Results 241 - 260 of 422
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: jlhetrick Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | Church's response to stephen death | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 182140 | ||
Obedience! | ||||||
242 | Adam first man or first man in Eden? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 182138 | ||
Hello xina and welcome to the Forum. Yes, the Bible does clearly teach that Adam was the first human created followed by Eve. They were not the "only" people created by God though they were created in a unique way, Adam from the dust of the earth and Eve from the rib of Adam. It's important to realize that God created all things including all people. See Eph 2:10 and 3:9 to get started. Also go back and read the account of Creation in Genesis. Pay particular attention to Chapter 1 vs. 26. Notice that God did not say let us create Adam, but instead said, "man". Besides this pointing to the ligical conclusion that if man needed creating, then he (man) did not yet exist; the information in the previous verses clearly do not mention man. Hope this helps and God bless, Jeff |
||||||
243 | if God knew how can it be valid? | Matt 19:5 | jlhetrick | 182070 | ||
Hello again rodent tamer, I see that there are other responses to you and honestly, I am very busy with my studies and can not spend time reading so I will just respond briefly to your post here. It's important to understand that I am not taking this up as an opportunity to oppose you and/or simply argue. The truth is, your entire argument falls ridiculously short of making sense. No offense intended. But what I did notice in this post was a little more information. The two were divorced. HUMM. Interesting, but at least now we have the motive and can understand the need to invalidate the original vow in the first place. Friend, you simply make too many assumptions and go off on too many tangents for me to truly address it all in the forum setting. In all honestly, I don't believe it would be appropriate in any case. I believe the biblical perspective has been presented and beyond that, well, the forum is not intended to go beyond that. finally, I will simply suggest that you re-evaluate your understanding of the marriage covenant. Try to focus on the biblical perspective of marriage while considering the typical "vows" verbalized in most secular ceremonies. You might find that there is some significant differences in emphasis. And yes, when you sign a contract, regardless of your intentions, you become legally committed to that contract. Might I pose a question using "your logic"? If you borrow money to buy a house and sign the contract "knowing you don't intend to pay the loan off" what happens? Your logic suggests that you simply are not held accountable because, well, you really didn't mean it. Please refer back to my other post and consider it honestly. "My logic" was not "my logic". My argument was biblically based and supported by scripture. Please consider your true motives for your line of questioning. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
244 | is it wrong to live with someone, but... | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 181990 | ||
Hello Rodent tamer, Let me say that this question also presents with a tone of looking for a loop-hole; no offense intended. Consider what you are saying. "Sexual purity". As if that is the only issue of responsibility regarding a Christian man and a Christian woman. What about "witness". How does two who "plan to marry" glorify God by remaining unmarried but living together? "not really struggling"??? Hard to imagine. Not impossible, just hard to imagine. Maybe that's more of a reflection on me. In any case, the intentional exposer to temptation is irresponsible in the least. Based on these views, my views, I comfortably say YES, a man and woman living together under the conditions you have presented is wrong. It is a needless and irresponsible, intentional exposure to temptation. It is a gross disregard for their witness as Christians and serves to undermine the institution of marriage. Hope this is helpful, Jeff |
||||||
245 | state vs God | Matt 19:5 | jlhetrick | 181988 | ||
Hello rodent tamer, I believe it's important to begin my response by reminding you that the Scriptures teach us to be subject to the rules and laws of society where they do not conflict with the higher moral authority of God revealed in scripture. Romans 13:1 (NKJV) 13:1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. So if a man and woman are married officially, through the legal system of their society; they are married indeed and bound to one another and the obligations and responsibilities that go with the oath they have made. With proper consideration for what the bible teaches, the blurred lines of confusion should be brought into clear focus. Submitting to the vows and commitment of marriage publicly and legally while not honoring that in our heart and intent is not consistent with what the bible teaches; nor is it a valid excuse relieving us of the obligations and responsibilities of our condition. The bible clearly teaches that if we make an oath, even a foolish one, we are held accountable by God. Biblical support for this can be provided if you are not familiar. Regarding your concern/question about homosexuals taking that same oath, the same principle applies as above. It may be recognized legally, but it is not consistent with God's moral laws. It is recognized by God as sin. Genesis 2:21-25 (NASB95) 2:21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. Marriage is ordained by God between a man and a woman. If if that is rebelled against through public law, it has no validity before God. I have no idea how many times I have said it but I will say it again here. One of the biggest mistakes we can make is to attempt to philosophize a position in an attempt to find loop-holes in the truth. There are no loop-holes, there is only acceptance or rejection. Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
246 | Even the least among you... | Hebrews | jlhetrick | 181399 | ||
Hello Bob, Welcome to the Forum. I believe your thinking about this verse: John 14:12 (NASB95) 14:12 "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater works than these he will do; because I go to the Father. God bless, Jeff |
||||||
247 | go to hell if commit suicide | 1 John 3:15 | jlhetrick | 181315 | ||
Yes, absolutely, if you are not saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Why ask? Are You saved? Sincerely, Jeff |
||||||
248 | preventing us from an abundant life | Phil 4:11 | jlhetrick | 181314 | ||
Hello Susan, Welcome to the Forum, To my understanding, the Scripture doesn't teach that we have "abundant life" but rather "life" and through Christ, "life more abundantly". John 10:10 10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. KJV We have to be careful in how we understand the words. You might say it's just semantics, but it's really more than that. My understanding of "life more abundantly" speaks first of eternal life. It is true also that our life on earth, after our conversion, is much more abundant. The peace and assurance of knowing God personally is the best example in my opinion. Others too might argue that this "life more abundantly" includes (some even argue refers to) material things. This teaching, however, is contrary to the contextual teaching of Scripture. Of course God does bless some with material possessions, and so does the world and it's ruler lavish material goods on the unsaved. The Scriptures also teach that the Lord blesses the righteous and the unrighteous with material needs (Matt 5:45) With some, it's difficult if not impossible to know which camp they call home. A very good example of one who had life more abundantly after being saved is that of the Apostle Paul. Materially it is plain that he was basically poor and living hand-to-mouth. Spiritually, his abundant wealth has reached for nearly two thousand years and counting. Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
249 | holy spirit-jacobs ladder dream | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 181288 | ||
Duplicate post | ||||||
250 | Where is the donkey and lamb at nativity | NT general Archive 1 | jlhetrick | 181271 | ||
Hello Fransico, I have to admit I'm curious why you ask. In any case, tradition is something that is established over time. It doesn't necessarily have to be theological per se. Christmas istself is a good example. We don't know the actual day or month of Christs' birth, but we celebrate it on December 25th. When Joseph and Mary traveled to be counted it is fair to assume that they took along with them their animals to include a donkey that Marry most likely road upon. Ther was no appropriate sleeping quarters for them and they were required to sleep in the place where animals would be kept. Most likely, they slept with their own animals and perhaps the animals of other travelers. As for tradition, I believe that presenting the various animals in the nativity appropriately represents the conditions in which our Lord made His entry into our world in the flesh. If nothing else, it should help us to appreciate the humility that He took upon Himself in order to become the ultimate sacrifice. Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
251 | Homosexual are picked on in the church? | Rom 3:23 | jlhetrick | 181232 | ||
I realize that this post is a few months old, but I just stumbled across it. Just a few comments. 1 Cor 6:9 is certainly not the only verse that teaches that homosexuality is a sin. I realize your are not saying that, but the point is that homosexuality is taught to be sin from the OT to the NT. That's not the point here though. I believe the point of concern here is that of repentance. It is not the person who has committed a homosexual act(s) that is the problem. If that person has repented, asked for and received forgiveness and is saved, he/she is just like the rest of us. A sinner saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. It is the unrepentant person that is the problem. We all sin as the bible clearly declares, even after we are saved we fall short and grieve God's Spirit when we are disobedient. A saved person is marked by certain characteristics some of which include: feeling guilty and remorseful when we sin; acknowledging sin as sin and repenting; ultimately realizing that it is only through the power of God that we can be free of any particular sin. So, a person who says "I am homosexual" and CONTINUES willfully in that lifestyle, is without repentance. If they denie that homosexuality is a sin, they call God a liar. If they acknowledge it as a sin but continue willfully in it without remores and refuse to repent, they thumb their nose at God and reject His truth and forgiveness. This is true of any continuous and will sinful behavior. Your wrote: "Why are ministers allowed to hold positions in the church when they are not married, we know they having sex." That's a bold and unfair statement of judgment you have made against unmarried ministers. Uncalled for and inappropriate. If a minister, or any other professing Christian is continuing unrepentant in any sinful behavior they should be held accountable by God's word and dealt with accordingly. One unique thing about those who claim to be christians and choose to continue to live a homosexual lifestyle is that they disregard the clear teachings of Scripture. They say that the bible does not teach that it is wrong. One way they justify their behavior is by making the same argument that you have made; saying that homosexuality is no more a sin than any othere sin. By this, they justify continuing in their sin by arguing that all christians continue to sin. Again, repentance is not found in that. The next thing we know, the church will be accepting homosexuality as a legitamate choice and way of life and the church will even begin to ordain homesexuals as pastors and priests. Oh wait! That is already happening. The best way to research homosexuality is to see what the Scriptures say about it. There are so many passages regarding this issue that it would be difficult to quote or even list them all, especially here. I suggest reading Romans 1:18-32 to start. Hope this is helpful, Jeff |
||||||
252 | What did Paul say that his teaching was | NT general Archive 1 | jlhetrick | 181200 | ||
Hello brosamuel, Proclamation of Christ. See Colossions 1:28. Jeff |
||||||
