Results 61 - 80 of 80
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Stultis the Fool Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126714 | ||
According to the simple dynamics of what I see, if there was no "opportunity" to sin, then he wasn't really tempted. It's like tempting a eunich with female companionship, if you catch my drift. He has no need or desire for it, but a normal man does. How can we have a high priest that sympathizes with our weakness and has been tempted in all things as we are if he isn't subject to the same temptation in the same exact capacity? A person that has just eaten is not going to be tempted by food. A eunich, as stated before, can't be tempted by women. If he were not in a temptable state, then he can't sympathize with us. Nor can he choose to resist what is not, in truth, a genuine temptation. Therefore, if he is tempted, he has opportunity. At the moment of temptation, he chose to say no. Because of this, having been tempted of the devil, having resisted temptation, having declined to sin given opportunity and desire to do so, he kept himself separated from sin by not doing it. Now, your first paragraph, I'm wondering: Are you trying to suggest the age-old "Original Sin" concept? I hope this does not have to become a debatable subject, but I am strongly of the opinion that sin is something that has to be comitted. Scripture says that if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, but it also says that "all have sinned" and fallen short of the glory of God. You have to do sin to have sin. It's not automatic, else we will have to go back to the days of St. Augustine and start baptizing children so they won't go to hell if they die in infancy. |
||||||
62 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126710 | ||
It is hermenueticaly sound to compare Paul (a first century Pharisee living in Jerusalem with other Pharisees) with Josephus (a first century Pharisee living in Jerusalem with other Pharisees). Also, I aknowledge that if we don't understand "the literal creation," then we are lost without a foundation. However, the "litteral creation," as written by Moses, is viewed as alegorical by at least 2 direct sources, including the Author of Hebrews, and the historian and hebrew pharisee Josephus. It is also completely unreasonable to deny that appart from understanding of "the literal creation," that there is possibility of allegory designed specifically (and all scripture is "inspired") for our understanding. |
||||||
63 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126704 | ||
You wrote: "there was no sin nature in him" This, if I understand your statement, is incorrect. I agree that the Christ did not sin, but I argue that he had every opportunity to sin. That is why he endured temptation. If he could not choose to sin, there would be no temptation following his forty days fast in the wilderness, nor a temptation to flee his course when Peter (Satan) told him never to go to Jerusalem. If I misunderstand your statement, then I appologize. |
||||||
64 | why are discussions restricted | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126692 | ||
I still don't understand what is in debate here... | ||||||
65 | Consequences of premarital sex? | 1 Cor 6:16 | Stultis the Fool | 126624 | ||
Interesting thoughts... interesting to see this opinion somewhere else. | ||||||
66 | 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? | ||||||
67 | 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. |
||||||
68 | Is my assessment of them wrong? | Matt 18:6 | Stultis the Fool | 126471 | ||
Sorry... I replied to wrong thread! | ||||||
69 | 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. | ||||||
70 | 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! | ||||||
71 | 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. |
||||||
72 | 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. | ||||||
73 | Jesus speaks as the archangel? | 1 Thess 4:16 | Stultis the Fool | 126054 | ||
I feel foolish... the word is "accepted," and not excepted! | ||||||
74 | Where does the Bible SAY that? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126034 | ||
It is important to note, and this is posted elsewhere, that many things have passed from the Law (much more, anyway, than a jot or tittle). There are no more sacrifices, there is no more observance of the traditional holidays, there is no longer tithe paid to the Levites, there is no selection of a high priest, no more scapegoat, circumcision, burning of incense, offerings of grain, rituals of purification following childbirth, nocturnal emission, leprosy etc. The list goes on... Any reconciliation MUST incorporate the fact that more than a jot or tittle has passed from the Law. Additionaly, do not casually dismiss Ephesians 2:15; it clearly states that the Law of commandments as well as the ordanances against us were abolished. Also consider Hebrews 8:13 "When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." I would like to point out here that the word appearing in Mathew 5:17 [abolish] is not the same word present in Ephesians 2:15 [abolish]. In fact, the word present in Mathew is KATALUO, which translated is Demolish, Destroy, Disintegrate. The word in Ephesians is KATARGEO, which translated is "to render useless," Abolish. I assure you that Christ did not Destroy the Law, as it is the guideline by which all who DO NOT know Christ are judged. However, for those that are Christian, the Law is of no value: it is abolished. Paul says "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" [Galatians 5:4], and again "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" [Galatians 2:21], and again "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" [Romans 10:4] and again "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God" [Romans 7:4]. |
||||||
75 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126033 | ||
Ray, to clarify, Read 1 John 4:8... "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." That is probably as straight-forward as it gets. Also, 2 Timothy 1:7... "For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline." Additionaly, I capitolize here on this forum and also in correspondance as a matter of courtesy to the reader. |
||||||
76 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125959 | ||
You are quite accurate in your perception. In 1 John 3:6, the "Persons" concerned are those abiding in God. "If we are born of the Spirit then we are children of God and we practice righteousness and we love our brother. I believe that is the point that "Got it" has made and that this 1 John passage is about." This is absolutely correct. Continue reading, particularly verse 4:7 through 4:17. You will see that God is Love, and thus, if the Spirit abides in us, the Spirit of Love abides in us. If we love, then we abide in God, and God abides in us, and his love is perfected in us [4:17]. If we abide in God, we are not sinning. Thus, those who love do not sin, but those who do not love are wicked. Just as it was the love of God that brought Christ to us [John 3:16], it is that same love that brings us to him [1John 4:12-13]. |
||||||
77 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125928 | ||
I am affraid you are confusing what I am saying with a false teaching. I in no way advocate a Christian should depart from the commands of our Lord... I do, however, advocate observing the commandment of Christ, [evidenced John 14:15,21,24 and others] and that commandment being that we are to love one another [John 15:12, others]. I believe "total depravity", if I follow your connotation, to be of little or no use against the flesh [Colossians 2:23]. As far as popular doctrine goes, popularity, in my opinion, neither makes sound doctrine nor debunks/rebukes plain scripture. The truth does not depend upon popular opinion. As to "In your opinion, stultis, when Christ said to do what the pharisees said to do, He didn't mean it?" I cannot descern wether you are in a quandry or mocking me. I am most definately saying that we are not to behave as hypocrites, and Christ declared the Pharisees "hypocrites" MANY times (20 or so KJV). I am arguing that we should not sin, as it is contrary to God. Christ stipulates to forgiven sinners that they are to "go forth and sin no more." I choose to abide in Christ, and as such, I reject sin. My master is righteousness, and I am no longer a slave to sin. We can serve only one master. Ought I to do what men say, or what God says? Please, expound more upon your question. | ||||||
78 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125902 | ||
Christ speaks a number of teachings from the cross, his last being "It is finished." [John 19:30]. He also tells us that he came to "fullfill the Law." Either he completed all his tasks as appointed, or he did not. His own words testify to his accomplishment of all that he was charged with. | ||||||
79 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125901 | ||
Following Him Your refference to 1 John 1:8 and 1:9 is very ambiguous... If we are cleansed of all unrighteousness, do we still have sin? This same book (1 John) proclaims that a believer cannot sin... If this holds true, there is no ambiguity in verses 1:8 and 9. If not, verses 1:8 and 9 are blatantly contradictory. Are you certain that this portion of the letter is directed to a believer? Or is it written to someone who needs to confess and be "CLEANSED" from "ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS?" Either the one holds true or the other... we are either forever sinners and Liars or we are forever cleansed from all unrighteousness. Which of the two makes sense with the rest of the letter? It seems that in context we confess our sins, we are forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness, and we will not and cannot sin. |
||||||
80 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125900 | ||
The "Law" is a burden too great to bear, and as CHRISTIANS we are not responsible for keeping It. [see Acts chapter 15 for context] On the other hand, as Christians, we are absolutely responsible for keeping the commandments of Christ [John 14:15,21,24]. Christ's commandment is summed up nicely (by Christ) in John 15:12, though you will find it written in many places in the scriptures. Christ commandment is a burden "easy" to bear [Mathew 11:30], and also FULLFILLS ALL THE LAW [Galatians 5:14]. When Christ tells us to be more righteous than the Pharisees, he is chastising the Pharisees. He tells us that the appearant righteousness of the Pharisees is outward and not true. He tells us the Pharisees are like tombs... white outside and full of rot and stink within. He also tells us to "beware the leaven of the Pharisees". The Pharisees are a suitable example of how we, as Christians, are NOT to behave. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] |