2004 User Predictions - Discussion

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Here is what they are about. This is about where I stand in my religious beliefs.

http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm

Sounds like Jmfcst's church...

I've had about 15 minutes to browse the site, and honestly, I see little in common aside from the broad based belief that the bible is *the* standard.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

They are saying a little more than that...:

1) the name on the church building is important and must come from the bible
2) Sunday replaced the Sabbath
3) Christ only shed his blood for one church and people need to seek out that one true church

Though I only read their page for a couple of minutes, I have to say I respectfully disagree.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Sunday did replace the Sabbath. Jesus said the old law was nailed to the cross. Thats in the bible.

I agree that Christians are not required to meet on the Sabbath, but where in the NT does it command Christians to meet on Sunday?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The first day of the week. In Jewish tradition the first day of the week is Sunday.

Agreed, but that is not the issue.

---

Jesus rose on a Sunday. The whole point of going to church on Sunday is a rememberance of Jesus' death and ressurection.

1) Where does the NT say "whole point of going to church on Sunday is a rememberance of Jesus' death and ressurection"?
1) Where does the NT command Christians to meet on Sunday?
2) If the NT doesn't command it, how can a church justify making an issue out of it?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I didnt say it was required to meet on Sunday. This is the argument.

http://www.bible.ca/H-sunday.htm

From your link:  "Sunday is not a Christian Sabbath or a day of rest, or a holy day to be kept. It is the day God requires all Christians to gather together to worship and eat the Lord's Supper (communion, break bread) Acts 20:7."

I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence states that Sunday "is the day God requires all Christians to gather together", yet NOWHERE in the NT is thatt REQUIREMENT  given.

Just because the NT records the church meeting on Sunday does NOT mean that we are "required" to meet on Sunday.  

A further example:  The NT records the church meeting in people's homes.  So, does that mean the Christians are "required" to meet only in homes simply because that is what the early church did?  Absolutely not.  

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I agree with the first sentence, but the second sentence states that Sunday "is the day God requires all Christians to gather together", yet NOWHERE in the NT is thatt REQUIREMENT  given.

Where was that at?

It's in the first paragraph following the 10 listed points.  Here is the paragraph:

<<The record of history, from the Resurrection of Christ, Christians have always worshipped on the first day of the week (Sunday) and never on the Sabbath (7th day). Sunday is not a Christian Sabbath or a day of rest, or a holy day to be kept. It is the day God requires all Christians to gather together to worship and eat the Lord's Supper (communion, break bread) Acts 20:7. Christians do not keep the ten commandment law of Moses. This is not to say that Christians are free to steal, murder and commit adultery, just because the 10 commandments have been abolished. No! Christians are under a new law, a better Law, the law of Christ, (Gal 6:2) a better covenant (Heb 8:6-7).>>

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

They are saying a little more than that...:

1) the name on the church building is important and must come from the bible
2) Sunday replaced the Sabbath
3) Christ only shed his blood for one church and people need to seek out that one true church

Though I only read their page for a couple of minutes, I have to say I respectfully disagree.

I would also disagree with their views on:

1)speaking in Tongues
2)Trinity
3)Rapture
4)Premillennialism

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

All they are saying is believe what the bible says word for word and put the interpretations to the side.

They are saying a little more than that...:

1) the name on the church building is important and must come from the bible
2) Sunday replaced the Sabbath
3) Christ only shed his blood for one church and people need to seek out that one true church

Though I only read their page for a couple of minutes, I have to say I respectfully disagree.

I would also disagree with their views on:

1)speaking in Tongues
2)Trinity
3)Rapture
4)Premillennialism

Man, you're picky...

Well, they did bring the topics up.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

The bible clearly talks about the gifts disappearing

Yes, and it also talks about prophesy and KNOWLEDGE passing away during SAME time frame.  Here is the passage:

1Cor 12:8-12 Love never fails. But where there are PROPHECIES, they will cease; where there are TONGUES, they will be stilled; where there is KNOWLEDGE, it will pass away. 9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

So the question is:  What time frame is in question in the statement "when perfection comes, the imperfect (prophecy, tongues, knowledge) disappears"?  Answer: when we shall see Jesus face to face; and instead of having imperfect knowledge of Jesus, we will know him fully, even as we are fully known. Therefore, the bible does NOT teach that spiritual gifts will disappear before the 2nd Coming, rather it teaches they will disappear when we meet Jesus.

So what was Paul's point?  There is a perfect gift from God which can perfect you today, it is called "love".  And although it is healthy to seek imperfect gifts such as knowledge, prophecy, tongues, etc..., your ultimate focus should be on love.

1Cor 14:1,39 Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy...be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues.

Col 3:14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in PERFECT unity.

1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love. But PERFECT love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made PERFECT in love.

---

and "rapture" is never mentioned in the bible.

Gee dude, there are a lot of terms Christians use that are not in the bible ("Rapture","Trinity", "Second Coming", etc).  But, for the sake of argument, I'll use the phrase "Caught up together" (NIV translation) in place of "Rapture".

Obviously, the question is not if the exact term is presented in scripture; rather it is whether the CONCEPT of the "Rapture" is presented in the bible.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

"That which is perfect" is in reference to Gods word in writing. aka The Bible. All these gifts and acts that the apostles were using on non-believers was to help convey the message of Jesus better because their was no written word. We are currently living in the end times. When Jesus died that was the start of the end times. The prophecy of Jesus has been fulfilled.

1Cor 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

So, you're saying that the NT:
1) allows us to know Jesus fully, just as fully as he knows us?
2) allows us to see Jesus face to face?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

What he's saying is before the canon (96 AD). We dont fully understand Jesus. For we are like a child and we do childish things (the gifts). After the bible we understand fully. We understand Jesus fully as if we are face to face.
The three great gifts : faith, hope and love. The greatest is love. We live in faith and hope and love is for eternity.

First, you can NOT honestly say that the NT gives believers a view of Jesus face to face and allows them to know him as much as he knows them, for CLEARLY the bible says that is yet to come:

1Cor 13:12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

1John 3:2 But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Rev 22:4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

---

Second, by your definition of "perfection" through the canon of the NT, today's believers know more about the Gospel than the tongue-speaking apostles Paul, Peter, and John.  Obviously that is not correct since we are supposed to be FOLLOWING their teachings.  

---

Third, if tongues has passed away, then where is the gift of knowledge (1Cor 12:28)? Where is the gift of teaching (1Cor 12:28)?  Where is the gift to work miracles (1Cor 12:28)?  Where is the gift of healing (1Cor 12:28)? Where is the gift of helping others (1Cor 12:28)?  Where is the gift of administration (1Cor 12:28)? Where is the gift of wisdom (1Cor 12:?

If tongues have passed away, then so have these other gifts....certainly that is not the case.

---

Forth, if these gifts have passed away by the advent of the NT canon, then three whole chapters of spiritual instruction (1Cor ch. 12-14), along with many others within that VERY SAME NT, are nullified.  How can the canon of the NT nullify the NT itself?!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Well, we just have different points of view. Lets get back to politics.

OK, but I would hope you would be able to answer those questions if you believe spiritual gifts have already passed away.

---

On a final note...

from http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm...<<How we are different: We are different from modern churches because we are the same as the church of the Bible...We are people of a restoration spirit who want to restore, in our time, the original New Testament church....we call upon all to honor God’s original blueprint found in the Bible.>>

Notice that the web page you cited stated that they were trying to get back to the church as it was in 33AD...so doesn't it seem a little strange that very same web page argues AGAINST the practices of the early church?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

from http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm...<<How we are different: We are different from modern churches because we are the same as the church of the Bible...We are people of a restoration spirit who want to restore, in our time, the original New Testament church....we call upon all to honor God’s original blueprint found in the Bible.>>

Notice that the web page you cited stated that they were trying to get back to the church as it was in 33AD...so doesn't it seem a little strange that very same web page argues AGAINST the practices of the early church?

When they talk about the early church they talk about some of the false doctrines, like the pope. 33 AD was when Jesus died.

No, you're not following me.  The authors of the web page claim that they represent the church as it was doctrinally during the first generation of Christians: "Information about who we are! Worship With Us! Visitors Warmly Welcomed THE CHURCH YOU CAN READ ABOUT IN THE BIBLE!"

My point was that they claim to follow the doctrine of the early church led by the original Apostles yet they argue against following the NT's instructions regarding spiritual gifts by stating that the canonization of the NT made whole sections of the NT obsolete.

This canonization-nullification theory is certainly strange given the fact that God instructed Moses to canonize the Law, the first scripture, for the sole purpose of making sure the people obeyed it thus protecting them from false doctrine.

But this web site claims that the canonization of the NT nullified large sections of the very same NT!!!  Not only does that logic defeat the human purpose of canonization, it also flies in the face of the biblical precedent of the first canonization which God himself commanded.    

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Gore underperformed in Southern VA ("Southside")... a mix of his apparent stances on coal and tobacco.
If Kerry chooses a running mate who can appeal to these people he has a chance.

I don't understand why VA and LA are at issue in this thread since, regardless of who wins them, they are NOT going to decide this election barring a Kerry VP nominee from either state.

The states that will decide the election are those states in 2000 that were decided by 6 or fewer points (FL, OR, NM, MO, IA, WI, OH, NH, WV, PA, MN).  And I excluded TENN and ARK from this list since they were the home states of Gore and Clinton.
 
I would think OH, PA, and FL are the keys.  Whoever wins 2 of the 3 will be extremely hard to beat.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I think Virginia will be much more closer than some of the 5% and under states, like Missouri for Bush or Kerry in Washington and Maine.

If Kerry wins VA, then he have at least 350 electoral votes.  The state is simply not an issue.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You lost faith in Kerry all  in a sudden?

Yes.  He is a god damned joke.

You and Gustaf need to clue me in to your problems with Kerry.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

How did Kerry win the Democratic Primaries when such sensible people as Gustaf, Miamiu and myself don't like him? I'm really curious how Kerry managed it, it really seems like the worst fluke imaginable. Does anyone know how he turned it around? I have yet to hear a reasonable answer from the media.

BOTOX coupled with a suicidal Dean

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

McCain is a Democrat, dont let the (R) fool you.

No, McCain should have an (E) by his name...for ego.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Colin Powell would never win, especially not in the south as someone else pointed out...

Lets not forget the fact that race is still a huge factor, especially in primaries when more extreme voters turn out.

1/10 voters still believe Interracial marriage should be banned...  (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-21-gay-marriage_x.htm)

A higher ratio in the south where most Republican primary delegates come from.  Colin Powell would have no chance of winning a Republican nomination...  and he is too conservative to win a Democratic nomination.

The country is clearly not ready for a black president because there are still too many biggots out there who don't even think interracial marriage is ok...  

I don't want to burst your bubble by informing you that the black community (which votes heavily Democratic) is against interracial marriage more than whites...so I won't.  Please pardon the interruption.