Results 181 - 200 of 268
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Reighnskye Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | scriptural veracity? | John 1:14 | Reighnskye | 135739 | ||
Doc, You stated: "Look back at more than the last fifty of my posts. This is well trodden ground." - Except for the fact that you're speaking with others now. I have no desire to read through your last 800 posts to ascertain the basis of your stance. Also, newer persons may enter into the forum at times (as I have), who have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, without your scriptural basis. A key word is accomodation. And it would fulfill the policy guidelines for the forum as well to include scripture, as opposed to witty comments of debate. I am not here to discuss the veracity of your doctrines, but I am rather here to discuss the scriptures themselves. We have a big difference in our focus, it would seem. I recall that when I had first entered into this forum, you had used a fair amount of scripture, true. You have since declined from this, it seems. Not a good direction. If you are going to make a case for law, perhaps it's a good idea to adhere to basic forum guidelines to start. Use scripture when you present something, and don't just rely on your posts from last month. Again, if you do not wish to discuss the scriptures with me in this forum, then please do not address me here. I had noticed your disclaimer in your profile that you like to pontificate. I have no desire to do this with you. Please adhere to the forum guidelines and use a bit more scripture with your posts. Thank you. - Heb 13:22 But I urge you, brethren, bear with this word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
182 | scriptural veracity? | John 1:14 | Reighnskye | 135747 | ||
Doc, Thank you. :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
183 | scriptural veracity? | John 1:14 | Reighnskye | 135751 | ||
Steve, In the light that you present, I will attempt to reserve myself to a textual approach versus a topical approach. Thanks for the reminder. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
184 | Does God possess a spirit body? | John 4:24 | Reighnskye | 132810 | ||
Kalos, It would also be reasonable to say that the Holy Spirit is also spirit (hence, the word "Spirit" after the word "Holy"). Yet, the Holy Spirit is not said to have a spirit body with arms and legs, the way an angel or demon may have. Perhaps I must simplify the original question a bit and ask if God naturally has a "body" or not? Hence, with arms and legs, eyes, nose, ears and mouth, etc. I am not asking whether God is spirit or not, for indeed He is. Rather, what I had asked is whether or not God naturally has a spirit "body"? - John 4 24 "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." (NAS95) - Reighnskye |
||||||
185 | Does God possess a spirit body? | John 4:24 | Reighnskye | 132839 | ||
Thanks, Doc. Your references here clearly and articulately answer my question. May I further ask what written book (or computer program) that you got this fine collection of quotes from? I'd very much like to add it to my personal library. It almost seems like a topical list of quotations from a rather fine book somewhere. I especially enjoy these latter quotes that you reference. The ancients seem to possess a much greater understanding of supernatural things than many of our scholars today. - "God is simple and of an incomposite and spiritual nature, having neither ears nor organs of speech. A solitary essence and illimitable, he is composed of no numbers and parts" --Didymus (362 AD) Didymus here conveys that God possesses no organ parts such as ears or mouth, as indeed the angels do in there appearances to many of the bible authors. This would further reinforce to me that God spoke through angels and men when relaying the scriptures to us in the Old Testament. Further, Jesus was an even greater vehicle of the Father's message of salvation. "God is of a simple nature, not conjoined nor composite. Nothing can be added to him. He has in his nature only what is divine, filling up everything, never himself confused with anything, penetrating everything, never himself being penetrated, everywhere complete, and present at the same time in heaven, on earth, and in the farthest reaches of the sea, incomprehensible to the sight" --Ambrose (379 AD) Ambrose here, at least in part, seems to convey that God is omnipresent, and therefore not limited to either an ethereal or material body which is finite in it's location and proximity. Whereas, the angels themselves are in no way omnipresent and can only sense the environment around them from the vantage point of an ethereal body. - Reighnskye |
||||||
186 | Does God possess a spirit body? | John 4:24 | Reighnskye | 132842 | ||
Kalos, A spirit body would be a body composed of spirit matter and/or energy, although the terminology begins to break down here quite a bit. Perhaps a finer term would be "ethereal" (or non-material) body, though even this further redefinition breaks down, insofar as the english language is largely lacking in adequate terms. A further rather atrocious term would be "ghost body". Here are a couple of more concise verse references for you. - Job 4 15 "Then a spirit passed by my face; The hair of my flesh bristled up. 16 "It stood still, but I could not discern its appearance; A form was before my eyes; There was silence, then I heard a voice: (NAS95) Daniel 10 5 I lifted my eyes and looked, and behold, there was a certain man dressed in linen, whose waist was girded with a belt of pure gold of Uphaz. 6 His body also was like beryl, his face had the appearance of lightning, his eyes were like flaming torches, his arms and feet like the gleam of polished bronze, and the sound of his words like the sound of a tumult. 10 Then behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and knees. (NAS95) - The concept is that when we die physically, we will nonetheless continue to possess a non-material body (or ghost body) as similarly exemplified within the hundred plus angelic appearances within the scriptures. Paul the Apostle later goes on to use the term "spiritual body", although he tends to describe something quite a bit more physically material after the resurrection of the saints occurs, wherein the "ghost body" takes on material form, according to many common eschatological interpretations. - 1 Corinthians 15 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (NAS95) - Reighnskye |
||||||
187 | Does God possess a spirit body? | John 4:24 | Reighnskye | 132844 | ||
Thanks, Hank. :) You are definitely right about the contradiction in terms. Yet Paul himself uses an equivalent (or at least similar) term in 1Cor 15:44, although many may argue that the "spirit (or spiritual) body" here is simultaneously material as was Christ's resurrected body, as per common eschatological interpretations. Thus a material spirit. - 1 Corinthians 15 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So also it is written, "The first MAN, Adam, BECAME A LIVING SOUL." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. (NAS95) - You may further reference my response to Kalos for clarification. I apologize for the breakdown in terminology. If you might have an alternate terminology available, I would be glad to use it, but I've thus far failed, on my part, to find it. - Reighnskye |
||||||
188 | WERE THERE ONLY JEWS AT THE PENTECOST? | Acts 2:1 | Reighnskye | 133625 | ||
Yes, only Jews were members of the entire early church until Acts chapter 10 under the ministry of Peter. Proselytes to Judaism were also present. Gentiles did not enter the church until Paul was converted, unless they were first converted to the Judaic Old Testament law, under the apostolic authority of Peter. Please understand that the Gospel of Christ was not open to Gentiles until the ministry of Paul, without first possessing a prerequisite Judaic conversion under the Law of Moses. Jesus' ministry was immediately directed to the Jews. Jesus further here depicts Gentiles as dogs and Jews as sheep. Mark 7 25 But after hearing of Him, a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit immediately came and fell at His feet. 26 Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race. And she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. 27 And He was saying to her, "Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 28 But she answered and *said to Him, "Yes, Lord, but even the dogs under the table feed on the children's crumbs." 29 And He said to her, "Because of this answer go; the demon has gone out of your daughter." 30 And going back to her home, she found the child lying on the bed, the demon having left. (NAS95) Matthew 15 22 And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed." 23 But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, "Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us." 24 But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." 25 But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, "Lord, help me!" 26 And He answered and said, "It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." 27 But she said, "Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table." 28 Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once. (NAS95) - Further, Peter was not even aware that a Gentile could be saved and accepted into God's church, without a pre-Judaic conversion, until Acts chapter 10. Did Jesus forget to tell him that Gentiles could be saved without the Law, or is there something else going on here? Acts 10 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who were listening to the message. 45 All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, 47 "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" 48 And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
189 | WERE THERE ONLY JEWS AT THE PENTECOST? | Acts 2:1 | Reighnskye | 133708 | ||
Emmaus, You said: "Actually the Gospel was opened to the Gentiles before Paul through Peter under the direction of the Holy Spirit when he preached to and baptized Cornelius and his household in Acts 10 and 11." When I had mentioned that the Gospel was not open to the Gentiles until the ministry of Paul, I was including the time of Paul's ministry immediately after his conversion in Acts chapter nine. Although you are completely correct to say that the Gentiles did not recieve the Gospel until quite a bit later. I had assumed that Paul was reaching Gentiles in the earliest parts of his ministry, when in fact, he may have only preached the Gospel to the Jews earlier on. - Acts 9 19 and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, 20 and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, "He is the Son of God." 21 All those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, "Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?" 22 But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
190 | Baptism-What Does the Bible Teach? | Acts 2:38 | Reighnskye | 133511 | ||
EdB, Currently in my church, my pastor teaches that the doctrine of baptism was mandated for new Jewish believers, but was not however imposed upon the Gentiles. The exact same thing went for circumcision. I fully believe that the bible clearly states that baptism (like circumcision) is absolutely necessary for salvation, as was Peter's doctrine to the Jews. However, Peter's doctrine was also exclusively directed to Jewish converts (plus Gentiles who had converted to Jusaism), up until Acts Chapter 10. Jesus went only to the lost sheep of Israel, until His divine appearance to Paul in a vision. Before this point, however, all new converts to the Gospel of Jesus also had to conform to the full requirements of the Law of Moses (baptism and circumcision included) under Peter's apostolic authority, in order to be accepted into the church. If you weren't baptized and circumcised, you were strictly excommunicated. So yes, Peter's Gospel strictly necessitated baptism. Paul's message did not. - Acts 2 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NAS95) Acts 15 1 Some men came down from Judea and began teaching the brethren, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
191 | Baptism-What Does the Bible Teach? | Acts 2:38 | Reighnskye | 133790 | ||
Rowdy, I have not so much suggested that Paul was not an advocate of baptism. Indeed Paul was an advocate of the entire Law of Moses, and preached wholly in it's support. However, he did not view the Law so much as the vehicle of salvation. I apologize for coming late into this thread, insofar as my focus had been in other threads, and I seldom venture into threads that have been running for a long time, unless I was involved with them in their early stages. I would like to better understand your position. Are you saying that water baptism is a requirement of salvation, and that a person will be eternally damned if they are not water baptized? Again, as per the many verse references that you gave, we clearly see that Paul was a staunch advocate of baptism, even as he greatly supported obedience to the Law of Moses. The practice of baptism originated from Old Testament Law, with the ceremonial cleansing of the priests. While Peter and James may have advocated a strict Law obedience (for example, circumcision) to be members of the church, it doesn't seem that Paul was so strict with the Gentiles. Perhaps he was with the Jews. - Romans 7 12 So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
192 | Baptism-What Does the Bible Teach? | Acts 2:38 | Reighnskye | 133991 | ||
Rowdy, I in no way dispute the veracity of either Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38, as being fully applicable upon the early Jewish church. - Mark 16 16 "He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. (NAS95) Mark 16 16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (KJV) Acts 2 38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (NAS95) Acts 2 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (KJV) - Where we may differ, perhaps, is the applicability of these verses upon the Gentile churches under Paul. I view water baptism as an Old Testament practice, much like maintaining the Sabbath or being circumcised. These are all ordinances that the early Jewish church, under the authority of Peter and James, was quick to conform to. If anyone did not conform to these ordinances, they would likely be quickly excommuncated from the early Jewish church. Would it not be fair to say that water baptism is an Old Testament ordinance, that originates from the Law of Moses? Baptism originated as a ceremonial cleansing from the Old Testament priests, and was also practiced by John the Baptist (apt name here), prior to the formation of the early Jewish church. In fact, Jesus himself conformed to water baptism. John the Baptist, at the age of thirty, and as a descendent of Zacharias, now had authority to baptize the Savior, in accordance with Jewish Law. I have other scriptures to present to you, but I'm trying to figure out where your general beliefs are on a few issues first, so I may potentially offer appropriate scriptures. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
193 | Baptism-What Does the Bible Teach? | Acts 2:38 | Reighnskye | 134241 | ||
Rowdy, Thanks. I got a chance to read the post that you mentioned. I've also had opportunity over the years to read the many verses on baptism that the bible provides, assuming that these are the 87 verses that you are referring to. What I'll probably do is jump in on some of your future posts, rather than do a full reading of the previous ones, as my time frame may reasonably allot. Perhaps in that way, I can catch myself up to speed, with what you're saying. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
194 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135085 | ||
Dalcent, I've not yet brought up the issue with my church, insofar as I'm newly attending the church that I'm at now. The last church that I had attended, however, was very off-key with a lot of their doctrines, so I didn't view their direction as credible. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
195 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135087 | ||
Doc, You stated: "First of all, rightly or wrongly, the government is attempting to provide for you in lieu of your having a husband. Were you to marry, it is your husband who ought to be providing for you. If it appears that he will be unable to do so, then he would not be a fit mate." Perhaps I had miscommunicated, but I am male. Would you conversely suggest that it is the wife's responsibility to provide for the husband, if he is physically handicapped? Does this work both ways, or is it solely the husband who is required to support the wife? Shall the wife support the husband? Or would you further argue that a permanently medically-handicapped male would be unfit for marriage, if unable to generate an independent income? - You further stated: "Secondly, what you are proposing is concealing from the government your true marital status. Consequently you would be receiving money from them that would not properly belong to you, making you cupable of stealing, adding another vice to lying." Actually, there would be absolutely no concealment whatsoever from the government. If such a church-ordained marriage were to occur, it would be very much public. Please be aware that the government does not prohibit marriages, which are solely church-ordained. No concealment would be present. - You further stated: "Thirdly, you would be failing to submit to the government in a matter over which God has granted them authority. Indirectly, therefore, you would be resisting the Lord. Finally, in the eyes of the law, this would be considered fraudulent behavior, something to be more expected by the world than the children of God!" Again, the government does not ban church-ordained marriages (for example, between homosexuals, although this would be purely a heterosexual marriage). Rather, the government would simply not extend marriage tax benefits, under the guise of legal marriage authorization. In other words, although the government does not support such marriages, it does not ban them either. Again, there would be no legal violation occuring. - Lastly, you provided three scripture units: Eph 4:25a Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour No concealment of any kind would be taking place here. Rather, a full public proclamation of a church-ordained marriage would be present. 1 Tim 5:8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Would a medically handicapped male, unable to work, also be termed as being worse than an infidel? 1 Pet 2:13a Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake The law does not necessitate church-ordained marriages to also be state-ordained, as in the case of homosexual marriages, for example. Again, however, we are here speaking of heterosexual marriage. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
196 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135099 | ||
Dalcent, I don't view a marriage as being inherently dependent upon money, although some would view monetary wealth, as the basis for a successful marriage. Although the scripture necessitates a couple to be married, if they wish to build a family together, I'm not aware of any verse where state legal authorization is additionally required for marriage validation. I don't believe that the bible actually teaches such a thing. It's simply yet another popular religios myth, without a shred of scripture to back it up. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
197 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135106 | ||
Tim, You stated: "You point about the government recognizing 'church ordained marriages' is not quite true my friend. The government does not recognize any marriage except those identified as such by a marriage license." I must again clarify this point. I have nowhere presented the notion that the government recognizes "church-ordained marriages". Conversely, I have rather presented the notion that the government does not recognize "church-ordained marriages". This, however, does not mean that the government has declared "church-ordained marriages" as illegal. You further stated: "When a pastor performs a marriage, they are essentially acting as agents of the state. I can say the words, but you are not married until I sign the license! :-)" This statement is true, if we shall regard marriage as simply being a "mere" ordinance of the state. However, I view a pastor as much more than simply an agent of the state, if indeed the pastor's authority originates from God. But yes, many pastors do not possess authority originating from God. In this context, they are operating as "mere" agents of state, no different than a court judge. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
198 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135114 | ||
Unfortunately, the FACT presented does not originate from a biblical basis, whether from a pastoral view or not. Tim has rather presented a legal argument. At the origination of this thread, I had requested biblical representation. - Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
199 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135129 | ||
Tim, That seems to make perfect sense to me. My obstacle is that if I were to get married under a state-ordained marriage contract, it would cause my medical resources to be governmentally withdrawn, in the presence of my medical handicap. If these medical resources became withdrawn, as the result of a state-ordained marriage, I would then become subject to an extraordinary health risk. This health risk could result in the removal of bodily organs and/or premature death. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
200 | R, Can you Biblically justify actions? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135131 | ||
Tim, Thank you for your prayers. :) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [14] >> |