Jump to content

Most Liked Content

#438358 The Meaning of Verse

Posted by biblebulgaria on 06 August 2017 - 08:03 AM

Thanks for the detailed answer.

  • Kay and Librarian like this

#436567 Trying to connect to Christadelphians!

Posted by Marynsh on 30 April 2016 - 02:57 PM

Thank you for being so helpful. :ok:

  • Kay and Librarian like this

#435068 Nephilim

Posted by Mark Taunton on 23 February 2015 - 01:23 AM

PoiterM, a brief note regarding your OP...


The exact same Hebrew form for "the nephilim" that occurs in Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33 occurs also in other places in the OT.  Anyone who claims that the Genesis & Numbers uses both refer to a specific group of people in Noah's time needs to explain those other uses also. In particular, two instances from the same era as Numbers 13, i.,e. Joshua's lifetime or just after, are pertinent:

  • In Joshua 8:25 the same Hebrew form for "the nephilim" is translated by the KJV as "that fell" in "all that fell".  But manifestly, it does not refer to people living before the flood, rather it means the 12,000 inhabitants of Ai who perished by the sword at Israel's hand.
  • In Judges 20:46, the same form also occurs, again of people who died violently at that time. But notably, these were not people of the land of Canaan (such as those referred to by the 10 spies in Numbers 13) - they were Israelites, of the tribe of Benjamin.

In summary, from these instances it is clear that the word "nephilim" does not refer to any specific ethnic group. It rather refers to people who are "fallen", in some sense. So the claims some have made about Num 13 / Gen 6, regarding actual genetic descent, are unfounded and wrong.


Hoping that's helpful...

  • Kay and Librarian like this

#432000 Trying to connect to Christadelphians!

Posted by Gazing@Stars on 23 February 2013 - 05:39 AM

Yes, I received an email contact from a brother in the ecclesia this evening. Thank you for making calls on my behalf, you are so kind.


Anson (Gazing at Stars)
  • Kay and firstthings1st like this

#429322 Is there a holy piece of Paper in the world?

Posted by Richie on 26 June 2012 - 04:18 PM

And one other thing:

All your base are belong to us.
  • nsr and DragnBreth like this

#429167 Is there a holy piece of Paper in the world?

Posted by Mark Taunton on 18 June 2012 - 04:37 PM

The word "holy" means special or set apart. The Bible is a special book. But there's nothing special about the paper it is printed on. What is special or holy about the Bible is the message it contains.

  • Matt Smith and Richie like this

#428791 Antichrist

Posted by Matt Smith on 11 May 2012 - 04:02 PM

Pursuant to that point, perhaps you can answer to a prior post in which I asked another poster to list what Christian groups or denominations in the world today, deny that Jesus is the Son of God, or as claimed "reject the idea that Jesus .... died and rose from the dead." (perhaps as first century Gnostics did).

Any group or individual within christianity which claims Jesus is God.

Why don't you try answering this time rather than changing the subject. What billion Christians "reject the idea that Jesus .... died and rose from the dead."

Just because you don't like my answer doesn't mean I didn't answer it.

If Jesus is God it means he did not die (God cannot die) and if he did not die, he did not rise from the dead. So my answer remains the same: Any group or individual within christianity which claims Jesus is God.

So you make an excuse for falsely accusing that Christians "reject the idea that Jesus .... died and rose from the dead."

You accuse brethren on the basis of your apparent belief that God granted you the sole franchise on the truth of what the bible itself describes as a "mystery".

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

My brothers and sisters in Christ are those who believe the same doctrines as the apostles:

Acts 2:42 - ...they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

Notice the order: doctrine first, then fellowship, breaking of bread and prayers.

All others are described as:
  • those who "went out from us"
  • "deceivers"
  • "apostate"
  • those who "obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"
  • "antichrists"
  • "grievous wolves"
  • "men speaking perverse things"
  • "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof"
  • "ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth"
  • "these also resist the truth"
  • "men of corrupt minds"
  • "reprobate concerning the faith"
  • "who hold the truth in unrighteousness"
  • "unrighteous"
  • "vain in their imaginations"
  • those who "do not obey the truth"
  • "false brethren"
So, yes, anyone who teaches things contrary to the apostles doctrines fits these descriptors. The good news is people are able to accept the truth, and change and become "heirs according to the promise".

As an aside on the phrase "mystery" as found in the Bible, if you read carefully you find that the context tells you that it is a revealed mystery, not one which is kept a mystery, especially to the believers.
  • DragnBreth and Richie like this

#427464 Why was Jesus born of a virgin? (If He was to be fully human as we)

Posted by Acomtha on 14 February 2012 - 03:31 AM

Adam and Eve didn't have human parents, and they were 100% human.
  • Librarian and arman like this

#60081 Faith And Works (James 2:14-23)

Posted by kabowdanan on 07 January 2004 - 05:59 AM

Quality of works is defined by the character of God.

God who does the furnishing :yep:
  • firstthings1st likes this

#437050 Greetings Fellow Believers in the Lord

Posted by cgaviria on 10 October 2016 - 04:11 PM

Hello fellow believers in Jesus Christ,
I wanted to introduce myself, my name is Christian and I am new to this forum. I was pleased to find that many of your teachings align with many teachings I have come to know and understand in my own personal studies of scripture. I discovered your group by the word of someone I was debating against in another forum.

  • firstthings1st likes this

#433706 TFTD - February 2014

Posted by Librarian on 01 February 2014 - 05:08 AM

01 February 2014

"We are all subjected in our everyday lives to tests which will show if we will be loyal to Jesus under all circumstances. Persecutions may at some time be added to these. Tests of whatever kind are not pleasant but we must remember when undergoing them that our Lord has been tested, tempted in every way that we are. We serve a Master not only of infinite power but of infinite understanding."

- W.L. Bedwell
The Letters to the Seven Churches of Asia

  • firstthings1st likes this

#432273 The RCC During the Thousand years

Posted by nsr on 15 April 2013 - 06:30 PM

If we take the great harlot of the later chapters of Revelation to represent the RCC and her apostate daughters (and some don't), then there is no mention of it after Rev 16-18. My own view is that the church system actually gets destroyed by the secular world powers shortly after the return of Christ, because the RCC labels the newly returned Jesus as 'the Antichrist', and he responds by revealing to the world the full extent of all the atrocities the RCC and her daughters have committed over the centuries and justified in the name of Christ, and the secular world powers in disgust destroy her.

She isn't mentioned in the battle of Armageddon in Rev 19, which I see as being the last battle between the secular world forces and Christ before the 1000 years begins. The symbolic entity which brings about the rising up against Christ at the end of the 1000 years is the dragon, not the sea beast or earth beast or the harlot. This suggests to me that false Christianity will no longer exist in the 1000 years and the only opposition will be the simple serpent thinking of human nature not wanting to submit to God.
  • Jason likes this

#431883 The Brass Serpent

Posted by Kay on 01 February 2013 - 04:01 AM


brother Cyril Tennant gave an explanation as such, which rather puts it in a "nut shell":

"Jesus used a very helpful type of himself: he said, “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up” (John 3:14). The serpent—a type of sin from the beginning and particularly representative of Israel’s sin in the wilderness—was lifted upon a pole to display their wickedness. But the brass serpent itself had not bitten anybody; no guilt could attach to it in any way, other than through its representation of what had caused the problem. Those who looked upon it in recognition of their sin and in belief of God’s promise of healing were saved. This, said Jesus, represented his being lifted upon the cross."
  • Jason likes this

#431788 TFTD - January 2013

Posted by Librarian on 15 January 2013 - 12:27 PM

15 January 2013

"All the glory of the Kingdom, and the song of the Redeemed, has been made possible by his sacrifice, which we remember in the emblems of bread and wine. Listen to the mighty chorus:

"Thou art worthy for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests, and we shall reign on the earth" (Revelation 5:9-10).

No man had been "found worthy", but he is worthy. And we owe everything to him. And if we find mercy at last to be allowed into his kingdom it will be in his worthiness and not our own."

- L.W. Richardson
Exhortation in Revelation (1981)

  • firstthings1st likes this

#430752 Young Earth Creation

Posted by nsr on 25 August 2012 - 08:41 AM

I wish discussion of this topic didn't always lead to spiteful name-calling and fighting about "my experts are better than your experts". Why does the spirit of Christ always go out the window when this topic arises?

One of the overarching themes of the Bible is this: we can be humble and let God teach us, or we can be arrogant and think we can figure it all out for ourselves. Adam and Eve chose the latter. Let's not follow their example.

Why do we have to insist on the importance of knowing absolutely everything about something God didn't think was important enough to tell us? Why can't we just trust God and get on with developing the spirit of Christ in our thinking and our lives?
  • Kay likes this

#430618 The absurdity of praying to the Lord Jesus but denying He is God

Posted by nsr on 20 August 2012 - 01:15 PM

Put it in this thread, then, instead of making a fuss. I'm getting a little tired of your petulant behaviour. Every single one of your arguments is nothing more than "Jesus does/has/receives/is called X, and so is God, therefore Jesus is God". You don't even realise that the issue isn't whether or not Jesus is omniscient now, the issue is whether or not that makes him God.

How do you know the "Lord" being prayed to in Acts 1:24 is Jesus? Let me guess: Jesus is "the one who knows the hearts" in Rev 2, so it must be him here as well? :rolleyes:
  • Matt Smith likes this

#428596 Identifying Antichrist

Posted by Acomtha on 03 May 2012 - 08:13 PM

Saying that Jesus was born a eunuch is the most horrific thing I've ever heard. And yet claiming that, you are disturbed that some believe he is the Son of God, and not God??? What is truly disturbing is believing what you do, as since you believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, you are making God an eunuch, aren't you? It sure seems to me that you are.

If you believe that the bible has mistakes and errors, and fallible, why do you believe any of it? How can you believe any of it as how can you know what isn't errors and what is.
  • Richie likes this

#427427 Hebrews 1:3

Posted by Mark Taunton on 11 February 2012 - 01:23 PM

Dear Paul,

Firstly, my thanks also for making the eJBI issue available here.

I've read your article, but I still disagree with you. The problem I see is with your method. You are not drawing out the sense (doing exegesis) of the Greek word 'mesites' ("mediator", KJV) from the places where that word itself is used. Instead, you are reading senses into it (eisegesis) from other places where it does not occur. You are also taking senses from extra-biblical contexts, which are not relevant to understanding God's own usage in inspired scripture. In particular, you are taking senses from common, extra-scriptural English usage of the English word "mediator", and trying to push those senses into the Greek scriptural word 'mesites'. But your claim that the scriptural word 'mesites' itself has those senses is not well founded.

The subtlety of the issue is that some of the senses you claim for 'mesites' are indeed true of Jesus. For example: Jesus is spoken of as the 'mesites' / "mediator" in one place (1 Tim 2:15), and in another place as causing or bringing peace (Col 1:20, Eph 2:14). So when you claim that the word 'mesites' has the idea of "bringing peace" in it, it is not immediately obvious that you are wrong. Jesus is certainly a mediator, and Jesus certainly brings peace, so why should we not accept that a "mediator" means someone who brings peace? After all, in common English usage, that is a sense of the word "mediator", so it all seems to fit!

But that is not the right way to expound the meanings of scriptural words. To understand what a word means, we need to look at the contexts of its uses, and see what function it serves in those contexts. We cannot understand the meaning of any particular word from a context where that word is not used.

To illustrate this point further, let us look at that particular example in more detail. There is no mention of even just "peace", to say nothing of "bringing" or "causing" peace, in 1 Tim 2:15 in which the word 'mesites' occurs. Conversely, the word 'mesites' does not occur in Col 1:20 or Eph 2:14 (or indeed anywhere in either of those letters). Yet you are seeking to import the idea of "bringing peace" from contexts such as those, into the word 'mesites' in a quite different context.

Now you do try to join the ideas up, by taking mention of "the man" Christ Jesus in 1 Tim 2:15 as a reference back to Zec 6:12-13, and observing that it mentions an apparent "peace-making" role there, in "the counsel of peace will be between them both". But that is a stretch, and still fails to prove the point. Amongst other issues, the Greek in 1 Tim 2:15 does not use the definite article wiith 'anthropos': it is not a distinctive "the man Christ Jesus", but simply "a man, Christ Jesus". Nor does Zec 6:12 have (what would be likewise distinctive) a definite article behind the Englsh "the" in "behold the man". Even more significantly, the Hebrew word for "man" in Zech 6:12 is not the word 'adam' as would match the Greek 'anthropos' of 1 Tim 2:15 (the relation being illustrated by Matt 4:4 quoting Deu 8:3); instead it uses 'ish' which has more the sense of "an individual". So the seemingly strong connection you draw only has strength in English, not in the original languages.

I will leave it there for now. I look forward to your response.

  • Matt Smith likes this

#427377 Were apostles not aware to spread the gospel to whole world?

Posted by Mark Taunton on 06 February 2012 - 09:06 PM

From Jesus' words in Luke 24:47, the disciples knew that their preaching "among all nations" was to start in Jerusalem. The first people they preached to after his resurrection, on the day of Pentecost, had indeed come to Jerusalem from "every nation under heaven" (Acts 2:5), but they were Jews (and not specifically proselytes as Lectron suggested). From that experience, perhaps the disciples would assume that Jesus had meant preaching to the Jews of the dispersion in all the nations (such as those who had come to the feast), rather than also to gentile people among those nations.
  • arman likes this

#381080 What is God's sole purpose in giving us scriptures (including the

Posted by RedShark on 21 September 2009 - 04:13 AM

Firstly, I was simply quoting 2 Timothy 3:15, but my understanding of through faith in Jesus Christ is the process of believing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ Acts 8:5,12.

I am no American English speaking guy but it is not hard for me to understand the phrase "through faith in Jesus Christ," all because of the words themselves. Faith in Jesus is faith that emanates in Jesus and it is not a faith that emanates from how we do understand what we read. Jesus is not something that we read (especially the bible) because Jesus is real and alive and He is the Lord who created all things, including the bible that we read.

Philip preached these things and the Samaritans believed the things that he preached, and they were then baptised.

That was then and the only means that you have to know that is through the bible and your understanding and comprehension, it is still different if applied to the phrase "through faith in Jesus.

Your definition that the "Scriptures are any written document about God available to men" could be ambiguous. I have many books written about God, but some of them contain errors.

Come on TrevorL, how do you know they contain errors? What about the bible, does the bible contain no errors? If it does not (in your perception), how did you know? I am not distrusting the bible in this regards but just asking you how well you do know.

I would prefer to define "The Scriptures" as the Bible, and treat all other books or writings with caution.

Kind regards

May you see that definition of anything about faith, God, salvation, eternal life, etc. is still subjective and relative with respect to who is the speaker. This is also the cause of the proliferation of many religious sects all over the face of the globe.
  • Hayden likes this