[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In Bible Study See other Bible Study Articles Title: What does God command regarding the baby about to be aborted? Source: ChristianPatriot.com URL Source: [None] Published: Feb 7, 2015 Author: Pastor Bob Celeste for ACP Post Date: 2015-02-07 16:29:11 by BobCeleste Keywords: None Views: 55259 Comments: 95 What does God command regarding the baby about to be aborted? Does God command us to stand around and do nothing or does He command us to rescue the baby by what ever means we need to use? You decide: Deliver those who are drawn toward death, And hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, "Surely we did not know this," Does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds? Proverbs 24:11&12. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-28) not displayed.       .       .       . #29. To: redleghunter (#17) He, uncharacteristically, succinctly just told you why. ZING! LOL Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   8:41:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: A K A Stone (#28) What verse is that found in? "Not a sparrow falls..." - Jesus Fall, as in die. Sparrows do not die until the Father wills it. And you are more important than a sparrow. More generally, "The wages of sin is death", and "All men have sinned." Who makes it such that the wages of sin is death? God. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   8:45:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: Pericles (#26) Under some cases it is not murder. Legalism. The only exception in Catholic doctrine is to save the life of the mother from imminent death. In that one case it is a case of self- defense. And in the modern medical world, that case barely exists. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   8:49:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: Pericles, Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#23) Abortion was probably not mentioned in the Old Testament because the Hebrews were primitive goat herders who had no ability to induce medical abortions so it never occurred to them is best I can gather. You missed the points the other gentlemen pinged already provided. The TaNaKh clearly shows that life begins at begetting. The biblical genealogies describe a father's begets as the start of life for the offspring. Exodus references given by Vic and Gary showed us the unborn child if killed in a struggle required the same blood for blood punishment...execution. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   9:04:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: Vicomte13 (#29) Thought you would like that. And I did it with such class:) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   9:05:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: redleghunter, Vicomte13, GarySpFc (#32) Exodus references given by Vic and Gary showed us the unborn child if killed in a struggle required the same blood for blood punishment...execution. No, it required a fine only and under specific circumstances would that fine apply - the woman somehow got in the middle of the fight. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   9:26:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: Pericles (#22) you have completely missed the meaning of the word "seed". You are also 100% wrong, but, I have ehard the same thing numerous times by women who have multiple abortions, men who have brought their daughters, wife or girl friend for an abortion, and most of all from those sick, vicious, hell bent that do abortions. But at least, unlike most of the above mentioned, you seem to acknowledge the one God. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:14:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: BobCeleste (#35) I am against abortions but your arguments are failures. Your kind of reasoning has not ended abortions at all is what I am getting at. If you can't show it in the Bible (you can clearly show where being gay is wrong for example) unless you are a Biblical scholar then no one will take it as authoritative. You need to up your game. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   10:16:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: Vicomte13 (#31) And in the modern medical world, that case barely exists. I think it is called a tubal something or other and it means the baby is developing outside of the womb an if not removed will kill both mother and baby. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:16:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: A K A Stone (#28) God kills everybody What verse is that found in? I believe that Roman Catholic theology takes that from when Jesus is warning people who to fear; But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear Him, which after He hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear Him. Luke 12:5 As is so often the case, most who study what God said, in His book, the Bible, disagree with the RC position. And from 1 Samuel chapter 15, the first few verses. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:23:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: GarySpFC (#27) From 8, Abortion is not mentioned in the Old or New Testament so he does not command anything for us to do. Gary, I have heard the same thing numerous times by women who have multiple abortions, men who have brought their daughters, wife or girl friend for an abortion, and most of all from those sick, vicious, hell bent that do abortions. But at least Pericles, unlike most of the above mentioned, seems to acknowledge the one God. He or she is worthy of our prayers for his or her salvation. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:28:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: kenh (#4) He's asking about witnesses to an innocent's murder, not the executioner. How would you separate the executioner from those who stand by and allow it to happen without interfering? BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:30:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: All (#0) Who does God hold most responsible for an abortion? Leviticus 20:1-5 I'm going to do this thought as if it were a letter to a young girl, a young girl who has had an abortion. It makes no difference what I call her, and it makes no difference how many abortions she has had, or even her age, she could be 16, 26 or even 60 or more. I'm going to call her Rachael. Dear Rachael, I know you have had an abortion and I know that you know that what you did is wrong. How you got pregnant is not relevant, what is relevant is that you allowed the life of the little baby in your womb to be ended. Rachael, I also know that you think that Christ hates you for what you did and that He could never forgive you. Two things my little one, first Christ does not hate you and second He can't wait to forgive you, but, He is holy and as such must maintain His rules, and His rule is that you must respond to His persistent, through the Holy Ghost, call for you to ask to be forgiven. (Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any *man hear My voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with Me. * the Greek word translated man is "tis" it would be better translated "whomever" for it is not limited to man, but all of mankind, male and female, unlike the Hebrew "'iysh" word used in Leviticus 20:1-5 which means man, not mankind, not man and women but only man, for the Hebrew word for man is "adam".) Rachael, as you will see, as we go through the most important prohibition of abortion, by God Almighty, it is the guy who got you pregnant that God commands to be killed for allowing you to abort his seed, it is not you God is furious with, it is the man whose sperm joined with your egg and became his seed. Now, why you ask does God hold the baby's father more responsible for the baby's death than you? It is because he is, in the original Hebrew, adam and you are 'ishshah. > 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying: 2 "Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 3 And I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My holy name." 4 "And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not, 5 then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people." Leviticus 20:1-5 ACP/KJV Now, let's look at some very key words. Let us first look at what God has to say about abortion and the penalty for the father that allows his child in the womb to be slaughtered. Yes, the father of the baby, for it is, as you will see, the father God commands to be stoned to death for the abortion, the murder of his seed. Verse one: " And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying;" Rachael, the speaker is God Almighty Himself, Moses is but the recording secretary, Rachael, this is not Moses speaking. It is God Almighty Himself speaking. Verse two: "Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones." God tells Moses to relay to the People of God that none is to offer his seed to the devil. The word translated "seed" is, in the ancient Hebrew, zera`, pronounced zeh'-rah. It means, seed; figuratively, fruit, plant, sowing-time, posterity: child, fruitful, seed(-time), sowing- time. In other words seed means sperm both before and after fertilizing the women's egg. It also means the baby both before and after leaving the womb. So, in verse two and after the word seed means the baby from the instant of conception and for sperm before. At the end of verse two God dictates the punishment for men who allow the abortion of their seed, death by stoning. Verse three: "And I will set My face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile My sanctuary, and to profane My holy name." In verse three the word Sanctuary is miqdash, pronounced mik-dawsh' or miqqdash in Exodus 15:17) {pronounced mik-ked-awsh'}; it is a consecrated thing or place, especially, a palace, sanctuary (whether of Jehovah or of idols) or asylum:--chapel, hallowed part, holy place, sanctuary. In other words anywhere where God is or dwells or visits is His sanctuary. God as the creator of the earth, the universe(s) the heavens, all things, owns everywhere and everything, so His sanctuary is everywhere, even the lake of fire to come and hell now are God's creation and therfore He rules over them as well. God does not allow abortion, which is the offering of the baby in the womb to satan as a little human blood sacrifice, no where in all of His creation. Verse four and five: 4 "And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not: 5 Then I will set My face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people." These two verses make it clear that God not only curses and condemns, to death, the man who allows his baby to be aborted, but the society that does not punish the man who allowed the baby he fathered to be aborted. Yes Rachael, what you did is wrong, what you did was take your baby to a man or woman who is a high priest or priestess of the devil and you allowed that person to murder your baby, to offer little him or her to the devil as a little human blood sacrifice, and yes God is mad at you, but He is more than willing to forgive you. But, the man who fathered the baby, you had aborted, he is another story. Oh sure he can be saved, but God holds men to a much, much higher standard. Now, Rachael, you must be wondering why God holds the man to a higher standard and declares a more sever punishment for the man who got you pregnant than you, you who brought the baby to be aborted. The answer my dear is simple, he is adam and you are 'ishshah. It goes back some 6,450 years, back to the time Adam and Eve sinned and got evicted from the Garden of Eden. Unto the 'ishshah God said, "I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." Rachael, you will find that in verse 16 of Genesis chapter 3. What God is saying is that from that time forward all 'ishshahs, all women, will have pain in childbirth, but additionally, God further said that a woman's desire would be to obey her husband and serve him. Now Rachael, like it or not, God has made women subservient to men, it is not arguable, it is a simple fact of life. As such, the man is held more responsible than the woman. It is kind of like this, when you were a little girl, say four years old, and if your mom or dad told you to move a glass fish bowl that was to heavy for you to move and you dropped it and it broke, killing the fish and getting water and broken glass all over the floor, whose fault was it? Yours or your mom or dad who ordered you to move the fish bowl? It would of course be the fault of the parent that told you to do it. Why? Because in the Ten Commandments of God it says "Honor thy father and thy mother" And just as God has commanded you to obey your mom and dad when you were little, so has He ordered you to obey your husband when you are married. "For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord:" 1 Peter 3:5&6 But, you say, "Pastor Bob, I was not married to the man (men) that got me pregnant to the baby(s) I aborted." Rachael, in the laws of man you weren't, but in God's eyes you were. For you see, in God's eyes, a man and a woman are married when they have sexual intercourse, when they, in the words of the bible, "know" each other. That word "know" is translated from the Hebrew word "yada". "And Adam {'adam} knew {yada`} Eve his wife {'ishshah}; and she conceived , and bare Cain." So you see Rachael, yes you messed up, you messed up, you messed up big time when you killed that baby, but Rachael it is not the unpardonable sin and yes God is willing to forgive you. Email me if you want to know how to approach God for forgiveness, for forgiveness is what He sent His Son to earth for. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him (Jesus) should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved. He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:16-18 ACP/KJV BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:33:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, Vicomte13, liberator, BobCeleste (#34) No, it required a fine only and under specific circumstances would that fine apply - the woman somehow got in the middle of the fight. Not so. Someone pinged here worked on Bible translations about 20 years ago specifically on the Exodus 21 verses in question. One of the theologians who worked on the project had this to say: The Misuse of Exodus 21:22-25 by Pro-Choice Advocates by John Piper Sometimes Exodus 21:22-25 is used by pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible does not regard the unborn as persons just as worthy of protection as an adult. Some translations do in fact make this a plausible opinion. But I want to try to show that the opposite is the case. The text really supports the worth and rights of the unborn. This passage of Scripture is part of a list of laws about fighting and quarreling. It pictures a situation in which two men are fighting and the wife of one of them intervenes to make peace. She is struck, and the blow results in a miscarriage or pre-mature birth. Pro-choice reasoning assumes that a miscarriage occurs. But this is not likely. The RSV is one translation that supports the pro-choice conclusion. It says, When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. The RSV assumes that a "miscarriage" happens, and the fetus is born dead. This implies that the loss of the unborn is no "harm," because it says, "If there is a miscarriage and yet no harm follows . . ." It is possible for the blow to cause a miscarriage and yet not count as "harm" which would have to be recompensed life for life, eye for eye, etc. This translation seems to put the unborn in the category of a non-person with little value. The fine which must be paid may be for the loss of the child. Money suffices. Whereas if "harm follows" (to the woman!) then more than money must be given. In that case it is life for life, etc. But is this the right translation? The NIV does not assume that a miscarriage happened. The NIV translates the text like this: If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life . . . What the NIV implies is that the child is born alive and that the penalty of life for life, eye for eye, etc. applies to the child as well as the mother. If injury comes to the child or the mother there will not just be a fine but life for life, eye for eye, etc. I agree with this translation. Here is my own literal rendering from the original Hebrew: And when men fight and strike a pregnant woman ('ishah harah) and her children (yeladeyha) go forth (weyatse'u), and there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the husband of the woman may put upon him; and he shall give by the judges. But if there is injury, you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. The key phrase is "and the children go forth." The RSV (and NASB!) translates this as a miscarriage. The NIV translates it as a premature live birth. In the former case the unborn is not treated with the same rights as the mother, because the miscarriage is not counted as serious loss to be recompensed life for life. In the latter case the unborn is treated the same as the mother because the child is included in the stipulation that if injury comes there shall be life for life. Which of these interpretations is correct? In favor of the NIV translation are the following arguments: 1. There is a Hebrew verb for miscarry or lose by abortion or be bereaved of the fruit of the womb, namely, shakal. It is used near by in Exodus 23:26, "None shall miscarry (meshakelah) or be barren in your land." But this word is NOT used here in Exodus 21:22-25. 2. Rather the word for birth here is "go forth" (ytsa'). "And if her children go forth . . ." This verb never refers to a miscarriage or abortion. When it refers to a birth it refers to live children "going forth" or "coming out" from the womb. For example, Genesis 25:25, "And the first came out (wyetse') red, all of him like a hairy robe; and they called his name Esau." (See also v. 26 and Genesis 38:28-30.) So the word for miscarry is not used but a word is used that elsewhere does not mean miscarry but ordinary live birth. 3. There are words in the Old Testament that designate the embryo (golem, Psalm 139:16) or the untimely birth that dies (nephel, Job 3:16; Psalm 58:8; Isaiah 33:3). But these words are not used here. 4. Rather an ordinary word for children is used in Exodus 21:22 (yeladeyha). It regularly refers to children who are born and never to one miscarried. "Yeled only denotes a child, as a fully developed human being, and not the fruit of the womb before it has assumed a human form" (Keil and Delitzsch, Pentateuch, vol. 2, p. 135). 5. Verse 22 says, "[If] her children go forth and there is no injury . . ." It does not say, "[If] her children go forth and there is no further injury . . ." (NASB). The word "further" is NOT in the original text. The natural way to take this is to say that the child goes forth and there is no injury TO THE CHILD or to the mother. The writer could very easily have inserted the Hebrew lah to specify the woman ("If her children go forth and there is no injury to her . . ."). But it is left general. There is no reason to exclude the children. Likewise in verse 23 when it says, "But if there was injury . . ." it does not say "to the woman," as though the child were not in view. Again it is general and most naturally means, "If there was injury (to the child or to the mother)." Many scholars have come to this same conclusion. For example, in the last century before the present debate over abortion was in sway, Keil and Delitzsch (Pentateuch, vol. 2, pp. 134f.) say, If men strove and thrust against a woman with child, who had come near or between them for the purpose of making peace, so that her children come out (come into the world), and no injury was done either to the woman or the child that was born, a pecuniary compensation was to be paid, such as the husband of the woman laid upon him, and he was to give it by arbitrators. . . But if injury occur (to the mother or the child), thou shalt give soul for soul, eye for eye . . . George Bush {not the POTUS GB}(Notes on Exodus, vol. 2, p. 19) also writing in the last century said, If the consequence were only the premature birth of the child, the aggressor was obliged to give her husband a recompense in money, according to his demand; but in order that his demand might not be unreasonable, it was subject to the final decision of the judges. On the other hand, if either the woman or her child was any way hurt or maimed, the law of retaliation at once took effect The contextual evidence supports this conclusion best. There is no miscarriage in this text. The child is born pre-maturely and is protected with the same sanctions as the mother. If the child is injured there is to be recompense as with the injury of the mother. Therefore this text cannot be used by the pro-choice advocates to show that the Bible regards the unborn as less human or less worthy of protection than those who are born. http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-misuse-of- exodus-2122-25-by-pro-choice-advocates NB: this was written by Piper back in 1989. In 1995 the NASB update included the same Hebrew translation as the NIV stated in the article above. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   10:34:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: BobCeleste, A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#38) Fear is a word that has changed meanings over time. In the Old English they ment it as "revere". Also 'terrible' did not mean 'bad' but great and awesome meant scary or something to fear - like lightning which could kill you if not careful, etc. I love the way Old English sounds when I read it - it is an Amazing language because it captures the Germanic with the Latin and Greek to balance it out so it sounds harsh and soft at the same time (to my ears anyway) but you need to background to understand the words in more depth and they can be misleading to modern readers. For example in a lot of the Bible God is also called in the Hebrew "Abba" what can be translated in Greek as "Baba" aka "Daddy" or "Dada" or "Poppa" - like a child would call his father but in English it sounds harsher and more formal "Father". Father these days in modern English is formal though it must have not been back in the day. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   10:39:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: redleghunter (#42) So the Sola Scriptura is not clear.... Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   10:40:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: BobCeleste (#41) Thanks. Excellent note. Came at a good time as I am deep in the Torah books for my Bible studies. Just covered Lev. 20 yesterday. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   10:41:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator (#44) So the Sola Scriptura is not clear.... LOL, that was Sola Scriptura. Where did you think the church fathers gained their understanding on the prohibition of abortion? "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   10:43:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: Vicomte13 (#30) "Not a sparrow falls..." - Jesus Fall, as in die. Sparrows do not die until the Father wills it. And you are more important than a sparrow. More generally, "The wages of sin is death", and "All men have sinned." Who makes it such that the wages of sin is death? God. Elaborate more on the sparrow. If the wages of sin is death. Then you earn it yourself. God didn't come to kill. That is the Devil. IU think you are confused. OfDoesn't it say God isn't willing that any should perish? A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-09   10:44:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: Pericles (#36) I am against abortions but your arguments are failures. Your kind of reasoning has not ended abortions at all is what I am getting at. If you can't show it in the Bible (you can clearly show where being gay is wrong for example) unless you are a Biblical scholar then no one will take it as authoritative. You need to up your game. The Bible teachers that God knew you in the womb. It also teaches that to murder is a sin. People back then weren't so stupid that they called a baby a fetus in order to pretent it is not a baby so they can murder it. The Bible also doesn't say getting sex change is wrong. But it is. A K A Stone  posted on  2015-02-09   10:46:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: Pericles (#36) I am against abortions but your arguments are failures. Your kind of reasoning has not ended abortions at all is what I am getting at. If you can't show it in the Bible (you can clearly show where being gay is wrong for example) unless you are a Biblical scholar then no one will take it as authoritative. You need to up your game. You still have not shown me how Leviticus 20:1-5 is not, when you understand the word "Seed" talking about abortion. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   10:59:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: redleghunter (#45) Thank you. Now it is 9:AM so I shall start to type out the thought. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   11:02:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: Vicomte13 (#24) Because I don't see what "Protest-ants" is trying to get at? Me thinks thou protest too much. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-02-09   11:24:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: SOSO, redleghunter (#21) "True, the Protest-ants call them [Catholics] that." Clever! "Protest-Ants" = Small Yuk-yuk. In between washing dishes and serving food, will you be performing your schtick all week? Liberator  posted on  2015-02-09   11:25:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: redleghunter, Pericles, GarySpFc (#46) That was Sola Scriptura. Where did you think the church fathers gained their understanding on the prohibition of abortion? Pope Francis?? Liberator  posted on  2015-02-09   11:27:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator (#46) (Edited) Where did you think the church fathers gained their understanding on the prohibition of abortion? Abortion was already seen as a bad thing to be avoided per the Hypoccratic Oath to Apollo. In fact I use dthis to shut up a self professed "Pagan" woman in civics class in college who was arguing she was for abortion and not beholden to Christian values as a pagan. When I mentioned the Oath she looked dumbfounded. I think she replied that maybe it was created after the Christians took over and I told her nope - pretades Jesus by about 600 years and they probably never heard of the Jews of their God when it was created. She then mentioned something about a male dominated world back the and she sat down and refused to continue the conversation. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   11:32:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: BobCeleste (#40) How would you separate the executioner from those who stand by and allow it to happen without interfering? Jesus was innocent. Many bystanders, such as John and the two Marys, knew it. Ten of the other Apostles and many disciples knew it. He was tortured to death slowly in public, an innocent man, and he had at least 13 people who knew it. Were they supposed to come up Golgotha and attack the Roman guards? They could have. Should they have? The result would have been their deaths also, and probably the deaths of some of the guards. When Saul went persecuting Christians, were Christians supposed to lie in wait and kill that bastard? Were they? When Stephen was stoned, were the Christians supposed to surge forth and start murdering the Sanhedrin? Had they, maybe that murderous bastard Saul of Tarsus would have been killed early and not been allowed to go on his tear of evil. God did eventually knock him off his horse and close his eyes, but really, wouldn't it have been justice to put a knife through that blackguard's heart BEFORE he got the chance to convert, to kill the murderer once and for all and be rid of him. The world didn't NEED Paul, after all. Had be been justly slaughtered for the murderous servant of Hell that he was before his conversion, God would have just chosen somebody else. Right? Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   11:41:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: SOSO (#51) Me thinks thou protest too much. Do you dislike Protestants qua Protestants? I don't. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   11:54:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: A K A Stone (#47) Doesn't it say God isn't willing that any should perish? Yes, but Jesus also says people who are clearly dead are alive. Meaning that Jesus speaks of the spiritual life, not the physical life. Jesus speaks of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and Moses as alive. But the bones of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses are all mouldering in the grave. Was Jesus lying, then, when he said that God is the God of the living, and presented them as alive? No. He was speaking of the spiritual life. The Devil tempts men to commit sin, and thereby incur the death sentence, but it is God who authorizes the execution. God does not WANT anybody to perish. He does not WANT anybody to sin. But they do sin nevertheless, and God does not change his opinion: you sin, you die. Isaiah 45:7 - "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I YHWH do all these things." You are the one who is confused. Somebody told you God can't do evil. But God himself told you from his own mouth that he CREATES evil. Of course he does. SATAN didn't unleash the Flood that killed everything in the world. God did. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   12:00:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: Vicomte13 (#56) Do you dislike Protestants qua Protestants? I don't. I generally prefer to live and let live.......until I am attacked. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь SOSO  posted on  2015-02-09   12:16:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: Vicomte13 (#55) Were they supposed to come up Golgotha and attack the Roman guards? No, for the Lord had already covered that in Matthew 26:51 thru 54. BobCeleste  posted on  2015-02-09   12:28:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: SOSO (#58) I generally prefer to live and let live.......until I am attacked. Me too. Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   13:12:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: BobCeleste (#59) No, for the Lord had already covered that in Matthew 26:51 thru 54. Were they supposed to attack when Stephen was being dragged out and stoned? Vicomte13  posted on  2015-02-09   13:13:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: BobCeleste (#39) Gary, I have heard the same thing numerous times by women who have multiple abortions, men who have brought their daughters, wife or girl friend for an abortion, and most of all from those sick, vicious, hell bent that do abortions. Bob, I agree abortion is murder, but the word itself is not in the Bible. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-02-09   13:16:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: Pericles, BobCeleste, Stoner, redleghunter, Vicomte13, kenh, (#8) Abortion is not mentioned in the Old or New Testament so he does not command anything for us to do. And vengeance will be for the Lord. My thought about abortion is that as Christians we should oppose it. We should always strive to help and protect the weakest among us and no one is weaker and more defenseless than the unborn. I certainly agree with you that vengeance will be for the LORD. I see nothing in Scripture that tells me we will be going to some place for punishment because we didn't act. This line of thinking diminishes Jesus Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. wmfights  posted on  2015-02-09   13:27:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: Liberator (#53) Me: Where did you think the church fathers gained their understanding on the prohibition of abortion? You: Pope Francis?? LOL. Where's the latest Pope Frank I publicity disaster posted? Oh only have to go to TOS to pull one down:) "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   13:37:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste, Vicomte13 (#54) Abortion was already seen as a bad thing to be avoided per the Hypoccratic Oath to Apollo. In fact I use dthis to shut up a self professed "Pagan" woman in civics class in college who was arguing she was for abortion and not beholden to Christian values as a pagan. So the church fathers, as in for example Irenaeus, 'knew' abortion was murder because of the testimony of the heathen pagans of their age, and not because of their exhaustive studies of TaNaKh and B'riyt HaHhadashah? "For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. " (Romans 1:16-17) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   13:42:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: redleghunter (#65) So the church fathers, as in for example Irenaeus, 'knew' abortion was murder because of the testimony of the heathen pagans of their age, and not because of their exhaustive studies of TaNaKh and B'riyt HaHhadashah? St Paul said the Athenians worshiped God without knowing who he was. The Greek phiolosphy and logic and the Hebrew spiritualism came together in the New Testament and completed each other. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   14:17:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: Pericles, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste (#66) The Greek phiolosphy and logic and the Hebrew spiritualism came together in the New Testament and completed each other. I think the pagan syncretism came a bit later. But no, Christianity is not based on a syncretism of Greek philosophy and Hebrew 'spiritualism.' It's a good try but no. Maybe when the church fell into pagan syncretism later on but not the NT times. All the apostles were very Hebrew. "For You formed my inward parts; You wove me in my mother’s womb." (Psalm 139:13) redleghunter  posted on  2015-02-09   14:27:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: redleghunter, GarySpFc, liberator, BobCeleste (#67) (Edited) I think the pagan syncretism came a bit later. But no, Christianity is not based on a syncretism of Greek philosophy and Hebrew 'spiritualism.' I did not implay syncretism at all. Only that the Greeks using their philosophy discerned some of God's truths. See the Jewish Philo of Alexandria. Pericles  posted on  2015-02-09   15:04:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: Pericles (#68) I did not implay syncretism at all. Only that the Greeks using their philosophy discerned some of God's truths. See the Jewish Philo of Alexandria. Total nonsense! Greek philosophers had absolutely nothing to do with writing the New Testament. “Let no one mourn that he has fallen again and again; for forgiveness has risen, from the grave.” John Chrysostom www.evidenceforJesusChrist.org GarySpFC  posted on  2015-02-09   16:17:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (70 - 95) not displayed. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com