Jump to content
Online Baptist Community


Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ronda

  1. Brother Jim, Excellent invitation to accept Christ!!! That is (or should be) our main focus and goal, to bring others to Jesus! Faith and belief in the saving grace of Jesus (and He alone). I spent most of the day (yesterday) on facebook, witnessing to the unsaved. It started out as a post about the differences between islam and Christianity. The differences between the Bible and the qu'ran, then also the differences between sharia law and what the constitution states. It was (at first) a post to inform others (mostly unsaved/secular people on facebook) of the huge differences in what islam teaches in the qu'ran compared to what the Bible teaches... I was truly shocked by the mis-information the unsaved world has on both topics! I had a couple of "liberals" attempting to argue what (they thought) the Bible says. I quickly showed them (with scripture) their errors, and they also were misinformed about the evil of what the islamic faith believes. They were following the "party line" about Israeal, the "palestinians", and the false statements that islam is supposedly a "religion of peace". I did spend a good deal of time showing them how the islamic faith is anything but "peaceful", and even so-called "moderate" islamists believe what the qu'ran teaches (giving many evil qu'ran verses to prove the point). However, when the conversation spun off into Christianity (as a whole, at first, and then more specifically to what the Bible actually teaches) I was amazed by the lack of knowledge, even within those who were professing "christians" (small "c"). And so after answering each falsehood with a Bible verse (or verses in context), there were many of those professing "christians"(possibly from a catholic background?) who actually stated that the only "way to heaven" was to do good works!!! I presented MANY Bible verses to refute what they had falsely been taught, (John 14:6, Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 10:9-10 and some others) I then presented John 3:16-18. Every time I post those 3 verses on facebook, it is met with extreme hostility. Letting them know that ALL people have a choice to make which is THE most IMPORTANT decision they will make in their lifetime... Believe and accept Jesus OR refuse to believe and deny Jesus. And by not making a choice, they HAVE made a choice, not to believe. This angers not only the unsaved (non-professing), but also angers the professing "christians" who try to make "works" the means of salvation. I asked them why those verses upset them so much (the so-called professing "christians") and none had a good answer. And I left off the topic with those 3 verses again. I truly believe the Holy Spirit convicts with those verses especially, and even though they resist the conviction (with hostility), the word of God itself HAS reached them within. John 3:16-18; 16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. 18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." I As for their falsehoods about Israel and the "palestinians", I showed them pictures of 1862 (taken by King Edward VII) showing no "palestinians", and only ghost towns of former Christian areas, the remains of where Christians were massacred by druze muslims. Photos showing no muslims, no so-called "palestinians" either. The muslims didn't even WANT the land until Jewish settlers started coming back. Here is the link for the photos of Israel (1862)if anyone is interested: https://palestineisraelconflict.wordpress.com/2014/11/10/jerusalem-photographs-1862-no-mosques-no-palestinians-only-ghost-towns-of-massacred-christian-areas/
  2. Exodus 6:22 "And the sons of Uzziel; Mishael, and Elzaphan, and Zithri."
  3. Exodus 6:14 "These be the heads of their fathers' houses: The sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel; Hanoch, and Pallu, Hezron, and Carmi: these be the families of Reuben."
  4. Pastor Markle, excellent study on the word "signify" as well as the Greek "semaino" used in Rev. 1:1 (as well as in all the other verses you brought forth)! Showing again that scripture compared with other scripture actually interprets itself! The importance of literal interpretation is so very important as well!!! If a person is willing to allegorize (symbolize or spiritualize) scripture, I believe it shows a lack of reverence for God's word. I believe He meant what He said and said what He meant. There are cases of symbolism in the Bible, however, in most of those cases the interpretation is also given. For instance: I once had an argument with another (supposedly) Christian on the meaning of the "seven heads" given in Rev. 17:3... the actual interpretation is GIVEN to us in verse 9 "..The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth". Yet this other person demanded (to my exasperation) that that is NOT what they seven heads were! I should have ended the discussion then, but instead furthered to discuss it by stating that the meaning for "mountains" were actual, physical mounds of earth, and were certainly not symbolic.... the "heads" were symbolic, the interpretation (mountains) was NOT symbolic. But this person couldn't seem to see the difference at all! Which proved to me (for the hundreth time likely) that in matter of the Bible, those who do not use a literal interpretation cannot grasp even the simplest of differences in interpretation... to them it's ALL symbolic!!! I believe those who allegorize scripture will never be able to comprehend even the most basic parts of eschatology. I've heard some say that allegorizing is a "lazy" approach, I think it's worse than "lazy", I think it show the lack of respect for God's word. I recently started a thread here entitled "Jeremiah 49"... the reason being, I have had many discussions elsewhere (not on OB) regarding this section I referenced (Jer. 49:35-39, and even more specifically verse 36). There are so few (who claim to study eschatology) who use a literal interpretation. I have many fellow friends who I believe DO use literal interpretation, yet they have no interest (or little interest) in eschatology and/or Bible prophecy. And the other (professing) Christian friends who DO claim to have interest in eschatology and/or Bible prophecy, but do not use literal interpretation. Some admit they allegorize... sadly (and possibly worse) others SAY they interpret literally, but actually DO interpret allegorically, mixing and matching (a horrible mistake) of both literal and allegorical interpretation (likely to "fit" a theory). So I brought this forth on OB hoping there would be at least one person who uses literal interpretation rather than allegorization. I wasn't really wanting to argue the verse (other than if I had to, if someone attempted to allegorize the meaning of "wind", etc), I was more interested in what others (if any have) already studied on this, and the conclusion they arrived at... using literal interpretation. I did get one brief answer, but not enough description to give me a clue about where they were headed with a conclusion.... so anyways... I do hope someone will come forth with some thoughts/conclusions on Jeremiah 49:36 (using literal interpretation). Sorry to "derail" your thread... I simply wanted to commend your study on "signify" as well as commend the literal interpretation as well (as usual my brain went off down the trail to the next thought and I didn't stop typing, lol)
  5. When you accepted Christ (by grace through faith in Jesus Christ) you were then sealed with the Holy Spirit. The tribulation believer's will not have that same indwelling of the Holy Spirit (or do you believe they will?). This is part of your salvation, is it not? The only thing you "did" to receive the Holy Spirit was to accept/believe upon Christ. I believe it happens the very moment we believe and accept Christ. So this "part" of salvation will not occur for those saved during the time of Jacob's trouble. Yet somehow, they are saved the exact same way? How can that be?
  6. James: 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (Paul) Romans 4:25 "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." "Messing with" the doctrine of the gospel?" I noted the obvious (to me) differences, and I am accused of "messing with the doctrine of the gospel?" Galatians 1:1 "Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)" Galatians 1:8 "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." 9 "As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." WHAT GOSPEL was Paul referring to? He answers this very question himself. The very gospel he (Paul) received not of man (not even of Peter, James, nor the others), but by direct revelation of Jesus Himself!!! Galatians 1:11 "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man." 12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Galatians 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter" I quote the actual Bible verses and am then told I am "messing with the gospel"??? On ONE thing I see we agree... "the doctrine of the gospel is a very, very serious matter" Paul was himself given the gospel by the "revelation of Jesus Christ". Paul commands us (saved by grace in Jesus Christ in this dispensation) to follow his teachings in many many verses: 1 Cor. 4:16, Phil 3:17, 2 Thes. 3:7-9, Gal. 4:12, 1 Cor. 11:1, 1 Thes. 1:6, are just a few of those verses. Am I to disregard that??? Paul explains he was given the gospel which was preached of him, that is is NOT after man, he hasn't been taught it from mankind, but has received it by the revelation of Jesus Christ, he then tells us that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto him... I bring these Bible passages out, and I am "messing with the gospel"???? Either Paul's words meant what they said and said what they meant or they didn't. You may very well believe he meant something other than what he said, but I do not.
  7. Brother "NN" I would agree that there are no mistakes in the Bible... mistakes come when WE (humans) do not properly understand the wording. Let me use the example again of Gen. 1:28 again. Genesis 1:28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." If we read it as it is worded we would likely come to the erroneous conclusion (as Mr. Feldick did) that the word replenish means to "re-fill". But when the Holy Spirit guides us as believers, and we (or at least in my case) read something and a tugging on our heart starts that tells me "I need to dig deeper into this", I go to the Lord in prayer, seeking His guidance, then I re-read the verses in context, then I first look up the Hebrew (since it's OT) lexicons word meaning, and I find this: "Hebrew verb מלאו (mil’û) simply means fill. Not refill." So still puzzled...why would the word be translated as "replenish" if the Hebrew lexicon tells me it means "fill" and not "re-fill"? So then I go to search out the old English meaning of the word "replenish", what did the word mean during the era wherein the King James Bible was translated? And I find that (and this does take some digging at times) the Noah Webster's 1828 dictionary state "To fill; to stock with numbers or abundance. The magazines are replenished with corn. The springs are replenished with water." So again we see the word replenish DID mean FILL and not refill. So it's NOT the Bible which has a "faulty" word, it's our own current usage of the word which is faulty. I have no doubt that the devil has a huge part in twisting word meanings. Just take a few words today which have drastically changed in meaning over the last half a century... "cool" no longer means slightly cold and "gay" no longer means happy. They start out as "slang" terms and end up being common usage. I remember in grade school having an elderly English teacher who had a "big thing" about what she considered to be slang words. If someone said "ain't" in her classroom she would have a near conniption fit! She would yell loudly: "Do NOT use slang.. it's the devil's vehicle"! While I thought she was just being extreme, years later I understand, she was really right! The father of lies would love nothing more than to confuse mankind, and he's (sadly) doing a splendid job. I haven't watched the movies, but have heard that movies containing the words "Apocalypse" have a totally different meaning than they originally did. It meant a disclosure of something hidden, and in reference to (Greek: Ἀποκάλυψις Ἰωάννου, Apokalypsis Ioannou– literally), John's Revelation. Yet Hollywood is truly the devil's playground... he loves nothing more than to twist every bit of scripture (especially prophecy) to mislead the unknowing/unsaved world.
  8. Brother "No Nicolaitans": Thank you for the amiable discussion!!! We are brothers/sisters in Christ, and I respect that we each have differing conclusions on our methods of study/interpretation. I am thankful that such a forum exists in order to fellowship amongst each other, even when we disagree. First, I want to say that I don't think I've heard but one or two half hour programs/teachings from Les Feldick prior to this week. I'm sure whatever I did hear from him (in the distant past) had no reference to the Pauline doctrine in comparison, etc. It's funny that you mention him, as another friend also mentioned him to me just a couple days ago. I've done a little "digging" in the last couple of days, and have found (so far) only one thing I disagree with him on... the "gap theory". One of the reason I don't believe in that theory is that the word "replenish" (in Genesis 1:28) means FILL and not re-fill, according to several different Hebrew lexicons. Otherwise, I think I will be listening to him quite a lot in the future (God willing). I have certainly read the OT law and commandments as well. I agree that the law (in the OT) is given with conditional instructions... and blessing or curses were to be expected (during that time period) for obeying the law/disobeying the law. I also note that the BLOOD is what covered the sins of those in the OT. They had strict rules about the types of animals sacrifices, etc. No need to go into all that because (I think) we are likely in agreement over that. You stated: "Never...ever...not one time, is spiritual salvation given as a result for obedience to the law...never." Please notice I did not state "the law" in my previous posts, but in fact, I stated "works". I will just give one example (no sense in me going over several, as I did with Peter... that will just take up a lot of space as I did previously, and quite frankly, I doubt it would be read by more than a couple people anyways). **James 2:14 "What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?" **James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." No, I didn't post all of the verses out of the chapter, only the few which show (to me) that James was teaching a faith PLUS works salvation. I have heard/read the majority of sermons on this entire chapter of James which will generally go into detail regarding how we SHOULD do works after we are saved. I agree, we SHOULD. The Holy Spirit will guide us into the desire to live lives pleasing to God after we have accepted Christ as our Lord and savior. However, is that what the verses in James actually say? Do they say we SHOULD desire to do works after our salvation? I do NOT believe our salvation is contingent upon works. I do not believe our justification is contingent upon works either. And I (personally) do see where James WAS stating that works was a contingency for "justification". ***Paul taught that works do NOT justify us: Romans 4:24 "But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;" 25 "Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification." I (personally) see an obvious difference in doctrine between James and Paul. In James 2 as well as in Romans 4, they also each speak of Abraham's faith/works. James says: 21 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" 22 "Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?" 23 "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." Paul says: 1 "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?" 2 "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God." 3 "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." 4 "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." 5 "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." **There is only one agreement in their statements: "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." which is actually a quote/reference from the OT in Genesis 15:6 "And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness." I note that James said: "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" But Paul said: "to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" This is an obvious (to me) contradiction (if they were both applying it to this current age of grace). I see minds have been "set" in believeing they were both teaching the same thing. My mind has also become "set"in believing the differences are apparent (to me). I could bring out many more seemingly contradictory statements (as I have with Peter). But I see it is basically futile for me to do so. Many will try to explain away what the words actually say... and I'm not critisizing anyone for doing so, I (myself) just won't do that. I do attempt my best to take the words literally... if I have trouble with a word meaning (for instance the word "replenish" meaning fill in Gen. 1:28) I go to (more than one) Hebrew or Greek lexicon. The seemingly contradictory statements are no longer contradictory (to me) once I realize the different audience and to which audience I (myself) fall into the category of. As I stated previously... I didn't bring this forth to cause division or contention. I brought this forth because it has made an amazing difference in my own personal study and growth. There are a few others here which also use this study method. However, there are also many which hold to your position. I do respect your position, and I won't fault you (or any others) for using the study method you do. However, I do respectfully disagree. ***Which should also answer Pastor Markle statement on the other thread I started (when having trouble uploading again): I do believe I was led by the Holy Spirit in noting the differences (some of which I've brought forth). And so, with that said, I do truly respect your position but I also respectfully disagree. You are as firmly convinced that your interpretation of scripture is correct and led of the Holy Spirit as I am in my own confidence that I am led in the Holy Spirit of my own understanding. I realize it would likely be futile for either position to attempt to convince the other on these opposing methods of study. So I will now attempt to digress on the matter of audiences and differences (***unless another post comes up hereafter on this thread or another where I feel compelled to answer). Thanks again for the amiable discourse between us!
  9. CONCLUSION!!!!: ( have tried repeatedly to upload my conclusion on this proper thread yesterday... I've logged out, cleared my cache, closed my browser, re-opened the browser, logged back in, and I still can't get my final post to upload! Very strange... I think it's the spam bot settings which preclude my posting another lengthy post???) Hopefully it will upload (without blocking my IP). It did allow me to post it on an entirely separate thread, though (I have no idea why) The differences in the messages taught by Paul in contrast to the messages taught by Peter are many. Peter was chosen (among the 12) to preach to a Jewish audience: Matthew 10:5-6(et al) Paul was chosen to preach to a Gentile audience:2 Tim 1:10-11(et al) We see that Paul had to rebuke Peter in Galatians 2. We see that Peter himself admits that Paul's teaching are "some things hard to be understood" in 2nd Peter 3:16, so my question is... If Paul's teachings are still difficult for Peter to understand... HOW can it be the SAME message? I also would have to ask, why did the Holy Spirit guide the writings in the bible to show the contentions between them? Should we consider the obvious strivings and differences to be irrelevant information? I believe the Holy Spirit chose to bring out the contention over differences so we would take notice! I conclude that Peter did not understand Paul’s doctrine, because Peter was not selected to minister to Paul’s audience. Peter had his own doctrine and his own audience. Paul had a different audience. ***************************************************************************************** As I stated in previous posts, Paul was chosen to be the bearer of the gospel in THIS dispensation (the current age of grace/church age). He stated (in several places) that he (Paul) was to be followed by this dispensation. (as I noted more scripture in previous posts as well as these below). 1 Cor. 4:16 "Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me." 1 Cor 1:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. "Philippians 3:17 "Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample." So let me also conclude with this... For those who willfully won't recognize the difference in the respective teachings and respective audiences of Paul in contrast with Peter (and the previous apostles)... and this comes from the BIBLE, not the word according to me, but the word according to God, by the Holy Spirit inspired The words written by Paul concerning them being COMMANDMENTS by the Lord Himself: :1 Corinthians 14:37-38 ***37 "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I [Paul] write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." 38 "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." And again I say in summary: The contention and differences are noted in the bible for a reason. If they were teaching the same message, it surely wouldn't be difficult for Peter to understand. And even after fourteen years of Paul teaching, he still had to admonish Peter in regard to his attempting to add works to the gospel message in Galatians 2:14. Peter didn't understand all of Paul's doctrine because Peter had a different doctrine and audience (Matthew 10:5-6) and Paul had a different doctrine and audience than Peter. We are no longer required to be baptized (by water) to receive the Holy Spirit or for salvation. The gospel NOW is (for this current dispensation of grace) are what Paul teached: Ephesians 2:8 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God": 9 "Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 1:7 " In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace" Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." 2 Thes 2:16 "Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace" This is in contrast with Peter: When the Jews asked Peter, “What must we do to be saved?,” notice Peter’s answer: “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38) However, when the Philippian jailor asked Paul and Silas, “What must I do to be saved?,” notice what Paul and Silas declared: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house” (Acts 16:31). Obviously, these are not the same message. Peter told people to repent and then get water baptized, so they could receive forgiveness of sins and receive the Holy Spirit. Yet, Paul simply taught that salvation comes by “believing on" the Lord Jesus Christ, without preaching water baptism or repentance. I believe all of the Bible should be taken literally as far as we can. If words mean anything (and I revere the words of the Bible as being God's Word), Peter and Paul preached two separate Gospels. Our salvation (for us in this age of grace) is NOT contingent upon water baptism. We are baptized with the Holy Spirit when we accept Christ as our Lord and Savior. We read earlier in Acts 8 of the stoning of Stephen...after that we saw in Acts 9 where Paul is chosen of God, then in Acts 10 we read of Peter receiving the dream (being showed 3 times how the Gentiles were no longer to be considered unclean), then we see an example in Acts 10 (which I believe to be a key reason why God chose Paul and not Peter to be the apostle to the Gentiles): We read this Acts 10:45-48 45 "And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." 46 "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter," 47 "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" 48 "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days." We read that the Gentiles had the gift of the Holy Ghost poured out on them (prior to water baptism), and THEN Peter commands them to be baptized! Why??? (I believe) this shows how much Peter misunderstood. He is still commanding them (Gentiles) to be baptized even AFTER they've received the Holy Spirit. He doesn't just suggest it, he COMMANDS (verse 48) it. Paul doesn't teach this, and I do not believe this was meant for the Gentiles. That is one of the key differences in the gospel Peter preached compared to the gospel Paul taught. In the next chapter (Acts 11) we read that we think Peter "gets it" when he says: Acts 11:16 "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." It sounds like Peter understands that those Gentiles had received the Holy Spirit baptism... and thus they wouldn't be required (for salvation) to perform the work of water baptism for salvation, right? Well then why does Peter (in 1 Peter 3) say this??? 20 "Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." 21 "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:" 22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him." I contend that Peter continued to preach water baptism as a contingency of salvation - to Peter's audience. Whereas Paul taught baptism of the Holy Ghost (when we accept Christ as Lord and savior) to his audience. Paul recognized that (water) baptism was an outward show of an inward change that had already taken place (the baptism of the Holy Spirit) the moment we accepted Jesus as our Lord and Savior, but that water baptism was NOT a contingency TO salvation itself. I've gone over SEVERAL differences in the teaching between the 2 (Peter and Paul) as well as taken several hours to study (prayerfully) and type this out. I have brought forth (an opposing view). I seriously doubt I will change one single mind here either. However, that said... the differences are there, and are apparent if you are even attempting to realize that they each had a different audience. Once that is accomplished (noting the different audience in and of itself) there are no longer seeming contradictions. The Bible makes sense (to me) now that I have divided in that aspect. But... (and many will) fault me in my study method. However, I felt compelled of the Holy Spirit to take the time to attempt to describe SOME of the differences in the writings of Peter compared to the writings of Paul (and that is just SOME, there are many MORE). I wrote (typed) down my study in the sincere hope that one person MAY see the differences as well, and may also gain from the understanding the way I have gained. So fault me if you'd like... but I truly believe I am studying the very way we are TOLD to study, rightly dividing (2 Tim 2:15) , and studying like a workman. And I also believe I am following the doctrine prescribed for this current age of grace, as was shown in 1 Cor. 4:16, 1 Cor. 11:1, Philippians 3:17, 2 Thes. 3:7, and other places, which tell us to follow Paul's teachings. I believe we are to take the word of God literally. As literally as possible. I believe we should revere God's word enough to respect His literal wording. So when I am accused (as some have done) of "wrongly dividing", I have already stated I prayerfully inquire the Lord's guidance through the Holy Spirit prior to starting Bible study, and I try to adhere to the study method instructions given in the Bible itself, in the verses I noted above.... taking as literally as possible all scripture given. So to those who yet say my study method is faulty... what method of study do you use? Thank you for allowing me the time and space needed to bring out some (of the many) differences the Holy Spirit brought to my attention during my studies! God Bless!!!
  10. If Paul and Peter were preaching/teaching the exact same message why would Paul have had to admonish Peter? And why would Peter admit Paul's writing were "some things hard to understand" if it was the same message? Peter (in verse 12 of Galatians 2) actually refused to even EAT with the Gentiles because Peter feared what the Jewish people (circumcision) would think about him!!! 12 "For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision." We see that Peter's attitude and actions had even "rubbed off" on Barnabus (the man who was chosen above to accompany Paul in his ministry) 13 "And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation." So Paul has to correct Peter about his actions. He asks Peter WHY is he encouraging the Gentiles to follow the same rules as the Jews? Gal 2:14 "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Next, Paul clarifies that his gospel is by faith in Jesus Christ. He further states that no flesh shall be saved by the works of the law. Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Through the remaining verses Paul goes on explaining the gospel of grace, and how righteousness is not attained by following the law, but by the grace of God through Jesus' death and resurrection. Gal 2:17-21 17 "But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid." 18 "For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor." 19 "For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God." 20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me." 21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." If Peter was preaching the same gospel that Paul was preaching, why would Paul have to continue to explain the differences? Let's go back to verse 1 (of Galatians 2) to see something we may have missed: Gal 2:1 "Then fourteen years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, and took Titus with me also." This is FOURTEEN YEARS after Paul started his ministry... surely in fourteen years you would have thought they'd all be on "the same page" in their reasoning if they were teaching the same gospel? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Acts 15:7 "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" 8 "And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;" 9 "And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith." 10 "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?" 11 "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." And in Acts 15:13-17 James expounds further to convince the multitude of Jews that God had foretold of His plan for Gentiles, "to take out of them a people for his name". James tells them that it was God's plan all along in Acts 15:18 SO WE DO see AGREEMENT here in Acts 15:22 how it pleased "the apostles and elders with the whole church" that Paul was correct in the view that they shouldn't be putting the burden of works of the law upon the Gentiles. They (apostles, elders, brethren of the church) sent letters to the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia in Acts 15:23 stating that they gave no commandment to the Gentiles to be circumcised, nor to keep the law in Act 15:24 They DID however tell the Gentiles (in these letters) that they should: "abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication" Acts 15:29 After this seeming agreement in reference to the DIFFERENT messages being taught to Jews in contrast to the message Paul was teaching the Gentiles... we see Paul goes throughout Syria and Cilicia (Gentiles). So then, let's back up to verses 7-11, where Peter DOES say in verse 11: "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. " We thought we saw an agreement there, right? If we read that verse alone, it surely looks like Peter is in agreement. So WHY (many years apart) does Paul have to rebuke Peter for his teaching in Galatians 2 (as I've shown above) and we thought Peter understood that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered "unclean", when God Himself gives Peter a dream in Acts 10:10-15 , God had to repeat it 3 times in Acts 10:16!!! (Isn't that interesting since Peter denied Christ 3 times before the rooster crowed back in Matthew 26:69-75 even after Peter denied he would ever do such a thing, but Jesus foretold that he would in Matthew 26:33-34). SO even though Peter said he wouldn't deny Christ, he did. And even though Peter has to be shown in a dream 3 times that the Gentiles were no longer to be considered "unclean" in Acts 10 ... what do we find Peter doing in Acts 15? Refusing to even eat with Gentiles. Sound like agreement here? It doesn't to me. Once again, please wait 15 minutes, since my study isn't done (sorry, but I have to bring out all points in order to show the differences) THANK YOU!
  11. What does the Bible itself say about the gospel? Was it (and is it) the exact same gospel being preached to both Jews and Gentiles alike? Galatians 2:7 7 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; Let's carefully study the wording in Galatians 2. In verses 7-8 we see 2 separate things here: "the gospel of the uncircumcision" (uncircumcision meaning Gentiles here) and "the gospel of the circumcision" (circumcision meaning Jews here) furthermore we see that the gospel OF the Gentiles (uncircumcision) was commited to Paul and we see that the gospel OF the Jews (circumcision) was committed to Peter. Next we see in verse 9 that James, Cephas, and John were to go to the Jews (circumcision), and that Paul and Barnabus were to go to the Gentiles (heathen). Galatians 2:9 "And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision." If it were in fact the exact same gospel in all respects, why did the Holy Ghost separate the two in verse 7? Why would it not have read that the gospel was given to the uncircumcision (Gentiles) by Paul and the circumcision (Jews) by Peter? It clearly separates the 2 not only in audience but by the very words "the gospel of the uncircumcision" and the "the gospel of the circumcision" I'm sure there will be contention over the meaning, but I am taking the words as literally as possible. (PART TWO) Please wait 15 minutes to respond as I have more info to upload) THANK YOU
  12. I've tried to condense (as much as possible) without throwing out needed content. I'll post in 2-3 parts (and 5 minutes+ apart so it doesn't merge). Please allow me the time to post all before commenting, so it's one continuous study. Thank you (PART ONE): Who did Jesus command the disciples to give the gospel to? Matthew 10:5-6 5 "These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:" 6 "But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." Jesus Himself was teaching the gospel only to whom (during His earthly ministry, prior to His death, burial, resurrection)? Matthew 15:24 "But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel". God had a plan all along. He knew that MANY Jews would accept Jesus, but he also knew that many (at that time) would reject Jesus as their promised Messiah. God's plan for the gospel went specifically to the Jews during Jesus' time on earth. It wasn't until AFTER Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection that the gospel was then sent to the Gentiles as well. It isn't until Acts that we see the gospel being given to the Gentiles. We start at the stoning of Stephen in Acts 8, and see a clear transition happen. Gentiles being saved (prior to this time) was unthinkable. In Acts 9 we read of Paul being chosen by God "he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Where did Paul go (in comparison to where the disciples currently were teaching)? Galatians 1:15 "But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace" 16 "To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:" 17 "Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus." *** Not to say they all stayed at those respective places forever... only that that was where they were teaching at the time... So where were they at that time? The "other apostles before" him were in JERUSALEM (Gal. 1:17). They (the 12) were following the commandment Jesus had given them to give the gospel to every (Jewish) part of the "world" in the great commission. It wasn't until the Jews has rejected the gospel again with the stoning of Stephen, that God changed gears (as He already foretold He would in Isaiah 42:6), and started His focus on Gentiles. God's plan for THIS dispensation is that we follow the mysteries and orders revealed to Paul, as Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles. (One a side note:) God is by no means "done with" Israel. There are Jewish people who have accepted Christ since the days of Paul and will continue to be Jewish people accept Christ throughout this dispensation of grace. .But right now, in this current dispensation, God's focus is on the Gentiles. He will again return His focus to the Jewish people during the time of "Jacob's trouble", to try them and 1/3 of the remaining Jewish people (the remnant as described in Zech 13:9) will come to Christ during that time. That will be during a different dispensation... God deals differently with people in different dispensations. (He has in the past and will in the future... which requires an entire study on dispensations and I'm not including that here). (END OF PART ONE.... PLEASE WAIT FOR 15 minutes before commenting so that I can upload the remaining answers/study notes (since a continuous post would be too long and boot me off). THANK YOU!!!!
  13. I had a huge post I had planned on giving on the 23rd for this thread. It was so long it got my IP blocked when I tried to upload it (it didn't upload). There's no way to answer effectively in a short post. I had gotten up early (around 4 am) on the 23rd, prayerfully did bible study and notes for my answer, and sometime between noon and 4 pm I attempted to upload my study notes . So during my 11 days off of OB I wondered whether or not the post loaded (I found out today it did not), then I again contemplated if I should even bother with it... was it God's Will that I don't post it? Or was it the devil hindering me from delivering my study notes? Would I also feel (as No Nicolaitans did above) that I was posting in vain? I suspect I would... my summary verse was 1 Cor. 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. (The "I" of the verse, was the apostle Paul.) I'll pray for further guidance whether or not to attempt to re-post my study notes on this topic thread, or to leave the thread alone as is. And if I do re-post, how to post the information without a spam bot knocking me off for length... there just isn't a way to break it down into "bite-size" chunks, lol.
  14. Exodus 15:6 " Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the enemy. "
  15. Ronda

    Psalm 19:1 Integrity

    One of my favorites as well. Truly praising the Lord in song, as hymns should be. Imagine.... when one day we shall also be in the presence of the Holy One and I believe we will be in awe beyond description... at His holiness, His righteousness, His pureness and goodness. I believe we will fall down stunned by the true holiness of Him and worship Him with an understanding we never could fully grasp in these human bodies. He truly does deserve our reverence. Sadly I believe that very reverence is lacking in today's "modern professing christian", where the focus has been taken off of God and mistakenly placed on mankind's "feelings" and worldly desires. I am eagerly awaiting the blessed hope and the desire to be away from all the evil sinfulness of this world. Imagine being in the very presence of He who never sinned! As we ourselves and those around us in glorified bodies will also have shed the sin nature forever. What wonderful promises we have to look forward to! Maranatha!
  16. Public schools (yes, especially elementary) have been teaching this falsehood and touting it as "factual" for decades now. It's in their "science" books and the majority of teachers in the public school system are liberal, worldly people.
  17. Thank you so much! It is helpful. I've followed your directions and prefer it to what I saw an hour ago... but the only problem is it shows only the most recent comment within the topic thread... instead of (as the site previously had the option) seeing all posts, even from the same topic thread sorted by time. I still wish they would "re-do" what they've "un-done", lol. But I want to commend you on your hard work and effort put forth! Great job! Now if only the IT "techs" from any internet service provider were even half as knowledgeable as you... :)
  18. Thanks for the idea "no nicolaitans" It's one approach, but still requires multiple steps each time. I really liked the previous version better, showing new content within all threads on one page, as it is much more time consuming to hunt through each section/subsection and then when you do find one, have to start at page 1 (sometimes when there are 17 pages, etc). There is going to be less conversations/fellowship when less people can find the content Hope they consider "undoing" the recent "update"??? Where at least ONE of the 3 selection buttons (browse/forum/home) takes you to new content on one page instead of all the options taking you to the exact same page (wouldn't be a need for the 3 options, would there?) Just my 2 cents.
  19. Exodus 10:7 And Pharaoh's servants said unto him, How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the Lord their God: knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?
  20. I was away from the site for about 7 weeks, when I returned, I found that the thread viewing options had changed. Where once I could see the latest postings by clicking "home" instead of "forums", they now both have the same page data, and it is difficult to find new posts... I am loathe to complain about it since I am sure it requires time and attention to which I do not partake... but I have to agree with the fellas above. I would much prefer to have the "older" version back, or at least an option which wouldn't take me to the same page from 3 option buttons. I also like to see the latest postings and/or responses (whether or not I participate in the discussion). I hope they will consider "un-doing" what recently was done.
  21. I agree! And what's more, is that God tells us that mankind is without excuse because His creation speaks of His existence and Godhead. Those who attempt to pervert factual science with supposition and conjecture (such as "the big bang theory", "evolving from amoeba in pond scum" and even "global warming" nonsense) are not only in grave error, but God's word says that His creation and Godhead are clearly seen by mankind. Romans 1 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: So what does God do to those who willfully pervert the truth of God's creation and Godhead? He gives them over to a reprobate mind and furthermore to vile affections. I believe it is no coincidence that homosexuality has become so widespread... after public schools started teaching "evolution" (an unscientific falsehood). I see the link to this in the chapter of Romans 1
  22. Ronda


    You are so right "John 81"... there are many people professing to be "Christians" who live very worldly lives. Now we ALL struggle with sin, and whoever says they do not sin is a liar! But once we turn to Jesus for salvation, we SHOULD have the Holy Spirit convicting us in our lives and causing us to see sin where we didn't see it before. One verse that really "hits home" is 2nd Corinthians 10:15 "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;" So there we read we are supposed to take every THOUGHT captive! I don't know about the rest of you, but I am still working on that one! I try to live a life as pleasing to God as I can in deed and action. I WANT to be able to truly take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Another verse tells us (in Ephesians 4:26) "Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:" So God knows we ARE going to get angry sometimes, I pray that I "sin not" when do get angry... that's another tough one, but I'm working on that too (With the Lord's help...I can do nothing on my own, the help comes from the Lord). I've enjoyed many of the studies (like this one) here, and want to thank those who put the time and effort into these also. I don't know how long I'll hang out here in this "IFB" site... but it was great getting to "meet" many of you!!!
  23. When I was able bodied, I picked raspberries every year. I made pies, I canned jam, and ate fresh ones on cereal or oatmeal. I froze the "leftovers" and they kept well in the deep freeze for at least a couple years and tasted delicious half-frozen mixed with other fruit in fruit salad.
  24. 3 month old freezer-burnt DQ ice cream, lol.
  25. Ronda


    I'm thankful for the bible studies here... everyone who contributes helps to clarify practical application in our lives. I also have to say I've read Titus 2:10 countless times when I'm studying in Titus... and yet it never really dawned on me that YES... Paul wasn't just teaching on the right attitude a servant should have, but also the right understanding of DOCTRINE! Sorry for skipping ahead here, but since it's only 3 verses away... verse 13 (one of my favorite/most comforting verses) : "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;" So if we don't have a right understanding of doctrine, that verse is not going to be understood! Just a little nugget... sorry if I interrupted the study, I just get excited when I get that "aha" moment... Thank you, Alan for helping bring that to light for me.
  • Create New...