Results 101 - 120 of 130
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: terrib Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Seeking Bible version history chart | Bible general Archive 2 | terrib | 147281 | ||
Hi EdB, Don't know is brazos got back to you about the graphic for Bible History, but "Quick Search" my 146630 that I sent him. terrib |
||||||
102 | NKJ, NASB, and varied manuscripts. | 1 Cor 2:10 | terrib | 146971 | ||
Hi Ray, If God has revealed them through the Spirit and we have the Spirit in us, why are we searching for them. They have already been revealed. I do see your point also. Jesus also used this Isa 64:4 reference. Mat 13:14-15 "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them." I have heard many TV preachers use this Isaiah verse for describing future heavenly events, which in a way could be true, but all the time it really has to do with spiritual awakening. Thanks for the reply Ray, Keep praying for this forum, terrib |
||||||
103 | Law v Faith. Are Jews Condemened? | Leviticus | terrib | 146747 | ||
What a gracious closing. Thank you EdB. It will be a pleasure to meet you face to face and in the presence of our Lord. with grace, terrib |
||||||
104 | Law v Faith. Are Jews Condemened? | Leviticus | terrib | 146736 | ||
Before my answers, where do you think Abraham is? 1. Do I think Abraham's bosom is still occupied? - Yes. Because it was used as an endearment term that the Jews understood because Abraham was the father of their nation. i.e.(to lay on the bosom of Abraham) Being in Abraham's bosom was-is to be in paradise. Jesus had yet to ascend to heaven at that time in Luke. After His ascension they were all there together in paradise as He told the thief on the cross. 2. Do I believe that a saint today upon death goes into the presence of the Lord? - Yes. with grace, terrib |
||||||
105 | Law v Faith. Are Jews Condemened? | Leviticus | terrib | 146722 | ||
Hi EdB, Let us remember that this discussion is for Biblical teaching and not to turn it into a thread as long as your arm that ultimaley becomes a debate. You wrote, "and every creditable Bible scholar I know points to Eph 4:8 as fruition of that transference." Matthew Henry: "...Let us set ourselves to think of the ascension of Jesus Christ: that our blessed Redeemer, having risen from the dead, in gone to heaven, where he sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high, which completed the proof of his being the Son of God. As great conquerors, when they rode in their triumphal chariots, used to be attended with the most illustrious of their captives led in chains, and were wont to scatter their largesses and bounty among the soldiers and other spectators of their triumphs, so Christ, when he ascended into heaven, as a triumphant conqueror, led captivity captive. It is a phrase used in the Old Testament to signify a conquest over enemies, especially over such as formerly had led others captive; (see Jdg 5:12). Captivity is here put for captives, and signifies all our spiritual enemies, who brought us into captivity before. He conquered those who had conquered us; such as sin, the devil, and death. Indeed, he triumphed over these on the cross; but the triumph was completed at his ascension, when he became Lord over all, and had the keys of death and hades put into his hands..." - Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible - John Wesley: "...Wherefore he saith - That is, in reference to which God saith by David, Having ascended on high, he led captivity captive - He triumphed over all his enemies, Satan, sin, and death, which had before enslaved all the world: alluding to the custom of ancient conquerors, who led those they had conquered in chains after them. And, as they also used to give donatives to the people, at their return from victory, so he gave gifts to men - Both the ordinary and extraordinary gifts of the Spirit..." - John Wesley's Explanatory Notes - John Gill: "...he led captivity captive; which is expressive of Christ's conquests and triumph over sin, Satan, the world, death, and the grave; and indeed, every spiritual enemy of his and his people, especially the devil, who leads men captive at his will, and is therefore called captivity, and his principalities and powers, whom Christ has spoiled and triumphed over; the allusion is to the public triumphs of the Romans, in which captives were led in chains, and exposed to open view..." - John Gill's Exposition on the Entire Bible - Adam Clarke: "...When he ascended up on high - The whole of this verse, as it stands in the psalm, seems to refer to a military triumph. Take the following paraphrase: Thou hast ascended on high: the conqueror was placed in a very elevated chariot. Thou hast led captivity captive: the conquered kings and generals were usually bound behind the chariot of the conqueror, to grace the triumph. Thou host received gifts for (Paul, given gifts unto) men: at such times the conqueror was wont to throw money among the crowd. Even to the rebellious: those who had fought against him now submit unto him, and share his munificence; for it is the property of a hero to be generous. That the Lord God might dwell among them: the conqueror being now come to fix his abode in the conquered provinces, and subdue the people to his laws. All this the apostle applies to the resurrection, ascension, and glory of Christ..." - Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible - Also you mentioned 1 Peter 3:19: "by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, Tells us Jesus preached to those in prison (captivity)." You left off the rest of the context of that verse i.e. verse 20: "who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. " 'during the construction of the ark' is the key phrase here. These were those at the time before the flood. And the context of this passage is silent about the 'freeing' of the spirits that were in captivity only that He made "proclamation to the spirits"(NASB). It does not say that He brought those spirits to heaven. with grace, terrib |
||||||
106 | Law v Faith. Are Jews Condemened? | Leviticus | terrib | 146695 | ||
Hi EdB, Correction, the last sentence in my previous post to you should read: I find no connection with the preaching of the Gospel and leading them to heaven from Hades. sorry, terrib |
||||||
107 | Law v Faith. Are Jews Condemened? | Leviticus | terrib | 146694 | ||
Dear EdB, Maybe we should revisit Eph 4:1 - 13. Eph 4:1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, Eph 4:2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, Eph 4:3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. Eph 4:7 But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of Christ's gift. Eph 4:8 Therefore it says, "WHEN HE ASCENDED ON HIGH, HE LED CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, AND HE GAVE GIFTS TO MEN." Eph 4:9 (Now this expression, "He ascended," what does it mean except that He also had descended into the lower parts of the earth? Eph 4:10 He who descended is Himself also He who ascended far above all the heavens, so that He might fill all things.) Eph 4:11 And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, Eph 4:12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; Eph 4:13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. Eph 4:8 The "Therefore" definity ties it to the preceeding thought, verse 7, the gifts. "The conqueror leading the conquered (death, sin, principalities) and distributing gifts of grace to men. As in verse 11, He wouldn't be giving these gifts to the dead. Eph 4:9,10 talks of his death and resurrection. Eph 4:11 "And He gave some...", some what? He gave some the gifts referenced in verse 7. And what were these gifts? The gifts of the Holy Spirit to be an apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor and teacher for the equipping of the saints for work of service. Paul is preaching on preserving peace and unity and the gifts that make up the different offices of the church. I find no connection with Lazarus and the rich man in Luke. with grace, terrib |
||||||
108 | WHAT IS THE FISRT LIGHT? GENESIS 1:3 | Gen 1:3 | terrib | 146552 | ||
The use of "the morning and the evening" denotes in itself a time frame and it has to be related to something and in this instance it would have to be in connection with the light that was created. A variation of light intensity. This is why I suggested the rotation of the deep. This is when days (or 24 hours as we know them) started to be counted. For it says in six "days" He created the heavens and the Earth and the works therein. Also what we know as "time". Take away the physical laws (as we now them) that God has put in motion and there is no time. From everlasting to everlasting. The best to you in your adventure. terrib |
||||||
109 | Two swords:is the love of God enough | Eph 6:17 | terrib | 121096 | ||
Hello Tim, I enjoy reading your posts and notes and am relaying this to you to read what I sent to Ray in case you have stopped looking at this thread. I respect your knowledge of the Scriptures and would like to get some input to my scenario. Hi Ray, Please excuse the delay in my response. Indeed these passages, to me, are a bit complex. Let us go back to the original question: "I am trying to understand why Jesus told his disciples what is cited in Luke: 22: 35-36, referring to the sword." Since Oswaldo Adame does not cite the Scriptures, I will cite them here: (Luk 22:35) And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. (Luk 22:36) Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. First, I must say, the concept of the disciples having swords is a bit odd considering Jesus's ministry of peace. A custom possibly, or from Matthew who collected large sums of money as a tax collector and he had one. But after three years with Jesus, Matthew would have found that he needed it no longer. Or, perhaps the swords were already in the room and the disciples had none, for the terms in verse 38 "Lord, look, here are two swords." does not state that they personally owned them and so they took the swords with them to the garden because of what Jesus said about obtaining one. For reference to the disciples owning swords is silent. Verse 35 starts with "And he said", denoting the same idea of thought as the previous verses. Verse 36 starts with "Then he said", denoting a change of thought. Verse 37 starts with "For I say", ties it to verse 36. I will put it to you that the period at the end of verse 35 should be a comma, and the train of thought should continue through verse 37. Putting these two verses together, I would put it to you that Jesus was directing the thought toward Judas. Judas had the purse and that he should go now and buy his sword of betrayal. Let him sell his covering, his garment, his soul, so the Scripture could be fulfilled that He cited in verse 37. And the other disciples did not discern this, thus their response, "here are two swords", thinking of physical force. And the Lord seeing that they did not understand and Judas was on his way, says, "It is enough", this part is over, the "It", the betrayal, thus Jesus closes the discussion and leaves to go to the garden. This is a senario that comes to my mind when reading this, yet as I stated at the beginning, "a bit complex". Ray, I read your response that the sword was the Word of God, but I don't see that in the context of this discussion concerning the cited Scriptures. terrib |
||||||
110 | Two swords:is the love of God enough | Eph 6:17 | terrib | 121093 | ||
Hi Ray, Please excuse the delay in my response. Indeed these passages, to me, are a bit complex. Let us go back to the original question: "I am trying to understand why Jesus told his disciples what is cited in Luke: 22: 35-36, referring to the sword." Since Oswaldo Adame does not cite the Scriptures, I will cite them here: (Luk 22:35) And he said unto them, When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, lacked ye any thing? And they said, Nothing. (Luk 22:36) Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. First, I must say, the concept of the disciples having swords is a bit odd considering Jesus's ministry of peace. A custom possibly, or from Matthew who collected large sums of money as a tax collector and he had one. But after three years with Jesus, Matthew would have found that he needed it no longer. Or, perhaps the swords were already in the room and the disciples had none, for the terms in verse 38 "Lord, look, here are two swords." does not state that they personally owned them and so they took the swords with them to the garden because of what Jesus said about obtaining one. For reference to the disciples owning swords is silent. Verse 35 starts with "And he said", denoting the same idea of thought as the previous verses. Verse 36 starts with "Then he said", denoting a change of thought. Verse 37 starts with "For I say", ties it to verse 36. I will put it to you that the period at the end of verse 35 should be a comma, and the train of thought should continue through verse 37. Putting these two verses together, I would put it to you that Jesus was directing the thought toward Judas. Judas had the purse and that he should go now and buy his sword of betrayal. Let him sell his covering, his garment, his soul, so the Scripture could be fulfilled that He cited in verse 37. And the other disciples did not discern this, thus their response, "here are two swords", thinking of physical force. And the Lord seeing that they did not understand and Judas was on his way, says, "It is enough", this part is over, the "It", the betrayal, thus Jesus closes the discussion and leaves to go to the garden. This is a senario that comes to my mind when reading this, yet as I stated at the beginning, "a bit complex". Ray, I read your response that the sword was the Word of God, but I don't see that in the context of this discussion concerning the cited Scriptures. terrib |
||||||
111 | Two swords:is the love of God enough | Eph 6:17 | terrib | 120678 | ||
Greetings Bruce7, Rev 1:16 - Not two swords but one sword with two edges. The sword symbolically used here as for a warrior that can wield a sword effectively. One that is accustomed to using a sword can swing it both ways and thus use both edges during battle. Reference: Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. In Heb 4:12 we see the use of two dimensions.. spiritual and physical; spiritual being - "soul and spirit" and physical being - "joint and marrow". The sword is for correction - spiritual or it can be used for judgement - physical and the Wisdom of God can even discern the very thoughts of the heart. This is why, when Christians go into battle with the enemy Paul writes: Eph 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: I like the way the Contemporary English Version reads: Eph 6:17 Let God's saving power be like a helmet, and for a sword use God's message that comes from the Spirit. Because Jesus said that, the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, will lead us into all truth. John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26, 16:7 "It was with this weapon that the Saviour met the tempter in the wilderness; Matt. 4. It is only by this that Satan can now be met. Error and falsehood will not put back temptation; nor can we hope for victory, unless we are armed with truth. Learn, hence: (1) That we should study the Bible, that we may understand what the truth is. (2) we should have texts of Scripture at command, as the Saviour did, to meet the various forms of temptation. (3) we should not depend on our own reason, or rely on our own wisdom. A single text of Scripture is better to meet a temptation, than all the philosophy which the world contains. The tempter can reason, and reason plausibly too. But he cannot resist a direct and positive command of the Almighty." - Albert Barnes terrib |
||||||
112 | i do believe..but this troubles me | Rom 1:27 | terrib | 116705 | ||
Dear ptgard05, Reading some of this thread I hope in all consideration that you find the answers you are looking for. This is a very important topic and should be addressed as such. With all dignity toward you and your thoughts please consider some truths: You state: "God created them this way afterall" God has created certain laws or as we might call them today, physics, that pertain to how things get generated. In Genesis the tree will produce after it's kind. The cow will reproduce after it's kind. The man will reproduce after his kind. It is not that God creates each of us individually except by the laws that He has put into place in the governing of this reproductive cycle. He is called our Creator because He first created Adam and Eve and we are all descendents from them. But the laws He has put into effect are that there is life in the sperm of the man and there is life in the egg of the woman and when these two laws join another law comes into effect bringing forth a reproduction of the man and the woman. Be fruitful and multiply. You can't get an offspring from a lizard and a cow. The laws that are in effect do not compliment each other in that case. He created the laws of light refraction as we see a rainbow in the sky after a rain. Scientifically we know how this happens, but God put the law into effect so it 'could' happen. If we say that God created a homosexual from birth then we also would have to say that God created me sinful for the Scripture says that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. This is not true, it is by the way of a willful act that sin came upon mankind. Man was created perfect and was given free rein over his own actions. It was man's choice not God's. So to say that a man was created a homosexual is also illogical. Since he is the offspring of his or her parents then his or her parents would have to be homosexual also. Look at a pine forest; each tree is different, yet each tree is a pine. Just as in humans, each person is different, yet we are all humans. These are because of the laws of reproduction that God has set in motion at the time creation. Just as some men who are hairy and some are not. Just as some women have large breasts and some do not. It is from the selection of the coming together of the genes of the parents passed down through the ages that these things happen, not that God has chosen this person over that person. It is the law of reproduction, which God created in the beginning. All physical structure is passed on through the genes. All moral structure is learned. Which is also scientific and proven. Homosexuality is not hereditary, somewhere along the line it is learned, experienced or desired by the offspring or a possible traumatic event, such as is known today as a "bad touch". If it were hereditary one would have to say that God created homosexuality. This He did not do, He created a free will perfect man and a free will perfect woman, what happened after that was man's design, not God's. Man became so corrupt that God wiped them out with the flood. Man became so high minded He confused their language. Man became so corrupt that He destroyed Sodom and Gomorra. These were all man's doings, not God's. Throughout the Scripture we see the extent that man has gone to propel himself into being a god…just as Satan promised Eve in the garden. Therefore, it is written: (Rom 1:20-22 KJV) "For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools". A conclusion must be drawn; all that are born have a free choice how to act and react. Commandment at creation: Be fruitful and multiply. (Gen 2:24 KJV) Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. In all respect, terrib |
||||||
113 | Standing firm in one Spirit/spirit? | Phil 2:1 | terrib | 113667 | ||
Hi Ray, You asked, "1) Do you not see the difference between "word" and "Word"?" Yes, I know the difference, but as in many passages of the Old Testament there is a mirror meaning with that of the New Testament. You asked, "2) Do you not see that the word "it" should be applied in the Isaiah 55:11 verse since the word and thoughts of God is the subject?" Exactly, and what are "the words and thoughts of God"? Jesus! The Word of God. All things were created by Him. The Father spoke and His Word did it. Isn't this part of the Trinity? Wasn't the Word with the Father? If God did not speak would there be a Jesus? (Joh 1:14 KJV) And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us..." In love, terrib |
||||||
114 | Standing firm in one Spirit/spirit? | Phil 2:1 | terrib | 113605 | ||
Dearest Ray, Your question was, “would you say that we have lost some of the fellowship of the Spirit? Are we even united in spirit?” My response was to your question: Yes, there are those that have lost fellowship of the Spirit, nothing more and nothing less. Nothing grammatical is or was ever implied. The word came forth from the Father and will do what the Father has deemed righteous and will not return void. (Joh 16:28 KJV) I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father. terrib |
||||||
115 | How is hope deferred? | Prov 13:12 | terrib | 112966 | ||
mommapbs, You asked, "how could it make the heart sick?". It doesn't make the heart sick in the physical sense but in an emotional sense; wanting the promise to come but having to wait for that which is promised, with a longing that sometimes comes to the tune of pining. Like wanting to be with your loved ones and at a time they are separated from you and your heart aches for them. Your heart is sick for them. You said, "Jesus said that He came to give us life - abundant life, right here, right now!" and "He gives us HIS desires", yes these are true and because we have these things now they are no longer a hope, they are a reality. Hope is something you wait for, something in the future. Spiritually we are seated with Him in heavenly places (Eph 2:6) but physically we are bound, for now, to this Earth, this dust. (2Co 5:6 KJV) "Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:" For as Moses knew God by voice and fire, his desire was to look upon His face but this flesh cannot contain the glory of His physical presence for the flesh is corrupt and nothing corrupt may enter into His presence. So we hope for the incorruptible. For if we hope in Christ only for the things of this life, or if our hope in Him is bounded with this life, and confined to the things of it, and does not reach to the things of another life, the things of eternity, the invisible glories of another world, to be enjoyed in soul and body; "...we are of all men the most miserable." (1 Cor 15:19) So, "exercising the hope that is within us" is no longer hope but faith, for faith is that of the present and hope that of the future. I guess sometimes I get a little melancholy, for I am ready to depart and soon the time will be, as with all of us, for as my youth was just yesterday my time will be as close as tomorrow. (Rom 15:13 KJV) Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost. terrib |
||||||
116 | Reconciliation questions | 2 Cor 5:18 | terrib | 112520 | ||
mommapbs, (Gal 6:1 KJV) Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Paul, in context, is talking about living in the Spirit. So the 'fault' referenced above has to do with an error or a misunderstanding of Spiritual matters. Not knowingly outright sin, but more likely uninformed or immature. Thus the second part, "ye which are spiritual", or those that have experienced the fault and have been enlightened themselves should help the one. What I said, "If we are going to help reconcile a relationship, it must start 'within' us first." would be the first thing one must look at before attempting reconciliation. As Galatians says, "ye which are spiritual", is the key. (Gal 5:22,23 KJV) "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,(23)meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." If we are not in the Spirit and are attempting to help that one, we must have the 'beam taken out of our own eye' first. As scholar Albert Barnes puts it, "It is a very important qualification for those who would recover others from sin, that they should not be guilty of the same sin themselves. Reformers should be holy persons; people who exercise discipline in the church should be 'spiritual' men - people in whom implicit confidence may be properly reposed." Also, if we care about the faulted one we must be willing to do some time on our knees for him and with him, also. Many like to get involved in others problems but they are not equipped and some are busybodies, having nothing else to do and then becoming talebearers. (Gal 6:7 KJV) "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." There is an old saying, 'fools rush in where angels fear to tread'. terrib |
||||||
117 | WHAT DOES TWO GOLD CHERUBIMS MEAN | Acts 2:17 | terrib | 112516 | ||
Greetings Gusisrealtome, Going by what you have said, I would say that the Lord might have been trying to teach you something. But since you say that you resisted and the cherubim flew away, you were not willing to listen at that time. Perhaps at a later date you will allow the dream to unfold more. I am a little confused by what you mean by, tried to "slay me in the spirit". This term is usually used in a group meeting were there is a healing service, either physical or spiritual, is being performed. May I ask you a question? Have you attended or are you attending, what I would call, camp town meetings, like older denominational Pentecostal meetings? I ask this because I haven't seen this for a while. I used to attend an older church were the preacher or an elder of the church would put their hands on you and the Holy Spirit would come upon you so strong that you couldn't stand up and you would fall over on the floor. And in that state the Holy Spirit would show you or teach you something that was needed in your life. But, not being an interpeter of dreams, all this would be supposition. And since cherubims do not have 'hands' and Paul says to lay 'hands' on a person for their healing, I don't see the connection to being "slain in the Spirit". You might want to discuss it with your pastor. And I would ask the Lord, first, was the dream from Him and second, what He meant by it. Then, be willing to accept the answer. terrib |
||||||
118 | Premarital sex is a sin? | Heb 13:4 | terrib | 112460 | ||
Greetings monkman, Not to be flippant, but I did not know that God's Word was different in Europe. Considering the Mosaic Law: Mat 19:8 - He saith unto them ... - Jesus admits that this was allowed, but still he contends that this was not the original design of marriage. It was only a temporary expedient growing out of a special state of things, and not designed to be perpetual. It was on account of the hardness of their hearts. Moses found the custom in use. He found a hard-hearted and rebellious people. In this state of things he did not deem it prudent to forbid a practice so universal; but it might be regulated; and, instead of suffering the husband to divorce his wife in a passion, he required him, in order that he might take time to consider the matter, and thus make it probable that divorces would be less frequent, to give her a writing; to sit down deliberately to look at the matter, and probably, also, to bring the case before some scribe or learned man, to write a divorce in the legal form. Thus doing, there might be an opportunity for the matter to be reconciled, and the man to be persuaded not to divorce his wife. This, says our Savior, was a permission growing out of a particular state of things, and designed to remedy a prevailing evil; but at first it was not so. God intended that marriage should be between one man and one woman, and that they were only to be separated, in the case of adultery or death, by him who had formed the union. You wrote, “the only sin I would admit is adultery...” Isn’t that enough? Look into your heart, you know! terrib |
||||||
119 | Premarital sex is a sin? | Heb 13:4 | terrib | 112446 | ||
Dear newg86, You wrote, "I really hate that my thoughts were perverted by twisted lust." You are not alone, we ALL have things that we wish we didn't. Paul said by the Spirit: (Rom 7:19 ISV) For I don't do the good I want to do, but instead do the evil that I don't want to do. (Rom 7:24 ISV) What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? (Rom 7:25 ISV) Thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with my mind I myself serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin. Don't get wound up by this, for the enemy knows that it might be a stumbling block for you. Confess it, forget it. And if the enemy brings it up again you just tell him (out loud, because he can't read your mind) to take the matter up with Jesus because you gave it to Him. May God flood your being with His Spirit! terrib |
||||||
120 | Question, exclamation or both? | 2 Pet 3:11 | terrib | 112440 | ||
Thanks Tim, I was leaning in that direction because of the "what manner" and "what sort" use in the verses. The context of the text seems a little rhetorical, exhorting us to look inside. terrib |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |