trell

I recommend Orientalisms of the Bible by K C Pillai. I doubt google has anything on it. The Bible is an eastern book, not a product of the western world. The way people lived was normal for them. Can you imagine saying to someone from 2000 years ago, 'I am running down to gas station to get a cup of java" ? You wouldn't be running, you would drive. Why go to a gas station (a place where they sell gas) to get a cup of java, a country?

God's word is far too important to make stuff up about it, or over-spiritualize and read into it that which it doesn't say.

God bless.

Amen! to what you wrote.

A little side note on the passage, if anyone is interested.

The bread of that time was round and flat, about dinner plate size, very thin, and cooked on both sides, looking much like the Chappatis of India. The bread was cooked, and then stacked on a stone about the same diameter as the bread. Another stone was put on top of the stack to keep the bread warm. Ghee, which is like butter, was used in cooking the bread. Over time, the stones would soak up the ghee and take on the color of the bread. The father would know the difference between a stone and the bread, though the child may not.
When a fisherman in the east would fish, part os his job was to separate the edible fish from the fish which would make you sick, called serpents. The father would know which was which, but a child had to be taught.
In Luke 11:12, there is also the following: "Or if he shall ask an egg, will he (the father) offer him a scorpion?"
In the east, there are 3 colors of scorpions, one of which is white. This scorpions father dies immediately after conception. The mother dies as the scorpions eat their way out of the mother's abdomen. The scorpions are orphans when born, without anyone to feed, protect, or train them. The body of white scorpions may be mistaken for an egg in looks. It is even white and yellow when broken open. It is possible for a child to mistake a scorpion for an egg, but a father knows best.
Luke goes on to specify that our heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him. In our day and time, that is when we get saved. God does not give us a counterfeit or something which will hurt us, only the genuine, healthful item.
If anyone were to say that the Holy Spirit had them do something which harmed them in any way, that is a lie.

With all due respect, the 'judgement seat of Christ' is in Romans and II Corinthians, where it is bema, the judgement for rewards only, and does not pertain to the unsaved. A study of this section of I Corinthians 4 will shaow that it is speaking of our judging things now, until the Lord returns.

From the 'for what it's worth department', I grew up in a broken home, as some call it. My Dad got remarried, divorced, remarried, divorced. There were, besides my step mothers, various women spending the night. Drinking to excess was normal. You get the picture.

I read and studied the Bible, spent as much time at church as possible, attended school and worked. God is faithful. He knows and will provide for His children.

If it is a sin for women to wear pants, then it is just as much sin for the man to wear pants. There are women whose attention is drawn to the same area that mens attention is drawn when pants are worn.

An old adage fits well here... what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I have heard the argument about the seam drawing attention to the private area of the body, but it goes both ways... that same seam in women's pants is also in the same place for the men's pants.

Those men who preach and teach that women shouldn't wear pants need to get rid of their pants to show an example. And women that teach against pants need to get rid of their husband's pants.

Pants were created long before the birth of Christ and at the time they were created, both men and women alike wore them. Pants were not a gender specific attire then. They shouldn't be now.

He needs to get saved and walk the believer's life.

Romans 8:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. When Adam sinned, judgement came upon every single "man", EVEN Jesus Christ. Why? because the "man" Jesus Christ, indeed suffered the judgement and penalty of sin and DIED just like Adam and every other man who is under the Curse.
19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Here the wording changes to "many". Unlike verse 18 in which "all" suffered death, in verse 19 not all were made sinners. One single "man" was not made a sinner; and that was Jesus Christ. And it only says "many" will be made righteous, because "all" will not accept the free gift. I can offer you a free gift and if you refuse it, that still doesn't change the fact that it was a free gift....it was yours for the taking.

According to Strongs Concordance, the first "all" was taken from the exact same Greek word as the second "all" so, from that, I would confirm that both "alls" mean the same thing.

Perhaps a practical example of 'all' will help this discussion.

If we have Oreo cookies, and I eat them 'all', have I eaten 'all' the Oreo cookies?

Yes, if you are referring to 'all' the Oreo cookies in the house.

No, if you are referring to 'all' the Oreo cookies that exist, regardless of location.


This is the way such words as all, every, each, any, etc., must be considered, in profane life and Holy Bible. The answer as to which it is, 'all' with no exception, or 'all' with an exception (or qualifier, or distinction, whatever term conveys to the individual), must be answered from the verse, immediate context, and remote context (or scope) of the scriptures. In Romans 5:18, the context, both immediate and remote, shows the first 'all' has a singular exception, Jesus Christ. The second 'all', from the immediate and remote context, is shown to be those who are justified. The unjust are not the just, the unjustified are not the justified.

If 'all' is understood with a distinction to the sets involved (blood line of Adam, 'blood' line of God), then one could say yes. If 'all' is undersood as every single one, without exception, then no.


"All men" (number 1) are all those with the blood of Adam, from v 12, and continued in verse 19, the Lord Jesus Christ (verse 11) being the man (verse 15) with the exception (because he did not have Adam's blood and could therefore be the atonement) (Verses 13-17 being a parenthetical phrase, explaining how death passed upon 'many' men through the blood of Adam)

"All men" (number 2) are all those saved, from v 10, and continued in verse 19, (Verses 13-17 being a parenthetical phrase, also explaining how life passed upon 'many' men through the atonement - by way of the blood - of Jesus Christ)

Steve:
I disagree with one thing you have said, when you indicated '.....nothing has changed today. Same people...same responses.'
The culture has changed. The ability (or perhaps it is the willingness) of people to think critically. People have become more lazy, more religious, more egotistical, more tolerant. They have also become less godly, less Christ-like, less friendly, and just basically less.

There was a minister who was having a rough week. (True story here). I went up to him (I was about 22 at the time) and said, very nicely, with a smile on my face and a light tone in my voice, "Smile". He said "Where is that written, that I am supposed to smile?" I learned more in 5 seconds than years of study and teaching. Before that, it was always a mental thing with me, 'Where is that written?'. After that, it was a part of me.

So often some will want others to conform to a human standard of what is good and proper. What does the Word say?

I also have raised sheep. When the ewe is being good, I am nice and kind. But when she would get out of line, I would nail her.

Whenever possible, I am sweet and nice. But when that is not obtaining Godly results, it is more loving to get someone to listen (sometimes with harsh and loud words) by whatever Biblical means necessary so they can make a decision, than it is to speak like a milk-toast Christian with no backbone.

Just as a matter of lightheartedness, wouldn't that be a really long sermon?

There are also many published books which sell millions of copies that do not teach how to be saved. That Rick Warren book, whatever the name of the book is, is one. A lot of feel good about yourself, but not a lick that I could find about confessing Jesus as Lord, believing God raised him from the dead.

Eternal life means just that - eternal. If you could renounce it, lose it, or have it taken from you, it wouldn't be eternal.

The only mixed marriage forbidden in the NT is between a believer and an unbeliever. Israel was given to us for an ensample - and the example we see from them is that the God's people should not marry pagans.

As far as marrying other races, we know that we are all descended from Adam (and later Noah). Paul's sermon on Mars Hill stated that God 'hath made of one blood' all nations of the world.

Scientists have been unable to prove a genetic difference between the so-called 'races.' Any one person can expect to have a 0.2% genetic difference from any other person - even if they're from the same 'race.' Those differences that we identify as racial distinctions make up only 0.012% of the genetic variation. We're even all basically the same color - all colors of skin result from varying amount of melanin in the skin. Even the evolutionary biologists admit this now - there is only one race of humans, Homo sapiens sapiens. (I know all this scientific stuff doesn't count for the OP as much as the Bible, but I thought it was interesting. ) Genetically and Biblically, therefore, there is only one 'race.'

One more thought - God did sort the animals in Genesis after their kind - but there was only one kind of Adam! God didn't create different colors of people - he created one man and one woman with the genetic variation capable of producing a multiplicity of colors. If those colors matter that much to us, maybe we should be limiting marriages by hair color. No blonde should ever marry a brunette. :frog:

No offense meant, but if it were me in the situation (and it was once), I would thank God for giving me the nerve, guts, and backbone to do and say what was right. I taught the couple how loving it would be to the believers if they would clean up their bodies. It took an hour or so, and a few follow-ups, but it was worth it. It was like being my Mom, checking behind their ears, smelling their armpits and clothing, making sure they had brushed and flossed. But as I said, it was worth it.

Matthew 7:7-11 says "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"

The first thing to note as we read this passage is the command to ask. God does not assume our willingness to ask him for things. He knows that we are prideful beings and that our human inclination is away from asking for something from someone else. Asking for something has many implications. If we ask for something it implies first of all, and most obviously, that we don't have that thing. It may also imply that we have something, but that it is inferior to the desired object. It could also imply that we are unable to provide the desired object on our own. With most good gifts from God, all of these implications would be true. It takes humility to come before God. It takes humility to admit that he knows our need and he desires to meet that need. It requires that we view ourselves as children who can't help ourselves and that we view our God as all powerful.

Another thing to take note of is that we are told that God will give "good things" when we ask him for "good things." That is the crux of this very practical passage: as a family, and especially as leaders in our homes, we should be asking our Heavenly Father for "good things". In order to be obedient to the command to ask our Father for good things, we must know what "good things" are.

In this very passage, God uses the earthly family as an example of how he gives good things to us, his children. If my son asks for a piece of bread, I absolutely would not give him a stone to chew on. If he asks for bread, it means he is hungry and needs sustenance for growth. It would be an abuse of my God-given ability and responsibility to give him anything other than what he needed. The same thing goes with the example of the desire for a fish. To give him a snake would be most unlike the action of our Father.

Notice a few characteristics of the things that were asked for by the son.

First, they were needful things. Food is necessary for growth.

Second, they were satisfying things. The hunger of a young child is satisfied when he is fed.

Third, they were specific things. The child in the example asked for specific food items, not just something to eat.

Are the things you ask God for standing up to these criteria?

The Holy Spirit, mentioned in place of "good things" in the parallel passage of Luke 11:9, certainly meets all of these criteria.

How does this practically apply to the family? If God will give good things to his children, then we should give good things to our children. Not just the physical things that aren't needful, satisfying, or specific, but the things that will last for eternity, like God's Word, or things that will effect their eternity, like a good example of a relationship with Christ.

In Matthew 6, we are given a list of temporal things that we are told not to worry about. We are also told that our Father in Heaven knows that we have need of those things already. Those things should not be the limit of our requests to our Father. In fact, there is good evidence here that suggests that we shouldn't find ourselves asking for these things at all. They are not the "good things" he alludes to in chapter 7. So then the "good things" must be the things that will promote the kingdom of God and his righteousness, because those are the things we should seek first.

Is the desire and most requested thing in your home the kingdom of God and his righteousness?

PRACTICE: Talk with your family about what your collective desires are in light of Matthew 6 and 7. Are they good desires? Do they concern the things of God, or are they limited to merely physical and temporal things?

Experiment: Make a list of 10 good things that we should desire from our Heavenly Father. Post the list in your home and make them the objects of your prayers during the day.

Eph 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
Eph 5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

One thing hardly any wife's will do, that is submit them self unto their husband, yet the Bible tells them to submit their self to their husbands in everything. What they want is to be the leader of the family, the community, the country, and most certainly the leader at church.

If the woman would obey God in this matter she would find that she would receive much more love and respect from her husband. Yet it seems there be few women that likes the roll God has given them. But I have to say, there's many men that refuses the roll God has placed them in. But some of that could be cured if many women were not be so head strong bossing their husbands around.

trell, Its very difficult, or should I say impossible, for the woman to give her husband the proper godly reverence, respect, when she is trying to be the boss and refuses to fulfill the roll in life God has given her.

God is the author. The writer was whomever the Author choose. But I lean towards Paul for the following reasons:
The hatred which the Judeans had toward Paul (i.e.- Acts 21:21, II Cor 11:24, Phil. 1:8, and others) could have made the letter unacceptable to some if it bore his name. II Pet 3:15-16 prove Paul wrote an epistle to the Hebrews. No trace or indication of any Pauline letter to the Hebrews, except this one, exists. The structure, reasoning pattern, and thought processes are Paul's. There has been, since the third century, external testimony that Paul was the writer; and none that he wasn't.

God is the author. The writer was whomever the Author choose. But I lean towards Paul for the following reasons:
The hatred which the Judeans had toward Paul (i.e.- Acts 21:21, II Cor 11:24, Phil. 1:8, and others) could have made the letter unacceptable to some if it bore his name. II Pet 3:15-16 prove Paul wrote an epistle to the Hebrews. No trace or indication of any Pauline letter to the Hebrews, except this one, exists. The structure, reasoning pattern, and thought processes are Paul's. There has been, since the third century, external testimony that Paul was the writer; and none that he wasn't.