Results 21 - 40 of 71
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: There Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | indwelling holy spirit | OT general | There | 15711 | ||
The previous answers are very good, but I want to add that one can "believe" and not be filled with the Holy Spirit. An example is Acts 8:25. Verse 12 states "they" believed and were baptized, but in verse 14 it says the apostles heard that "they" received the word of God, but had as yet not received the Holy Spirit (v.16). And in verse 17, the apostles, with prayer, laid hands on "them" and then "they" received the Holy Spirit. And again in Acts 19:2 Paul "said to them, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' And they said to him 'We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit'". And verse 6 states "And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came upon them, and they spoke with tongues and prophecied". So everyone who believes is not always filled with the Holy Spirit. But a BORN-AGAIN believer is one who is born-again of the Spirit. So they have received the Holy Spirit. |
||||||
22 | the goat a sign for satan? | OT general | There | 15702 | ||
In occult circles, Lucifer is depicted as a man with the head of a goat, with a 5-pointed star between his horns. This symbol is also called the "Light Bearer" which is an obvious perversion of the "Light of the World". It has been around since at least 200 A.D. and probably a lot longer. This is also probably where the "guy in the red garb with horns", depicting Satan comes from too. It would seem possible that it was Satan's spin-off of the sacrificial goat and the scapegoat, both of which were literally fulfilled by the true Messiah, Jesus Christ. The 5-pointed star between the horns of the goat head is also an occultic symbol of pagan gods (Amos 5:26; Acts 7:43), which was later modified to a 6-pointed star and became known as the Star of David, even though biblically and historically, David never used such a symbol. |
||||||
23 | Do those in heaven know what's happening | Heb 12:1 | There | 15693 | ||
I think that when we are in heaven within sight of the glory of God... watching the goings on down here will be the last thing we concern ourselves with. The Bible does state that just before God's wrath is poured out on the earth, that those who have victory over the beast (believers) (Rev. 15:2) have harps, and they are singing praises to God. "Do those in heaven know what's happening on earth?" In Rev. 6:10, the martyrs only seemed to know that God's wrath had not been completed yet. The "cloud of witnesses" mentioned in that verse are those who have come before us (reference to those previous verses) whose lives and faith provide a witness to us in God's power to save. |
||||||
24 | Why only a worthy person's home? | Matt 10:11 | There | 15692 | ||
A worthy person was someone that was willing to accept the gospel of Christ. (WORTHY - "axios", deserving, comparable, suitable (as if drawing praise) No contrast. They were to bring God's peace to those who were willing to hear the gospel, not force it on those who were not. |
||||||
25 | Can A Christian disown Christ? | Matt 10:33 | There | 15691 | ||
No, I don't believe a born again, Spirit filled Christian can deny (reject) Christ. To confess Christ means more than just mouthing the words. It means making a commitment (covenant) with Him... and acknowledging Him as our Savior and Lord. I don't believe that once we become a Son of God (led by His Spirit) that we could reject Christ. Jesus was speaking to the twelve apostles in those verses, beginning in verse 5 (see also Luke 12:1-12). In Matthew Jesus said he would either "confess" or "deny" people "before MY (His) Father", and in Luke he said "before the angels of God". It makes sense that Jesus would call God "MY" Father since He was Jesus' Father. Is your question "why did He not call God OUR Father" when speaking to the apostles? He is the mediator between God and man... whether men choose to "confess" or "deny" Him, God is still His Father and that point is clearly stated in those two verses. Remember, the TWELVE apostles were there... including one named Judas, who was later referred to by Jesus as a "diabolos" devil (John 6:70; 13:27). Wouldn't it have been wrong for Jesus to give Judas a false view of his position with God -- KNOWING what would occur later? So... I believe Matt. 10:32 applies to believers, whereas 10:33 applies to unbelievers. |
||||||
26 | Rubbing a baby in salt? | Ezek 16:4 | There | 15686 | ||
Salt draws out poison and kills bacteria. Salt is an old "medicinal" compound used for throat gargles, healing wounds, cuts, abrasions, salt baths for aches and pains, etc. |
||||||
27 | Please explain "double edged sword" | Heb 4:12 | There | 15685 | ||
Hank did a good job! A "double edged sword" means that God's word can comfort/save, or condemn. He uses both in dealing with mankind. | ||||||
28 | Why must we divide soul and spirit? | Heb 4:12 | There | 15684 | ||
It is my understanding that this "division of spirit and soul" has to do with death. In Ecclesiastes 12:7 states that "then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." When we become "saved", we undergo a renewal of our mind, or another way of putting it is that we become "born again of the Spirit". When a believer dies, their body returns to dust, and both their soul and spirit go to be with God in heaven, because the soul (mind, thoughts, inner man) has been rejuvenated or born again into God's family. When an unbeliever dies, his body returns to dust, and his spirit 'returns to God who gave it', but his soul... because it has not been "made new", born again of the Spirit... cannot enter heaven. Only God can divide the soul from the spirit of man, which is necessary at the death of an unbeliever. Probably why Paul says "Let us be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall after the same example of disobedience" Heb. 4:11. |
||||||
29 | GOD DID NOT LEAVE US | Heb 4:12 | There | 15683 | ||
Ephesians 6:13-17. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchfull to this end... " And when in spiritual battle keep in mind Romans 8:37. And we can grow in the Lord during these times. (1John 4:18) |
||||||
30 | Rev 2:17 additional question | Rev 2:17 | There | 15682 | ||
I agree with "outfora" in that the white stone is singular and isn't linked to the 144,000. This verse is speaking to the "church", not God's remnant of Israel. It is my understanding that the 144,000 are God's insaved remnant (Israelites - 12 thousand from each tribe) who refuse to follow or worship the "Antichrist" during the 70th week. Fearing God they will refuse to support the covenant that AntiChrist makes with Israel, and mid-point of the 70th week, they will will flee to the wilderness of Edom before the tribulation by "Antichrist" begins. These will become the firstfruits of Israel to come to Christ immediately after or similtaneously with the rapture of the church, and will be sealed for protection and salvation just before the day of the Lord begins. |
||||||
31 | God shaved with a borrowed razor? | Is 7:20 | There | 15681 | ||
God did that several times in the OT. The hired razor represents the nations that the Lord used to come against disobedient Israel/Judah. Shave in that context means to strip away, uncover, or make waste of. I better look it up in the concordance. :) SHAVE - "galach" a prim. root; prop. to be bald, i.e. (caus) to shave; fig. to lay waste: -- poll, shave (off). RAZOR/RASOR - "taar" from 6168; a knife or razor (as making bare); also a scabbard (as being bare, i.e. empty):-- [pen] knife, rasor, scabbard, shave, sheath. 6168 "arah, a prim. root; to be (caus. make) bare; hence to empty, pour out, demolish: leave destitute, discover, empty, make naked, pour (out), rase, spread self, uncover. Isaiah 7:20 In that day the Lord will shave with a razor, hired from regions beyond the Euphrates (that is, with the king of Assyria), the head and the hair of the legs; and it will also remove the beard. I believe that verse is saying that "in that day" (when the Lord will bring the king of Assyria upon the people of Judah) God will use the Assyrians (hired razor) as the means to 'uncover their sins and lay waste' (shave) the house of Judah. A reference to what God means by "hired" is in Isaiah 10:5-15 where the Lord makes it clear that He will use Assryia as the "rod of His anger" against "the people of My wrath" (Jerusalem and her idols, v. 11). |
||||||
32 | 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! |
||||||
33 | 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. |
||||||
34 | 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? |
||||||
35 | 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. |
||||||
36 | 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." |
||||||
37 | 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. |
||||||
38 | 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. |
||||||
39 | Explain dinosaurs | Job 40:15 | There | 13290 | ||
Nolan gave a good site for this information. But possibly: Job 40:15-24 "behemoth" Job 41:1-34 "leviathan" Job 41:12-22 spec. "fire breathing leviathan" Psalms 68:30 "beast of the reeds" Psalms 74:13 "sea serpent" Psalms 74:14 "leviathan" Psalms 104:26 "leviathan" Isaiah 27:1 "leviathan" Isaiah 30:6 "fiery flying serpent" Lam. 4:3 "sea monster" (tanniyn) Some meanings as pertains to "dinosaurs": Dinoaur (Websters Dictionary) from the Greek meaning "terrible lizard". Any of a large group of extinct 4 limbed retiles of the Mesozoic Era, including some almost 100' long. [This is a fairly NEW word.] Behemoth, water ox or hippopotamus. Leviathan "levyathan", a wreathed animal, i.e. a serpent (especially the crocodile or some other large sea monster). Dragon "tanniyn" means a marine or land monster, i.e. sea serpent or hideous land animal; dragon, sea montster etc. [used in 21 OT verses, sometimes figuratively) |
||||||
40 | 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". |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |