Simple lesson from the Scripture
-
I am opening this thread just to see how will this evolve into...
purpose is to share simple lessons that was being observed during our personal biblestudy / quiet time.
have fun.... -
simple example of how the Bible interpret itself
To him who overcomes, who is this person who was mentioned so many times in the book of Revelation as one who had overcame?
Ans:
Revelation 2:7
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to eat from the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God.
Revelation 2:11
He who overcomes will not be hurt at all by the second death.
Revelation 2:17
To him who overcomes, I will give some of the hidden manna. I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.
Revelation 2:26
To him who overcomes and does my will to the end, I will give authority over the nations—
Revelation 3:5
He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life, but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels.
Revelation 3:12
Him who overcomes I will make a pillar in the temple of my God. Never again will he leave it. I will write on him the name of my God and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which is coming down out of heaven from my God; and I will also write on him my new name.
Revelation 3:21
To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne.
Revelation 21:7
He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and he will be my son.
1 John 5:5
Who is it that overcomes the world? Only he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.
1 John 5:4-6 (in Context) 1 John 5 (Whole Chapter) -
lets hope that this can turn into a really encouraging thread and that it will grow.Originally posted by vince69:I am opening this thread just to see how will this evolve into...
purpose is to share simple lessons that was being observed during our personal biblestudy / quiet time.
have fun....
Shalom! -
Jeremiah 2:27
... For they have turned their back to Me, and not their face....
Whilst reading the bible this morning, this verse sort of jumped out at me. The immediate thing that came to mind was that very often when we are facing problems we do not turn our faces toward Yahweh, we rather turn our backs to Him and try finding a solution away from Him, turn our faces to Him in times of trouble and He will show you the way to walk through the time of adversity.
On the converse side as well, when times are going well, we also turn our faces away from Yahweh, but it is in these times that we have to face Him to get the full benefit of our nuturing from Yahweh our Elohim. -
Job 33: 23-28
The wish for a mediator to stand before God, became a reality to us, when Christ resurrected, and now standing before God mediating on our behalf.
23 "Yet if there is an angel on his side
as a mediator, one out of a thousand,
to tell a man what is right for him,
24 to be gracious to him and say,
'Spare him from going down to the pit ;
I have found a ransom for him'-
25 then his flesh is renewed like a child's;
it is restored as in the days of his youth.
26 He prays to God and finds favor with him,
he sees God's face and shouts for joy;
he is restored by God to his righteous state.
27 Then he comes to men and says,
'I sinned, and perverted what was right,
but I did not get what I deserved.
28 He redeemed my soul from going down to the pit,
and I will live to enjoy the light.'Hebrew 9 : 11-15
11When Christ came as high priest of the good things that are already here, he went through the greater and more perfect tabernacle that is not man-made, that is to say, not a part of this creation. 12He did not enter by means of the blood of goats and calves; but he entered the Most Holy Place once for all by his own blood, having obtained eternal redemption. 13The blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled on those who are ceremonially unclean sanctify them so that they are outwardly clean. 14How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God!
15For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant. -
Deuteronomy 31:8
And the LORD, He is the One who goes before you. He will be with you, He will not leave you nor forsake you; do not fear or be dismayed.
What a wonderful verse, this just really encourages me to know Hashem goes before me, and that YHVH will not forsake me. It is a comfort to know in times of adversity. -
Mark 7 : 14 - 23 (NKJV)
The teaching:
The explaination:
14 When He had called all the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear Me, everyone, and understand: 15 There is nothing that enters a man from outside which can defile him; but the things which come out of him, those are the things that defile a man. 16 If anyone has ears to hear, let him hear!”
