Results 21 - 40 of 68
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: InGodITrust Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | The APOCALYPSE CODE. | Bible general Archive 3 | InGodITrust | 189885 | ||
justme, Yes brother, this mule has been rode too far. You have yet to answer up to your support for Hank Hanegraaf in spite of all that has been said. Obviously you know very little about the Golden Rule and I quote your very own words: The Golden Rule is not applical for those who have privale jets, gold fixtures in their bathrooms, or airconditioning in the dogs house. Rick have you read any of Joyce meyers books? An interesting fact is that rat poison is ninty five percent good food, but deadly! I believe I have ridden this Missouri mule about as far I can. We are the fork in the road, which direction you take is up to you. Blessings. Now you have blasted me for criticising Hank Hanegraaf while you have no problem criticising Joyce Meyer! Again I say to you, "Don't you see the irony?" I believe, justme, you are indeed a hypocrite. It's too bad you are so ignorant, I would suggest you do a study on the subject. As a church leader I have found just such an attitude and ignorance of agape love and the Golden Rule for the past 15 years as I have studied it out. To say that the Goldent Rule does not apply to Joyce Meyer, or anyone else, shows how far off the mark and (it would seem) willfully ignorant of the subject. It seems obvious to me, as well as perhaps everyone else who has read our posts that you are in dire need to a good study on 1 Corinthians 13. And may I suggest that you do so in the Greek as the English leaves much to be desired. Like so many I have encountered on the Forum you put up a good argument and completely ignore the questions, repeatedly, that I have asked you and addressed to you. It's Christians like you and Hank Hanegraaf that cause so much division in the world. I'm sorry that you have repeatedly taken the position you have and lack Biblical insight into the very thing Jesus Christ has left us to do. "Love your neighbor as yourself;" Judge not that you be not judged; "Let all you do be done in love." 1 Cor 16:14 "Do not cast your pearl before swine." (as Hank has done) "And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. Love is patient, love is KIND, and is not jealous; LOVE DOES NOT BRAG AND IS NOT ARROGANT." (re:Hank Hanegraaf) "Do nothing from selfishness or :EMPTY CONCEIT,but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another AS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HIMSELF." (re: Hank Hanegraaf) Lest I wear myself out, I will say no more. InGodITrust |
||||||
22 | The APOCALYPSE CODE. | Bible general Archive 3 | InGodITrust | 189905 | ||
justme, You simply amaze me,you continue to ignore the obvious, made no reference to scriptures I have quoted, continue to blame me for your lack of understanding, and continue to try to get me to read your precious Hank Hanegraaf while you yourself continue to take pot shots at me. I am extremely conservative, do not (as I have told you and told you) support the heretics nor the likes of Copeland, Dr. J.C. Fredrick Price, Rod Parsley, and so on which you continue to ignore. You are indeed trying to justify your pathetic attitude and self righteous positon. God help you and to imagine you pastor a church!!! You pat me on the back for losing my wife, tell me "I must be under stress and out of control," while all along you are a phoney and a back stabber. Please do me and the entire Forum a favor and do not respond to me any longer as I will do the same. InGodITrust |
||||||
23 | The APOCALYPSE CODE. | Bible general Archive 3 | InGodITrust | 189906 | ||
duplicate | ||||||
24 | Recognize loved ones in heaven | Bible general Archive 3 | InGodITrust | 190838 | ||
Greetings, Been away for a while, G*d is really blessing, thank you Doc for your note. From what I know I agree wholeheatedly. My Rabbi, who is Messianic, says that we may even have a special and very unique relationship/companionship that will continue for those of us who have lost spouses. He is very confident of this fact as Jewish folks seem to have an insight far deeper than the Gentile church. Just my thoughts, Rabbi is supposed to back up with scriptures that fact of which I will pass along. May G*d richly bless and keep you. InGodITrust |
||||||
25 | How did Christ escape inherent depravity | Bible general Archive 3 | InGodITrust | 191116 | ||
Jeff, Amen bro...glad to be of service. Have been very busy "praise God," away from the Forum. God bless, InGodITrust |
||||||
26 | When is a child guilty of sin? | Bible general Archive 3 | InGodITrust | 191137 | ||
Searcher, I think we have an under aged person here. I addressed all these questions yesterday. Perhaps if wolfcreek does not own up to his age and the rules of the Forum we should report or ignore his questions. That's my take on this.. InGodITrust |
||||||
27 | Abraham at 134 | Genesis | InGodITrust | 187936 | ||
John, Oooops, you are exactly right.......terrible getting old, it was Sarah's womb.....sorry.... Hope I addressed the rest of chach's question correctly... Thanks for the info, guess I was concentrating on the rest of the question and lost focus. Back at ya John. InGodITrust |
||||||
28 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189070 | ||
John, God loves you and so do I; greetings my friend. I took the easy way out and responded with "the traditionl answer." In times past I had looked into this controversial issue and felt satisfied with the over all argument. It's my understanding that, at times, the Bible refers to "the sons of God," as His creations before the fall of Satan and those that followed him. Without going to (all the trouble) restudy this subject I will just let whomever follow up with their observations................Okeedokee?? God bless ya my friend, InGodITrust |
||||||
29 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189158 | ||
Greetings John, I hate to throw a monkey wrench into your assumptions but I have heard several times over the years by Biblical scholars that the Bible refers to "sons of God" in a very general way at times. The way this is resolved is what God would have said "before" the fall. All of His creations were then referred to as "sons of God" This is the traditional view held by most going way back in Church history. I know it does not agree with what we normally would think of as sons of God, but in the beginning before sin, they we all "sons of God." The term "sons of God," is a generic term (usually) as God Himself created each and every one making them all "sons of God." I did not look up all the arguments over the last few days so forgive me if I "got in the middle." Much love and grace to you, InGodITrust |
||||||
30 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189166 | ||
Dear Azure, Thank you, but I do believe, that my reply (not because I think so) is the correct one. Anyone who traces all the uses of the term "sons of God," would have to conclude it is a generic term since God the Father of all creation would naturally refer to His creatures as "sons of God." The very term implies, all by itself, God is the Father, meaning the Begetting One, who created all things before sin ever entered the scene. I rest my case, even if (God forbid) I am wrong. Blessings abundantly to you Azure, InGodITrust |
||||||
31 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189174 | ||
Hopalong, As I indicated earlier, here is the traditional position on the matter: "Who were the sons of God and daughters of men in Genesis 6:1-4?” Answer: Genesis 6:1-4 tells us, "When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown." There have been several suggestions as to who the sons of God were, and why the children they had with daughters of men grew into a race of giants (that is what the word Nephilim seems to indicate). The three primary views on the identity of the "sons of God" are that (1) they were fallen angels, or (2) they were powerful human rulers, or (3) they were godly descendants of Seth intermarrying with wicked descendants of Cain. Giving weight to (1) is the fact that in the Old Testament the phrase "sons of God" always refers to angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). A potential problem with (1) is the fact that Matthew 22:30 indicates that angels do not marry. The Bible gives us no reason to believe that angels have a gender, or are able to reproduce. Views (2) and (3) do not have this problem. The weakness of views (2) and (3) is that ordinary human males marrying ordinary human females does not account for why the offspring were "giants" or "heroes of old, men of renown." Further, why would God decide to bring the Flood on the earth (Genesis 6:5-7) when God had never forbidden powerful human males or descendants of Seth to marry ordinary human females or descendants of Cain. The oncoming judgment of Genesis 6:5-7 is linked to what took place in Genesis 6:1-4. Only the obscene, perverse marriage of fallen angels with human females would seem to justify such a harsh judgment. The weakness of view (1) is that Matthew 22:30 declares, “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” However, this weakness can be overcome by noting that the text does not say “angels are not able to marry.” Rather, it indicates only that angels do not marry. Secondly, Matthew 22:30 is referring to the “angels in heaven.” It is not referring to fallen angels, who do not care about God’s created order and actively seek ways to disrupt God’s plan. The fact that God’s holy angels do not marry or engage in sexual relations does not mean the same is true of Satan and his demons. View (1) is the most likely position. Yes, it is an interesting “contradiction” to say that angels are sexless and then to say that the “sons of God” were fallen angels who procreated with human females. However, while angels are spiritual beings (Hebrews 1:14), they can appear in human, physical form (Mark 16:5). The men of Sodom and Gomorrah wanted to have sex with the two angels who were with Lot (Genesis 19:1-5). It is plausible that angels are capable of taking on human form, even to the point of replicating human sexuality and possibly even reproduction. Why do the fallen angels not do this more often? It seems that God imprisoned the fallen angels who committed this evil sin, so that the other fallen angels would not do the same (as described in Jude 6). Earlier Hebrew interpreters, apocryphal, and pseudopigriphal writings are unanimous in holding to the view that fallen angels are the "sons of God" mentioned in Genesis 6:1-4. This by no means closes the debate. However, the view that Genesis 6:1-4 involves fallen angels mating with human females has a strong contextual, grammatical, and historical basis. I rest my case, although it probibly won't sit still! InGodITrust |
||||||
32 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189176 | ||
10-4, I agree, it is a hard subject to reckon with, "I reckon!." God bless ya John, InGodITrust (all others pay cash) |
||||||
33 | Who are the "sons of God" in Genesis 6? | Gen 6:2 | InGodITrust | 189226 | ||
Greetings OldPilgrim, You got me "flat-footed." My knowledge and studies are confined to New Testament doctrine. I am very weak in the Old Testament. Found out about my Jewish heritage only 5 months ago. I am anything but a scholar, but thank you for the thought!! Also, it is my understanding that the Jewish authorities did not translate the Septuagint into Greek until sometime around 500-600 bc. As far as a suitable Greek word one can only speculate. Right or wrong, whenever I am trying to draw a conclusion to controversial Scriptural issues, I try to look back through history to what those of reputation interpreted it to be. That, in light of what modern scholars of good reputation have found discovered in their studies. With all the technology we have today it behoves us to compare that with history. Usually, if a present day Bible teacher or scholar does not have "most all of his ducks in a row," I don't consider them necessarily reliable. A big mistake Bible students make is that they don't compare "the source." Just because so and so said it, does not make it worthy of consideration. We live in a day and age where "every Tom, Dick, and Harry," have their own opinion. Usually to the great detriment of Scriptural accuracy. Unfortunately, here on the Forum, that is too ofton the case. My opinion or yours or anyone else's is not worth much if we do not balance everything out and consider, most of all, the source in which we conclude our opinion. Wow, I did not mean to get on my high horse, guess I did so as I just came in from church! Sorry I could not be of help in your sincere quest to find an answer. Frankly when it concerns this subject, there may not be one. You have a really good point though, one should very seriously consider Jewish sources, no matter if Messianic or not, when it concerns Old Testament interpretation. Much blessings to you my friend, InGodITrust |
||||||
34 | Wandering in the Desert | Exodus | InGodITrust | 189305 | ||
chaplin, I know the feeling. Those who are earnestly trying to serve the Lord, I'm convinced, will have many desert experiences. The pie in the sky theology of today leaves many of us thinking that we have missed God somehow. Anyone who reads through the Bible will find out God's choicest servants "were not on easy street." If we can be of any more help feel free to let us know. There are many folks on the Forum "who have been there and done that." "I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and justice for the poor. Surely the righteous will give thanks to Thy name; the upright will dwell in Thy presence." Psalm 140:12,13 May God richly bless you brother chaplin, InGodITrust |
||||||
35 | significance of 4 requests specifically | Ex 12:11 | InGodITrust | 188033 | ||
Hi Cheri, Could......be.....???? I really don't have "the answer." That is a possibility..........there is a lot of pictures we can gleen from this portion of scripture, hay? Always at your service, InGodITrust |
||||||
36 | significance of 4 requests specifically | Ex 12:11 | InGodITrust | 188038 | ||
Searcher, Just my point Searcher, "as fully prepared for a journey." These are just my thoughts, the scriptures are full of prophetic pictures. I am very careful with these. Do you think what I said is "out of sync with prophecy or otherwise?" Eager to hear from you....... InGodITrust |
||||||
37 | significance of 4 requests specifically | Ex 12:11 | InGodITrust | 188042 | ||
Searcher, It was just a thought; I see a picture there, I stated it was not "an interpretation," just a thought I was sharing with skccab. There are many such beautiful prophetic pictures throughout scripture. I am not trying to be doctrinal, just sharing. Blessings, InGodITrust |
||||||
38 | Should Christian men wear a beard? | 1 Chr 19:5 | InGodITrust | 190841 | ||
Why not? InGodITrust |
||||||
39 | comments on book of Daniel | Daniel | InGodITrust | 188198 | ||
Gingerbreezie, Maybe this will help your study....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Daniel InGodITrust |
||||||
40 | comments on book of Daniel | Daniel | InGodITrust | 188201 | ||
John, Thanks, gotta pay more attention, hay? God Bless........ InGodITrust |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |