Results 261 - 280 of 362
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: keliy Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | Can a woman divorce man: Ongoing porn? | Matthew | keliy | 212569 | ||
Hello Bandaid, I am no pro, but have been in places that has given me a modicum of experience on this subject. I have been to counseling, and others have come to me for counseling. Now, to look to the Bible as the inspired Word of God for wisdom, turn to the very first negative thing spoken of in the created world. After God reflected upon all He made, and saw that all was good, He said that it was not good for man to be alone And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Gen 2:18) Are you looking for a biblical justification to initiate divorce proceedings? I am afraid that what you are looking for is a band-aid solution to a much deeper problem. You may even be looking for an answer in the Bible to suit your worldly desires but I suspect you may not be successful. You use Scripture verses to illustrate your point, but Mar 10:10-12 deals with adultery, giving no permission for a man to initiate a decree of divorce. 10.)In the house the disciples [began] questioning Him about this again. 11.) And He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; 12.)and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." Mat 5:27-28 deals with adultery, giving no permission for a man to initiate a decree of divorce. 27.)"You have heard that it was said, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY'; 28.) but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. This is key, The 'he' spoken of is committing adultery 'in his heart' Now, that is where the problem lies, it is an issue of the heart. In marriage, the twain are to become one. If this does not happen, it must be worked out with prayer through biblical counseling, and not by placing judgement on the other party. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye? (Mat 7:4) While it is quite true that adultery is a horrible sin, yet, in my eyes, Jesus has spoken more harshly about the sin of judging others. Take into account the words of Jesus to the woman at the well. Did He condemn her? No, He sent her home to proclaim His message. Also, the woman caught in the act of adultery. Did He condemn her? No, He said for the one who is without sin to cast the first stone. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not condoning adultery, or even trying to minimize this awful sin or the ugly consequences thereof. However the sin of Pride, of where non-righteous judgements originate, is a whole new thread -yet I maintain that it is most offensive to God. So, when you look at the sin of judging others (and their sins), it is so much more grievious according to amounts of Scripture that condemns those who feel righteous enough to do so. The main thing to remember is, it is all about Jesus. Not our own comfort. If you were to remember this, you will find your trials easier to bear with the strength that He supplies you. keliy |
||||||
262 | what is ecotology | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 212530 | ||
Thank you Val, Preceptaustin is a very interesting site. I will look into it. keliy |
||||||
263 | what is ecotology | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 212524 | ||
HI Val, Wow, I have seen some loaded questions before, but...just kidding, sister -I am more than happy to do my best to answer. Actually, I do see the Book of Revelation as the most controversial book contained in the Bible, but the interpretation is not as complicated as most people think. There are so many interpretations of the symbolic meanings within, that it is possible to go to ten sources and get over twelve interpretations. I try to see past all the symbolic imagery to look towards the hope that is offered to all who suffer persecution and tribulations in this fallen world. When I speak to a Jewish adherent about the New Testament, I get the answer that it is not accepted. So my counterpoint is, Well, had they read the Book of Revelation? Because it was written by a Jew, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The writer of the letters to the seven churches of Asia was in his own eyes a Jew, while believing in Jesus as the risen Messiah. I have learned that the key to understanding the Book of Revelation is in the understanding of the rest of the Bible. No, I do not claim to actually understand it all, just that I am more than happy to spend the time trying to gain understanding. Concerning Israel, I turn to the second chapter of Isaiah, which begins, "The word that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem. And it shall come to pass in the last days, [that] the mountain of the LORD'S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it." (vss 1,2) Another reference to Israel is symbolic, and found in Rev 12:1, "And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars" There are many different interpretations as to the identity of the woman symbolized, The Catholic Church says that it is Mary, the mother of God. I believe that verse 12:6 proves their interpretation wrong. And Mary Baker Eddy says that it is herself, which I believe is ridiculous. The interpretation of this symbol (the woman being Israel) that I accept is found in the Genesis, in Joseph's second dream. So to answer your first question, my approach to Revelation is to approach the rest of the Bible. This is explained in the Bible as the need for two or more witnesses for a matter to be called true. In answer to your second question, where I see Israel in the end time, I do not accept replacement theology, because of the everlasting covenant made in Gen 17:7, "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you. My belief is that there will be Jews who are saved, and Jews who are unsaved. There will also be non-Jews who are saved, and non-Jews who are unsaved. Thank you for your question, Val. May our Lord bring you many joyful blessings in this new year. keliy |
||||||
264 | Author's role in acts | Acts 28:28 | keliy | 212521 | ||
Hello Lionheart, (I love that screen name!) I am responding to your curiosity as to where the fellowship I attend stands in regards to tithing and giving. Well, it is quite simple, in lieu of a basket being passed, there is an "Agape Box" near the entrance to the Sanctuary. It has a slot to place tithes and offerings into it, as well as a pad of paper designated for prayer requests. The box is never spoken of from the pulpit, but when I first began attending,the Pastor had answered my query to do as I am led by the Lord. Joyful blessings to you, keliy |
||||||
265 | Author's role in acts | Acts 28:28 | keliy | 212510 | ||
Thank you sister Val, I attend a non-denom Bible-teaching church of approx 100 attendees. We have no membership, and no collections are passed. Only Bibles are passed out at the beginning of each service for those who do not have one in their lap (o; Our small church is very blessed to have an associate pastor who loves to teach and has a great gift to do so. He has started a Bible institute, which is now in its third year and we have been blessed with opportunities to take courses in Discipleship, Hermeneutics, New Testament Greek, and Hebrew is on the slate, as the Lord leads. This is all in addition to an hour-plus of verse by verse exposition twice per week by a pastor who is also a wonderfully gifted exegete. I feel quite blessed to have come this far in the years that I have studied, after so many of my younger years that were simply wasted. Thank you for your kindness, may our Lord bless you in the coming new year as you walk in His light. keliy |
||||||
266 | what is ecotology | Bible general Archive 4 | keliy | 212507 | ||
Hi asimilation, welcome to the Forum, You have come to the right place to learn about Christian eschatology, which is the study of its religious beliefs concerning all future and final events (End Times), as well as the ultimate purpose(s) of the world (i.e., mortal life), of humankind, and the Church. Where eschatology (Greek: eskhatos "last," logia "discourse") refers to doctrine that represents a history of inquiry into the concept of the destiny of all things, in Christian context, this inquiry is vested in the prophesied purposes of God as documented in the Bible. ( I copied this information from Wikipedia) It is my belief that all studies (eschatology or soteriology and etc.)should lead to the foot of the Cross. Blessings to you, keliy |
||||||
267 | Why not Elisabeths home? | Luke 2:7 | keliy | 212486 | ||
Thanks to both of you, your responses blessed me. I have been racking my brain trying to remember who was the source or how I heard it. It wasn't until I logged back in, when it came to me, and I think it was Chuck Swindoll that I got this view from. Blessings, keliy |
||||||
268 | Why not Elisabeths home? | Luke 2:7 | keliy | 212457 | ||
Hello KcabmI4, To give you a likely reason for why Jesus was born in a manger, and not anyone's home that could have very well been available at that time and place, I would like to relate a commentary that I read, but I do not know when or where. The idea is as follows: The Christ Child came not as king, but as a helpless infant. This was to allow even the most humble shepherd to come to visit. If the newborn child was in someone's home, it would be possible that it would've kept the shepherds at a distance, feeling as if they were not invited, and would not want to intrude. The stable was chosen, in God's unfailing wisdom, to invite even the most humble of humanity to feel as if he were welcome to pay a visit. Do you see this point? If the birth would take place at a palace, which the very Son of God would be most deserving, there would be many that would not feel 'worthy' enough to come and pay a visit. The lowest place on earth was chosen for the birth-site so that none would be too humble to enter. In Joy, keliy |
||||||
269 | BY HIS STRIPS | 1 Pet 2:24 | keliy | 212015 | ||
1Pe 2:21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 1Pe 2:22 "Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth"; 1Pe 2:23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 1Pe 2:24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness--by whose stripes you were healed. 1Pe 2:25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls. |
||||||
270 | pleasestate your undestandingof verse | Prov 16:33 | keliy | 211623 | ||
