HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Cruz  Kasich  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 2nd quarter FReepathon is off to a great start and we have a chance of getting 'er done early! Thank you all very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 2nd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $39,184
Woo hoo!! And the first 44% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by LearsFool

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • The Pope’s Niece Might Be on to Something

    09/10/2015 2:44:31 PM PDT · 11 of 18
    LearsFool to Ann Archy

    “What God hath joined together...shouldn’t take 4 years to put asunder!!”

  • Questions on Acts 4

    09/03/2015 4:00:18 PM PDT · 10 of 11
    LearsFool to Nifster

    Sounds like you’ve found a translation that doesn’t have the answers.

  • Questions on Acts 4

    09/03/2015 8:58:31 AM PDT · 8 of 11
    LearsFool to Nifster

    No, I didn’t mention which translation(s) of the Bible I use, because it’s irrelevant to the questions posed in the OP, as well as to the question of whether or not the Bible can be understood by reading it.

    Try it for yourself and see... Read the chapter and the other relevant passages, and see whether you can find the answers. I’ll bet you can!

  • Questions on Acts 4

    09/02/2015 7:27:09 AM PDT · 5 of 11
    LearsFool to Arlis; All
    Thanks for joining in the discussion. Would you like to try your hand at the ch. 4 questions?

    By the way, I forgot to post the links for the first three chapters' questions, so here they are. (The book of Acts is Luke's account of events, so some of what he tells us won't make sense if we jump right in the middle and skip over what he's already covered.)

    Questions on Acts 1

    Questions on Acts 2

    Questions on Acts 3
  • Questions on Acts 4

    09/02/2015 7:08:56 AM PDT · 3 of 11
    LearsFool to Nifster

    I don’t understand your post. Do you want more difficult questions? Questions over the Greek text rather than English translations of the Scriptures?

    Simplicity is a beginning point, and will take one far in the knowledge of the truth. There are loads of silly articles posted on the RF which can be easily dismissed with a simple reading of the Scriptures. Theologians and seminary graduates can’t compete with Bible students. :-)

  • Questions on Acts 4

    09/02/2015 6:49:23 AM PDT · 1 of 11
    Some tougher questions this time. But careful reading and pondering will yield fruit. :-)

    To help you, I've included hyperlinks to referenced passages.

  • Do Christians Who Divorce Have the Biblical Right to Marry Other People?

    08/31/2015 1:40:44 PM PDT · 15 of 54
    LearsFool to mikeus_maximus

    Well said.

    There are lots of people with lots of different rules about marriage and divorce. Just another opportunity to find out whose disciples they really are.

  • Questions on Acts 2

    08/28/2015 4:05:22 PM PDT · 12 of 13
    LearsFool to rwa265

    You must have the “teacher’s edition” of the Bible - the one with all the answers in it! :-)

    I really must stop posing questions that the Bible doesn’t give us answers to, such as #3. Thank you for pointing that out. It’s an interesting question, but I knew we weren’t given the answer, and should’ve left that one out. :-/

    The answer to #7 seems to be a very important point, and one I missed for many years. The emphasis in the gospels is not so much on the physical suffering of Christ, but on the rejection of Him - the mocking, the spitting, the ridicule, the choosing of a murderer to be freed instead of Him, etc. He had been executed as a blasphemer because He claimed to be the Messiah.

    So when God raised Him up, that was the Father’s testimony of Him, that He is indeed the Messiah. If the resurrection really happened, that would prove His claims were true. In addition to the apostles’ testimony, Peter’s sermons in chs. 2 and 3 make two different arguments to that end.

    #11 brings out an interesting aspect of Luke’s writing: He gives these summaries from time to time.

  • Questions on Acts 1

    08/28/2015 2:20:31 PM PDT · 42 of 42
    LearsFool to rwa265
    I was looking up that Ramsay quote, and found something on it right here on FR. :-)

  • Questions on Acts 1

    08/28/2015 2:13:58 PM PDT · 41 of 42
    LearsFool to rwa265
    Sorry to have caused you any fretting over #5! In 1:3, though, we do have a hint as to what these witnesses might testify to:

    "To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing unto them by the space of forty days..."

    But beyond that, we just have to let Luke tell the story himself, watching as it unfolds, and letting this Spirit-inspired story make its impressions upon us.

    On a related note, Luke's method is interesting in itself. He claims, both in his gospel and in Acts, to be doing the work of an historian, reporting to Theophilus both what he has discovered and what he himself witnessed. (Sir William Ramsay, the notable archaeologist and scholoar, who set out to discredit Luke as an historian, was in the end persuaded to give him the very highest marks, calling him (IIRC) "an historian of the first rank.")

    So as to the selection of Judas' replacement, what we have is Luke simply telling us what happened. Those who want to take Peter on, and charge him with such grievous sins as have been lodged against him in this thread...let'em give this apostle their best shot. The Lord will deal with them. Apparently Luke and the Holy Spirit didn't see any need to defend the apostles against such charges. This book was written to a different audience and for a different purpose.
  • Questions on Acts 3

    08/28/2015 12:07:36 PM PDT · 15 of 17
    LearsFool to Pollster1


    So...psst...what did you put for #6? :-)

  • Questions on Acts 1

    08/28/2015 12:05:44 PM PDT · 39 of 42
    LearsFool to rwa265
    Nicely done. See? I told ya you could understand the Bible! :-)

    The answer to my Question 5 isn't actually in Acts 1, so that's my mistake. We won't hear the apostles' testimony until later, beginning in ch. 2...though we're given hints about in ch. 1, in their references to what they had witnessed and could therefore testify about. After all, a witness has to have witnessed something, right?

    The apostles' testimony will be a key part of their preaching. Without eyewitness testimony, the case for the gospel would not have been as convincing. (Peter and John will both reiterate this point later, in their epistles.)

    This fits with the qualifications Peter announces for Judas' replacement as well. Only two men were found who qualified. (Either that, or somebody else did some choosing besides the Lord, in eliminating all but these two.)

    Thank you for contributing to the study! I hope it's as beneficial to you as it is to me. :-)
  • Questions on Acts 3

    08/28/2015 11:34:42 AM PDT · 13 of 17
    LearsFool to JAKraig
    Right. No need to spend years in seminary or be dependent on those who have. Careful reading of the Scriptures is the way to find the right answers!

    Good answers, by the way. :-)

    While not explicitly forgiving those in attendance Peter explained to them that he realized that they did what they did in ignorance and that therefore God would accept their repentance and forgive them.

    Very well said. This is right in line with what Jesus said on the cross, isn't it?..."Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Lk. 23:34) The conditions for their forgiveness would be first preached on Pentecost, and now we hear them again, as Peter seizes this opportunity.

    I was hoping for a bit more explanation for question #4, though. For instance, in addition to the prophecies, Peter submits the case of the healing of the lame man as a proof that God has raised Jesus from the dead and glorified Him. And he also offers himself and John as witnesses of that resurrection.

    Here's what I was getting at with the "extra credit" question: Today we know that the gospel is not only for Jews but for Gentiles also. As Jesus said in Acts 1:8: "ye shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

    Yet at this point in the story (Acts 3), the gospel is being preached only to Jews and proselytes (converts to Judaism). In a few chapters, the gospel will spread to Samaria. And later, Peter will be the one chosen to preach to the first Gentiles. So not only is it down the road a ways, but it'll take several different signs from God before Peter understands His will regarding the Gentiles.

    Here in Acts 3, we have Peter referring to something yet in the future, and which (it seems to me, at least) he has only the vaguest understanding of. (And yet he still speaks with complete trust in whatever the Lord's plan is for Gentiles!) Something to ponder, perhaps.

    Thanks for contributing to the study! :-)
  • Questions on Acts 3

    08/28/2015 10:31:28 AM PDT · 10 of 17
    LearsFool to drypowder
    As others have well noted, taking up one's cross refers to being willing to give up everything - up to and including one's life - in service to the King. It's not a reference to wearing symbols to demonstrate one's holiness, as the hypocrites did, "to be seen of men" (Mt. 23:5ff).

    Take a look at this passage, and I bet you'll see what Jesus is getting at:

    "Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven.

    Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.

    He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it."
    - Mt. 10:32-39
  • Questions on Acts 3

    08/28/2015 9:10:08 AM PDT · 3 of 17
    LearsFool to knarf

    I’ll look for your answers later then. :-)

  • Questions on Acts 3

    08/28/2015 9:01:39 AM PDT · 1 of 17
    To promote study, discussion, and greater understanding of the Scriptures.

    Previous question lists:

    Questions on Acts 1

    Questions on Acts 2
  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/26/2015 1:54:33 PM PDT · 28 of 29
    LearsFool to Ruy Dias de Bivar

    Huh? They went to John to be baptized by him, who then told them to believe on the One to come afterward, and then he baptized them again?

    Seriously? You go digging through the archives for this stuff as a way around the plain teaching of the Scriptures?

    See ya ‘round.

  • Combat Roles Hazardous to Women’s Health

    08/26/2015 6:44:34 AM PDT · 5 of 16
    LearsFool to Sean_Anthony
    directive by senior Pentagon leaders to integrate women into front-line combat units

    women sustain injury rates at double the rate of men

    It's all a clever part of our war on women. Now that the secret is out and women have caught on, we'll have to change tactics, since they'll stop signing up for this double-dangerous duty.

  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 7:45:51 PM PDT · 26 of 29
    LearsFool to Ruy Dias de Bivar
    We know more about the salvation of the Ephesians than Paul mentions in his letter. (After all, they already knew how they had been saved, didn't they?) And what we know gives us a complete picture of the gospel - more complete than we get from selective quotations. When we read more of the Bible, we're immunized against false doctrine.

    "And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper country came to Ephesus, and found certain disciples: and he said unto them, Did ye receive the Holy Spirit when ye believed?

    And they said unto him, Nay, we did not so much as hear whether the Holy Spirit was given.

    And he said, Into what then were ye baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism.

    And Paul said, John baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him that should come after him, that is, on Jesus.

    And when they heard this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.

    And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied."
    - Acts 19:1-6

    So there we have it. God quickened them (brought them to life) the same way He did everyone else, and still does.

    We have here the same gospel Jesus instructed His apostles to teach. The same gospel Peter taught on Pentecost. The same gospel taught all through the Scriptures.

    Quite different from the perverted one so often taught by false teachers, which leads people into the Lord's second group doomed to damnation. Much better to join the first group, as these Ephesians did, by simply believing the Lord and being baptized so that we can be saved, isn't it?

    But apparently salvation requires more than some people are willing to do. After all that God, His Son, and His Holy Spirit have done, some still insist on rejecting the gospel. God will deal with these unbelievers.

    Others insist on leading astray those seeking to serve the King. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes.

    "And whosoever shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea." - Mk. 9:42
  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 5:13:21 PM PDT · 24 of 29
    LearsFool to Ruy Dias de Bivar
    I phrased that last part poorly. I should've said:

    MOST have family and friends and upbringing and other pressures holding them back. They're not worthy to be Christ's disciples (Mt. 10:34-38, Lk. 14:26-33, etc.). They're in His second group.
  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 5:07:23 PM PDT · 23 of 29
    LearsFool to Ruy Dias de Bivar
    Cornelius was saved when the Holy Spirit fell on him.

    That's not in the Bible. Once again, that's merely your version.

    So the Gentiles were saved BEFORE they were baptized, which most Evangelical churches teach today.

    Okay, maybe it's not merely your version. Maybe it's what you've been taught and can't turn loose of.

    Few people are able to abandon all and cling only to the Lord. They have family and friends and upbringing and other pressures holding them back. They're not worthy to be Christ's disciples (Mt. 10:34-38, Lk. 14:26-33, etc.). They're in His second group.
  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 1:18:04 PM PDT · 19 of 29
    LearsFool to Ruy Dias de Bivar
    Well you've finally spotted the reason for the Holy Ghost coming upon Cornelius. Something different, indeed.

    This was the final step needed to show Peter than Gentiles would be accepted on the same terms as Jews. First was the vision of clean and unclean foods. Next was the Spirit telling him to go with these Gentiles without arguing. Then came the telling and retelling of the angel's visit to Cornelius. And finally, as Peter notes, "God bare them witness" (referring to the Gentiles) "and put no difference between us and them".

    So, Gentiles would be saved on the same basis as Jews. That was indeed something new, something previously unrevealed - not to mention surprising and needing to overcome some resistance. No wonder God chose this method of making it known.

    So, since these Gentiles believed in Jesus, Peter commands they be baptized for the remission of sins just the same as Jews, putting them in Jesus' first category.

    - Peter's conclusion from all this is that things have changed and now Gentiles are candidates for salvation on the same basis as Jews.

    - Your conclusion is that things have changed and now baptism is no longer for remission of sins.

    To make his conclusion apparent to all, he asks whether anyone could forbid water for baptism (Acts 10:47). Had you been there, would you have raised your hand?

    Peter realized that to forbid the waters of baptism for Gentiles to be saved, would be to "withstand God" (Acts 11:17). Had you been there, would you have withstood God?
  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 12:13:56 PM PDT · 17 of 29
    LearsFool to AppyPappy
    The story of Rahab reminds me of the Gentile centurion in Matt. 8, who showed a better understanding of Jesus than the Jews did:

    "And when Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel." - Mt. 8:10
  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 11:58:05 AM PDT · 16 of 29
    LearsFool to Ruy Dias de Bivar
    Let's compare the two versions of what happened:

    - Peter: These Gentiles are ready for baptism.

    - You: These Gentiles don't need baptism.

    Peter understood that Cornelius and his household belonged in Jesus' first group: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved."

    But you don't want them in that group. Why not? Why don't you want people to be in the group that will be saved?
  • Church of Christ verses Baptist Debate: IS FAITH A SYNECDOCHE?

    08/25/2015 10:57:46 AM PDT · 42 of 48
    LearsFool to ConservativeMind

    Well, thank you both! :-)

  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 10:24:30 AM PDT · 13 of 29
    LearsFool to Ruy Dias de Bivar
    The Cornelius group, as he received the Holy Spirit before he was baptized.

    Oh wow, check it out! A group of people Jesus didn't know anything about. /s

    And look at the EXACT moment Cornelius was saved!

    You didn't get that out of the Bible. But it seems you're trying to put it INTO the Bible.

    Then Cornelius..Holy Spirit came down showing he was saved before baptism.

    According to Peter, the Holy Spirit coming upon them showed something different. So we have two versions, yours and Peter's.

    I think you've made it clear which of the two groups you're in.
  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 10:07:00 AM PDT · 11 of 29
    LearsFool to xzins

    Yes indeed!

    And isn’t that the story of Rahab the prostitute? Her faith is demonstrated not in repenting of prostitution, but in taking God’s side even against her own people.

    How many do you know who are willing to do that? To go against their families and upbringings and friends to stand with Jesus and do only what He says? If we’re not willing to do like Rahab the prostitute, we ain’t worthy to be disciples of Jesus. (Mt. 10:34-38, Lk. 14:26-33, etc.)

  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 9:32:12 AM PDT · 7 of 29
    LearsFool to xzins
    faith looks like choosing sides....even if no more than giving a cup of water to a person because that person is on Jesus’ team.

    That's a good point. In those times of persecution which Jesus was there predicting, helping His disciples would be about the same as hiding Jews in Nazi Germany. It would put you at risk of the same treatment as the disciple you helped.

    And insofar as you did it out of regard for his Master, you did it for Jesus Himself, and would be rewarded for it.
  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 9:23:14 AM PDT · 6 of 29
    LearsFool to CodeToad

    I guess that was James’ problem, huh? Y’know, Mr. “Show Me Your Faith” himself.

    But seriously, that’s the typical response of the faithless... “God knows my heart. I don’t have to prove my faith to anybody!”

    Not even to themselves nor to God, apparently, since they won’t obey Him. They expect God to take it on faith or something.

    I hope that’s not your attitude.

  • What Does Faith Look Like?

    08/25/2015 8:14:25 AM PDT · 1 of 29
  • Church of Christ verses Baptist Debate: IS FAITH A SYNECDOCHE?

    08/25/2015 6:36:16 AM PDT · 33 of 48
    LearsFool to damonw; ConservativeMind

    It seems someone has decided that works=works=works. So no matter how the Bible writers use the word, it always means the same thing. This is a common error made by those who go to the Bible to prove what they believe, rather than going to it to learn what God says.

    There’s “works”...and then there’s “works”. There are works done in faith and inseparable from it (Heb. 11, James. 2, etc.) And there are works (Titus 3, Romans, etc.) that are in opposition to faith, seeking justification without faith. Which one will the servant of Christ do?

    The faith that obeys is the faith that saves. Any other “faith” is a fake.

    Faith and obedience are inseparable. You might as well try to separate the body from the spirit as to separate faith from obedience. The result either way is something dead.

    Why was Abraham justified by works? Because he worked in faith.

    Why was Abraham justified by faith? Because his faith worked in his works of obedience.

    Will we be like Abraham, Enoch, Noah, and Rahab, with obedient faith? Or like those who claim to have faith but refuse to submit as servants to the Master’s commands?

  • Church of Christ verses Baptist Debate: IS FAITH A SYNECDOCHE?

    08/25/2015 6:11:29 AM PDT · 29 of 48
    LearsFool to damonw
    The verse is not about salvation

    Say what?? The entire letter is about salvation.

    This chapter is particularly about faith, giving us portrait after portrait after portrait of what faith looks like. In short: FAITH DOES STUFF.

    Your kind of "faith" is different. You won't find it in Hebrews 11, cuz it ain't in there. Only saving faith is.

    it (baptism) is something you do and therefore is a work.

    Oh, like believing on Jesus. I see.

    Is that why, when those on Pentecost asked, "What shall we do?", Peter replied, "Oh there's nothing you need to do. It was all done at the cross"? /s

    No, you better stick to arguing with man. Because your position can't survive the scrutiny of the Scriptures.
  • Church of Christ verses Baptist Debate: IS FAITH A SYNECDOCHE?

    08/25/2015 4:25:49 AM PDT · 18 of 48
    LearsFool to Maudeen
    ...earnestly seek him

    That verse from Hebrews must be wrong, because that would be working! /sarc ;-)

    But seriously, those who refuse to allow someone else to immerse them in water because "it's a work!" sound like the laziest people in the world.
  • Church of Christ verses Baptist Debate: IS FAITH A SYNECDOCHE?

    08/25/2015 4:00:50 AM PDT · 17 of 48
    LearsFool to awelliott
    How can baptism be a work, yet reciting the Sinner’s Prayer not be considered a work?

    Good point, and good post.

    One of the two comes from the Bible, while the other comes from men.

    We must choose carefully, because which one we follow determines where we spend eternity.

    08/24/2015 2:10:26 PM PDT · 30 of 52
    Remember the "You're all winners!" lady from Seinfeld? Some people think that's what Jesus will say on the day of judgment to everyone they classify as a "Christian".

    But as we recall, it was disciples who were called Christians at Antioch. Unless we're disciples of Christ, abandoning our manmade denominations to become members of the church He built, it doesn't matter what we believe and claim and do, we just ain't gettin' into His kingdom.
  • Questions on Acts 1

    08/24/2015 12:38:57 PM PDT · 37 of 42
    LearsFool to Jim 0216

    We often use the word “miracle” rather loosely - even speaking of “the miracle of birth” when it’s a completely natural process, and not supernatural at all. That’s not to say that God has nothing to do with it, of course. Because He most certainly does. He makes the sun to shine and the rain to fall. He does all these natural-world things by natural means.

    Miracles in the Bible, by contrast, are things done in nature by supernatural means. This is what makes them “signs and wonders”, because they demonstrate God’s power and thereby authenticate the one performing them.

    This is one of the main topics of Acts 1. The apostles were to be equipped not only with the knowledge of heavenly things in order to preach, but also with power to perform signs and wonders to authenticate their preaching. The fulfillment of this is seen throughout the story of the early church in the remainder of the book. So if we want to let the Bible interpret Jesus’ promise, all we have to do is keep reading.

    In Acts 8, for instance, we find some people who had been utterly fooled by a fellow pretending to work miracles. If we could go back and talk to those folks, they might be embarrassed to admit they ever believed in that Simon fellow. And we wouldn’t want to rub it in.

    I guess when they saw Philip doing real miracles, the difference was so great that Simon’s sham show was obvious. Even Simon himself obeyed the gospel preached by Philip, being amazed by the miracles.

    I’ve talked to people who want to pit their own experiences against what the Bible says. They’ll hold up their experiences as proof that the Bible is wrong. If the Samaritans in Acts 8 had done that...if they had said to Philip, “Look, we already have a miracle-worker here, we’ve seen his miracles and you’ll never convince us that he isn’t the great power of God,” they would’ve really missed the boat.

    If we hold to the Bible, and always return to it to “test all things”, then God will correct our errors. And if we do get fooled, it won’t be for long. It might be humbling to acknowledge our mistakes - just as it must have been for the Samaritans who had been duped by Simon. But being corrected by God will exalt us.

  • WHY ARE THERE SO MANY CHURCHES - ANSWERING the Hardline Church of Christ Denomination

    08/24/2015 12:10:33 PM PDT · 65 of 86
    LearsFool to damonw

    Oh, you’re quite mistaken. On the contrary: Let it be read, by all means.

    The discussion is well worthwhile. Let everyone compare both the video and the response against the Scriptures, so that those who want to know the truth can do so.

  • WHY ARE THERE SO MANY CHURCHES - ANSWERING the Hardline Church of Christ Denomination

    08/24/2015 11:33:03 AM PDT · 59 of 86
    LearsFool to damonw
    Pretty silly article, but the video is well worth bookmarking. Thanks for posting!

    Here's the direct link to the video, for those who're interested.
  • Questions on Acts 1

    08/24/2015 6:47:12 AM PDT · 35 of 42
    LearsFool to Jim 0216
    I've thought that it may symbolize the fact that salvation came through the Jewish nation of Israel from Abraham culminating in the birth and death of the Son of David, Jesus Christ.

    Yes, I think you're right, though I'm hesitant about much of the symbolism in that book. The recipients of it would've no doubt understood it, especially as they watched the events unfold.

    ...rather than reject out of hand anything that might challenge some sort of pre-conceived knowledge or previous teaching

    I know you'll agree that anything which conflicts with what's plainly taught in the Scriptures must be rejected - including any preconceptions we bring to our study. That's why I pointed out Paul's statement on the cessation of the miraculous spiritual gifts.

    If your interpretation were true then knowledge should have ceased long ago.

    It did cease, just as Paul said it would. But what is this "knowledge" that he's talking about? Is it merely "knowing stuff"? Let's let him tell us, and the Bible will interpret itself.

    "For to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; and to another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit: to another faith, in the same Spirit; and to another gifts of healings, in the one Spirit; and to another workings of miracles; and to another prophecy; and to another discernings of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; and to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as he will." - 1 Cor. 12:8-11

    "And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." - 1 Cor. 13:2

    "But now, brethren, if I come unto you speaking with tongues, what shall I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching?" - 1 Cor. 14:6

    Paul wrote to correct some problems the Corinthian disciples had: They had elevated spiritual gifts and those who were given them, misunderstanding the role of both. In addition, they had elevated some spiritual gifts above others.

    Paul wrote to correct these problems and others that grew out of them. (Disorder in the assembly, for instance.) What was his approach?

    (1) First he points out the need for each different body part, so that no part should be prized more than another.

    (2) Next, he shows the superiority and necessity of love.

    (3) And finally, he contrasts the temporary nature of spiritual gifts with the permanency of faith, hope, and love.

    He then gives instructions for the exercise of spiritual gifts - instructions which follow naturally from a correct understanding of their purpose and place.

    Re-read chapters 12-14 with this in mind, and see whether you think it's a correct analysis.
  • Questions on Acts 1

    08/23/2015 6:39:19 PM PDT · 32 of 42
    LearsFool to Jim 0216
    You quoted Rev. 21:14, but two verses before that we find described the twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. What about the Gentiles?

    Earlier in the book we find that the only ones sealed against the wrath to come are of the tribes of Israel. Again, what about us the Gentiles?

    It seems significant that Jesus chose twelve apostles, since there were twelve tribes of Israel. It is also significant, then, that He chose another to be the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:13).

    The Revelation needs to be understood in light of previous prophetic-apocalyptic revelations, in particular Daniel, Ezekiel, and Zechariah - all of which were given to Israel, from whom the Messiah would come, to whom the promises were given, and through whom all the nations would be blessed. Hence the symbolism which anyone familiar with Jewish history and Judaism would recognize and understand.

    Neither Gentiles nor the apostle to the Gentiles were to be excluded from heaven, of course. But the consummation of God's whole plan was fulfilled through Israel, and the earthly nation had reflections (i.e. types, shadows) of heaven. Hence the symbolism we see again in Rev. 21:14.


    As for prophecy being an ongoing ministry, Paul says otherwise in the next chapter:

    "Love never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be done away."
  • Is Your Religion Based on the Bible?

    08/22/2015 12:13:04 PM PDT · 24 of 29
    LearsFool to onedoug

    Jesus had not yet been glorified, and made “both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36), when He taught the disciples to pray. The new covenant was not in effect until Jesus’ blood was shed (Lk. 22:20, etc). Until then, they were under the Law of Moses.

    Now that all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Him (Mt. 28:18), we are under His law (Gal. 6:2), “the perfect law of liberty” (Jas. 1:25, 2:12).

    While He was on the earth, He - and the Father (Mt. 3:17, Ps. 2, etc.) - proclaimed His coming kingdom and authority. But the cross had to come before the crown (as shown in the temptations in Mt. 4).

    Not sure if all this addresses your musing, but perhaps it does. :-)

  • Is Your Religion Based on the Bible?

    08/22/2015 7:02:56 AM PDT · 21 of 29
    LearsFool to onedoug

    The Pharisees deserved the bad rap. (Either that or Jesus was bearing false witness against them.)

    Matthew 23 is a scathing denunciation of them - more or less a closing argument in the case against them, which had gone on throughout His public ministry. They had rebuked Him and His disciples for innocent acts. They had rebuked those who worshipped Him and who came to be healed by Him. They had opposed people’s recognition of Him as the Messiah. They had tried to trap Him time and again. They had plotted to discredit and even kill Him. And finally they bribed one of His apostles to betray Him, and would succeed in judicially murdering Him after a sham trial. Even after that, they continued their war against the Messiah by attacking His apostles and disciples.

    Their hearts were so far from God that they would do all this to His Son. Jesus exposed and challenged their false religion, so they rejected Him. But the final battle would go to Him, as He predicted in Matt. 24.

    There are many today who are just like the Pharisees. Their hearts are far from God, so they make up their own religion and peddle it under the name “Christianity”. They reject the truth and fight against those who preach it. They invent ways to worship Him that He never authorized, invent church structures and offices He never set in place, and even modify the gospel to get more people saved than He can (or so they think.) Like the Pharisees, they’ll pay for their hubris, and take many souls into damnation with them.

  • Is Your Religion Based on the Bible?

    08/22/2015 6:28:35 AM PDT · 20 of 29
    LearsFool to RansomOttawa

    If you’re sticking to the Scriptures, as opposed to coming up with your own ideas about what God wants, then by all means carry on, my friend! :-)

    Many people start thinking they know what God wants better than He does, and start making up ways to worship Him that He never authorized, inventing church structures and offices He never set in place, and even modifying the gospel to get more people saved than He can (or so they think.) They’ll pay for their hubris, and take many souls into damnation with them. My aim is merely to repeat the Bible’s warnings against such things.

  • Is Your Religion Based on the Bible?

    08/21/2015 11:49:40 AM PDT · 16 of 29
    LearsFool to RansomOttawa

    Umm, what is it you’re doing?

  • Is Your Religion Based on the Bible?

    08/21/2015 11:47:42 AM PDT · 15 of 29
    LearsFool to captain_dave

    And you know this how exactly?

  • Is Your Religion Based on the Bible?

    08/21/2015 9:48:31 AM PDT · 9 of 29
    LearsFool to Jack Black
    My English is pretty good. Though as you can probably guess, I read it much better than I write it. :-)

    In fact, careful reading of the Scriptures is the antidote for many errors, since many errors are caused by careless reading.

    The Bible will interpret itself if we will let it, often without recourse to Greek or Hebrew, as I argued - and hopefully demonstrated - in two examples in this post the other day.
  • Is Your Religion Based on the Bible?

    08/21/2015 9:03:11 AM PDT · 7 of 29
    LearsFool to cuban leaf

    Not many people are able to set aside the things they’ve been taught, and accept only what they find in the Scriptures. I’m glad to hear that you’re studying hard, and comparing the things you’ve believed and been taught, against what the Bible says.

    God will teach us if we will spend our time digging into what He has said. If we stick with His Word and that alone, how can we possible go wrong?


  • Is Your Religion Based on the Bible?

    08/21/2015 8:42:12 AM PDT · 1 of 29
    Submitted for your thoughtful consideration. Check everything against the Scriptures, our sufficient and priceless standard (II Tim. 3:16-17).
  • Former Satanist: “I Performed Satanic Rituals Inside Abortion Clinics”

    08/19/2015 8:39:29 AM PDT · 26 of 39
    LearsFool to AmericanCheeseFood

    There’s one born every minute. *sigh*

  • Former Satanist: “I Performed Satanic Rituals Inside Abortion Clinics”

    08/19/2015 8:19:04 AM PDT · 22 of 39
    LearsFool to AmericanCheeseFood

    Why, surely you’re not suggesting that a “Satanist” would tell lies, are you?? /sarc

    You’re right, it does have that exhibitionist feel to it. Nevertheless, lots of folks will believe it because they want it to be truth.

    But right-thinking people don’t need the testimony of a Satanist to know that Satan is behind abortion. In fact, a Satanist is the LAST person I’d want standing with me on anything.