[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Theology / Re: Why Callest Thou Me Good? - Mark10:18
« Last post by Joanne on Today at 07:25:14 PM »
As for heresy, it seems in your Aminianist world there is no such thing, but in the world of faithful bible believing Christians, God divinely inspired the word translated heresy for a reason. So we would realize that there is such a thing and mark and avoid such pretenders to the crown.

Not just Joe's Arminian world, but this is also a problem in the Reformed world. It appears there is no such thing as heresy anymore since there isn't one single doctrine that anyone is willing to call heresy. Not even denial of the trinity or denial that Jesus is God come in the flesh. We live in a world of no judgment against any doctrine and ecumenism gone wild. I for one don't think that is the Christian world Christ wants but it is the one the church wants.  :baghead:

Theology / Re: Did Jephthah Sacrifice His Daughter?
« Last post by Joanne on Today at 07:12:30 PM »
Isn't it funny how everyone in the church believed this until relatively recently. Now all of a sudden it's debatable?
Question: I'm sure you ladies have all been taught on the subject of modesty and the need to cover yourselves, but how many of you can name a good, solid reason why this is so?

I would think it obvious, it is not to entice men. Unfortuinately, in our time such rationale is called women shaming.

Modesty is a word and a concept that men almost never deal with. Modesty in women's dress and appearance has always been a "women's issue," which makes sense, given the sensitive nature of some aspects of it. The idea, apparently, is that mothers will teach modesty to their own daughters, and newly saved women will be taught by the older women of the church, in accordance with Titus 2:3-5

That ship has sailed long ago. Modesty isn't taught anymore, it is remembered nostalgically by Grandma. Modesty today is a skirt to the knees rather than below it. Modesty is a whole different word than it was years ago. If we got back to the bible, we would see what real modesty is. I agree Tim, immodesty is in the area of pridefulness. But it is also in parents not wanting their children to appear different and be teased. Neglecting that Christians are supposed to be different. I also agree with Dwight that some points in the article are not true. Women are physically and emotionally different from men, but they also gain satisfaction from achievements as much as men do. And many women today don't even want relationships, the men do and they are frustrated by this new trend.

Theology / Re: Did Jephthah Sacrifice His Daughter?
« Last post by Trotter on Today at 06:42:14 AM »
I'm convinced.  :BibleRead:
Theology / Re: Did Jephthah Sacrifice His Daughter?
« Last post by Tony Warren on Today at 05:04:09 AM »
Your opinion.

I don't know how you feel about it, but I view an opinion as something that is debatable. Debatable is whether the name Melchisedec means "king of righteousness" or "my King is righteousness." Opinion (what is debatable) is not things that God clearly says. Like when we read God cannot lie. That's not an opinion, that's a Biblical fact. Contrary to what you imply, it's not an opinion that God's law strictly forbade the children of Israel from making a vow and not keeping it, much less a making a solemn vow to God and His keeping the requirements of it and then you reneging on it. Likewise, it's not an opinion that the vow that he made was that whatever came out first would be sacrificed as a burnt offering, using the same words that are used throughout Scripture for that particular act. It's not an opinion that the daughter was the one who came out first and her father was horribly distraught because of that vow he made. It's not an opinion that this daughter was a woman of integrity and faith and declared that the vow that her father made had to be kept. And it's not an opinion that the vow that Jephthah kept was the vow that Jephthah made, which by all normal idiom of that language and comparison of scripture was that of a burnt offering, a sacrifice unto God. You may of course retort that it's not an opinion that human sacrifice was forbidden, which is also true. But that does not in any way prove or preclude the biblical fact that Jephthah kept his vow. Obviously to him it was a question of faith in either breaking a solemn vow to God after God had fulfilled the conditions under which it was made, and breaking a moral law that God instituted for His people. Clearly to Jephthah and his daughter it was a matter faith in God vs humanistic reasoning. Jephthah clearly thought keeping his vow to God was of greater import. That's why He is listed as one of the greats in the heroes of faith. That is the type of faith that today many Christians lack, and this prevents them from accepting clear declarations.

Job 19:25-26
  • "For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
  • And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:"

It was the faithfulness of Christ that (like Job) had Jephthah and his daughter believe and know that she was going to God, and not to nothingness as the faithless presume. The same faith that had David believe his son who died would be seen again. Why do you think Jephthah is listed in Hebrews as one of the greatest soldiers of faith? Was it because he made his daughter stay a virgin? Come on. Was it because he won a battle in war? No, that's not GREAT faithfulness, but willing to sacrifice your only child because of a solem vow to God that you cannot bring yourself to break even in this circumstance is GREAT faith! The same great faith that Abraham had when he was likewise willing to sacrifice his son as a burnt offering. Faith which few Christians today recognize.

There are certain clues in the bible that imply his daughter may have suffered a very different fate...

Does the word of God say that or is this more subjection and speculation by those who can't bring themselves to believe the actual narrative (Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering) and so search for alternative ideas that they perceive won't make God unrighteous? Are these certain clues just wishful thinking? Surely if Jephthah's daughter had suffered a very different fate than the actual vow recorded in Scriptures, there must be some text that says there was a change of mind, or that he voided or amended the vow. But in reality, there are no "certain clues" in the Bible that he did anything other than sacrifice her as a burnt offering. The "certain clues" are all man-made justifications to believe there is such a narrative. ...though not inspired written of God. This is not Biblical clues, in truth it is speculation, theory, conjecture, supposition and assumptions. All things not germane or appropriate for sound Biblical expositions. Christians tell me, "I just can't believe that God would allow that." In other words, they know that's what the word says, but they just cannot believe it because of their own sensibilities of what God should and shouldn't allow. Some even declaring it's been written wrong, or that man corrupted the manuscripts and it was simply that her motherhood should be sacrificed.  I see this as anything "not" to accept what is written.

1st Thessalonians 2:13
  • "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."

Not as an opinion of man, but in truth God's unambiguous word concerning this event.

...other than becoming a burnt offering.

Let's talk straight here, Jephthah vowed very clearly that he would offer up to God whatever came out first for a burnt offering. And let's be honest, the word that is translated burnt offering is [olah], meaning ascending and by extension used for describing smoke. Thus a cooked or burnt offering. Look through the Scriptures and you will find that it always means the sacrifice of a burnt offering. Why would any Bible believing Christian be of the "opinion" that in this instance only the word doesn't mean that? But more importantly, this word never means sacrificed as a perpetual virgin. It doesn't even make sense. Scripture interprets Scripture, so unless you can come up with a Scripture where that word means the offering of a girl in perpetual virginity, there really is no Biblical basis for that theory. No matter how well oiled by so-called scholars the supposition may be.

Genesis 22:2
  • "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."

Same word regarding Abraham. Are we to suppose because we deplore human sacrifice that this really meant that Isaac was to be sacrificed by Abraham to become a perpetual virgin? Do we interpret by opinion or by comparing Scripture with Scripture? Because if you have no cause to say it means that here, you have no cause to say that of the same scenario when we read it in Judges.

Many scholars such as Prof. Jonathan Magonet suggest that the Hebrew word lament might actually mean they joined her in mourning her virginity every year because she may have been still alive.

Many scholars say a lot of things, from Jesus was not the Christ, or Paul's words were just his opinion, to Mary was not a virgin, but what does those conclusions of scholars mean? In the end, nothing! Scripture interprets Scripture. If the text meant that the women of Israel join her in mourning her virginity every year, then why would she ask of her father to be able to mourn for her virginity two months before He carried out his vow? Like Alice in wonderland, it keeps getting curious-er and curious-er.

Judges 11:37
  • "And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows."

What chapter and verse do we read that either she was still alive after the vow was kept, or that the daughters of Israel joined her yearly in this [tanah], which by extension means to "pay tribute" through the idea of hire. They went up to pay tribute by lamenting or commemorating her just as the Scriptures illustrate. Why do they pay tribute to her? Because she was a woman of tremendous faith in Israel to agree to such a thing as being sacrificed to God. Lest we forget, it was actually the daughter who agreed and all but insisted that her father had to fulfill the vow that he made to God (Judges 11:36). An act of faith worthy of the custom ([choq,] ordinance or precept) for Israel's daughters go up to pay tribute in lamenting her 4 days of every year. Virginity is not! This was as a memorial service for her great leap of faith to not only agree the vow had to be kept, but ask only to be allowed to mourn the fact that she would die having never married. Not mourn every year with friends for four days, but Scripture says to do it two months before the vow had to be kept.

