DISCUSSION FORUMS
MAIN MENU
Home
Help
Advanced Search
Recent Posts
Site Statistics
Who's Online
Forum Rules
Bible Resources
• Bible Study Aids
• Bible Devotionals
• Audio Sermons
Community
• ChristiansUnite Blogs
• Christian Forums
• Facebook Apps
Web Search
• Christian Family Sites
• Top Christian Sites
• Christian RSS Feeds
Family Life
• Christian Finance
• ChristiansUnite KIDS
Shop
• Christian Magazines
• Christian Book Store
Read
• Christian News
• Christian Columns
• Christian Song Lyrics
• Christian Mailing Lists
Connect
• Christian Singles
• Christian Classifieds
Graphics
• Free Christian Clipart
• Christian Wallpaper
Fun Stuff
• Clean Christian Jokes
• Bible Trivia Quiz
• Online Video Games
• Bible Crosswords
Webmasters
• Christian Guestbooks
• Banner Exchange
• Dynamic Content

Subscribe to our Free Newsletter.
Enter your email address:

ChristiansUnite
Forums
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 16, 2017, 12:25:23 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Our Lord Jesus Christ loves you.
277996 Posts in 26524 Topics by 3790 Members
Latest Member: Goodwin
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  Theology / Debate / Re: What 1 Tim 1:15 and 16 mean ?? on: January 16, 2011, 09:00:15 AM
Hi freelygive , and I  am  NOT   a Greek scholar , but I am learnining from some one who is .  If you google R. C. Brock has been teaching me through his book and his translation of Pauls letters .  I have debate people who know more Greek than I , but have stood the test so far .

So you don't even speak Greek and you're telling us what the Greek text means? You can only understand the New Testament in Greek if you speak Greek fluently. If you don't, you're merely paraphrasing dictionaries and grammars written by "scholars" who don't speak Greek either. (To be frank, you don't even speak English properly, so how can I trust your Greek-to-English translation?)

English is my second language and I can speak it fluently on an advanced level, yet I still don't understand everything in the King James Version. And that's after more than ten years of being able to speak English fluently! So how can I expect ANYONE who doesn't actually speak Greek for years to be able to explain what the Greek New Testament means?

And secondly, nothing is lost in translation. No language is "occult". The English of the King James Version means exactly the same to me as the Greek of the New Testament to a Greek hundreds of years ago. Anyone who reverts to the Greek to explain some new "hidden" interpretation is a false prophet proclaiming a damnable heresy.

There is a good sermon on this subject, "The Law of the Lord is perfect", http://www.faithfulwordbaptist.org/032909a.mp3.
2  Theology / Debate / Re: What 1 Tim 1:15 and 16 mean ?? on: January 04, 2011, 10:40:13 AM
Do you actually speak Greek?

3  Theology / Debate / Re: Is there a DIFFERENCE between Matt 28:19 and Mark 16:15-18 ??? on: December 31, 2010, 05:58:41 AM
"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (...) How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" Romans 4:1-3; 10-11.

"Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith." (Romans 3:29-30)

"For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." (Romans 2:25-29)

"Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God." (I Cor 7:19) That means, being circumcized or not represents works, and your are saved by faith, not by works lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:9)

"For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Galatians 5:6

"But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" Acts 15:5-10. By circumcision, you have to obey the law of Moses; by faith you are saved.
4  Theology / Debate / Re: Is there a DIFFERENCE between Matt 28:19 and Mark 16:15-18 ??? on: December 30, 2010, 05:34:18 PM
Circumcisions was OT  baptism....a symbolic gesture of faith, it was not what saved anyone.

Nice analogy... didn't think of that.
5  Theology / Debate / Re: Is there a DIFFERENCE between Matt 28:19 and Mark 16:15-18 ??? on: December 30, 2010, 05:50:42 AM
Circumcision doesn't save you, believing on Jesus Christ does.

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. (...) How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" Romans 4:1-3; 10-11.

Abraham was even saved before he was circumsized, by faith alone, not by works (like circumcision) lest any man should boast. (Eph 2:9)

By the way, the Egyptians were circumcized too, yet they all went to hell for a lack of faith.
6  Theology / Debate / Re: Is there a DIFFERENCE between Matt 28:19 and Mark 16:15-18 ??? on: December 29, 2010, 06:08:57 PM
Ummmm just a quick point here....do you know what it means to be made a eunuch?  There is no circumcision after becoming a eunuch....to put it plainly...there is nothing left to circumcize.

To put it even more plainly... an eunuch wasn't even able to become a Jew "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (Deut 23:1)
7  Theology / Debate / Re: Is there a DIFFERENCE between Matt 28:19 and Mark 16:15-18 ??? on: December 26, 2010, 05:50:59 AM
Hi Duval,

Thanks, brother.

Love in Christ,
freelygive
8  Fellowship / Just For Women / Re: Tired of being single while everyone else dates on: December 25, 2010, 07:10:30 AM
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:18)

God setteth the solitary in families (Psalms 68:6a)

I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please. (Song of Solomon 2:7)

Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them. (Isaiah 34:16)

The LORD redeemeth the soul of his servants: and none of them that trust in him shall be desolate. (Psalms 34:22)

I have been young, and now am old; yet have I not seen the righteous forsaken, nor his seed begging bread. (Psalms 37:25)

Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD. Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations: spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; For thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left; and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed: neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. For thy Maker is thine husband; the LORD of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole earth shall he be called. For the LORD hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great mercies will I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer. For this is as the waters of Noah unto me: for as I have sworn that the waters of Noah should no more go over the earth; so have I sworn that I would not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee. (Isaiah 51:1-10)
9  Theology / Debate / Re: Why do we have to confess sins ?? on: December 24, 2010, 06:29:47 PM
Quote
Hi to all , and many believers say and quote 1  John 1:9 , if we confess our sins , He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins , and cleanse us  FROM  all unrighteousness .

It does not say "if we confess each and all of our sins daily". John is talking about believing on Jesus alone to be saved, not of working your way to salvation by confessing each and all of our sins. Because you're a sinner, you'll die and go to hell. But if you acknowledge that you're a sinner and don't deserve it on your own merits to go to heaven, but believe on Jesus and on Jesus alone to be saved, you'll go to heaven.
10  Theology / Debate / Re: Is there a DIFFERENCE between Matt 28:19 and Mark 16:15-18 ??? on: December 24, 2010, 06:20:54 PM
Code:
Saul/Paul  has not yet been saved or given the new message of the Mystery , Acts 20:24 , NOR  yet commissioned by Acts 9:15 .

So you mean only after the dispute over the circumcision (Acts 15) uncircumsized men could be saved? Paul was merely reiterating what is the truth, he wasn't inventing it. Uncircumsized men could be saved since the garden of Eden. And isn't it weird that if the Ethiopian eunuch became a Jew first and was therefore circumsized, that the Bible doesn't mention it? I mean circumcision is quite an operation, of which the Bible testifies in Genesis 34:24-25, so it isn't some minor thing that isn't worth mentioning.  And if the eunuch was already circumsized before he met Philip, why doesn't the Bible just call him a jew? If the Bible calls the eunuch and Ethiopian and not a jew at all, he wasn't a jew. It is as simple as that.
11  Theology / Bible Study / Re: Jesus was born in 1 BC, according to the Bible on: December 24, 2010, 08:58:58 AM
Thanks for welcoming me, brothers. I'm glad you liked my article. I've seen many Biblical publications quoting more from atheistic scientists than from the Bible, and that's sad.

I'm a bit amazed by the amount of posts of both of you... It's nice to see that there is an active Christian forum on the net. I'm looking forward to explore this forum.

Love in Christ,
freelygive
12  Theology / Debate / Re: Is there a DIFFERENCE between Matt 28:19 and Mark 16:15-18 ??? on: December 24, 2010, 05:43:26 AM
Quote
#8 , Baptism was  never  given to the Gentiles at all .

What about the Ethiopian eunuch?

Quote
And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. (...) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:27-29; 36-39)
13  Theology / Bible Study / Jesus was born in 1 BC, according to the Bible on: December 23, 2010, 01:29:38 PM
Hi brothers and sisters,

I was doing some Biblical research yesterday for my blog, because I was writing about Christmas Day. To my suprise, I found on Biblical grounds that Jesus must have been born in about 1 BC. This is surprising indeed, because when you read what the "scientists" have to say on this subject, it is always said that "the Bible doesn't tell us", but it was probably in 6-4 BC. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_Jesus.)

This 6-4 BC-date is based on Matthew 2:1 (Jesus was born in the days of Herod the king). If Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great, who lived until 4 BC, He must have been born in 4 BC or some years before that. (Joseph was in Egypt until the death of Herod, Matthew 2:15.) The son of Herod the Great, Herod Archelaus, who reigned from 4BC to 6 AD, is mentioned in Luke 2:22, so it is certain from the Bible that Jesus was not born during the reign of Herod Archelaus.

Now there is the possibility of course that Herod the Great didn't die at all in 4 BC. In fact, this can be found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herod_the_Great#Death. Josephus said that Herod the Great died after a lunar eclipse. The problem is, there was no full lunar eclipse in 4 BC, but there was one in 1 BC. However, Josephus is not a part of the Bible so both the 4 BC and the 1 BC dates could potentially be wrong. Only the Bible is right all the time!

Now there is another Biblical way to date in what year Jesus was born. Luke 3:1 says that the word of God came to John the Baptist in the fifteenth year of Roman emperor Tiberius. And according to Luke 3:23, Jesus was about thirty years old at that time. Now wordly history teaches us that Tiberius began reigning in 14 AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius), and to be frank this date seems a lot more reliable than that of the death of Herod, who wasn't that important in the Roman Empire. This means that Jesus was thirty years old in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, which is 14+15=29 AD. So according to the Bible, Jesus was born in 29-30=1 BC (the year zero doesn't exist). And He became an one year old in 1 AD.

Now here is a quote from my blog explaining some details (http://kingjamesbibleblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/was-jesus-born-on-christmas-day.html):

Quote
People wrongfully believe that the fifteenth year of emperor Tiberius was the year in which John the Baptist began preaching. This is based on a misunderstanding of what the "word of God" means. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the Word of God (John 1:1), so according to Luke 3:1, 3, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, Jesus went to John the Baptist.

Quote
This is in accordance with the account Luke gives in the third chapter of his gospel. There is no reason to believe that the "O generation of vipers" sermon (Luke 3:7) and the questions of the publicans (verse 12) and the baptism of Jesus Christ (verse 21) and Jesus being thirty years old (verse 23) didn't all happen on the same day (with the exception of the flash forward of John being in prison in verse 19-20). This also follows from the accounts in Matthew 3 and Mark 1.

Quote
Assuming that there are several years between the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Luke 3:1), the baptism of Jesus and Jesus being thirty years old (Luke 3:23) is like assuming that a person who says "I went to France. I was twenty years old." means that several years went on between him going to France and being twenty years old. It makes no sense at all and yet when they sell it to you as "science", you believe it like it came from the Bible.

So it seems from the Bible that is now 2010 years after the birth of Christ after all. Well, this seems to suprisingly easy that I might have made an error somewhere, so if you don't agree or if you have some other information, please tell me.

Love in Christ,
freelygive
Pages: [1]



More From ChristiansUnite...    About Us | Privacy Policy | | ChristiansUnite.com Site Map | Statement of Beliefs



Copyright © 1999-2016 ChristiansUnite.com. All rights reserved.
Please send your questions, comments, or bug reports to the

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media