17 When He had entered a house away from the crowd, His disciples asked Him concerning the parable. 18 So He said to them, “Are you thus without understanding also? Do you not perceive that whatever enters a man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not enter his heart but his stomach, and is eliminated, thus purifying all foods?” 20 And He said, “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, 22 thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within and defile a man.” -
vince could you please expound on the verse you have posted?Originally posted by vince69:Mark 7 : 14 - 23 (NKJV) -
This is another one of those self explainatory passage,Originally posted by breytonhartge:vince could you please expound on the verse you have posted?
verse 17-23 is an explaination of verse 14-16, and its made by our Lord Yashuah Himself.
in short, guarding the heart is more important than guarding the mouth.
paraphase what the Lord said, whatever we eat (be it clean or unclean food) will naturally goes into our stomach, then passed out as human waste. But whatever comes out of the mouth, which is from the heart shows the character and "spirit"/nature of the person.
who a person is, is determined by what he/she do/says, not what he/she eat or don't eat. -
good reply.... I had attempted to give my explanation and suddenly decided, nah.... never mind.... it will be interesting to note that each parable told by our Lord is very very simple, things that can easily be understood by the audience. In this one, when an explanation was asked, the explanation is again, very simple and obvious, no reading in between the lines, reinterpret, go back to OT teaching etc.Originally posted by vince69:This is another one of those self explainatory passage,
verse 17-23 is an explaination of verse 14-16, and its made by our Lord Yashuah Himself.
in short, guarding the heart is more important than guarding the mouth.
paraphase what the Lord said, whatever we eat (be it clean or unclean food) will naturally goes into our stomach, then passed out as human waste. But whatever comes out of the mouth, which is from the heart shows the character and "spirit"/nature of the person.
who a person is, is determined by what he/she do/says, not what he/she eat or don't eat.
now sit back, get popcorn and wait for the twist and shout
also wanted to talk about Acts 10.... see how lah.... -
Matthew 11:25
[ Rest for the Weary ] At that time Jesus said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.
Matthew 11:24-26 (in Context) Matthew 11 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 18:3
And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:2-4 (in Context) Matthew 18 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew 19:14
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."
Matthew 19:13-15 (in Context) Matthew 19 (Whole Chapter)
Luke 10:21
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, "I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure. -
To be fair, Acts 10 will have some twist, and have to read the entire chapter as a whole (the entire folds of events) and also requiring an understanding of the Jewish food law, the common perceptions of how the Jews and the Gentiles towards each other and how they relate to each other at that time ...etc .Originally posted by Chin Eng:good reply.... I had attempted to give my explanation and suddenly decided, nah.... never mind.... it will be interesting to note that each parable told by our Lord is very very simple, things that can easily be understood by the audience. In this one, when an explanation was asked, the explanation is again, very simple and obvious, no reading in between the lines, reinterpret, go back to OT teaching etc.
now sit back, get popcorn and wait for the twist and shout
also wanted to talk about Acts 10.... see how lah....
and Peter's description of this event in Acts 15:6-11 -
I know what you mean... the issue therein is the connection between Peter and Cornelius, and the mindset that Peter has prior to that. Obviously, I would not even just use one section of the scripture to justify one stand - you know me too well to know that I would not do that.Originally posted by vince69:To be fair, Acts 10 will have some twist, and have to read the entire chapter as a whole (the entire folds of events) and also requiring an understanding of the Jewish food law, the common perceptions of how the Jews and the Gentiles towards each other and how they relate to each other at that time ...etc .
and Peter's description of this event in Acts 15:6-11
Nonetheless, the critical point is: Peter's reaction to what he'd seen which obviously offended him. His first reaction is natural, based on his mindset and perhaps an inkling to "a trial from YHWH"?. Note the number of times the vision was repeated, plus the affirmation from the most high.
The real issue, of course, is NOT about the offending food, but Peter's attitude towards the Gentiles. However, the fact that "food" was chosen to illustrate a point God wanted to make speaks volumes on the change (or at least the differentiation between Jews and Gentiles) of focus (or practice). Note also the operative verb - EAT!
Whether or not Peter starts eating non-kosher food is not the issue, but the fact that as a practicing Jew, Peter was told by the Holy Spirit that those things considered unclean is no longer so.
The lesson to be learnt: There are no more unclean things as defined by the Jewish liturgy. Yes many laws were written in the OT pertaining on how the Jews should live, however, in light of a fast changing world, God through the Holy Spirit taught a lesson to on of the most orthodox Jews of all, and as a true disciple of God, Peter obeyed.
Are we prepared to accept Scripture at face value or do we attempt to insert meanings there are not present in the first place in order to satisfy our own world view?
Here's not to say that I think that those who insists on eating kosher food is wrong. -
That is where i think there has been misinterpretation of the scripture...Originally posted by vince69:This is another one of those self explainatory passage,
verse 17-23 is an explaination of verse 14-16, and its made by our Lord Yashuah Himself.
in short, guarding the heart is more important than guarding the mouth.
paraphase what the Lord said, whatever we eat (be it clean or unclean food) will naturally goes into our stomach, then passed out as human waste. But whatever comes out of the mouth, which is from the heart shows the character and "spirit"/nature of the person.
who a person is, is determined by what he/she do/says, not what he/she eat or don't eat.
If you read this chapter properly, the subject of discussion here between Yeshua and the pharisees is not what types of food could be eaten, the subject of discussion here is given clearly in verses 2-5, which is eating with unwashed hands. The purification of food referred to the way the body's digestive system eliminated minor impurities such as might be present from eating with unwashed hands.
In context, Yeshua came and obeyed all the commandments, so He would not have eaten any meat considered unclean. The Pharisees, like Yeshua and His disciples, ate only meat from which the scriptures considered clean. The objection given by the pharisees here is to eating of clean food with unclean hands because Yeshua and His disciples did not go through the Pharisee' customary ritual of meticulously washing their hands before eating.
Yeshua whose hands were sufficiently clean for eating, even if not clean enough to meet the Pharisees' humanly devised standards, explained that the human body was designed to handle any small particles of dust or dirt that might enter it due to handling food with hands that handnot been ritually washed. Yeshua further suggested that, if the Pharisees were serious about wanting to obey Yahweh, they needed to revise their priorities. Cleansing one's thoughts, Yeshua said, is eminently more spiritually important than washing ones's hands (verses 20-23). -
I do not dispute that your interpretation of this passage, for it does reasonable and inline with the main lesson that its more important to be spiritually clean.Originally posted by breytonhartge:That is where i think there has been misinterpretation of the scripture...
Yeshua whose hands were sufficiently clean for eating, even if not clean enough to meet the Pharisees' humanly devised standards, explained that the human body was designed to handle any small particles of dust or dirt that might enter it due to handling food with hands that handnot been ritually washed. Yeshua further suggested that, if the Pharisees were serious about wanting to obey Yahweh, they needed to revise their priorities. Cleansing one's thoughts, Yeshua said, is eminently more spiritually important than washing ones's hands (verses 20-23).
just to share, my guilding principles on food is this
Roman 14:13-2319Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
-
On Kefa's (Peter's) vision in Acts 10...
One often-misunderstood section of the Bible concerns Peter's vision in which he "saw heaven opened and an object like a great sheet bound at the four corners, descending to him and let down to the earth." In this sheet "were all kinds of four—footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air." Peter heard a voice tell him, "Rise, Peter; kill and eat" (Acts 10:11-13).
Assuming the vision meant he should eat unclean animals, Peter spontaneously responded: "Not so, Lord! For I have never eaten anything common or unclean" (verse 14). The same vision came to Peter three times (verse 16).
At this point many readers, without finishing the account, assume they know the meaning of the vision—that Yahweh told Peter we are now free to eat any kind of animal flesh we desire. In context, however, these scriptures show that this is not at all what Peter understood. On the contrary, even after seeing the vision three times he still "wondered within himself what this vision which he had seen meant" (verse 17).
Later Peter realized the significance of the revelation. It was that "Yahweh has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (verse 28 ). Recognizing the real intent of the vision, Peter baptized the first gentiles (non-Israelites) Yahweh called into the Church (verses 45-48 ).
This divine disclosure, we see from reading further in the account, did not concern food at all. Rather, it concerned people. Because the Jewish religious leaders at the time of Yeshua had erroneously considered gentiles to be unclean, this dramatic vision righted a common misperception that had come to affect Peter and other members of the Church. It demonstrated that Yahweh was beginning to offer salvation to members of any race. Gentiles whom Yahweh was calling were now welcomed into the Church.
Far from abolishing Yahweh's instructions against eating unclean meats, these verses show that, almost 20 years after Christ's death, Peter had "never eaten anything common or unclean."
Peter obviously had not assumed that Yahweh had annulled His own food laws or that Yeshua's death and resurrection rendered them obsolete. From Peter's own words we see that he continued to faithfully follow those laws.
Nor do we find any evidence that he ate unclean meats after this experience. He obviously continued to obey Yahweh's laws delineating meats that could and could not be eaten and saw no reason to change his practice. He realized that the puzzling vision could not be annulling Yahweh's instructions, which is why he "thought about the vision" until he understood its meaning (verses 17-19, 28 )-that gentiles could become members of the Church, too (verses 34-35, 45-48 ). -
...figured it wouldn't take you too long to extract something off the internet... again from the United Church of God website.
It is always interesting to see how easy it is to sound like we all know a lot by just quoting off any website that supports one's view.... -
vince, I am 100% sure that brey will say that this is also a misinterpretation.Originally posted by vince69:I do not dispute that your interpretation of this passage, for it does reasonable and inline with the main lesson that its more important to be spiritually clean.
just to share, my guilding principles on food is this
Roman 14:13-23
actually come to think of it, anything that does not agree with his mindset WILL BE a misinterpretation.
so it is quite safe to say that Deeper Truth is really on a one track course.
Deeper Truth is NOT about sharing of opinions but an imposition of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG, as decided by brey and his correct interpretation of scripture. -
The timing of Paul's lettersOriginally posted by vince69:Roman 14:13-23
19Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification. 20Do not destroy the work of God for the sake of food. All food is clean, but it is wrong for a man to eat anything that causes someone else to stumble. 21It is better not to eat meat or drink wine or to do anything else that will cause your brother to fall.
The chronological relationship between Paul's letters to the members in Corinth and his correspondence with those in Rome is another important piece of background information people often overlook.
Many believe Romans 14 supports the idea that Christians are free from all former restrictions regarding the meats they may eat. Verse 14, in which Paul wrote, "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean," is often cited as a proof text for this view.
This approach, however, fails to consider Paul's perspective and the context of his letter to the Roman church. Many Bible resources agree that Paul wrote the book of 1 Corinthians around A.D. 55 and that he wrote his epistle to the Romans from Corinth in 56 or 57. As demonstrated above, the food controversy in Corinth was over meat sacrificed to idols. Since Paul was writing to the Romans from Corinth, where this had been a significant issue, the subject was fresh on Paul's mind and is the logical, biblically supported basis for his comments in Romans 14.
continued... -
It is actually a view that is held by the bible. Yeshua would not have eaten any unclean meats at all. There is no proof in the bible at all that either Yeshua or any of the apostles for that matter would have eaten unclean meats.Originally posted by Chin Eng: ...figured it wouldn't take you too long to extract something off the internet... again from the United Church of God website.
It is always interesting to see how easy it is to sound like we all know a lot by just quoting off any website that supports one's view.... -
Understanding Paul's intent
Those who assume the subject of Romans 14 is a retraction of God's law regarding clean and unclean animals must force this interpretation into the text because it has no biblical foundation. The historical basis for the discussion appears, from evidence in the chapter itself, to have been meat sacrificed to idols.
Verse 2 contrasts the one who "eats only vegetables" with the one who believes "he may eat all things"—meat as well as vegetables. Verse 6 discusses eating vs. not eating and is variously interpreted as referring to fasting (not eating or drinking), vegetarianism (consuming only vegetables) or eating or not eating meat sacrificed to idols.
Verse 21 shows that meat offered to idols was the dominant issue of this chapter: "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." Romans of the day commonly offered both meat and wine to idols, with portions of the offerings later sold in the marketplace.
The Life Application Bible comments on verse 2: "The ancient system of sacrifice was at the center of the religious, social, and domestic life of the Roman world. After a sacrifice was presented to a god in a pagan temple, only part of it was burned. The remainder was often sent to the market to be sold. Thus a Christian might easily—even unknowingly—buy such meat in the marketplace or eat it at the home of a friend.
"Should a Christian question the source of his meat? Some thought there was nothing wrong with eating meat that had been offered to idols because idols were worthless and phony. Others carefully checked the source of their meat or gave up meat altogether, in order to avoid a guilty conscience. The problem was especially acute for Christians who had once been idol worshipers. For them, such a strong reminder of their pagan days might weaken their newfound faith. Paul also deals with this problem in 1 Corinthians 8."
What is the point of Paul's instruction in Romans 14? Depending upon their consciences, early believers had several choices they could make while traveling or residing in their communities. If they did not want to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols, they could choose to fast or eat only vegetables to make sure they did not consume any meat of suspicious background that might offend their consciences. If their consciences were not bothered by eating meat sacrificed to idols, they could choose any of the options. Within this context, said Paul, "let each be fully convinced in his own mind" (verse 5) because "whatever is not from faith is sin" (verse 23).
Romans 14 is, in part, a chapter on Christian liberty—acting according to one's conscience within the framework of God's laws as they pertained to meat sacrificed to idols. Understood in its context, Romans 14 does not convey permission to eat pork or any other unclean meat. When one understands that the food controversy of the New Testament era dealt with meat sacrificed to idols and not which meats were clean, other scriptures become clear. -
Understanding 'Unclean' in Romans 14
Does Paul's statement in Romans 14:14 that "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself" mean the early Church made no distinction between clean and unclean meats?
An understanding of Greek terminology can help us here.
It is important to realize that the New Testament writers referred to two concepts of unclean in the New Testament, with different Greek words used to convey those ideas. Unclean could refer to animals God did not intend to be used as food (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14). Unclean could also refer to ceremonial uncleanness.
In Romans 14 Paul uses the word koinos, which means "common" (W.E. Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, 1985, "Unclean," p. 649). In addition to the meanings of "common" and "ordinary," as used in English (Acts 2:44; 4:32; Titus 1:4; Hebrews 10:29; Jude 3), the word also applied to things considered polluted or defiled. This word, along with its verb form koinoo, is used in Mark 7:2, 15-23, where it obviously refers to ceremonial uncleanness in the incident when the disciples ate without having first washed their hands.
Through a concordance or similar Bible help you can verify that koinos and koinoo appear throughout the New Testament to refer to this kind of ceremonial uncleanness. Something could be "common"—ceremonially unclean—even though it was otherwise considered a clean meat.
An entirely different word, akathartos, is used in the New Testament for animals Scripture specifies as unclean. In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament in wide use in Paul's day), akathartos is used to designate the unclean meats listed in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14.
Both words, koinos and akathartos, are used in Acts 10 in describing Peter's vision of the sheet filled with "all kinds of four-footed animals of the earth, wild beasts, creeping things, and birds of the air" (verse 12), both clean and unclean. Peter himself distinguished between the two concepts of uncleanness by using both words in verse 14. After a voice told Peter to "kill and eat," he replied, "I have never eaten anything common [koinos] or unclean [akathartos]." Most Bible translations distinguish between the meanings of the two words used here. Peter used the same terminology in verse 28 and Acts 11:8 in discussing this vision.
When Paul said in Romans 14:14 that "I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean [koinos, or 'common'] of itself," he was making the same point he had made earlier to the Corinthians: Just because meat that was otherwise lawful to eat may have been associated with idol worship does not mean it is no longer fit for human consumption. As seen from the context, Paul wasn't discussing biblical dietary restrictions at all.
Paul goes on to state in Romans 14:20 that "all food is clean" (New International Version). The word translated "clean" is katharos, "free from impure admixture, without blemish, spotless" (Vine, "Clean, Cleanness, Cleanse, Cleansing," p. 103). Clean meats as such aren't addressed in the New Testament, so there isn't a specific word to describe them. Katharos is used to describe all kinds of cleanliness and purity, including clean dishes (Matthew 23:26), people (John 13:10) and clothing (Revelation 15:6; 19:8, 14), "pure" religion (James 1:27), gold and glass (Revelation 21:18 ).
Realize also that, in both verses 14 and 20 of Romans 14, the word food or meat isn't in the original wording. No specific object is mentioned relative to cleanness or uncleanness. The sense of these verses is merely that "nothing [is] unclean [koinos: common or ceremonially defiled] of itself," and "all is clean [katharos: free from impure admixture, without blemish, spotless]."
Paul's point is that any association of food with idolatrous activity had no bearing on whether the food was suitable for eating. -
of course DT is on a one track course, to provide another alternative view to commonly held misconceptions in the church today. I make no apologies for that. The whole point about DT is that I hold a different viewpoint, otherwise why start another forum?Originally posted by Chin Eng:so it is quite safe to say that Deeper Truth is really on a one track course.
Deeper Truth is NOT about sharing of opinions but an imposition of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG, as decided by brey and his correct interpretation of scripture.
if DT were not about sharing opinions, I would have deleted all of your contrary posts a long time ago. Of course I will hold my opinion to be the right one, otherwise I would not have that opinion in the first place... 
but then you have yours and you consider it the right one too...
DT puts forward what I feel is the correct way that scripture should be interpreted, and I have always maintained that. I never said any different. Even you suggested that when you advised me to start DT since at that time, I was already carrying these views in EH. So why are you getting your knickers into a knot about this?
DT is my forum, I would like to think that being my forum, I would at least be able to dictate what content I would like to post here... whether you agree or disagree, these are posts from a particular viewpoint and one that is very clear and evident.
I do not think that people here are stupid, you put forward your view point and I will put forward mine, and people can then read and judge for themselves what they want to follow. If you don't see any merit in what I am saying, you are obviously welcome to not follow it, neither are you obliged to take it on board. If you do not agree with this viewpoint, then the question again becomes why hang around?
I have no beef with vince, he gives me his view point and I give him mine and where we agree, we agree, where we don't then we don't, no big hoo hah like when you come here.
As I am not the only one in the world who happens to have these viewpoints, I hardly think that you need to make a big song and dance about it everytime I say something you disagree with. -
Am I imposing anything on you? Am I forcing you to do something that you have no choice but to do? Please, if you do not like what is said, you do not have to follow. I am not restraining you in any way, I am most certainly in no way taking away your free will, so how can it be called an imposition when at the end of it all, YOU STILL GET TO CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO?Originally posted by Chin Eng:Deeper Truth is NOT about sharing of opinions but an imposition of what is RIGHT and what is WRONG, as decided by brey and his correct interpretation of scripture.
And you don't mean to tell me that you do not have your interpretation of scripture which you consider correct? -
I have my own interpetation of the scripture, but I am open to suggestions... that differentiates both of us.Originally posted by breytonhartge:And you don't mean to tell me that you do not have your interpretation of scripture which you consider correct? 
I want to say it again: I never said you are wrong.
All I am asking from you is to be gentler in your tone. Your respond at this time is: You CE, too is equally harsh.... You know, I agree with you.
Your status in EH and DT is the same - that of a Mod (at least just before you left EH lah...) You are trying very hard to convince people of something you think is the truth. But you tend to do it with an iron fist. Perhaps I irritate the hell out of you. Think of what someone like SIS or NUS can do to you.
For most parts I agree with what you and some of those website says. But along the way you are also throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
If you have to say, the church is in error in some doctrines, it also has done some good work along the way - it might be a lot easier to accept.
Or Christmas and Easter are all the wrong dates, but at that point of time, there is no way of finding out, perhaps we should all try to rectify it.... would you believe if I told you that I try very had in my church to change the perception?
I can go on... but whatever you feel about the church and it's past leaders and the doctrine, please provide a more balance view. I don't hero worship Martin Luther or Charles Wesley but I recognise the sacrifice that they have made which resulted in the propagation of the church of today. When I look back in history as to how the message spread, I see fallable humans. When I asked you for Jews who evangelise and are contemporaries of Luther or Wesley, don't have say don't have, please don't give unrealistic answers. You have always given good realistic answers. When you come to a question that you have no answer for, be honest about it.
I have said to vince recently that I believe both you and him is more fervent in the way of the Lord than little old me (don't believe? ask him)
Disagreement with vince? that's not possible! I'd say he has something that you and I do not have. Humility. He doesn't want to argue with anyone and he has said it before - make a point and walk out.
You and I will latch on to something and milk it dry.
All I ask from you is a little more balance when you attempt to "criticise" the church, it's not perfect, but it's not totally wrong.
Also.... don't quote too much from websites lah.... overbearing Makes it seem like you don't have a mind of your own. State your case using your own language - it is more personable and passonate. Less condemnation and more reconciliation.
Peace..... and I promise to be good.