Results 41 - 60 of 70
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: YenIsaRap Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | no more animal sacrifice | Heb 8:13 | YenIsaRap | 218720 | ||
Dear asurelaw Thank you for your concern, I felt the sarcasm that was meant. These were my two choices. I chose no.2 Pro 26:4 Pro 12:16 God Bless YEN |
||||||
42 | no more animal sacrifice | Heb 8:13 | YenIsaRap | 218719 | ||
I would like for everyone to fully understand my position on this subject. I am a born again believer in Jesus Christ. The sacrifice which he made for me, for the forgiveness of my sins, and the Grace of God whereby I have received Salvation. I have not stated that I believe the sacrifices of the Law, conducted at the Temple by the Jews, should be reinstated, I do not advocate this practice for followers of Jesus Christ as something that we as believers should do, besides the fact we can't, even if we wanted to, on the grounds the Temple, the only place where sacrifices of that sort can be made, DOES NOT EXIST! The original question was posed. Because when Jesus was Crucified, the Temple was still standing, and would be for another 35 yrs. There were Jews that kept the old traditions, and the laws, during that time. Question: Did God honor those sacrifices until 70 ad.? Then I had the thought. The Temple will be rebuilt in the end times, the sacrifices will be reinstated, for a three and one half year period of time, until the Abomination of Desolation happens. Question: Will God Honor those sacrifices at that time? The answer does not negate, nor diminish anything that Jesus accomplished for all mankind. It's just a question about "A People", that did not believe the Messiah had come, and continued in the Law, until this day, and will into the future, until Jesus returns. On the Jewish calendar the yr.is 5770 their still waiting for Messiah. Just a question, not a new doctrine. Gods Love YenIsaRap |
||||||
43 | no more animal sacrifice | Heb 8:13 | YenIsaRap | 218716 | ||
Dear Edd Just speak up, don't be so shy with your viewpoint. When we differ with others, if we don't share the knowledge we possess we become likened unto the Dead sea, where fresh, life giving water flows into it, but without any out let it becomes stagnant. God Bless Yen |
||||||
44 | no more animal sacrifice | Heb 8:13 | YenIsaRap | 218712 | ||
Dear Searcher Thank you for the response, I to feel the answer is "yes" to that question. Thanks for the information about Ez.40-46 being the new Temple. Now, could you venture an answer on the question number (1) of the same post? Thanks Brother Yen |
||||||
45 | Should "lost" people come to church? | Luke 5:31 | YenIsaRap | 218706 | ||
Dear fallen4shell There are two words we need to look at here. In defining them we will come to a better understanding. 1 SHEEP: Strong's def. something that walks forward (a quadruped), that is, (specifically) a sheep (literally or figuratively): 2 SHEPHERD: a shepherd (literally or figuratively): - shepherd, pastor. Jesus used the word sheep, in relation to His followers. Joh 21:16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, FEED MY SHEEP. So at this point we know we are sheep, we are fed and protected. In the spring each year the SHEEP give birth to new sheep baby sheep, that become part of the sheepfold. This happens every year, and the sheepfold becomes bigger, because that is what sheep do, they reproduce. The protector of a flock of sheep is the shepherd. There has not been at any time a shepherd, that has given birth to a sheep. He may, upon a special occasion, when a certain sheep is having difficulty birthing, that the shepherd will assist in the birth, but it is physically impossible for the shepherd to give birth to one of his flock. The shepherd (pastor) is responsible for feeding , and protection of the sheep. Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. There may be times when a shepherd will witness to a person that is lost, (not saved) but he does this in the capacity of a sheep, not a shepherd. God bless Yen |
||||||
46 | no more animal sacrifice | Heb 8:13 | YenIsaRap | 218704 | ||
This is a correction on my post, no more animal sacrifice ( 218700 ) until the final destruction of the Temple in 35 ad. That should have been 70 ad. Yen |
||||||
47 | no more animal sacrifice | Heb 8:13 | YenIsaRap | 218700 | ||
Dear Tim You can't have it both ways Tim, in your first post you stated. "1) The animal sacrifices did not save anyone in the first place." And I concur, with your statement, but they did gain forgiveness of sin. Now in your second post you state. "You stated that forgiveness of sins and salvation are not synonymous, but according to Eph. 1:7, they are synonymous:" Again I concur with your statement, but that event only becomes a reality in the New Covenant, not the Old. That brings us to the crux of my question. My question is asked in reference to, and only to the people, the nation of Israel, those people that did not follow Jesus, but continued in the practice of Judaism after the Crucifixion of Jesus, until the final destruction of the Temple in 35 ad. I guess you are saying, the Jewish people were not granted forgiveness of their sins after 35 ad. No matter the fact they followed the laws set down. Was the forgiveness of their sins only dependant upon the fact something was sacrificed? Or was it because they believed God at His word, that if they did sacrifice in such a manner, they would gain forgiveness of sin? Gal 3:12 And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them. Therefore if the people did continue to live by the law, did God honor their sacrifice for sin, thereby granting them forgiveness of their sins according to the law? Your Brother in Christ Yen |
||||||
48 | no more animal sacrifice | Heb 8:13 | YenIsaRap | 218697 | ||
Dear Tim You are right of course, "The animal sacrifices did not save anyone in the first place." I on the other hand was referring to the forgiveness of sin, now we are at cross purposes sorry:-( Forgiveness of sin, and Salvation are not synonymous If I may rephrase the questions. This statement was made recently. "Since Christ paid the price for our sin on the cross. no more animal sacrifice for sin is acceptable." 1 Did God honor the sacrifices made by the Jewish people, (for the forgiveness of sin) until the destruction of the Temple? 2 Will God again honor the sacrifices of the Jewish people, (for the forgiveness of sin) when they are reinstated, after the rebuilding of the Temple? These sacrifices were instituted by God for the people, in Exodus. The Temple was not destroyed until 70 ad. this was 35 yrs. after the sacrifice of Jesus. The people still sacrificed until that time. We are told, the Temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem in the end times, will God again honor the sacrifices of the people, made at this new Temple until the Abomination of Desolation stands in the Holy Place? We know a New Covenant was made, but the Jews "did not," we know there is now a New Covenant in force, but the Jews "do not". God Bless YenIsaRap |
||||||
49 | Have I messed up with Jesus? | Ex 30:13 | YenIsaRap | 218686 | ||
Dear Edd I am truly sorry Edd but that is not what the scripture says, just read the context of the statement. There is no mention of an ending of animal sacrifice at all. Christ's Crucifixion did not bring an end to the animal sacrifices, but the destruction of the Temple did in 70ad. But rather in verse 29, we see a definite explanation as to what blood is spoken of, as far as a sacrifice is concerned. These verses speak of people that willfully turn their back on Gods Grace, and return to a life of sin Heb.10:26,29 26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, 29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? Blessings YenIsaRap |
||||||
50 | Why is this verse here? | Luke 6:40 | YenIsaRap | 218562 | ||
Hi Guys Searcher, John Please excuse the delay in my response to you both. At this point, after a lot more study on the verses, I concur they do relate. I humbly ask, could each of you please explain your views of this relation, I would like to be able to compare the similarities they contain, and how you both came to your conclusions. Blessings |
||||||
51 | Why is this verse here? | Luke 6:40 | YenIsaRap | 218546 | ||
Dear Searcher56 Your observation confuses me. How do you come to the point that I am taking both views. Please explain to me how you come to this conclusion. Maybe I need to learn to word my thoughts better:-) Thank you Blessings YenIsaRap |
||||||
52 | ... | Bible general Archive 4 | YenIsaRap | 218466 | ||
Dear Humility It isn't just the fact we see Jesus going in among the publicans and the sinners. "Why do you do it" was the question that was asked of Him by the Pharisee, they were judging the publicans as unworthy because they were sinners. The Pharisee concidered themselves as righteous. But in reality were they truly righteous? We become the Pharisee when we do the same as they did, (judging). The answer that Jesus gave to them is what we should base our ministry to others on, not the appearance. Matt.9:9-13 9 And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and he saith unto him, Follow me. And he arose, and followed him. 10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? 12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. 13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. Luk 15:1-7 1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him. 2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them. 3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying, 4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? 5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. 7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. You are correct in saying They had been forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia. You have also said "I should be willing to go where ever the sinners lodge but not unless the Holy Spirit bids me." Do you see the basic difference in these two occasions? The Apostles were willing to go any where, any time. The Holy Spirit had to forbid them to go to Asia, THAT IS BEING LED OF THE SPIRIT. Jesus has already told us to go minister. BEING TOLD AGAIN IS NOT BEING LED. Mar 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. There were no stipulations by Jesus put on that commission. When you are truly Led of the Spirit, He will speak through you, and He will cause a crowed to be around you to hear the Gospel, because you will have become a vessel fit for use in the Masters Kingdom. Be Blessed YenIsaRap |
||||||
53 | nothing to fear cause of what Jesus did | Rom 8:37 | YenIsaRap | 218449 | ||
Dear LovemyLord Go to e-Sword then type in fear. 78 verses found such as. Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. Blessings YenIsaRap |
||||||
54 | Visualizatin vs the bible | Bible general Archive 4 | YenIsaRap | 218448 | ||
Dear macsdawtr Are you asking about Visualization Techniques such as meditation, self hypnosis, yoga? Then very shortly in my opinion, "YES" they do conflict, they all come from Eastern religions, and are widely used in psychology, as treatment for things as pain,and stress management. Blessings YenIsaRap |
||||||
55 | Cultural Context Helps but Doesn't Rule | 2 Thess 2:15 | YenIsaRap | 218405 | ||
Using the logic of cultural teaching by Paul. Meaning those things that Paul taught, that do not pertain to us today because they were only about the culture of the time they were taught. 1) We then need to toss out (2 Tim. 3:16) because it does say "ALL SCRIPTURE" which would not be relevant anymore. 2) Or we need to go through the entire Bible, decide which verses or books were written in the manor of cultural teaching, then delete them because they do not relate to us today. Blessings YenIsaRap |
||||||
56 | "Women being silent" | Gal 3:28 | YenIsaRap | 218380 | ||
Dear Yedida No one has of yet answered any of the questions I have posed for the purpose of validating the position of women in ministry. ie, pastors, preachers, teachers. You do not have any scriptures to uphold your beliefs, but rather your assumption as to what something "might" be saying. Even by trying to use the position of (Prophetess). Which has not been in question for women. A woman who speaks by divine inspiration or as the interpreter through whom the will of a god is expressed. ......free dictionary online This does not gain for women the position of Preacher, this position is totally different, because Prophesy is when God speaks, not the Preaching of the written word we call the Bible. There is a big difference in the two. Num.22:27-30 27 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. 28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? 29 And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. 30 And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? Was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay. Luke 19:38-40 38 Saying, Blessed be the King that cometh in the name of the Lord: peace in heaven, and glory in the highest. 39 And some of the Pharisees from among the multitude said unto him, Master, rebuke thy disciples. 40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out. From the preceding verses, do they give credence for asses and stones to Preach? When you say "The Lord gave the first commission after the resurrection to "go and tell..." to a woman." There was no "Commission" to women, at that time, or any other time, to Preach. That is tantamount to what the Catholic Church did by taking the "greeting" from the angel Gabriel, and Mary's cousin Elisabeth combining them together and making a prayer out of them. Luk 1:28,42 28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. 42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. Blessings YenIsaRap |
||||||
57 | "Women being silent" | Gal 3:28 | YenIsaRap | 218367 | ||
Dear Yedida Why do you suppose Jesus did not choose any women to be in His inner core of Disciples, those chosen personally by Him, and thereby becoming the Apostles? Seeing that God, and Jesus are one in the same. In the Old Testament we see that God did not appoint any women to service in the Temple. And in the New Testament Jesus did not appoint any woman to be Apostles. Was that due to a cultural prejudice, or could it be understood that women are not to be in positions of authority over man. Now we know that when Paul said woman, there are different categories of women. 1 Virgin 2 Young women 3 Married Women 4 Older women 5 Widows What category was he speaking to? When it is all said and done, is there any (SCRIPTURE) that contradicts Paul's teaching? 1Ti 2:12 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. God Bless YenIsaRap |
||||||
58 | Women are to be silent? | NT general | YenIsaRap | 218358 | ||
Dear AWilliamson Thank you for the reply. I agree with everything you have stated, sorry if I gave the impression women are inferior. If you have come to that conclusion by my statement "from the beginning, woman was not created equal" I posted that belief because of the scripture I cited. Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. She was created as a help meet for the man. A help meet does not have equality as far as I am concerned. This does not mean he should Lord it over her, but in this context we are talking about husband and wife, not men and women in general. Man on the other hand was created for fellowship with God, but that doesn't make him equal with God does it? Let me ask you then. Has God given authority, and responsibility in the same measure to woman as He has man? Is the woman ever a spiritual covering for the man? When is woman ever put into the position of taking responsibility for man? (brackets are mine) 1Co 11:7-10 7 For a man indeed (ought not to cover his head,) (forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God:) (but the woman is the glory of the man.) 8 (For the man is not of the woman;) (but the woman of the man.) 9 (Neither was the man created for the woman;( (but the woman for the man.) 10 For this cause ought (the woman to have power on her head) (because of the angels.) Andrew I may have misunderstood you, when you wrote. "women should have head-coverings in church gatherings" (1 Cor 11) As you can see, the scripture is not talking about literal head coverings such as Hats. If you disagree please explain the meaning of v.10 You are right about the extra-biblical additives, but it is very difficult to say anything and not use them. We are in agreement God Bless YenIsaRap |
||||||
59 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | YenIsaRap | 218122 | ||
Dear Asure I am sorry this is a few days form your original post to Doc. But I wanted to ask you a question if I may. In your post to Doc you related a conversation you had. "It brought to mind a little chat with a brother at my church last Sunday while he and I were discussing the problem in practicing Matthew 5:23-24, Matthew 18:15 and Eph 4:15 at church." "He mentioned that not many eastern Christians accept the idea and practice it". "For we don't want to hurt the brother/sister or trigger his/her resentment". "However, I always wonder since the Bible has clearly provided us the principle/guidelines, we are just making the issues complicated and more problems arise if we do it our own way. The consequences could be misunderstanding, gossipping, bitterness, untrusting...:-(" My questions then would be. 1) Are there similar teachings that Eastern Christians do not accept or have difficulty putting into practice? 2) Does this reluctance come from the Buddhist teachings in your society and culture? 3) It is interesting to me to understand how different societies would accept and implement these teachings that we in the West receive as normal. Let me ask you another question I just thought of. 4) If in the West (Europe - United States) Our Civil Laws are based or have there roots in the 10 Commandments. Where did the East derive there Civil Laws from? Enough for now God Bless Yen |
||||||
60 | Can we live life without sinning? | Rom 6:12 | YenIsaRap | 218110 | ||
Dear Doc: Thank's that would be great:-) In Christ Alone YenIsaRap |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |