Results 41 - 60 of 80
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Stultis the Fool Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | How do you address? | Gen 1:31 | Stultis the Fool | 127318 | ||
TGC, I am excited that you have chosen to respond as you have, and I am equally glad to continue this search for truth. I duely appologize for the delinquency of my reply, but I was away from my computer all afternoon and evening. I will gladly reply as requested, though not here... I will reply to the threads in question. |
||||||
42 | How do you address? | Gen 1:31 | Stultis the Fool | 127320 | ||
I have reread Isaiah 45, for context, and also I have consulted the Hebrew for more information. I cannot deny that this passage is immediately pertinent to Cyrus. However, in that context, I believe the prophet is portraying the Lord as "all-mighty." In particular, consult verse 2,5,6,7,8,9,12, and 18. These verses indicate the majesty of God, in all his capacities. As for verse 7, I have considered the Hebrew text, particularly regarding the word in question, "ra" (translated evil, disaster, calamity, etc.). I have discovered that the primary definition of this word, as a noun, is "evil," and this word is translated as "evil" hundreds of times throughout the scriptures. I further considered the word it counterpoints, "shalom," (translated peace, good times, prosperity, etc.). I find that this word is most immediately defined as safe (by grammar, in English, safety), though it is translated as "peace" nearly as often as "ra" is translated as "evil." I see several conclusions and an absolute that can be reached with this information. The first conclusion is simple: these words are translated properly and represent themselves literaly, and I will address this later. A second conclusion is that the word translated "evil" is best translated as calamity to represent a physical manifestation (as you point to), though I find this doubtful, because the word peace, (safety etc.) is relatively intangible, while calamaty is not. A third possibility is that the words represent opposites of a mild nature, such as "health" and "distress," though I doubt this because of the extremes presented at the beginning of the verse (light and darkness). The absolute I see is the use of extreme opposites to define God's supreme power, and is concluded with the phrase "I the Lord do all these things." I find, based on the use of extreme opposites, as well as the contextual declaration of the Lord's all-mighty nature, and the frequency of translation of the words in question, based on Hebrew definition, as "peace" and "evil," that the words are likely translated accurately, particularly considering the typical biblical contrast between the concepts of "light" and "darkness," and that of "good" and "evil." I would also like to point to verse 9 ""Woe to him who quarrels with his Maker, to him who is but a potsherd among the potsherds on the ground. Does the clay say to the potter, 'What are you making?' Does your work say, 'He has no hands'?" This verse again portrays God as the Creator of all things, and is used by Paul [Romans 9:18-22] to contrast the concept here discussed: "Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:" I would also like to point to another verse, still directed towards Cyrus, this one from Chapter 44 of Isaiah [verse 24], keeping the same context as chapter 45: "Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;" I will conclude by stating that the above disemination is based on what I have been lead to find using a concept you advocate, as do I, of allowing scripture to interperate scripture, and by God above, to whom I credit my learning. I can find no definative verse that instructs that the Lord did not create evil, but I can find a number of verses that either describe the evil created, or directly state God creates everything, or that, in fact, God creates that which is evil. |
||||||
43 | Are you? | Is 7:16 | Stultis the Fool | 127685 | ||
I was wondering if you are correct. :) | ||||||
44 | The Real stature of Satan | Is 14:16 | Stultis the Fool | 126946 | ||
There is debate as to wether or not Isaiah chapter 14 is, in fact, refering to Satan. I have come to understand that some believe the prophet is referring in whole or in part to the king of Babylon [Isaiah 14:4], and still other information points to Messianic prophecy; specifically the verse which we use to derive refference to Satan, Isaiah 14:12 "How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations!" See 2 Peter 1:19 "So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts." See Revelation 2:26 "He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS;[Rev 2:27] AND HE SHALL RULE THEM WITH A ROD OF IRON, AS THE VESSELS OF THE POTTER ARE BROKEN TO PIECES, as I also have received authority from My Father;[Rev 2:28] and I will give him the morning star." Also, see Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star." The context of Isaiah 14:12 seems to indicate prophecy of Christ. This would eliminate reference to "Satan," in verse 12, and would likely place verse 16 in reference to "the King of Babylon." Food for thought. |
||||||
45 | Out of curiosity? | Is 14:16 | Stultis the Fool | 126962 | ||
I appologize, but you beg the question: If God is no respector of persons, and we are not to be a respector of persons, what does being "published" have to do with anything? Many people have published many things, but that most certainly does not guarantee the veracity of what they write. I will add that a fact should be established on the basis of two or three witnesses, and again, where two or three are gathered, there I am amongst you. Please understand, I am not trying to fight, but rather to gain some insight into your methodology. Do we both seem to be in agreement regarding the verse in question (Isaiah 14:16)? |
||||||
46 | The Real stature of Satan | Is 14:16 | Stultis the Fool | 126991 | ||
I certainly understand your explanation. However, I would like to point out that, in the event this is prophecy, the verses need not follow a "break," to change meaning from scripture at hand to prophecy. I believe that in every capacity this passage describes, as Isaiah intended, the King of Babylon. However, I get the impression that similar to other instances of Christ Prophecy in the Old Testament, the prophecy is incripted into the literal intent of the passage. Consider the example in Malachi 2:5 and 2:6. "My covenant with him was one of life and peace, and I gave them to him as an object of reverence; so he revered Me and stood in awe of My name. True instruction was in his mouth and unrighteousness was not found on his lips; he walked with Me in peace and uprightness, and he turned many back from iniquity." By context this passage is describing "Levi," but by implication is most certainly prophecy of the Christ. I suppose my point is this: a passage or particular verse need not be isolated in topic to be prophetic. Frequently it seems, the passage is written about something entirely unrelated. Just look to the Psalms. Anyway, I appreciate your time and thoughtfulness. Any idea why this thread is restricted. |
||||||
47 | What does God say on blocking life? :) | Jer 1:5 | Stultis the Fool | 126236 | ||
That verse is a metaphorical comparison of the pure to impure. You will also notice that crippled individuals (even from birth) are not to enter the tent. The practical application of the Law, here, in Deuteronomy, is to express the absolute purety God demands of his chosen people. This is NOT a passage designed to condemn someone who has chosen to recieve a vasectomy, a tubal ligation, or, more contextually, a person who has been injured in there genitals. | ||||||
48 | Can God create a rock soo big? | Matt 17:20 | Stultis the Fool | 127181 | ||
Perhaps another question is more appropriate. The insinuation behind the question, "Can God create a rock so big, even he can't lift it?" is another question: "Can God contradict himself?" I put forth that the scripture that answers this question is Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." |
||||||
49 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126452 | ||
I understand quite well the argument that The-minor is putting forth. The scriptures he is quoting denote that the act of intercourse is a consumation placing both participants in a state of marriage. See 1 Crinthians 6:16: "Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is ONE BODY with her? For it says, "THE TWO WILL BECOME ONE FLESH."" The exact act here (between a person and a harlot), is illicit sexual intercourse (fornication between an individual and a prostitute, as Theo-minor previously defined). The result, as Paul adequately describes, is marriage. There are no vows, no passing of rings, no preacher, friends, family, bridesmaids, etc. Just a person, a prostitute, and the Lord. The bible, in no place, prescribes the tradition of marriage (exchange of rings, marriage vows, etc.) that we have today. Marriage, while it is manifested publically, is a union between a man and a woman, and not between those two and any other person. I challenge you to produce scripture that displays the modern marriage ceremony as neccessary to facilitate "marriage". You will find no such scripture. All two people need to be "married", in my opinion, based on what is or is not found in the scriptures, is a WILLINGNESS to be married. Nowhere does the scripture require pomp and circumstance or ceremony. However, I do not denegrate the modern marriage ceremony of a purpose, and gladly suggest that a marriage ceremony, a reception, preacher, vows, etc. are a fine thing and I add that there is no wrongdoing in the participation in such festivities. However, we must not enforce what is a tradition of men where it contradicts the teachings of God. Those two people, engaged and living together (assuming they are engaged in intercourse), by Biblical example (the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 6:15-16, Gen 2:23-24, Gen 38:9, Deut 21:13, Deut 25:5], are as married as I am to my wife, you are to your wife, George W. Bush is to his wife, Augustus Caeser was to Livia, Joseph was to Mary, etc. You wrote: "When some one comes to be baptized they are saying I have repented, and turned away from sin, and want to follow Jesus and His instructions." Are you suggesting that two people, husband and wife, are to repent of foregoing a public marriage ceremony? You wrote: "Marriage is not mans standard of tradition, but is the standard the Lord has made,..." I agree, so why do we place our standards above the Lord's (as described in the passages above)? You wrote: "...it is not only sin in mans eyes, but is by Gods standard, Hebrews 13:4." Here you quote "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled..." [Hebrew 13:4 partial]. Do you suggest that we do not honor the union God has made? Or do you not know, "that the one who joins himself to a harlot is ONE BODY with her? For it says, "THE TWO WILL BECOME ONE FLESH."" [1 Corinthians 6:16]. Finally, I insist that you retract your "Catfish" accusations. They are juvenile and horrible, and not at all the behavior I expect from one forum member to the next. If Theo-minor is wrong, and you seek to prove such, do it with scripture or humble opinion, and keep your insults to yourself. If you wish to rebuke him, use God's words [Jude verse 9], and, I insist, avoid insults. |
||||||
50 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126456 | ||
I call myself Stultis because I am a fan of Charles Darwin (though I do not subscribe to modern Darwinism, or any other "Darwinism" for that matter), and his research. "Stultis the Fool" was Darwin's pen name amongst his friends, and I in no way quantify myself with any ancient or popular mythology regarding the name or persons of "Stultis". I am just a fan of Charles Darwin. I hope this helps! | ||||||
51 | should I avoid the appearance of evil? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126461 | ||
I would like to add that my posts to this subject do NOT advocate the taking of the union of marriage lightly... On the other hand, I certainly imply that we do not take seriously enough the act of intercourse. Here it is dismissed as sin quite casually, but I believe the scriptures show that the implications of the act are much more far-reaching then some would like to admit. | ||||||
52 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126471 | ||
Sorry... I replied to wrong thread! | ||||||
53 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126495 | ||
There is no definitive Biblical defination other than: Genesis 2:23 and 2:24 and 2:25. I know there is no better for two reasons: 1. This is the definition that both Christ and Paul use. 2. I am unable to find another. If this is the case, we must adhere to this definition. Paul and Christ both choose to do this very thing. My point is to the nature of the relevance of the act of intercourse. Paul expressly describes the act of intercourse between (I will be gender specific for ease of reading)a Man and a Prostitute as resulting in a marriage covenant, and that by the above definition. Now, if this is the case between a Man and a Prostitute, how much more so as that between two people who LOVE one another and desire to be married? This being the case, consider the examples given in other posts. That of Genesis 38:9, Deuteronomy 21:13, and 25:5 for example. These are examples of this very concept in application. We have no scriptural precedent for the NECESSITY of a "marriage ceremony." Now, if someone is incorrect about PRE-MARITAL SEX, lets figure out why or why not! Just because the answere to this question APPEARS obvious most certainly does not MAKE it obvious. This definition of marriage above does not make "promiscuity" or "debauchery" permissable, but neither are these words ("promiscuity" or "debauchery") define of sex between a man and a woman loving and desiring to be married. For that matter, the Greek word used, as described in other posts, is also not a definiton of two loving adults that desire to be married. Instead, the definition focuses on the act of sex in a promiscuous fashion (wether for money or just for the sake of the act). All this considered, how innacurate is it to say that a man and a woman, "engaged to be married," living together and having sex, are, in fact, "married." At least according to Biblical definition. Furthermore, I would like you to provide me with an email address, so that I can discuss the matter of the restriction of this thread with you in a more appropriate environment. thank you. |
||||||
54 | First Century Second Coming? | John 5:19 | Stultis the Fool | 128186 | ||
Morant61... I would like to point out that there is nothing more "subjective" than trying to interperate the future! I will add that the point Xerxes makes is that based on various evidence, it must be accepted that a preterist view is possible. Wether we choose to accept it, deny it, or remain undecided is really irrelavant to the point at hand. I am not advocating the belief, but I too must concede that it is a possibility. If a debate of such things as "millenialism" and "end-times prophecy" is to persist to its conclusion, I advocate reading as much information as is humanly possible regarding all aspects of the subject, both those to which we agree and disagree. |
||||||
55 | Are we gods? | John 10:34 | Stultis the Fool | 127568 | ||
I agree with srbaegon. | ||||||
56 | Your thoughts? | John 13:34 | Stultis the Fool | 128178 | ||
Sounds like those people do not understand what it means to love one another! | ||||||
57 | You are saying that our command to...? | John 13:34 | Stultis the Fool | 128209 | ||
The respondant failed to quantify what he was evaluating as "junk," other than his implication that our command to love one another is equivalant to the "junk" that John Lennon got from his guru. The passage in question is Romans 13:8-10, and the concept portrayed in that passage is what the Respondant refers to. | ||||||
58 | Who do you love that you are unwill...? | John 13:34 | Stultis the Fool | 128315 | ||
I truly and sincerely hope that noone believes I am holding a grudge here. I believe we should unceasingly exhort one another to love! | ||||||
59 | Why is this thread restricted? | John 17:22 | Stultis the Fool | 126621 | ||
You know Leslie, I just don't think that is the case :) Can you think of anything you wrote that would justify these thoughts? | ||||||
60 | How Many? | Rom 8:30 | Stultis the Fool | 127340 | ||
I was curious because of the preceding verse. Thank you for your answer. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |