ironhorse

Believer
  • Content count

    1,406
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

ironhorse last won the day on September 13 2014

ironhorse had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

58 Good

About ironhorse

  • Rank
    Apostate

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    In a glass bottle of Cheerwine
  • Interests
    life
  • More About Me
    faith, family, friends

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Yes, Jesus the visible image of the invisible God.

Recent Profile Visitors

820 profile views
  1. True & False

    1. Hell is eternal torment? In Christian theology there are four views on hell: 1. Annihilation: 2. Metaphorical 3. Purgatorial 4. Natural-Literal Explanation of terms: http://pk.b5z.net/i/u/2167316/f/Views_of_Hell.pdf The view I accept is Metaphorical. It could be annihilation. I can’t say dogmatically. Whatever it is, I accept it is real and it does mean eternal separation from God. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 2. Hell is where people go who don't love Jesus? The one unforgivable sin is permanently rejecting Christ (John 3:18; 3:36). 3. Jesus is all loving? I believe the scriptures teach that on the cross Jesus was punished for every person’s sin. He took the punishment, the hell, for all. I call that loving
  2. True & False

    Why are you trying to make this God palatable, can't you see that the verse Hosea 13:16 contradicts New Testament theology. I’m not trying to make God palatable. I was just stating what is in the text and the theme of Hosea. It does not contradict what the scriptures teach on love. OT and NT reveal the message of one God. The message is love, but the message is also about the judgement and penalty of sin. The NT has around 125 verses warning of judgement and wrath. Here’s one: “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it." ~ (Matthew 7:13 (NIV)
  3. True & False

    I disagree with your conclusion on Hosea 13:16. The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open. ~ Hosea 13:16 The entire of book of Hosea is about the sinful and unrepentant hearts of the Israelites. God, time and time again, warns His people about the consequences of their sins. God offers a solution to the problem. He will forgive Israel of their wrongdoings and accept them once again, it is a call for repentance. "Samaria" (God was speaking of the northern nation Israel), was deep in rebellion against God. Verse 16 is about what would happen to them when invaded by the Assyrians. The words of this verse are not God’s wish for them, but instead they are His lament, for these awful things would shortly happen.
  4. True & False

    All the Bible, every word, was written by people inspired by God. This does not mean that every individual word or sentence is God speaking, but they are words and sentences that are “God-breathed.” This means that God was superintending (managing) the writers so that, allowing them to use using their own individual personalities (and even their own writing styles), they composed and recorded without error His revelations and messages to us. God’s management and inspiration through his Spirit insured what they wrote was precisely what God wanted written. So, to answer your question: Yes, all the Bible is the word of God. They are the words he wanted used and allowed to be used. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. ~ John 1:14 (NIV)
  5. True & False

    The Bible contains words spoken by various people, some good, some bad. What is written in the Bible is inspired of God, it is there because God wants it there. Not everything that people spoke was in agreement with God. The scriptures are inspired, but not every word or sentence is a direct quote of God’s. It does contain direct quotes ("Thus says the Lord...", "And God said...", etc.). God also spoke at times through the prophets. Jesus is called the Word. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. ~ John 1:14 (NIV)
  6. True & False

    The scriptures do not use the terms “infallible” or “inerrant” to describe its self. It is a mistake, I think, to try to apply these terms to the 66 books of the Bible. This is what the scriptures say about the scriptures: (Note: At the time Paul wrote this, he was only aware of the Old Testament.) “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) I like how the view of scripture was written in the 1644 London Baptist Confession. This was a commonly accepted view before the battle over the Bible ( “infallible" “inerrant” fundamentalists against the modernists) started in the early part of the 20th century. In this written Word God has plainly revealed whatsoever He has thought needful for us to know, believe, and acknowledge, touching the nature and office of Christ, in whom all the promises are Yea and Amen to the praise of God. Acts 3:22, 23; Heb. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim 3:15-17; 2 Cor. 1:20 ~ London Baptist Confession of 1644
  7. The Difference Between the Church and Denominations

    The Bible bluntly claims to be the truth (Psalm 119:160), and Christ repeated this claim (John 17:17). Other religious texts are irrelevant. I am here in the Lion’s Den as a believer in Christ. I view the scriptures as the Word of God that tells of God and his message to us. It’s the real deal to me because it claims to be the real deal. Of course, there are people who think it’s all “flying spaghetti monster” and a lie and irrelevant. We all make our choices. So, though some view this as stupid and silly, to me it is a living faith and message I believe with all my heart. I am here to share this view of the Christian faith and to try to answer objections made against it. I also point out those teaching error. My focus is the Christian faith. I have not spent time here trashing people of other religions or faith systems. Although I do see elements of truth in many other religions, I see only the whole truth in Christ. Why? Because he said he was the truth and only through him would one enter the Kingdom of God. Now, if I rejected that claim, then I might as well call him a liar and reject it all. Why would a good teacher lie? But I accept his claim as the only way. I have always encouraged people to read and study any religion they wish or study them all and decide which one to accept as truth. Read and study atheism. The bottom line is, whatever each of us believes, our faith is not only subjective, meaning what we believe, but also objective by what we believe in. We all make our choices.
  8. The Difference Between the Church and Denominations

    People can say they believe those scriptures. People say all kinds of things. I can I believe I am a mechanic, but unless I can actually repair an engine, I am not a mechanic. Unless what a teacher teaches aligns with scripture, it is a false teaching. Example The Mormons teach this: “Jesus is the literal spirit-brother of Lucifer, a creation (Gospel Through the Ages, p. 15)” Not one scripture in the OT or the NT verifies this teaching. It is a false teaching, not because I say it is, but because it is not verified by scripture. If I were a Buddhist and stated that one could free the spirit by denying the flesh, would you say that is just my opinion or a core teaching of Buddhism? If I said the flesh is good and should never be denied, would you say that is just my opinion or a false statement about Buddhism?
  9. The Difference Between the Church and Denominations

    I’m not defining correct teachings and Christians by what I LIKE, But by what the SCRIPTURES SAY: 1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ…” Matthew 7:15 “Be careful of false prophets. They come to you and look gentle like sheep. But they are really dangerous like wolves.” First John 4:4 “My dear friends, many false prophets are in the world now. So don’t believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are from God.” Second Peter 2:1 “In the past there were false prophets among God’s people. It is the same now. You will have some false teachers in your group. They will teach things that are wrong – ideas that will cause people to be lost. And they will teach in a way that will be hard for you to see that they are wrong. They will even refuse to follow the Master who bought their freedom…” Romans 16:17-18 “And I exhort you, brothers, to watch those making divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them. For they who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches they deceive… “
  10. The Difference Between the Church and Denominations

    They are orthodox in their core beliefs therefore a Christian denomination. The following is from the Assemblies of God Statement of Faith: The Lord Jesus Christ, God with Us The Lord Jesus Christ, as to His divine and eternal nature, is the proper and only Begotten of the Father, but as to His human nature, He is the proper Son of Man. He is therefore, acknowledged to be both God and man; who because He is God and man is "Immanuel," God with us.
  11. The Difference Between the Church and Denominations

    You are not being specific enough. JWs and Ms are not being Roman Catholic scriptural or Baptist translation of Reformation translation of Roman Catholic scriptural. But the Mormons are being Mormon scriptural while the JW are being Jehovah Witness scriptural. You see religious people get to choose what is or isn't scripture. You should read the Gospel of Thomas if you want an idea of what Jesus Christ looked like in his earliest known version. But then the proto-Roman Catholics rejected the Gospel of Thomas so it didn't become part of the "Bible". I disagree. Mormon and JW’s teaching is not scripture. First because they deny the divinity of Christ. Second because they construct their views based the unscriptural writings of Joseph Smith and Charles Taze Russell. Agree, religious people are free to choose what they view as scriptural, but that does not mean they make the correct choices. I have read the Gospel of Thomas. I once even owned a copy. The following is from Wikipedia and is also my view of TGOT: N.T. Wright, the former Anglican bishop and professor of NT history at Cambridge and Oxford, now Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at St Mary's College in the University of St Andrews in Scotland, also sees the dating of Thomas in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. Wright's reasoning for this dating is that the "narrative framework" of 1st century Judaism and the New Testament is radically different from the worldview expressed in the sayings collected in the Gospel of Thomas. Thomas makes an anachronistic mistake by turning Jesus the Jewish prophet into a Hellenistic/Cynic philosopher. Wright concludes his section on the Gospel of Thomas in his book The New Testament and the People of God in this way: "[Thomas'] implicit story has to do with a figure who imparts a secret, hidden wisdom to those close to him, so that they can perceive a new truth and be saved by it. 'The Thomas Christians are told the truth about their divine origins and given the secret passwords that will prove effective in the return journey to their heavenly home.' This is, obviously, the non-historical story of Gnosticism... It is simply the case that, on good historical grounds, it is far more likely that the book represents a radical translation, and indeed subversion, of first-century Christianity into a quite different sort of religion, than that it represents the original of which the longer gospels are distortions... Thomas reflects a symbolic universe, and a worldview, which are radically different from those of the early Judaism and Christianity."[65] The "God hates fags" cult who made a name for themselves by protesting funerals a few years ago. They are Westboro Baptist scriptural because they too get to pick which writings are metaphor and which are the stuff you have to obey. Many Christians claimed they were not real Christians but the reality of it is these Christian movements are part of the larger cultural movement. I agree WBC is a cult because they follow the tone set by their founder Fred Phelps. Whether members in this group are Christian or not, I don’t know. I do know the hate message they put forth constantly is not scriptural. Nowhere on their official webpage wil you find the Gospel of Christ or the call for love and forgiveness. This is a grave error on their part. If you followed the OT then you would not be a Christian. You actually would murder any Christian who witnesses to you. The OT is very clear on what to do to those who try to get you into stop following Jehovah. Some god the Jewish father's have never heard of says we don't have to obey Jehovah anymore and we should pray to this new god instead of Jehovah? The followers of Jehovah would call that a false god. Of course, if you just followed the OT you would not be a Christian, you would be practicing Judaism. Being saved has nothing to do with following the OT, it is based on repentance and acceptance of Christ. The only call to killing nonbelievers in the Old Testament is Leviticus 24:16, "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death." One other passage, Exodus 22:18 ("Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live") may be construed as such, but there's some controversy over the term "witch" - the original Hebrew word also means "poisoner". There are no copies of the New Testament until hundreds of years after Christ supposedly lived. When manuscripts do show up they are full of errors right from the beginning. Which version is the real word of God? God never says. He must be busy because God can't be bothered to preserve an original copy of the New Testament. Meanwhile humans came up with the King James, New King James, ISV, NIV, NAS, Reformed, NRSE, Living, New Living and dozens of other translations. I will not comment on translations right now. That topic would be best in a thread of its own, but here are few paragraphs to counter your core accusations. If interested in reading it in its entirety the link is posted: Though some say that the New Testament was written 100-300 years after Christ died, the truth is that it was written before the close of the first century by those who either knew Christ personally, had encountered him, or were under the direction of those who were His disciples. In the article When were the gospels written and by whom?, I demonstrated that Matthew, Mark, and Luke were all written before 70 A.D. Basically, the book of Acts was written by Luke. But Luke fails to mention the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., nor does he mention the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Since Acts is a historical document dealing with the church, we would naturally expect such important events to be recorded if Acts was written after the fact. Since Acts 1:1-2 mentions that it is the second writing of Luke, the gospel of Luke was written even earlier. Also, Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple in the Gospels: "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:6, see also Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2). Undoubtedly, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written after the destruction of the Temple, they would have included the fulfillment of Christ's prophecy in them. Since they don't, it is very strong indication that they were written before 70 A.D. The gospel of John is supposed to have been written by John the apostle. It is written from the perspective of an eyewitness to the events of Christ's life. The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 135 contains portions of John 18:31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt and a considerable amount of time is needed for the circulation of the gospel before it reached Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John does not mention Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the Temple. He was not focusing on historical events. Instead, he focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity. This makes perfect sense since he already knew of the previously written gospels. Furthermore, 1, 2, and 3 John all contain the same writing style as the gospel of John and the book of Revelation which is supposed to have been written in the late 80's or early 90's. Paul's Writings ~ Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon Paul the Apostle was a convert to Christianity. The book of Acts speaks of his conversion in Acts 9. Since Acts was written before 70 A.D. and Paul wrote the Pauline Epistles and we know that Paul died in 64 A.D., the Pauline Epistles were all written before that date. Furthermore, in 1 Cor. 15:3-4 is an early creed of the Christian church where Paul mentions that Jesus had died and risen. "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3-4). Notice that he says he received this information. From whom did he receive it? Most probably the apostles since he had a lot of interaction with them. This means that Paul received the gospel account from the eyewitnesses. They were, of course, contemporaries; they all died before the turn of the century. Therefore, their writings were completed within the lifetime of the apostles of Jesus. Hebrews It is not known for sure who wrote the book of Hebrews. Authorship has been proposed for Paul, Barnabas (Acts 4:36), Apollos (Acts 18:24), etc. The only geographical area mentioned is Italy (Heb. 13:24). The latest possible date for the writing of Hebrews is A.D. 95 but could have been written as early as A.D. 67. The book of Hebrews speaks of the sacrifice by the High Priest in the present tense (Heb. 5:1-3; Heb. 7:27) possibly signifying that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 A.D. had not yet happened. https://carm.org/wasnt-new-testament-written-hundreds-years-after-christ
  12. The Difference Between the Church and Denominations

    The link you gave deals with the issue of the ending on Mark, not the main body of the text. I have mentioned before that most Biblical scholars do not view these verses as part of the original text. This is mentioned in the link: "The clear vast of contemporary New Testament textual critics (see also Textual criticism) have concluded that neither the longer nor shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel." I do not know how many words are in the short or longer version, but I did not see the 10,000 number you gave as the number of words changed.
  13. The Difference Between the Church and Denominations

    My reply to mymistake’s comments. (in bold) Ah, once again Ironhorse you grace us with your opinion. Most of us have been to church and were taught very similar dogma so we have seen it before. My apology to you or others I may have bored with my statements. Just a few quick thoughts: 1. All Christians are one family, (except for the sects that you personally consider to be fake Christians). The reality of it is that Christianity is a cultural movement that is too vast to fit your definition. Yes the sects you don't like and who's dogma you reject are just as legitimate as your favorite Christians. Mormons, JW and SDA are Christian. The Crusaders were Christian. The WBC are Christian. Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not scriptural in their teaching on the person or Christ or Salvation. That is NOT MY VIEW, but the scriptural criteria. I agree the SDA are Christian. I am very well acquainted with the Seventh Day Adventists and their teaching. My wife grew up in that denomination. I have attended their church and once attended a weekend conference. Yes, many of the Crusaders were Christian. Not sure what you mean by WBC. 2. Believers are being perfected through the magic powers of your invisible friend (except it doesn't count when they don't make any progress or "supposed" Christians get caught committing horrendous crimes). If you only count the success that is cherry picking. Furthermore, people can and do improve themselves even when they are part of a different religion or even have no religion at all so they don't need your god. Also Christian theology has serious moral problems since the Bible endorses thought crime, eternal punishment, completely rejects the concept of sexual consent and so on. You call it magic. I call it real. I do believe God’s Spirit helps me in my journey. This along with prayer is a very real experience for me. I have never claimed believers are perfect. Sure, Christians have committed crimes. I have done things and thought things in my own life that that are criminal. I never said people of no religion or other religions cannot improve themselves. Whether Christian theology has a serious moral problem would be better discussed in another thread. 3. Christianity was splitting into denominations and sects from the very beginning. Religion is very subjective and Christian sects were constantly competing against each other. The reformation didn't change that. You can find the writings of Paul complaining about early Christian divisions. Yes, there were splinter factions (most of them heretical) in the early church, but these were not organized denominational groups. Decades after the main church in Jerusalem, and later Antioch, the Catholic Church held itself as the one church. 4. If by the "Gospel of Christ" you mean the Bible then you have a problem because the Catholic church created the Bible by rejecting the scriptures that didn't fit their teachings while adopting the writings that did. There was much more additional material to choose from. And people have been re-writing the Bible ever since with new translations and new interpretations. The Gospel of Christ is whatever people want it to be. Disagree, the Bible has not been rewritten over and over. For example, the modern translated text we have now matched the ancient scroll of Isaiah discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. If the Gospel is “whatever a perspn wants it to be, it IS NOT the Gospel of Christ. 5. Finally the Universal Church has declared that your Baptist Church are heretics, not that any of this silliness matters. Really? I must have missed that memo from the Pope. I'm sure you will not address any of these issues, as usual. But thanks for sharing your opinion.
  14. The Church is not a building but consists of all believers in Christ. A building or place these Christians meet is where the Church gathers to meet. These buildings were once called the Meeting House or Meeting Place. Attending these gatherings does not make one a Christian. Only by repentance and acceptance of Christ is a person baptized into the body of Christ, the Church. Believers are not perfect but are being made perfect by Christ. The Perfection will come when Christ gathers the Church at His return. Believers are not perfect (still sinners) but will be made perfect at the return of Christ’s return. So, the Church is the Catholic (universal) body of believers in Christ. Since the Reformation believers have created various denominations. Most of them keep the scriptural view of the scriptures, Christ, and salvation. They are distinct in various minor doctrines and cultural, or social preferences. A denomination is in error if they push ahead a distinction in front the Gospel of Christ, ether intentionally or not. So, I agree that there are minor issues that do indeed cloud the message of Christ and do actually harm to some believers and those considering the Christian faith. I am a member of a small Baptist Church, but I am a part of the universal (Catholic) worldwide body of believers (living or now passed) of various denominations. Thoughts and comments welcome.
  15. In my first reply to this question I was setting up the premise on why the OT and NT revelations of God are the same God. A lot to cover on this subject and I thought it best to my replies short and give time for comments and questions and input from others. The premise of Marcionism is that the teachings of Christ are incompatible with the actions of the God of the Old Testament. Marcion rejected the God of the Hebrew Bible as inconsistent, jealous, wrathful and genocidal, and that the material world he created was defective, a place of suffering He found Jesus’ claim to be God incompatible with the God of the OT. He also rejected Christ as the Jewish Messiah. Christ was not a Jewish Messiah, but a spiritual entity that was sent by the Monad (the One, the Absolute) to reveal the truth about existence. Marcion called God, the Stranger God, or the Alien God, as this deity had not had any previous interactions with the world and was wholly unknown. This is very close to what the Gnostics taught. The slight difference is The Gnostics based their theology on secret wisdom which came from Paul. Marcion based his theology on the contents of the Letters of Paul and the recorded sayings of Jesus. Both belief systems were rejected as unscriptural and false teachings.