Results 341 - 360 of 515
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: humbledbyhisgrace Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | Who is Jesus? | Bible general Archive 3 | humbledbyhisgrace | 185951 | ||
Dear Sir, The cultic teachings of the Jehovah Witness are not acceptable on this forum? Jesus is God, His word teaches us that. It's settled! By the way, which one of their web sites did you copy this from? Never mind, we really don't want to know. Steve |
||||||
342 | Who does the Bible refer to being wicked | 1 John 3:8 | humbledbyhisgrace | 185298 | ||
I would think if you understood that which you are so intent on pushing you would be a bit more humbled by it. Please consider the good of the forum and keep in mind the TOU of this forum. No need to intentionally be divisive. Steve |
||||||
343 | They are married,is it sin to have oral? | Bible general Archive 3 | humbledbyhisgrace | 185164 | ||
Greetings Brother! John, consider 1 Corinthians 7:3-5. The affection in verse 3 and the depriving in verse 5 and the warning to come together so Satan does not tempt is not speaking to procreation. 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (NKJV) 7:3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 7:4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 7:5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. Also, consider the following scriptures Genesis 2:23-24 (NKJV) 23 And Adam 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 Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. Matthew 19:3-6 (NKJV) 3 The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?" 4 And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' 5 and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? 6 So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." 1 Corinthians 6:15-19 (NKJV) 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For "the two," He says, "shall become one flesh." 17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? Ephesians 5:25-33 (NKJV) 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. There is a coming together of the husband and wife with no intent or thought of procreation. Granted, procreation is a big part of God's intent of the marriage but there is more to it then that. The two become one and it is God’s intent that it remain that way (Matthew 19:6). There is a unity of the two and it is likened to the relationship of Christ and His Church (Ephesians5:25-33). So there is more to it the procreation and sex. You sort of left your teaching on the two points below just hanging and I believe this is why Jeff felt the need to redirect so that any reading along do not walk away with the wrong impressions. " In no way is sex in the marriage bed sin. " "But God, after all, invented sex for one reason; procreation." By Faith, Steve |
||||||
344 | Do homosexual tendencys constitute sin? | Lev 20:13 | humbledbyhisgrace | 185127 | ||
Greetings Jeff! Thanks for the scriptures! It is always a blessing to have them to turn to for God’s truth. You have presented some good scriptures for consideration on the subject at hand. By Faith, Steve |
||||||
345 | Do homosexual tendencys constitute sin? | Lev 20:13 | humbledbyhisgrace | 185103 | ||
Greetings BrotherLouie! For sure the act was sin! But according to scripture it would appear he fell into sin long before the actual act. Matthew 5:28 (NASB) 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. Had there been no lust for her would there have ever been the physical act? By Faith, Steve |
||||||
346 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | humbledbyhisgrace | 185046 | ||
Greetings Tim! No need to apologize! No offense taken! I'm actually only arguing the point against the quote "Temptation implies the possibility of sin" At least that is what I have been attempting to do :-) By Faith, Steve |
||||||
347 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | humbledbyhisgrace | 185045 | ||
Greetings John! First of all, I have never said anything about anyone not being tempted or not being able to be tempted. As you have posed your question you are changing the argument into something different then what I have presented regarding the original quote in question. We know every man can be tempted including Jesus. As I understand the way you have presented it, I don't see this as a valid question. If someone can't be tempted then there was no temptation to demote or promote. By the way, let me change the subject for a bit and speak to your concern for offending me or anyone else for that matter. First of all I appreciate your desire not to! Thank you! We should all be ever mindful of this and maintain a healthy fear of it and of creating division among the brothers and sisters in Christ. One thing you will find on the forum is at times with nothing more then text to go by there will be misunderstanding of ones intentions. Of course there are times the intentions are clear also ;-) But know this, you do not have to apologize to me every time you speak to me. I understood your desire not to continue and also your desire to engage once again. We may not agree on everything but as brothers in Christ we have a big problem if we can't discuss it together. It's just my opinion but I think when we get more comfortable on the forum like anywhere else we tend to be more at ease and be ourselves so to speak. We sit here typing away is if everyone knows our thoughts and moods and personalities and forget some times all the other person has to go on is text. Anyway, I have found you to be very gracious not rude and I for one enjoy the discussions! God Bless, Steve |
||||||
348 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | humbledbyhisgrace | 185022 | ||
Greetings Tim! There is no argument from me that Jesus was tempted. This is clear from scripture. However, the fact Jesus was tempted adds no validity to the statement in or out of the context it was used in my opinion. The statement: “Temptation implies the possibility of sin". All that can be granted is that the tempter believes, assumes, or hopes etc… there to be a possibility. If not, then what is it about the temptation that makes so the possibility in the one tempted? How does the temptation being external or internal change this? By Faith, Steve |
||||||
349 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | humbledbyhisgrace | 185009 | ||
Greetings John! No problem Brother. I was simply agreeing to your request. I can see now I should have made that more clear. Sorry if I left you feeling like you had offended me! God Bless, Steve |
||||||
350 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | humbledbyhisgrace | 185004 | ||
Dear Mark, I agree with you on the vocabulary thing! It do be hard some times :o) Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you a bit on this point so let me know. What I was speaking to was the quote of Hodge. He states "Temptation implies the possibility of sin". At least that was the way it was quoted :o) The quoted statement was made to validate the argument of Hodge that Christ could have sinned. My argument was to show the shortcoming in his logic. It had nothing at all to do with the question if Christ was tempted or not so I fail to see the relevance of my point to Hebrews 2:18. No doubt at all Jesus experienced temptation and to the full extent! After all the tempter went away empty handed. The problem with his statement is that the argument requires something of the tempted based on the fact the tempter tempted (How's that for vocabulary? If you can't think of something to say just keep using the same word :-). By Faith, Steve |
||||||
351 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | humbledbyhisgrace | 184999 | ||
So be it! | ||||||
352 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | humbledbyhisgrace | 184962 | ||
Dear John! Read these passages to get a good idea of what is meant by the sinful flesh (Romans 7:5, 7:18, 7:25, 8:4-5, 8:8-9, 8:12-13) I think on this point of a sinful nature Romans 8:3 says it all. Romans 8:3 (NASB) For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, Notice Paul is clear on the matter after speaking of the weakness of the flesh he points out that the Son was sent in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh, he was not sent in sinful flesh. Also, take a closer look at the quote of Hodge. He states "Temptation implies the possibility of sin". I would argue that the only implication that can be granted in my opinion is that in the mind of the tempter there is potential for the one being tempted to sin. There is only an assumption on the part of the tempter of the possibility. There may be a great desire on the tempters part, but it is just that, his desire. It does not stand to reason that his assumption is imputed to the tempted and attributes nothing to what potential is actually there or not in the tempted. By Faith, Steve |
||||||
353 | ... | Bible general Archive 3 | humbledbyhisgrace | 184646 | ||
Greetings Mr. Agee! Do you have something to offer the forum? Just so you know, most of us on the forum believe in the bible. As a matter of fact, most of us are here to study the bible, share it with others, and discuss the different questions people have regarding scripture. If you have something to offer regarding scripture or a question about scripture please share it with us. Someone will more then likely have an answer or response to your post. However, if I may be so bold to say, we are not interested in your web site nor your book so please stick with scripture on the forum. God Bless, Steve |
||||||
354 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | humbledbyhisgrace | 184298 | ||
San Lukas, Your post is almost word for word from the web site you continue to push yet you give no credit to the author. My question to you is are you the author of the web site? What ties to these people do you have? Steve |
||||||
355 | Did Jesus clean the temple twice | NT general Archive 1 | humbledbyhisgrace | 184253 | ||
Greetings Brother! A humbled spirit and one willing to be redirected by scripture that it might find the truth. Awesome! Great example to all! Also Encouraging! By Faith, Steve |
||||||
356 | Did Jesus clean the temple twice | NT general Archive 1 | humbledbyhisgrace | 184252 | ||
Greetings Brother! I would say that was a very good example of grace! Encouraging! By Faith, Steve |
||||||
357 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | humbledbyhisgrace | 184231 | ||
Greetings Jonp! Redirecting me to another post which you feel answers my questions is fine. Also, let's not consider our discussion of the word of God to be an attempt to "alter an entrenched position". Hopefully it is two brothers in Christ seeking to understand God's word and help others to do so as well. I think it is obvious even the brethren or still seeking to understand all that God has revealed to us through His word. Having said that, I think it’s important to establish my beliefs of God’s word a bit to you as you are new to the forum and we don’t know much about each other. To sum it up, I’m a Sola scriptura kind of guy and in my efforts to understand scripture look to scripture to interpret scripture. As such, one of the rules of thumb that I use when seeking God’s truth is to try and always be mindful that if at any time the interpreted presentation by myself or someone else appears to be pointing to mankind and not God I have to reject it as I no longer have any trust in the corrupted nature of mankind. Moving on, I will again point to the context and maintain I find nothing in the context that would indicate 3:22 refers to an "angelic court" just as I do not believe the text / context of Genesis 1:26-27 refers to an "angelic court”. Neither do I find in this post or your previous on the matter scriptural validation of your teaching. I guess at this time we will just have to agree to disagree. Perhaps the discussion should end as it appears a great risk to me when we start attributing the things we (mankind) do as validation of what God would do and/or as acceptable practice of interpreting His word rather then focusing on scripture. I say this with respect but to me the risk of misleading others when this is done is great! God Bless, Steve |
||||||
358 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | humbledbyhisgrace | 184195 | ||
Greetings Jeff! Yes, I would think verse 27 would not read as it does if that were the case. I would think there would be other scriptures as well that read different then they do if that were the case! Also, thank you for your kind words! The truth is, I find it heard to articulate a discussion on the forum many times as with only text as the medium we always risk appearing argumentative or as if we assume authority of scripture when trying to discuss opposing views and/or seeking clarification on something. That's why I like forum members like Sister Azure around. She has such a graceful way with her words it is a good reminder and influence on the rest of us :-) By Faith, Steve |
||||||
359 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | humbledbyhisgrace | 184192 | ||
Greetings Jonp! You redirected me to this post so I took your direction and read through your post several times. This is what I'm left with... I would think if these things you have presented were correct and a valid argument that the "Us" and "Our" in Genesis 1:26 was an "angelic court" we are left with a problem because there are other INSPIRED scripture that clearly refer to God as the Creator the maker of all things (Ecclesiastes 12:1, Isaiah 40:28, Isaiah 43:1, Isaiah 44:24, Romans 1:25, 1 Peter 4:19). How would those that developed such an argument as you have presented address the fact the same Holy Spirit that inspired the writing of Genesis also inspired these scriptures that speak of God as the Creator and mention nothing of the assumed "angelic court" and their assistance in the creation? I would still have to say the text of Genesis 1:26-27 does not allow for such an interpretation of an "angelic court". I would think verse 27 confirms who the creator was and who's image it is spoken of in verse 26. God Bless, Steve |
||||||
360 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | humbledbyhisgrace | 184184 | ||
Greetings Jonp! Yes! This is exactly why the statement I questioned concerned me. This is the type of message that should be delivered. As stated, the other post/statement would leave one questioning the ability of Christ to uphold His Church, His people that He died for! Or even perhaps a false assumption it would be up to them and not Christ! Thank you for clearing this up! And Praise God for a saviour that has saved a people that could not save themselves! I will see your other post as you suggested. Thank you again! God Bless, Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [26] >> |