Results 1 - 20 of 53
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: meta Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | baptism | Gen 2:21 | meta | 236226 | ||
As you stated vs 26. And God said (God said not man said) let us make man in our image.(how is God not part of the "our image" he did not say I will make man in your image to anyone, but OUR IMAGE. So it must be Gods image, He and everyone who shared His image is in the "our". It cannot be anything else. Verse 27b says In the image of God created He him. In whose image? In God's image. It says it right there in the text. How can you deny what is written. Why one anyone try so hard to make this into something else. We are to allow our beliefs to be challenged by scripture not try to make scripture fit our beliefs. I have seen how you end some messages with things like END OF DISCUSSION. that is why I said I wonder why you attend this forum. It is for discussion and growth for all not just so the rest of us get to hear from you the truth we have all been missing. |
||||||
2 | baptism | Gen 2:21 | meta | 236223 | ||
These are in fact your interpretation of Gods words. You have no right to claim that everyone else should accept your limited understanding as divine authority. It weakens your arguments instead of lending any legitimacy at all. Having dominion over does not equal eating. Us and in our image is backed up by the other scriptures that reveal God as more than one. It was in the image of God that man was made. it is in verse 27 that you just submitted. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are the "us" and the "our" that you speak of. It is my perception that this is a useless exercise on my part. Your condecending attitude reveals that you are not open to the truth. Only the truth that you already believe you see is acceptable to you. It makes me wonder why you are on this forum. |
||||||
3 | baptism | Gen 2:21 | meta | 236224 | ||
These are in fact your interpretation of Gods words. You have no right to claim that everyone else should accept your limited understanding as divine authority. It weakens your arguments instead of lending any legitimacy at all. Having dominion over does not equal eating. Us and in our image is backed up by the other scriptures that reveal God as more than one. It was in the image of God that man was made. it is in verse 27 that you just submitted. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are the "us" and the "our" that you speak of. It is my perception that this is a useless exercise on my part. Your condecending attitude reveals that you are not open to the truth. Only the truth that you already believe you see is acceptable to you. It makes me wonder why you are on this forum. |
||||||
4 | baptism | Gen 2:21 | meta | 236222 | ||
These are in fact your interpretation of Gods words. You have no right to claim that everyone else should accept your limited understanding as divine authority. It weakens your arguments instead of lending any legitimacy at all. Having dominion over does not equal eating. Us and in our image is backed up by the other scriptures that reveal God as more than one. It was in the image of God that man was made. it is in verse 27 that you just submitted. The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are the "us" and the "our" that you speak of. It is my perception that this is a useless exercise on my part. Your condecending attitude reveals that you are not open to the truth. Only the truth that you already believe you see is acceptable to you. It makes me wonder why you are on this forum. |
||||||
5 | Why did God allow Polygamy? | Gen 2:21 | meta | 236220 | ||
Where in the bible does it say that they were hunters and fishermen? Does having dominion over something imply that they were to eat them? | ||||||
6 | baptism | Gen 2:21 | meta | 236219 | ||
I believe you mean the new covenant was enforced. The new testament is a collection of scriptures. The writings of the apostles which make up that section of our Bible. The new Covenant has to do with the basis of our relationship with God after the Cross(to be brief and simple). I would also be more inclined to refer to the new covenant as being something we enter into rather than something enforced. But I do understand your intent. Some would also refer to the time period as a dispensation. you can google dispensationalism and get a quick idea of what some christian beliefs are regarding this. There are better sources but it is quick and helpful. Bless you |
||||||
7 | Will God forgive me? | Jude 1:24 | meta | 235024 | ||
oops Please forgive. I accidentally posted by hitting the wrong key. The answer #1 posted is complete. The one listed as #2 was not. please ignore #2 Thanks Meta. |
||||||
8 | Nothing but the Blood of Jesus | Eph 2:13 | meta | 234902 | ||
Hi Doc, Please forgive me. I do believe it is beneficial that you mentioned that it was evangelicals in light of the fact that what they were deviating from was one of the basic principles of evangelicalism. In this context it only makes sense to make that reference. I was reacting to something that I do see so often. One group pointing at another rather than lifting up Christ. This is definitely not what you were doing and my reaction was unwarranted. Had I taken time to really pay attention to your first reply I would have realised that. I regret that I wasted your time with this nonsense. Thank you for your faithfulness. In Him Meta |
||||||
9 | Nothing but the Blood of Jesus | Eph 2:13 | meta | 234891 | ||
Those are fine arguments Doc. I still feel that the fact that these people were evangelicals is irrelevant and therefore unecessary in making your point. I see no benefit. I do agree that Jesus himself said that he came not to bring peace but a sword Mat 10:34 There is no scriptural basis and no argument for unecessarily categorising the people that were in error here. It is a human practice that is not bliblical but comes from our sin nature. If there were some distiction as to what type of fallen creatures we are that make such mistakes I cannot see it. I definitly do not subscribe to peace or unity at any price. However I fail to see a price here. We are in fact to make an effort to preserve unity. Eph 4:3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Let me reiterate. If there were a benefit. If it helped to reveal truth or enlighten us then I do not suggest we hide truth to protect anyone. Again that is not the case. It is a useless fact that they were evangelicals. You have so much wisdom and I am on your side (another irrelevant fact) about the atonement issue. If we are to judge ourselves first then I suggest you do just that. Why not ask The Lord what He would say concerning this issue? Blessings in Christ Meta |
||||||
10 | Nothing but the Blood of Jesus | Eph 2:13 | meta | 234883 | ||
Hi Doc, I agree with you that it is a strange accusation. The one moment in time that all of eternity past and future is measured from is the cross. The single act of The Creator dying to rescue His creation from death is beyond what we could conceive or ask for. The most brilliant remedy, the greatest act of courage and the most effective and powerfull victory ever won should leave us humbled and in awe of our glorious and beautifull savior. How can anyone state that someone else is too atonement centered?. I do have a question though. Are evangelicals the only believers that make such mistakes? How many evangelicals would completely agree with your statements? I find it odd that a group has to be named to make this point. I find it odd that so many Christians have to look to some other group that they do not agree with to make their point. I understand that you cannot change the fact that these people may have claimed to be evangelicals. Is that why they were in error? Or is it just that they were deceived. If these folks were all in california would it be californian evangelicals. If these were people that all graduated university would it be educated Californian evangelicals. I think you can see where I am going with this. Please note the following is a direct extraction from the definition of the word "evangelical" : "emphasizing salvation by faith in the atoning death of Jesus Christ through personal conversion, the authority of Scripture, and the importance of preaching as contrasted with ritual" So if these so called evengelicals in your words "challenged the dominant understanding of Christ's death on the Cross as the substitute for our sins." then it is logical to state that they were not doing so as evangelicals but as unbelieving and deceived Christians. Perhaps we could be less divisive if we spoke about the arguements themselves and not malign some good people who may exalt Christ in their hearts, their conversations and their deeeds, in some cases as much as non evangelicals and in some cases maybe even more than some non evangelicals. Is that possible? You are a wonder full brother in Christ. Meta Luke 18:8b However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth? |
||||||
11 | The Lord our God works through man, why? | Bible general Archive 4 | meta | 234127 | ||
Well things have gotten a little messy here. First God is Love. As brothers and sisters in Christ we are actually a part of each other and the world will know us by the love we have for each other. Regardless of the rules here. God did many things without using man before he gave man dominion over all the earth. Even Jesus authority on earth was based on His humanity. The earth is the Lords and the fullness thereof however He is truth and will not violate His covenant with us. That does not mean He will not intervene but it is highly likely that most intervention is based on man requesting action from God. That being said God does expect us to exercise dominion over not only creation but also authority over spirits of darkness. Unless you consider serpents and scorpions to be taken literally. Luke 10:19 Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. He gave Adam dominion. Gen 1:26-28 … fill the earth and subdue it and rule over the fish of the sea…and over every living thing that moves on the earth. It was because Adam had dominion over the earth that the earth became cursed when he sinned. Eve sinned and nothing happened. Gen 3:6 That is because God gave Adam dominion before she was formed. God instructed Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil before He fashioned Eve from his rib. Perhaps the clearest scripture is this. Psalm 115:16 The heavens are the heavens of the LORD, But the earth He has given to the sons of men. We know that Jesus had to be born of a woman for two reasons 1/ He had to be under come under the law. This is the only way He could fulfill the law. That is the whole reason God chose Abraham and made a nation then gave that nation His laws. The purpose of the law was not to perfect Israel for that was never possible. Rom 8:3, and Heb 7:18-19 He could not be a son of Adam. Generational sins and curses come down the fathers line and not the mothers. Once again Eve sinned first but creation did not fall until Adam sinned. Important note. Not later when God pronounced the curse but at the very moment Adam sinned So even if God could have found a way for the Spirit of Christ to be born of a woman and a man He would have inherited generational curses and sins. Man had dominion and he had submitted himself to Satan through his sin. So it was essential that He be the seed of the woman but not of a man. So being a man himself with nothing passed from previous generations He remained sinless and he had dominion because he was a man. When Jesus left He gave the Holy Spirit to fill us with His life so through us He could legally exercise dominion in the earth. There is now a and forever will be risen human being on the throne in heaven beside the Father It is the church that will subdue even the spirits of darkness for the greatest victory of all time Ephesians 3:10-1110 so that the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places. 11 This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord, and Eph 3 16-20 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; and that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, 19 and to know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.20 Now to Him who is able to do far more abundantly beyond all that we ask or think, according to the power that works within us, Look at the last 8 words. According to the power that is at work within us. God pours himself into man, He fills man with himself, His life flows through man resulting in Holiness and Power. In fact to a very great degree God limits Himself to what will be done through Man. His Son is a man on the throne of heaven. Yes He is God and we are not. We worship Him and fall at His feet in awe of His magesty and Splendor However It has not yet entered the heart of man what God has prepared for him (or what He has prepared him for). 1 |
||||||
12 | Did Jesus heal everyone? | 2 Cor 12:9 | meta | 233282 | ||
Thank you | ||||||
13 | Did Jesus heal everyone? | 2 Cor 12:9 | meta | 233281 | ||
Thank you John for trying to answer my question. My question was did Jesus turn any one away? I should have been more clear. I was aking if Jesus Christ turned any one away that was seeking healing while He was on earth. I apologise for that. Your second statement takes a bit of a leap to presume what I was getting at. I was asking a question without implying that Paul or anyone else should jsut believe or heal everyone. If that were true it would leave a lot of people hurting. While we are on the subject though Do you have a lot of understanding about what the thorn was? We know that it was "a messenger from Satan to torment me" Paul implored The Lord "that it might leave me" There is weakness, insults distresses,persecutions difficulties mentioned, but not sickness. I am not implying that it was definitely not a sickness only that the scriptures are not stating that it is. So I still have questions. |
||||||
14 | IS DIV | Matt 19:9 | meta | 233252 | ||
The short answer is NO. There is no scriptural basis for a man leaving His wife withjout the cause of adultry. However it is difficult to answer this question without knowing if the husband is a Christian. Is the wife a Christian and who is asking the question here; The husband, the wife or a third party. That does not change Jesus view or the scriptural instruction. It does change how I would respond to the question though. | ||||||
15 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | meta | 233248 | ||
Mathew actually does not say we are to anything. It says man "does not live by bread alone" It does not say we "are to” it says "we do". You may not think that this is significant either but we are to let sola scriptura be our guide and not your or my preferences. We cannot live without drawing conclusions from scripture. You are drawing a conclusion when you say that "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" must refer to scripture. You then state the reason for this as being "because the only words God has given us to live by are contained in Scripture" that very reason is a violation of sola scripture. The scriptures prove this to be wrong in fact because it was Jesus who spoke and He spoke in present tense to a specific group of people. The scriptures as we know them were not in existence at that time. If He were refering to the old testament scriptures he would have used the word scripture (graphe) as He always did unless he was referring to something different. Something He thought important enough to differentiate but you do not see any reason for such differentiation. I believe that is because you place great importance on scripture which is highly commendable. Reluctance to differentiate between these three words is more due to the subjective nature of interpretation than an adherence to accuracy. I have reasons to differentiate. You do not. In Luke 3:2 the (rhema) word that came to John in the wilderness is certainly different than the word that Jesus was sharing with the people in Luke 5. Even If you or I today do not see all of the difference we both see more than we used to. Your point is not completely lost on me though. Jesus did not speak Greek any way but Aramean so the word that he delivered to us has already been changed. However I believe in the canon and love the scriptures that we have. I do hold scripture in a very high regard. God speaks to me through it. It is not the only way He speaks to me. (Even Sola Scripture does not insist on that). It is however the test for everything I believe He is saying. That is what Sola Scripture does insist on. Thanks for your patience with me God bless you Meta |
||||||
16 | Knowing the Word | Jer 8:7 | meta | 233233 | ||
one brief comment. It may help if we do not use the word "word" when referring to the word scripture . Jesus said Mat 4:4 "MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"" He did not say "every scripture". He did use the word scripture (graphe) many times but not in this instance. For the sake of accuracy it may help if we do not substitute one word for another. We should not exchange the word "scripture" for the word "word - rhema" or for the word "word - logos". They do have 3 different meanings. Jesus did not say "but on every scripture that proceeds out of the mouth of God. There is no evidence to suggest that every word that came out of the mouth of God became scripture. My intention is soley to focus on keeping things clear as to what the scriptures say. Otherwise we will certainly lose our way. |
||||||
17 | who are the prophets in Eph 2:20 | 1 Sam 19:20 | meta | 231880 | ||
Hello again Beta, I will not be reposting the question. What I was looking for is in Eph 2:20, is the writer referring to the prophets of the old testament referred to so often in the phrase "the law and the prophets" or were they the prophets of the new testament as referred to in Matt 23:24, and Acts 15:32. I did an exhaustive study of the word prophet in the new testament and got my answer. I believe they were the new testament prophets mentioned primarily in 1 Corinthians, Ephesians and Revelations but especially Eph. 3:5, 4:11 Rev 11:18, 18:20. I hope this clears up the fact that I was not challenging whatever it was you were responding to. I suppose it would help to say that Christ is everything to me. He is my savior, He is The Living word by which the world was made. He is the Glory and the lifter of my head. He is The Truth The Way and The life. He is the Reigning and returning King of all creation. Blessings in Him. Thank you |
||||||
18 | who are the prophets in Eph 2:20 | 1 Sam 19:20 | meta | 231879 | ||
I am sorry but I do not understand the response. I also must take responsibility for the confusion. I did not intend my posted question to be under any other thread. It was not a response. I probably was looking for a previouse answer before wasting peoples time with a redundant question, and somehow my "new question" got posted under a previous thread. Very sorry. That being said I still do not understand the response. Thats ok though I cannot try to imagine what you may have been thinking when you thought it was a response to the thread. I will repost it as a new question. |
||||||
19 | why five stones | 1 Samuel | meta | 221465 | ||
Hi Doc, I do not refute one single statement here. I do not in any way question the authority of scripture. I am not trying to be argumentative either. I believe that our tracks are parallel and very close to each other. Here are some facts. No commentary. I don't have time right now. Just an observation A thorough search of the scriptures will reveal that in the New testament that which is referred to in John 1:1 as "The Word of God" is never the same word as that which is used to translate the word "Scriptures". Mathew 4:4 is another word for "Word" Similarly in the old testament the word used to translate to "The Word of the Lord" (that came to Abraham or the prophets) is never the same as the word used for "The Law", The Commandment, or The Statutes". (The word scriptures is not found in the OT NASB.) Heb 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. logos is used here. logos; from 3004; a word (as embodying an idea), a statement, a speech:--account(7), account*(1), accounting(2), accounts(2), answer(1), appearance(1), complaint(1), exhortation*(1), have to do(1), instruction(1), length*(1), matter(4), matters(1), message(10), news(3), preaching(1), question(2), reason(2), reasonable(1), remark(1), report(1), said(1), say(1), saying(4), sayings(1), speaker(1), speech(10), statement(18), story(1), talk(1), teaching(2), thing(2), things(1), utterance(2), what he says(1), what*(1), word(179), words(61). And here2 Tim 3:16-17 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. here it is graphê; from 1125; a writing, scripture:--Scripture(31), Scriptures(20). Matt 4:4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'" here it is rhêma; from a modified form of 2046; a word, by impl. a matter:--charge(1), discourse(1), fact(2), matters(1), message(2), nothing*(1), remark(1), say(1), say say(1), saying(1), sayings(3), statement(6), thing(2), things(4), word(18), words(22). Thanks Meta |
||||||
20 | why five stones | 1 Samuel | meta | 221404 | ||
Hi Doc, Great points Are all of God's words in scripture. Did he ever speak to any one on the earth that was not recorded in the scriptures. Obviously the answer is yes. The words of Christ for his entire life are the words of God, however they are not all recorded. In the beginning was the word. Not in the beginning was the scriptures, Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh not the scriptures made flesh. I agree God is inseparable from His Word and He is inseparable from the scriptures also. The Word made flesh is Christ Jesus. He is much more than simply the scriptures made flesh. The scripturesare referred to as The word of the Lord not The Lord. I worship God and I use the scriptures. I do not use God in the same sense as I use scriptures. We will discuss further Meta |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |