Results 101 - 120 of 173
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Stultis the Fool Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | I suppose he was not tempted, either? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126820 | ||
I suppose he was not tempted, either? | ||||||
102 | Who made us? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126819 | ||
Read Ecclesiastes and get the opinion of Solomon on the subject. How often is it written "the Lord opened her womb..." or some such. I am amazed that this topic is even debatable. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Doc, and the approving verse! | ||||||
103 | This post is restricted. What gives? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126811 | ||
How much you want to bet "restrictedness" does not solve any problems, and does not foster an outcome that will develope a Church that is of "one mind" and in "accord." I do gamble :P | ||||||
104 | This post is restricted. What gives? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126805 | ||
I understand what you say, however, I must give do credit to the creator where all life is concerned. I am familiar with what the scriptures say regarding creation, be fruitful, etc., but I wish to steal none of the glory from the Creator. Soloman believed we were all created by God [Ecclesiastes 3:20, 12:7], and as such I see no reason to apply semantics here. I am certain that all ment are created by the Lord, just as I am sure they are given their spirit from Him. I see this post is restricted. What gives? |
||||||
105 | Unreasonable? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126804 | ||
Regarding the creation and those travelling through the wilderness, the Author points out that God said, of the people, in His anger, they shall not "enter My rest." The author explains that God is reffering to His rest on the 7th day of creation, and relates it as a goal we should all try to attain. The Author then points out that after the forty years, Joshua led the people, but he was unable to lead them to God's "Rest." Therefore, the Author concludes that since Joshua was unable to take the people to God's "Rest," it must yet still be "Today," referencing the Sixth day of creation. He adds that while it is "Today," we (Christians) should act accordingly to a people trying to enter His "Rest." Now, under these circumstances, the 6th and 7th days of creation are not literal 24 hour periods, but are instead allegorized to reflect our lot in life "Today," as well as our ultimate destination tommorrow. There is a little more to it, but my brain is a little too tired to think. I hope this helps. |
||||||
106 | Can I help you? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126802 | ||
Hank, Thank you for the excellent reply. I obviously see those scriptures differently than you. I certainly understand why you believe what you believe, and I hate to dismiss this topic simply because of the "limitaitons" of this forum. Regarding Romans 5:12, it is easy for me to understand that "through one man, sin entered the world." After all, someone had to sin first, right? However, I will point out that all that applies to is the introduction of sin. Just like through one God Man entered the world. Man wasn't here, and then he was. Seems to me to be the same case with sin in 9:12. 5:18 is similar, sin was here, so God passed judgement, where there was none before. Gods judgement concluded all had transgressed the Law (transgression; an act, not an accident or happenstance), and thus came condemnation. Besides, we have a just God, and where there is sin there must also be justice (reap what you so, etc.). 5:19 The one man's disobedience was directly linked to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. With knowledge of good and evil comes the capacity for sin (the Law tells us so). With the Law, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It is not to hard to swallow that we are all "sinners." I must point out again that original sin directly contradicts Ezekial 18:18 through 18:20 as well as 1 Corinthians 10:13, and a number of other versus I have brought up in posts on this thread. Now, we know that God isn't going to contradict himself (same yesterday, today, etc.), so there must be a rational explanation for this contradiction. If man is brought into this world of a corruptable flesh with a sinful nature, well, there is a fine, scriptural explanation for this seeming ambiguity. Otherwise, I am unsure of how to explain the situation. I will point out again that, due to obvious contradiction, "original sin" cannot be the answer. As far as "orthodoxy" goes, I will gladly point out that just because something has been taught for a long time does not make it correct. We don't need to look very far to see this in application (wether secular or religious). |
||||||
107 | Born Again Christians - Why so weird? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126799 | ||
To make light of this, I heard it said: "Jesus and Elvis were both decent guys, but some of there followers are nuts." |
||||||
108 | How do you explain? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126796 | ||
Well, I suppose it is important to note that this definition is most definately situational. Paul calls such matter a "shadow" of things to come. While it does not seem appropriate to rest for 1000 years on the "sabath," I can also say that neither does not seem appropriate to rest for a mere 1000 years eternally, as per "My rest." At any rate, the intent of the Author is quite obvious. While it is "Today," figurative for every day before we enter eternity, we ought to behave like it is "Today," and when tommorrow, or "My rest" comes, we will be in a literal eternity, and nothing of the sort like a 24 hour day. |