253 | husband chosing his wife over all else? | Eph 5:25 | jlhetrick | 181197 | ||
Hello Frank, Nowhere. The bible doesn't teach that. When a husband and wife have children, they are responsible for the welfare of those children and for bringing them up in the ways of the Lord. A husband is responsible for taking care of his family, not choosing between them. Why would you ask? Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
254 | ... | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 181194 | ||
ddddd | ||||||
255 | EITHER WE OR IT, WHICH IS WRONG? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 181155 | ||
Hello UncleCnn, Anything I say about the specific date of December 25th would be either a guess or simply repeating what I have heard or read. The truth is, I don't know why that date. "No evidence remains about the exact date of the birth of Christ. The December 25 date was chosen as much for practical reasons as for theological ones. Throughout the Roman Empire, various festivals were held in conjunction with the winter solstice. In Rome, the Feast of the Unconquerable Sun celebrated the beginning of the return of the sun. When Christianity became the religion of the Empire, the church either had to suppress the festivals or transform them. The winter solstice seemed an appropriate time to celebrate Christ’s birth. Thus, the festival of the sun became a festival of the Son, the Light of the world."—Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary All that stuff you said about how the Christmas "holiday" is lived out in society today is true. You stated, "IT'S EITHER WE DON'T DO IT RIGHT OR THAT IT'S NOT RIGHT" My vote is that we are not doing it right. I don't believe I could agree with any argument that says it's wrong to celebrate the birth of our Lord. After all, the Scriptures celebrate it. What we can know for sure though, is that Satan and his minions work hard and constantly to destroy everything good and to pervert the things of God and His people. Look at what has become of the institution of marriage; but we wouldn't argue that marriage is wrong. Christmas is the day set aside to honor and rejoice in celebration of our Lord's birth. It is an offense to the world. The world will not cease in trying to destroy it. The date is not important. The meaning is what's important. Isaiah 53:4 (NASB95) 53:4 Surely our griefs He Himself bore, And our sorrows He carried; Yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, Smitten of God, and afflicted. Praise the Lord Christ. Jeff |
||||||
256 | Power of Michael the Archangel? | 2 Thess 2:7 | jlhetrick | 181097 | ||
Hello Brian, Just a quick question while your waiting for Kalos. Wouldn't it be "in the name of the Lord" that Michael the archangel would do any and all rebuking? I couldn't imagine the angel using any other name to position his authority. Just curious by your question, Jeff |
||||||
257 | what is the trininty? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 181096 | ||
Hello BabyBear, Welcome to the Forum. I could probably confuse you all day long if I tried to explain the mystery of the trinity in detail. But I wanted to give you something while your waiting on a more capable member to answer. "Theological term used to define God as an undivided unity expressed in the threefold nature of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. As a distinctive Christian doctrine, the Trinity is considered as a divine mystery beyond human comprehension to be reflected upon only through scriptural revelation. The Trinity is a biblical concept that expresses the dynamic character of God, not a Greek idea pressed into Scripture from philosophical or religious speculation. While the term “trinity” does not appear in Scripture, the trinitarian structure appears throughout the NT to affirm that God Himself is manifested through Jesus Christ by means of the Spirit. A proper biblical view of the Trinity balances the concepts of unity and distinctiveness. —Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary There is much more said about the trinity in the single quoted volume alone. I copied and pasted just a portion in order to honor the Terms of Use of the Forum and so as not to infringe on the copyright. Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
258 | Verses That Point to No Races? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 181080 | ||
thenoel2, Semantics can complicate even the most simple thought. Certainly there is more than one race when ethnicity and culture is the focus. It might be argued too that there are only two races of man, the saved and the unsaved. Still throw out the semantics and focus on the question or concern. If your need is to "defend this notion by specific verses..." and if we are still talking about the issue of marriage, I would argue that you are taking on a task that need not be taken on. If someone wants to challenge interracial marriage by pointing to the Scirptures, the task is theirs to prove the point. They won't be able to. Jeff |
||||||
259 | Gen 1:1 question | Gen 1:1 | jlhetrick | 181076 | ||
Hello l19, First of all, welcome to the Forum. Second, it's ok to share views with somone. Third, just to be clear here, it is not OK to violate the Terms of Use of the Forum regardless of your religious views. (that includes registering under a different username after having privilages revoked). If you haven't already done so, please read carefully the Terms of Use. You can find them in the "About the Forum" section to your left there on the screen. I echo Cuddles; the verse doesn't mention an army. Jeff |
||||||
260 | Racial Marriage, is it okay or not? | Bible general Archive 3 | jlhetrick | 181074 | ||
Hello Rancan, The only teaching in Scripture that prohibits one marrying another relating to Believers marrying unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 6:14-15 (NASB95) 6:14 Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" Of course, the Bible teaches that marriage is to be between one man and one woman. The color of skin, country of origin, background, etc. does not rule a person in or out as a potential mate. For a believer though, we are not to marry an unbeliever. Hope this helps, Jeff |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [22] >> |