Results 1 - 20 of 68
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Reighnskye Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How literal is the Bible? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135691 | ||
Intrinsic perhaps with the belief of a literal millennial reign of Christ would also be the idea of a literal physical and bodily return of Christ to this earth. Similar also to Christ's literal resurrection of the dead. (As opposed to symbolical). Indeed, the first three chapters of the book of Genesis are very similar in writing style to the book of revelation. This similarity stands out with the depictions in each book (Genesis and Revelation) of a Tree of Life that was once in the Garden of Eden and then resurfaces in the New Jerusalem, which descends from heaven to earth. I might ask what exactly in the bible should we take literally versus symbolically? The millennial reign of Christ? The Tree of Life in the Garden of Eden or the heavenly New Jerusalem? The miracle healings of Christ and the bodily resurrections that He performed on others? The physical bodily resurrection of Christ Himself? The ascension into heaven and therefore bodily return of Christ? I suggest that each of these things are intricately interrelated. But are they physically literal or merely symbolic? I suppose if we had the power to make our dreams into physical realities with mere thought, like immortals probably do, we could manifest many of these things ourselves. But alas, we are mortals and will likely remain so, as the majority of our fallen species ever has. What do we know of such wonders, but what we read? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
2 | Over-spiritualized interpretations? | Proverbs | Reighnskye | 135699 | ||
How might one assess what is over-spiritualization of the scriptures? My proposal is that we as mortals are not spiritual enough in our biblical interpretations. I would be greatly hesitant to reduce the greater spirituality of scripture down to a basis of mere speculation. Indeed, the Bible offers us a plethora of earthly applications for our personal lives. But the moment that we may potentially separate these earthly applications from an enlightened spiritual vision, such applications therefore tend to revert to empty and vain religiosity. Even as any supposed spirituality, in the absence of earthly application, will only be revealed to be a psuedo-spirituality in the end. I would be very careful here to differentiate between spirituality and speculation, as the two are commonly mistaken for each the other. Speculation has it's place, but ideally under the greater context of direct spiritual revelation. As far as authority goes when rendering biblical interpretations, I am aware of no other source than the Holy Spirit. Even many of the later church fathers and theologians (after the apostles died out) were not fully adequate in my view to interpret the scriptures for us. Their own doctrinal schisms against one another seems to confirm this to me. Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
3 | scriptural veracity? | John 1:14 | Reighnskye | 135686 | ||
Here are some excerpts from THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY with my own inquisitive interjections regarding these portions. In other words, I would like to learn more on the subject. - "Article I We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source." I personally surmise that the authority of the ancient Church plays a vital authoritative role here, as slightly similar to the Catholic doctrines, although I do not place that same faith in the authority of our modern day church. I surmise that God is higher than the original authors of scripture and that the original authors of scripture are higher than the scriptures themselves. - "Article IV We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration." I surmise that human languages such as hebrew/greek, english/spanish are imperfect in their conveyance of divine revelation, and therefore fail to innerantly express the totality of divine truth. However, in contrast, I also surmise that the original revelations imparted to the authors of scripture originate from the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit witnesses the truth through the written scriptures, notwithstanding the imperfections of the languages which compose the written texts. The Holy Spirit conveys spiritual witness of the gospel directly to our human spirit, and not through the vehicle of the psyche via written texts. However, the written texts are vital to quicken our mortal psyches to a conscious awareness of doctrines. - "Article V We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings." I surmise that, although this article denies the current existence of inerrant scripture outside of the bible, that it does not however deny the potential for new divine scriptures to be written in the future at some point, in accord with the view of progressive revelation. - Would my personal surmising on these particular matters be accurate or inaccurate? ---- And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 NAS95) - Reighnskye |
||||||
4 | Are stars angels? And do they fall? | Heb 12:26 | Reighnskye | 135650 | ||
In the bible, Are stars often meant to be intrepreted as angels (messengers), and do stars/angels fall from heaven? These verses may help. How do you interpret them? - Re 12:4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. Isa 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! Isa 14:13 "But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. Da 8:10 It grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. Mr 13:25 AND THE STARS WILL BE FALLING from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. Re 1:20 "As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. Re 9:1 ¶ Then the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven which had fallen to the earth; and the key of the bottomless pit was given to him. Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Jude 1:13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
5 | Is Satan fully the god of this world? | Heb 12:26 | Reighnskye | 135644 | ||
Xmikx, How do we know that Satan presently rules the earth today? Isn't his earthly reign yet incomplete, that he shall find it necessary to engage in further wars upon the earth? - Certainly, Satan currently rules the hells, but Satan will not likely rule our physical earth until he inhabits the body of the man antichrist, which will be necessary for Satan to manifest in physical form upon the earth. Satan's earthly rule will not be complete, until the man antichrist (possessed by Satan) practically subjects the nations of the earth into a singular government, with the manifestation of supernatural effects. When the man antichrist is fully possessed by Satan, and is seated in a position of governmental and religious authority, then Satan can at last provide locomotion, to the arms and legs of a physical body, so as to more directly affect national events. No more middlemen, so to speak. He can then further speak to the nations of the earth directly, in the manner of word for word national addresses, through the mouth of the man antichrist, as well as author what books and laws that he may. But I suggest that Satan's dominion over the earth is not yet complete. In this sense, the evil one has not yet fulfilled divine prophecy, and must still physically walk this earth, for his reign to be complete over the nations. - Although Christ can physically materialize or supernaturally etherealize His body at any time, nonetheless Satan cannot. Although, Christ can ascend into the highest heavens or descend into the lowest hells, with little care or effort, thereby establishing his sovereignty over them, nonetheless Satan cannot. - So I ask: Is Satan the god of this world and does he presently possess complete dominion over the nations of the earth? Or is this strictly in the future? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
6 | Are stars angels? And do they fall? | Heb 12:26 | Reighnskye | 135606 | ||
In the bible, Are stars often meant to be intrepreted as angels (messengers), and do stars/angels fall from heaven? These verses may help. How do you interpret them? - Re 12:4 And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. Isa 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations! Isa 14:13 "But you said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, And I will sit on the mount of assembly In the recesses of the north. Da 8:10 It grew up to the host of heaven and caused some of the host and some of the stars to fall to the earth, and it trampled them down. Mr 13:25 AND THE STARS WILL BE FALLING from heaven, and the powers that are in the heavens will be shaken. Re 1:20 "As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches. Re 9:1 ¶ Then the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven which had fallen to the earth; and the key of the bottomless pit was given to him. Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together And all the sons of God shouted for joy? Jude 1:13 wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
7 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135640 | ||
1. Wasn't the Old Testament Law of Moses strictly for Jews? Gentiles are not bound by the Old Testament Law of Moses are they? Since I live in the United States, I am not bound by the laws of either China, Egypt, Israel, Sweden or France. Why would I be bound by the Israeli Law of Moses? Granted, some of these laws have been partially replicated within the United States, but there are many differences also. If I am bound by any laws, I am bound to the laws of the United States. What other law holds sway over me? Romans 2 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (NAS95) - 2. Further, if we shall assume that some wild and watered-down variation of the Law of Moses holds sway over the church today, should the church not obey every last iota of the law? For example, the full observances of the Sabbath or circumcision? How is it that, if we choose to enforce the Old Testament Law of Moses on the church today, (which probably shouldn't be done in the first place), we leave out certain laws and don't go with all 613 commandents, upon the local congregation? James 2 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. (NAS95) Romans 2 17 But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written. (NAS95) - 3. Lastly, law itself is designed specifically for lawbreakers and not for the righteous. 1 Timothy 1 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. (NAS95) If I am a lawbreaker, then I will bear it's penalties. However, if I am not a lawbreaker, then I am not subject to the penalties of the law. It's indicting power is diffused. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
8 | identifying modalism: church prevalence? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135530 | ||
How prevalent is the doctrine of "modalism" in the church? And how is it precisely identified? If I am understanding correctly, "modalism" partly involves the idea that the Old Testament appearances of God are actually Jesus the Son appearing, as if the Father and the Son were one single being, that changed form now and then. For example, when God appeared to Moses in the burning bush. Was that the Father or the Son, or both? Can't be both, right? - In contrast, here are some references to the Holy Trinity in the context of divine scripture: Matthew 28 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, (NAS95) 2 Corinthians 13 14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (NAS95) - And here are some verses in the New Testament, wherein we have the divine appearance of all three members of the Holy Trinity simultaneously. Matthew 3 13 Then Jesus *arrived from Galilee at the Jordan coming to John, to be baptized by him. 16 After being baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove and lighting on Him, 17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased." (NAS95) Mark 1 9 In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; 11 and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." (NAS95) - And here are some verses from both the New Testament and the Old Testament, wherein the Father and the Son directly and simultaneously interact with each other. John 12 23 And Jesus *answered them, saying, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 28 "Father, glorify Your name." Then a voice came out of heaven: "I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again." 29 So the crowd of people who stood by and heard it were saying that it had thundered; others were saying, "An angel has spoken to Him." 30 Jesus answered and said, "This voice has not come for My sake, but for your sakes. (NAS95) Daniel 7 9 "I kept looking Until thrones were set up, And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool. His throne was ablaze with flames, Its wheels were a burning fire. 10 "A river of fire was flowing And coming out from before Him; Thousands upon thousands were attending Him, And myriads upon myriads were standing before Him; The court sat, And the books were opened. 13 "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14 "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. (NAS95) - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
9 | Are angels sinful? | Heb 12:26 | Reighnskye | 135509 | ||
Are angels sinful? Here the author seems to attest the sinfulness of man, by declaring the comparison, that even the angels are charged with error and the heavens themselves are impure. If the angels are charged with impure error, as high as they are, then certainly humanity is even moreso corrupt, beyond even the corruption of angels. Job 4 17 'Can mankind be just before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker? 18 'He puts no trust even in His servants; And against His angels He charges error. (NAS95) Job 15 15 "Behold, He puts no trust in His holy ones, And the heavens are not pure in His sight; 16 How much less one who is detestable and corrupt, Man, who drinks iniquity like water! (NAS95) In contrast, I have often heard what I consider to be a popular heresy, that says angels lack free will, and are therefore incapable of making sinful choices. But if that were the case how could Satan and one-third of the angels then fall from the heavens? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
10 | Am I bound by the Eight Covenants today? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135506 | ||
Kalos, Thank you very much for the reference. Am I bound by these eights covenants today? Are they all applicable for today? - "I. The Eight Covenants, Summary: (1) The Edenic Covenant (See Scofield "Genesis 1:26") conditioned the life of man in innocency. (2) The Adamic Covenant (See Scofield "Genesis 3:14") conditions the life of fallen man and gives promise of a Redeemer. (3) The Noahic Covenant (See Scofield "Genesis 9:1") establishes the principle of human government. (4) The Abrahamic Covenant (See Scofield "Genesis 15:18") founds the nation of Israel, and confirms, with specific additions, the Adamic promise of redemption. (5) The Mosaic Covenant (See Scofield "Exodus 19:25") condemns all men, "for that all have sinned." (6) The Palestinian Covenant (See Scofield "Deuteronomy 30:3") secures the final restoration and conversion of Israel. (7) The Davidic Covenant (See Scofield "2 Samuel 7:16") establishes the perpetuity of the Davidic family (fulfilled in Christ, Matthew 1:1; Luke 1:31-33,; Romans 1:3) and of the Davidic kingdom, over Israel, and over the whole earth; to be fulfilled in and by Christ (2 Samuel 7:8-17; Zechariah 12:8; Luke 1:31-33; Acts 15:14-17; 1 Corinthians 15:24). (8) The New covenant rests upon the sacrifice of Christ, and secures the eternal blessedness, under the Abrahamic Covenant Galatians 3:13-29 of all who believe. It is absolutely unconditional, and, since no responsibility is by it committed to man, it is final and irreversible. II. The relation of Christ to the eight covenants is as follows: (1) To the Edenic Covenant, Christ, as the "second Man," the "last Adam" 1 Corinthians 15:45-47 takes the place over all things which the first Adam lost ; Colossians 2:10; Hebrews 2:7-8. (2) He is the "Seed of the woman" of the Adamic Covenant Genesis 3:15; John 12:31; 1 John 3:8; Galatians 4:4; Revelation 20:10 and fulfilled its conditions of toil Mark 6:3 and obedience. (3) As the greatest son of Shem, in Him was fulfilled supremely the promise to Shem in the Noahic Covenant. (See Scofield "Genesis 9:1") Colossians 2:9. (4) He is the "Seed to whom the promises were made" in the Abrahamic Covenant; the son of Abraham obedient unto death Genesis 22:18; Galatians 3:16; Philippians 2:8. (5) He lived sinlessly under the Mosaic covenant and bore for us its curse. Galatians 3:10-13. (6) He lived obediently as a Jew in the land under the Palestinian Covenant, and will yet perform it gracious promises Deuteronomy 28:1-30:9. (7) He is the "Seed," "Heir," and "King" under the Davidic Covenant Matthew 1:1; Luke 1:31-33. (8) His sacrifice is the foundation of the New Covenant Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25. ____________________ (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/) Footnote at Hebrews 8:8" - Do all of these eight covenants apply to us today? Am I bound if I break any of these covenants? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
11 | Covenants in effect today? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135499 | ||
Emmaus, You stated: "God made covenants with Adam Noah Abraham Moses David Jesus who is God" Which of these covenants are still in effect today? And does the Apocrypha shed any light on this? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
12 | How many covenants and who made them? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135492 | ||
How many covenants are there in the bible and who made them? | ||||||
13 | Lockman and NASB representation? | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135400 | ||
Are the interpretive applications of scripture, as presented by the moderators of the Study Bible Forum, representative of the views of the Lockman Foundation and the translators of the NASB? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
14 | Doc and EdB: regarding common-law | Bible general Archive 2 | Reighnskye | 135390 | ||
Doc and EdB, I greatly apologize for getting heated on this topic. I've obtained legal counsel which has informed me, that I would have to engage in a common-law marriage to retain my medical benefits. Thus, if I get married with a marriage contract, I will lose precious medical treatments, but if I am declared to have a common-law marriage by the government, I will actually retain my medical benefits. This is because I have made no legal agreements with the government concerning either medical disability or marriage liabilities. Rather, I have successfully legally adjured the court to provide medical disability, in the absence of any agreements with them on my part. I'm sorry to say that, although I've read the scriptures you've each provided, I fail to see their applicability in my situation. As per Romans 13:1-7, I will abide by legal counsel and embrace common-law marriage, as afforded by the government, whereby I will retain vital medical treatments. The government had previously left me without vital medications for many years, due to legal loopholes and weaknesses within the governmental system, so that I had lost several times by body's blood supply over a course of twelve years. Basically, my internal organs had leaked blood for 2000 days out of 4000 days (twelve years), so that my blood hemoglobin levels were at one-half of what they should be (anemia). Nonetheless, God has sustained me, despite the government's repeated failings. However, with the government's track record of acute medical negligence, I do not find it feasible to place my health at risk in this way again. Although, I would gladly break the law to avoid the unnecessary removal of my digestive tract, it appears that I won't have to, with the government's gracious provision of common-law marriage. In this way, my foods will not have to be liquified and permanently injected through tubes. I am 36 years old. It appears that the previous thread was locked down, so I'll refrain posting further than this on the matter. As I say, I did read each of your scripture units, and could not make the applicable connections with my situation. Romans 13:1-7 directs me to go with the government's provision of common-law marriage, in the absence of a written marriage contract. - Romans 13 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (NAS95) - Doc and EdB, I thank each of you for your energies on the matter. I will not respond to this thread further. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
15 | Doc, biblical basis, please? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135145 | ||
Doc, I must admit, I was greatly surprised by the length of your last response to my previous questions, without a single scripture quotation included with your various perspectives here. I guess I'm not so much looking for your legal marriage counsel on the matter, but rather scriptural verifications. - You stated: 1. "In that case, you are right, the responsibility would not be with your spouse to provide for you. Of course, it is not prohibited, either. A good Proverbs 31 wife would be doing her best to make good use of the resources God provides." Scriptural verification, please? You are making the case that the man shall provide and the woman shall not. - 2. "Gratefully, we are not yet at a stage where our government watches everything we do. The onus of responsibility is on us to notify them of changes in our status that effect their dealing with us. So, unless you plan on talking to them about your public marriage, it would be concealment by omission, which is lying." Again, are you presenting this on a scriptual basis or a legal basis? I honestly have no desire to discuss politics here, and am looking for solely a scriptural basis. You had offered one verse prior to make your case on this, but it had seemed like a misapplication to me. - 3. "Furthermore when you accept each payment check, you are tacitly agreeing to the terms whereby you received it." Actually, I made no agreement whatsoever with the government when accepting medical provisions, in regards to marriage or anything else. Rather, my lawyer had adjured the court, through force of law, to pay legally-mandated funds to the handicapped. I suggest that your supposition is false. - 4. "The law bases many of its decisions on something we inherited from the British called "common law." If you live long enough with a woman, or you declare her your wife to others, you have what is called a common law marriage. Although this marriage has no ceremony, license, or vows, it is considered a legal marriage. Although many people now equivocate on these laws in order to avoid one thing or another, nevertheless they have prevailed for quite some time. This kind of marriage would be no different -- legally -- to the kind you are describing." I'd have to investigate the option of common-law marriage further, insofar as three of my friends are also involved in common-law marriages. Two of them are heterosexual and one is homosexual. They have reported no involvements of the government, and were each openly married in one church or another. Either way, you seem to be operating on the supposition that if something is governmentally legal, that it is also therefore biblical. I'm asking for more of a biblical perspective, rather than the legal one that you've provided here. - 5. "One sure way to find out, however, is to do the following: Give the government office in question a call and explain to them your situation. Explain the kind of marriage you will be having and how it is not the kind in which they are interested. See how they respond. :-)" I've discussed this to some extent with them, but have not yet recieved anything biblically founded. I have been legally counseled to either permanently refrain from marriage, or to engage in fornication, insofar as the financial ramifications of marriage could indirectly place extraordinary risk on my health status. - 6. "You should also consider that you might be interfering with how God chooses to provide for you. He will always use means that will not be questionable to anyone." I would suggest to you that you might be interfering with the way that God chooses to provide for me, by your offer of scripturally unvalidated counsel. On what scriptural basis do you say this? I don't mean to be rude, but it seems no more than idealistic theory. - 7. "Remember, what does it matter how much money you have, as long as you belong to God? Submit entirely to Him, and He will see to it that these things are provided." Indeed, God has already chosen to provide for my medical needs through the avenue of the government. It would seem that you are attempting to suggest that the current provision is not valid. - 8. "I'd also give pause to the entire plan. When we are to move, God always provides the means by which we can do so. Sometimes lacking the resources is a way that God closes door." Again, you've not provided scriptural support for this stance. In this regard, I'll consider it to be strictly theoretical on your part. I would suggest that God is not responsible for closing any doors here. Rather, it is the secular government which has closed doors. - I will kindly reiterate: Please provide biblical representation for these marriage perspectives. At this point, I will have to consider your perspectives as either secularly-based or completely theoretical in nature. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
16 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135125 | ||
Searcher, I had originated this thread as a question, which has not yet been answered with applicable scriptural support. Here is the original question: "Is it biblical for a church to authorize a marriage that is not simultaneously authorized by the government? In other words, can a church biblically marry two people, without the couple also being married by the government?" And here is my original request for biblical support: "Further, my question is not regarding politics. I'm looking solely for a biblical basis on the issue of church ordained marriage. Biblical basis only please." - Searcher, you further stated: "Reighnskye, Genesis 2 doesn't allow you to violate God's law and make you married. YOU MUST prove bt Scripture you can be married the way YOU want." 1. Which of God's laws are you referring to? I'm not aware that scripture presents any such law. The only laws that a couple of posters have brought up are those originating from secular government, and those have not even been applicable in this situation, insofar as the government engages in no penal action, against church-ordained marriages. 2. You seem to be getting angry, if I call to account the fact, that none of the posters have yet answered my original question, from a biblical basis; at least beyond an inadequate appeal to state government, concerning governmental restrictions which do not exist. - The following verses present the divine ordination of marriage, in the absence of a written legal contract. 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) Further, no biblical basis has been presented by the posters in this thread, that necessitates a written marital contract. Please provide precise chapter and verse, if you have any. I'm not aware that a biblical basis for your stance exists. - Please further reference the following rules and guidelines, as presented by the Lockman foundation: "To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: 1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. 2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 3. This post is not submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum. 4. I have carefully proofread my post and believe it represents my best efforts." Are you suggesting that I have violated one or more of these guidelines? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
17 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135068 | ||
Is it biblical for a church to authorize a marriage that is not simultaneously authorized by the government? In other words, can a church biblically marry two people, without the couple also being married by the government? The reason that I ask is due to financial penalties, that the government places on the legally disabled (medically handicapped), if they get married. I am legally handicapped, so I can't go to work more than 16 hours per month. If I get married, the government will take away my rent income, food allowance and medical coverage (medications and doctor visits). This is because I would be considered by the government as being a dependent on a potential wife, if I were to marry. I would be financially penalized 1200 dollars per month, which equals 500,000 dollars in 35 years. For this reason, I have chosen not to marry under the laws of the government. I am permanently disabled and will not likely recover. Is it biblical for the church to marry me, if I do not simultaneously get a legal marriage contract from the government? I would like to have kids too, but the government provides this obstacle. Further, my question is not regarding politics. I'm looking solely for a biblical basis on the issue of church ordained marriage. Biblical basis only please. |
||||||
18 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | OT general | Reighnskye | 134051 | ||
What were John the Baptist's legal Jewish credentials to baptize the Savior? We know that he was the son of the High Priest Zacharias. Shouldn't John have been ministering as High Priest, in the Holy Place of the temple, as opposed to baptizing the Savior in the wilderness? John the Baptist apparently trashed his fine religious robes to wear a poor man's garb of camel's hair with a leather belt around his waist. Shouldn't Jesus have been baptized by John at the temple? |
||||||
19 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | NT general Archive 1 | Reighnskye | 134059 | ||
What were John the Baptist's legal Jewish credentials to baptize the Savior? We know that he was the son of the High Priest Zacharias. Shouldn't John have been ministering as High Priest, in the Holy Place of the temple, as opposed to baptizing the Savior in the wilderness? John the Baptist apparently trashed his fine religious robes to wear a poor man's garb of camel's hair with a leather belt around his waist. Shouldn't Jesus have been baptized by John at the temple? |
||||||
20 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | Luke 1:5 | Reighnskye | 134053 | ||
What were John the Baptist's legal Jewish credentials to baptize the Savior? We know that he was the son of the High Priest Zacharias. Shouldn't John have been ministering as High Priest, in the Holy Place of the temple, as opposed to baptizing the Savior in the wilderness? John the Baptist apparently trashed his fine religious robes to wear a poor man's garb of camel's hair with a leather belt around his waist. Shouldn't Jesus have been baptized by John at the temple? |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |