Results 1 - 20 of 71
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: There Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is there scripture that warns us not to | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12114 | ||
There are no exact scriptures mentioning drugs persay, but alcohol yes. And in the case of alcohol God does not say that having a drink is wrong, but that overindulging is sin. Moderation in all things. Because God expects us to have self-control and to act in love toward Him and others, and to be of sound mind, it would seem that "drugs" of any kind that would prevent us from doing any of those things could/would cause us to sin, especially if used to excess. |
||||||
2 | musical instruments or not? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12118 | ||
Does your church have a ban on instruments? Have you asked them why they do not use instruments? The only "churches" that I know that do not use instruments of any kind in their worship services are those who cannot afford to, and the Mennonites, Amish and certain Brethren churches. I was told (by members of...) that they don't use them because they believe God wants to hear their voices raised to Him rather than instruments. I've never checked to see if that is doctrinal for those religions though. It may only be a preference. I have also "heard" that some don't use instruments or sing any "new" praise and worship songs for fear that the music would veer off from what they believe is the only godly music -- hymns. But I don't know if that is a fact either. Scripturally though, it would seem that God enjoys praise and worship to Him musically either way. David being one example of both singing and the use of instruments. |
||||||
3 | manhood | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12334 | ||
After leaving father and mother, reponsibility towards his wife should come first. (Gen.2:24; Matt.19:5; Mark 10:7) If I understand your question "when does a man become a man" in a relationship? .. a man should be a man before he marries. Are you asking what his responsibilities are in that relationship? |
||||||
4 | manhood | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12417 | ||
You are talking about the relationship between a husband and wife, correct? Not simply a relationship between a man and women (girlfriend)? Once married a man's main responsibility is towards his wife. The Bible says that a man should leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. I believe it is his responsibility to provide for her and his children. These days that may be a very difficult thing to do though on one salary. It is also his reponsibility to "love" his wife. For an explanation of love please see 1Cor.13:4-7. A very important responsibility of the husband as head of the wife, is to make certain that they are both heading the same direction spiritually (Eph.25:11). He will encourage his wife in spiritual matters. I think this is one reason that God's word says that we should not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever (2Cor.6:14). A husband and wife have become "one", and if they are pulling against one another it causes strive. This becomes especially evident when children are involved. I also believe that it is his responsibility to "protect". I don't have scripture on this, but the physical attributes seem to obviously point to that for me. I would also like to add, that a man also retains a responsibility towards his mother when the father is no longer able to support or care for her. In fact I think he does towards both parents if and when they need. Anyone else? How much am I missing? |
||||||
5 | Question about the Bible! | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12475 | ||
Men before the birth of Christ were inspired by God to write the Old Testament, which includes a revelation from God concerning creation and His instruction for man on how to live a righteous life. The New Testament, also inspired by God, is actually 4 gospels (written accounts of Jesus' life, death and resuurection) plus letters written by Christ's disciples containing His teachings. The teachings have not changed from Old Testament to New Testament. The covenant (two-way agreement) is the only thing that has changed. God's covenants with man to save, always took faith in men. But under the old covenant men were to learn righteousness from the written law, whereas under the new covenant God would write those same laws on a man's heart. In biblical purity, the "church" is people. They are people who believe God (have faith). Since God's Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of those who are saved by Him through faith, God does dwell in the "church". If you are talking about church buildings, that is a different story. You are right, God's presence does not live in a building. But because men have built these structures to fellowship with others in faith, they are sometimes referred to as the "house" of God. |
||||||
6 | In context change literal to figurative? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12931 | ||
Hi Steve, Usually it seems fairly clear whether it is literal or figurative. As far as the Sermon on the Mount, could you be more specific? | ||||||
7 | Follow up second time Peter first Pope | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12999 | ||
Hi Johnny, I'm not Brian, but I may be able to answer that for you. "The word "Pope" means "Papa", "Father". At first it was applied to all Western Bishops. About A.D. 500 it began to be restricted to the Bishop of Rome, and soon, in common use, came to mean Universal Bishop. The Roman Church list of Popes includes the Bishops of Rome from the 1st century onward. But for 500 years Bishops of Rome were NOT Popes. The idea that a Bishop of Rome should have authority over the whole church was a slow growth, bitterly contested at every step, and never has at any time, been universally recognized." Excerpt taken from Halley's Bible Handbook, pp.767-768. |
||||||
8 | Follow question to There and to Catholic | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 13023 | ||
Johnny, As a person who was raised Catholic and having left that church some years ago, the only thing I can tell you is that most Catholics have been taught that it IS okay. The reasoning goes something like this. The Catholic Church is the highest authority here on earth, because it was set up by Jesus, who gave His full authority to the apostle Peter, and his successors. The popes can change God's Word if they want to because they are inspired by God in such things. So, if the church says it's right, then it is right. And in much innocence, most believe that because those in authority ARE the "church", they would never lie. For many years (and in some cases it is still true) the common person (laity) was told not to bother reading Bible because they would not be able to understand it. And that is the reason why they needed the priest -- to interpret the Bible for them. Without actually having the scripture in their hands, finding the truth was not an easy task. Today more and more priests are encouraging the laity to read Bible. But generally if the scriptues disagree with Catholic teachings and practice, the CHURCH is held as the "highest authority". The usual lingo in these situations is that the lay person just doesn't understand. So why do Catholics think it is okay to call someone "pope" or "father" when Jesus said not to? Because they have been taught a lie. |
||||||
9 | Figurative vrs literal language? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 13089 | ||
Me for one take the Bible literally, unless you are talking about the parables, symbols, or as I mentioned in another reply, "picture stories" that were used to aid in teaching. And it is my absolute and total belief that if one (Christian) reads a part that does not make sense to them, they should seek the Lord's instruction on that verse, chapter, subject. The Holy Spirit is not just something God gave us so we can say we are "born again" or to receive "gifts" from. He was given to us as surety for our salvation, but also as our leader, as our helper/comforter, and as our "teacher". He can easily explain which of His words are literal and which are figurative if we ask. surety (Ephesians 1:13,14) leader (Romans 8:14) helper/comforter (John 14:16) teacher (John 14:26) Please don't give up. Ask the Holy Spirit of God to give you understanding when you read the Word. What He tells you is far more valuable than anything anyone else can say. |
||||||
10 | Where did Jesus get His blood from | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 13095 | ||
Hi Stpopoola, Just as Ed I don't know if your questions are sincere, or if you are here to interrogate the opposition. And although I agree with most of the things Ed said, I'm going to throw my two-cents worth in here too. Adam wasn't created with a sin nature. He chose sin, and because of that choice he acquired a sin nature. Babies are born with a sin nature they inherit from their parents. It is not IN the physical blood, but simply in the nature of man. Nature actually means "to be born" in the base sense. It is the quality or qualities that makes us what we are, such as our inborn character, disposition, or tendencies. Can you in all honesty look around the world and say that man does not have a nature that is sinful? Even babies come from the womb having a totally selfish nature -- a sin nature. A nature that is the exact opposite of God's nature. God is not selfish. And man's nature is selfish, no two ways about it. As to Jesus Christ. He was GOD and is GOD. He always was and always will be. His Spirit and the Father's Spirit are one and the same Spirit. Just as God sent forth His Word and the heavens and earth and everything that is in them came into being, so it was God's Word that was manifest in the flesh, and the Spirit of Jesus the man was God's Spirit. Jesus was totally both God and man. That is why even Moslems recognize Him as a great prophet, because He knew the things of God -- because He and the Father are ONE. Where did Jesus' physical blood come from? The flesh he received from Mary, so of course Jesus' blood would have been similar to Mary's since that is the only fleshly parent Jesus had. The importance of the BLOOD is not in where it came from in His parentage, but the purpose for it at all. In order for God to redeem sinful man, it was necessary for there to be a perfect sacrifice. Perfect -- sinless. I assume we both know the only perfect being is God. The only perfect sacrifice was "God manifested in the flesh" to reconcile man to Himself. He set us an example for living, loving, and dying -- all for NON-selfish reasons. He was willing to do this because He loved man that intensely. Christians make a "big noise" about the blood of Christ, because the blood is what was sacrificed for man's sin, that allows any who will believe Him to be saved by faith. Faith -- in God's perfect sacrifice for our sin. The name of "Jesus" means "God-saved". |
||||||
11 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 13689 | ||
1st installment. The closest thing I've found to answer this is from Halley's Bible Handbook, excerts from pp. 768-771. I'm leaving out names and dates that don't pertain to any talk of " special authority". Everything below is quoted from the book except for a small insert listed as "ME:". Clement the Bishop of Rome from 91-100 A.D wrote a letter to the Corinthian church, in the name of the Roman Church, NOT in his own name, and made no hint of papal authority such as popes later assumed. Clement was the 3rd bishop of Rome (Linus, Cletus, then Clement) Victor I (190-202), threatened to excomunicate the Eastern churches for celebrating Easter of the 14th of Nisan. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, replied that he was not afraid of Victor's threats, and asserted his independent authority. Iranaeus, of Lyons, though a western bishop, and in sympathy with the western viewpoint on Easter observance, that is the weekday rather than the month day, rebuked Victor for trying to dictate to the eastern churches. Calixtus (218-223) was the first to base his claim on Matthew 16:18. Tertullian of Carthage, called him a "ursurper" in speaking as if Bishop of Bishops. Stephen I (253-267) objected to certain baptismal practices in the North African church. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in North Africa, answered that each Bishop was supreme in his own diocese, and refused to yield to Stephen. Nevertheless, the feeling grew that Rome, the capital city, should be head of the church, even as it was head of the empire. Silvester I (314-335) was bishop of Rome when, under Constantine, Christianity was virtually made the State Religion of the Roman Empire. The church immediately became an institution of vast importance in world politics. Constantine regarded himself as Head of Church. He called the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), and presided over it, the First World Council of the church. This council accorded the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch FULL jurisdiction over their Provinces, as the Roman Bishop had over his, with NOT EVEN A HINT that they were subject to Rome. Julius I (33-352). The Council of Sardica (AD 343) of Western churchmen only, not an ecumenical council, was the first council to recognize the authority of the Roman bishop. By the end of the 4th century the churches and bishops of christiandom had come to be largely dominated from FIVE great centers, Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, whose bishops had come to be called PATRIARCHS, of equal authority one with another, each having full control in his own Province. After the division of the Empire (AD 395), into the East and the West, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, gradually came to acknowledge the leadership of Constantinople; and henceforth the struggle for the leadership of christiandom was between Rome and Constantinople. Siricius (385-398), bishop of Rome, in his lust for worldly power, claimed universal jurisdiction over the church. But unfortunately for him, in his day the Empire divided (AD 395), into two separate Empires, East and West, which made it all the more difficult for the Roman Bishop to get the East to recognize his authority. Sixtus III (432-440). The Western Empire was now rapidly dissolving amid the storms of the Barbarian Migration and , in the distress and anxiety of the times, Augustine wrote his monumental work, "The City of God", in which he envisioned a Universal Christian Empire. This book had vast influence in molding opinion favorable to a Universal Church Hierarchy under ONE head. This promoted Rome's claim for lordship. Thus the church was changing its nature, making itself over ito the image of the Roman Empire. Leo I (440-461), called by some historians the First Pope. The misfortunes of the Empire were his opportunity. The East was rent with controversies. The West, under weak Emperors, was breaking up before the Barbarians. Leo was the one strong man of the hour. He claimed that he was, by divine appointment, Primate of All Bishops; and (445), he obtained from Emperor Valentinian III Imperial Recognition for his claim. |
||||||
12 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 13690 | ||
1st installment. The closest thing I've found to answer this is from Halley's Bible Handbook, excerts from pp. 768-771. I'm leaving out names and dates that don't pertain to any talk of " special authority". Everything below is quoted from the book except for a small insert listed as "ME:". Clement the Bishop of Rome from 91-100 A.D wrote a letter to the Corinthian church, in the name of the Roman Church, NOT in his own name, and made no hint of papal authority such as popes later assumed. Clement was the 3rd bishop of Rome (Linus, Cletus, then Clement) Victor I (190-202), threatened to excomunicate the Eastern churches for celebrating Easter of the 14th of Nisan. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, replied that he was not afraid of Victor's threats, and asserted his independent authority. Iranaeus, of Lyons, though a western bishop, and in sympathy with the western viewpoint on Easter observance, that is the weekday rather than the month day, rebuked Victor for trying to dictate to the eastern churches. Calixtus (218-223) was the first to base his claim on Matthew 16:18. Tertullian of Carthage, called him a "ursurper" in speaking as if Bishop of Bishops. Stephen I (253-267) objected to certain baptismal practices in the North African church. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in North Africa, answered that each Bishop was supreme in his own diocese, and refused to yield to Stephen. Nevertheless, the feeling grew that Rome, the capital city, should be head of the church, even as it was head of the empire. Silvester I (314-335) was bishop of Rome when, under Constantine, Christianity was virtually made the State Religion of the Roman Empire. The church immediately became an institution of vast importance in world politics. Constantine regarded himself as Head of Church. He called the Council of Nicaea (AD 325), and presided over it, the First World Council of the church. This council accorded the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch FULL jurisdiction over their Provinces, as the Roman Bishop had over his, with NOT EVEN A HINT that they were subject to Rome. Julius I (33-352). The Council of Sardica (AD 343) of Western churchmen only, not an ecumenical council, was the first council to recognize the authority of the Roman bishop. By the end of the 4th century the churches and bishops of christiandom had come to be largely dominated from FIVE great centers, Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, whose bishops had come to be called PATRIARCHS, of equal authority one with another, each having full control in his own Province. After the division of the Empire (AD 395), into the East and the West, the Patriarchs of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, gradually came to acknowledge the leadership of Constantinople; and henceforth the struggle for the leadership of christiandom was between Rome and Constantinople. Siricius (385-398), bishop of Rome, in his lust for worldly power, claimed universal jurisdiction over the church. But unfortunately for him, in his day the Empire divided (AD 395), into two separate Empires, East and West, which made it all the more difficult for the Roman Bishop to get the East to recognize his authority. Sixtus III (432-440). The Western Empire was now rapidly dissolving amid the storms of the Barbarian Migration and , in the distress and anxiety of the times, Augustine wrote his monumental work, "The City of God", in which he envisioned a Universal Christian Empire. This book had vast influence in molding opinion favorable to a Universal Church Hierarchy under ONE head. This promoted Rome's claim for lordship. Thus the church was changing its nature, making itself over ito the image of the Roman Empire. Leo I (440-461), called by some historians the First Pope. The misfortunes of the Empire were his opportunity. The East was rent with controversies. The West, under weak Emperors, was breaking up before the Barbarians. Leo was the one strong man of the hour. He claimed that he was, by divine appointment, Primate of All Bishops; and (445), he obtained from Emperor Valentinian III Imperial Recognition for his claim. |
||||||
13 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 13691 | ||
Oops... did the first one twice. Sorry about that. 2nd installment from the same source. In 452 he persuaded Attila the Hun to spare the city of Rome. Later (455), he induced Genseric the Vandal to have mercy of the city. This greatly enhanced his reputation. He proclaimed himself Lord of the Whole Church; advocated Exclusive Universal Papacy; said that resistance to his authority was a sure way to hell; advocated death penalty for heresy. However, the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), composed of assembled Bishops from all over the world, in spite of the Emperor's Act, and Leo's claim, gave the Patriarch of Constantinople Equal Prerogatives with the Bishop of Rome. Hilarus (461-468) continued the policy of his predecessor. Simplicius (468-483), was Roman Pope when the Western Empire came to an end (476). This left the Popes free from civil authority. The various new small kingdoms of the barbarians into which the West was now broken furnished the Popes opportunity for advantageous Alliances, and gradually the Pope became the most commanding figure in the West. Gregory I (590-604), generally regarded as the First Pope. He appeared at a time of Polical Anarchy and great Public Distress throughout Europe. Italy, after the Fall of Rome (476), had become a Gothic kingdom; later a Byzantine Province under control of the Eastern Emperor; and now was being pillaged by the Lombards. Gregory's influence over the various kings had a stabilizing effect. He established for himself complete control over the churches of Italy, Spain, Gaul and England whose conversion to Christianity was the great event of Gregory's times. Gregory labored untiringly for the Purificaiton of the Church; deposed neglectful or unworthy Bishops; and opposed with great zeal the practice of simony, the sale of office. He exerted great influence in the East, although he did not claim jurisdiction over the Eastern Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople called himself "Universal Bishop". This greatly irritated Gregory, who rejected the title as vicious and haughty, and refused to allow it to be applied to himself. Yet he practically exercised all the authority the title stood for. In his personal life he was a good man, one of the purest and best of the popes, untiring in his efforts for justice to the oppressed, and unbounded in his charities to the poor. If all popes had been such as he, what a difference estimate the world would have of the Papacy! Zacharias (741-752), was instumental in making Pepin, father of Charlemagne, King of the Franks, a Germanic people occupying western Germany and northern France. Stephen II (752-757). At his request, Pepin led his army to Italy, conquered the Lombards, and gave their lands, a large part of central Italy, to the Pope. ______________ ME: This was the beginning of Papal States or Temporal Dominion of the Popes. Thus it slowly became known as the "Holy Roman Empire", a name rather than an accomplished fact. It existed for about a thousand years, and was put to an end by Napoleon (1806). It served the purpose in blending the Roman and German civilizations. ____________ Nicolas I (858-867). First pope to wear a crown. To promote his claim of Universal Authority he used with great effect the "PSEUDOISIDORIAN DECRETALS", a book that appeared about 857, containing documents that purported to be letters and decrees of Bishops and Councils of the 2nd and 3rd centuries, all tending to exalt the power of the Pope. They were deliberate forgeries and corruptions of ancient historical documents, but their spurious character was not discovered till some centuries later. Whether Nicolas knew them to be forgeries, at least he lied in stating that they had been kept in the archives of the Roman church from ancient times. But they served their purpose, in "stamping the claims of the medieval priesthood with the authority of anitquity". "The Papacy, which was the growth of seveal centuries was made to appear as something complete and unchangeable from the very beginning". "The object was to ante-date by 5 centuries the Pope's Temporal Power". "The most colossal literary fraud in history". "Yet it strengthened the Papacy more than any other one agency, ana dorms to a large extent the Basis of the Canon Law of the Roman Church." |
||||||
14 | Question for you Both? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 13728 | ||
Of course Jesus was a man. He was both man (flesh) and God (Spirit). The main verse that comes immediately to mind is John 1:14 "And the Word became flesh..." and if you go back to John 1:1-5, it explains WHO the Word is. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it." God is Father/Son/Holy Spirit. Those three are ONE. 1John 1:1,2 states "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life -- THE LIFE WAS MANIFESTED, AND WE HAVE SEEN, AND BEAR WITNESS, AND DECLARE TO YOU THAT ETERNAL LIFE WHICH WAS WITH THE FATHER AND WAS MANIFESTED TO US...." Speaking of Jesus Christ, Revelation 19:13 also states "He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God." 1John 4:7 "... the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." Jesus was "The Word of God" begotten in the flesh. Not created BY the Word as Adam was in Genesis, but BEGOTTEN in the flesh, and that is why He is called the "Son". The Son, Jesus Christ, is the WORD OF GOD. |
||||||
15 | Liberty Savard? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 13731 | ||
I haven't heard of Liberty Savard before, but I have heard and been in the audience of a "ministry" that sounds very similar to LSM after reading the questions/answers section, the doctrine statement, and excerpts from her book at the site you mentioned. It would seem they are trying to teach people to "bind" demons when they have infiltrated their lives or the lives of others. I tend to disagree with her in at least one aspect. I think we are to "cast out" demonic spirits in the authority/name of Jesus when we are confronted by them. (Matt. 10:1; Mark 16:17) But perhaps she actually means the same thing?? What do you think Nolan? |
||||||
16 | what is the defination of pentecost | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 14830 | ||
Pentecost comes from the Greek word "pentekoste" meaning fiftieth (being implied) from Passover, i.e. the festival of "Pentecost". Taken from Strong's Concordance, #4005. Used in the NT when speaking of the Feast of Weeks. (The Israelites were to count 7 weeks of 7 days from the Feast of Firstfruits, and the following day is then celebrated as the Feast of Weeks (or "Pentecost"). 7 times 7 equals 49 days, and the Feast of Weeks (or Pentecost) is on the following day (50th day after Firstfruits). The "week of Passover" has within it three of God's Feast Days. The first day is called the Day of Passover, the next is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the third is the Feast of Firstfruits. See Leviticus 23:4-14 concerning the week of Passover. And to see where you start counting off the 50 days to Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) please see Leviticus 23:15,16. |
||||||
17 | WHEN DID GOD CHANGE LIFESPAN OF MAN? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 14855 | ||
Some of the main characters mentioned pre-Flood lived anywhere from 365 years to 969 years. Noah was 600 at the time of the flood, and 601 when the Flood subsided. He lived another 350 years, so was 951 at his death. Shem lived to be 600 years old (about 500 years after the Flood. His son, grandson, and greatgrandson lived to be 430 to 460 years old. The next three generations lived into their 230's. And down through a couple more generations to Abraham who lived to be 175 years. It would seem that pre-Flood people were vegetarians. God didn't tell anyone to "eat meat" until after the Flood. Adam was told that the ground would be cursed and he would "eat the herb of the field" using his own hard labor, and Noah was told to bring "all food that is eaten" for himself and the animals ("it shall be food for you and for them"). Seems probable that meat eating was not done yet. It wasn't until after the Flood in Genesis 9:3 that God told Noah "every moving thing that lives shall be food for you... even as the green herbs". This change in diet may have been the means of shortening a man's life, along with less idealic atmospheric conditions. Another note, animals were friendly pre-Flood. After the Flood God told Noah "and the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth... " which was a good thing since man was now given permission to eat them! |
||||||
18 | Where did our souls come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18097 | ||
Bill explained the "spirit"/"soul" very well. My "personal" understanding of the Hebrew and Greek words are: SOUL - the part of the spirit that can think, reason, and choose good (and was made in the "image" of God). SPIRIT - the actual life essence from God which CONTAINS the soul. Because they are so closely linked, I think that is why these words sometimes seem interchangeable. God's intent was to make man in "the image of God" (Gen. 1:26). Gen. 2:7 "And the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." If you don't mind I will paraphrase that verse like this "The Lord breathed a "spirit" with the ability to reason, and choose good (soul - "image of God") into man's body of dust". Both the spirit and soul are linked together, but ultimately can be separated by God in the case of unbelief. References: The spirit returns to God who gave it (Ecc. 12:7) Both the bodies of the saved and unsaved return to dust, and their spirits returns to God who gave it. Not the case with the soul. The soul must be conformed to that "image of God" before it can remain a part of the spirit that returns to God. Please see: Romans 12:2 "...be transformed by the renewing of your mind..." Ephesians 4:23 "...be renewed in the spirit of your mind..." Ephesians 4:24 "...put on the new man which was created according to God..." Titus 3:5 "... He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" Colossians 3:10 "... put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him" If the "soul" part of the spirit is not "born-again" (renewed to conform to the image of God), it will be separated from the "spirit" by God's Word. Hebrews 4:12 "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul(5590) and spirit(4151)..." Jesus said that God is the only one that can destroy a "soul". He did not say God would/could destroy the "spirit(4151)" of man, but only the "soul(5590)". Which also testifies to the fact that the "spirit" and "soul" are 1) closely united; and 2) that they are not the exact same thing. Jesus did not receive His Spirit in the same way Adam did. Jesus and the Father have the same Spirit. John 1:14 "And the Word was made (became) flesh and dwelt among us...". God created Adam and gave him a spirit/soul. The Word (God Himself who IS Spirit) became (was made) flesh (through the seed of a woman), and called Immanuel (God with us) or Jesus (God-saves). Reference John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." |
||||||
19 | How do we know the Bible is the truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18098 | ||
I've read everyone else's answers up to this point and I think they are all right!! My only comment is that until I met the Lord personally I don't think I was able to realize that His Word is Truth. It was then that all the Biblical truths became "real" to me, in that God continually proved His words to be true. Not sure that makes sense to anyone else, but I know what I mean. :) |
||||||
20 | Did Adam die from eating forbidden fruit | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 18139 | ||
Adam's soul no longer "reflected" the image of God, and was therefore "dead" toward God. God could not have simply meant physical death, because in Gen. 3:17-19 God was not cursing Adam to phsyical death. God was saying that you will now have to work to survive UNTIL you die. The "curse" was that Adam would now have to work to survive. Gen. 1:17-19 "... Cursed is the ground for your sake; In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field. In sweat of your face you shall eat bread TILL YOU RETURN TO THE GROUND, For out of it you were taken; For dust you are, and to dust you shall return." Along with the verses that speak of "renewing the soul" to the knowledge of God, there are other passages that mention the opposite, a soul not alive toward God. Eph. 2:1 "And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins..." Col. 2:13 "And you, being dead in your trespasses... He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses..." Eph. 4:18 "... having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart..." The word dead in those verses (3498) means "dead". Unlike the word "dead" when used in "dead (599) to sin" which actually means the "process of dying". |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |