Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: LocalSaint Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is suicide a sin? | Ex 20:13 | LocalSaint | 3975 | ||
This question is covered under the topic of "the unpardonable sin", as was offered by too few respondents. Refering to: - Mt 12:31-32 - Mk 3:28-30, and - Lk 12:10, we see that EVERY/ANY/ALL sin will be forgiven men. Yet there is the unpardonable sin that will not be forgiven. So the question boils down to this: "Is suicide the [an?] unpardonable sin? The answer to this comes from the meaning of the gospel. As is often the case, we have here an APPARENT contradiction in scripture. "Every sin forgiven, yet not every sin forgiven". APPARENT, that is, untill we understand what scripture is saying. The answer is revealed by seeing that there is one and only one way to be saved - it is by Jesus' work on Calvary (Jn 14:6). Understanding the power of His blood, we realize that it is weak towards nothing. How, then, can there be something "unforgivable"? Answer: By refusing to let that blood wash us. The blasphemy against the Spirit, then, is the moment that the Spirit tells us that "Jesus died as the propitiation for our sins", and we respond by saying "No, not true [Mk 3:30]". The Spirit offers us salvation, but we call Him a liar. We have blasphemed the Spirit, we won't allow Him to wash us in His blood, we are not washed, and therefore we are not saved. In light of the true meaning of the gospel, there is NO contradiction in these verses. So I leave it to you to consider whether suicide [or divorce, or murder, or etc. etc. etc.) is blaspheming the Spirit, within the context of the gospel revealed in the wholeness of scripture. Your answer is a function of the degree of revelation you have regarding the gospel. Peace, Saint |
||||||
2 | 1Ki 7:23 apparent error measuring sea | 1 Kin 7:23 | LocalSaint | 2520 | ||
I disagree that the circumfrence would probably be measured internally. It MIGHT be, but no reason to think PROBABLY. If measured by a chord or string (KJV, NKJ, NIV) it would PROBABLY be outside. I cannot read the original Hebrew. Chuck Missler explained it with the numeric values of the Hebrew characters. That a squiggle mark (like a jot or tittle) was missing from some manuscript. The numeric value without the mark was 105. The mark added 5 (106 plus 5 eq. 111), increasing the circumfrence to 30x111/106 eq. 31.415, dividing by pi gives a diameter of 9.9997 instead of 10. But I don't understand how these numeric values of the Hebrew characters (106, 105, 111) relate to cubits (10, 30). Nor am I comfortable with the idea of a "misspelling" in the manuscript. Can anyone clarify this explanation, or is there a better one? LocalSaint |
||||||
3 | Can angels have human babies? | Gen 6:4 | LocalSaint | 2503 | ||
Mat 22:30 need not imply that angels are sexless. It says they do not marry. 1. My daughter is 15 and cannot marry according to statutory law. This does not imply she is sexless nor prevent her from getting pregnant. Marriage and procreation are independent. 2. Similarly, the homosexual agenda to redeifine marriage will never change Gods view towards marriage (even if they succeed in this land). If they legitimize same-sex marriages through politics, they will still not be married nor given in marriage in God's eye (marriage has a purpose in God's eye, see #3 below). Therefore a similar restriction on angels would not necessarily prevent them from ACTING as if they were married. 3. The redeemed will be married in heaven, not to each other, but to the Bridegroom (Rev 19:7,9, 21:2, 9). This is not a contradiction to Mat 22; they are mutually compatible. In fact, the whole bible speaks of God's desire to be with/in us for the joy of fellowship (Ge 1:27, Ruth, Song, Hos, Mat parables,Eph 5, Rev 19-21 to name too few). A possible interpretation of scripture speaks about angels fornicating with mankind. I believe it may even be a probable interpretation. It is not ruled out by scripture; but neither is it "ruled in". It is simply a possibility. It is wrong to make doctrine one way or the other. Eternal life is not whether angelic fornication is possible or not, nor whether you believe it or not. Eternal life is knowing the Son (Jo 17:3) and being in Him (1Jo 5:12). Interpreting scripture with any other goal than becoming closer to Jesus is missing the mark. Interesting conjectures, but guard yourself from distractions. LocalSaint |
||||||