Moderators: jochanaan, MatthewNeal, jimmy, natman, Senior Moderator, Moderators
Ramblinman wrote:Come quickly, Lord Jesus!
natman wrote:Ramblinman wrote:Come quickly, Lord Jesus!
As a parent of five, I am always hesitant to say "Come quickly Lord Jesus". We desire for Him to come, but we also desire for Him to wait until our children and grand children have come to Him first.
Petros wrote:I get that - but the wheel needs to stop somewhere. I have to believe those youngers will be given all the data and all the chance they need to come in. God is not going to make any one close the exam book with no chance to answer the question.
Ramblinman wrote:Nathan, if Paul can say this under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, we can follow and know that it is God's will for us to pray accordingly.
We also know, that God's timing will not become undue haste at our behest.
natman wrote:...However, from what I understand of the final coming (perusia) of Christ, it will happen in an instant, without warning.
I also understand that whenever it happens, God's timing is PERFECT and that it is not up to me to criticize God's plan. But as a parent, I am hoping that I will see all of my "ducklings" again in eternity. I think it is the hope of EVERY Christian parent.
5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God.
Romans 14:5-6 (emphasis added)
2One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables.
3Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.
Romans 14:2-3
Let not the one who observes certain days despise the one who does not, and let not the one who does not observe certain days pass judgment on the one who does, for God has welcomed him.
natman wrote:I was half tempted to send him information about how baptisms were done for the first 300 years of the Christian faith, completely nude (a carry over of the Jewish mikvahs) and in front of witnesses. I still may do that some time.
natman wrote:If wet hair is a reason not to be baptized, then I can imagine that baptisms would come to a complete halt if we demanded that they be done the way our Savior was baptized.![]()
Maverick wrote:natman wrote:I was half tempted to send him information about how baptisms were done for the first 300 years of the Christian faith, completely nude (a carry over of the Jewish mikvahs) and in front of witnesses. I still may do that some time.
Natman, would you mind posting links (if you have them) to that information here? I'd like to give it a read and keep it on hand just in case.
That is pretty much how I have conceived of what peter did, likely using the belt if there was one or perhaps merely tying the arms together around his waist. As a fisherman, I presume that peter understood, that standing in the breeze one can get pretty cold without something to break the wind and any coat that did not permit the wind to penetrate would be a serious impediment to have covering ones arms when swimming. As they were near the shore it is entirely possible that peter did not even have to swim but might have been able to walk most of the distance and then put the coat on to break the wind. Had he tied the coat around his waist withou putting his arms through the sleeves with the bulk of the garment bunched up at the small of his back, The garment would likely have been almost on the surface of the water and been the least drag while swimming as it would have mostly floated on the surface.jjsledge wrote:...... I seem to remember that Peter "gird his cloak about him". To me that could mean that he simply tied it about his waist, after all he would be standing around in the cool of the morning instead of working on the boat. ....
jochanaan wrote:Peter's garment was not a "cloak," but rather a "fisher's coat," which may have been little more than a belt to hold fishing tackle. I have also read that their boat was likely in shallow water so that he would not have had to swim to shore. His actions make more sense in such context.
Return to Unanswered questions about Christianity
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest