Results 61 - 80 of 138
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: There Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25496 | ||
Martha, You said: I could never leave him, not even if I had a thousand Roman soldiers after me. I'm sure you feel the same way. Yes, I do. And it's a very safe and secure place to be... no matter how many Roman soldiers come at us. :) It truly did amaze me at first, that I was willing to give up anything and anyone to follow the Lord. I'd never had a conviction so strong before... it made me realize what Jesus meant in Matthew 10:34-39. In His love, |
||||||
62 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25558 | ||
Since Tim already answered the second part of your post, I will comment on only the first part. You said: You believe the Catholic church contradicts the teachings of Jesus? You are incorrect. Since it has already been shown that the teachings of the Catholic Church do contradict some of the teachings of Jesus and the apostles (as you yourself have stated in regards to Mary, and also concerning Jesus being the ONLY means of salvation), all I can do is wonder why you now make a statement like that. Lisa, I'm certainly willing to discuss pure scripture. Which verse or verses would you like to discuss first? Your choice. God bless. |
||||||
63 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25581 | ||
Hi Lisa, You said: I also read last night that the actual "Hebrew Canon" was put together after the Christian one. I found that kinda curious. Prior to our Bible, they were only interested in a scroll of The Law. Unless I misunderstand what you're talking about, the Hebrew Canon (laws or body of laws of a church) was written by Moses, with the exception of the few verses at the close of Deuteronomy which give an account of his death. It was possibly written in archaic Hebrew (although some say Aramaic, which is very similar to Hebrew from what I understand) on clay tablets, leather or papyrus. Papyrus was commonly used in Egypt in those days, and it is possible that the first five books of the law were written on that if Moses had the forethought (or inspiration from the Lord) to take some along when the Exodus occurred. And clay tablets would be very heavy to haul around... but they definitely had the manpower and animal power to do so. But personally I think leather is a more practical expectation. For those forty years in the wilderness, they would have had a ready supply at hand. Just my thoughts on it since I don't know which they were written on. :) If the original was written on leather or papyrus, they wore out with use and were replaced with new copies. If clay, they apparently wore out or broke too, since archeologists have found MANY fragments of such. Again, unless I'm mistaken the "scroll of the Law" that you mentioned, was usually made of leather, because it generally lasted much longer than papyrus. The entire Old Testament (which included the Torah [law] was translated into Greek and called the Septuagint, made in the 3rd century BC, and was in common use during Jesus day. The gospels (memoirs of the apostles) and the epistles (letters) were first "gathered together" by Eusebius during the reign of Constantine. This was in the early 300's AD, and the bibles were printed on vellum (a fine parchment - [animal skin, prepared as a surface for writing]). These were possibly the original Sinaitic or the Vatican Manuscripts. During the time of Jesus, it was still the custom that letters were scrolled [rolled] and sealed to be delivered to the addressee. From what I've read that is possibly the form used by the apostles who wrote the original epistles (letters). You said: The Hebrews rejected all Greek writings because they didn't see the Gentiles as people of God. No possible way he would send the Holy Spirit unto them! Since their law was also written in Greek several hundred years before Christ, we know they did not reject Gentiles because of the Greek writings. They rejected the Messiah and therefore rejected his teachings which just happened to be written in Greek. You said: The entire New Testament is written in Greek. Of course the Hebrews, not believing in Jesus, reject all the New Testament as well. It's my understanding that the Jews believe in the man Jesus, but do not believe He was/is the Messiah. And this reminds me that in Acts 10, Peter was given a vision which he did not fully understand... until the Spirit informed him that he should go to meet Cornelius. And in 10:28 Peter said "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean..." So if it had not been for the Lord's instruction to Peter personally, he probably would have been one of "those of the circumcision who believed" and "were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentile" believers. God bless. |
||||||
64 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25602 | ||
Hello Brian, You said: "Next, today when people are learning, they can go to a Bible class, or a bookstore, and gain an education. When the Catholic Church was carving out Christianity, they were preaching to people who lived in caves and huts, and no concept of a written language." The Catholic Church did not carve out Christianity Brian. I'm not picking words here, but it was God through Christ that is building His church. God's church is people who believe Him. People who learn from Him -- from His Holy Spirit. [Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God.] Concerning the written language... during Abraham's day there were libraries and schools. And that was about 2,000 BC! Archeologists have discovered sites in Ur, Lagash, Nippur, Sippar (which means "Book Town"), and every important city in Babylonia during the approximate time of Abraham -- with schools, temples, libraries with thousands of books; Dictionaries, Grammars, Reference Works, Encyclopedias, Official Annuls, works on Mathematics, Astronomy, Geography, Religion and Politics. In Ur, also in the stratum of Abraham's day, they uncovered 150 school Exercise Tablets, with Mathematical, Medical, Historical texts, and one large tablet in parallel columns with a Complete Conjugation of the Sumerian verb and its equivalent in Semitic. And in Canaan, near Hebron, city of Abraham, was a town called "Kiriath-Sepher", which means "scribe-town". And did you know that in Rome during the days of Christ... people had running water and public bath houses? Even Jerusalem during the time of King David had aquaducts that brought water into the city to fill the wells from underground. Early Christians were not "cavemen", nor primitives who lived in "huts". Each community used the resources that were available to them to build houses, temples, stadiums, stores, palaces, etc. In fact many times great cedars and marble blocks were shipped (in a boat) from one country to another... and each ship usually had written manifestos for their cargo. They've found bills, and receipts, and all kinds of things in the strata for that time period. Not only in Rome and Israel, but also Egypt, Babylon, etc. Even though in Jesus' day everyone did not have the elitist training that Paul and other scholars had... the remainder of the apostles --- who were basically common folk --- could apparently write... and write quite well as we see in the gospels and epistles. Certainly if they could, then surely others during the next few hundred years could also. The dumbing down occurred during the dark ages (late 400's-1100's AD). It is a time that gradually got bleaker over the years for the common people due to severe oppression from those in power over them. Schools were not permitted because the rulers knew that with knowledge, comes power -- and those in power didn't want to be usurped. I won't go any further with this thread, but that is the juxt of the matter as to why many people couldn't read during those years. Another point is that the Bible was not available to them even if they could have read it. But there too... if anyone believed God... they could not so easily be duped into doing whatever they were told. Ignorance is bliss... but only to those who want to control the ignorant. It was during the Reformation that public schools were built, and Bibles were translated into common languages, with the intent that people should learn to read so they could read the Bible for themselves. You said: "Let's look at Christian theology. Every Christian religion today is built upon the theological principles defined by the Catholic Church over the past 2,000 years." Actually Brian, I think the principles were defined long before the Catholic Church became involved. It was God who defined those principles in His inspired Word - the Holy Bible. And it is God's "teachings" that should be taught. I think I have said this on here before, but I will say it again because you may not know my stance on this. I thoroughly believe that the only "doctrine" that should be used AS "doctrine" for a Christian denomination -- is the Word of God. Nothing added and nothing taken away. The Lord even set up a plan to keep false understandings of His Word out of His church. And by the way, His Church is not Catholic, or Methodist, or Baptist, nor any other denomination. God's church is people who believe Him. It is universal only in the sense that God has saved people all over the planet. God bless. |
||||||
65 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25605 | ||
Brian, You said: First, Catholics do not require other Catholics to define whether we are Roman Catholic, etc. Catholic means universal and we accept and respect each other, without question. I would hope Lisa does not dignify your question with an answer. I think you are attempting to admonish me wrongly, Brian. LisaMarie mentioned that we all assumed she was "Roman Catholic", because we had never asked to find out what she was. I will copy and paste her remarks. LisaMarie said: "I think I'm also past due for pointing out that not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. The proper term being CCC, Catechism of the Catholic Church. Not RCC, Roman Catholic Catechism. Roman, Byzantine, Greek, (But not Greek Orthodox.) I believe 7 branches in all founded by apostles who set out to spread the word of God. Just about everyone responding here assumed that when I said Catholic, I meant Roman. No one ever asked." So I asked. And if LisaMarie finds it acceptable to imply that someone should ask, I think it would be nice if she would "dignify" the asker with a reply. God bless. |
||||||
66 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25697 | ||
