Results 161 - 180 of 232
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Taleb Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Why not Baptize as Jesus said to? | Acts 19:5 | Taleb | 108156 | ||
Natasha, THERE IS One God, not three IS WHAT we who believe what Scripture says about “the One God”. You stated “I know who the father is I know who the son is and I know who the Holy Ghost” is.” Then you added, “IT IS JESUS”. You declared “this verse says he was given a name above every name” (Phil 2:10). Jesus was highly exalted and given a name which is above all names, BY WHOM? Himself? It plainly and matter-of-factly declares – “GOD exalted Him (Jesus) and gave Him (Jesus) a name above all names.: Why did GOD highly exalt His Son is explained in the verses before. Phil 2:6-9 “Though Jesus possessed the nature of God, He did not grasp at EQUALITY WITH GOD, but laid it aside to take on the nature of a slave and became like other men. When He had assumed human form, Jesus still humbled Himself and carried His obedience so far as to die, and to die upon the cross. THAT IS WHY GOD has so greatly exalted Him”. Now you have an answer to your question. (Why would "the father" exalt his "son" above himself???? or above the "Holy Ghost"??????) It was RIGHT in front of your eyes, had you only searched for the truth. IT DOESN”T say what you wished it said – “Because Jesus obeyed Himself and went to the cross to die as a man, He rewarded Himself by exalting Himself and giving Himself a name above all names.” Numerous Scriptures explain what you are failing to accept. To borrow another quote of yours – “As we learned today in church that when you begin to disprove something that people have believed for a long time, alot of them don't like it”. True. Very true. A test of what you really learned - can you receive the truth of His word. John 16:5-7 “But now I am going back TO THE FATHER WHO SENT ME, and none of you asks me where I am going. You are very sad from hearing all of this. But I tell you that I am going to do what is best for you. That is why I am going away. The HOLY SPIRIT CANNOT COME TO YOU UNTIL I LEAVE. But after I AM GONE, I will send the Spirit to you.” You apparently think this states – “I came here on my own initiative. Now I am going away, so I can send Myself back to you. I can’t come until I’m not here anymore.” It gets better, the deeper into chapter 16 you read. Such as, “The Holy Spirit will show you what is true, and will come and guide you into full truth. The Spirit doesn’t speak of Himself. He will only tell you what He heard from Me”. It really isn’t what you think, or hope. It really IS what THEIR word declares. The one true God really is – ONE. Perhaps it will help you to understand by recalling the verse: “And the two shall become ONE” - like my wife and I are one. Like my wife, daughter, grandchildren and I are one. And this is our prayer for you too. Taleb P.S. John 14:28b “…you should be glad I (Jesus) am going back to my Father, because He IS GREATER THAN I AM.” The Father IS greater. Jesus, His Son is exalted! |
||||||
162 | Why not Baptize as Jesus said to? | Acts 19:5 | Taleb | 108206 | ||
Steve, I truly appreciated your note. Far too often, many believe what they believe ONLY because they were told that's what it means, never reading for themseselves what it really says, or they fail to read the surrounding Scriptures to get the "whole picture". Peace, Taleb |
||||||
163 | Who can Baptize you? Does it matter? | Rom 10:9 | Taleb | 72127 | ||
VenturesFan1, you wrote, "True Christianity is not a religion, but a relationship" - and rightly so. However, you also wrote: "I wonder if by religion, you mean Christian denominations or do you mean another religion such as Islam, Judaism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc?" Don't forget that Christianity is NOT the only "religion" which refers to theirs as "a relationship". Judaism, for one example, also makes that claim. And, like Christianity, Judaism also ISN"T a religion (at least to the Jews) – it is, as many Moslems will declare about their faith, a way of life. And speaking of baptism - Judaism's "mikvah" (ritual bath), is used to convert Goys (gentiles)to Judaism. Their "baptism" is perhaps the most like John the Baptist's. It, as an outward expression of a spiritual commitment, began in Exodus 19:10. Thousands of years later, for a man or woman to convert to Judaism, they first must become "born again" through their mikvah. With the eyes and lips as though they were in the womb (neither closed tight, nor opened wide) the "new convert" is immerged naked to allow all of the body to "benefit" from the water touching every part. Note: modesty is not compromised, as an aide of the same sex will shield the congregation’s view of the participant. The fingers and toes are spread. No fingernail polish, lipstick, or done-up hair is allowed. The feet are not allowed to touch the bottom, in order to position the body into a “fetal” posture. Unlike the Christian's one baptism, the Jews often partake of mikvah, e.g. before a wedding, Shabbat, Yom Kippur, etc. My point? Please, be careful not to conclude that "our way" is unique. While, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ IS unique - EVERY “religion” can "prove" that theirs is the "only one". Just ask any of my strict, by-the-book-Mormon cousins. ;-) Seeing I still have some mishpachah (family) who call themselves Jewish … Judaism, for example, DOES NOT believe that salvation is "earned" through good works. “Good works” is merely the “result” of their faith. The sad part is each one can, with Scripture, prove their dogma. Maybe that’s why it’s more important how we live than what we say. Shalom aleichem, Taleb |
||||||
164 | Who can Baptize you? Does it matter? | Rom 10:9 | Taleb | 72205 | ||
CDBJ, Great questions. Please accept my apology for not thinking to fill out a personal profile when I joined the forum. Growing up with a manual typewriter, then moving up to an electric before buying a used 50 dollar computer (286 sounds right) with Geoworks word processing, and a dot what-sha-ma-call-it printer, a couple of years ago. Now, I've almost became used to using my new computer. It's a Dell, dude. And I finally figured out about the profile thing too. Thanks. As far as my definition of the word religion, I heartily agree with my worn-out 1914 issued New Modern English Illustrated Dictionary. "Any system of faith or worship; love and obedience towards God." As far as "today's" dictionaries definitions, forget it. Don't forget, Jesus never come down on people for following "their system of faith and worship and love and obedience towards GOD". Rather He embraced the "practice" of it Himself. The last supper was exactly that. Every Passover during Jesus' lifetime was also religiously observed. And His disciples didn't quit being "religious" after Jesus' cruel death on an ugly cross, and His powerful resurrection. They went to the temple daily to pray, etc. and God moved in their behalf according to their "system of faith and worship and love and obedience towards GOD". However, Jesus strongly came down on those who insisted people obey MAN and his laws and traditions. Today, many churches have that same problem. They practice their man-made traditions and they worship, love and obey a man. But, Praise God, many churches don't. They practice their system of faith and worship and love and obedience towards GOD. And, as always, God responds in their behalf. If it's because of faith, worship, love and obedience to God, (or in other words, "religious") when one prays, tithes, visits those sick or in prison, helps the needy, God receives all the glory and praise. As far as what translation of the Bible do I enjoy most? That's a little hard. In this room, I have a number of worn-out Bibles. An American Translation (yes, that's the version), New Berkeley Version, and the Jerusalem Bible, all of which offer great insight. I’m almost ashamed to say I have about 14 different versions, not counting the 8 different languages. Of course all of my volumes of aids are keyed to Strong’s so it's Hendrickson’s “The Interlinear Hebrew, Greek, English Bible” (with “A Literal Translation of the Bible”, that I usually turn to for help. The Hebrew, Greek sections have Strong’s numbers. Almost all my memorized sections are from the KJV, however. Thanks for asking, Taleb |
||||||
165 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Taleb | 72840 | ||
If you will allow me to add a few cents worth to this argument – I’ll basically use the gist of Scripture, so if you disagree, take it up with the author, and I don’t mean Paul. 1st Corinthians 1:10-17 might be all it takes to settle this discussion. “But I urge you all, brothers, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, to agree in what you say, and not to allow factions among you, but to be perfectly united in mind and judgment. For I have been informed, my brothers (Paul named names)that quarrels are going on among you. What I mean is this, that one of you says, “I’m a follower of Paul’s teaching,” another, “And I am of Apollis,” another, “Well, I am of Peter,” and so on. “Christ has been divided. Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name? I am thankful that I never baptized any of you except (Paul named names) so that no one could say that you were baptized in my name. I did baptize a very few, otherwise I do not know if I baptized anyone else. “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the good news – but not with fine language, or the cross of Christ might seem an empty thing.” What else needs to be said? Taleb |
||||||
166 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | Taleb | 72924 | ||
In reference to Paul’s statement in 1 Cor. 1, you quote, "He baptized some, and would have baptized more, but that his and the apostles' peculiar work was to preach the Gospel..." So you really DO agree, his peculiar work was to preach the Gospel, IS why Paul didn’t baptize more. Exactly. That is a rephrase of what others and I have said. IF Paul’s preaching the gospel included baptism as a take it all or leave it all package, Paul would been compelled to baptize everyone who believed his preaching ... yet Paul admitted he didn't baptize very many. But, then you change the side of your mouth and claim he didn't baptize more people because, “He certainly didn’t want to be the focal point of their faith.” Interesting theology, but we had better stick with what God says God said, rather than what men say God said. If I may quote you once again, “So you see, your point is pointless”. That seems to fit here. Perhaps you should go back to THE book instead of a book. :) Taleb |
||||||
167 | HELP ME PLEASE...I am not content! | Rom 12:1 | Taleb | 102569 | ||
Cajam, are you a politician? You seem to be “talking out of either one side, or the other, of your mouth. Out of one side of your mouth, you write, “Jesus never intended for the Apostles to use the exact phrase”. Out of the other side, you wrote in another posting, about our Lord intending for them to baptize in “Jesus’ name only.” Isn’t IN JESUS NAME ONLY "an exact phrase"? Pray, tell, if “The Lord intended for the Apostles to use HIS NAME ONLY ---- why IS YOUR CHURCH DISOBEYING? If the HIS NAME ONLY is all that "works", WHY, pray tell, aren’t you using the name that His mother named Him at His birth? If “YESHUA” REALLY wants you to use HIS NAME ONLY as a method of baptism – than please do so, but you had better “re-baptize everyone who used that OBVIOUSLY wrong name of “Jesus only”. "You must know the individual" is not quite correct. A lot of people knew "Jesus only" when He walked the paths in Israel. But they didn't KNOW the "Father" or the "Holy Spirit". Do you know "them"? It seems like, one way or another you have some repenting to do. Either you must repent for using the “wrong name”, or, for erroneously believing it really matters. Or, perhaps, it doesn't really matter as much as you had hoped. Perhaps, the rest of the Forum "authors" were right after all. Blessings, Taleb P.S. The only reason I brought this up was so you would "realize" your sin (which either one it happens to be) and ... well, as you claim, "Sin is sin." |
||||||
168 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Taleb | 79221 | ||
The Book Man, you are right. We CAN’T discount Scripture. Do you know what an idiom is? If 1 Cor 14:35 isn’t an idiom, than are we to believe 1 Peter 3:3-4 isn’t one either? If that is the case, than woman are to stay naked – right? If 1 Cor 14:35 is an idiom, than that changes everything you just stated, doesn’t it? Otherwise, it sure can be confusing whether we are to obey the Old and wear gold as Solomon, David, Joseph, or obey 1 Tim 2:9 where pearls are listed as a no-no. If pearls are a no-no, why did Jesus express their value? “Don’t cast your pearls before swine.” The same Scripture that we can't discount has numerous "idioms" through-out. :) Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||
169 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Taleb | 79293 | ||
The Book Man, so we are to take 1 Cor 14:35 about not speaking, to be silent - literally? Are the woman allowed to nod their acknowledgement, seeing they are not allowed to”speak”? Can they talk outside on the steps, or is that also forbidden, seeing Paul also mentioned about them “asking their husbands AT HOME? If you notice the ‘asking their husbands at home’ that should reveal the reason for this particular problem. Otherwise, is Paul saying the wife has TO BE AT HOME to ask her husband ANYTHING? Can you see where this is going? One “law” leads to another. But taking into consideration that Paul was ONLY writing to THAT church about a particular problem is evident. To demonstrate my point, I'll use your reference to 1 Cor 1:2. You wrote: “Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. The epistle is not just addressed to the Corinthians, but to "all (who)... call upon the name of Jesus..." That includes you and me.” End quote. Did you notice the phrase “which IS AT Corinth”? Did you notice it doesn’t mention anyone else? Paul wasn’t writing that Epistle with 2,000 years later on his mind. He wrote his particular epistles according to the particular needs at a particular time to a particular people. Take, for example, 2 Cor. 1 (his third letter to them). “…unto the church of God which is IN CORINTH, WITH all the saints which are IN ALL Achaia.” That was the SMALL region of Greece, in which Corinth was located. Had Paul meant “the Christian church at large”, why didn’t he say so? Romans 14:22 Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||
170 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Taleb | 79347 | ||
Hello, Joe, I agree with you TO a point. Often I quote 2 Tim 3:16 “All Scripture is inspired of God, and is useful for teaching, useful for correction, and useful for training in righteousness” ---- Useful, how? “So that the person of God may be fully equipped for all good work.” Isn’t “sharing” the gospel “good work?” Women aren't allowed to do that? I'm not going to tell that to all the woman on this forum that they "aren't allowed" to answer questions, and if they need any answers to ask their husbands. Are you? How we apply Scripture MUST also take in consideration of how it was “applied” when the Holy Spirit inspired it to be written. I’m from the school where you keep things in context of not only the surrounding verses, but also Scripture itself. It’s not so much what does Paul say about ….(?) It IS about what does Scripture say about …(?) We CAN”T take and apply much of Scripture to our daily walk. It would be against all that God has taught us through the “other” Scriptures. The Scriptures have many “paradoxes.” Proverbs 26:4-5 is but one example. Depending upon the circumstances, culture, timing, plus other variables, we “apply or don’t apply” one, or the other, of those verses accordingly. Thanks for your kindly reminder of being careful. Yet, I need to stand by my original thought about what I stated, and I trust you can “feel” what I am carefully stating. Paul addressed specific situations that were tended to and dealt with the church in Corinth, that other churches didn’t have. And other churches had situations that he dealt with that other places didn’t have. That IS why he, and other "authors", addressed their specific letters to a specific church, need(s),or individual. Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||
171 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Taleb | 79526 | ||
Hello Joe, You stated, “Paul cites not cultural stipulations, but rather the Law to support his argument.” Please, where in the law is his argument stated? Don’t look too hard, because IT IS NOT in Scripture. Have you noticed the first verse of 1 Cor. Chapter 11? Paul wrote, “Imitate me as I imitate Christ.” This must have really confused the church in Corinth when Paul wrote any man who covers his head while praying etc, dishonors Christ (don’t forget, Paul has already instructed us to understand that Christ is the head of every man.) Where does such a statement place 2 Cor. 3:15-17? Romans 14:23? Col. 3:10-11? Too many others? Leviticus 7:13, Moses clothed Aaron’s sons with tunics and put turbans on them, as the Lord commanded. Lev. 10:6 instructs priest, (a man?) “Do NOT BARE your head…” And when Paul wrote about “nature itself teaching it is dishonorable for a man to wear long hair … what did they think? Reading Acts 18 reminds me how Paul let his hair grow long, IN CORINTH of all places. And what about the “teaching” of 1 Cor 11:10 “For THIS REASON a woman ought to have a sign of submission on her head” … (what reason?) “Because of the angels”. Huh? Is this Paul’s teaching? Where did such a notion about the angels come from? Or, is this in reference to what the church of Corinth had adopted as explained in the letter referred to in the beginning of the epistle AND in chapter 7:1 where it talks about matters? (plural). Every place where “angels” talked with women, it says nothing about them covering their heads. I'm sticking with my conclusion. Woman don’t HAVE to wear veils, they CAN pray out loud in church, etc. From where do I draw such a conclusion? 1 Tim 2:9 talks about woman wearing what? Head-coverings? Nope. Had they worn head coverings, how would anyone know if it was braided or not? And here it talks about men raising their hands in prayer. Is that the only way God answers prayers? Did Jesus always raise His hands? What about the one Jesus commended? He pounded his chest as he prayed. Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||
172 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | Taleb | 79604 | ||
Hello Joe, Thank you for your thought provoking response. I understand perfectly where your concerns are coming from. That is one problem with ‘back and forth” dialog, rather than face to face. In moments, rather than days, or longer, one can clarify what is meant in any comment. I appreciate your respect, Joe, and your spiritual maturity demonstrated in your postings. That said, let’s look at what you wrote and how it fits in our discussion. You wrote, “First of all, I would like a little more clarification. Are you suggesting that Paul either lies or is mistaken in 1 Corinthians 14:34 when he says: "for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says." Paul is largely talking about women being in subjection to their husbands in corporate worship (verse 11:3). We read the following in the Torah: "Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." --Genesis 3:16 Joe, Let me make myself clear – I do not take what Scripture says lightly. Everything is for our “instruction”, if you will. But not everything is pertinent for our lives. Romans 14 helps us to understand the differences in “cultures” from place to place. What you are permitted to do in one place, would be “out-of-place” someplace else. Paul, as a “world traveler” would notice the differences in the ways things are done, said, thought. He would, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, act and speak accordingly. Now, I must say, your tying Gen 3:16 to this passage in Cor. doesn’t exactly fit. I have many study Bibles. In some of those Bibles, I have also read that “conclusion” about Gen. But it still doesn’t fit. Why doesn’t it fit? Because of what Paul wrote: “just as the Law also says”. And we must realize that Gen. 3:16 ISN’T A LAW. LAWS ARE TO BE OBEYED. How can a woman OBEY, or, for that matter, disobey Gen. 3:16? Again, I promise you, there is NO LAW about this to be found in God’s Word. If you have access to the Talmud, you will find exactly to what Paul was referring. But the Talmud is man-made laws, and the Torah is God-made. Was Paul saying they were to obey man rather than God? Why would Paul do exactly the opposite of what so many other letters warn against? Didn’t he mean what he said about their not being male or female from God’s prospective? Thank you, Joe, for the “tip” on the website. My computer time is often hit and miss, but I will check it out. :) Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||
173 | Baptism in the Holy Spirit? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Taleb | 76371 | ||
Sarah, in the book of Acts, there are a number of instances where people received the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Some long after their water baptism. Some were baptized in the Holy Spirit BEFORE they were immersed. For instance, in Acts 10:44-48 Peter was preaching to some Gentiles. “While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those (Gentiles) who were listening to the message. All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. For they were hearing them speaking with tongues and exalting God. Then Peter answered, "Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?" And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.” So you see, Sarah, it doesn’t necessarily come WHEN we are baptized. Those folks, mentioned above, received the Holy Spirit, then BECAUSE THEY HAD RECEIVED THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT they were immersed in water. Paul had just the opposite kind of experience in Acts 19:1-7. Paul asked some of John the Baptist’s disciples, “Have you received the Holy Spirit SINCE you believed. (This informs us that merely believing, DOESN'T MEAN we are baptized in the Holy Spirit.) They responded that they had never heard of the Holy Spirit. Paul asked them, “Into what were you baptized?” They told him, “John the Baptist.” First they were “rebaptized”, then AFTER their water baptism, Paul LAID HANDS on them, and then they were baptized in the Holy Spirit, then they spoke in tongues, AND then they prophesied. There were about 12 men that this happened to. And don’t limit this experience to the New Testament time period only. It also happened in the Old. Taleb |
||||||
174 | Faith, hope, love - which is the least? | 1 Cor 13:13 | Taleb | 72334 | ||
With all the debating about "faith-healing", I must ask a question that helps put that teaching in proper perspective. In 1 Cor. 13:13 we find, "...but remains faith, hope and love, these three things and the greater of these is love." If love is the last in the list, yet listed as the greatest of the three, which is the least? If hope is the least, why didn't Paul list it hope, faith love? If faith is the least, why all the fuss? Why not do as the author of Hebrews exhorted in Heb 6:1? "Leaving the elementary doctrines of Christ, let us go on unto maturity; not laying again the foundations of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God ..." Love you, Taleb |
||||||
175 | Faith, hope, love - which is the least? | 1 Cor 13:13 | Taleb | 72388 | ||
Good point, Steve. Although I personally believe that faith is the least, (it would take mucho references to clarify that) just for the sake of discussion, let's say they are equal, yet less than love. The question would still have to be asked, that I asked in my initial "question". Mainly - why do the "faith-healers" make all the fuss downplaying poor hope? They say, "If you just say you are healed every morning, God will heal you." And, if you respond, "I hope God does." Without fail, they jump on you. Hope in the New Testament merely means “to anticipate, usually with pleasure; expectation or confidence.” Never does it give any connotation of “doubt”. Romans 8:24 tells us we are saved by HOPE. 1 Thess 5:8 instructs us to be helmeted with the HOPE of salvation (mentioned in Eph. 6:17 as helmet of salvation) - Hebrews 3:6 tells us we are His house if we keep up our courage and our triumphant HOPE to the end. Hebrews 6:18-19 exhorts us to seize upon the HOPE that is offered us. This HOPE is like an anchor to our souls. And the list goes on. When was the last time you heard a 'sermon' on hope, Steve? Equal to faith, or more, or less - without hope we are hopeless. No pun intended. Good talking to you, Steve Taleb |
||||||
176 | Praying in tongues? | 1 Cor 14:1 | Taleb | 76635 | ||
Sarah, 1 Cor. 14:14 “If I pray in tongues, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.” This tells us that “your spirit” is praying, not “you”. Does this mean tongues are useless as a prayer language? No. Verse 18 explains that Paul praised God that he spoke in tongues more than anyone else. And verse 19 balances that “achievement” with “Yet in Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I might teach others, then 10,000 words in tongues.” This informs us that, while Paul spoke often in tongues, which tells us he WAS PRAYING, yet without understanding. And, he did it when he wasn’t ministering. Perhaps, and I have nothing to base it upon, except personal experience, Paul prayed in tongues while “mending, or constructing tents”. Either way, we need to follow Paul, as he followed Christ. Driving a car, or doing the laundry. Interestingly, Paul concluded correctly handling the topic of tongues with, “Covert to prophesy, and FORBID NOT to speak in tongues. Let all things be done decently and in order.” Taleb |
||||||
177 | Praying in Tongues? | 1 Cor 14:1 | Taleb | 76648 | ||
Sarah, the Scriptures have only a few references to tongues, par se. And most people refer to 1 Cor 14 as THE "tongue chapter" as Hebrews 11 is the "faith chapter" etc. If you didn't find what you are searching for in that portion of Scripture ... I think we can safely presume, there are no other verses saying "how we should pray in tongues." Sorry. Taleb |
||||||
178 | Praying in Tongues? | 1 Cor 14:1 | Taleb | 76755 | ||
Searcher, I see what you mean, sort of. But, with tongues mentioned more often than prophecy in the chapter, and prophecy not being a problem to the church, but the misuse of tongues was, what better "title" than "How to Conduct An Orderly Tongue Service." :) That way, every Spirit-filled church would keep things in proper prespective. I also agree, (sort of) Prophecy is more "important". I said sort of, because IF, (and that is a big IF) tongues are not interpreted, prophecy is better for the church. (vs 5). With interpretation, tongues “equal” prophecy in that BOTH edify the church. It’s important to note that Paul insisted that no one is to forbid anyone from speaking in tongues. And contrary to public opinion in some circles, tongues, prophecy, etc. haven’t passed away, right? Taleb |
||||||
179 | Praying in Tongues? | 1 Cor 14:1 | Taleb | 76818 | ||
Amen, Searcher. Amen. Perhaps the Corinthians were, as some of today’s Churches (but, Praise God, definitely not all) “practicing trend over truth". But we mustn't allow trends to discredit truth, correct? Rather we need to let the truth challenge "trends" back to the Biblical. That's where 1st Corinthians 14’s "purpose" comes in. Your closing "argument" offers great evidence re-enforcing "God's way" over man's. Taleb |
||||||
180 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Taleb | 80905 | ||
Graceful, I have been following this posting. It reminds me of one of many Scriptures Exodus 4:11 "And Yahweh saith unto him, ‘Who appointed a mouth for man? or who appointeth the dumb, or deaf, or open, or blind? is it not I, Yahweh? Who GAVE Moses’ sister and brother leprosy? Read Deuteronomy 28:15-68 to learn what the God, who changes not, "promises" to do to and with His people. How does this fit in with what you are in effect saying about God's desire to always healing all, all the time? The last time I heard someone expressing such a concept against one of many of God’s “means” of dealing with “His people” was in a poor country years ago. Some of the team got diarrhea. The team prayed for them and some were “healed” and others weren’t. ONE team member boldly proclaimed to the “unhealed” ones that their faith was too weak. Later, that “judgmental” team member, along with another couple, and my wife and I, were teamed up together in the poorest of sections. It was hot, we were sweaty, tired and thirsty. And our water bottles were empty. When we approached a shack of broken bamboo, an old woman, warmly invited us inside. She kindly offered us each a glass of water from her rusty water bucket. Her toothless grin was as genuine and radiant as any angel’s could be. Mark 9:41 rushed through my mind. It promises "whoever gives you a cup of water to drink, on the ground you belong to Christ, I tell you, will certainly not fail to be repaid". We could see the “floaties” in our dingy glasses. Four of us drank the water, knowing and believing another promise, “nothing shall by any means harm you.” Only the team member, whom had “judged” the sick, refused to drink any water, whispering, “Don’t tempt the Lord your God.” That night, that team member thought surely death was calling. Both ends flowed. Never, in all my days of being a missionary, have I ever witnessed anyone AS sick. As a team we prayed for a quick recovery. But the sickness lingered for the remainder of our tour. The only other time I have witnessed such a happening was in Bible College where someone wasn’t “healed” from a sore throat. The “judge” proclaimed that same argument, “where’s your faith.” That judge was, to my knowledge never able to father children. The judge, a man of 21, soon had a severe case of mumps … we could never figure how an enclosed environment, such as that college was, “attracted” that one case of mumps, but … Please. Graceful, be careful with your words. If you were to ask my team member if God “allowed sickness TO teach" – the answer would be shouted from the house tops. YES! He loves us THAT MUCH. Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [12] >> |