|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 8, 2007 22:14:23 GMT -5
family1st, that is the kind of church I am looking for, only concerned for souls and the teaching of Christ word, not in what your wearing or what you pull up in, too bad its so far away from Gardendale. Hey, if you don't want the drive but want a good church... www.srccweb.org/Probably about 20 minutes from Gardendale. Maybe less. Depends on where you live ;D
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 9, 2007 1:15:21 GMT -5
A co worker was telling me that she is looking for another church. It seems that her church asked for a copy of her W2 form! They said it was to make sure she tythed the correct amount! I could not believe it.
|
|
|
Post by brian on Apr 9, 2007 6:09:29 GMT -5
just because it feels good/right looks good/right does not make it right/good
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 9, 2007 9:59:00 GMT -5
richbrout, You should also read the scripture where the apostles got all in a huff because a woman poured expensive perfume on the feet of Jesus. That's what you are sounding like. Only one of them did...and he was a known thief...and their treasurer!! Oh contraire, Matt 26:6-13 6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. 8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? 9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor . 10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. 12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. 13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her. KJV
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 9, 2007 11:25:02 GMT -5
But of course...the little word "only" gets me in trouble, huh? I guess I should have said, "primarily"... I was referring to John 12:3-6: *** Then Mary took a pound of very costly oil of spikenard, anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped His feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the oil. Then one of His disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, who would betray Him, said, "Why was this fragrant oil not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?" This he said, not that he cared for the poor, but because he was a thief, and had the money box; and he used to take what was put in it. ***
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 9, 2007 15:43:46 GMT -5
Just curious, is there somewhere in the new testament that states that anyone will speak in tongues other that who it was speaking of in the passage. I personally put it into the same category as snake handling and holy rollers, and based on your description it sounds like you really don't buy it yourself.....absolutely no offence, Waste, to your church, that's just my beliefs. family1st, that is the kind of church I am looking for, only concerned for souls and the teaching of Christ word, not in what your wearing or what you pull up in, too bad its so far away from Gardendale. It's comes from the Pentecost. That's why they call themselves Pentecostals. I know it's impossible for you to imagine that there are other interpretations of the NT than that of your Grammy and Sunday School class. Just for the record, as crazy as you think they are; I lump you both in the same category. It's just another branch of American Protestantism. Many religious people have these mystical experiences. Think of the Shakers or any type of dancing or chanting until some sort of ecstasy is reached. I think this type of worship has a real future in Christianity. It's purely emotional. I know you would rather listen to some pot-bellied reverend give a lecture about the gay. But there's no future in that. If people start to study the bible and stray beyond the Baptist book store they will probably become Atheists or at least liberal Christians.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 9, 2007 16:01:29 GMT -5
Only one of them did...and he was a known thief...and their treasurer!! Oh contraire, Matt 26:6-13 6 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, 7 There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat. 8 But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste? 9 For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor . 10 When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me. 11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always. 12 For in that she hath poured this ointment on my body, she did it for my burial. 13 Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her. KJV Hey Phinehas don't forget the 4th commandment: " The feast of unleavened bread shalt thou keep. Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, as I commanded thee, in the time of the month Abib: for in the month Abib thou camest out from Egypt." This is right below your Bible quote: Matt 26 17. Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, Where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover? 18. And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. So Jesus remembered the feast of the unleavened bread. Hmmm. That Bible's in interesting book. Job 39:9-10 (King James Version) 9. Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? 10. Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 9, 2007 16:06:33 GMT -5
blondie...
since you know so much about Christianity, you DO know what Jesus ultimately did with the Old Covenant, don't you?
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 9, 2007 16:26:27 GMT -5
blondie -
I have specific answers for both of those evilbible.com cut and pastes....
