985 reputation
310
bio website
location Buenos Aires, Argentina
age
visits member for 2 years, 3 months
seen 22 hours ago

Mar
20
comment Why is the Old Testament included in the bible if we are no longer under those old laws?
On another note: All Gentiles living in Israel were required to follow whatever the Law said about "the stranger". As for the Law for the Jews, it is, according to various books in the Tanach, an everlasting convenant. Christ reaffirms that when he speaks to his followers. Apart from Matthew 5, he also tells his followers to "do what the Pharisees teach but not what they do". Jesus Himself never said anything about forgetting the law. God never calls it a burden.
Mar
20
comment Why is the Old Testament included in the bible if we are no longer under those old laws?
+1. I would add Matthew 5:19-20 as well which makes the position of Christ regarding the Law even more clear.
Jan
15
comment There is ONE Guardian Angel for each person?
"In the light of this verse, can we infer that there is an guardian angel for each person?" No. That verse has nothing to do with guardian angels. As far as I can remember, the concept of personal guardian angels does not exist in the Bible.
Jan
14
comment Has the gospel been “preached to all nations”?
Their definitions for their purposes is fine. At the end of the day, however, they are created out of thin air. Maybe I should have avoided using the word "faulty". Maybe a better way of describing it would be "good for their use but not based on anything the Bible teaches".
Jan
14
comment Has the gospel been “preached to all nations”?
I would also add though that just because a people has been categorized as "reached", doesn't mean people should stop "making disciples". Hence it should not matter, when it comes to spreading the Gospel, whether people have been reached or not. However, I realize that is not what the question asked. So please take this as an off topic comment.
Jan
14
comment Has the gospel been “preached to all nations”?
I wouldn't personally. That's up to God. But if I had to, then I would use the following verse to define reached or unreached: "And if anyone will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet when you leave that house or town." Matthew 10:14. I realize it is not specifically about Evangelism but it sets the stage for what was expected of the apostles and what we should follow. When Jesus said, "make disciples", he did not say, "make at least 5% of the population my disciples". That's all I'm trying to say. Again though, God would define reached or unreached,not me
Jan
14
comment Has the gospel been “preached to all nations”?
I don't intend to start a huge comment discussion but yes I would. It depends from place to place. The Holy Spirit is able to use one person effectively to get God's message across to 218 million people. Or do you think it isn't possible? Assumptions and random calculations are fine for human work, but for a group to be labelled unreached because of a percentage has nothing to do with what God teaches in the Bible. As for how big the Christian community needs to be to reach people...1 person strong is usually strong enough.
Jan
14
comment Has the gospel been “preached to all nations”?
I see. I just read what you wrote and didn't check the source. In that case, both the criteria selected by these groups are faulty and they seem to be creating reasons to still have a high number of "unreached" groups. Why are they faulty? Because they are based on nothing that is in the Bible.
Jan
14
comment Are there Christian denominations that are beginning a discussion about the fact that Jesus was really the son of God?
@ElberichSchneider You said: "I think Christianity need to revise some interpretations of the Sacre Scriptures to make them more actual and to tend towards unity." I ask, "Why?"
Jan
14
comment Has the gospel been “preached to all nations”?
I like International Mission Board's definition of "unreached" a lot better than Joshua Project's. The latter seem to be creating definitions of reached and unreached totally out of thin air.
Jan
14
comment How does this fit in with “we are incapable of following the law”?
@curiousdannii Thanks for the comment. Do you have any references from the OT confirming what you're saying? That no one can truly and completely follow the law? If so, please write them in the form of an answer.
Jan
14
comment How does this fit in with “we are incapable of following the law”?
Thanks for the answer. I did consider the whole context that is why I put the following in my question: "I am honestly wondering how the verses above (keeping their context in mind)..."
Jan
14
comment How does this fit in with “we are incapable of following the law”?
@Steve I don't see how your comment is related to this discussion? I asked in my question that the answer be specifically from the Old Testament. We can argue over the seeming difference between the New and the Old Testaments later. I want to avoid that in this question, however.
Jan
10
awarded  Yearling
Jun
24
awarded  Enlightened
Jun
24
awarded  Nice Answer
Apr
10
comment Why do Matthew and Luke contain genealogies of Jesus, while Mark and John do not?
Probably because Matthew was a tax collector and Luke was a doctor. Both of them found details to be of utmost importance? Mark provides a general overview of Jesus's life whereas John only focuses on his ministry so the whole genealogy wouldn't make sense in these two books.
Mar
17
comment Why is circumcision not a requirement for Christians?
@DavidMorton Christ said to his Jewish audience that anyone who teaches anyone to not follow the least of these commandments will be the least in the kingdom of God. I tend to follow Jesus rather than Paul unless they're both in agreement. Secondly, and this is to jayyeshu's point above too. Jesus saying that righteousness should surpass that of the Pharisees does not indicate that we can't follow the law. It just means that merely appearing to follow the law (checking off a list) is not enough. You actually have to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and might.
Mar
17
comment Why is circumcision not a requirement for Christians?
@DavidMorton continued...he was held up as a model BY GOD for other kings to follow. And if a king came close to David, he was considered a good king and if one fell short of David he wasn't. Now we all know, from David's stories in the Bible, that he wasn't perfect as you or I would judge him but like I said, God is the one who decides, not you, not me and not Paul. As for you disagreeing with the gist of Deuteronomy...you can disagree all you want but until you provide something from the Tanakh then I'm afraid your disagreement is merely your opinion.
Mar
17
comment Why is circumcision not a requirement for Christians?
@DavidMorton Your question to me whether I've followed the entirety of the law or not shows that you're completely missing the point of my comments and that's fine. It hasn't happened for the first time that Christians generally ignore it when I say that the law is applicable to the Jews and NOT the Gentiles. Secondly, you and I aren't judges of who has followed the law in its entirety. Paul isn't the judge of it either, which is where most Christians would put their hands up and call me a heretic, but God is the judge. David is the perfect example of someone who was held up as a model BY GOD