Results 361 - 380 of 5155
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: EdB Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
361 | Test to.prove??? | Rom 12:2 | EdB | 243050 | ||
If I may interrupt I think God often tests us not for God to learn about us but for us to learn about ourselves. If you recall Jesus told Peter he would deny Him but Peter swore he would never. However as scripture shows us Peter did in fact deny Christ. In this process we see that Peter grew, he became fearless in his preaching of the word of God. It is the same with us we never know where short comings are in our life until we are forced to face them. The big question then becomes how will we handle them. Will we learn to guard against them? Will we allow God to strengthened us in these short comings? Or will we become angry and defeated. Remember in the story of Cain and Abel, Cain was shown his short coming and got angry and God even asked him about it. Instead of learning and growing Cain became resentful and murdered his brother. When God allows us to see our weaknesses we have to learn to accept the lesson and grow in Christ. |
||||||
362 | An Unholy Curiosity | Ezek 22:28 | EdB | 243042 | ||
test I haven't been able to post. this is a test | ||||||
363 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243035 | ||
Sooty about the duplicate entries | ||||||
364 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243034 | ||
I apologize to you for appearing condescending or hypocritical. So many people come to this forum with an agenda and to my regret I let it color my responses to you. You claim you have no agenda so I must apologize for holding you in suspect. I see you asked the question again and I will refrain from responding to it. But I will restate my position here. There were two prophecies made that the Messiah would come from the kingly line of David and that the Messiah would come from the line of David. Matthew proves His kingly succession and Luke proves His bloodline lineage. The fact that Gentiles were included in the bloodline shows God's grace was extended to all people. I believe any attempt to assume scripture is alluding to something other than these truths tends to down play the significance of these truths. |
||||||
365 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243033 | ||
I apologize to you for appearing condescending or hypocritical. So many people come to this forum with an agenda and to my regret I let it color my responses to you. You claim you have no agenda so I must apologize for holding you in suspect. I see you asked the question again and I will refrain from responding to it. But I will restate my position here. There were two prophecies made that the Messiah would come from the kingly line of David and that the Messiah would come from the line of David. Matthew proves His kingly succession and Luke proves His bloodline lineage. The fact that Gentiles were included in the bloodline shows God's grace was extended to all people. I believe any attempt to assume scripture is alluding to something other than these truths tends to down play the significance of these truths. |
||||||
366 | The Importance of Creedal Truth | Jer 4:2 | EdB | 243030 | ||
AMEN! Great quote! howvery true! | ||||||
367 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243025 | ||
Doc I failed to mention that I,m glad you brought up that Uriah was most certainly a Jew either by birth or by conversion and not a gentile. That closes the door to any attempt by Islam to promote their position in the lineage of Jesus. | ||||||
368 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243024 | ||
Brent If I offended you I apologize that was not my intent. Nor was it my intent to down play your question. I'm not sure what you are looking for. You asked a question and I answered it according to what I see in scripture. I'm unaware of any commentary or books that address your question. I'm very interested in what you see as the significance of your hypothesis. How would it effect Christianity? Again I'm very sorry if I offended you in any way. |
||||||
369 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243022 | ||
I have always assumed Uriah was a proselyte, a man that had met David and became a close friend and fellow warrior. As such he would have no claim to the promised land and there would not be considered in the requirement to have an inheritance redeemer to provide an heir to possess his part of the promised land. However if that is right or wrong, the fact remains the Matt 1 was written to show the succession of Kings from David to Jesus. Uriah's bloodline plays no part and is of no effect. Because of this I don't understand Brent insistance that Solomon was the product of the inheritance redeemer law. We know David named Solomon The son he fathered by Bathsheba, king thus the kingly succession is complete just as God had promised |
||||||
370 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243020 | ||
Brent you make many assumptions and overlook scripture. The law requirement for a relative to provide a heir for a dead relative that died without heir was a Jewish law. David was a Jew, Uriah was not, therefore the provision of providing a child was not the case. In the other cases you cite the dead husband was a Jew and therefore under the law a family member was required to provide the dead relatives wife a child so the father's inheritance In the land of Israel would remain in the family. Second Solomon was not the first son of David, but he was the first of David and Bathsheba. For whatever reason Adonijah was heir apparent. However that all changes when David's favorite Bathsheba come to David and made him name Solomon her favorite son as his successor. We know Solomon was in fact King. The lineage of Matthew 1:6 does not provide blood lineage to Jesus it shows the kingly succession. The blood line back from David to Jesus is shown in Luke 3. I'm miss the point in your hypothesis. Since it is not a question of blood lineage. Matthew 1 is only a listing of Kingly succession from David who was named in the prophecy that the Kingly succession would pass from David to the Messiah. Which it did. What difference would your incorrect hypothesis make if it were correct? |
||||||
371 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243015 | ||
Brent compare the genealogy of Matt 1 and Luke 3. One is establishing the legal or kingly line from David to Jesus and the other a blood line from David through Nathan to Mary the only human parent of Jesus. Your assertion that Uriah is mentioned to add a foreigner other than the ones you mentioned make no sense. By Jewish law a brother is required to give a heir for this dead brothers wife if none exists. It is not a requirement to marry his brothers wife only to provide her an heir. Uriah is dead. David married Bathsheba, This was not a fulfillment of brother providing a heir for his dead brother. This is a man and a wife having son. Nowhere in scripture is Solomon ever referred to as Uriah's heir, but only as David's. The line of Solomon is traced to Joseph but because Mary was a virgin at conception Joseph did not provide a blood line to David. Only legal ascension to David's throne which is established by the father not the mother. In the other the lineage in Luke the lineage is from David through Nathan to Mary who did complete the blood line. Nothing in scripture supports or eludes to your hypothesis. Aside from the mention of Uriah which is clearly being used to identify Bathsheba nothing suggests Uraih had any part in the genealogy or lineage of Jesus. Perhaps I missing something but a mention of a name to complete the identification of another does not establish a shift in genealogy. |
||||||
372 | Uriah the Hittite in Christ's lineage? | Matt 1:6 | EdB | 243012 | ||
Right you are and I'm not sure how I made that mistake. But the fact remains David and Bathsheba's affair did create a child that died and was contributed to David not Uriah or David as Uriah's stand in. Solomon was born of David and Bathsheba after they were married but the marriage was tainted by the adultery they committed. Uriah was one of David's chosen men and from all accounts honorable. The mention of him was as I stated that while Davod's sin could be forgiven and he could take his place in the lineage of Jesus there were still consequences and he would always carry the taint of adultery as would Bathsheba. Bathsheba is mentioned, reread Matt 1:6 her name is there. Fact David fathered Solomon so however you want to look at it Jesus came from the kingly line of David. Also Jesus came from the bloodline of David see lineage in Luke 3. David through Nathan through Mary. So Jesus has both title and blood of David, just as God said he would. |
||||||
373 | Biblically waht is the difference? | Bible general | EdB | 242987 | ||
My response was concerning apostolic fathers, or leadership of the early church. I was not addressing Apostolic succession. Yes you are correct the Assemblies of God do not hold to Apostalic Succession. |
||||||
374 | Biblically waht is the difference? | Bible general | EdB | 242984 | ||
Please excuse the my misuse of the word "critical" I meant to say crucial. | ||||||
375 | Biblically waht is the difference? | Bible general | EdB | 242983 | ||
I find the statement made in Doc last post to be interesting and perhaps not totally correct. The statement is "They tend to put a lot of stock in the words of those they call the Apostolic Fathers. In that sense, they are a lot like the Roman Catholics and the Pentecostals." I believe the correct statement should be. In that sense they are a lot like all of Christianity that does not hold to the Reformed Theology. Let me add I believe Matthew 28:19-20 (NKJV) 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen. Clearly establishes the fact the teaching of the patriarchs is critical and required to true Christianity. |
||||||
376 | Of the Freedom of the Will | Deut 30:19 | EdB | 242927 | ||
I have always agreed that man has free will. | ||||||
377 | Of the Freedom of the Will | Deut 30:19 | EdB | 242925 | ||
This statement and referenced verse doesn't play nice with the theology of election and irresistible grace. | ||||||
378 | Law and Gospel | Jer 44:10 | EdB | 242918 | ||
While I understand what Luther was saying. Without law we become a society of anarchist. As David said in psalms 119 Gods laws are wonderful. They give us precepts, standards, direction, ordinances, commandments, statutes, judgment, to teach us righteousness. Many of the very things missing in today's society and most unfortunately in many churches. In a "if it feels good, do it" society, Christ-like living often gets lost in the grace message. |
||||||
379 | What We Mean by Choice | Col 1:21 | EdB | 242911 | ||
"You, being a rational person, will always choose what seems to you to be the right thing, the wise thing, the most advisable thing to do" This is the fly in the oniment, "what seems to you". What seems correct,smart and logical to me or you may not seem the same to others and vice versa. Through years of ministry I have seen people make decision / choices that to me were horrendous, illogical, and totally without merit. Yet they thought it was the correct, most logical and the choice with the most merit. I have seen people which in my opinion literally destroyed their life yet they were never able to see the problem or that something they did went wrong. Likewise I have seen people make decisions that I viewed as the worst possible but worked in ways I never thought possible. I have seen people faithfully and sacrificially serve God for 20 - 25 years or longer only to walk away. To me it makes no sense, I can't understand how it happens but it does. They simply stop presevering something scripture warns against in more than one place. |
||||||
380 | Praying Rather than Cursing | Ex 22:28 | EdB | 242903 | ||
No one is denying sin or the effects of sin upon man, nor am I denying that without the working of the Holy Spirit we are blind to the truth. What I'm saying as just as David had to call to Mephiboseth before he could fulfill the covenant with Johathan and bestow the gift of loving kindness on Mephiboseth, God likewise calls to each of us. It was at that point Mephiboseth had to make the decision, to accept or reject the gift of David’s loving kindness, we each have to make the same choice. Once offered we must accept or reject God’s offer of salvation. As hard as it might be to believe any would reject it or that even more accept it at the time but reject it later. Hence the scripture that tell us we must persevere. The parable of the sower and seed is an excellent example. All hear the message(seed) but in some cases Satan snatches it from them, other hear it but allow this life to choke the life out of them, others hear and sprout but with shallow roots and when hard times come turn their backs on God. Still other hear, accept, grow and flourish. Matt 13 Doc this is old ground, ground we have both plowed many times. My first response in this thread was not an attempt to replow that ground but to present the other side of the story you presented. That side does exist and people need to hear it, to decide for themselves which best represents the true word of God. Also I thank you for and covet your prayers! I'm told the teaching went well, I don't know, but what I do know is it blessed my heart. As I was speaking I was nearly overwhelmed with presence of the Holy Spirit. Interestingly I was going to do this teaching about a month ago and something changed and I wasn’t able to so then. Then 2 weeks ago learned I was going to have an opportunity to do it last night. In that time God had me change the teaching constantly and even as late as yesterday afternoon God gave me insight into the story I had never seen before. I can’t think of anything that excites my spirit, heart and mind more that the Blood Covenant. Which makes sense since that is what the Bible is all about. Old Testament the Old Blood Covenant and the New Testament the New Blood Covenant. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Next > Last [258] >> |