Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Salyan

  1. Okay, I'm curious. How many of us on here are Canadians or other members of the old Commonwealth? If you are, let us know! To start us off, I am Canadian (lol), from Alberta. (If you understood that reference, you probably are too!)
  2. I agree that that's how the term originated. However, by the New Testament times, and perhaps before, it was used both for traditional Judea, and for all Israel as a whole (particularly by outsiders). Example of the word 'Jew' used to refer to non-Judaic tribes: John 6:41,52 (Capernaum, Galilee) Examples of the word 'Jew' used to refer to corporate Israel: Matthew 2:2-6 (the wise men referred to the one that 'should rule Israel' as 'the King of the Jews') John 2:13; 5:1 (The Passover & feasts were not given only to Judah/Benjamin/Levi, but to all Israel) Romans 3:9, 29, 9:24; 1 Cor. 1:22-24; 10:32, 12:13 (Jews as opposed to Gentiles, which are commonly understood to be non-Israelitish peoples). Galatians 1:13-14 (Reference to the Jews religion - while centered in Jerusalem, it was never only a Judean religion) Basically any reference to synagogues or Jews in Asia or Europe. I think it's a stretch to assume that the only reference we have to those following Judaism or identified as Jews in these parts of the world were only from 3 tribes. Frankly, long before the New Testament times, I suspect that all the references in Esther to 'Jews' referred to them corporately. We know that many tribes were removed to Persia; are we to assume that the national identity was sustained in exile to such a great extent that they were not all affected by these events? All modern Jews - most of whom have no idea which tribe they are descended from - celebrate Purim just as all Jews were told to do in Esther 9. That's arguing from silence.
  3. Geneva and preacher hasn’t been around in a while… He’s probably not going to respond. That may have been where the term originated, but by Christ’s day, it was commonly understood to refer to all the tribes of Israel.
  4. Okay, I think we need a break from this subject for a bit. Robycop, you were told that it is rude to come in and attack others’ beliefs on their own forum. I personally gave you some leniency because I believe there is room for discussion on what it means to be KJVonly. Some think the KJV supersedes the original manuscripts, yet the manuscripts are how God has preserved His Word through history. You have, however, repeatedly shown that the only authority you will accept in this area is yourself, no matter how contradictory your position may be. I am hereby, in my capacity as moderator, issuing a cease and desist order. This topic is on hold for you; do not attempt to discuss it further.
  5. There are a few different subjects there. Miracles and healings do happen today, and I believe my pastor would agree. I think the usual position is that they do not occur as regular sign gifts in the same way as seen in the early church. Signs & wonders are also part of the sign gifts, which were given for a particular purpose which I believe has passed. Even at the time, there were specific reasons/limitations given ('sign to the Jews, etc.). Any supposed signs & wonders today should be run by those requirements. In my experience (I have some Pentecostal background), these requirements are not met or even considered by those professing to engage in the 'sign gifts'. We also have to be careful since, as I was telling Lucius, Satan can counterfeit these wonders. We know that the canon of Scripture has been fulfilled, so I would question whether prophecy is needed in the same way as it was when (and before) the Bible was being written (and the sign gifts, since their purpose was often to prove that God was with the prophets). Anyone seeking to call themselves a prophet would have to meet the test of Scripture - are they 100%, all the time, specifically accurate? Since we have a more clear word of Prophecy (i.e. the Bible), any perceived direction (i.e. dreams) would need to be tested by God's Word. I would be leery of trusting dreams and wonders where we have God's Word for direction. That being said, I've heard of Muslims being led to follow Christ through dreams - but these were people that had zero access to the Bible. I've also heard, from a trusted Christian elder, of an occurrence in a jungle where a missionary had a conversation and shared the Gospel (in English) with someone only to find out later that that person couldn't understand English! I personally believe that the Holy Spirit can and does perform miracles, healings, and even wonders (like tongues) when He deems it fit, but it is not a regularly given 'sign gift' as per the early church and Pentecostal teachings.
  6. Lucian, I would like to challenge your approach to 'proving' what is heretical vs. authentic. Your post appears to suggest that you are allowing miracles to 'prove' truth. I would challenge you that truth should prove all things by itself. I assume you're Orthodox? I think we can establish a base that we can both agree with - that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. God Himself inspired its writing, and the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost (2 Peter 1:21). Can we start with the agreement that the Bible is God's direct Word to mankind? As God is Holy, True and Perfect, so His Word is True. It cannot be anything but True. Therefore, we can judge all things by it. We are, in fact, instructed to prove all things; hold fast that which is true (1 Thess. 5:21). Consider: And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many of them believed; also of honourable women which were Greeks, and of men, not a few. (Acts 17:10-12) So we are told to look in the Bible to see if what we are taught by other sources is true. Consider also: For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:16-21) Here Peter is referring to the Transfiguration described in Matthew 17. This was an amazing, miraculous event where the disciples not only saw Jesus as God in His glory, but also saw the great (dead) prophets speaking to Him! What an amazing sign and event this was - yet Peter tells us in this passage that the written Word of God (the Bible) is a more sure source of information and truth (i.e. prophecy) than that miraculous sign. The principle here is that the Bible is to be our first source of Truth - more so than any sign. We do see in the Bible where at different times, God used signs & wonders - especially in His dealing with the Jews. But that was never His primary form of communication. God sent prophets to tell His people His truth; many of those prophets He used to write down His Word in the Bible. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! (Matthew 23:37). Moreover, we are repeatedly warned that there will be false prophets, and false christs, that will use signs and wonders to deceive people: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders... (2 Thess. 2:9) And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many... Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you before. (Matthew 24:11, 23-25) (Mark 13:21-22) And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast... (Rev. 13:11-14a) This last one specifically refers to fire being used as a false sign! Remember also, that in the time of the Exodus, the priests of the false Egyptian gods were able to recreate some of the miracles of the plagues. Satan is not without power, and uses that power to deceive people lest they believe in the true Gospel of God and be saved. And the magicians of Egypt did so with their enchantments: and Pharaoh's heart was hardened, neither did he hearken unto them; as the Lord had said. And the magicians did so with their enchantments, and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt. (Exodus 7:22; 8:17) This, then, is what the Bible says about all signs and wonders; that they must be proven by Scripture, that Scripture is always the final Word, and that they can be the work of false prophets and must not be implicitly trusted. Is this Holy Fire used to demonstrate the veracity of Orthodoxy? Then one must look at the doctrine of Orthodoxy. How does it compare to the Bible? Ephesians 2:5-6 says: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:Not of works, lest any man should boast. Is Orthodox doctrine in agreement with this? Does it agree with the teaching of Isaiah 53 and the rest of Scripture which teach that Christ is our substitutionary atonement - that God literally accepted His Death as sacrifice for sin in our stead? If not, you must reject the doctrines of men in favor of the teaching of the Word of God. Trying to worship God using the doctrines of men is vain. Look at Matthew 15:9 (But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men) and Mark 7:7; study Colossians 2 which warns about replacing the simple Gospel of faith in Jesus Christ's finished work alone for a works-based attempt at pleasing God. (which can never succeed: But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isaiah 64:6) You had asked what I thought about the Holy Fire. First, my library training (I'm a Library Tech by education) teaches me not to trust a site that has an inherent interest in the subject. In other words, of course an Orthodox site will cite proof for this phenomenon. Any claim of scientific proof needs to be backed up by an impartial witness. Secondly, a quick Wikipedia search shows that this phenomenon has apparently been debunked by multiple individuals over the past millennium. Thirdly, (and actually the most important), since the Bible warns me of false teachers using miracles, and since I know Orthodox doctrine is not in line with the Bible, I honestly don't care whether it's an authentic miracle or a hoax. It could be a miracle of Satan, or it could be a hoax of the priests. Doesn't matter. I will trust the Bible, God's Word, as True and Truth and follow its teachings rather than that of the Orthodox church. Food for thought. I was not 'raised Baptist', rather as a born-again believer I choose to attend the Baptist church that I do because I believe its teachings align most closely with the Bible.
  7. It's an event revered by Eastern Orthodoxy, at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. Orthodox do not consider themselves Catholics, although from our perspective there is great similarity in their doctrine..
  8. The Holy Spirit has already told us through the inspired Word of God that a believer is not to marry an unbeliever. Different doctrinal beliefs between churches are often extremely significant. You see, someone who believes that baptism provides grace towards salvation (catholic, anglican, lutheran), or someone who believes that works are necessary for salvation (catholic, orthodox), is not saved. Because God says in His Word that salvation is by 'grace alone, through faith alone, and not of works (lest any man should boast).' These different churches actually teach different gospels. Since the Holy Spirit will never teach contrary to Himself - as revealed through God's Word, the BIble - we already know the answer to whether a a born-again believer should marry someone from a denomination that does not teach the truth. The same requirement applies to atheists. We are specifically instructed not to yoke together with unbelievers. It would be disobedient to do otherwise. There is thus no consideration necessary. There are also many testimonies of those who tried so-called 'missionary dating' to their lasting regret. What about those who are born-again believers, but have significant doctrinal differences (that do not affect salvation)? That is still a very dangerous prospect. How can two walk together unless they are agreed? The stress of deciding where to attend church, what to teach the children - I don't understand why anyone would even want to subject themselves to that. Marriage is a good thing, but it is not a necessary or required thing, and it does bring trouble in the flesh. Better to be single than marry into such a situation.
  9. Howdy! I thought that name looked familiar. Are you still in Kel.?
  10. Hey, RobyCop, I'm not sure why the nesting in your last two responses came out that way. I tried fixing it but can't. Could you try deleting and redoing them? The way the nesting is coming out makes it look like your responses belong to those you are quoting - which I think is something neither of you would want. P.S. NoNic was not being offended, he was giving you valuable feedback about how some people view textspeak.
  11. That's two different questions there, really. For the second, well, you're thinking about it from the wrong perspective. A church is not an organized denomination. A church is a group of like-minded believers, meeting to worship God in accordance with Scriptural guidelines for conduct and organization. If no established church is available, but a group of believers is present, they may begin their own church with the guides of Scripture. You can see this happen throughout history as groups of baptistic believers met together. Many were destroyed through persecution. Some became the forerunners of different Baptist and non-conformist churches today. Baptistic churches have always existed, and will always exist, as long as true doctrine is known. For your first question - if there was no Baptist church in the area, I'd have to see what was available. I've gone to different evangelical churches in the past. Maybe Brethren? I'd have to check out the general doctrine of the denomination and specific beliefs of that church (i.e. body of believers) first.
  12. I can understand that conflict. I know a young family who lost their 3-4 kids to Child Protective Services (rightly), and it is now a burden on the grandparents to raise them so they stay in a Christian family. Then they had another baby - who was also taken (in fairness, CPS was not blameless in their approach to this last child). One is frustrated at them for adding another child to this complicated mess. On the other hand, I know a family that just had their 6th, and one expecting their 5th. I am happy and excited for them - because they provide for and properly raise their children. The problem is not the number of children. It's not even that families make little money and can't afford children (my parents raised two on disability pension - trust me, they probably couldn't 'afford' even one). The problem is people who will not step up and take care of those they have. If your cousin was acting the adult and taking care of his own family, I'd bet you would be feeling no conflict at all about his number of kids. Am I right?
  13. I’ve heard of churches that won’t accept single ladies in deputation; they insist they must be married before becoming a missionary. That really bothers me. If God had called them to a ministry, and not provided them with a husband, who are they to require something God has not granted?
  14. Hmm, you have been around for a while. My apologies. I’d assumed that anyone pushing against the KJB stance of this board so strongly must be a new member. In that case, shame on you! You know the stance of this board. Your behavior leaves somewhat to be desired.
  15. Can you please show some respect for our beliefs already? You are a guest on this site. You aren’t required to agree with it (Re KJV), but you could be a bit more polite and stop throwing your “KJV myth” comments everywhere you possibly can.
  16. Actually, I find that much of a modern English use is dumbed down and oversimplified. We don’t use nearly the breadth of language available to us in classic English. I have no desire to use a Bible whose language has similarly been simplified to the point it can no longer be accurate. The scholarly knowledge present in the KJV is also something that can hardly be replicated today. I wouldn’t trust modern “translators” to have the same language knowledge. Ever studied just how educated they were, and how many steps were taken to remove bias or inaccuracy from the text? The specificity provided by the singular/plural meanings of thou/you are not always discernible from the context. And where they are, it really is a lot easier to understand the difference from the word itself, rather than studying it out through the context. Why wouldn’t you want to use what’s available?
  17. Why wouldn’t Americans understand English? I don’t understand the point of this comment. And please don’t mock people’s regional accents.
  18. Oh, yeah, no kidding, you’re almost done tomorrow.
  19. Oh, this ain’t weird at all; the thread is having issues with its chronological order.
  20. Is it still February? Okaaayy.... I know I just posted on here, and poof! it's gone! That's weird... This game is rigged.
  21. BroMatt, are you trying to win this thread so you can keep your $25?

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

  • Create New...