Days and months and seasons and years--oh my!

[Petros]

Amen to that.

Next year in the New Jerusalem.

[natman]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

I understand that. 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.

[Petros]

In an instant.

But in that instant it is not beyond God to place before everyone alive an informed due diligence up or out decision node.

I gathered data for years - piling most on a corner of my desk. And worked at waffling for a good while. But the actual decision happened in my sleep, and I expect they is you is or is you ain't was near enough instantaneous.

[Ramblinman]

...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.

God knows your desire for their salvation and any prayers for "Come quickly, Lord Jesus!" our loving Father understands as being simultaneous prayers for their salvation. We can pray for God to send out *fishermen and hunters. May their hounds nip at the heels of recalcitrant youth to remind them that life is not as long and carefree as they might imagine.
Even a summer day can be cut short by violent storms. Nature itself teaches such things.

* Jeremiah 16:16 "But now I will send for many fishermen," declares the LORD, "and they will catch them. After that I will send for many hunters, and they will hunt them down on every mountain and hill and from the crevices of the rocks.

[Maverick]

I just finished a personal study of Romans and found another kernel of wisdom from Paul that directly links back to the passage in Galatians.

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)

And a few verses prior:

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

Paul focuses mainly on food and drink in Romans 14, but also briefly refers to the observance of what I think we can safely say are holy days.

So, I think a good paraphrase of verse 3 would then be:

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.

I go to church on Sunday and treat it as a day of rest because I was brought up in a Baptist church. I have nothing against those who worship on the "true" Sabbath, on Saturday. I also don't think that anyone needs to beat fellow believers over the head by telling them that they have to worship on one day or another.

In the same way, even though Christian "holy days" like Christmas and Easter are products of the Catholic church (to my knowledge) and I know that there is nowhere in the Bible that says Christians must observe any kind of days, I still observe and enjoy both days. I think it's wonderful that God can use manmade days like Christmas and Easter to bring the lost to Christ. I just wish that more people (Christians in particular) understood the origins and meanings of these days, and that ultimately, it doesn't matter whether you observe them or not.

[natman]

Sunday before last, our pastor presented his sermon on "immersion baptism" and took us all the way back to baptism in the first century requiring full immersion and that the Greek word "baptizo" means to be "fully immersed".

He said that some ladies do not want to get "immersion baptized" because it messes up their hair.

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.

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]

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.

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.

At least from my observations, most Christians aren't very familiar with customs of those days. Talk about culture shock! It's amazing how many people say things like, "Oh, they did [fill in the blank] back then because that was their lifestyle." They say those things like somehow our way of life is far superior to theirs, when I would contend that that's not necessarily the case.

We were discussing John 21 in my collegiate group a while back and I told my small group that I thought it was not only interesting that 1) Peter was fishing naked, but 2) he put on his garment before he jumped into the sea. I wondered (and still wonder) why Peter would put on his outer garment to presumably swim to shore? I made the point in my small group (all guys) that Peter would have had a much easier time if he swam nude. All I got back were blank stares.

[jasenj1]

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.

I'm not Natman, but I posted a link to some documentation over on N-C. http://naturist-christians.org/forums/v ... 22&t=15724

[jjsledge]

Interesting link. Scroll down to the Galilean Fishing Boat picture.
http://www.biblicalartifacts.org/galilee.html

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. This time of year I often grab a jacket as I leave the house just in case it gets cold. Should be mid 70s tomorrow and I know a front will be coming in the next few days.

Jerry

[Bare_Truth]

...... 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. ....

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.

[jochanaan]

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.

[Ramblinman]

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.

It would have been oilskin, a hide coated in lanolin or similar heavy oil to repel water, most likely an open shawl or cape, possibly with hood.
As the article said, this fishing technique would require frequent diving and thus nudity. An oilskin cape would protect the back from sunburn, ward off chilly breeze yet not trap water against the skin.
Peter would have bundled up his shawl so it would not wash off in the current, but it would not be particularly wet when he reached shore if it were indeed an oilskin cape.