Lisa, Norrie was correct in her explanation of purgatory, mortal, and venial sins. I think the big difference between what you have been taught and what we were taught is not Vatican II, but in that we were taught the whole catechism basically word for word... whereas you seem to have been taught concepts instead. Perhaps you should study the catechism of the Catholic Church so you will know what it's doctrines and dogmas actually are. Then make a decision as to whether or not you agree with it's teachings. Since you are already reading the Bible, you will have something to compare one with the other too. Excerpt from the updated Catholic Catechism (1997)Where Bible references are given, please Lisa check them out too so you will see how they compare with the Catholic teaching they refer to: 1031. "The Church gives the name PURGATORY to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.[Cf. Council of Florence (1439): DS 1304; Council of Trent (1563): DS 1820; (1547): 1580; see also Benedict XII, Benedictus Deus (1336): DS 1000.] The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on PURGATORY especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:[Cf. 1 Cor 3:15 ; 1 Pet 1:7 .] As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.[St. Gregory the Great, Dial. 4, 39: PL 77, 396; cf. Mt 12:31 .] " [[My own Bible reference concerning the above doctrine. Please check out 1Peter 1:3-12, and 1Cor. 3:2-17, as the above reference verses do not teach a cleansing fire after our physical death. And Matt. 12:31 "Therefore I say to you, EVERY sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven men."]] 1472. "To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the 'eternal punishment' of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called PURGATORY. This purification frees one from what is called the 'temporal punishment' of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.[Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1712-1713; (1563): 1820.]" [[My Bible reference. James 2:10 "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all." (Specifically as the Catholic Catechism states that "mortal" sins are the breaking of any one of the Ten Commandments.) And Matt. 12:31 again. There is only ONE unforgivable sin.]] 1475. "In the communion of saints, 'a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in PURGATORY and those who are still pilgrims on earth. between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things.'[Indulgentiarum doctrina, 5.] In this wonderful exchange, the holiness of one profits others, well beyond the harm that the sin of one could cause others. Thus recourse to the communion of saints lets the contrite sinner be more promptly and efficaciously purified of the punishments for sin." [[My reference. Hebrews 9:27 "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgement..." There is no cleansing period in-between physical death and the judgment.]] 1498. "Through indulgences the faithful can obtain the remission of temporal punishment resulting from sin for themselves and also for the souls in PURGATORY. " [[RCC's meaning of "indulgence" is "remission of temporal or purgatorial punishment still due for a sin after the guilt has been forgiven". Reference verse. Matthew 26:28 "For this is My blood of the covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Remission means forgiveness.) And Hebrews 10:18 "Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin." Jesus does it all, as we both know.]] I will send a new post with the Catholic Cathechism teachings about Mortal and Venial Sins. Please read that one also, Lisa. God bless. |
||||||
67 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25722 | ||
Hi Lisa, The numbered texts below are taken from the revised Catholic Catechism (1997). 1035. "The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of MORTAL SIN descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, 'eternal fire.'[Cf. DS 76; 409; 411; 801; 858; 1002; 1351; 1575; Paul VI, CPG # 12.] The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs." 1496. "The spiritual effects of the sacrament of Penance are: - reconciliation with God by which the penitent recovers grace; - reconciliation with the Church; - remission of the eternal punishment incurred by MORTAL sins; - remission, at least in part, of temporal punishments resulting from sin; - peace and serenity of conscience, and spiritual consolation; - an increase of spiritual strength for the Christian battle. " 1457. "According to the Church's command, 'after having attained the age of discretion, each of the faithful is bound by an obligation faithfully to confess serious sins at least once a year.'[Cf. CIC, Can. 989; Council of Trent (1551): DS 1683; DS 1708.] Anyone who is aware of having committed a MORTAL SIN must not receive Holy Communion, even if he experiences deep contrition, without having first received sacramental absolution, unless he has a grave reason for receiving Communion and there is no possibility of going to confession.[Cf. Council of Trent (1551): DS 1647; 1661; CIC, can. 916; CCEO, can.] Children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time.[Cf. CIC, can. 914.]" 1854. "Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between MORTAL and VENIAL SIN, already evident in Scripture,[Cf. 1Jn 16-17 .] became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience." [[Do you know what biblical reference they refer to above 1John 16-17? If you do, I'd appreciate being told.]] [[Mine - a repeat. James 2:10 "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all."]] 1857. "For a SIN to be MORTAL, three conditions must together be met: 'MORTAL SIN is SIN whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.'[RP 17 # 12.]" 1858. "Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.'[Mk 10:19 .] The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger." 1863. "Venial SIN weakens charity; it manifests a disordered affection for created goods; it impedes the soul's progress in the exercise of the virtues and the practice of the moral good; it merits temporal punishment. Deliberate and unrepented venial SIN disposes us little by little to commit MORTAL SIN. However venial SIN does not set us in direct opposition to the will and friendship of God; it does not break the covenant with God. With God's grace it is humanly reparable. 'Venial SIN does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace, friendship with God, charity, and consequently eternal happiness.'[John Paul II, RP 17 # 9.] While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call 'light': if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.[St. Augustine, In ep. Jo. 1, 6: PL 35, 1982.]" 2484. "The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial SIN, it becomes MORTAL when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity. " [[See James 2:10]] One of the "mortal" sins is intentionally missing mass on Sunday Lisa. We were taught that as children and young adults too. Even as adults we needed to "confess" to the priest if we had missed mass or be forever doomed to hell. And you seem to be under the impression that we ex-Catholics each knew only one "priest" during our Catholic experience. I can't speak for others, but I was very close friends with several. I have learned under a total of probably at least 10 priests over the years, possibly more. And they all taught the same thing... even the younger ones. And the reason for that I assume is that they all learned from the same teachings. God bless. |
||||||
68 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25759 | ||
I do understand.... :) God bless!! | ||||||
69 | Did Adam die lost? | Genesis | There | 12823 | ||
That would be kind of like saying who taught Abraham, wouldn't it? According to the bible, it was not his idolatrous parents (Joshua 24:2) that taught Abraham about the true God. But since Shem (Noah's son) was still alive at the time of Abraham (Shem died about 30 years after Abraham died), he may have learned from Shem?? But even more likely is that after God "read" Abraham's heart, He "revealed Himself" to Abraham. As to Adam. In Romans and Hebrews when Paul speaks about those who in ancient days were saved by faith -- he never mentions Adam. It begins with faithful Abel. Perhaps there is a reason? |
||||||
70 | Did Adam die lost? | Genesis | There | 12882 | ||
That's a good point about the name. Do you have a reference that you could show me where you got that information? I ask because I looked up the names of Cain, Abel, and Seth in the original Hebrew. To me, the meanings don't imply what you mentioned. Cain, name of 1st child, (an affinity to "a sense of fixity, lance, spear"). Abel, son of Adam, (same as emptiness, or vanity). Seth, substituted, appoint. I do agree there were many more who were saved by faith in ancient times than just those Paul listed. But I'm not sure we can assume that Adam was saved since the Bible doesn't say he was. I think Adam and Eve definitely told all they knew about the Lord God, and their time in the garden of Eden to their sons and daughters. [Please note that God even spoke with Cain in Genesis 4.] But talking the talk, and walking the walk aren't the same thing. I'm not trying to "judge" Adam, but another thing just crossed my mind. It wasn't until after Seth gave birth to Enosh that it says "then men began to call on the name of the Lord" (4:26). Adam would have been about 235 years old at that time, when men "began" to call upon the name of the Lord. Was Adam among them? I don't know. But I guess I can't assume that he was for two reasons. 1)The Bible doesn't say he was; and 2)after having a walking/talking relationship with God in the garden, he apparently did not "call on His name" after leaving the garden which was AT LEAST the first 150 years they lived outside the garden. |
||||||
71 | How long did they remain after eating. | Genesis | There | 12889 | ||
Genesis 3:21 "Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them." The first blood sacrifice to cover sin. And God did it. |
||||||
72 | Did Adam die lost? | Genesis | There | 12892 | ||
True Joe, but the seeming question was "was Abraham taught by his parents about the one true God?" I agree with you, he wasn't. |
||||||
73 | Did Adam die lost? | Genesis | There | 13000 | ||
I suppose I should let this drop since you seem to be a bit bored with the subject, but I want to make a short comment. I heard that too about Seth. But that doesn't seem to be what the Bible says. Genesis 4:25 "And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and named him Seth, 'For God has appointed another seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed.'" They didn't name him Seth because they thought he was the Messiah, nor a substitute for sin, but because they saw him as a substitute for Abel. It sounded good to me at the time though too. :) God bless. |
||||||
74 | "queen of heaven"? | Gen 1:1 | There | 23767 | ||
Thanks to both you Nolan and Jlpangilinan. I wondered about her since Ishtar/Inanna was known as the "queen of heaven and earth". (Inanna was the name the Sumerians used for this goddess.) | ||||||
75 | Are they the same spirit? | Gen 1:1 | There | 23834 | ||
Hello Johnny, I was raised Catholic. And as an adult, one of the things I began wondering about after reading the Bible was this "queen of heaven" mentioned in Jeremiah. I know that Ishtar evolved from a moon goddess to a goddess that had many other attributes over the centuries. And I wondered if she (demonic spirit) had continued to evolve (change her modus operandi or goddess image) as was needed to infiltrate the church. I do NOT think the apparition is the real Mary who gave birth to the true Messiah. But this appartition does claim to be her -- even though she is very different than the real Mary. The apparition claims to be sinless (her claim to her Immaculate Conception Feb. 11, 1858), but the real Mary knew she was a sinner and in need of a Savior. Luke 1:46-47 "And Mary said: 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior...". She (apparition) also makes claims of having a son who she refers to as Jesus, except that her Jesus is not the only means to salvation. She said on May 13, 1917 "...my Immaculate Heart which will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God." And on December 26, 1957 "God's last means of salvation is through me. And if you despise and repulse this means, there won't be any forgiveness of sin which the Gospel calls the sin against the Holy Spirit." And on October 13, 1973 she stated "Those who place their confidence in me will be saved." And in 1984 "Even in the Second Coming, the son will come to you through his mother." And in 1986 "God has sent me to earth to save you." In August 1987 her son said "He who honors her honors me. He who denies her denies me." In 1958 he said "Everyone should have a picture of Jesus as Divine Mercy. I promise that the soul that will venerate this image will not perish." And in 1991 when he again "appeared" with his mother, he said, "Fortunate is he who lives in the brilliance of the image of Jesus of Mercy, for the just hand of God will never reach him. For I am your Jesus of Mercy." I cannot name the book that those quotes came from, because I read it years ago. I do remember the book was authorized for Catholics though, and I was given it by a Catholic friend. At the time I copied many of the quotes and also the scriptures that contradicted the appartitions' statements. And I think they (both apparitions) are satanic beings, attempting to lead people away from the salvation that only comes through God's real Son. http://www.fatima.org/plan.html: "Our Lady's Peace Plan is founded on three simple, but powerful requests. The first is a request for prayer, most particularly the Holy Rosary and the devotion of the Brown Scapular. The second calls for us to make reparation for the sins and outrages perpetrated against God's Grace and blasphemies against the Holy Hearts of Jesus and Mary. The third request is for consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, both on a personal basis and, publicly, that of Russia by the Pope and all the world's bishops." The apparition waited until the 1300's before she made the claim to her listeners to be the "queen of heaven", and it was later incorporated into church teaching. Oh by the way, something else both Ishtar and the appartition have in common is their claim that they were virgins at the time of the conception of their offspring, and were perpetual virgins thereafter. And below is something from a Catholic website http://www.udayton.edu/maryslash. Below is a partial "answer" to the question "What is the meaning of the crescent moon that Mary is sometimes pictured standing upon?" "A: The so called Luna, half moon, ...is a sign of fertility, related to life and death, and thus a popular symbol in many religions. It pinpoints changing seasons, ebb and tide (and related inundations as harbingers of fertility), and the feminine menstrual cycle. The half moon was the attribute of Luna and more specifically of Selene. It was later transferred to Diana (Artemis), offspring of the earth mother, and known not only as virgin but also as protectress of the newborn and symbol of fertility in her own right. ... There exists, beginning around 1348, a type of Marian sculpture called Madonna standing on the crescent moon ... It sometimes opposes -- in representations of the Platytera -- the sun born from Mary and the human race in need of salvation (moon) (1312). The crescent moon is used in representations of Mary's miraculous conception and birth. The crescent appears under Mary's feet in paintings of the Assumption (Meister of the Luzien-Legende, 1485) and signifies her glory and victory over time and space. The most important application of the moon symbol occurred in representations of the Immaculate Conception." I think there are many similarities between the two. God bless. |
||||||
76 | Are they the same spirit? | Gen 1:1 | There | 23887 | ||
Hi Johnny, I too have much respect for Mary, the mother of God's real Son. I think she was correct when she said that "all generations shall call me blessed". She is "blessed among women." But in my opinion, she is not the same person as the apparition. She (the Mary in the apparitions) is considered to still be a virgin because she identified herself as such. Almost every ounce of Catholic doctrine about "Mary" has come from the apparition herself. If her words disagreed with the Bible, then they go with her words and discard the Biblical truth. I was very upset years ago after finding out the many "differences" between what I was taught and what the Bible says. I had trouble believing that a Church that originally based it's beliefs on the truth of God's Word had moved so far as to include in its doctrine -- teaching that totally contradicted His Word. I have family members still in that denomination, and most are a loving group of people. Most have been encouraged to read the Bible for themselves, so they can sort out the truth from the lie. And yes, it is very hard to change. Not just because many things have become "habits" or "traditional", but also because it is very hard to digest the fact that people we thought cared about us... had taught us non-truths. It's very hard to accept. For me, I had to come to the realization that they too had been duped... |
||||||
77 | Sorry to keep asking the same question. | Exodus | There | 20034 | ||
Thanks Steve. You gave me something more to dig into. |
||||||
78 | Why? | Exodus | There | 23727 | ||
That was always my assumption too and for the same reasons... until someone pointed out to me that it doesn't say that Zipporah died. I mean, when Sarah died, we were told she died, and later Abraham married Keturah. We know that Isaac also was of faith, but had more than one wife at the same time, and others too. But anyway, it doesn't say that Zipporah died before Moses married the Egyptian woman, and by the way Zipporah was not Egyptian (Cushite). She was a Midianite (a descendant of Midian (Midyan) who was a son of Abraham and Keturah). Something that never made sense though since I used to think Zipporah was the Egyptian woman, was why it took Aaron and Miriam so long to get peeved at Moses for marrying her. I thought that by the time two years had passed, they should have figured out how to get along with one another. Something else you brought up though. Have you noticed that in Leviticus 18 where it talks about the laws of sexual morality, that verse 18 states: (18) Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive. The KJV states it this way: (18) Neither shall thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time. Would one sister be a rival to the other if the first was divorced from the husband?? I'm not so sure that is what it's talking about. I think it's saying that a man shouldn't marry his wife's sister while his wife is still alive. But it doesn't say that the man cannot have a second wife as long as she isn't a close relative nor his wife's sister. Reminds me of the rivalry between Leah and Rachel. A reference for "uncover their nakedness" as a reference to marriage is Leviticus 20:14 "If a man marries a woman and her mother... They shall be burned with fire." which is the penalty for breaking the Lord's command in Leviticus 18:17 "You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter...". Just some thoughts. |
||||||
79 | Will we know our loved ones in heaven? | 2 Sam 12:23 | There | 26179 | ||
Hello Daniel, In 1Cor. 15:35-58 Paul explains that the it is our physical, flesh bodies that will be changed and resurrected at Christ's return if we are saved, not our consciousness. It would seem that since our minds/soul/spirit have already been renewed to a state of communion with God, there is no need for them to remain separated from Him. I believe the scripture you've mentioned from Ecclesiates 9 explains that after physical death, no one will have part in anything "under the sun". So the dead will not participate in any way with those still physically alive, and eventually memory of them will be forgotten by those who are physically alive. And Psalms 146... I believe is a good reference for Ecclesiates, and is saying the same thing. At death, man will no longer give any thought to what is going on here on the earth, i.e. thoughts of things happening "under the sun" will perish at a person's death. Hope this helps. God bless. |
||||||
80 | Explain dinosaurs | Job 40:15 | There | 13297 | ||
Hi Steve, I agree with you. I don't think the behemoth is a hippo or an elephant either. Not as we know it today anyway. Animals would have lived much longer pre-Flood just like humans did. And scientifically it has been found that crockodiles (or was it alligators) never stop growing from the time they're born until they die. And their average growth rate would put them at about 100 feet long if they lived to be 500-600 years old. I don't remember where I read about that. So "monsters" would seem fairly probable Pre-Flood and since God didn't say he'd destroy everything in the sea, then some of the large sea creatures surely would have survived the great Flood. On top of that, if Noah had any of the "little ones" in the ark, they may have lived for a few hundred years AFTER the Flood just like men did. So certain land creatures could have become quite large too. And something that comes to mind concerning Job is that it would make no sense for God to use a behemoth or leviathan to explain to Job about HIS power and strength if He was simply talking about something that was not fearsome, nor much bigger than man, nor something "pre-Flood" that Job could not truly comprehend. And Job had to have lived AFTER the Flood because in verse 1 it says "a man in the land of Uz". Uz is from the Hebrew "Uwts" meaning Uts, a son of Abram, also a Seirite, and the regions settled by them. So if God wanted to impress Job with His own power and might, then He surely would have used something that Job recognized. And Job apparently knew what a behemoth and a leviathan (fire-breathing leviathan) were. There is one type of insect that "breathes" fire even today. It has to do with pouches that contain certain chemicals, which when combined in the throat forms fire which shoots out it's mouth. (Sorry, a poor description.) It uses this for protection. Again, I don't remember the name of the "bug". But at least even in today's world it isn't impossible to believe or understand that an animal or sea creature could have "breathed fire". |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |