Results 21 - 40 of 89
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Ancient Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126990 | ||
Hi Angel. I'm glad I was able to give some good edification. There is a little joke/story I heard, and I found it amusing. Perhaps some of you might also find it so. "It is said that scientists spend their whole lives searching for the answers. They search the stars, cross the seas, and delve to the bottoms of the oceans. In all things, they refuse to accept God as a constant parameter in their equations and regard Him instead as a floating variable, assigned the wrong value time and again. But when all their research is done, they finally confront the tallest mountain, and having searched high and low, they know that the answer lies just on the other side. To both their shock and dismay, as they crest the peak and view the valley beyond, behold, it is the city of the theologians that had been there for a thousand years, waiting with open arms." I heard that story and got a laugh. Love to you, Ancient |
||||||
22 | 7 twenty-four hour periods? | Gen 1:5 | Ancient | 126825 | ||
Yuke, May I address an issue with what you said regarding Satan being "hurled" to earth? Ancient |
||||||
23 | why are so many defying Gods word | Lev 18:22 | Ancient | 126997 | ||
matronsgt13, I don't agree with the tolerance our country has sunk into any more than you do, but you must always keep in mind that religious freedom was designed to protect us from the spiritually corrupt that have been placed into positions of power. True Christianity, if practiced by all, would create an absolute Utopia, but when you add the elements of corruption to it and place absolute control in the grasp of this corruption, the result is terror. Just a few examples would be the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the stories of Scarlet Letters, sins forgiven by paid indulgences, etc. The list goes on. The religious freedom we have gives us the right to worship, but frees us from the corruption in the church. We have a right to speak our mind if someone is wrong or corrupt. We have a right to leave. With this right comes also the right to not worship at all, and the right to be homosexual. I do not agree with homosexuality. I think the Bible is quite clear on the subject. But it's a small price to pay to live in a nation that gives me the freedom to believe. In the end, God will judge those that are worthy of his judgment. Homosexuals being married does not affect my walk with God, however much I disagree with it. Ancient |
||||||
24 | Some verses don't stand alone well | Is 3:21 | Ancient | 126880 | ||
Good morning to you, sister. Those that are intolerant are just lacking a little bit in understanding. I'm sure they mean well. They just need to learn how to bridle the tongue a little bit. Love does not seek its own, is not puffed up, does not act in pride, is kind, is gentle, is patient. Not everyone understands what love is all about, and there was a time when I didn't understand either. The stepping stones of growth attest to the necessity to overcome this phase. Add to your faith virtue, and to virtue knowledge, and to knowledge temperance ... Such as respond as they did are at this step. They have the faith, they strive for virtue, they have diligently sought knowledge, but they have not yet learned how to temper themselves. Again, I was there once. I look back and can't understand how I behaved that way, but when I was there, I felt absolutely correct and justified in everything I said. If someone contradicted me, they were wrong. Nothing they said or showed me was going to change my mind. Now my bride is wisdom, and I listen to her call. I listen first, consider second, and respond third. I try to esteem everyone as greater than myself whenever possible (though the unfortunate time does occasionally present itself that someone must be rebuked). As a younger Christian, I heard first, but didn't actually listen; responded second, and that with fervor; and I never considered at all unless what they said agreed with me. Needless to say, I didn't learn much in my younger Christian years. I was too busy listening to myself and my own voice to begin to hear the voice of wisdom. I am neither angry or condemning of people like that. They truly do not know better. I don't even sypathize. I empathize, because I was there. But I recognize also that any true Christian will eventually grow out of this phase. Let us move on to the phase beyond even that, and let us add to our temperance patience, that we might have the meekness and humility to guide people to love with our example. This is the goal of the New Testament teaching. "The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, clear conscience, and sincere faith." [1 Tim 1:5] To Isaiah 3, I agree, this sounds a great deal like the historical account of the destruction of Jerusalem. Josephus writes that during the slaughter within the walls, the number of the dead were so great that the flow of blood running down the street was actually putting out the fires of burning houses. I can't imagine. Ancient |
||||||
25 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126843 | ||
doctrinsograce, I apologize that I have to repost this to you. There is good information to be shared, and the original thread of our conversation is now restricted because of that debate earlier today. I had previously written: Something else that is not in the Bible, as often believed, is the name Lucifer as pertaining to the devil. This was a Latin word that means "to bear light," or light-bearer. The word was used in vulgar Latin to translate the Hebrew word Haylal, which means "morning star," a title Jesus takes for himself. Also, the word lucifer (small "l") actually appears twice in the Vulgate, not once. The second occurence is in 2nd Peter 1:19, where he says, " ... until the day dawn, and the morning star (lucifer) rises in your hearts." I found this interesting. Since discovering it, I have been doing a rather in depth study on the Fall of Satan, trying to verify the veracity of the theory. So far, I have found it grossly flawed. The theory, as it originally started, was in the third century. Origen, a founding church father, expressed the spiritualized view of the heavenly rebellion and subsequent fall in his treatise, "The First Principles." Lacking anything definitive from the Apostles, he sought to deduce from scripture a position regarding the origin of opposing powers that might be more credibly maintained. Origen, while a magnificent man, was known quite notoriously for spiritualizing things. You responded: Interesting! In the KJV I only find Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12. It is difficult in the OT because names often meant things, which means that the meaning and the name could be used interchangably. With no other clues in the text, its hard to know if a word should be transliterated or translated. I don't envy the job of the translators! This is my point precisely. "Interesting! In the KJV I only find Lucifer in Isaiah 14:12." The word lucifer (small "l") is a Latin word. It never existed in the Hebrew text. Origen's spiritualized theory gave birth to a legend, and because of the teaching, by the time the Bible got translated into English in the 1611 King James Version, the word lucifer was no longer associated with its actual meaning, but now held the honor of a name. Lucifer (capital "L"). The 1611 King James Version was translated from the Latin Vulgate, assembled by Jerome in the late fourth century by means of the first actual criticism of text. In the Latin Vulgate, you will find the word lucifer twice, not once. Because of the word's association with the theorized name of the highest angel who rose up in rebellion against God, the monks responsible for the English translation left the word Lucifer intact in Isaiah, but translated the same word according to its correct definition in 2nd Peter 1:19. Morning Star. You will find that all other copies of the Bible today use the word Morning Star, Day Star, Shining Star, or something akin to that. Only the King James Version holds to Lucifer in their Isaiah translation. In truth, Lucifer is not the name of Satan's former being. Satan is his former name. Although, in all fairness, the name Lucifer genuinely belongs to him at this point because of all the deceit that surrounds the name. I have tons more on the subject if you are interested. Ancient |
||||||
26 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126861 | ||
Good Morning Hank, The 1611 King James ... I've read three books on the origin of the Bible. Personally, I was not there, but the information I have been able to glean to date, according to these authors, is that due to the corruption to the Latin texts and lack of control over the copying and transmitting, the bible as they had it was horribly distorted by the late fourth century. Because of this, Pope Damascus commissioned Jerome to collect and compile the scriptures in order to standardize a single copy for the sake of posterity, before the scriptures were corrupted beyond repair or retrieval. Jerome, as it is told, searched far and wide for texts that even then were considered ancient. It is said that he was ridiculed for his unwillingness to use the Septuagint for his work, as he believed that the only inerrant text was the original (though it is said he used it for comparison to check his accuracy). Once completed (a task that took him close to twenty years), his work became a codified text, and it was the standard used by the church. I can't disagree as to whether they used other sources, so I'll gracefully nod to that, but the authors I have read claim that the first English bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome. I'm sure some of you are aware of the events leading to the alternate translations, but just for the sake of those that don't: The Latin Vulgate was at one point translated back into Greek by one scholar (very early), and in the 1800s, two (German?) scholars set about the task of the first major textual criticism, using sources going back to the 6th century. I apologize for not providing their