||||||
109 | marriage and masturbation. | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126794 | ||
It sounds like your father-in-law's advice ought to hold up nicely here. The scripture states that the "marriage bed" should be undefiled, but that is most definately figurative to the sanctity of your sex life, and obviously not descriptive of the literal "marriage bed." You should most definately "join together often" (and I suppose exactly how just hinges on what is practical) to avoid temptation. There is really no other pertinent scripture on the subject. I personally say: "Have at it..." but that is just my opinion. Also, I admire your bravery in posting on this difficult subject. | ||||||
110 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126792 | ||
I suppose he didn't create the most important baby either? Scripture Reference: the Gospels according to Mathew and Luke. Talk to any parent and see if they don't call their new child a "gift from God." Every good gift and every perfect gift is of God. Don't stumble about on shakey ground... the breath of life comes from God, and nowhere is life more abundant than in a newborn. It is quite obvious that the Lord creates men (and women). Read Romans 9:19-24. Anyway, is it your point that man is created of a corruptable flesh? If this is the case, I obviously have no issue with what you write, as we I agree completely. However, if it is your intention to prove that children bear the iniquity of the fathers, being born with sin, I must say that you are wrong. | ||||||
111 | Unreasonable? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126787 | ||
I agree with you. I do not seek to unmake the meaning of creation. I just wish to indicate the "grander scheme of God" illustrated in Hebrews does not convey the literal events of creation. I will also add that neither does such disprove them. My point being that use of the creation in allegory is not a wholly unnacceptable practice. Thank you for the input. |
||||||
112 | Can I help you? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126784 | ||
The Law of Moses was created to identify sin, and as a guide that we should not sin. Are you implying that God created the Law and then gave man no capacity to understand or keep it, even though he promises that if we keep it we will live? Free will is evident throughout the bible, and was the defining factor in Adam's sin. God told Adam to not eat the fruit. Adam chose to disobey (albeit after temptation). When it comes to sin, freewill DOES play the most important role. We are given the capacity to discern evil (the Law, the Spirit), as well as the capacity to master sin by mastering our flesh by walking after the spirit. We see the same thing evidenced again when Cain killed Abel. God came to Cain when he was angry at his brother and told him sin was crouching at his door. At that time, Cain could most certainly have chosen a righteous path (like Abel, or Abraham), but instead, he chose to murder his brother. I have read the scriptures you present, and each identifies well man's persistance in sin, and his sinful nature. However, for brevities sake, let us consider just one of them, representative of the rest, here Ephesians 2:3, "Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." Paul also tells us in Romans 7:7, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet." Again, lust is identified with sin, and lust is temptation. A child cannot be tempted with what he does not comprehend. I hear and understand and agree with man's sinful nature, even that he is created with a sinful nature, and this is the corruption that is inherrent to the flesh. However, this still does not quantify as "sin," which is a falling short of the mark. Again, Christ gives us the example of small children, proclaiming that we must become as they are. How can Christ attribute them so if they have fallen short of the mark? Also, when I say "Grace was not yet with us," I refer to the fact that the old covenant had not yet passed away, and that God's Law was not yet written on our hearts, and that Christ had not yet perished for our sins, and thus there was as yet no propitiation and as such no salvation by Grace through faith. Christ still made the correct choices regarding sin, despite his walk in the corrupt flesh of man. Again, I wish to point out that I advocate "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," and I advocate Christ as Lord, as the Lamb of God and propitiation for our sins, but I do not advocate the birth of children with "sin." It is most definately safe to say that we are all born in a body of flesh desiring for sin, but it is innapropriate to attribute "sin" where there is none. This is wholly incorrect. Sin is the result of choice. we do not sin "accidentaly," else the words of God would be of none effect in 1 Corinthians 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." Now, I have made a number of posts regarding this subject, and I have backed my argument with scripture. While many have shown me definitive scripture attesting to mans sinful nature, noone has shown me any scripture proffessing God created man not only of a corruptable body, but WITH sin. I have indicated many scriptures that indicate this is not true. Again, I most certainly accept man's sinful nature, but I can find no scripture that states unequivocaly that the particular sin of Adam, or anyone else for that matter, rests on all our shoulders; I have, however, shown scripture that states we must answer for none but our own sin. |
||||||
113 | Allegory? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126774 | ||
The creation states that the world was created in 7 days. The account given in Hebrews declares that we have not yet entered the seventh day. It also concludes us to be currently in the sixth day. What about that is not an allegory of the 7-day account of complete creation from the foundation of the world in Genesis? I base this conclusion on the text in Hebrews 3:5-4:11. The Author is presenting an allegory of creation for our instruction towards steadfastness in our salvation. Either that, or the Author is indicating unequivocaly that the creation did not occur in seven twenty-four hour "days." | ||||||
114 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126773 | ||
Psalm 14:1-3 says there are wicked men who have "turned aside" and do not "seek after God." It says nothing of birth and sin. Jeremiah 17:9, while it describes the heart of a sinner, says nothing of birth and sin. Romans 3:9-18 perpetuates this same concept of "turning aside" and does not speak of birth, and I can't see anything AT ALL that Romans 5:10-12 says regarding being born with sin. I am not denying that all have chosen to sin and thus die, and I most certainly advocate Christ as our One and Only Savior and our Propitiation for our Sins, but there is not one scripture that plainly explains that the Lord has created babies doomed to hell due to a lack of acceptance of the confession of Christ because of their "original sin." In fact, the scriptures instruct us in a number of places that the child will not suffer for the iniquity of the father. We choose to sin. Man does have a sinful nature, but that is not to say that man is a transgressor from birth. Again, all sin is transgression, and to transgress the Law in any point is to transgress the whole Law, and no murderer shall inherit the kingdom of God. Small children are incapable of confessing Christ, so strickening them with sin is to challenge them with a temptation they cannot bear. The bible also tells us that any who put a stumbling block before a child would profit himself to hang a rock from himself and cast himself into the "abyss." You believe God creates children with sin. If this is the case, shall the Lord not hang the millstone from His own neck? |
||||||
115 | Unreasonable? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126771 | ||
I am not. I am stating that the Author of Hebrews uses the creation account as allegory, and his allegory contradicts a literal 7-day 24hour creation. Read it for yourself. Hebrews 3:5 through 4:11. If the Author of Hebrews feels at liberty to allegorize the creation, is it unreasonable for us to ponder such things? | ||||||
116 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126769 | ||
I am in no way a respector of persons, and I resent that you would question my capacities as a Christian because I am new to these forums. I am sorry, but children are not born with sin. If you would care to refute all that I wrote, I will gladly change my mind. However, since your argument hinges on interpretation of the word "likeness," despite obvious context, I will remain in disagreement with you. Additionaly, I am unsure as to what "Orthodox" opinion you believe prescribes original sin, but I quoted AMPLE scripture to the contrary. If all you can do is contradict plain scripture, then neither of us will benefit from any edification whatsoever. Thank you for provoking me to such thought as went into my last post. I am now more conviced than ever that original sin is a false contrivance founded in ignorance and covenant theology. I now see how week the argument for original sin is. I say sincerely, you have my gratitude. |
||||||
117 | Can I help you? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126766 | ||
Jesus chose appropriately, and Grace was not yet with us when he did so. I agree that man is condemned by the Law because of sin, but free will plays the most important role. If you cannot recognize temptations role in sin, I pity you. We will not be tempted with more than we can bear. We have every capacity to choose between right and wrong. The Law of moses was created to identify sin, that we should not sin. God gives us all we need (right down to salvation and grace), to avoid sin and defy the flesh by walking in the spirit. I am sorry you feel you are constrained by more than you can bear. Can I help you in any way? | ||||||
118 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126765 | ||
CONTINUED... And again [Mathew 18:14]"Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." Does this sound as though God creates children with sin? No sir, you are mistaken. Man is in no wise born in sin, lest it is the Lords desire that all should perish. Have you never read that anyone who transgresses part of the Law transgresses the Whole Law, and that all sin is transgression, and that he who commits adultery also commits murder? Have you read that no murderer shall inherit the kingdom of God? You do not understand what you affirm nor why you affirm it. Sir, I assure you that your doctrine condemns so many children to wrath that it wounds me just thinking about it. Good day to you. |
||||||
119 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126764 | ||
BradK, I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, however your allegations against me of blasphemy are not appreciated. I have chosen to treat you like I love you, and conduct a normal conversation with you. We should refute with sound scripture, and exhort one another with love. Instead, you have begun ridiculing me and calling me names. We know that we will know a vine by its fruits. Look at your signature, and emulate what it professes. Bear good fruit, not poison. As to your response, I will point out that there are many scriptures that tell us we are born of a corruptable flesh, and I believe you are confusing these things with "original sin." You quote Romans 5:9 claiming we inherit a sinful nature because of Adam, but I tell you plainly that Roman's 5:9 says nothing of the sort. I know that Romans 5:12 says that through one man sin and death "entered the world," but that does not make us guilty of sin from birth. You quote Jeremiah 17:9, but you do not know that that verse does not describe a Christian, or have you never read that God will "...cleanse us from all unrighteousness?" Or again that God abides in us? Do you call the Holy Spirit that dwells within all who are saints "no good thing?" Additionallym in Romans 8:3, you tell me that I ignore the context, but I assure you that the context is to tell us that our Lord was tempted in all the ways we are tempted, and to assure us that he overcame temptation. Have you never read that we will not be tempted beyond what we can bare? Are you not aware that our birth is a thing that there is no way out of? Look to our example of how sin entered the world... the Serpent TEMPTED man, and he committed sin. Do you suggest that God created Adam in a state of sin? Or have you never read that the Devil sinned from the beginning? What you have attempted to methodically orient is a direct contradiction of various scriptures. The explanation of sin you make defies the context of Ezekial chapter 18. Continue reading in context what is discussed in Romans chapter 8. You will see two things. First, the old testament is being quoted to describe Jews and Gentiles under the Law, not Christians who have repented and are now "apart from the Law," further, you will identify the fact that Paul describes their sins as those "previously committed," [Romans 3:25] and not those "derived from creation." You argue symantics over the word "likeness," claiming that it does not mean "likeness." I assure you that the word is used in context with sinful flesh, and by implication of scripture, places Christ in the same shoes we walk in [Hebrews 4:15]. Additionally, James paints an excellent description of how sin occurs, [James 1:14 and 15]. If you are not tempted to sin, I envy you. However, I assure you that we are at war for our soles, even with the flesh (read Romans chapter 7). You say we are created with sin, but I tell you also that Christ came to destroy the works of the Devil (those works being sin),[1 John 3:8], and I tell you that Christ has not come to destroy men. Again, have you never read: "Whatsoever a man soeth, that shall he also reap." What sin has a child sewn, that he should reap it, or has the Lord sewn sin to the child? Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." David speaks of receiving a corruptable body of the flesh through natural birth, or is David not a man after God's own heart? Read Deuteronomy 1:39 "Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it." Does this sound like someone born with sin? Have you not read 2 Kings 14:6? "But the sons of the slayers he did not put to death, according to what is written in the book of the Law of Moses, as the LORD commanded, saying, "The fathers shall not be put to death for the sons, nor the sons be put to death for the fathers; but each shall be put to death for his own sin."" The corruption in this world is through lust [2 Peter 1:4], and we have already seen how James explains lust as temptation leading to sin.. and not sin an unfortuanate eventuality of birth. Have you never heard the words of Jesus in Mathew 18:3 "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Does this sound as though children have sin? And again Christ said [Mathew 18:10]: "Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven." Does this sound as though there is nothing good in children? Or as though children are wicked sinners? More continued in the next post. |
||||||
120 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126748 | ||
I am sorry Angel, but you are very much misunderstanding what is being explained. The point of debate here is Ancient explaining where we get the modern story of Eve picking an "apple" from the tree of knowledge. I do not believe that in any way he advocates this scenario as "sexual conciousness," nor do I believe he is "simplifying" the sin of Adam and Eve and Satan. Again, he is relating the mythology of the "apple" (as in fruit of the apple tree) in the creation story, as opposed to some other type of fruit. For example, we do not hold to the idea that Eve picked a Coconut or a Watermelon from the tree, nor a peach nor a nectarine. For some reason, the popular idea places an "apple" in Eve's hand. It was Ancient's intention to offer an explanation of where that myth may come from, and not an attempt to advocate that the sin was "sexual conciousness" or any other effect of a sexual nature. I hope this helps you understand the debate. Please read the entire thread. Thank you! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |