to "break the spell" of ignorant Christians who have a superstitious fear of the name "Lucifer" based on the errant copying of a translation of a mistranslation of an ambiguous text that was interpreted (without justification) as applying to Satan. In other words, I was showing that the preachers who preach about "Lucifer" as a "fallen angel" are grossly ignorant of what the Bible actually teaches.
    Richard, I am glad to hear that you do not equate the two usages of as the same. I still find it interesting that the KJV only uses Lucifer for Isaiah, and day star for 2 Peter. I am also aware that the Hebrew is heylel, which refers to "light bearer". I am not convinced that day star refers to Venus and not the Sun, but I may be proven wrong on that one. I am also not certain that day star can be interchanged with light bearer in 2 Peter. One thing is certain, the esoteric writers love to equate Lucifer to the bringer of illuminated light, especially from that knowledge received from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So Christians have every reason to be weary about the use of Lucifer for Jesus Christ as the light bearer, which is quite different from Him arising in our hearts like the rising of the day star.


    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    As if Jesus would approve of the slavery practiced by the Protestant Christians in the American south? Oh .. wait ... I guess he would have approved of that. Indeed, the most powerful arguments supporting slavery came from the Bible.
    I do not think that Jesus would ever have approved of the horrendously brutal chattel slavery practiced by many professing Christians of the US South. When George Whitefield came to America to preach the Gospel in Georgia, he had great opposition from many of these slave owners, who treated the blacks as though they didn't even possess a soul. But Whitefield preached to the black slaves with tears running down his face, appalled at the cold-hearted ignorance of the slave owners. When you consider the close relationships of many slaves to their masters in the OT, you see something even more superior to many of our employer/employee relationships. For example, Eliezer of Damascus, a slave, would have destined to inherit everything from Abraham without the birth of Isaac, and later, he was honoured with seeking out a wife for Isaac in Haran. Paul also addressed the slavery issue in Philemon, and taught that if one could gain his freedom, that would be much more preferable. But at the same time, there were commandments of God for both the masters and the slaves, as they were both accountable for their actions unto the Lord.

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    Do you think there has ever been a group of believers that Jesus would have "approved"?
    The great commission of Christ in Matthew 28:18-20 suggests His approval of the Church universal:

    "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying , All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo , I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    It would be very interesting to know what doctrines you think define Christianity. Are you a member of any particular denomination or group? Or do you just think of yourself as a "Bible believer"?
    Well, I believe simply, the Bible alone defines what a true Christian is, so I do hold to that tenet of the Protestant Reformation. And although I do appreciate the godly lives of so many of the contributors to many of the Confessions of Faith, I don't necessarily align myself with any one of them, or even group of them. Having said that, it is impossible to define oneself as a Christian without having a rather comprehensive knowledge of the Bible. My roots were mostly with the Christian and Missionary Alliance, but I have been involved with Baptists, Reformed Presbyterians, and Charismatics, over the course of my Christian walk. I tend toward a more Calvinistic doctrinal position regarding election and predestination, but hold to believer's baptism, rather than paedo-baptism. And sadly, many of the more healthy Charismatic churches are being eclipsed by the more charismaniac churches. But you are probably aware of the necessary doctrinal components that make up the Gospel message, even if you reject them, so I won't labour the point here.

    I believe many Roman Catholics are genuine believers in Christ, because they are ignorant of what their doctrine actually teaches, but the overall Vatican system, with its many orders and papal bulls I must sadly say, falls far short of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The same could be said for the Orthodox Church, and the more liberal Protestant Churches.

    You asked, so that is my general answer to a very difficult question.

    Jesus, through Paul, spoke to the Church in Ephesians 2:1-10; 4:4-7 highlighting the fact that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone, and not of works, lest we should boast. But then he added, having been saved by Christ alone through faith alone, we are called to walk in good works as a demonstration that our faith is genuine:

    "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, by grace ye are saved; And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. ... There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;One Lord, one faith, one baptism,One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ."

    There is much more I could say, but I am quite sure you really don't want me to do that here.

    Thank you once again for your openness to discuss these subjects fairly and uncensored. That is a rare quality on your part and I do appreciate it.

    dp
    Last edited by dpenn; 08-29-2014 at 11:06 PM.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •