In the Truth God is our safety

[Live4Him]

I think you are going to be a great asset to the forums. I am glad you are here. It is a good platform for:

1) determining authorial intent of a scripture when people contribute to discussing a verse using rules of interpretation. It can be edifying for everyone and help someone in the world who reads it.

2) It is a great way to practice your touch typing skills, and articulation and communication skills. Especially on how to be concise.

3) It is great practice for learning how to not be provoked, not engage with intellectual dishonesty, and not strive.

4) And great practice learning how to be kind and patient with all men, apt to teach, easy to be entreated. I think if I can learn to write in such a way that people feel that I care about them I have learned a good writing style.

I might be an asset (by God's grace) if I don't get assassinated first...lol.

Believe me, this isn't my first rodeo, and I'm well aware that when people don't like your message, then they oftentimes seek to shoot the messenger.

Been there.

Done that.

Have the bullet holes (figuratively speaking) to prove it.

Anyhow, there's a fine line between getting into contention and contending for the faith.

Hopefully, by the grace of God, I'll do the latter while avoiding the former.

 

[Scribe]

I might be an asset (by God's grace) if I don't get assassinated first...lol.

Believe me, this isn't my first rodeo, and I'm well aware that when people don't like your message, then they oftentimes seek to shoot the messenger.

Been there.

Done that.

Have the bullet holes (figuratively speaking) to prove it.

Anyhow, there's a fine line between getting into contention and contending for the faith.

Hopefully, by the grace of God, I'll do the latter while avoiding the former.

The majority fall into the trap of emotional rhetoric instead of sticking to the job of presenting a superior hermeneutic based on rules of interpretation that intellectually honest and sincere lovers of Bible truth can easily agree with.

It is an art and a science. A science because there are rules of hermeneutics and an art because one must present them in ways that people can easily comprehend and agree with.

Very few can do it in a consistently, pleasant and polite manner that is completely void of accusations toward their opponents and simply keep reworking the hermeneutical presentation so that it stands alone for it's excellence.

My goal is to learn to do that in fewer sentences.

 

[Guojing]

I think you are going to be a great asset to the forums. I am glad you are here. It is a good platform for:

1) determining authorial intent of a scripture when people contribute to discussing a verse using rules of interpretation. It can be edifying for everyone and help someone in the world who reads it.

2) It is a great way to practice your touch typing skills, and articulation and communication skills. Especially on how to be concise.

3) It is great practice for learning how to not be provoked, not engage with intellectual dishonesty, and not strive.

4) And great practice learning how to be kind and patient with all men, apt to teach, easy to be entreated. I think if I can learn to write in such a way that people feel that I care about them I have learned a good writing style.

I think the 2 of you will serve as a good example to illustrate what is "confirmation bias".

 

[oyster67]

"confirmation bias".

Please explain the meaning of this for all us dumb, wet, and ignorant Oysters.

 

[Live4Him]

Please explain the meaning of this for all us dumb, wet, and ignorant Oysters.

Don't mind him.

He's still upset because I've shown him elsewhere where his own beliefs don't line up with scripture.

Ironically, confirmation bias simply means that one has a tendency to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs which is precisely what my accuser is guilty of himself.

Such is life...for the proud.

 

[Guojing]

Don't mind him.

He's still upset because I've shown him elsewhere where his own beliefs don't line up with scripture.

Ironically, confirmation bias simply means that one has a tendency to favor information that confirms their existing beliefs which is precisely what my accuser is guilty of himself.

Such is life...for the proud.

Fascinating how you can tell someone's mood even when you have never met him in person.

 

[throughfaith]

You don't think it applies to you right now?

I think what happens, because it 'sounds ' right for today people take all kinds of verses out of context and apply them to themselves.

 

[throughfaith]

You don't think it applies to you right now?

Jesus was physically present with people ( we live by faith not by sight ) Jesus asked them to literally forsake all and follow him . Literally, physically.

 

[throughfaith]

You have managed to completely missed the point and lesson of that passage.

I will put in context and explain that which seems to be self-explanatory for most.

Matthew
15:21 Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
15:22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, [thou] Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
15:23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
15:25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast [it] to dogs.
15:27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.
15:28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great [is] thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

This shows us that Jesus extends His grace to ALL, both Jew and Gentile. Shame on you if you have deliberately purposed in your heart to mislead others concerning the grace and love of Jesus.

We have to remember it was an actual event that took place ,which is recorded for us .

 

[throughfaith]

I obviously did not skip them. They are there for good reason. They are there to demonstrate that Jesus has come to usher in a new and better way. Sorry if bolding certain verses offends you, but I will probably continue to do it for everyone else's benefit.

Thanks.

One more quick thing...

Could you possibly tell me, in just a few sentences or so, what it is that you actually believe?

I mean, I just joined here, and I'm bouncing around from thread to thread and gathering little pieces of insight into what people actually believe, and it would make it a lot easier to communicate with you if you just told me what your actual beliefs are.

I'm really busy in general, so I'm honestly here on borrowed time, so to speak, and I simply don't have the time to research individuals' beliefs.

Anyhow, if you could just give me a little synopsis so I better understand where you're coming from, then I'd certainly appreciate it.

Thanks, again.

Believe on what? Thats a broad question reguarding the bible .

 

[throughfaith]

Is.

It is good news indeed.

Pharisees and Sadducees right here on this forum are the bad news.

By that are you implying I'm a Pharissee or Sadducee?

 

[throughfaith]

I obviously did not skip them. They are there for good reason. They are there to demonstrate that Jesus has come to usher in a new and better way. Sorry if bolding certain verses offends you, but I will probably continue to do it for everyone else's benefit.

There are some that think Jesus comes on the scene as a rebel ,coming against the establishment , and a more subtle thought is that as Soon as Jesus arrives he is teaching right away what we see in Paul's letters . What he taught Paul to teach . Some actually think Jesus is preaching the cross right away ,even though he's not died yet or resurrected yet. They imagine he s preaching Romans 10 .9 everywhere.
Others will take a broad brush and generalise all what Jesus said. Missing completely who Jesus was talking to and when . They will say " well yeah I know it was Jesus talking to his diciples but were diciples so therfore I claim that verse speaking to me . Worse still they will take verses in the Ot clearly speaking of Israel and think because we are grafted in ,we can claim all those verses to the Church now . Worse still that the 'Church 'began in Genesis . Seeing the word Church and not realising it just means an assembly ect .

 

[Live4Him]

There are some that think Jesus comes on the scene as a rebel ,coming against the establishment , and a more subtle thought is that as Soon as Jesus arrives he is teaching right away what we see in Paul's letters . What he taught Paul to teach . Some actually think Jesus is preaching the cross right away ,even though he's not died yet or resurrected yet. They imagine he s preaching Romans 10 .9 everywhere.
Others will take a broad brush and generalise all what Jesus said. Missing completely who Jesus was talking to and when . They will say " well yeah I know it was Jesus talking to his diciples but were diciples so therfore I claim that verse speaking to me . Worse still they will take verses in the Ot clearly speaking of Israel and think because we are grafted in ,we can claim all those verses to the Church now . Worse still that the 'Church 'began in Genesis . Seeing the word Church and not realising it just means an assembly ect .

Actually, the "church", or "ekklesia", or "called out assembly" did begin in Genesis.

 

[throughfaith]

Actually, the "church", or "ekklesia", or "called out assembly" did begin in Genesis.

There you go .

 

[throughfaith]

Actually, the "church", or "ekklesia", or "called out assembly" did begin in Genesis.

Claming verses to gentiles before the cross you need to take this verse into consideration.
Eph 2
11¶Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

 

[Live4Him]

Claming verses to gentiles before the cross you need to take this verse into consideration.
Eph 2
11¶Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

I've already correctly pointed out to you that people like Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham were Gentiles.

Again, they had to be in that the nation of Israel wasn't formed until after God changed Jacob's name to "Israel" and Jacob's/Israel's twelve sons and their descendants became known as the twelve tribes of Israel, and Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham were all dead before any of this happened.

In your estimation, are Abel, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham saved?

If so, then are they a part of God's "ekklesia" or "called out assembly"?

If not, then what are they a part of?

 

[Scribe]

I think the 2 of you will serve as a good example to illustrate what is "confirmation bias".

Where I come from they call it being in agreement.

 

[Live4Him]

Where I come from they call it being in agreement.

Better still, agreement in accordance to rightly-divided scripture.

 

[Live4Him]

Fullfilling no they were not . please show where they are 'fulfilling 'what Jesus said ( yet ) . Especially in light of Peter not having a clue until Cornelius. Why are they surprised by a gentile getting saved as they ? Why did Peter need the vision if he'd been preaching to the gentiles all a long ? No transitions needed taking place first . Then we get an apostle TO THE GENTILES . I'm a gentile, I have no fight in this other than what the scriptures actually say .

I have a couple of questions for you, and if you can answer them correctly, then you should have the answers to some of your own questions as well.

Before I ask you my two questions, let's quickly establish a couple of facts:

1. Cornelius was a Roman centurion.

"There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band," (Acts 10:1)

2. Peter said that it was "unlawful" for a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation.

"And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28)

Now, here are my two questions:

1. If it truly was "unlawful" for a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation, and, in this particular case, the home of a Roman centurion, then why was Jesus, the consummate Jew, willing to do so himself?

Matthew chapter 8

[5] And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
[6] And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
[7] And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
[8] The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
[9] For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
[10] When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
[11] And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
[12] But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[13] And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

In other words, if Jesus, the consummate Jew, was perfectly willing to enter into the HOME of a Roman centurion, then why did Peter say that it was "unlawful"?

Was Jesus about to do something "unlawful", thereby making himself unworthy of being a sinless sacrifice?

2. If entering into the home of a Roman centurion truly was "unlawful", as Peter claimed, then why did God have to show him THREE TIMES that it wasn't?

I await your reply.

In the meantime, recognize that this is yet another example of Jesus ministering to a GENTILE during his earthly ministry.

Not only that, but also recognize that this GENTILE had such a "GREAT FAITH" that Jesus hadn't even found anywhere "IN ISRAEL" (Matt. 8:10).

 

[throughfaith]

I have a couple of questions for you, and if you can answer them correctly, then you should have the answers to some of your own questions as well.

Before I ask you my two question, let's quickly establish a couple of facts:

1. Cornelius was a Roman centurion.

"There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band," (Acts 10:1)

2. Peter said that it was "unlawful" for a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation.

"And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean." (Acts 10:28)

Now, here are my two questions:

1. If it truly was "unlawful" for a Jew to keep company or come unto one of another nation, and, in this particular case, the home of a Roman centurion, then why was Jesus, the consummate Jew, willing to do so himself?

Matthew chapter 8

[5] And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
[6] And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
[7] And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.
[8] The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof: but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed.
[9] For I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.
[10] When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
[11] And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.
[12] But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[13] And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And his servant was healed in the selfsame hour.

In other words, if Jesus, the consummate Jew, was perfectly willing to enter into the HOME of a Roman centurion, then why did Peter say that it was "unlawful"?

Was Jesus about to do something "unlawful", thereby making himself unworthy of being a sinless sacrifice?

2. If entering into the home of a Roman centurion truly was "unlawful", as Peter claimed, then why did God have to show him THREE TIMES that it wasn't?

I await your reply.

In the meantime, recognize that this is yet another example of Jesus ministering to a GENTILE during his earthly ministry.

Not only that, but also recognize that this GENTILE had such a "GREAT FAITH" that Jesus hadn't even found anywhere "IN ISRAEL" (Matt. 8:10).

The centurion came to Jesus.