Really, why would the daughters go up to mourn or join her in morning her virginity when that is exactly what she asked her father an extra two months to do? That makes no sense. Why would she need two months if she was going to mourn her virginity with the daughters of Israel 4 days every year? There's just so many holes in all these theories by Christians who attempt to paint God into a corner of unrighteousness if He allowed this sacrfice to take place.

It is supposed she was obliged to remain unmarried, and so apart from her family.

Your right on this one, but only as you say Is is Supposed, which means "generally assumed or believed to be the case, and as you say she was apart from her family. Yesm, because she died. Absence from the body is to be present with the Lord. She was apart from her earthly family, but joined with her heavenly one. Assumption is not Scripture and supposition is no way to learn what God is teaching in this event. We cannot interpret Scripture by supposing anything, but by comparing Scripture with Scripture, bringing the word into harmony with itself, because assumption is the mother of errors. This is the problem in eschatology as well. Too much assumption rather than actual study of the Scriptures allowing God to interpret His own word.

"nosce te ipsum"
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"
The women I know gain satisfaction from achievements as much as men, and men gain satisfaction from relationships as much as women. This article starts out with a very good premise, but then it all goes south when it adds things that don't need adding and that honest people know aren't necessarily true. Women are different from men, but not in this way.

Dwight,  :iagree:

 God made differences, rather than the ones they list that seem more speculation than actual differences. Just as immodesty is pride, modesty in women to me is mostly to be humble. Immodesty is mostly showing off, be it skin,  jewelry, education, clothing, wealth or lifestyle.

James 4:5-6
Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.

Why won't Christian women who dress immodestly read their bibles and turn from it? Because they are prideful. They want the attention that immodest dress brings. Agree?
Open Forum / Re: On modesty an open letter to the ladies by Michael Fischer
« Last post by Dwight on Yesterday at 08:22:22 PM »
Men tend to be goal-oriented; women tend to be process-oriented.
Men gain satisfaction from achievements; women gain satisfaction from relationships.
When a man talks with a friend about a problem, he's looking for a solution. When a woman talks with a friend about a problem, she's looking for empathy and reassurance.
Each part of a man's life is a separate issue; a problem in one area doesn't have much affect on other areas. For a woman, everything is connected, and a problem in one area affects everything else.

I don't think these points are necessarily true. There is a bit of generalization going on here without evidence. The article made some good points and then ruined it with these generalizations. The women I know gain satisfaction from achievements as much as men, and men gain satisfaction from relationships as much as women. This article starts out with a very good premise, but then it all goes south when it adds things that don't need adding and that honest people know aren't necessarily true. Women are different from men, but not in this way.
Open Forum / Re: On modesty an open letter to the ladies by Michael Fischer
« Last post by Della on Yesterday at 02:12:03 PM »
I agree, we learn modesty. It's not something that we are instilled with from birth. If the parents go around with low cut blouses and tight pants, the children will go further. Modesty is taught by church and parents, and if that fails there is no modesty. They both have failed. Ministers and parents both need to get back to teaching girls to be godly, chaste and modest in all they do.
Apologetics / Re: Gun Toting Ministers?
« Last post by Shirley on Yesterday at 10:16:26 AM »
Gun Toting Ministers are not the normal Minister. Let's make that clear.

 :Goodpoint: Sometimes a few loud mouths make it seem like it's worse than it is.
Apologetics / Re: The Living Will Envy The Dead
« Last post by Shirley on Yesterday at 10:11:41 AM »

And the good ol' King James Bible reads:

Ecc 4:2-3 [KJV]
[2]  Wherefore I praised the dead which are already dead more than the living which are yet alive.
[3]  Yea, better is he than both they, which hath not yet been, who hath not seen the evil work that is done under the sun.

  What relation are these to this:

Revelation 14:13
"And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them."

I praised the dead which are already dead and Blessed are the dead which died in the Lord? Sounds similar.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]