|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 22, 2007 15:47:21 GMT -5
Since I'm on an attempt to being funny, I thought Armen Thomassian was a Calvinist? Is this a trick question? I think you meant Arminians rather than Armenians.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 22, 2007 15:39:51 GMT -5
After all these debates I think I enjoy Calvin and Hobbes more than hearing Calvin and Arminius. Ok well, I really don't know much of anything about Calvin and Hobbes, but it just seemed like the thing to say. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 30, 2007 8:43:20 GMT -5
How long? 3 days? Will that suffice?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 30, 2007 8:39:22 GMT -5
bounbough,
Would it be fair to say you don't know how to answer my question? Or are you still avoiding it?
I'm asking for an explanation of how a woman could be with a man and that man not be her husband.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 28, 2007 11:26:31 GMT -5
Yes, that is the question I've been trying to ask. I'm not sure I can ask it more plainly...
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 25, 2007 9:26:52 GMT -5
What are you thoughts on the woman at the well? How could she "have a man" that wasn't her's?
Jhn 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 24, 2007 19:29:47 GMT -5
So there isn't such thing as a fornicator?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 24, 2007 15:06:14 GMT -5
Things like this are easy to debate on paper, but extremely difficult to deal with in real life.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 24, 2007 15:03:48 GMT -5
I don't think God commands divorces in that instance.
If one is consistent in the view that God doesn't "recognize" the "2nd marriage" as a marriage but only an "adulterous relationship"; then you can't divorce if there wasn't a marriage can you?
My persuasion is that God does recognize the 2nd "marriage" else the woman at the well couldn't have ever had 5 husbands.
EDIT: I am persuaded to believe the standard of marriage falls in place after one is converted.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 24, 2007 13:43:26 GMT -5
You cannot stay in open sin and repent. It is impossible. Although, I disagree that just because someone lives with another person means they are married. Jesus didn't believe that.
Jhn 4:18 For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 24, 2007 8:50:42 GMT -5
Does a one-night stand count as a marriage? How long do you have to live with the other person? How many times do you have to sleep with them for it to be a marriage?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 22, 2007 9:35:18 GMT -5
Bylnn,
I'm not going to get into this debate, but I'm just going to post a scripture that you may have forgot about.
Mar 10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband......
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 19, 2007 13:28:17 GMT -5
That's a great quote. I would say the same to all the Calvinist (well certain ones) when it comes to "free-will" and God's sovereignty. Both ideas are true. God doesn't control everyone, yet God is in control.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 19, 2007 13:32:51 GMT -5
Paul quoted philosophers/poets also. But please remember that doesn't mean the rest of the philosopher's writing is true.
Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
Tit 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Tit 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. Tit 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. Tit 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 15, 2007 21:32:45 GMT -5
What verse are you referring to? Luke 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, Gen 11:10 These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: Gen 11:11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. Gen 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: Gen 11:13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. Gen 11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: Gen 11:15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. Gen 11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: Gen 11:17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. If you just add up what I've bolded, did Shem even live past Eber, let alone Abraham? To be fair I added up the age to see if it were possible that Shem was alive when Abraham was born. It is, Shem was about 390 years old when Abram was born. But as has already been said, the very fact I can add up his age shows he isn't "without end of days" or without mother, father, or descendants.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 15, 2007 13:34:19 GMT -5
Oh wait.... melek tsedeqMelchisedec Melek- King tsedeq- righteousness
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 15, 2007 13:30:59 GMT -5
Also, he mentions him as "Melchisedec, king of salem" since we know the second or "after that" is king of Salem, which is king of peace. It would only make sense that the first, "Melchisedec", is King of righteousness.
I wouldn't mind knowing how the word translated into that though.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 15, 2007 13:23:49 GMT -5
Hmm... Well, I looked at what few (very few) resources I know of online and couldn't find a match either. "Melch" is very close to "melek" so king is probably in his name. But righteousness I couldn't find a resource that shows how it matches with his name. My disadvantage is that I can't pronounce Hebrews letters, nor know anything about Hebrew morphology, so I have to rely on transliterations and what others tell me. Something had to "translate" or "by interpretation" mean King of Righteousness. Hbr 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; Hbr 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; Salem does mean peace, so it can easily be said that the "King of Salem" can by interpretation be the "King of Peace."
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 15, 2007 11:03:03 GMT -5
Tts 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. Ok, I had to remind myself.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 15, 2007 10:49:40 GMT -5
What verse are you referring to? Luke 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, Gen 11:10 These [are] the generations of Shem: Shem [was] an hundred years old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood: Gen 11:11 And Shem lived after he begat Arphaxad five hundred years, and begat sons and daughters. Gen 11:12 And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah: Gen 11:13 And Arphaxad lived after he begat Salah four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. Gen 11:14 And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber: Gen 11:15 And Salah lived after he begat Eber four hundred and three years, and begat sons and daughters. Gen 11:16 And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg: Gen 11:17 And Eber lived after he begat Peleg four hundred and thirty years, and begat sons and daughters. If you just add up what I've bolded, did Shem even live past Eber, let alone Abraham?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 15, 2007 10:40:46 GMT -5
If you believe he is Shem, then what does the below verse mean?
Hbr 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
There are only two options I know of.
1) He is saying this because we do not know the genealogy of him and uses it as a "type" or "shadow" of Christ.
2) He literally had no father or mother.
Shem doesn't fit into either one. Actually we know a lot about Shem's genealogy and descendants.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 14, 2007 13:08:06 GMT -5
Josh: I think it is good to debate this and no offense is taken. You said: "Jesus had the Father and He did die (but rose again!)." Do you think the Father created the Son, or the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all existed forever, none making any other? Depending on how you answered above, did Jesus live before He lived in flesh, and therefore He was merely mainifest in flesh of man when He was born of Mary, begotten of the Holy Spirit, dying and resurrecting in that form? This is critical because many cults teach Jesus was not eternal as part of the Godhead. We also see in scripture other places, like Rev. 1:13 where John sees and describes one as like unto the Lord, does that mean it might not really be Him, or just a manner of speaking? Oh no, I wasn't meaning it to look like I believed that Jesus was created. He is eternal. He always had "the Father" and the Father always had Him. I was kind of saying that in jest because many debates seem to be like a tennis match between who can find where the other is wrong in the minutest detail, that is wrong in the person's mind who is looking for the error. You weren't wrong in what you stated, but at the same time neither was what I said but I made it look like it conflicted. That may not make any sense... I may be acting a little strange today, pardon me if I'm speaking "mysteries" and not making sense. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 14, 2007 12:19:26 GMT -5
I'll throw out a few thoughts from the other side. 1) Psalm 110:1 states "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool." Is there any doubt we are talking about Jesus here? No! The rest of this Psalm is no doubt about Jesus, so let's look at verse 4. "The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent. Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek." Certainly Jesus Christ is "a" priest (singular, one) priest "forever". This means Jesus has always been and will always be a priest. I wonder if that does mean that he was always a priest, or that forever (from a certain point in time) he will be. I realize it says "art" but could it be a prophecy rather than something that was true at the moment? It almost seems that to be our priest He first had to become a man. Isn't this what the below verse teaches? Hbr 2:17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (KJV)
Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.(NASB) Yes, he was the "king of Salem" and by interpretation you get those other "kings." If someone was a "child of Salem" then by interpretation you could also say they were a "child of righteousness" or "child of peace." For some reason that's how I read when he is meaning in 7:2. In other words, the word "Salem" has a few different meanings. Jesus had the Father and He did die (but rose again!). Ok, that's not the counterpoint I'm going to make.... I think the writer of Hebrews is just making use of the fact that there is no genealogy or anything else for that matter of Melchizadek and is using it to show how he is "like" Jesus. If it is true that Melchiadek was Jesus, does that mean that Jesus was already made flesh before He was of Mary? Or what happened to Melchizadek that he left the earth? Was the "Angel of the Lord" (who most consider to be a preincarnate of Jesus) ever manifest while Melchizadek was on the earth? I see the writer using all these things to show a "type and shadow" of Jesus, just like he does with many things in the OT. I think this is still tying in to what I said just above. I may just be making it too simple but I seem to think that Jesus was "after the order" or in a similar fashion. How can you be "after the order" of something and be that something at the same time? I guess that just seems redundant to me. Something like "Adam was after the order of man." Well, yeah I guess so, but why would you say that? Adam was the first man. That short analogy doesn't exactly match, but I hope it gets my line of thinking across. Melchizadek was "like unto the Son of God," does that mean that he is the Son of God? Or just mean that he is similar or "like" the Son of God in a certain manner? It would seem more plain spoken to just say "Melchizadek is the Son of God." Rather than say he is "like" and really mean he "is." This isn't really anything to debate, so I hope it doesn't come off that way to you, Jack. I just figured I'd throw some thoughts out from the opposing viewpoint. God Bless.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 13, 2007 23:07:25 GMT -5
I've recently been convicted of a lack of prayer in my life and these quotes are a good warning to not do what the Lord showed me I was doing. I would doubt I'm the only one who has done this.
"Beware you are not swallowed up in books! An ounce of love is worth a pound of knowledge."- John Wesley
"A man may study because his brain is hungry for knowledge, even Bible knowledge. But he prays because his soul is hungry for God."- Leonard Ravenhill
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 21, 2007 9:33:42 GMT -5
He didn't tell them to use anything to choose. He told them to choose.
EDIT: Sorry, I didn't read you post about not wanting any other type of reply but scripture until now. If someone one wants to talk about "the will" we can in another thread.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 16, 2007 15:49:15 GMT -5
I'm going to stick my neck out here a bit but, I see no where in the Bible where it teaches that "the will" is a decision-making faculty. "the will" is plainly "the desire."
Do men make choices? I believe that is plain.
Does the Bible say "the will" did the choosing?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 11, 2007 9:14:45 GMT -5
Here is a quote from a brother named Ron Bailey: This repeating question about whether a sinner can obey God or whether his sin nature makes such obedience impossible. Let me illustrate..
Men who try to walk on water sink; this is their nature. But one man was commanded to walk on water and on the strength of that walk he countermanded the pattern of his nature. If he had not walked it would have been disobedience. When God speaks everything changes as regards ability or lack of it. When God speaks withered arms can stretch out, although it is in the nature of a withered arm that it cannot stretch out.
The angel said 'no word of God is powerless' and Mary said 'Let it be unto me according to thy word', although it was quite contrary to the nature of reproduction.
Man is constitutionally unable to work righteousness on his own account, but he can obey God when God speaks. Even the likes of Lazarus can hear God when he speaks and can obey. I'm sure you already know these references.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 8, 2007 22:16:36 GMT -5
It seems that Jesus knows what is in every man. Most everyone has/had something in their life that they just didn't want to give up. Jesus knows exactly what that is, so he pointed it out for this man. If he were to have asked another to sell or forsake all and follow him, the other may have gladly done it and held on to something else (Judas is a great example). If this man would have obeyed this he would have been perfect and upright before God. Not that works justifies a person, but true faith is a response to the word (rhema) of God. Hebrews 11 shows this in great depth. I know in my life I had something I had to do before I was "right with God." I had bought a quarter-pound of marijuana just 2 days before I was converted. The morning I was convicted the Lord plainly told me to get rid of it. Now, this may not fit with everyone's theology but I truly believe if I would have not dumped all I had out in the river, I would not be converted today. That was my act of repentance/faith. Act 19:17 And this was known to all the Jews and Greeks also dwelling at Ephesus; and fear fell on them all, and the name of the Lord Jesus was magnified. Act 19:18 And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. Act 19:19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. Act 19:20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. These folk had to respond to the word of God also. If they wouldn't have done this it would have been sure proof that they didn't repent/believe. This was their act of repentance. Love will look down into the depths of a soul and tell them what is separating them from the life of God. Lev 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.
Pro 27:5 Open rebuke is better than secret love. Look how different Jesus is than most "evangelists!" This man came running, fell to his knees, and practically asked "how can I be saved?" Shockingly enough Jesus didn't lead him through a prayer.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 8, 2007 9:46:37 GMT -5
I thought this was a good article.
I was reading through it thinking," Ah! This guy is an open theist!" Then thinking," Ah! This guy believes the traditional view!" "Ok, maybe he is an open theist..."
Then I read the last paragraph and thought, "Ah! This is how I feel after all the discussions we have had on this site in reference to this topic!"
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on May 22, 2007 13:54:49 GMT -5
What do you mean by that statement?
|
|