These are what I view as some of my better comments on other blogs, and so if your blog is not present it is because I did not write memorable comments in my opinion. It is not a reflection on you. I am not ‘dissing’ your blog by its absence!;) Blame me! So please, if you are upset, take some Pepto-dismal or something and take it easy, I still like you.;) I am being somewhat satirical of course!;) Thanks for reading. Concerning my views on music:
I personally prefer, within my tastes obviously, quite creative music, often on the technical side.
Lyrics are a secondary issue to me, and I think it is debatable on how much influence good or bad lyrics have on persons with a set worldview. I do not doubt that lyrics can at times influence some persons that are less philosophically astute and more easily conditioned, and this would include some young people.
My problem, as far a taste, with much of Christian music, not all, is that it is more worship than performance orientated, and so it does not personally impact me often, even if I am in theological agreement with the lyrics.
And…
I like the odd Christian song musically, but besides Rush (mainly 74-82), I like Mahavishnu Orchestra, Allan Holdsworth, later Beatles, and some classical. Basically I like progressive rock, jazz fusion, art rock and classical.
Is gay the new black?:
Biblically it is natural to be black, but not natural to be homosexual.
Blacks are not condemned for being such, but homosexual acts are condemned.
Comments on scholars:
A scholar's bias can seriously undermine Biblical interpretation, especially when the scholar disbelieves in the supernatural and has a very liberal approach, and as well if a scholar is attempting (perhaps unknowingly) to read a theology, of any type, into the text there is going to be a bias fueled interpretation.
Basically scholars are in trouble when they greatly lack objectivity.
A discussion of sin:
A limited definition from me:
Sin is a creation's thoughts/acts of disobedience against God. Sinful thoughts and acts are a sign of a sinful nature.
Animals and heaven:
I personally doubt that animals have immaterial spirit's that go to Paradise/Abraham's bosom or Hades as do human beings (Luke 16), but I certainly think it possible that in a new heaven/new earth scenario (Revelation 21) animals could be present and precious pets resurrected.
Would these animals be immortal or need to be energized for life now and then? I do not pretend to know. If there is plant life there is likely some cycle of death present in the new order, but I reason we could keep pets forever.
And…
Osterhaven explains that Biblically animals are considered to have a soul. Osterhaven. (1996: 1036). The most commonly used Greek word for soul ‘psuche’ psoo-khay according to Strong's Concordance. Strong (1986: 106). Osterhaven also notes that beasts as a principle of life are stated to have a spirit as well in Genesis 6:17 and 7:15. Osterhaven (1996: 1041). Strong is in agreement on the verses and the most common Old Testament word for breath or spirit ‘ruwach’ roo’-akh is used. Strong (1986: 142).
Theologically in Scripture animals are not described as communicating with God in a spiritual way, and therefore theologically the soul/spirit nature of animals is considered unable to spiritually communicate with God. The theological assumption can be made that the animal soul/spirit is limited to the temporal earthly realm and when an animal body dies, so does the soul. I lean toward this understanding.
OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Soul’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
OSTERHAVEN, M.E. (1996) ‘Spirit’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.
Dealing with fellow Christians:
Good points. Various church denominations stay divided at times over often legitimate doctrinal differences, but to judge others incorrectly who believe and trust in the Biblical Christ is dangerous.
A failure to recognize the spiritual and theological value of those with various views within the body of Christ, even if for the sake of argument some are incorrect on points, is one of the reasons it is difficult to build up blog links as a Christian blogger, in my opinion.
Multi-faith services:
A good point, and a reason I would not participate in a multi-faith service.
And…
One problem with a multi-faith service for me, there are many, would simply be that besides the fact we would not all be worshipping the same true God, if I was to lead prayer I would insist in praying in Jesus name.
Some would not mind, but perhaps some would, but that is how I roll.;)
War:
Romans 13 allows the state to maintain law and order, and so I reason this includes the potential use of military force. But in a fallen world, as we have it, even a just war would be a lesser of evils.
And…
Yes, my research at a Mennonite Bible school and later, taught me that turning the other cheek meant that one was not to seek personal vengeance as issuing justice would belong to the state.
The issue of self-defence becomes more complex when a police officer or soldier is not there to protect one in the time of need. But, the law is still to be obeyed if at all reasonably possible I would reason, even in self-defence.
Thanks for the free publicity.
ReplyDeleteJim
Thank you, Jim.
ReplyDeleteRuss,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your comments and acknowledgment. I read your Blogs regularly and often draw new insight from them.
This one paragraph raises some thoughts: "Would these animals be immortal or need to be energized for life now and then? I do not pretend to know. If there is plant life there is likely some cycle of death present in the new order, but I reason we could keep pets forever."
I would guess that any plant or animal life, including us (since we would be like the Angels neither marrying or reproducing) would not have a cycle of death. It sounds somewhat convoluted, but one can say there is a certain limited infinity (I know an oxymoron) in the finite of this creation. That is, we can reproduce and grow in numbers until we fill the finite space of our world. In fact, God commanded living creatures to do just this.
Perhaps then in Heaven, any living thing there, will remain forever alive, but since it won't have need to reproduce to replenish itself, will remain a finite number within an infinite time.
Thanks again for reading my ramblings.
Larry E.
Some would not mind, but perhaps some would, but that is how I roll.;)
ReplyDeleteI think the Kingpin's rotundity allows him to roll better than you.
Thanks for the credits.
"but that is how I roll."
ReplyDeleteI still don't know why, but coming from you that statement is hilarious.
"but to judge others incorrectly who believe and trust in the Biblical Christ is dangerous."
I agree...but we must insist that it really is the Biblical Christ that have in common. Doctrinal differences can be discussed to great benefit to the Church. As long as we share the same Spirit of Christ, then we know the Biblical Christ. What makes a Christian is not necessarily doctrinal precision (to the dismay of the Hyper-Calivinists!) but the indwelling Spirit. Those who have the Spirit are Children of God--'nough said!
"A failure to recognize the spiritual and theological value of those with various views within the body of Christ, even if for the sake of argument some are incorrect on points, is one of the reasons it is difficult to build up blog links as a Christian blogger, in my opinion."
I agree, but....
As you've noticed, I'm sure, I have a real problem with the WOF movement. As I commented on another blog recently (today, actually), I have a problem when non-Christians understand Christianity as what is portrayed by the WOF charlatans on TV. I know I sound harsh, and I'm sure that there are legitimate and sincere Christians under the influence of the WOF in spite of the deception of its leaders (as there are in the Mormonism and the RC Church). But sometimes it takes getting slapped in the face or having your head dunked in freezing water in order to wake up and see things as they really are. Anybody who thinks that "the Holy Ghost Bartender" Rodney Howard-Browne (and his disciples) or that quack Kenneth Hagin (and his disciples) are representatives of our glorious Lord and Savior (or that they are even Christians, for that matter) are in serious danger of following these heretics all the way to hell.
As I posted on my own blog, as much as the leadership of the WOF movement is to blame for the impotence of the Church (and the world's righful mockery of the Church), they wouldn't even be in business if it weren't for the selfish, greedy and worldly "name it and claim it" mentality of those who support these deceivers. God certainly does perform miracles today--but not for a $58 dollar "seed", payable to the next "miracle healer" to be paraded around on TBN or DAYSTAR. The only reason these ministries continue to exist is because they've tapped into our inherent greed and selfishness: If I give a $10 "seed", God is required to give me back double, triple or even a hundred-fold. Now that's a message that will have people lining up for miles to be a part of. But it's "anti-Christ" and it should be opposed vigilantly!
I'm sure I've just decreased my readership or potential readership with my "harsh" words; but sometimes real love looks harsh. Just consider Jesus' interaction with the Scribes and Pharisees. He loved them even as He dealt harshly with them. His call of repentence was to them as well as the average and lowly "descendant of Abraham".
I have no problem conversing with an adherent of the WOF, if they are willing to engage me by interacting with the Bible. But don't (anyone) ask me to "chill out" when it comes to the leadership of the WOF or the obvious greed that characterizes most of their congregants because...
...that's just how GGM rolls! :-)
Thanks, Jeff.
ReplyDeleteThe Kingpin has at least 100 pounds on me.
It's interesting to see your comments from other peoples' blogs.
ReplyDelete"...animals could be present and precious pets resurrected."
If that's the case, I guess I better start figuring out what to do with about 130 gerbils... :P
"I agree...but we must insist that it really is the Biblical Christ that have in common."
The day I figured this out was probably my second most freeing day. I used to get so disgusted with people who just couldn't quite seem to believe the same thing as what I do. I still do a little bit sometimes (especially when it comes to people finding health and wealth proof texts for the WOF), but now I realize that our common bond is not in having the exact same doctrine (like so many like to think) but in having a common bond in Christ. With that mind set, it becomes very easy to love your Christian brothers and sisters because you realize that though you may have differences in doctrine, the only thing that really matters is your unity in Christ. It is the Spirit's work to grow someone up in the faith (though he may use what we say to accomplish that goal). Not to say that we shouldn't be searching for the truth. I know there are a lot of people who think you shouldn't even discuss doctrine because it isn't the issue with Christianity, but I don't really think that's right either. I'm curious, Russ and Jason (and whoever else wants to answer). At what point do you leave a church if doctrine isn't really the issue in Christianity?
Thanks very much, Larry.
ReplyDeleteI do not claim certainty on this issue, but you make a reasonable point concerning plant life. However, I have no problem with the concept that plant death is an aspect of the restored creation, just as it quite possibly was in the Garden of Eden. Perhaps when a plant dies it will be restored in a sense making death not permanent. I reason if there are animals on a restored earth they will perhaps like to eat, even if it is not necessary, and human beings may like to eat, even though it will not be necessary, and so plants could serve as renewable food.
'but we must insist that it really is the Biblical Christ that have in common. Doctrinal differences can be discussed to great benefit to the Church. As long as we share the same Spirit of Christ, then we know the Biblical Christ. What makes a Christian is not necessarily doctrinal precision (to the dismay of the Hyper-Calivinists!) but the indwelling Spirit. Those who have the Spirit are Children of God--'nough said!'
ReplyDeleteWell stated.
I too have been critical of aspects of Christianity, in particular those that hold to too strong of views on human (libertarian) free will, and in regard to free will theodicy.
I have also criticized closed-minded radical liberals and extreme conservative fundamentalists.
There is room for criticism but I also try to be respectful, even when I am angry.
If it is a brother or sister in Christ, I try to love them.
If it is a neighbour outside of the Biblical Christ, I try to love them.
Because that is how I roll.
Cheers, Jason.
'I'm curious, Russ and Jason (and whoever else wants to answer). At what point do you leave a church if doctrine isn't really the issue in Christianity?'
ReplyDeleteDoctrine to me is an issue, but not the only one.
If the doctrine is basically correct on primary and secondary issues, and yet people are not showing much love, I will quite likely not seek membership and leave.
I reason some church leaders and some of their flock have many correct doctrines and yet although indwelled by the Holy Spirit are not guided and filled by God's Spirit. These folks are saved but unloving.
I have even pondered seriously with idea that some do not know God even as they have been taught proper doctrine and believe much of it, as they do not properly love, are not very forgiving and are not Christ-like. They lack these signs of being regenerated. It is possible that some non-regenerate are basically orthodox. I would not seek to join such a church or stay within it. I reason there would be theological error with these folks as well, but it may not always be at first apparent.
In particular, I would not join or stay at a church that was wrong on primary doctrines concerning the nature of God and soteriology. I would not join or stay with a church that does not take the commandments of God seriously. Even though we are not under the Law (Romans 4-8, Galatians 2-3), we are still not to commit adultery, fornication or engage in homosexual acts, and I will not join or stay at a church that sanctions such, for example.
Having developed strong educated opinions concerning Reformed doctrines, in particular in regard to the nature of God, free will, determinism, and theodicy, I would not join a non-Reformed church unless I was in a isolated place and the church was basically orthodox although not Reformed.
I realize there are many fine non-Reformed Christians and I am pleased to fellowship with them often. The fact I from now on only want to be a member at a Reformed based church does not mean I consider those who differ unworthy to fellowship with.
I would not join or stay at a church where the leadership does not respect me.
Thanks very much, Abbey.
Russ:)
"At what point do you leave a church if doctrine isn't really the issue in Christianity?"
ReplyDeleteWell...if the music is "contemporary", of course! :-)
Or...
If the preacher only preaches 20 minutes.
If they show clips of "The Simpsons" on the big screen during church.
If they have a "living Christmas Tree" during Christmas.
If the preacher pulls out a chart as large as the platform.
If the "sanctuary" doubles as the home of a professional basketball team.
If the Old Testament pages have been torn out of the pew Bibles.
If the preacher is a relative of Fred Phelps of the always "loving" Westboro Baptist Church.
If..., well you get the idea. In other words, your stuck at SGCC until I kick you for ever refusing to play your righteous cello! :-)
Actually, Russ has a pretty good grasp on this issue; as long as we understand the "commandments" in relation to Christ, of course (which I'm sure Russ would agree with :-).
Good question, Abs. I'll have to think through this a little more thoroughly.
GGM
'Actually, Russ has a pretty good grasp on this issue; as long as we understand the "commandments" in relation to Christ, of course (which I'm sure Russ would agree with :-).'
ReplyDeleteOf course the commandments are in relation to the new covenant and Christ (Matthew 22 and Mark 12) and I did cite Romans and Galatians. As noted we are not under the old covenant Law.
Phelps and like come to mind as those that have some correct doctrine and yet do not appear very loving.
Cheers, Jason.:)
Russ
Of course, Abbey, I meant "kick you out". I'll still kick you just for the fun of it! :-)
ReplyDelete'I kick you for ever refusing to play your righteous cello! :-)'
ReplyDelete'Of course, Abbey, I meant "kick you out". I'll still kick you just for the fun of it! :-)'
What a 'meanie'...;)
Watch out Marvel's Kingpin may roll over top of you for picking on that poor 'defenceless' young lady.
But, I bet Abbey can find a way to look after herself.
"But, I bet Abbey can find a way to look after herself."
ReplyDeleteYou bet. Jason couldn't possibly kick me out of the church - unless he starts playing his contemporary music... :P If he did kick me out, I would switch off going to the Lakewood Church in Texas (Joel Osteen) and the Westboro Baptist Church. That way every two weeks, I would once more be balanced between a loving God and a hating God. lol
"Phelps and like come to mind as those that have some correct doctrine and yet do not appear very loving."
I can't really say that I agree that they really have the correct doctrine. Actually, I think it may be safe to say they completely missed the Christ event. Instead of tearing out the OT of their Bibles, they tear out the NT. Nothing they say speaks anything of God's renewing work - it's all 'you do this and God will bless you.' I heard Ms. Phelps even once state that if she ever ended up with a dead child, she would ask God what she had done wrong.
...Wait. I take that back. They not only tore out the NT, but they also tore out Job...
Because of their doctrine that God rewards for good and punishes for bad, this has led them to be very unloving in how they interact with the world. They seem to think that America = Israel, so they need to be out prophesying to those who "won't obey the commandments of the Lord their God." Perhaps they have some correct doctrines, but I couldn't really say anymore for them than that.
"Of course, Abbey, I meant "kick you out". I'll still kick you just for the fun of it! :-)"
Well, maybe I'll kick you out too (kind of reminds me of the East and West Catholic church excommunicating each other over and over). After all, you started coming to our church. WE didn't start going to your church.
"What a 'meanie'...;)"
Nothing out of the ordinary. He's always picking on the "poor defenseless Travers girls." However, let this be an example of what not to do. - sorry, I'm kind of feeling in a "I-can-do-anything" mood tonight. I guess I should stop before I really say something that will need later apologies... lol
'Phelps and like come to mind as those that have some correct doctrine and yet do not appear very loving.'
ReplyDelete'I can't really say that I agree that they really have the correct doctrine.'
'Perhaps they have some correct doctrines, but I couldn't really say anymore for them than that.'
Thanks, Abbey I have to disagree slightly, and perhaps only slightly.
I went to Phelps' site one night with Bobby Buff and listened to three of his rants. Some of what the man holds to concerning sin and judgment is Biblical. For example, God's judgment is coming upon America, and other countries for sin against God's moral law, both Old and New Testaments. Of course the main sin is a rejection of God, but that connects to differing from God's morality.
He did quote many verses out of context, used questionable language and showed a lack of love, if not outright hatred for those that disagreed with him, but not everything he stated was error.
Many times religionists that have a bit of truth surrounded by a lot of untruth are quite dangerous to the unaware.
I seriously question whether Phelps is even a believer from what he stated, and as I noted persons can hold to some correct doctrines but not be regenerate. I have heard truth from other cultists before that do have a degree of orthodoxy. It is not always clear-cut black and white.
I appreciate the input, Abbey.
Russ
Hey Russ…
ReplyDeleteSome clever insights from you and about you….cool creative concept the way you did this….and your comment at Life on the Blade is a good one.
How about U2?
:)
Thanks, LS.
ReplyDeleteI do my best and ask for God's help basically everyday.
I like some of U2's music. I have quite a few Beatles CDs.
Russ
If you ever find the perfect Church.
ReplyDeleteJoint join it.
You'll spoil it.
And so would you...;)
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comment, Holy Man, much appreciated.
"He's always picking on the 'poor defenseless Travers girls.'"
ReplyDeleteAwe...come on! You know you enjoy it!
" After all, you started coming to our church. WE didn't start going to your church."
Just a technicality; we backslid and left for a year. But I don't recall our names being removed from the "members roll". :-)
"Because of their doctrine that God rewards for good and punishes for bad, this has led them to be very unloving in how they interact with the world."
I agree with your assessment of this cause and effect relationship. Logically, it doesn't have to be this way, of course. But in the Phelps' group this certainly seems to be the dynamic at work. But this whole "rewards" mentality that you bring up is so ingrained in the church that it is hard to overcome. And this is why, I believe (and you've suggested as much), that true love is so scarce in the Body of Christ. Very good point, Abbey.
" I think it may be safe to say they completely missed the Christ event."
I absolutely agree with you. And as Russ said, they still might speak some correct doctrine, but that doesn't mean that they know the Lord. The Pharisees spoke and taught some correct doctrine, but they did not know the Lord. The danger of cults and false religion is that they have some kernel of truth that allows the deception to go unnoticed by the undiscerning. This is why, as Russ pointed out earlier, it is important to understand the Biblical Christ so that we can recognize Him in those we fellowship with. And I certainly do not recognize the Biblical Christ at Westboro Baptist Church!
Thanks Russ and Abbey for the nice (and fun) discussion.
Thank you, Jason.
ReplyDelete"Awe...come on! You know you enjoy it!"
ReplyDeleteWell,... all right. I admit it. :P
I understand what you're saying now, Russ, and I agree with your point.
I get this feeling that the Phelps are trying to turn all of America into their pattern piece. I once heard Ms. Phelps say that she hadn't met anyone outside her church who was saved. I think her definition for "saved" is people who keep all of God's laws and "love" others by preaching at them and telling them how much God hates them. What really bugs me about Ms. Phelps in particular is how she won't confess to any sins. She will say that the Bible says that "all have come short of the glory of God," but when asked what sins she has committed, she will change the subject. I realize it's not necessary to confess all your sins to the media, but when she does this (and especially because she has the health/wealth mentality), I somehow get the feeling she doesn't honestly think she has sinned and that God is showing her special favor. I honestly don't think this is any way to treat the world - it somehow puts this barrier between you and them that makes them think you're so much better.
Thanks, guys.
Greetings Russ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for these thoughts. If the Christian community could present a united front, that is simple and Biblical, it seems that the secular world would be able to discern what it means to follow Christ. However, with the many variations of Christianity, the uninformed public has little ground on which to observe what it means to be a Christian.
What are the fundamental truths to which the Church should adhere, so that it can present a united front? If we were able to accomplish this and place secondary differences within the walls of the church, the cause of Christ may be advanced with denominations, Catholics, and churches from Africa and Asia working to the same end.
Joyfully Serving,
Kermit
'What really bugs me about Ms. Phelps in particular is how she won't confess to any sins. She will say that the Bible says that "all have come short of the glory of God," but when asked what sins she has committed, she will change the subject.'
ReplyDeleteI thought the same Abbey.
When we mention sin, we could mention our own sin, and not by necessarily usually going into detail.
Cheers,
Russ:)
'What really bugs me about Ms. Phelps in particular is how she won't confess to any sins. She will say that the Bible says that "all have come short of the glory of God," but when asked what sins she has committed, she will change the subject.'
ReplyDeleteI thought the same Abbey.
When we mention sin, we could mention our own sin, and not by necessarily usually going into detail.
Cheers,
Russ:)
'What are the fundamental truths to which the Church should adhere, so that it can present a united front? If we were able to accomplish this and place secondary differences within the walls of the church, the cause of Christ may be advanced with denominations, Catholics, and churches from Africa and Asia working to the same end.'
ReplyDeleteGood thinking, Kermit.
Russ:)
Russ,
ReplyDeleteThat's a good point. There does seem to be indications we will eat and drink in Heaven and I can see that meaning we revert to pre-fall diets. Considering plants were created as food for both human and animal, thus consumption would necessitate replenishment. However, if death and decay are the offshoots of sin, I would not expect a life cycle including death from either age or disease to be present. But then the Hebrews were provided with manna and Jesus fed thousands with a couple loaves and a few fish. I'm sure God has it all worked out.
Larry E.
Interesting thoughts, thank you, Larry.
ReplyDeleteI am not dogmatic, but I suppose it is possible all death resulted from sin, but then how did Adam and Eve eat plants in the Garden? Perhaps the plants were near instantly restored? But this still seems like a type of death to me.
Perhaps as some have suggested plant death and entropy are natural aspects of creation, even prior to the fall. Sin caused human death and corruption within the creation, but creation was not entirely altered.
Entropy
'One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems....Using Newton's laws to describe the motion of the molecules would not tell you which came first'.
Entropy
'Second Law of Thermodynamics: In any cyclic process the entropy will either increase or remain the same.'
I need to learn more before becoming dogmatic.
Russ:)
Russ,
ReplyDeleteI hope I am not coming across as dogmatic. I'm just trying to work out things for myself, not applying any Walter Cronkite "and that's the was it was" to it. I do think there is some dogma that has to stand as basic to Christianity, which binds us together, those basics Kermit points to.
What you have said in this reply as well as the last is giving me some ideas for a post on the subject, so I'll save any further thoughts until then because it is hard to come up with good subjects to explore.
Thanks,
Larry E.
Thanks, Larry.
ReplyDeleteI do not think either one of us seems dogmatic on the subject.
I appreciate our discussions.
Russ:)
One of my most enjoyable reads of your articles.
ReplyDeleteI like how you share your thoughts and personal tastes on music and pets and then write about war and homosexuality. Brief but informative writing, well done!
-Blogger Fan-
Thanks, Bobby.
ReplyDeleteYes, perhaps in the restored new earth, black pets shall make cool music.;)
Hmm, probably not.
Russ
Perhaps in the new kingdom we will have new names! Hopefully they won't be any of the following:
ReplyDeleteGaylord
Helmut
Humphrey
Bertha
Godfrey
Adolf
Murray (that name always makes me think of Mary Tyler Moore's coworker, later to become the Love Boat captain...)
Speaking of names, Obama's new advisor Jim Jones must be sick of all the flack he must get since that nasty incident in Guyana, case in point:
ReplyDeleteWill Obama drink the kool-aid?
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteI would not want Murray as a first name. It is very fine for a last name.
Russ:)
Hey, doesn't say in the Bible that God will give each person a new name in which only that person and God will know?
ReplyDelete-Curious Minds want to know-
New name
ReplyDelete'The Exhaustive Dictionary of
'Bible Names
'Author: Dr. Judson Cornwall; Dr. Stelman Smith
Publisher: Thomas Nelson Publishers
Publication Date: 1998
Read more about print editions
Price
DOWNLOAD $12.95
Important Mac
Information
To use this product with Logos Bible Software for Mac, you will need the Logos Bible Software for Mac engine, which is included in our five Mac base packages.
Every name in the bible is included in The Exhaustive Dictionary of Bible Names. Your own relationship with God will be enriched as you gain in–depth understanding of the meanings of biblical names. Whether you are looking for a biblical name for your child, or doing in–depth research, this book of scriptural treasures will have what you are looking for…and more.
While in western culture we seldom pay attention to the meanings of names; we often give people “nicknames” based on their personalities and character traits. In a similar way, names given in biblical times had much to say about the character, prophetic calling, or current circumstances at the time of a person's birth. For instance, Jacob's name, (who stole the firstborn blessing from Esau) means “supplanter” (or trickster). God later changed his name to Israel, which means “he will be a prince with God” or “one that prevails with God.”
In the final book of the Bible, one of the promises given to overcomers is a “new name” (Revelation 2:17). Names are Important!'
From the NASB
Revelation 2:17
17'(A)He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches (B)To him who overcomes, to him I will give some of the hidden (C)manna, and I will give him a white stone, and a (D)new name written on the stone (E)which no one knows but he who receives it.'
'Speaking of names, Obama's new advisor Jim Jones must be sick of all the flack he must get since that nasty incident in Guyana, case in point:
ReplyDeleteWill Obama drink the kool-aid?'
Funny, Chucky.
Dear Russ,
ReplyDeleteThere are so many thoughts herein about so many topics from music, to church doctrine, to animals in or not in heaven, to Jim Jones and kool-aid. Well, I smiled and then laughed outloud.
We are here together, members of the church across the miles in true communitee. Thanks for your friendship and continual faithfullness to this ministry.
Blessings,
Vicki
Thanks, Vicki!
ReplyDeleteI have a new thekingpin68 article almost ready to publish.
Russ:)