a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site

Mike Gabriel Male Pembine United States: Share

Blog Posts
Discussions (109)
Events
Groups

Mike Gabriel's Apps

Mike Gabriel's Friends

View All

Music

Loading…

Mike Gabriel's Discussions

Give due diligence to show yourself approved unto God!

Gifts Received

Mike Gabriel has not received any gifts yet

Give Mike Gabriel a Gift

Latest Activity

Mike Gabriel added a song

play Recording Nov 12 2009 10 17 15 PM

03:09

November 12

Mike Gabriel added a song

play Dr. Mark Eastman_How DNA Led Him to Jesus

46:46

October 11

Mike Gabriel added a song

play 11_Justified

04:31

September 29

Mike Gabriel replied to Steve's discussion 'Explaining the Trinity. To do or not to do?'

I was going to give you some good answers for Jesus' divinity, but it's getting late. Go buy The Forgotten Trinity, and (if you like) check out these articles on my blog here. One I don't think I mentioned on the blog is (Joh 1:3 ESV) "All things ...

May 31

Mike Gabriel replied to Samson Covatch's discussion 'Is it wrong for me to feel happy and sad about this?'

I was just about to post nearly the same thing that Laura just did. I certainly know that reaction was wrong on the part of the vigilante, but I do realize that Tiller most likely never would have received his due punishment in this life. I don't ...

May 31

Char left a comment for Mike Gabriel

March 31

Char left a comment for Mike Gabriel

March 29

mem left a comment for Mike Gabriel

February 27

Profile Information

Tell us about yourself

I'm a married Bible college student with 4 kids majoring in Biblical Languages...and I love to study and talk about theology.

How would you describe yourself theologically?

I'm a Biblicist! haha A Reformed Biblicist. Which means I'm Baptist!

Who is the greatest theologian in the last 2000 years? (Besides Biblical People!)

I gave it some thought, and I think I'm gonna have to go with Augustine. I've heard it said that when he blessed the church, he really blessed it, and when he cursed the church, well, he really cursed it. Recognizing that fact, though, he has contributed something to just about every beloved doctrine of the faith from the Trinity to Predestination, and at such an early point he laid it all out so systematically and argued so strongly from Scripture that I have to give him the title.

What is your web-address?

http://theologicalponderings.blogspot.com

Comment Wall (38 comments)

You need to be a member of Theologica to add comments!

Join this Ning Network

At 6:53am on March 31, 2009, Char said…: I AM WAITING TO ARGUE ABOUT SACRAMENTS.

>:(

At 7:25pm on March 29, 2009, Char said…: Miiiiikkkkeee

People wanna argue about sacraments again...If we get our group (which now includes JL) together we could have a good resource. And we can fight lots which is beaucoup de fun.

You should come back and argue. That's what I think. And I am always right according to James.

At 8:25am on February 27, 2009, mem said…: I just felt like putting something like also at the beginning. We should always be talking about Buckeye football, so it's basically a continuing conversation, you know.

At 12:39pm on February 26, 2009, mem said…: also, O-H

At 4:22pm on January 20, 2009, JL Vaughn said…: Mike,

I've not heard of "en Eglesia."

Everybody in the CoC, to my knowledge is trinitarian. Some don't like the word because it is not found in Scripture. Officially we do not require it. However, I suspect it is in the secret creed of every congregation. (Secret creed = the things they don't tell you that you will be disfellowshipped for if you don't hold to them.) This "en Eglesia" group is not CoC.

I believe Scripture commands "baptism for remission of sins." This is what the entire church has taught for most of history. It is done once.

Plenty fair.

Blessings.

At 12:04pm on January 19, 2009, JL Vaughn said…: Mike,

This discussion started as an off-topic discussion on the forum. You asked me questions there, I responded here because it was off-topic.

My pride is not the issue. You told me I had "inconsistencies and errors" in my argument. I've been waiting patiently for you to demonstrate these "inconsistencies and errors." I'm still waiting.

You asked, why does it matter? If it doesn't matter, then why did you ask your original questions? A person who takes issue with something, then later says it doesn't matter, usually had no real argument in the first place, just emotion.

Since it no longer matters to you, I will drop the subject.

Blessings.

At 8:35pm on January 18, 2009, JL Vaughn said…: Mike,

Just to make things absolutely clear, please ask your professor if this claim is "Marlarkey."

From well-before Nicea to the present, numerous scholars throughout history have seriously questioned the claim that The Gospel of John and The Revelation have a common author. The primary reason stated (when a reason is stated) is the great differences in grammar between the Greek manuscripts for the two books.

In contrast, the common authorship of Paul's epistles has no history of being seriously questioned on the grounds of variations in grammar.

If he still calls that, "Malarkey," then I expect some references.

Blessings.

At 11:54am on January 18, 2009, JL Vaughn said…: Mike,

I said, "Paul's grammar was consistant over nearly 20 years of writing letters."

You respond with, "he said that it is “malarkey” (I like that word. Haha) for you to claim that Paul’s epistles have been without variation."

I made a true statement. You then twisted my statement into something false and presented it to your professor.

We have nearly 2000 years of experts in Greek making remarks that the grammar of Revelation (in Greek) and the grammar of John (in Greek) could not be from the same person. I have never seen such a comment made about Paul's epistles. Paul's grammar over some 20 years is consistant with the expectations of Greek experts over the last 2000 years. John's grammar is not.

You continue to imagine errors in what I've written, yet you can't even bring yourself to ask your professor if my precise statement is true? Why do you feel you have to change, twist, and misinterpret every statement I make?

At 4:39pm on January 16, 2009, Jack said…: Mike; your post reminded me of the verse: Ps 37:4 "Delight thyself in the Lord and He shall give thee the desires of thy thine heart."

At 7:58am on January 14, 2009, Char said…: Yeah I've seen it. Most of it is like all we can do, conjecture. You have to assume dates for prophesies that aren't actually dated (most of the early prophesies aren't so I keep them consecutive for that reason though if we can guess dates given the circumstances such as the drought). The problem with the dating is really 21-24 and especially 22. 22 talks like it follows from 21, with Jechoiachin in exile, but it also speaks of Jehoiakim as if he is still alive. And it is the first part that speaks of the exile, middle about Jehoiakim, and circles back to Jehoiachin's exile as if it is just about to happen. Though I admit the part about Jehoiakim maybe was inserted, the circling seems purposeful and I think it is one prophesy. So was Jeremiah looking back or forward? Because Jehoiakim is not alive when Jehoiachin is exiled. It's a hard one to figure out.

I do think the book is cut into four (or possibly five) sections. That part (21 to about 24) is the hardest to place. If we use as a place marker of the 4th yr of Jehoiakim's reign, there are three return points that I think all refer to the same event (the burning of the scroll which I think is significant). 25 then is the prophesy (the one of many similar words that is), 36 shows Jehoiakim's reaction and his attempt to arrest and harm Jeremiah and Baruch, and 45 is God's special message to Baruch for bearing it (with 46 following from that). They are in a sort of chronological order, but separated by several chapters between. This seems good to me. The first section however doesn't fit and is kind of on it's own. I have come across also someone who thinks it does bear a very complex version of the typical chiastic structure (you will find it if you google Jeremiah structure) and divides it similarly but not the same as I would due to those same four chapters. This person sees the continuity of the second two references to Jehoiakim's fourth year, but not the first. The cycle of Jeremiah's birth I do think is significant, but again this leaves out 21-24.

Don't know if you know but this is probably the most difficult book to figure out a structure for. Many people just give up and say it's random. I don't think it is, especially given that the septuagint has less material and a different structure.