Alimantado

7 hours ago, Pastor Scott Markle said:

I wonder if we trust the King James translators more than the modern translations.  If we do trust the King James translators more, then I wonder if we should seek to discern the reason for their translation choice, and for the fact that they did not choose the word "garment" even as they did later in the verse for a different Hebrew word.

As for myself, having done the word study of the Hebrew word throughout the entire Old Testament, actually looking up ALL 325 occurrences, I stand with trust upon the phrase which the King James translators employed in the King James translation.  Furthermore, I believe that this full word study has granted understanding as to the reason why they chose the translational phrasing that they did.

<snip>

 I myself believe that this verse is referring unto A MAN'S ARMOR, since every other usage thereof throughout the Old Testament is connected with a man, whereas that is not the case with jewelry.

Hi Pastor Markle, I've just read your summary of your word study and I found it edifying and inspirational. Hope you don't mind me jumping in with a question, actually I guess a repeat of something you posed near the beginning: what do you think is the specific reason for the translator's choosing the phrase "that which pertaineth unto" in Deut 22:5 and not any of the eleven words you have listed, including 'armour'?

Just now, Invicta said:

Some posts on here are replied to several years later.  

Blessings,

David

Yes, by you! ;-P

On 30/06/2017 at 11:49 AM, Alimantado said:

What if you purchased that gold or silver using money in the first place? If you don't own the gold (according to your definition) do you still own what you buy with it? And what if you had inherited the gold, but the person you inherited it from had purchased it with money...

I don't know much about taxes, but I think in UK the overall rule is as simple as: the state gets to tax us because we're the queen's subjects. Someone told me once that even if you own a property, i.e. have the freehold, it still ultimately belongs to the Crown. I wonder how much wealth the Queen gets every year from gobbling up the estates of those who die with no inheritors.

On 15/11/2017 at 3:45 PM, Invicta said:

It doesn't go to the queen, it goes to the govt.  The govt. are supposed to be  servants of the queen  but they only give her an allowance, called the Civil List, She says that is not enough and has to top it off from the own wealth.   The queen is not obliged to pay taxes, but that was not popular, so she now pays voluntary taxes. 

You do make me smile when you reply to posts 5-6 months later, Invicta. :)

Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

I still check in very occasionally. Good to see you again, PastorJ. Was it late 2000s when you were here last? If I recall correctly, back then OB had well over 50 active, daily contributors making something like 100 new posts per day (John81 alone was adding about 10 of those). I remember the 'Current News' and 'Lounge' sections were so busy that new posts would drop off the bottom within a day or so and I used to browse by section and thread because it wasn't realistic to view by recent activity--just too much. On a given thread I'd sometimes have to go back a couple of pages to pick up where I'd left off.

Now the activity level is a dozen or so regular folk and half-a-dozen posts per day, maybe up to 50 per week. It must, at least, partly be down to general trends in web usage, for mailing lists, forums and chatrooms have declined and disappeared all over. Of course, on OB as it once was, the theological/doctrinal discussions were just a subset of all the activity and the spectrum of members was broader, maybe a bit more like church, with all that brings. I expect some would say that God has blessed this forum by ending its heady days and keeping the wheat, but I do rather miss those busier times. I hope this forum is still a blessing to many, since there are always more reading than writing. And thanks to Matt for keeping it running.

59 minutes ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I think that would cause a small turmoil here in the US for now...however, I think people (here in America) are being prepped to accept such regulations too. I see less and less people who are willing (or able) to do things themselves, and that will make it easier for the government to lay down restrictions and laws here such as you describe.

There are plenty of rules like that here in UK. For example, if you want to drive a car it has to meet structural requirements and be tested annually by authorised garages--you can't just cobble together anything and take it on the roads. If you build a house there are materials you're not allowed to use, like asbestos. If a hospital wants to offer surgery its surgeons have to be qualified--they can't just hire someone who likes scalpels and blood. Want to keep a brown bear at home as a pet? Nope.

There are rules in UK which I think are over-regulation but I think the gas one is reasonable because of the higher risk of injuring/killing neighbours (compared to electrical and plumbing, for which there aren't equivalent restrictions). Every year there are reports of houses blown up in gas explosions, though from what I recall the last few haven't taken anybody out.

Necropost of the year I think! And bonus points for replying to yourself. ;)

2 hours ago, Invicta said:

No it doesn't...

Oh yes it does!

And here's one for when you come back with another 'no it doesn't': oh yes it does!

At least pastors are allowed unruly pets.

15 hours ago, swathdiver said:

A church can start out wrong and become a New Testament Church.  As a practical matter, the candidate should look at the history and the qualifications of the sending church, but what really matters is if that church today is of the kind that Christ started during his earthly ministry.

Consider this.  A NT church plants another in a nearby town.  However, the pastor they chose has only one child.  After several years the pastor has multiple children.  So when the new church was planted it did not have a qualified pastor but in time he became qualified and the church is now scriptural.

A well established NT Church that fell away with regards to music makes repentance and once again honors the Lord with scriptural music.  

I believe an historical example might be Charles Chiniquy and his flock.  He was a Catholic Priest that saw the error of his ways and brought his entire congregation out of Popery and into what I believe then became a NT Church.

Ok, so in other words the Bible gives us the model of how churches ought to be planted by other legitimate NT churches, but if it ends up because of history or necessity that a church hasn't quite followed that model then it doesn't necessarily make it illegitimate and therefore the seeker should concern themselves with what said church is doing now. Is that fair?

Or should concern themselves 'first and foremost' might be more accurate a summary...

(just added)

5 hours ago, DaveW said:

I personally think the argument over the history of it is a pointless argument - the process a church should use today is clear in the Bible: churches are started under proper authority, and that authority rests in the church sending the man.

There are some who say that you must be able to prove full lineage, but I have never met any man who can do so - it becomes an intellectual argument only, and therefore nigh on useless..... words to no profit, one might say.

The point of the 'argument' is what's an individual seeking a church to do? Not pointless--it's a direct question about a practical matter. The profit of answering that question might be that it helps those seeking churches with what they should be looking for and what they should be doing.

The question of what a potential church ought to do when being founded is a separate but related question--in fact it's what your other thread is for, isn't it Dave?

10 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

I agree with this, but have a question...Can a church ONLY be a church when it is organized under the authority of a scriptural NT church that sends a man?

The reason I ask this is because I know of churches that started out unscripturally (as in, not following proper doctrine. i.e., starting out as pentecostal or southern baptist) but, as the pastor studied scripture and grew in the Lord, God showed him that the doctrines of that group were wrong. And so the pastor led the church out of that movement, and the church became IFB. 

No scriptural NT church sent him. But God worked on his heart (and when I say "his," I am thinking of at the very least 3 pastors to which this happened) and changed him. And thus changed the church.  I do believe that church (or those churches), if they are now following scripture, are scriptural churches. 

That is why I asked the  question I did earlier. If a church can only be a church when started by another NT church then that suggests--although one might disagree--that you could have a church that's totally sound in belief, teachings and practice but still be illegitimate. So if a person seeking a new church can't tell the difference between a legitimate NT church and an illegitimate one by what a church is doing then does it become necessary when seeking a church to research their origins? And it that's so then how far back?

DaveW has said he doesn't want that question answered on this thread in case it distracts so here's a new thread for that question.

15 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The last IFB Church I was a member of, (prior to God putting me in Set at Liberty Baptist) Victory Heights Baptist, taught exactly what I teach concerning Acts 2... that it was not speaking of water baptism.  So, the teaching that Acts 2 is not speaking of water baptism is an IFB teaching.

So Victory Heights Baptist would have a person join as a member before they were baptised in water? So let's imagine a new believer--that believer would join Victory Baptist and then the pastor might speak to them about water baptism further down the line. That sort of thing? I haven't encountered that before.

34 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

I would say, "The Lord's Church is comprised of all who have trusted Christ for their Salvation and as the propitiation for their sin; whether they are baptized in water or not."

Right, but the teaching you quoted was discussing an "organised assembly". So if a local Baptist church required prospective members to be baptised before becoming members, that would be unBiblical in your opinion. And in your own church (I think elsewhere you said you are a pastor of one--sorry if I'm wrong), you allow people to become members before they are baptised. Are both those statements of mine fair?

The context of this bit of the discussion is this statement by you, SFIC:

20 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

One thing that they teach that is wrong, "A church is an organized assembly of scripturally baptized believers called out to do the Lord's work according to the New Testament." 

Nowhere does the Bible say that the Church is only comprised of baptized believers.

The teaching you disagree with speaks of an "organised assembly". So would you agree with the teaching if it said this instead:

"A church is an organized assembly of scripturally baptized believers and non-baptised believers, called out to do the Lord's work according to the New Testament."

On 02/08/2017 at 3:43 AM, swathdiver said:

Only a New Testament Church of the kind that Christ began during his earthly ministry can establish another New Testament Church.  It starts through much prayer, a pastor and his family is called and sent into the area that the sending church has a burden for. 

On 04/08/2017 at 10:52 AM, Alimantado said:

A related question--happy to move it to a new thread if needs be--that occurs to me is how diligent should somebody be about researching this information if they're thinking about attending/joining a church? I hear plenty of good advice about checking a church's teachings and practice, and indeed it should be easy to find out who they are fellowshipping with at the time, but finding out how that church started if it's, say, 150 years old might be quite difficult (I've never even tried). And then do you check that the church that established it was in turn established by a New Testament church 50-100 years further back and so on and so on...? Obviously nobody can trace a lineal timeline back 2,000 years, but how far is sufficient?

On 04/08/2017 at 3:21 PM, DaveW said:

I understand your question, and it can cause some consternation among some, but rather than start a debate about that end of things (which can get very heated) in this thread, I would prefer to keep it about the process of starting a church today, rather than the history of a particular church. Another thread specifically about the history of existing churches would gain some notice I am sure.

This is a fork of the discussion thread here. The question and context are above--happy to hear any thoughts from folk. Ta, Carl

And anyway the UK, probably minus Scotland and Northern Ireland, will be the 51st state.

Surely USA's spending on South Korea comes close to Israel, maybe even more? And NATO, i.e. Europe. Most of all would be USA's spending in the two world wars.

1 hour ago, swathdiver said:

Definitely let California leave the union, let them try and live their utopian dreams on their own dime!

According to the interwebs, California is one of those states that does pay its own way.

7 hours ago, DaveW said:

it is apparent that some have been involved in churches that have started differently

A related question--happy to move it to a new thread if needs be--that occurs to me is how diligent should somebody be about researching this information if they're thinking about attending/joining a church. I hear plenty of good advice about checking a church's teachings and practice, and indeed it should be easy to find out who they are fellowshipping with at the time, but finding out how that church started if it's, say, 150 years old might be quite difficult (I've never even tried). And then do you check that the church that established it was in turn established by a New Testament church 50-100 years further back and so on and so on...? Obviously nobody can trace a lineal timeline back 2,000 years, but how far is sufficient?

2 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

I didn't say YOU were silly, I said your assumption is silly

Gotta say that's a neat way to direct condescending remarks at people and sidestep censure. No if someone told me my opinions were silly/stupid/idiotic or whatever, I'd take that as them calling me silly/stupid/idiotic. Perhaps I shouldn't admit that--now folk know how to get at me. ;-)

On 08/07/2017 at 7:40 AM, swathdiver said:

Even the UK used to ban the Moslems and we can all see how well it worked for them when their socialist/communist rulers rescinded that one!

When was this in force? I can't find anything about it.

4 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

There's an easy way to solve this conundrum about money...

As a homesteader, just make your own. 

Perhaps Bro Matt should start a crypto-currency: OBCoin.

12 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

Now, if you buy property, land or a car or such, with gold or silver, which are real money, then YOU own it, lock stock and barrel and the government cannot touch it.

What if you purchased that gold or silver using money in the first place? If you don't own the gold (according to your definition) do you still own what you buy with it? And what if you had inherited the gold, but the person you inherited it from had purchased it with money...

I don't know much about taxes, but I think in UK the overall rule is as simple as: the state gets to tax us because we're the queen's subjects. Someone told me once that even if you own a property, i.e. have the freehold, it still ultimately belongs to the Crown. I wonder how much wealth the Queen gets every year from gobbling up the estates of those who die with no inheritors.

6 hours ago, BabeinChrist said:

Imagine a heroin addict panhandling on the sidewalk.  He is highly addicted to heroin. He cannot stop using, no matter how hard he tries. A believer approaches him with a Bible and shows him from directly from the Word of God how to be saved, and gives him the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The man BELIEVES it with all his heart. He understands he is a sinner, and is relieved that Jesus Christ died for his sins so he could be saved from Hell. Together they pray and the man vocally proclaims his belief in the work Jesus Christ did to save him & he asks God to give him the gift of eternal life so he doesn't go to Hell. The man says he now knows for certain he is now saved and exclaims to the believer his delight that, where once he personally hated God but feared where he would end up, now he knows he can hate God with all his heart and not worry about it.

BabeinChrist, do you have any thoughts on my slight revision of your story (in bold)?

1 hour ago, Salyan said:

We can debate Pr. Steve's opinion all day long, but there's only one way to find out. Ask him. (and come back and tell us what he said, cause I'm curious! :) Until then, this line of debate is moot.

Could you ask him for us, Salyan?

1 hour ago, John Yurich said:

I waited until I was almost 24 years old to be Confirmed. And I had to take lessons for several weeks once a week after I came home from working half days. The lessons were given at the local Catholic parish in the previous town I resided in and were given by a nun since I was the only adult getting Confirmed.

Ok, so going back to what I said earlier then:

"And as for the Catholic church you attend, at some point you went through a fairly lengthy process of becoming a member that involved signing up to a load of doctrines, yes?"

You addressed this question by saying you weren't a convert, but can we now say that yes you did go through a process of learning and then professing belief in various creeds/doctrinal statements? And that your being confirmed as a member was conditional on professing those beliefs? Now you say you don't know whether the chief priest or whatever would question your membership of the church if he knew you've since ditched some of those beliefs that were a condition of your being confirmed as a member. I suggest maybe he would.

As for the Baptist church you go to, it sounds like folk 'self certify' and then they ask as few questions as possible. But I do wonder, if I asked to joined that church and I did as you did--told them that Jesus was my Lord and Saviour and made a public profession of it--and then it came out later, let's say over a cup of coffee with Pastor Steve, that when I'd said 'Jesus' I'd been referring to a giraffe at London zoo called 'Jesus', whether that would cause Pastor Steve to question my being a member of that church. And if the answer to that is yes, I wonder if other things, like being a member of a second church with very different doctrines, would be cause for concern in Steve's mind.