I won't tell you though. Tough luck. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 10, 2007 5:55:29 GMT -5
blondie... since you know so much about Christianity, you DO know what Jesus ultimately did with the Old Covenant, don't you? Sure, I know that American Protestants think only the stuff in the Bible that agrees with whatever they happen to believe is all that's still valid. Remember usury? Divorce? In the 50s and early 60s there was a bunch of Bible quoting about race separation. Today Jesus is all about the gay. What an amazing coincidence.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 10, 2007 5:58:21 GMT -5
blondie...
If i ever get up a dodge ball team, you will be my first draft pick...
|
|
cw
Cog in Training
Posts: 60
|
Post by cw on Apr 10, 2007 7:52:25 GMT -5
I'm just not sure how many different ways you can re-package the word Love.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 10, 2007 8:01:59 GMT -5
I believe in Unicorns...You mean they aren't real?
|
|
cw
Cog in Training
Posts: 60
|
Post by cw on Apr 10, 2007 8:07:19 GMT -5
I believe in Unicorns...You mean they aren't real? You can believe whatever you want, that's the beauty of this life. However, unless your unicorn can cause a universe to leap into existance with nothing but a word from it's mouth, I don't think I'd risk my eternal destiny on it.
|
|
|
Post by dixiepixie on Apr 10, 2007 8:13:40 GMT -5
I don't believe they are real in the here and now, but I believe there are far too many stories with the same descriptions to believe the NEVER existed. Maybe they died out after the flood because the male was homosexual. (J/K, I don't want to "OFFEND" and homosexual unicorns) ;D
In all seriousness, though, we don't know what species died out int he early days after the flood. Maybe it was too fragile to survive.
|
|
|
Post by espy on Apr 10, 2007 9:08:59 GMT -5
I have to agree with dixiepixie on this one, along with the dinosaurs, there is no telling how many strange animals have become extinct since the flood, or before the flood for that matter.
How many species were wiped out in one of the many meteorite impacts seen all around the globe. Some of these would have quite devastating.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 10, 2007 9:14:17 GMT -5
blondie... If i ever get up a dodge ball team, you will be my first draft pick... Matthew 5:17-18 (King James Version) 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. I know, I know. This is all just a metaphor for what some hillbilly on sand mountain figured out in 1975.
|
|
cw
Cog in Training
Posts: 60
|
Post by cw on Apr 10, 2007 9:54:26 GMT -5
blondie... If i ever get up a dodge ball team, you will be my first draft pick... Matthew 5:17-18 (King James Version) 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. I know, I know. This is all just a metaphor for what some hillbilly on sand mountain figured out in 1975. That's no metaphor, it's a fact. Gal 3:24-25 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. NKJV
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 10, 2007 10:41:45 GMT -5
Matthew 5:17-18 (King James Version) 17. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. I know, I know. This is all just a metaphor for what some hillbilly on sand mountain figured out in 1975. That's no metaphor, it's a fact. Gal 3:24-25 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. NKJV Yep, that's what American Evangelicals believe. What you really have is different authors saying different things: James 2:20-24 (King James Version) 20. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23. And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
|
|
|
Post by mamawolf on Apr 10, 2007 10:50:34 GMT -5
Picking apart the scriptures and pulling meaning from them out of context instead of looking at them as part of the whole word of God has been done for years and will continue to be done by those who would either sculpt the word to their own advantage or those who attempt to prove the word is fallable (which it is not). This is why there is wisdom in the fact that religion should never be debated or argued. If one is not ready to accept God as the supreme being that he is, no amount of debate or arguing will change that person's heart or mind. Once a person is ready, there will be no NEED to argue or debate the bible.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 10, 2007 11:39:47 GMT -5
That's no metaphor, it's a fact. Gal 3:24-25 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. NKJV Yep, that's what American Evangelicals believe. What you really have is different authors saying different things: James 2:20-24 (King James Version) 20. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23. And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Good job, Blondie. What you posted actually supported what cw posted. Like phinehas, I won't tell you why. Unless you ask. I'll be happy to tell you if you really want to know but we all know that you don't care.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 10, 2007 14:48:30 GMT -5
Yep, that's what American Evangelicals believe. What you really have is different authors saying different things: James 2:20-24 (King James Version) 20. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21. Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22. Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23. And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Good job, Blondie. What you posted actually supported what cw posted. Like phinehas, I won't tell you why. Unless you ask. I'll be happy to tell you if you really want to know but we all know that you don't care. No, no. I'm dying to know your explanation. Even though I'm pretty sure I know what you're going to say.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 10, 2007 20:08:23 GMT -5
That's funny 'cause I know exactly what you'll say if I say what I say. I'm glad we covered that. Well, just so I don't look like you and run away from an argument, I'll post what I was going to post. This is taken from John MacArthur's notes on this passage:
"This does not contradict Paul's clear teaching that Abraham was justified before God by grace alone through faith alone (Rom. 3:20; 4:1-25; Gal. 3:6,11). For several reason, James cannot mean that Abraham was constituted righteous before God because of his own good works: 1) James already stressed that salvation is a gracious gift (1:17,18); 2) in the middle of this disputed passage (v.23), James quoted Gen. 15:6, which forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith; and 3) the works that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Isaac (Gen. 22:9,12), an event that occurred many years after he first exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Gen. 12:1-7;15:6). Instead, Abraham's offering of Isaac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. James is emphasizing the vindication before others of a man's claim to salvation. James' teaching perfectly complements Paul's writings; salvation is determined by faith alone (Eph. 2:8,9) and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God's will alone (Eph. 2:10)."
I used this because it says it alot better than I could say it. Now, I know that you're going to post something about John MacArthur not being an "Objective Source" or that you consider him "Meaningless" but I'd love for you to address what is said and, if you disagree, refute with a valid argument.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 10, 2007 20:28:20 GMT -5
That's funny 'cause I know exactly what you'll say if I say what I say. I'm glad we covered that. Well, just so I don't look like you and run away from an argument, I'll post what I was going to post. This is taken from John MacArthur's notes on this passage: "This does not contradict Paul's clear teaching that Abraham was justified before God by grace alone through faith alone (Rom. 3:20; 4:1-25; Gal. 3:6,11). For several reason, James cannot mean that Abraham was constituted righteous before God because of his own good works: 1) James already stressed that salvation is a gracious gift (1:17,18); 2) in the middle of this disputed passage (v.23), James quoted Gen. 15:6, which forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith; and 3) the works that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Isaac (Gen. 22:9,12), an event that occurred many years after he first exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Gen. 12:1-7;15:6). Instead, Abraham's offering of Isaac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. James is emphasizing the vindication before others of a man's claim to salvation. James' teaching perfectly complements Paul's writings; salvation is determined by faith alone (Eph. 2:8,9) and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God's will alone (Eph. 2:10)." I used this because it says it alot better than I could say it. Now, I know that you're going to post something about John MacArthur not being an "Objective Source" or that you consider him "Meaningless" but I'd love for you to address what is said and, if you disagree, refute with a valid argument. No, I expected you to parrot the American Evangelical rationalization. It's well established what James wrote. All you have to do is read it. It amazes me that Evangelicals will look at a passage from the Bible and believe it means the exact opposite of the words on the page. Martin Luther wanted to take James out of the Bible because it went against his "only through faith" theory: www.biblestudy.org/question/luthjams.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James#JustificationIf you actually studied this stuff instead of just trying to rationalize a 20th century hillbilly interpretation I'm sure you would find it infinitely more satisfying.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 10, 2007 20:41:25 GMT -5
You aren't addressing what John MacArthur wrote. How is it wrong? He listed three reasons for why it perfectly compliments what Paul wrote. Again, you fail to offer anything other than your juvenile attacks.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 6:00:45 GMT -5
You aren't addressing what John MacArthur wrote. How is it wrong? He listed three reasons for why it perfectly compliments what Paul wrote. Again, you fail to offer anything other than your juvenile attacks. It's not a juvenile attack. You can't understand what I'm saying because you have to filter everything through an Evangelical lens. Why would Martin Luther have wanted to get rid of James if your imaginative interpretation is correct? I know you don't care, but if you are actually interested about learning the history and the contents of the Bible; you should steer as far away from Evangelical apologetics as possible. You need to start with a question, not an answer.
|
|
|
Post by family1st on Apr 11, 2007 8:22:58 GMT -5
Blondie: You need to start answering other people's questions. You do realize that what you're doing fits Espy's "TROLL" definition. Debate has arguements, refutations, and counter arguements. Join a debate team and you might learn something.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 11, 2007 8:31:56 GMT -5
You aren't addressing what John MacArthur wrote. How is it wrong? He listed three reasons for why it perfectly compliments what Paul wrote. Again, you fail to offer anything other than your juvenile attacks. It's not a juvenile attack. You can't understand what I'm saying because you have to filter everything through an Evangelical lens. Why would Martin Luther have wanted to get rid of James if your imaginative interpretation is correct? I know you don't care, but if you are actually interested about learning the history and the contents of the Bible; you should steer as far away from Evangelical apologetics as possible. You need to start with a question, not an answer. You rean't suggesting that Martin Luther is the final authority on Scripture, are you? I don't think you'd be that stupid. It makes the most sense to explain Scripture with Scripture. John MacArthur did that. He clearly explained how what James wrote fits with what Paul wrote. Again, you are failing to address how those points are wrong and are trying to take this off on a rabbit trail. Please explain how these three points are wrong: "1) James already stressed that salvation is a gracious gift (1:17,18); 2) in the middle of this disputed passage (v.23), James quoted Gen. 15:6, which forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith; and 3) the works that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Isaac (Gen. 22:9,12), an event that occurred many years after he first exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Gen. 12:1-7;15:6). Instead, Abraham's offering of Isaac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. James is emphasizing the vindication before others of a man's claim to salvation. James' teaching perfectly complements Paul's writings; salvation is determined by faith alone (Eph. 2:8,9) and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God's will alone (Eph. 2:10)." How is this wrong?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 9:17:09 GMT -5
1) James already stressed that salvation is a gracious gift (1:17,18); Yet later and much clearer it says you need works. Just like Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount 2) in the middle of this disputed passage (v.23), James quoted Gen. 15:6, which forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith; And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.To claim that this forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith is far from candid. Besides James so clearly states you need works. 3) the works that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Isaac (Gen. 22:9,12), an event that occurred many years after he first exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Gen. 12:1-7;15:6). Instead, Abraham's offering of Isaac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. James is emphasizing the vindication before others of a man's claim to salvation. James' teaching perfectly complements Paul's writings; salvation is determined by faith alone (Eph. 2:8,9) and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God's will alone (Eph. 2:10)." The fact is nobody knows who wrote the book of James. But one thing we can be sure of is that he wasn't a Protestant. Who knows what he meant? The Bible is filled with backbiting and contradictions between different authors. Some are responding to earlier teachings. Some of them we probably don't have the slightest clue what they originally meant. I know you believe that the Bible is a supernatural book that justifies American Evangelicalism. I don't. But I'm factoring in a lot of information to arrive at where I'm at. Please read just one good book by a real objective scholar. This is a good one. You can get it anywhere: www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=pd_bbs_2/103-5942057-9219015?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176300084&sr=8-2
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 11, 2007 9:21:51 GMT -5
You rean't suggesting that Martin Luther is the final authority on Scripture, are you? I don't think you'd be that stupid. Wow, I must have skipped over this part before. You really don't understand what I'm saying. It really is above your head. I shouldn't have wasted my time responding. I'm not your Sunday school teacher. We'll maybe I've sparked some interest that will lead you to reading and understanding the Bible from a more rational viewpoint.
|
|