Results 41 - 60 of 89
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Ancient Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127171 | ||
EdB, I wanted to be nice about this subject, but I feel that you are insulting me now. The answer to your question is yes. I would gladly stand before God and tell him that the commandment of Jesus Christ was to love one another, so that all men will know that we are his disciples. Going to church, while a good and worthwhile thing, is not a commandment. You say that it is. I disagree with you. I do not disagree in order to suit a lifestyle. I disagree because it is not a commandment. Further, you are putting words in my mouth. I have stated clearly in all of my posts on this subject that I am an advocate for going to church. I think a person should. I think, however, that they should go because they want to, not because they have to. And as far as these commandments go, let us look at what the commandments are: A lawful person keeps the law. A lawless person does not keep the law. The law is comprised of 700-some-odd commandments according to a preacher I once spoke to. I really believe this is where it gets complicated for most people. With that many commandments, and each equating to murder if you violate it, how can we ever live up to it? We can't. That is why we had to die to the law [Romans 7:4-6 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were by the law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death. But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter.], under the law, that we might be freed from the law and the sin that it occasions [Romans 7:7-11 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.]. That's why we are not under the law anymore in the sense of 700-some-odd commandments. Because none of us were able to live up to it in our former lives without Christ, we had to die to be free. In baptism, we go down in imitation of the death of Christ, and come up in the newness of life. When we accept Christ, we die, but because he died to be the propitiation for our sins, we don't pay the ultimate penalty of spiritual death. Instead, we are resurrected with him to live a new life, and this new life is not subject to the laws of the flesh. It is subject to the law of the Spirit, which is the intent that drives the law. [Romans 6:4-7 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in the newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.] So what then? If we are dead to the law, and no longer subject to it, how then can we keep what is not there? Shall we kill since we are not subject to the commandments of the law? Certainly not. We are slaves to do righteousness (slaves to do the right thing). Shall we steal because we are not subject to the commandments of the law? Certainly not. Again, we are slaves to do the right thing. While some maintain the idea that there is no law at all, I would point out that we are to keep the "law of Christ." [Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.] There is still a law that must be kept. Again, [Galatians 6:2 Bear one another's burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ.] (Emphasis at this point on the existence of the "Law of Christ"). Continued ... |
||||||
42 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127142 | ||
Steve, I believe she is trying to say that those who [were] worshipping according to the law, worshipped according to the law, and in full form. Those who [were] worshipping without the law, worshipped according to the method and manner prior to the existence of the written law. Ancient |
||||||
43 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127141 | ||
Steve, Thank you so much for responding. I considered your statement, and I think that this passage you are citing, while you are likely correct in your estimation, is not conclusive. I can punch holes in the credibility of it being an absolute statement good for doctrine. For example: Does Acts 20:7 say that they did not meet on the second day of the week? Or the third? Or the fourth? Does Acts 20:7 say that they only met on that day of the week? Is it possible they met on the other days as well, but we are not informed here because it is not immediately relevent to the story being told? Is it also possible they met the other days, since we are lacking an address of the issue in this passage, and especially in comparison with Acts 2:46? Is it possible that they were at the tail end of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, seeing that Paul and some of the others had gone ahead of the rest of the group, and the group that stayed behind didn't leave Phillipi until after said holiday? Could it be that the first day of the week was the last convocation of the holiday? The holiday lasts from the 14th through the 21st [Exodus 12:18]. It starts at evening on the 14th, and it ends at evening on the 21st. If the holiday started on a Sunday at evening, that would have it ending on a Sunday at evening. Could this be why they were gathered? We know from 2 Corinthians 2:12-13 that a door was opened up for Paul to preach the Gospel in Troas. But we know also from 2 Timothy 4:13-17 that in Troas, Alexander the coppersmith vigorously opposed his teaching, and everyone deserted Paul. So what kind of disciples were these men in Acts 20:7? We're talking about the same place. Are we talking about the same time? Is this the same occurrence? Did these "disiciples" we're wont to take example from the same "disciples" that abandoned Paul? It is my opinion that Acts 20:7 is a weak example, and I find it by no means a conclusive example as to the regular habits of the disciples. Acts 2:46 is a better and far more defined example of the habits of the disciples in my opinion. Now, I