names. I don't have the book handy. This first new textual criticism gave birth to a new age of Bible translators, and each new translation has stiven for excellence and accuracy to exceed the information and sources of the previous translations. I find that the New American Standard is a fantastic, literal translation, and is the closest thing so far. Now, Isaiah ... I agree with that study note, Hank. I find that Isaiah 14 does not offer an indisputable reference to the fall of an angel, whether Lucifer or otherwise. I am in absolute agreement that Isaiah 14 is in direct reference to the king of Babylon, and not a spiritualized representation of an angel that is named the king of Babylon in order to hide the meaning of the prophecy. This one common explanation, that "the angel" is called the "king" of Babylon, is often referred back to Daniel 10:13 which reads, "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia." Recognized as angels in their context, Michael (the other is not addressed by title) is named a prince. This passage provides the means of spiritualization to verify Isaiah 14 as speaking of an angel. Since the angel is a prince, and the prophecy speaks of another royal dignity, this must, in their minds, equate to an angel. As a matter of heirarchy, princes are below a king, and next in line. It makes no sense to place "fallen" beings at a greater status than the princes doing God's will. Jesus is the King, and the angels, as described a number of times, are princes. The king of Babylon is not an angel, but a man of high status. Then we must use a "normal" reading of scripture to deduce the intent of the author, and doing so, you will see that the prophetic passage begins by saying that the people will take up a proverb against him, which word "proverb," defines in Hebrew as something "metaphoric," as in a poem. So this passage is a deliberate metaphor used to describe a haughty king. The figurative language, however pursuasive towards the proposed theory of the fall, is being used on purpose to describe a man, and it says as much. Also, you will notice if you read the passage in its entirety that it is not all consistent with the theory of the fall. Some of the passages must be dismissed in order to adhere to that interpretation. The Ezekiel passages I find are much the same. If others would like to participate in this conversation, I'd be happy to continue. However, I saw some terrible behavior by some yesterday. You were remiss in your duties to each other to practice meekness and humility, esteeming each other as greater than yourselves, and being quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to wrath. I do not wish for the same behavior to be directed at me for sharing what I've learned through diligent study. This series of posts will require each of us taking on the mind of child, unlearning what we think we know, in order to consider the validity of an alternate view that has been come to by much study. Those with heated opinions, I beg you, please don't scream at me because you disagree out of principle. Eager to continue, Ancient |
||||||
27 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126862 | ||
Let me add to my last statement. I fear I might have used careless words. I didn't mean what it appears to me, in retrospect, that I meant to say. I am not trying to accuse or lay blame at anyone's feet for any wrong doing. I just saw a lot of poor treatment from one brother to the next in yesterday's lengthy conversation. I do not allocate blame to anyone specifically. I brought the point to attention because I don't want someone to do that to me. It already happened once, and I carefully stepped away from the situation so as not to be ridiculed undeserved for offering a piece of information to explain where the theory of the apple came from. How it exploded into such a thing as it did, I do not know. I do know that some valid points were made, and some were unwilling to listen to reason. Again, I don't want that to be the case here. I want to edify and learn together. The wisdom that is from God is easily entreated, not stubborn or prideful. In any case, if I unintentionally caused hurt with my careless statement, please forgive. No accusation was intended towards anyone specific. Ancient |
||||||
28 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126870 | ||
I have to concur on this study note you have posted. This is what my findings, external from commentaries, have also concluded. I have concluded the same for Ezekiel 28. Neither of these passages (Isaiah 14 or Ezekiel 28) commonly used to reference the fall of Satan is contextually sound to the proposed theory as far as I see. As this commentary you quoted states, Isaiah is clearly talking about a man. Further, to support it better, we should take note that according to the theory of the fall, which suggests that Satan fell before the creation of man, this Isaiah passage is inconsistent with the teaching. When this fallen king went down into Sheol, those already dead and abiding there, including kings of nations, wondered over him. There shouldn't be any dead in Sheol if this is talking about a fallen angel being cast into Hell from the foundation of the world. This person also has a grave, from which he is rejected that his bones might be trampled and discarded like a useless shirt pierced by the sword. Similarly, the Ezekiel passage describes this person or being as having been perfect in his ways until the day iniquity was found in him. John, on the other hand, tells us that Satan sinned from the beginning. Also, the sin of Ezekiel's king of Tyrus is worded thus, "because of the multitude of your merchandise, and the iniquity of your traffick." In some of the minor prophets (Daniel - Malachi), you will find other apocalyptic literature regarding Tyre/Tyrus. In one of them, the activities of the Tyrians is consistent with the identified sin in Ezekiel. God declares judgment on Tyre for, among other things, selling Hebrews into slavery to the Greeks. This, I find, is consistent with the identified sin "iniquity of your traffick," which is "trade." Thanks for the input brother. Ancient |
||||||
29 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126871 | ||
doctrinsograce, I'm so terribly sorry if you thought I was arguing. I didn't mean that at all. I was concurring with you and adding to it so we could talk about it. I feel terrible. That's not what I meant to impart to you at all. I value your input, and I hope you will give me more. Ancient |
||||||
30 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126890 | ||
Good afternoon, brother. If I am mistaken on the history of Bible translations, then so be it. The material I have read says what I have stated, but because they said it does not attest to any legitimacy. By all means educate me. I'd like to learn. As I understand it, the other versions you mentioned, while legitimate, were not considered authorized translations. The Vulgate, according to what I have read, was the standardized, authorized version in the Catholic Church (which was by far the most dominant in its day), and it is because of the Latin orientation of the Bible that King James commissioned the English translation to be made (in spite of the Catholic Church). Again, if the information I read is incorrect, then it is incorrect. I am, admittedly, not an expert in that particular field of study. I read enough to be educated in it so I will not be completely ignorant. On the subject of Lucifer, the lexicon I use is Strong's, derived from Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words, Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, and Girdlestone's Synonyms of the Old Testament. And the Hebrew dictionary also cross references the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. According to these, the word being used in Isaiah 14:12 is heylel (hay-lale), rooted in halal (haw-lal) in the sense of brightness. halal (haw-lal) is not the word being used according to the references I have. The literal translation proposed by this lexicon is "morning-star" from the word heylel (hay-lale). The translations of the New American Standard (star of the morning), New International Version (morning star), and the New Revised Standard Version (Day Star), all concur that this is the best translation of the Hebrew word present in the text. I do not criticize your credentials or your comments. I don't know what your credentials might be, and I certainly value your input. But these three, barring the widely popular King James Version, are the three leading translations accepted for their literal and accurate renderings. In this particular case, I am going to trust in their expertise and accept the translation as "morning star." I appreciate your input on the subject regardless, and I have given your statement fair consideration. There are other versions that translate it as you say. But as those other translations are not as commonly accepted, and are not always done by the spectrum of scholars that gave their efforts to render the type of accuracy we have in the New American Standard, I must decline the veracity of your proposed translation of "Shining One." Now, in case I am confused in your post, if it is the word "lucifer" you are saying translates as "a shining one," I find that a common dictionary addresses this issue. [Middle English Lucifer, Old English Lucifer, from Latin: Lucifer, "light-bearer" : lux (stem luc-), light and -fer.] This word was commonly used for the planet Venus, recognized by epithet as the morning star. Additionally, the Greek word used in the Septuagint is heos-foros, which also means to "bear light." This is consistent with the Latin word lucifer. And in 2nd Peter 1:19, the Greek word is foce-foros, which means virtually the same thing, "light-bearer," and which the New American Standard, New Revised Standard, and the New International Version all once again agree accordingly, that the best rendition of the word is "morning star." Lucifer is used in Isaiah 14:12 and 2nd Peter 1:19. Heos-foros and foce-foros, which are variants of each other, are also used in both places, and morning star, an accepted scholarly rendition, is used in both places. While there might have been English translations, I would have to submit that lucifer, being a Latin word, came from the Latin, not from Greek, Hebrew, or English. Now, did the King James Version come from the Latin? I'll say I honestly do not know if you have information that differs from mine. I thought I knew, but it appears there are sources to express various hypotheses. I greatly appreciate your input. If you have more to add, by all means. I'm interested in learning. Correct me if I am mistaken about something. All my love, Ancient |
||||||
31 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126902 | ||
Hey EdB. I will have to take some time to look over what you wrote. I don't like to be hasty in what I say, so I want to give your information the time it deserves. Then I can make some educated, wise decisions regarding which direction to continue in as far the information available to me. Thank you so much for the hard work you put into your post, and I want you to know that your efforts are appreciated and will not be ignored. Ancient |
||||||
32 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126998 | ||
EdB, I took time to look over your information and consider it. I also double-checked my references in case I was mistaken. You were right. The King James was written by 7(?) groups of Hebrew/Greek scholars of the time, commissioned by King James. The one I mistaken referred to was the Catholic bible translated to English only a few years earlier (1603ish) from the Latin Vulgate. Now, I was of the impression that the Strong's dictionary with the best of Vines included was a good lexicon. If you say it is not, I will take your word for it and ask if you can recommend a good Hebrew/Greek lexicon that will be both reliable and easy to use so I can do more accurate word studies? (ISBN number included in the recommendation would be a fantastic help). Now, the "shining one" versus "morning star" is a confusing issue. If it translates in its most literal sense as "shining one," why is it being rendered as "morning star" in all of the major translations? I do see what you are saying and why. This is why I am confused. Should it not be translated as "Shining One" if that is what the word truly translates to? Or is this "Shining One" a word/phrase that was used perhaps as an epithet for the planet Venus, much like lucifer is used for the planet Venus while it retains the literal definition of "Light Bearer?" Hope to hear from you soon. Ancient |
||||||
33 | Christ Sometimes Taught in Greek | Mark 12:30 | Ancient | 126840 | ||
God did promise to scatter them to the four winds and make them a byword amongst the nations. I have no ill will to anyone, Jew or otherwise, but the events of 66-70, finally concluded around 130 with the uprising of Simon Ben-Koseba, certainly seemed like a promise fulfilled. I love history. Do you do much history reading doctrinsograce? Perhaps we can discuss some interesting things. Ancient |
||||||
34 | Please stop laying blame -Marylin Manson | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126898 | ||
You know Henry, perhaps if Marylin Manson was for the Lord, he wouldn't be having the problems he's having. Defeat is such a woe. My Bible says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His church. Gates do not attack, they defend. If the church is kicking down the gates of Hell and taking morality to the immoral, I guess that's just too bad. The darkness hates the light, because in the light their deeds become evident. Marylin Manson's problem isn't the Church, but their own hate and lust, as Brad pointed out. If they were desirous for truth and life, they would receive what has been taken to them. With respect, Ancient |
||||||
35 | Please stop laying blame -Marylin Manson | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126903 | ||
Out of curiosity, am I missing something here in regard to Marylin Manson? Has he converted, but suffering rejection regardless? Or is this just a simple matter of "why are Christians persecuting a heathen?" Ancient |
||||||
36 | Please stop laying blame -Marylin Manson | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126905 | ||
You know, after considering this, I'm wondering, should we not be loving Marylin Manson? I know we should separate ourselves from the world, but this is more a matter of association. We should love our enemies, bless those that curse us, render good for evil, etc. Should we, as the Christian community in general, not be treating such a man as described in the Sermon on the Mount, that perhaps he will hear us and find the truth? Love suffers all things, hopes all things. Love is patient, and does not act unbecomingly. Love bears all things and endures all things. Should this not be our attitude toward him? "He causes His sun to rise on the the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." [Matt 5:44-48] Ancient |
||||||
37 | Loud Mouthed Christian: Help! | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126915 | ||
Let's not forget that while we are preserving our holy meat and holding back our pearls, we are also supposed to go into all the world and make disciples of all men. You are absolutely right in saying that we should shake the dust off our sandals if they won't hear us, but we have a duty to try. Ezekiel 3:17-19 "Son of man (by context speaking to Ezekiel here), I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself." Ancient |
||||||
38 | Loud Mouthed Christian: Help! | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126916 | ||
Let's not forget that while we are preserving our holy meat and holding back our pearls, we are also supposed to go into all the world and make disciples of all men. You are absolutely right in saying that we should shake the dust off our sandals if they won't hear us, but we have a duty to try. Ezekiel 3:17-19 "Son of man (by context speaking to Ezekiel here), I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself." Ancient |
||||||
39 | Loud Mouthed Christian: Help! | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126917 | ||
Sunday1, I have three possible answers for you having dealt with a situation just like this before. 1) Try the spirits. Consider the possibility that she's telling the truth, and learn what you can. If it so happens that she really is gifted by God, perhaps you aren't listening. Be careful also not to ridicule the Spirit of God if that is in fact the case. Again, try the spirits. If what she says is sound, then maybe she's being truthful, however irritating it might be. If some of what she says does not conform to the doctrine of Christ, rebuke her sharply, with sound, contextual scripture, and tell her plainly that she is mistaken. Hear no more on the subject so she will get the point. 2) With a spirit of love, endure all things, be patient, kind, and longsuffering. If this thing makes her happy, endure it for her sake. If she is bothering everyone around her, try option number three. 3) Prov 26:3 "A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, And a rod for the back of fools." In other words, stop beating around the bush trying to be nice about it. If she's driving people away, or saying things she ought not to, tell her plainly to be quiet. Don't request. The time is past for that if you are on this option. Tell her to be quiet. This will hurt her feelings, so it is the least desirable option, but when all else fails, this is sometimes the only thing that will work. Sometimes it takes the shock of having your feelings hurt to wake you up to what you're doing. The liklihood is high that despite all the admonitions she's received, she hasn't gotten the point that she's irritating people. She probably doesn't believe it to be so. This is the reason for the shock. Few people ever humble themselves or learn humility. They are humbled and learn humiliation. My options are not the only ones out there. If they can be of help, I'm glad to be of assistance. Ancient |
||||||
40 | Why do we not keep the 7th day Sabbath | Col 2:16 | Ancient | 126892 | ||
You're right, brother. It is by grace through faith, and no other way. If I might point out something, though, not to contradict, but in order to fill out your explanation a bit, we must still keep the intent of the law. While we are in no wise under the law, the intent of the law, as Jesus explains in Matthew 7:12, is to do to others as we would have them do to us (i.e. love your neighbor as yourself). This intent we must keep, for we know that we have passed out of death into life, because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death. [1st John 3:14] To love your neighbor as yourself fulfills the law (i.e. keeps it to the fullest extent by default in that all the laws are derived from it. See Romans 13:8-10), but failing to love is akin to murder: Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer; and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. [1st John 3:15] Always remember that Jesus commanded the adulterous woman to "go and sin no more." [John 8:11] This applies to us as well. If we love him, we will keep his commandments. [John 14:15] I am not contradicting you. Again, I'm expanding on what you said. You have to be careful when you make statements about "not being required to maintain all of the old laws." It is written that until heaven and earth pass, not one jot or tittle will pass from the law until all be fulfilled. Things have passed from the law, like sacrifices, cleanliness ceremonies, traditions, selection of the High Priest, etc. So we can assume that all has been fulfilled. But in the fulfillment, the law was moved from paper to the heart, and we are still subject insomuch that, as I stated before, we must keep the intent, which is to love one another as Jesus loved us. By this will all men know that we are his disciples. Just be careful to be clear when you make statements like that. I understand it, but some won't, and others will plainly defy you and think you are trying to say that because we aren't under the law we have a license to sin, which thing is still identified by the heart and conscience. Ancient |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |