Results 501 - 520 of 1928
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
501 | Genesis 3:1-7 | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 26095 | ||
Paul: Okay...I am going to ask as plainly as possible: Was the line from Adam to Christ a sinless one? Yes or no? That is what I want to know. I did not take Branham out of context. He obviously believed in evolution (he even refers to the serpent as a "missing link"). He insists that Satan is the father of Cain, despite the fact that Gensis 4:1 says that he is the result of sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve. Countless times Branham invents new meanings for words with completely different deninitions (e.g. "beguiled" meaning seduction). In addition, anyone who reads the Bible in its entirety will not find a single reference stating that Cain is Satan's son. Not one. The verses you have cited to support thsi false teaching have absolutely nothing to do with Cain and can be clearly shown to be non-supportive based on their context. In other words, putting aside Branham and reading the Bible, NO ONE would come to the conclusions that Branham did. So we return to the age-old deception of believing that the Bible needs a human interpreter to tell us what the "hidden meaning" behind the text is. One must reject the clear rendering of Scripture in order to embrace Branhamism. In addition, the teachings of Branham regarding the serpent's seed has NEVER been held in the total of church history. Such an "important doctrine" was not taught by the apostles, nor by anyone in church history until Branham. No trace of it at all. So either our sovereign God let His truth disappear for until the 1940s, or Branham is wrong. Seriously, Paul, take a step back and evaluate that. Literally thousands of years went by, with this "revelation" hidden. The Bible doesn't mention it directly, and even apparently denies it, based on the verses I already cited. Only those who follow Branham hold to this strange doctrine, and do so in the face of the weight of history and the Biblical narrative and the complete SILENCE of Scripture on this doctrine. I don't need to pray whether Branham was right any more than I need to pray whether the Book of Mormon is true. God has already plainly revealed that he is not. --Joe! |
||||||
502 | Genesis 3:1-7 | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 26163 | ||
You wrote: "Genesis 4:1 says Eve said that we have a man from the Lord, and is silent regarding Abel." The Bible says: "Now the man had relations with his wife Eve, and she conceived and gave birth to Cain, and she said, 'I have gotten a manchild with the help of the LORD.'" --Genesis 4:1 Let's look again at that first clause: "the man had relations with his wife Eve." Adam had sex with Eve. Then what? "and she conceived." I would hate to have to try and draw a diagram on here, but sex with Adam led to the conception of a child in verse 1. Who was that child? "and gave birth to Cain..." Easy as 1-2-3. You would have to be pretty ignorant of reproductive anatomy to miss the domino effect here. We already discussed 1 John 3:12. We were ALL of the wicked one until God called those whom he elected to justification and adoption. Cain's and Abel's spiritual differences cannot be attributed to genetics. It is nonsense, completely unsupported by Scripture. How does Branhamism account for two brothers of the same parents in today's world, one a Christian and one not? Or a Christian child of two parents who are not? It is failure to take responsibility for our own personaly depravity, our own treasonous rebellion against a holy God. God does not save us based on our own physical relationship to Satan: "He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will" --Ephesians 1:5 Those of us who are God's children are ADOPTED, not natural children of Him. This is a spiritual relationship of Fatherhood and sonship, for we were all "children of wrath" before conversion (Ephesians 2:3). And why did God adopt us from Satan's "family" into ours? It was "according to the kind intention of His will," not because of our genetic link to him in some crazy way. You quoted me and added: Joe:---So we return to the age-old deception of believing that the Bible needs a human interpreter to tell us what the "hidden meaning" behind the text is. Amo 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets." Let's look at that verse in context: "Surely the Lord GOD does nothing Unless He reveals His secret counsel To His servants the prophets. A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord GOD has spoken! Who can but prophesy? Proclaim on the citadels in Ashdod and on the citadels in the land of Egypt and say, "Assemble yourselves on the mountains of Samaria and see the great tumults within her and the oppressions in her midst." --Amos 3:7-9 1. Amos was God's tool for revelation in an era prior to the completion of Scripture. Hence his revelation being INCLUDED in Scripture. Branham was a so-called "prophet" after the Bible had been completed, which would imply that God's revelation in the Bible was somehow incomplete. This is not so: "But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." --2 Timothy 3:13-17 Where is truth to be found? How can we avoid spiritual deception? By listening to Branham twist the Scriptures and deny plain truths? No, but by knowing "the sacred writings." Therefore, Amos was an Old Testament prophet used by God to reveal his truth in a time before the fulness of His truth would be revealed in one individual: "God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world." After the prophets, there was the culmination: Christ. 2. The revelation that God gave Amos was not contradictory of the revelation that had preceded it. Branham's "revelation" starts with Chapter 2 of the entire Bible and starts messing up there. Branham is a false prophet because he denies the very words that God has already plainly revealed to us through his REAL prophets in the Old Testament, and twists the truths revealed by the inspired writers of the New Testament. --Joe! |
||||||
503 | Genesis 3:1-7 | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 26166 | ||
Paul: You also wrote, regarding Cain's sin: "It's interesting to consider how such a life could be manifested immediately after the fall." It is tragic, but that is who were became after the fall of Adam (note that Romans 5 says that death came through Adam, not Eve). Murder was the way that our total depravity demonstrated itself in the second generation of humanity. That is the kind of person we all once were (Ephesians 2:3). Romans 3:10-18 paints a very bleak picture of humanity, and all human beings are shut up under that judgment. We are no better off than Cain, unaided by God's regenaration in the Holy Spirit. You write: "You've picked a point unacceptable to your thinking, and disqualified a powerful ministry based on this." I think that you and I will both agree that there are very "powerful," successful ministries in this world which have nothing at all to do with the true God. If outwardly transformed lives are the sole mark of a true ministry, then Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, The Jehovah's Witness, and Branhamism all qould qualify. However, they are all based on a rejection or twisting of clearly set-forth biblical doctrine. It is heresy to state that we need something more than the Bible to understand God. God has provided the complete written revelation of His working throughout history in the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments, and no "prophet" is needed these days to explain the "hidden things of God" since all that humanity needs to know has been recorded in Scripture. Lastly, you write: "I'm very serious about these things, and I do leave them with GOD for final clarity. I'm also very serious when I exort you to do the same." I have no doubt about your seriousness. People are seriously wrong all the time. I do not need to pray to God whether Branham is right, because he has already shown me that he is not. I do not need to ask if Jesus is God's only-begotten Son, because God has shown me. I do not need to ask if David was a songwriter, because the Bible tells me that he is. And I certainly do not need to ask if the serpent is the father of a race of human beings, since Genesis 4 and Romans 5 clearly point out that that is Satanic nonsense. --Joe! |
||||||
504 | Genesis 3:1-7 | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 26196 | ||
Paul: Examples of Branham's fulfilled prophecies? Specifics, please. Healing ministries are faked all the time. Look at Christian Science. --Joe! |
||||||
505 | Genesis 3:1-7 | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 26349 | ||
I am not angry nor frustrated, Paul...just right. :) It is complete nonsense to think that the first clause of Genesis is talking about Abel, and the second talking about Cain. Step back for a minute and take a long, hard look at what you are saying. Does that make any sense at all?? I have said my piece. Cling to the false prophet if you will. i will stick to the plain rendering of God's holy Word. "Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned." --Titus 3:10-11 --Joe! |
||||||
506 | What are virtues of Abraham? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 29375 | ||
I think you misunderstood my point. I never said that Abraham wasn't to be considered a Patriarch. I never said that God didn't bestow that role on Abram. But from Genesis 12, it is clear that God initiates the covenant relationship between Himself and Abram, while Abram is still living among his father's people (and most likely worshiping the family idols). God reveals Himself to Abram and at once tells him of His plan: 'Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go forth from your country, And from your relatives And from your father's house, To the land which I will show you; And I will make you a great nation, And I will bless you, And make your name great; And so you shall be a blessing; And I will bless those who bless you, And the one who curses you I will curse. And in you all the families of the earth will be blessed."' --Genesis 12:1-3 This plan was announced decades before Isaac's birth, and was decreed by God. When Abram gets his name change and the covenant is formally established, Isaac is still not yet born. He also says that He will make His covenant with Isaac, who has not even been conceived yet. Therefore, God did not establish his covenant with Abraham in response to his faith. His faith was a response to God's decree. God established Abraham as a Patriarch, but not because he had "earned" it by his faith. --Joe! |
||||||
507 | What are virtues of Abraham? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 29491 | ||
I see what you mean. I contend that God made Abraham what he was, rather than recognizing something within him, in the same way that he makes Christians what they are, despite the fact that there is no one who does good. God in his grace gave that privilege to him just like God in his grace saved me from my sin. --Joe! |
||||||
508 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 37332 | ||
That would be a really neat way of looking at things if it didn't contradict the rest of the Bible from cover to cover! --Joe! |
||||||
509 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 37413 | ||
Glad I could give you the opportunity, Emmaus! :) By the way, I hold to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Chalcedionian Definition as well. Just thought I would try to forge a little more "common ground." --Joe! |
||||||
510 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 37477 | ||
Well, put down the Mary Baker Eddy and read what the Bible itself says, and you will get a very different picture -- the picture that God Himself paints! --Joe! |
||||||
511 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 37543 | ||
I didn't ask a question. You may think that Science and Health is a help for you, but it is the primary Scripture of a non-Christian cult known as Christian Science. The cult was founded by Mary Baker Eddy in the 19th century, and it is basically the re-hashing of a heresy known as gnosticism that plagued the early church. Rather that helping one understand the Scriptures, Eddy assigned esoteric, "hidden" meaning to the texts. As you have been pointing out, the plain meaning of the text is obscured by Eddy's commentary saying everything literal in Scripture "represents" something else. According to Christian Scientists, it is impossible to understand the "true meaning of the Bible" apart from this book (hence its claim to be the "key to the Scriptures"). Science and Health denies the reality of evil; Jesus Christ and the Bible do not. Sin is rebellion against a holy and just God, not "error." Our nature is that we are enemies of God and predisposed to violating His will (Romans 5; Ephesians 2:1-7); we are not victims of "wrong thinking" as Eddy asserted. I encourage you to check out the following Web sites for a Biblical response to Science and Health to see how it leads a person away from the truth of the Bible: http://www.watchman.org/profile/ChrSciProfile.htm http://www.equip.org/free/DC605.htm May God bless you by enlightening you with His truth. --Joe! |
||||||
512 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 37640 | ||
A simple explanation is that Genesis 1 is a chronological account (not the order of days is absent in chapter 2), while the account in the second chapter, focusing on humanity more than the entire created order, is not concerned with the order of events. Read 1 Corinthians 15 to see the comparison between Adam and Christ, paying careful attention to verse 45, which indicates that Adam was indeed the first man. --Joe! |
||||||
513 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 37645 | ||
You wrote: "The information that you have posted is evidentially not from your own personnel knowledge of the actual teachings, because a lot of this just simply is not true." That is where you are mistaken. I have been studying groups like Christian Science for over ten years. I have a copy of Science and Health and have spoken to quite a number of Christian Scientists. I have also paid a visit to a couple of reading rooms to talk with individuals there. What exactly in the Watchman profile regarding Christian Science was in error? You wrote: "Joe, why do people when they find something unlike their own thinking do they assume that it’s wrong or bad regardless of the Truth or the good achieved." Something is wrong not because I do not like it, but rather because it contradicts the clear-as-crystal teachings of God's Word. Go read Romans 1-3 without Science and Health at your side and tell me on your own what God has to say about human nature and God's attitude toward it. Playing the "Pharisee card" does not work because I am not preaching legalism. I am proclaiming Truth, which will result in your eternal and just suffering at the hands of a wrathful God if you continue to reject it (Romans 1:20). And that is the message that Jesus preached to the Pharisees, by the way (John chapters 8-10). You wrote: "But I sure am glad that I have the proof in the healing so I can just smile!" Well, smiles and happiness and not feeling a victim does not equal the possession of truth: "For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect." --Mathhew 24:24 Scripture is sufficient. Holding to another text as necessary to understand Scripture makes God a liar: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." --2 Timothy 3:16 Do you honestly believe that an all powerful God let the truth of his teachings disappear for 1800 years? Stop and think about the words of these verses. Look at them without putting on the "Science and Health" spectacles, and the meaning will become quite clear. --Joe! |
||||||
514 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 37649 | ||
You wrote: "Oh, Jesus taught that we are to agree with our adversary’s quickly!" You aren't my adversary, but what is the verse in the Bible you are referring to? --Joe! |
||||||
515 | did cain marry his sister or someone els | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 38500 | ||
One man's thinking...or lack thereof! --Joe! |
||||||
516 | did cain marry his sister or someone els | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 38561 | ||
Please allow me a short reply: So before there was light, land, day and night, celestial bodies, plant life, and animal life, there was another race of men? I would strongly recommend against using Dake's Bible commentary for anything else than something to hold up the broken leg of your kitchen table. There is so much there that flies against historic, biblical Christianity that I simply do not know where to begin unraveling the mess. --Joe! |
||||||
517 | What was the mark on Cain put by God? | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 54505 | ||
You wrote: "Now, I understand that this may irritate some of you because the verse implies that Cain became a person of color." Actually, the verse irritates me more because the Book of Mormon is not the word of God. --Joe! |
||||||
518 | Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 57132 | ||
You wrote: "Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop... great referance tool" No, horrible and historically refuted reference tool. http://users.clarkston.com/rcorson/2babylons.htm --Joe! |
||||||
519 | who are the women of Genesis | Genesis | Reformer Joe | 98764 | ||
Heheheh...we could write a whole book on her using Forum material. --Joe! |
||||||
520 | Bible and evolution both? | Gen 1:1 | Reformer Joe | 19416 | ||
Just a quick note: not being a young-earther does not necessarily mean that one embraces the idea of common descent. They are two separate debates. That having been said, Genesis does tell us specifically how God formed human beings. A parable is not a flight-of-fancy story which serves to romanticize or symbolize reality. Look at the parables of Jesus. They are indeed fictional stories, but they are realistic stories which illustrate spiritual truths. In Genesis 2, on the other hand, the inspired text tells us that Adam was formed directly from the dust of the ground, and God breathed life into Him. If this were not the case, and he formed him over time from other species, the text would not directly contradict this truth. There is no room for theistic evolution if we believe that the Bible is God's message of truth to mankind. Either the Bible or the theory of common descent has to be in error. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ] Next > Last [97] >> |