do agree that they met on Sundays, but as you will note in my previous posts, the veracity behind this is stated by Pliny the Younger, who said that the Christians met on the first day of the week before sunrise. These are the words of a historian that plainly recorded the event and was specific about it. In short, I don't disagree that Sunday was the day they met, only that Acts 20:7 is a weak example that can be argued. I would also point out from my previous posts, that I am of the opinion that when or where we meet is not relevent. They did what they did for whatever reason they did it. I find that "They did this, so we must do this," is an inferior teaching to, "They did this, and this is why, so let's apply the "why" to our lives." Thanks for your response. I wasn't hasty in responding. I've had this debate with someone before over Acts 20:7. I don't think it's a discussion worth having. And to those that are misunderstanding my posts, let me say one more time that I am an advocate of going to church. While I don't believe it is commanded, only advised for the sake of upholding one another, I still think it is a good thing, and I definitely would recommend anyone not currently attending to attend. Thank you again, Ancient |
||||||
44 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127138 | ||
EdB, I disagree with your interpretation of this passage, but thank you for responding with your input. I gave it fair consideration, but do not see a commandment there so much as I see advice. We'll have to agree to disagree. With love, Ancient |
||||||
45 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127119 | ||
Country Girl, Remember sister, I'm not contradicting you. I think going to church is a good thing. I'm just cognizant of the fact that making it a commandment when it isn't a commandment creates an occasion of sin and stumbling for those that believe it to be a commandment and for one reason or another are unable to keep it. [Romans 7:9-11 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the law; for I would not have known about coveting if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the law sin was dead. I was once alive apart from the law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me."] By all means ... let us go to church. But let us always remember WHY we go to church. It is not because we are commanded to, as you pointed out that no such passage exists, but because we want to. Those that don't want to go ... they don't have their heart in it anyway. So their worship would be false. Always remember that the commandment of the New Testament is to Love one another as he loved us. All others amount to this, are derived from this, and cannot exist or function without this. Blessing to you sister, Ancient |
||||||
46 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127098 | ||
In relation to Sunday worship, I would like to add my two cents as well, Lord willing that I should be of profit to someone else. The scriptures tell us in Romans, "Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind." It is also written in Colossians, "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a holy day or a new moon or a Sabbath day--things which are a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ." Paul tells us in Romans that there is no command we have that is not summed up by the statement, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Going to church, while certainly a fine thing, is not a commandment. Hebrews 10:25 is often considered a commandment: "not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some ..." I find, however, that the preceeding verse adheres to Paul's teaching, and puts the statement into perspective: "and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more as you see the day drawing near." The early church, as recorded in the writings of Pliny the Younger, met on the first day of the week before dawn. The earliest church, according to Acts 2:46, met every day in the temple, not just on Sunday. When all is said and done, going to church is little more than a "work of the flesh" and is of no profit for righteousness. As it is written in Galatians, "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." To summarize what I am saying: We are not commanded to go to church. Let every man be fully pursuaded in his own mind. The one that does not esteem one day above another, God will make him stand, and we should not judge another's servant, for no man should be your judged regarding Sabbaths, or other related holy days. Those that choose to go to church, you do a fine thing. Those that choose not to go to church, it would be better if you did, but it is not required. If you are weak, you could use the instruction. If you are strong, you could instruct others. So either way it is a good thing, and we don't want to forsake the assembling of ourselves because it is our opportunity to provoke one another to love. What day you go is not relevent. It's the spirit behind it; that you are going because you want to, wish to help others, wish to be an active member of a congregation, etc. Love and blessings, Ancient |
||||||
47 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 127093 | ||
Country Girl wrote: "The true authority in this dispensation as blessed by God Himself was given to His Son as stated in Matt 28:18. Thus, the whole NT is epitimized with the Supreme Perfect Example and High Priest of our Lord. Only His Words and those of His appointed representatives should be heeded, and NOT those of the OT prophets including Moses himself. Don't get me wrong, those men in the OT were good men. They tried their best but they didn't have 3 and half years of living and being with the Savior like the Apostles did. Those OT prophets didn't have the benefit and full empowerment of the Holy Spirit with Its Gift of Salvation in Its Full and Powerful measure." Fantastic Country Girl. That was an impressive and powerful statement. I am blessed to have read it. Ancient |
||||||
48 | Lucifer kicked out of heaven | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 127090 | ||
Hi Norm, This is what I think regarding Luke 10:18: I think, based on the contextual circumstances, that it's not out of the question that it was not a literal statement, but a jesting statement. Let me demonstrate what I mean if I am able and if God be willing to allow to me to do so adequately. Looking at the circumstances, Jesus had sent the disciples out ahead of him into all the cities where he was going to go and minister. [Luke 10:1-16] After doing as instructed, the disciples "returned with joy." They exclaim to him how all went well (paraphrased by the circumstances), and how that even the demons were subject to them. Jesus then, amidst their joy and excitement (for surely they were excited after doing what a man simply cannot do naturally) suddenly and stoically states a historical happening completely irrelevent to the situation, "I beeeehellld Saaatan fallllling like liiightninnng." Then he proceeds to spoil their mood by rebuking them for being joyful at their sucess, exclaiming that they should instead be happy that their names are written in the book of life. After this, HE rejoices greatly in the Holy Spirit. Personally, the 10:18 passage always seemed out of place to me when viewing it in this traditional way. What I see is that He is cutting up with them. They are joyful and excited, and so too is He joyful and excited for them. Imagine, if you will, a child and his bike. The father sends him outside to ride the bike, assuring him he will not fall. The child, being faithful, goes outside and rides, and upon coming back inside, excited and happy at having ridden the bike on his own for the first time, he says to his father, "I rode the bike! And I didn't even fall down!" The father then says to him, "The kid down the street fell off his bike. Do not be happy that you rode your bike. Be happy that you have a bike not to fall off of." No father would behave this way. He would instead be happy with the child and encourage him. "Good job! You did well! I have taught you how to ride a bike, and now you will never fall again. But be mindful that you don't go into the street. Knowing how to ride a bike doesn't protect you from the cars." So to look at 10:18 another way, by situation: The disciples return, joyful and excited, exclaiming, "Lord, even the demons were subject to us! It was amazing! You should have seen it!" Jesus, appreciating their joy, and joyful with them for their excitement as a father would be joyful for his excited child that just rode his bike, he says to them, "That's fantastic guys! You did good! You gave Satan a real boot in the jewels! Now you can SEE that I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and that nothing will injure you! But be mindful...! Although the spirits are subject you, and I'm greatly excited for you in that, the thing you should really be excited about is that your names are recorded in heaven. Nevertheless, you did well. Just focus on the things that matter." In other words, I see the statement of 10:18 as a circumstantial exclamation of praise for their accomplishment, not as a stoic statement of historical happening that has no real relevence to the situation. The traditional way of interpreting what's going on there sticks out like a sore thumb to me, and it doesn't fit the chronological factors of the fall. In regard to the fall, I think the issue is that we are all assuming there had to be one. The Bible doesn't actually say that. The serpent was cursed, but still stood before the throne, accusing us day and night, and it is plain that he was not bound in Hell, nor his angels. Besides Satan, there are lying spirits, spirits of calamity, and evil spirits of the Lord recorded in Samuel, Kings, Job, Zechariah, etc. If they were bound in Hell, what were they doing running amuck? Unless they had not fallen from heaven at all, and were being used to God's divine purpose, reserved to be punished at the coming of the Great Day of the Lord. I hear your thought, but it seems ambiguous to me. He fell from heaven, but hasn't been cast out. Did God only kick him out for the evening for coming home drunk? Know what I mean? I DO understand where you're going with it, but it doesn't seem logical. If he fell, but he can come back in, then he didn't really fall. As for the angels of Jude and 2nd Peter that are reserved under chains of darkness ... while the book is not cannon, this description is almost a direct quotation from the psuedopigraphic book of 1st Enoch, and referred to those angels that took the daughters of men to wife, creating the race of giants in the days before the flood. 1st Enoch describes them being bound for seventy generations until the time of their judgment. These are my thoughts on the matter of Luke 10:18. I'd love to discuss the theory in general more. Let us sharpen and edify one another. All my love, Ancient |
||||||
49 | Lucifer, Satan, Devil? | Is 14:12 | Ancient | 126998 | ||
EdB, I took time to look over your information and consider it. I also double-checked my references in case I was mistaken. You were right. The King James was written by 7(?) groups of Hebrew/Greek scholars of the time, commissioned by King James. The one I mistaken referred to was the Catholic bible translated to English only a few years earlier (1603ish) from the Latin Vulgate. Now, I was of the impression that the Strong's dictionary with the best of Vines included was a good lexicon. If you say it is not, I will take your word for it and ask if you can recommend a good Hebrew/Greek lexicon that will be both reliable and easy to use so I can do more accurate word studies? (ISBN number included in the recommendation would be a fantastic help). Now, the "shining one" versus "morning star" is a confusing issue. If it translates in its most literal sense as "shining one," why is it being rendered as "morning star" in all of the major translations? I do see what you are saying and why. This is why I am confused. Should it not be translated as "Shining One" if that is what the word truly translates to? Or is this "Shining One" a word/phrase that was used perhaps as an epithet for the planet Venus, much like lucifer is used for the planet Venus while it retains the literal definition of "Light Bearer?" Hope to hear from you soon. Ancient |
||||||
50 | why are so many defying Gods word | Lev 18:22 | Ancient | 126997 | ||
matronsgt13, I don't agree with the tolerance our country has sunk into any more than you do, but you must always keep in mind that religious freedom was designed to protect us from the spiritually corrupt that have been placed into positions of power. True Christianity, if practiced by all, would create an absolute Utopia, but when you add the elements of corruption to it and place absolute control in the grasp of this corruption, the result is terror. Just a few examples would be the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the stories of Scarlet Letters, sins forgiven by paid indulgences, etc. The list goes on. The religious freedom we have gives us the right to worship, but frees us from the corruption in the church. We have a right to speak our mind if someone is wrong or corrupt. We have a right to leave. With this right comes also the right to not worship at all, and the right to be homosexual. I do not agree with homosexuality. I think the Bible is quite clear on the subject. But it's a small price to pay to live in a nation that gives me the freedom to believe. In the end, God will judge those that are worthy of his judgment. Homosexuals being married does not affect my walk with God, however much I disagree with it. Ancient |
||||||
51 | Lucifer kicked out of heaven | Bible general Archive 2 | Ancient | 126996 | ||
LSmith, There was never an angel named Lucifer. This word is a Latin word that means "light-bearer," and was, in the second century, taught by Origen in "The First Principles" to be the "identification" of an opposing power (though he quoted it more than specified it as a name) that rose up in rebellion against God. The passage this theory comes from is Isaiah chapter 14, but many scholars are in agreement that the prophetic statements are referring to the fallen king of Babylon. Another passage often used to describe the fall (though the person in question is not called Lucifer here) is Ezekiel chapter 28. These prophetic statements are of the same ilk. Other scripture, if carefully observed, will show that this passage, too, is relating to the stated subject of the passage; the king of Tyrus. The only clear reference we have to Satan being kicked out of heaven is in Revelation chapter 12. Here, the dragon is identified as being the devil and Satan, and at the conclusion of a battle between himself and his angels against Michael and the host of heaven, he is finally cast down to the earth. The events of these happenings, based upon the earlier passages of this same Revelation chapter 12, relate this event as taking place after the ascension of Christ. The woman, commonly recognized by many as being Israel, brings forth a manchild that will rule all nations with a rod of iron. If you search the scriptures, you will find that Jesus is the one commonly spoken of as being ordained to rule in such a manner. Then this woman's child is caught up to God and to his throne. The woman flees into the wilderness, "and there was war in heaven." It is not my intent to provoke a discussion of premillenialism/preterism, but to address the question. According to the chronological order of events in Revelation 12, Satan falls after the ascension of Christ. If Revelation 12 deals with the future, as premillenialists hold to, then it hasn't happened yet, and perhaps the manchild is a symbolic reference to the church being taken up to God and his throne. If Revelation 12 is a forgone conclusion, then he fell after Christ ascended. Either way, I haven't read anything to positively conclude that Satan fell before the creation of man. All other scriptures indicate that he still spoke with God, and that he was "going to be" punished in the Great Day of the Lord. See Isaiah 26:16-27:1 for a comparison to Revelation chapter 12. The two correlate well. Thanks for your patience. This, as always regarding Revelation based topics, is my view according to what I have seen, not absolute fact. I hope I was able to edify you. Ancient |
||||||
52 | Millions led by Satan equal Goat Nations | Rev 20:8 | Ancient | 126993 | ||
lastday, you wrote: [Ancient, Thank you for the encouragement. Mel Miller] Any time brother. We should uphold one another, and I don't believe that this only refers to upholding in weakness, but in strength as well. Love to you, Ancient |
||||||
53 | Superior Hope | Heb 11:40 | Ancient | 126992 | ||
Country Girl, I am in agreement with you. As opposed to the Old Testament being a valid covenant, the New Testament scripture clearly states time and again that we are not under the Law (Law of Moses/Old Covenant). Do we all continue to go to school once we've received the sought after degree? The Law, by comparison, was the professor of Righteousness and Redeption 101. Christ came and gave us our degree. [Galatians 3:24-25] Now we are professors of Perfection and Purity 201. Use math as an example of how the law works and where it falls into our current usage. In practical life, we take basic math, moved up to advanced math, and eventually undertake the difficult tasks of geometry, trigonometry, and calculus. While learning basic math, we struggle to grasp the concepts. We are young, and our minds have trouble wrapping around the idea. In time, though, we learn what our teachers were trying to impart. When our studies lead us as far as trigonometry and calculus, we still use basic math! But basic math is not a thing we think about. It is something that is deeply ingrained, and something we just understand. Half the time I don't even think about why 12 plus 12 is 24 anymore. It just is. I understand why it is, but could no more explain it to a child than I could explain the complexities of why the sky is blue. I just understand it and apply it to the practical application of calculus. It is the calculus I am trying to understand instead of the basic math, in other words. Basic math still has its place, but it is not something I need to focus on in light of the far superior methods of higher calculation. The irony of the Law and the New Covenant of Jesus Christ is that it all worked in the reverse order of my above example. It started with calculus and ended with basic math. We had laws for everything under the sun, including not muzzling the ox, not tripping the blind, not going back for every grape, etc. There were also variables, like "just in case" sacrifices for those that think they "might" have sinned. Defining the full extent of the law was in all ways an impossible task. This is the reason we all failed, just as a first grader would have failed at calculus. Then came Jesus, the amazing mathematician, who looked at the whole thing, knew the pattern inherently, and said, "you know what people, this calculation, when fully solved, equates to 1 plus 1 equals 2." The equation of the Law, represented by the Old Covenant, is equivelent to 1 plus 1 equals 2. Love God with all your mind, heart, soul, and strength plus Love your neighbor as yourself equals the fulfillment of the Law which is the solution to the equation. Now that we have been reduced to basic math, we no longer need to fear error. In all the equations of life, 1 plus 1 is going to equal 2. "This person is doing this to me. What is the solution? I will look to God and love this person as myself, and this is the correct solution to my problem." "Is this thing I am inclined to do a sin? Since I don't know, let me break out my equation breaker. Does this thing go against loving God? Does this thing go against loving my neighbor? Okay then ... Love plus Love equals fulfilled. Problem solved." The Old Testament, in short, has not really gone away, but it is no longer relevent. We couldn't grasp the lessons of the complicated math, so we were given the simple solution to summarize it. Now that we have the answer, this solution is all encompassing, and we have no real need to go back to complicated math, except as a matter of higher learning to better understand the simple but absolute solution to the complicated equation. All scripture is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. [2 Tim 3:16-17] If you put yourself back under the law (i.e. try to solve the equation yourself instead of accepting the simple solution given), you are doomed to failure. They couldn't figure out the solution, and neither can we. Jesus gave us the solution, so let us trust in his math skills. These are my casual thoughts on the subject. If you wish deeper discussion, I'll gladly oblige. There is a great deal more I can say to further support this scriptural truth. Love to you sister, Ancient |
||||||
54 | Skeletons of evolution? False? | Genesis | Ancient | 126990 | ||
Hi Angel. I'm glad I was able to give some good edification. There is a little joke/story I heard, and I found it amusing. Perhaps some of you might also find it so. "It is said that scientists spend their whole lives searching for the answers. They search the stars, cross the seas, and delve to the bottoms of the oceans. In all things, they refuse to accept God as a constant parameter in their equations and regard Him instead as a floating variable, assigned the wrong value time and again. But when all their research is done, they finally confront the tallest mountain, and having searched high and low, they know that the answer lies just on the other side. To both their shock and dismay, as they crest the peak and view the valley beyond, behold, it is the city of the theologians that had been there for a thousand years, waiting with open arms." I heard that story and got a laugh. Love to you, Ancient |
||||||
55 | Millions led by Satan equal Goat Nations | Rev 20:8 | Ancient | 126949 | ||
I'm sorry lastday, I don't want to converse with you on this. Like you, many over the years believed they had it all figured out in regard to the Revelation. I am not God to say beyond all doubt that you have not figured it out, but I have my reservations about theories suspect of speculation. There isn't a generation gone by that didn't think they were living in the end times, and this goes all the way back to the Apostles themselves who told everyone that the hour was at hand. I don't know the answer, and I don't care to speculate about it if you are fanatical. I'm sorry to offend. I just wanted to give you a little praise for your hard work. We all need a pat on the back now and then. Thank you for responding. May God keep you well. Ancient |
||||||
56 | Loud Mouthed Christian: Help! | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126917 | ||
Sunday1, I have three possible answers for you having dealt with a situation just like this before. 1) Try the spirits. Consider the possibility that she's telling the truth, and learn what you can. If it so happens that she really is gifted by God, perhaps you aren't listening. Be careful also not to ridicule the Spirit of God if that is in fact the case. Again, try the spirits. If what she says is sound, then maybe she's being truthful, however irritating it might be. If some of what she says does not conform to the doctrine of Christ, rebuke her sharply, with sound, contextual scripture, and tell her plainly that she is mistaken. Hear no more on the subject so she will get the point. 2) With a spirit of love, endure all things, be patient, kind, and longsuffering. If this thing makes her happy, endure it for her sake. If she is bothering everyone around her, try option number three. 3) Prov 26:3 "A whip is for the horse, a bridle for the donkey, And a rod for the back of fools." In other words, stop beating around the bush trying to be nice about it. If she's driving people away, or saying things she ought not to, tell her plainly to be quiet. Don't request. The time is past for that if you are on this option. Tell her to be quiet. This will hurt her feelings, so it is the least desirable option, but when all else fails, this is sometimes the only thing that will work. Sometimes it takes the shock of having your feelings hurt to wake you up to what you're doing. The liklihood is high that despite all the admonitions she's received, she hasn't gotten the point that she's irritating people. She probably doesn't believe it to be so. This is the reason for the shock. Few people ever humble themselves or learn humility. They are humbled and learn humiliation. My options are not the only ones out there. If they can be of help, I'm glad to be of assistance. Ancient |
||||||
57 | Loud Mouthed Christian: Help! | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126916 | ||
Let's not forget that while we are preserving our holy meat and holding back our pearls, we are also supposed to go into all the world and make disciples of all men. You are absolutely right in saying that we should shake the dust off our sandals if they won't hear us, but we have a duty to try. Ezekiel 3:17-19 "Son of man (by context speaking to Ezekiel here), I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself." Ancient |
||||||
58 | Loud Mouthed Christian: Help! | 1 Cor 13:1 | Ancient | 126915 | ||
Let's not forget that while we are preserving our holy meat and holding back our pearls, we are also supposed to go into all the world and make disciples of all men. You are absolutely right in saying that we should shake the dust off our sandals if they won't hear us, but we have a duty to try. Ezekiel 3:17-19 "Son of man (by context speaking to Ezekiel here), I have appointed you a watchman to the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from My mouth, warn them from Me. When I say to the wicked, 'You will surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to warn the wicked from his wicked way that he may live, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet if you have warned the wicked and he does not turn from his wickedness or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered yourself." Ancient |
||||||
59 | Where is God? | 1 John | Ancient | 126914 | ||
1st John 4:7-12 "Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. By this the love of God was manifested in us, that God has sent His only begotten Son into the world so that we might live through Him. In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." John 13:34-35 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." John 14:21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him." 1st John 2:7 "Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word which you have heard." ... 1st John 3:23-24 "This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us. The one who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. We know by this that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He has given us." Love those around you with sincere love, and you will both know and feel the presence of God in your life. 1 Peter 1:22-25 "Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart ... And this is the word which was preached to you." Ancient |
||||||
60 | Millions led by Satan equal Goat Nations | Rev 20:8 | Ancient | 126909 | ||
Wow, Lastday! That's a great theory. You've spent a lot of time on this, it would seem. Commendable effort. I am of a different opinion, but I see you are working hard to understand the mysteries. Myself, I am of a preterist view. I reckon the seven-headed beast to the Roman Emperors, the woman to Israel, and her child as being the Christ, or some representation of Him. I see the number of the name as Nero Caesar, while also recognizing him as the king that was currently in power. There are a lot of interesting thoughts to the preterist view, and it is worth investigating. Premillenialist advocates view Preterism as impossible because of their interpretations, and Preterists view Premillenialism as impossible for the same reason. Neither side has ever been able to convincingly argue their view. The debate has raged for at least 1500 years. Whichever way you look at it, you are still doing well in that you are seeking knowledge and mystery. Just remember, fear of the end is not the way to bring people to Christ. Many fire and brimstone preachers like to scare people into being Christians, but God is love. Perfect love casts out all fear, because fear is torment. Again, good job on the work you've put into your studies, but I would humbly advise that you keep this sort of information amongst believers. Love is the best way to win new souls. This was the message of Christ, and it drew multitudes. Ancient |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |