Results 481 - 500 of 559
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Wild Olive Shoot Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
481 | cursing? | Luke 6:28 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154504 | ||
What are xtians?? Well, based on a previous response given to the same question, the "x" represents CHI. So I think the reference is to chitians? Your guess is as good as mine. WOS |
||||||
482 | What Bible says on marriage of relatives | Gen 28:2 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154469 | ||
Sarah was Terah's daughter. But Terah was Abraham's father, not his brother. Genesis 11:26 Terah lived seventy years, and became the father of Abram, Nahor and Haran. Abraham and Sarah were siblings from the same father. Genesis 20:12 "Besides, she actually is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother, and she became my wife; WOS |
||||||
483 | How does God speak to us? | Heb 1:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154299 | ||
One would think that “reasonable” men of God would be discerning enough to see that the “faithful and discreet slave class” has been neither faithful nor discreet after their numerous failed and basically unsupported predictions. Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (NASB) 20'But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.' 21"You may say in your heart, 'How will we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?' 22"When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. WOS |
||||||
484 | How does God speak to us? | Heb 1:1 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154287 | ||
Greg Laurie writes the following: In America today, we have something that could be described as a new spirituality. It's a revival of sorts—not in the biblical sense of people turning to God, but a revival of all kinds of ancient and weird spiritual concepts and beliefs. People are spiritually hungry. They are searching for truth. And the problem is, some of this strange theology is finding its way into the church. We must be very careful to keep our guard up. Don't forget that when the devil misled Eve in the Garden, he did it with partial truth. He did not question God's Word altogether. Rather, he questioned if Eve properly understood it. We must be careful of the deviant teachings that are out there today. So often when a new teaching comes along, we will get excited: a new revelation! I hope this won't disappoint you, but there aren't any new revelations. Everything you need to know about God is already written in His Book. As it has been said, if it's true, it isn't new. And if it's new, it isn't true. So don't go looking for new revelations. Spend your time instead in learning God's Word, and He will bring fresh understanding of it. Years ago, the great thinker C. S. Lewis warned us, "If you do not listen to theology, that will not mean that you have no ideas about God. It will mean that you have a lot of wrong ones." I think this is especially important today. We need to know what Jesus said. We need to know what the truth is. We need to pay attention to doctrine. Copyright © 2005 by Harvest Ministries. All rights reserved. |
||||||
485 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154237 | ||
I do not "believe" that I am a Christian. I know. Big difference. Have a nice day. |
||||||
486 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154190 | ||
Javelin, My friend, first of all, you accuse me of being “anti-tongue”. If you would take a little time to look into my posts on this forum, you would see that in fact, I am not. Ref. Post number (148377). The fact of the matter is, I still debate the gift of tongues with myself. I believe they still exist, but are used in this day and age in an improper manner and that if truth be told, many who claim this experience, are falsely testifying. That being said, I would like to address just a few things in your post because quite frankly, some of it is”hogwash”… You stated: “Kennyittis, again if true, recounted his personal experience. Who the hey are you to say, as so many others here, that it is "not from God" since tongues is long passed" ??!!” I never said that at all. I don’t believe I even addressed Kennyittis and his post. My debate was with elektos and the sources he used to support his position on tongues. We addressed that, he and I, and have come to the conclusion to peacefully disagree. I also asked Brenda to use scriptural evidence for her claim. But I don’t think I addressed Kennyittis. You then stated: “"How can you know? Where you there? Do you know what the words he uttered mean?" no, so what - your questions apply to you as well.” I was not there. Again, I never told Kennyittis that his vision was Godly or not. But how can you honestly give him the reassurance that it was? You can’t and therefore should not have. What if the source of his vision was not from God? Should he continue down the road you suggested? Statements like that can be very detrimental to someone when you offer them and haven’t the full facts of the case. You need to check yourself in the pattern of offering irresponsible and rash advise. The devil will fool even the elect if he could. Since you don’t know the basis of Kennyittis’ vision, you cannot possibly affirm that it was from God. You then state: “I simply believe the witness and make the correlation with clear scripture.” That is all the BradK asked you for. Frankly, until you can offer some biblical support, what you post is your opinion and rather dismissible because we all know what worldly wisdom and opinions can offer. Back up what you state with Scripture. It is quite simple really. You then offered this: “"Thus, how do you perceive to know it was from God?" - mere analysis of his description of the event. How do you or anyone else for that matter, perceive to know it was not from God? How does anyone know anything about what any witness says?” Go back to Kennyittis’ post. He never confirmed the vision was from God. What he said was this: “i believe i had a vision”. So he wasn’t sure if it was even a vision. But according to you, it was and it was from God. Very dangerous assumption my friend, unless, God has spoken to you as well and informed you of such. I’ll leave this discussion as I have left others that will not be productive. Christ be with you, and maybe we can discuss other issues in a more peaceful manner. WOS P.S. Just a word of caution, there are many on this forum and simply all around who do use Scripture to support their views that tongues have ceased. They offer very well rounded, scriptural evidence. If you intend to debate that, I would suggest you yourself do the same. |
||||||
487 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154182 | ||
You say "Q2. did i speak in tongues? A. yes" How can you know? Where you there? Do you know what the words he uttered mean? Maybe then, you can share with and so edify the rest of us. If Kennyittis has no understanding of the word, how does it edify him? Thus, how do you perceive to know it was from God? WOS |
||||||
488 | DOES GOING 2 CHURCH SAVE U? | Acts 16:31 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154181 | ||
What are "xtians"??? WOS |
||||||
489 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154151 | ||
I stand by my assessment of what you placed in type on this forum and pray that you will see how quoting those you did, can be harmful and what you posted did not, from an entirely Christian standpoint, uphold the truths of God’s word, simply based on their origin. Far be it from me to allow myself to continue in an unproductive debate or discussion, so I'll end my participation at this point and look forward to discussing another topic with you in the future. Christ be with you. WOS |
||||||
490 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154150 | ||
I stand by my assessment of what you placed in type on this forum and pray that you will see how quoting those you did, can be harmful and what you posted did not, from an entirely Christian standpoint, uphold the truths of God’s word, simply based on their origin. Far be it from me to allow myself to continue in an unproductive debate or discussion, so I'll end my participation at this point and look forward to discussing another topic with you in the future. Christ be with you. WOS |
||||||
491 | Is it sin to not have children? | Bible general Archive 2 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154123 | ||
Here are a couple links that may assist you with the answer you seek. http://www.gotquestions.org/should-I-have-children.html http://www.gotquestions.org/birth-control.html WOS |
||||||
492 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154049 | ||
In my opinion, you used the writings of Reitzenstein, Philos and Celsus to support and uphold your view of what one will endure while under the influence of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues, am I mistaken on that point? My friend, even if what they claim is truth, the source of it is still evil, as their claims and teachings and lives were and are contrary to the Word of God. It would be similar in practice mind you, of what Paul experienced with the slave girl in Acts 16:16-18. Evil, in all cases, corrupts the truth. “Satan, though the father of lies, will declare the most important truths, when he can thereby serve his purposes. But much mischief is done to the real servants of Christ, by unholy and false preachers of the gospel, who are confounded with them by careless observers.” – Matthew Henry However, we know that those you quoted speak not the truth and when you use them and their reasoning to support your position, your witness is corrupt, no matter how true you perceive it to be. It would serve everyone better if you would stick to using Biblical evidence in support of a particular position and extra-biblical support from persons known or proven as being of God, those whose teachings are aligned with God’s Word. Your “main ingredient” means nothing when supported and upheld by un-godly reasoning. And thank you, but I don’t think it is necessary for any of us, the need to “study” Philo and Celsus. And bear in mind, when you use their positions to uphold any teaching, you give credit to and condone what they say as being factual. Just a word of caution I guess. WOS |
||||||
493 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154041 | ||
Well of course it was your quote… “” The Greek papyri furnish us with an abundance of magical formulas couched in unintelligible terms (e.g. Pap. Lond., 121, “Iao, eloai, marmarachada, menepho, mermai, ieor, aeio, erephie, pherephio,” etc.), which are not infrequently connected with an ecstatic state (e.g. Reitzenstein, “Poimandres”, 53-58).” Poimandres is of course the most famous of the Hermetic writings, so I read. And then your subsequent follow up that defended the position and attempted to lessen the severity while condoning such a position with… “Hermeticism is that which treats some universal principles. Hermeticism does not always indicate sorcery. Only in today's culture is this term held to its worst degree.” You also go on to quote Philo and then even Celsus, who by the way, thought Jesus was no more than a bastard from his mothers adulteress affair with a soldier, who acquired certain magical powers while in Egypt and used them to project Himself as being God. Why would you even use writings from those individuals in attempting to “Biblically” support the gift of tongues or anything else for that matter? WOS |
||||||
494 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 154036 | ||
Your answer may clear things up for some, but I must confess, it infuriates me to no end. The below is taken from Hermetic web-sites. Tell me, which of this, if any, is Biblical? I’ll have you know, not once in the sites I searched did I see reference to Christ as our Lord and Savior. So I ask you, is he yours? If your answer is in the affirmative then I pray you’ll rethink your position on Hermeticism. WOS From: www.hermetics.com Webster dictionary: her.met.ic also her.met.i.cal adj NL hermeticus, fr. Hermet-, Hermes Trismegistus (1605) 1 often cap a: of or relating to the Gnostic writings or teachings arising in the first three centuries a.d. and attributed to Hermes Trismegistus b: relating to or characterized by occultism or abstruseness: recondite 2 fr. the belief that Hermes Trismegistus invented a magic seal to keep vessels airtight a: airtight seal b: impervious to external influence trapped inside the military machine -Jack Newfield c: recluse, solitary leads a life - her.met.i.cal.ly adv Oxford illustrated Dictionary second edition: Hermes: (-z). 1. (Greek Myth) Son of Zeus and Maia; represented as messenger of the gods, god of science, commerce, eloquence, etc., identified by the Romans with Mercury, and represented as a youth with winged rod(caduceus), brimmed hat (petasus), and winged shoes (talaria). 2.Trismegistus (thrice-greatest), name given by Neo-Platonists etc. to Egyptian god Thoth, regarded as author of all mysterious doctrines and esp. of secret of alchemy. From: www.hermetics.org Essentially, Hermeticism is the ancient philosophy, theory and practice of the inner secrets of man, nature and spirit. It's origins are lost in the mists of prehistory. Its revivals in the Hellenistic, Renaissance and modern times have often been pale reflections of its real nature. Though much of its records are lost, it has re-risen from the flames like the Phoenix under many different guises. Fragments of this great primal teaching are distributed throughout the world. Hermes Trismegistus, its legendary founder, has been called the originator of writing, the sciences and arts, as well as the patron of esoteric teachings and magick. He has been equated as one and the same as Tehuti, Thoth, Enoch and Idris, among many other spiritual teachers at the dawn of human history. Hermetic teachings have been transmitted through a long line of masters and teachers throughout the ages. Its survival throughout the ages has been accomplished by means of guardians of the holy mysteries. These guardians have emerged from time to time to disclose precious fragments of these timeless teachings. Voltaire was of the opinion that Abraham descended from some of the numerous Brahman priests who left India to spread their teachings throughout the world; and in support of his thesis he presented the following elements: the similarity of names and the fact that the city of Ur, land of the patriarchs, was near the border of Persia, the road to India, where that Brahman had been born. HERMETICISM is the scientific, philosophic, religious and social synthesis of the past, present and will be, without doubt, that of the future. The theologian, philosopher,the savant, doctor, moralist or sociologist should make the effort to study occultism where alone they will find together with the best solutions to theological, cosmological, anthropological and sociological enigmas, as well as the elements which will revivify their current knowledge, and how to regenerate the human body and soul and of the whole of society. As for those who are tormented by the deeply anguishing problem of life after death, they will be soon understand through exposure to our doctrines, we hope, the rational certitude through experience of the immortality of their conscious and spiritual principle, they will understand that Divinity wants the best for all its creatures, and that the Heaven, Purgatory and Hell of the naïve theologians are nothing more than the physical and moral situations in which our soul finds itself throughout the course of its eternal career . They will know that Reincarnation, taught in the ancient mystery schools, just as it was in the original Christian Church, and in modern initiations is one of the multiple means employed by the Sovereign Bounty (or Supreme Good), in order to hasten the animical, intellectual and spiritual evolution of each one of us. They will see that man works out unceasingly through the conditions, which must preside over successive lives in time and space. They will recognize that human beings are all united to each other not only in actions, but also in words and above all in thought. It is by these means that they will prepare consciously the Coming on Earth of the True Fraternity and of the Reign of the Holy Spirit, or of Science allied to Faith, of Reason united to Intuition, a lasting and celestial fusion which the Feast of Pentecost symbolizes so well." |
||||||
495 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 153983 | ||
Hermeticism is biblical??? | ||||||
496 | tongues | Eph 4:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 153850 | ||
I for one would like to see some scriptural support for that answer. Where did you come up with that? WOS |
||||||
497 | Such thing as a choice? | Eccl 6:10 | Wild Olive Shoot | 153174 | ||
Tim, If you would, read the following commentary concerning Jonah 3:9,10. I would like to get your views on it. Not trying to fan the flames of this discussion, I just see some valid points in the commentary that, for me anyhow, shed light on your statements. 9. Who can tell--(Compare Joe 2:14 ). Their acting on a vague possibility of God's mercy, without any special ground of encouragement, is the more remarkable instance of faith, as they had to break through long-rooted prejudices in giving up idols to seek Jehovah at all. The only ground which their ready faith rested on, was the fact of God sending one to warn them, instead of destroying them at once; this suggested the thought of a possibility of pardon. Hence they are cited by Christ as about to condemn in the judgment those who, with much greater light and privileges, yet repent not ( Mat 12:41 ). 10. God repented of the evil--When the message was sent to them, they were so ripe for judgment that a purpose of destruction to take effect in forty days was the only word God's righteous abhorrence of sin admitted of as to them. But when they repented, the position in which they stood towards God's righteousness was altered. So God's mode of dealing with them must alter accordingly, if God is not to be inconsistent with His own immutable character of dealing with men according to their works and state of heart, taking vengeance at last on the hardened impenitent, and delighting to show mercy on the penitent. Compare Abraham's reasoning, Gen 18:25 Eze 18:21-25 Jer 18:7-10 . What was really a change in them and in God's corresponding dealings is, in condescension to human conceptions, represented as a change in God (compare Exd 32:14 ), who, in His essential righteousness and mercy, changeth not ( Num 23:19 1Sa 15:29 Mal 3:6 Jam 1:17 ). The reason why the announcement of destruction was made absolute, and not dependent on Nineveh's continued impenitence, was that this form was the only one calculated to rouse them; and at the same time it was a truthful representation of God's purpose towards Nineveh under its existing state, and of Nineveh's due. When that state ceased, a new relation of Nineveh to God, not contemplated in the message, came in, and room was made for the word to take effect, "the curse causeless shall not come" [FAIRBAIRN]. Prophecy is not merely for the sake of proving God's omniscience by the verification of predictions of the future, but is mainly designed to vindicate God's justice and mercy in dealing with the impenitent and penitent respectively ( Rom 11:22 ). The Bible ever assigns the first place to the eternal principles of righteousness, rooted in the character of God, subordinating to them all divine arrangements. God's sparing Nineveh, when in the jaws of destruction, on the first dawn of repentance encourages the timid penitent, and shows beforehand that Israel's doom, soon after accomplished, is to be ascribed, not to unwillingness to forgive on God's part, but to their own obstinate impenitence. Jamieson, Robert; A.R. Fausset; and David Brown. "The Book of Jonah." Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible. Blue Letter Bible. 19 Feb 2000. 27 Jun 2005. http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/Jon/Jon003.html. From my lay perspective, the book of Jonah, taken as a whole, puts forth the sovereignty of God in such a way that it cannot be overlooked. As Nineveh deserved judgment and Jonah was at first reluctant, God first broke the will of Jonah and then used him, or the message through him, to break the will of Nineveh, all to the purpose of His eternal plan. Indicative in the last chapter, God is in full control and will carry out His will in order to carry out His eternally perfect plan in light of all human wisdom and emotions. As the will of Jonah was bent, so was the will of Nineveh and God acted in accordance with His known nature. They came to faith and repented and God showed His mercy. That’s no different than what we face today. Our faith is established in Christ or we are old that we will face judgment. God is not changing in that premise, we are. His plan is unchangeable and will be carried out regardless of whether or not we believe, we are told in advance of what we will face one way or the other. I for one am fearful if our all-powerful God’s plan can change based on the whims of man. If that be true, where is our security found in the rest of God’s Word, in our salvation? Don’t get me wrong Brother Tim, I see your point as well. However, I have a hard time understanding why an all-knowing God would need to change His mind. WOS |
||||||
498 | Such thing as a choice? | Eccl 6:10 | Wild Olive Shoot | 153109 | ||
Tim, Based on Jeremiah 18:7-10, don't you think that God acted in consistency with His Word concerning Ninevah at this point in time? Jeremiah 18: 7"At one moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to pull down, or to destroy it; 8if that nation against which I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on it. 9"Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant it; 10if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice, then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless it. He remained consistent as well, 150 years later, when He did carry out His judgment and destroy Ninevah as told in Nahum. That’s how I see it anyway. WOS |
||||||
499 | Such thing as a choice? | Eccl 6:10 | Wild Olive Shoot | 153054 | ||
Couldn't the conditioned be implied since it was not proclaimed? If God had meant to destroy Nineveh, would He have bothered to send Jonah forty days beforehand to issue the warning? He could have overthrown Nineveh without any warning as with Sodom, but decided to send a messenger to them instead. If God was unwilling to forgive and chose to destroy without an opportunity of pardon, would He have bothered to send Jonah in the first place? WOS |
||||||
500 | Does a person who never hears about Jesu | Rom 2:14 | Wild Olive Shoot | 152243 | ||
Sorry Doc, I got your response too late. But I will do that, better late than never. Thank you. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ] Next > Last [28] >> |