Jump to content

Ukulelemike

Member Since 17 Oct 2012
Offline Last Active Today, 07:17 PM
-----

#339053 Way Of Life - Jehovah And Yahweh?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 08 August 2013 - 09:33 AM

I wonder where this leaves the verse " Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him." (Ps 68:4). Kind of sounds like the beginning of the name of God begins with "Yah" or Jah", rather than 'Jeh" or Yeh"

 

As well the argument of 'Hallelujah" sounds more like it comes from a name beginning with 'Yah', rather than 'Yeh.'

 

 

Anways, not necessarily fighting the idea of what is being said here, just bringing up some thoughts on it.

 

Also, seems to me that someone was arguing against the use of YHWH, that it was not really in the Bible, but added by someone and not valid. Or not vaild to use, perhaps, because maybe they were associating it with the pronounciation of Yahweh. Or maybe I wrote Yahweh-not sure I remember. Getting old stinks! What was I saying? Banjo practice?

That still doesn't explain my question in Psalm 68:4-how do we get the name 'Jah', (Yah) From Yehowah-I can see where it comes from Yahweh.

 

Again, not saying I necessarily agree, and besides, as John says, I call Him 'Father" as well, or 'Lord'. And no, I don't subscribe to the Jewish Roots-thing of having to refer to the Lord by only His Hebrew name, seeing as how He is the one who created the languages, and thus, could be expected to know that a name in one language would sound different in another, and such would be the case even with His. After all, to some I am Michael, to others, Michelle, to others MIguel, Mikhael, etc. So, Jesus is Joshua, or Y'shuah, etc.  




#339027 Way Of Life - Jehovah And Yahweh?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 08 August 2013 - 07:00 AM

I wonder where this leaves the verse " Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him." (Ps 68:4). Kind of sounds like the beginning of the name of God begins with "Yah" or Jah", rather than 'Jeh" or Yeh"

 

As well the argument of 'Hallelujah" sounds more like it comes from a name beginning with 'Yah', rather than 'Yeh.'

 

 

Anways, not necessarily fighting the idea of what is being said here, just bringing up some thoughts on it.

 

Also, seems to me that someone was arguing against the use of YHWH, that it was not really in the Bible, but added by someone and not valid. Or not vaild to use, perhaps, because maybe they were associating it with the pronounciation of Yahweh. Or maybe I wrote Yahweh-not sure I remember. Getting old stinks! What was I saying? Banjo practice?




#338877 Can A Father Baptize His Own Son...

Posted by Ukulelemike on 07 August 2013 - 01:35 PM

THoughtful question. generally, baptism is considered an act carried out through the authority of the local church, though clearly the Bible mentions examples of those baptized not in a church: Saul, the Ethiopian eunuch, Cornelius and his family and friends, Though the one thing these all had in common were: they were all PERSONALLY directed by Jesus to these baptisms.  We don't generally have such specific direction from the Lord anymore.

 

I believe what was given to the Apostles as the Great Commission, was to see that these things were done, not necessarily that everyone woulkd be involved in every aspect, as far as bringing some to Christ, Baptizing and training them up to do the same. Some plant, some water, some reap the increase, yet all are partakers of the fruit. The Apostles were the foundation of the church-I believe the direction given to them, was to be administered to the churches, and then directed out of the church from that point. Thus, it takes the authority of a local church to baptize. 

 

Now, may a man baptize his child? As long as it is done under the authority of the local church, certainly! I authorized a man in my church to baptize his daughter, and it is perfectly valid.

 

Valid/invalid, all are difficult when there is, really, nor really clear directive from the Lord in the Bible. For instance, suppose you had the opportunity to lead someone to Christ in a situation where this person may never be able to be in a local church to be baptized: would you be wrong to baptize them? I don't think so-baptism is kind of a formality-it is commanded, but it doesn't make one saved or MORE saved, just is a visible show of what has happened in the heart. I also see it as sort of a demarkation line: a person says, 'From this day forward I am walking for Christ, not the world, not myself'. Which may be why so often people get baptized and you never see them again.

 

Anyways, just my thoughts on the matter, how I see it. Not here to declare absolute doctrine.




#338872 What Local Church Was Paul Baptized Into?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 07 August 2013 - 01:12 PM

Sincere question here. What about the 70 weeks that many say actually means 69 weeks plus an undetermined number of weeks before we finally reach a week that will be the one we call the 70th week?

 

This seems similar to the thousand years "literal or figurative" issue.

Honestly, joke aside, I was referring to the millennial reign, which in one chapter, six times says it will be a thousand years. seems like that many times in one short space might actually mean what it says. We know some terms have a figurative sense, like what you mention, or the cattle on a thousand hills. I just mean that repeating the number so many times so specifically should pretty-well seal the deal. "In the mouth of two or three witnesses,..."




#338745 Phony Alert?

Posted by Ukulelemike on 06 August 2013 - 01:29 PM

If you think about it, with the government always using fear tactics on Americans to get us to behave a certain way, whether it be fear of the 'other candidate', or fear of another country, anoter culture, a certain religion, guns, the constitution, whatever, they are, in fact, utilizing terror tactics, meaning that our government is one of the largest purveyors of terrorism in the world. How did they pass the Patriot Act? Fear. DHS? Fear. Pass gun-restricting laws? Fear. convince people to spy on their neighbors? Fear. Convince people not to step up and be whistle-blowers against the government? Fear. They are fear peddlers, terrorists in the purest sense of the term.  

 

THERE! I SAID IT!




#338730 Television

Posted by Ukulelemike on 06 August 2013 - 11:07 AM

That's one thing I was thinking as well. Along these same lines, other IFB churches would likely pitch in to one extent or another, whether with donations or in other ways; especially if they were in the same "camp". The Sword of the Lord is somewhat of an example of a fundamentalist organization that receives support from many IFB churches.

 

Another point we should take note of here is the fact that some, such as Mormons, Muslims and some other false religionists, are far more dedicated to their god than many IFBs are to the One True God. That's very much to our great shame!

 

We who are in Christ should be even more willing to give abundantly of our time, talent and treasures for the cause of Christ than the dedicated false religionists. What's much more common among IFBs, and Christianity in general here in America, is for most folks to go their own way, building their own little kingdom, chasing the things of the world, separating much of their "church life" from the rest of their life, and being far more willing to spend $5,000 on a vacation to Disney World than they would be to donate a thousand dollars to help spread the Gospel. Most of us would be willing to spend hours fishing or playing lawn darts than we would to volunteer a few hours a week in the service of Christ through our church.

 

It's really no wonder that when some followers of Christ from another nation get a chance to visit here they are so disappointed in what they see in "Christian America" where professing Christians have so much money and time on their hands yet they give so little of either to the cause of Christ.

 

Anyway, I agree that some of these very money heavy churches would do much better building a simple church rather than these multi-million dollar extravagances.

 

Why aren't IFBs taking advantage of the opportunity TV presents? Surely if Kenneth Copeland, Charles Stanley, and so many others can do this (and we need to remember, they all started from scratch at one point with minimal support) we should be able to come up with the means to present the pure Gospel from our own TV station.

This post is so full of win! Sadly, its full of fail, too, on the part of Christians not interested in putting forth much for the Lord. We like to castigate Israel in the OT, how they turned from God, and we wonder, how could they do this? All they had was such a wonderful gift from God. Yet we don't see it here and now, in such a country as we once had, whose laws were, at least in part, built upon God, with a constitution founded on the ideal that we have rights and freedoms that God gives, not man, that man has no right tampering with. But its all gone now.

 

As Christians, we have had the greatest of opportunities to spread the gospel, to plant churches, to train the brethren, but instead we waste it on seeking after signs and miracles, waving flags, gibbering like idiots and making money by looking and sounding like the world. Your comment about the vacations was right on, too-I knew a family who, at least once per month, were off for a week or two at a time to some amusement park somewhere in the country, spending thousands, yet giving little to their small church, such that the church finally had to close when they could no longer pay their bills. Instead of stepping up and saying, "How can we sacrifice a bit so we can keep going?" they complained that the pastor wasn't doing enough, and walked away when the call was put out to the whole church to do a bit more to keep the doors open.

 

Americans are the most carnal, world-loving, selfish lot of Christians to take up space on the earth-we have so much, and do so little with it.

 

Mind you, I know there are those who do, who give, its not all, but sadly, its most.




#338695 Music In The Independent Baptist Churches

Posted by Ukulelemike on 06 August 2013 - 07:40 AM

So, what happened to the original thread subject here? Music in the IFB churches? We got lost somewhere along the way.




#338493 Music In The Independent Baptist Churches

Posted by Ukulelemike on 04 August 2013 - 09:23 AM

Agreed.

 

I have encountered some IFBs who hold the position a woman is never to teach a man anywhere, or anything, including wives to their husbands, teachers in schools, etc.

Well, considering we also have IFB's out there who think its wrong for a man to have facial hair or be overweight, its no surprise. Sometimes I am afraid that IFB has become a catch-all for a lot of weird thinking out there




#338460 Music In The Independent Baptist Churches

Posted by Ukulelemike on 03 August 2013 - 06:48 PM

My Sunday school teacher is a woman, she does an excellent job. The problem with the men are, they are not doing the job and the women's are taking over. Inside the church and outside the church. Work or at the home.

This IS unscriptural. If the men won't do it, what are you doing? Step up and take the place a man should take. Women aren't to teach men in the context of the church.




#338459 Music In The Independent Baptist Churches

Posted by Ukulelemike on 03 August 2013 - 06:47 PM

As true Christians we are to follow the Bible (KJV), not man's "interpretation" of the Bible!  If the KJV tells us that the woman is to be silent in the church house, then that is the way it is to be.  Praise!

Yes, the WHOLE Bible, meaning all areas of that topic must be interpreted according to the others. In this case, there are only a few, so it doesn't take too much work to find the correct doctrine.




#338458 A Short Sermon On The Subject Of Wife Spanking

Posted by Ukulelemike on 03 August 2013 - 06:45 PM

I see this topic bearing no good fruit. It is locked.




#338228 Will Hillary Run For The White House...

Posted by Ukulelemike on 01 August 2013 - 10:57 AM

I'm 53 and had a youth pastor...the late 1940s saw emphasis on reaching youth and things went from there...

Most likely in conjucntion with the origins of the New Evangelicalism movement of the same time. That's when churches really began to have probolems, when the 'youth' were separated from the 'adults', and placed into their own little paradigm. The last thing the church needed was a generation gap like the world was getting, and it is a major reason the contemporary movement is so powerful today-its all oriented on the youth, the kids, and those older saints who worked through the heat of the day to build churches are no longer welcome if they don't want to accept the new, hip, young, rock-n-roll way of doing things.

 

I just realized that I have gone a completely different direction in this post-sorry!

 

Hillary-yeah, she'll run, and frighteningly, she'll probably win, because the Republicans will once again choose some old white man who is part of the old boys club. And not that I am against old white men-they have some great wisdom-just that's not the case with many of the GOP choices of late. Mitt Romney wanted to go all the same directions as Obama-just he wanted to get there a different way. He was little different, excpet in comparrison, he looked like 'business as usual', while Obama was fresh and young, a virtual unknown, a plethora of potential! The visual has become very important of late-the only reason Bush did well was because his opponents were worse than him-Jim Kerry? What were the Dems thinking? He is everything the Democrat party pretends it isn't: rich, white and entitled. Not a good poster-boy for progressivism. 




#338224 Postmillinium

Posted by Ukulelemike on 01 August 2013 - 10:09 AM

I've never really read much about the PM position, but I have just been reading a blog by a fellow named Jay Rogers at 'the forerunner' website, and his view on the PM.

 

I'll say this for them: they're very optimistic! They believe that things are getting better, that more people are getting saved, and more nations are becoming Christian nations than ever before. And of course, that Jesus will come back because the world has been so well-evangelized that its virtually a paradise! So, very optimistic; naive, but optimistic.

 

One interesting thing I read, of the other interesting things there, was his assertion that nowhere does the Bible either implicitly or explicitely state that Jesus will return before the Millenial reign. Yet, I find at least three places that appear, to me anyways, to explicitely state that He will, indeed, return before it:

 

   Rv 19: 11-19, the description of Jesus returning on a white horse with the armies of heaven behind Him, to make war against the beast and his followers, the armies fighting Jerusalem;

Zech 14: 3&4, the same thing from a Old testament persepctive, the Lord returning to the Mount of Olives, outside Jerusalem, to fight for Israel against the armies invading her;

Matt 25:31-46, Jesus as judge, who has 'returned' with His holy angels, judging the nations, the sheep and the goats. This is clearly NOT the 'final' judgment, because it is based on works, not faith. This shows the judgment that will take place as soon as Jesus has returned, defeated the armies attacking Jerusalem, and then he calls together the nations of those surviving, as seen in Zechariah 14:16, who will be judged according to how the treated the people of God who were being persecuted. Thus, it is not so much salvation they receive, since it is by grace through faith, but it is passage into His kingdom, in the flesh.

 

Three times specifically the Bible says Jesus will come just prior to the start of the milennial reign, and that He WILL reign from earth, not from heaven for an unspecified, long period of time, as they also believe.

 

That's my view on it, anyways. It seems like, at some point, someone rejected dispensationalism, and had to invent something else to replace it. Then they pretend that it was the original view.  This is the problem with our various boxes we like to place our theology into: it is rarely complete and often full of non-facts. Instead of being dispensationalists, post-mailennialists, Calvinists, Arminianists, etc, why can't we just be Biblicists and see where that takes us-otherwise, instead of interpreting the Bible for what it says, we interpret it to fit our 'isms', so to speak. Let God be true and every man a liar.




#338161 They Shall Mingle Themselves With The Seed Of Men

Posted by Ukulelemike on 31 July 2013 - 04:41 PM

Heartstrings,

 

If you believe that the sons of God are humans on earth, why isn't Job among them since he was the most righteous man of the east?

Who says he wasn't? That might be what prompted the Lord to bring him up as an example.




#338151 Jack Hyles

Posted by Ukulelemike on 31 July 2013 - 03:14 PM

Yes. It was his belief in the only begotten son of God, Jesus Christ <--- plus nothing, I think the prayer is really only a formality

Agreed. Well, I believe the prayer is necessary, at least somewhat, in that we are told to 'call upon the name of the Lord and thou shalt be saved.' We DO need to call, though it is not a work, it is a response to the work.






The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500