Yes, thank you, Azure, I see your point. I was in a hurry and rambled off an answer off the top of my head, trying to get the same point across that I tried in prior posts. It is difficult for me in an electronic format to get across my main thought or idea. Experts say over 85 percent of all conversations is said to be non-verbal. That is, body language, and such. The point I was making is what has been made over the past week or so. This is: that we are all expected to be displaying a Christian attitude for those that visit for the first time are truly seeking how it is that those who call themselves disciples of Christ really think and live. Yes, humbledbyhisgrace, "The argument is sort of self defeating isn't it?" Of course, that is why I humbly left it out, thanks to His grace. But I am not one who is proud of my humility. I was not trying to say any denom or non-denom was right, only to point out that we are not supposed to be each one claiming to have the right answer. We are supposed to discuss our thoughts and feelings rationally without attacking anybody's views or opinions. My objective was to say that we can not claim to have the right answer. I have posted: "God's thoughts are higher than our thoughts" and now I will enlighten that a little further: For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. (1 Cor 13:12) For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. (1 Cor 13:9-10) Since we are seeing through our own obscured viewpoints, the impersonal textual format of these posts does not help to get our thoughts made precisely known. So, we really need to exercise higher caution in making sure we understand what an author is trying to say. This is why so many people hate the hypocrisy in the church. I hear it most often from non-church go-ers as their reason for staying away. There are lots of typos on this site and we all look past them to try to get the bigger picture. That is, we all Should. Why should any body claim to be above petty squabbles and then ridicule others over spellings and definitions? This is pointless and does not imitate Christ. Yes, jlhetrick, I hear you, "Perhaps referring to you as "assuming" was a bit of an understatement" are you saying that you restrained yourself for effect? (Webster's definition) I will not argue that point, Can you argue the point that perhaps it was a bit of an overstatement? See my point? without a full knowledge, we should not be making spurious judgements. So, may I say that I find your entire post more than a bit assuming and, well, outrageous, because You said, "It's always interesting to me when someone points the finger of accusation in everyone else's direction and then proclaims to be right and have the answers." Actually I never said that but you did. So, someone who has likely been a Christian for longer than I have been alive, and what do you teach us about being an ambassador of Christ? This is why I come to this forum: to learn and share. What I get is an obstacle to what I seek. What I said, was: What we are called to do is to emanate the aroma of Christ. This is done by helping one another understand their obstacles in God's Word, and not by trying to to induce someone to truckle to our own belief system. Thank you for your heart |
||||||
271 | pleasestate your undestandingof verse | Prov 16:33 | keliy | 211606 | ||
Hello Nevvvvine, thank you for your input. I myself pray often for God's will to be done, and ask Him to intervene in the direction of my own life I just read your profile, and I totally agree with your statement that most adherents to a specific denomination believe: "We have the truth, and all others are deceived" This applies to JW, Mormons, Protestants, the pope, and muslims equally. I feel this is the danger with denominations, and it is not to be taken lightly. Not everyone can be right, although I have an aunt that thinks so. This thread started out in a verse in Psalms and ended in a dialogue that resembles the Calvinism Armenianism debate. Actually, both sides of that debate are wrong, God's will is somewhere in between and His Holy Spirit knows that there will be arguments about this. Many adherents do not realize the gravity of the sin they are committing by stirring up these debates. It only professes their own pride and ignorance. What we are called to do is to emanate the aroma of Christ. This is done by helping one another understand their obstacles in God's Word, and not by trying to to induce someone to truckle to our own belief system. Thank you for your heart, keliy |
||||||
272 | pleasestate your undestandingof verse | Prov 16:33 | keliy | 211591 | ||
Thank you Doc for your effort, may the Lord bless you for your time was well spent. As I stated in my post to you above, "....and as I am sure this has been debated many times before on this forum and throughout the ages, May I ask you now, to return to the original question at hand?" this makes me really wonder whether you actually read the posts that you reply to. So, when you say, "The affection that people have for their own self determinism, entrenches this presupposition so deeply that neither logic nor authority can hope to dislodge it" Do understand that this applies to yourself as closely as it does to anyone else? Sorry, but the 27th Chapter does not exist in my copy of Knowledge of the Holy by Tozer, c.1961 -It goes no further than chapter 23. In His Love, keliy we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. (1 Cor 8:1) |
||||||
273 | pleasestate your undestandingof verse | Prov 16:33 | keliy | 211583 | ||
Hello again, Doc You wrote, "Either God is in control of all things or something else has power over God." Either God is in control of all things OR something else has power over God? I think the answer is a bit more complicated. His ways are higher than our ways. Can anyone rightly put God's attributes into such a tiny box? Your either-or logic does not explain that I can have control over my own willpower in certain scenarios, such as if I go to church, or rather to sin. You say, "something else has power over God" ? To have power over God would be to have the ability to change or direct His will. God always retains the power to change and/or direct my will through the use of outside influences: And a voice said, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? I do not possess such power, nor does any, other than God. ... thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, ....and thou preservest them all; ... (Neh 9:6) Otherwise, when I do sin, it is God that has ordained that decision for me. That is in contradiction to the info you provided: "thereby is God neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein -1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith" Without a will that is totally free to choose its own course of action, how do you explain your statement, "the brothers of Joseph, chose -- of their own free will -- to violently treat their brother and sell him into slavery" -Can you tell me that this was God's plan, which started as plot to murder Joseph, but he was not, due to a reprieve that came through brother Reuben? There are many influences that are put in place by God, and the dreams of the famine was one of them, and coupled with the drought suffered by Joseph's homeland. So God is able to take what was meant for bad and turn it to good. But He could not have been the author of the plan to kill. This was initiated by man's nature, which is contrary to God's. -But, what was meant for bad was not authored by God, by your own admission. God turns bad to good, hence in my prior post to hopalong, "those circumstances that are arranged by God are the most fortunate occurrences of life." This is in contrast to what the flesh desires. This is backed up in Scripture often, but I will use Rom 8:5, "For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit." You wrote, "Either God is in control of all things or something else has power over God." Are you intimating here that God chooses who walks in the Spirit and who walks in the flesh? Do I, or do I not have that power to choose a course of action to take?? If the flesh is contrary to the desires of the Spirit, does God control every movement of the flesh? By your line of thinking, as I understand it, those that exercise their own minds to make independant decisions are exercising power over God. I hope you can clarify your statement. I know that God has power over the nature of my socks and directs the way my eyes discern the color of them. Yet, If I am unable to choose to wear argyle socks with blue-jeans, then I do not have power of my own free will. I submit that I can wear anything I want, any day I want. Even though God is the provider of all materials, time, and energy to do so. And God has unlimited power to sway my decision, if and whenever He chooses. For if there is one maverick molecule, it would mean that God is not sovereign. -Sproul -This, my godly friend, has nothing to do with choice. It is exemplary of the vastness of God's presence and power. God made rocks but he did not give rocks the power to choose. God orders every molecule and atom in every rock to be a rock. (Scientists call this "molecular cohesion"). Otherwise, any 'maverick' molecules of any material would go their own way, choosing their own path, as God, in His ultimate wisdom, has given mankind the ability to do. God also empowers us to walk in the Sprit, for we are insufficient to do this on our own. Those that choose to follow His commands are given more power to do so. God's blessings to you this day, keliy |
||||||
274 | pleasestate your undestandingof verse | Prov 16:33 | keliy | 211576 | ||
Thanks for the information Doc, I am in agreement with you on God's attributes. "The Knowledge of the Holy" by A.W. Tozer is an excellent book. I feel that the AMP version is a faulty choice and disagree with its use for doing proper exegesis. I believe in the sovereignty of God. I agree with Tozer in above named book, Chapter 1, page 1, when he says, "What comes into our minds when we think about God is the most important thing about us." However, when you stated in your post, "This verse is a proper and comforting reminder that not even the slightest thing is not being perfectly and precisely controlled by the almighty, all knowing and wise, and perfectly loving Lord God." I feel I must disagree. What this is saying, is that the slightest thing, such as what color socks I choose to wear is governed by God. Even if I flipped a coin to decide, it is a choice made by God and not random chance. This means that if I chose black socks, there is no way that I actually ever had the capability to choose brown socks. This is known as determinism. This said, I will say that I am not a 5 point Calvinist, and do not accept Unconditional election, because it is man's teaching, not found anywhere in the Bible. I do believe in God's sovereign will I do believe there is nothing that happens that is outside of God’s sovereign will. But even when God allows things to happen, such as the devil waylaying Job, He must decide to allow it because He always has the power and right to change any outcome. He knows of course when to intervene and when it is best not to. I DO believe in God's perfect will. This is the aspect of God’s will that describes what He requires of us and what is pleasing to Him. I also believe there is another side, God's permissive will. This is God’s declared will or revealed will that tells us what we should do. This is important because we are able to know that it is God’s will that we do not lie, that we love our neighbor, and we need to repent of our sins. Sometimes we do not do exactly as we should. . This is backed up by Romans 12:1-2 That being said, and as I am sure this has been debated many times before on this forum and throughout the ages, May I ask you now, to return to the original question at hand? The Primary question, the one I asked you what is your take (?) in the above post? It is always a blessing conversing with all of you. keliy |
||||||
275 | pleasestate your undestandingof verse | Prov 16:33 | keliy | 211574 | ||
O-Kay, then Doc, What is Your take? |
||||||
276 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | keliy | 211572 | ||
Robbert, Just to simplify things, because so many threads tend to wander away from the original post: It is true that everything up to Jesus' death on the Cross is in the Old Testament. My belief of what was the deciding event was when the veil of the Temple was rent, from top to bottom. And it is correct what is stated in Heb 9:16, "For a testament is of force after men are dead..." Can you imagine the Gospels being actually written while Jesus was alive on the earth? It would have been, "...of no strength at all while the testator liveth." Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. (Col 2:8) In conclusion friends, -when the plain sense makes the most sense... In Him, keliy |
||||||
277 | pleasestate your undestandingof verse | Prov 16:33 | keliy | 211571 | ||
Hi hopalong, I am thinking that the gist of this verse is, that while the outcome of every roll of the dice may be determined by God beforehand, it would become apparent that those circumstances that are arranged by God are the most fortunate occurrences of life. May you be similarily blessed, keliy |
||||||
278 | Does Jesus teach OT doctrine? | John 1:1 | keliy | 211569 | ||
Robbert, You are correct in saying, "Jesus did not say: Believe in my death and resurrection", but He did give signs that were hidden from those who were on but a cursory quest for knowledge. That is, those who wanted simply to be on "the winning side" or, those looking for "fire insurance". These are in the crowd for their own benefit, not to bring glory to God. In the context of Jesus' quoting from the Book of Jonah, there were scribes and Pharisees coming to question Him for some validation of his authority to teach such things. The scribes and Pharisees asked for a sign, but they did not receive, for they asked amiss. Jesus, seeing through their false pretense refused to give them another sign besides what has been given, in the prophet Jonah. (cf Matt 12:36-40) " I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned." Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to him, "Teacher, we wish to see a sign from you." But he answered them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; but no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." This, I'd like to say, Does fit into the death of Christ and also His resurrection. We have another Gospel account in the story of the rich man who died, and lifting up his eyes in hell, found himself in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, with Lazarus in his bosom. (Luk 16:22 - 31) After being denied the requested water, the rich man attempted one more request, "I pray thee therefore, father, that you would send him to my father's house, For I have five brothers; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. And in the last verse of the chapter, father Abraham finally told him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Another viewpoint by which to compare the teachings of (any) preacher or teacher is the sin of heresy. For this, let's turn to Gal 5:19-21 which lists deeds of the flesh: "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Now, close to the middle of the list, we see listed that 'heresies' are counted as a work of the flesh. This, I take to be due to its association with the sin of Pride. One of the most offensive to the kingdom of God. We are told in the NT that there will be many such teachers in the last days. I think that you know what to do with their words, what they usually are discovered to be, are just a cursory quest for knowledge. I hope you have gotten much of your question answered, What say you? God Bless, keliy |
||||||
279 | Does Jesus teach OT doctrine? | John 1:1 | keliy | 211554 | ||
Hi Robert, Thanks for replying, I only have a few minutes right now, in a few hours I will be able to respond more thoroughly. It would be wise at this point to see what others have to say about this. But briefly, You said, "Recall that Jesus told one person to keep the commandments and then follow Him in order to gain eternal life." Can I ask you to give the address of the verse you quote? This is just to clear up confusion, because there may be a different context involved. You also said, "Why doesn't Jesus talk about His death to everyone who asks" Well, There are two places I can see right off the top of my head where this does happen. 1) Jesus said "As Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days, so must the Son of Man.... 2)Jesus said, "Destroy this temple and I will rebuild it in three days" I can not see anything that does not fit into the theme of God's plan. Remember, everything in the OT points forward to the Cross (Man's Redemption). And everything in the NT points backward, to the Cross (Man's Redemption). Lord Bless, keliy |
||||||
280 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | keliy | 211547 | ||
Hi Robbert, I have been in the understanding that Christ's death was around 30 AD. The Gospels are commonly said to have been written after the years following 50 AD. Mark was first, John was last, after 85 AD. So, while it is true that Jesus lived in Old Testament times until His death, the four Gospels still qualify as New Testament writings. Actually, John's account of the Gospel was likely not written until after all other Books of the New Testament. -So if the Gospel of John is qualified as OT, then so are all the writings in the NT, since they were written earlier. Blessings, keliy |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [19] >> |