Results 61 - 80 of 499
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Scribe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | The coming of the Lord at the rapture | Joel 2:31 | Scribe | 86317 | ||
Part 1 of 2 Matthew 24:29-31 is a good verse to base a post tribulation rapture view. If it were the only scripture on the subject I would not think there would be any other view but post tribulation among the saints. However there are other verses, quite a few in fact. Listing them all and reading them in context there are going to be different conclusions among some of us. Paul said we see through a glass darkly but then (when the perfect day comes) we will see clearly. Until then we all have to walk by faith in the illumination of scripture we possess. I am not sure whether there is a pre tribulation rapture of the saints or a post tribulation rapture. So far I am leaning toward both. Here is one of the reasons I have considered a pre-tribulation rapture. Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. Now it could mean "pray that you will be able to make it through all these things." but the general consensus among most scholars has been that it means escape completely as in not face them at all. But I am sure that will be debated until Jesus comes. It does not make sense that we should pray for death to escape them, no where in the scripture does FAITH pray for death, as a means of escape, only unbelief does that. Another reason is that in Rev 4 we have the 4 living creatures and the 24 elders all singing the same song, they sing Revelation 5:9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; This makes it "clear" beyond controversy (at least in my mind) that the 4 creatures and 24 elders are simply a symbolic form or redeemed saints. They are not just Jews, because they are from every people and nation and tongue, they are not just 24 because there are more than 24 people groups, the number 24 is significant because it is a vision of the Levitical Priesthood, they also served in the temple 24 by lot and yet came from a group of over 24000. We see here a vision of the glorified saints serving in their heavenly offices, and they are "as angels" having inherited offices we once thought reserved only for cherubs and angels, they are seen in the 4 creatures and representing authority over the created world and say holy holy holy, as the cherubs of old, and yet they sing this song,, saying they are people redeemed by the blood. That being established, we conclude that before the very first seal is opened there are redeemed saints in heaven who are partaking of this heavenly scene. So who are they? Are they raptured saints or saints that have died and are with Christ even now? I don't know for sure. But if they are raptured saints then when does it occur? Could it be that the very translation of John is a prophetic type of the translation of the saints, so that the Voice he hears as a Trumpet saying Come up Hither (voice of the archangel and trump of God) are a type of the rapture that occurs and the next scene he is beholding glorified saints, and not only that but after the Lamb is declared the only one worthy to open the seals, these glorified saints are the ones that say COME and see, and a seal is opened, it is as if they are partaking in the releasing of the judgments that are poured out, as if the Lamb allows them to have a part. Indeed the saints shall judge the world. A common explanation for Matt 24:29-31 is that there is another gathering of saints who were saved during the tribulation. (continued on next post) |
||||||
62 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Scribe | 86275 | ||
(Part 3 of 3) Considering the Bible as our source and looking no further Seiss has presented a stronger argument for interpreting it as the Day of the Lord. If we have to look outside of the Bible to get one shred of evidence that it is Sunday, so that the only references to The Lord’s Day as Sunday is outside of the Bible then we are on questionable ground. Of course if you take the stand that Early Writers and the Catholic Church is authority enough for your faith then you are comfortable with that. I have to have God’s Word on every article of my faith. So far .. (and I am open ).. Seiss has a stronger biblical basis than those that present their argument for Rev 1:10 applying to Sunday. Now if it were meant here (Rev 1:10) that it meant Sunday, I would only get a lesson that on Sunday John must have decided to pray more than on other days, and this may have been the case with the majority of saints even in the very first generation, but I don’t think it was the case with the apostles, I think they were diligently giving themselves to prayer on all days of the week. This idea that it is Sunday would suggest a more vigorous spiritual activity on John’s part than on other days and as a result he has entered into a “trance” or been taken up (whether in the body or out of the body, we do not know). So it would teach us, that no matter what condition you find yourself, on Sunday you should turn toward God in fervent prayer. I am sure that this has been preached, but I am not so sure that is the correct message of this verse. However if it means that John was translated into the Day of the Lord by the Spirit we then see a foundational truth that enables us to correctly interpret the whole vision to come and all that is written in the book. This seems to make better sense but I am not going to contend for it as the only possible explanation. Let’s just say at this time, taking into account both arguments, I lean toward, The Day of the Lord. May God bless you as you mine the depths of His eternal Word. |
||||||
63 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Scribe | 86274 | ||
Part 2 of 3 “ This is what I understand by his being "in Spirit in the Lord's day." (NOTE: And so Wetstein, Zullig, Dr. S. R. Maitland, Dr. Todd, and B. W. Newton.) I can see no essential difference between [hee] (grk 3588) [Kuriakee] (grk 2960) [heemera] (grk 2250)-- the Lord's day,-- and [hee] (grk 3588) [heemera] (grk 2250) [Kuriou] (grk 2962)-- the day of the Lord. They are simply the two forms for signifying the same relations of the same things. (NOTE: Our English translators have frequently used both these modes of expressing the genitive case of the same noun, both in Hebrew and Greek. Compare (Gen. 28:17) and (Gen. 28:22), where "House of God" and "God's house" mean precisely the same. So "Lord's law," (Ex. 13:9), and "Law of the Lord," (2 Chr. 12:1); "The Lord's people," (1 Sam. 2:24), and "People of the Lord," (Judges 5:11). In all these instances, the Septuagint presents the same forms as the original. So in the New Testament we have the same variety of expression to signify exactly the same relations. In (1 Cor. 10:21), for the same grammatical form in Greek, we have "the Lord's table," and "the table of devils"; in 2 Cor. 2:12, "Christ's Gospel" for "Gospel of Christ"; in 2 Pet. 4:13), "Christ's sufferings," and in (1 Pet. 5:1), "Sufferings of Christ." The same may be seen in (Rev. 11:15), where the kingdoms of the world become our Lord's and his Christ's kingdoms.) And if John was thus mystically down among the scenes of the last day, and has written only what he says he has written, that is "things that he saw;" it cannot be otherwise but that in dealing with the contents of this book we are dealing with what relates pre-eminently to the great Apocalypse and Epiphany of our Lord, when he cometh to judge the world in righteousness. And when we come to consider the actual contents of this book, we find them harmonizing exactly with this understanding of its title. It takes as its chief and unmistakable themes what other portions of the Scriptures assign to the great day of the Lord. It is nothing but Apocalypse from beginning to end. First, we have the Apocalypse of Christ in his relation to the earthly churches, and his judgment of them; then the Apocalypse of his relation to the glorified Church, and the marshalling of them for his forthcoming to judge the world; then the Apocalypse of his relation to the scenes of the judgment, as they are manifested on earth under the opening of the seals, the prophesying of the witnesses, and the fall of Babylon; then the Apocalypse of his actual manifestation to the world in the battle of the great day of God Almighty, the establishment of his kingdom, and the investiture of the saints in their future sovereignties; and finally, the Apocalypse of his relation to the final act of judgment, the destruction of death and the grave, and the introduction of the final estate of a perfected Redemption. What, indeed, is all this, but just what was foretold by all the prophets, by Christ himself, and by all his apostles, as pertaining to THE DAY OF THE LORD? Verily, this book is but the rehearsal, in another and ampler manner, of what all the Scriptures tell us about the last day and the eternal judgment.” Joseph A. Seiss “The Apocalypse” (continued on next post) |
||||||
64 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Scribe | 86273 | ||
Part 1 of 3 I think there are many scholars which would say that The Didache date of A.D. 70 is not likely. Excluding that as the propre date of The Didache, and reading through Ingatious we will find many things that we (most of us protestant evangelicals) would think differently about, not saying it is false teaching but just a slightly different take on things than we might have when we read the same scriptures. Ignatius being closer to the original author (in this case John) does not convince of taking Ignatious words as infallible anymore than you would take mine or I yours. We consider only the scriptures the inspired Word of God and therefore are willing to accept as very possible that Ignatius could have made the same mistake others might make today when reading "the Lord's Day" and just assumed Sunday was meant. But I cannot proove that and I understand your argument as a very good one that such references to "The Lord's Day as Sunday in the early writers is strong evidence that that is what John meant. However I believe that God did indeed watch over the Word but not the words of Ignatius, so that If all I had was a bible and no Ignatius or any other early writer, would I come to this conclusion that it meant Sunday or would I have strong evidence from other scriptures that it meant the Day of the Lord? I wish I was scholar enough to take credit for the post below but it is the work of Joseph A. Siess as I mentioned before in a previous post. With this also agrees the statement of John as to the circumstances under which he came to the knowledge of the things which he narrates. He says he "was in Spirit in the Lord's day," in which he beheld what he afterward wrote. What is meant by this "Lord's day"? Some answer, Sunday, the first day of the week; but I am not satisfied with this explanation. Sunday belongs indeed to the Lord, but the Scriptures nowhere call it "the Lord's day." None of the Christian writings for 100 years after Christ ever call it "the Lord's day." But there is a "Day of the Lord" largely treated of by prophets, apostles, and fathers, the meaning of which is abundantly clear and settled. It is that day in which, Isaiah says, people shall hide in the rocks for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty; the day which Joel describes as the day of destruction from the Almighty, when the Lord shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shall shake; the day to which the closing chapter of Malachi refers as the day that shall burn as an oven, and in which the Sun of Righteousness shall arise with healing in his wings; the day which Paul proclaimed from Mars' Hill as that in which God will judge the world, concerning which he so earnestly exhorted the Thessalonians, and which was not to come until after a great apostasy from the faith, and the ripening of the wicked for destruction; the day in the which, Peter says, the heavens shall be changed, the elements melt, the earth burn, and all present orders of things give way to new heavens and a new earth; even "the day for which all other days were made." And on that day I understand John to say, he in some sense was. In the mysteries of prophetic rapport, which the Scriptures describe as "in Spirit," and which Paul declared inexplicable, he was caught out of himself, and out of his proper place and time, and stationed amid the stupendous scenes of the great day of God, and made to see the actors in them, and to look upon them transpiring before his eyes, that he might write what he saw, and give it to the churches. (continued on next post) |
||||||
65 | 1 tim 4:1-2 | 2 Pet 2:1 | Scribe | 86250 | ||
I tried to witness to a team of Mormon young men once. The ones that ride bikes and wear uniforms. They were very polite until I told them they were going to hell if they did not repent and believe Jesus was God. The leader turned red in the face and all the niceness left. He was so angry that I would presume to tell him he was not going to heaven. I was surprised at how shook up he was. I decided then to use that method more often. I had read the "ways to witness to cults" methods but they had not effect. They bounced off his mind as if I had said nothing. But when I told him with authority he would wake up in hell and only have himself to blame for being decieved becuase deep down inside he knew that he was following a cult, his head almost exploded. | ||||||
66 | Beware False Teachers | 2 Pet 2:1 | Scribe | 86249 | ||
I agree we must beware of false teachers, but there is also something else we must beware of, and that is the leaven of the pharisees, which think they are the only ones that have the correct interpretation of the word and the only ones "trained" to teach it. I am not saying you believe this way, but I have noticed that many people are quick to label anyone that does not agree with their interpretation as a false teacher. There are indeed false teachers but we should make sure we are applying that term to what the bible says is a false teacher. I have heard people calling others false teachers for their views on pre tribulation rapture. That is far from the definition of being a false teacher. Someone may say they think someone is not accurately interpreting a scripture without calling them a false teacher. Too many people are thinking in terms of "if you are mistaken in your interpretation then it is "false" and so you are a "false teacher" But that is not the definition of a false teacher according the biblical use of the term. Look up all the references to false teachers in the New Testament and you will see examples of what they teach. If someone is teaching one of these examples we would be biblical in calling them a false teacher. If someone is just wrong, then they are just wrong. I rarely hear anyone say.. I think you are wrong about how you are interpreting that, Instead the accusation of false teacher and false prophet is hurled so quickly that all dialogue and any chance of communication is shut down. There is a time to call someone a false teacher, but we should be very careful and know that God has told us to do that, otherwise we will be judged by the same measure we dish out, and I am sure we have some error somewhere in our teachings waiting for the light of the Lord to expose it. | ||||||
67 | Where are these names written down? | Jer 17:13 | Scribe | 86247 | ||
He is gentle toward those that are ready to repent, those that are obstinate He exposes. Even that is mercy, so that they will reconsider and repent. | ||||||
68 | Pt.1 Female Overseer | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 86245 | ||
LOL. Well I am not concerned about it myself, I even listen to women teach the Word. I was just adding some good logic as to why we might be applying legalism to New Testament instructions and trying to put women back under the law, and that would be a very bad thing in the AUTHOR'S eyes wouldn't it? I think we have to be careful and make sure we are knowing the AUTHOR then we will interpret the Word according to the SPIRIT of the AUTHOR and not a legalistic interpretation He never intended. The more I look at this subject the more I see women as being quite oppressed by christian men and it was never meant to be that way. If there is one thing Jesus brought that was liberty for all man and woman. I am leaning toward the USURP being key to understanding this. Also I lean toward the idea of women teaching in the church as not prohibited by this statement but that of teaching men as in a fleshly way, teaching them to do what the woman wants. Kind of like what wives have a problem with. LOL. If he had said I suffer a woman not to teach the word in the church I could see the point, but it says I suffer not a woman to teach or usurp authority over the man which sounds more like what I witness often among couples who don't believe in women teaching in the church. In other words, they don't believe in women teaching in the church and yet the woman keeps teaching and usurping authority over the man by nagging and scolding him. | ||||||
69 | Why was the Holy Spirit delayed? | Acts 8:16 | Scribe | 86244 | ||
The delay in Acts 2 was because it was to be poured out on the day of Pentecost fulfilling the prophetic shadow of Old Testament feast days as all the OT feast days and temple ordinances are shadows of a greater reality. I understood the question to be about why the Samaritans did not recieve it until later, and there is no reason to call it a delay but a progression of the continual world evangelism still ongoing. | ||||||
70 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Scribe | 86243 | ||
Maybe it was Ignatius, that first applied it to Sunday, at least it would be one on good authority as to the dates about 100-110 AD. This is from his epistle to the Magnesians, "Consequently, if the people who were given to obsolete practices faced the hope of a new life, and if these no longer observe the Sabbath, but regulate their calendar by the Lord's Day, the day, too, on which our Life rose by His power and through the medium of His death--" We all know many of the things the Early Church writers had to say revealed that they were no authorities on perfect interpretation, many things hindered the earliest writers such as not even being decisive about which books were canonical, that would take time due to seperation from each other geographically, so if an early church writer is quouted as applying it to Sunday it does not make it the final authority. That could have been their interpretation of what John meant. But that could have been because of a first impression upon reading the words. I am not 100 percent sure it does not mean Sunday but based on the whole bible I feel more comfortable with applying it to The Day of the Lord and just another way of saying it, such as The Lord's Table and the Table of the Lord. The Day of the Lord and the Lord's Day. But I am open. :) |
||||||
71 | Justification? | Rom 2:13 | Scribe | 86242 | ||
I do see that there is an awakening first prior to conversion. Matthew 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Luke 22:32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. I think that based on the conversation with the disciples and their conversion later that the more you show forth an intellectual honesty in seeking truth the more "able" you are to recieve faith unto salvation. I think that this does not give glory to the man. I am sure that theologians discussing this issue have come up with a name for it, if not I will call it "The Law of Illumination." The prophets say alot about it and Jesus confirmed all that the prophets said about the reason why the blind are blind. They reject light. Therefore they are given over to darkness. The more severe their rejection in the face of truth the more severe the darkness. Jesus gives us the parable of the sower as a foundation of why some can understand and others cant and in each case it is the condition of the persons heart (mind, will, intellect, decision process) and not an arbitrary reason about the predestined will of God. Looking at my own testimony I remember how when I was in the third or forth grade I decided based on the story of evolution that I would stop believing in God. I told some child friend this while standing in the lunchroom line at school and a little girl overhearing my casual conversation became extrememly emotional and almost shouted "WHAT? You Don't Believe in GOD?" And a few other comments about hell or something I cannot remember. I was shocked at her surprise. I decided I needed to look into this a bit further, since I did not want to make such a big decision without getting all the facts. I went home that day and asked my Dad about God. He told me something about a blade of grass being too complex to not have a designer and so from that day on I decided to believe there was a God. Was I saved? no, even the devil believes in one God and trembles. However, I went through life open to talking about God. My brother and others I witnessed who decided that God was for the weak minded and refused to believe in God were not open to discussing God. When I was in a crisis I called out to God to help me, over time I heard someone pray in Jesus Name, I realized they probably knew about this religion thing and so I would pray in Jesus name also. As of yet I did not have a clue what Jesus did for me on the cross. My prayers began to be answered and I was sure it was because I had discovered that man must come to God through Jesus. It was a while before I learned the whole Gospel story, I was born again within days after praying in Jesus Name,I really can't say which day it occurred, I witnessed a change in my thinking, my understanding, I knew I was forgiven of my sins, before I understood much about the cross. Now some might doubt my salvation, I think it really does not take much to be born again, just a faith that says Jesus I believe in You please save me. Prior to ever hearing about Jesus name I was calling out to God daily and I remember lying to someone at the time, when I did I felt very guilty.. was I saved? I had lied all my life without concern, now I was lying and feeling bad about it. Itold Go d I was sorry for lying and I would confess it to the person I lied to. It was very hard to do, but somehow I felt if I did not I could never live with myself again. I went through it and got it over with and felt much better. Was I converted? At this time I did not even know to pray in Jesus Name, that came several days later. I did not even start trying to figure out who Jesus was until after I heard the man pray in Jesus Name. It is possible that I associated Jesus with God. I mean I was praying to God and not saying anything about Jesus, but maybe in my mind I considered God and Jesus two words that meant the same thing. But other than that, there is no reason for me to have been converted yet. When I heard the Gospel message later I rejoiced and understood why it was necessary to come to God through Jesus Christ, but by then I was already born again and had experienced a dramatic change in a two or three week span. I never had an altar call experience.. it was more like a progressive revelation. I give Glory to God for all of it. Especially the lying incident. That was a foundation I learned early as to the Law of Illumination. I was faced with a choice, I was sure that if I did not confess my lie I would not recieve God or His knowlege, I wanted to learn about how to please God and I knew that if I did not confess my lie I would not be able to pray. |
||||||
72 | Memorization technique (along w/ prayer) | Col 3:16 | Scribe | 86239 | ||
I think that sounds like a great idea. I have never used it. I might try it out. I personally do something that I know not everyone can do or needs to do. I memorize entire books word for word, in KJV. I get so much revelation by doing this that I have become quite addicted to it. I doubt I will be able to finish the Bible in my lifetime but I will have lots of fun trying. I admit I do skip genealogies and have not attempted books like Leviticus. My goal is to memorize the New Testament first. I began with the epistles of Paul and my first book was Ephesians. It was an easy goal and packed with powerful verses. I am working on Revelation, Matthew, John, and Romans currently. Only I don't memorize verse numbers. If memorize the chapters only. I can remember when a chapter changes, but not each verse and to do so interferes with the revelation, at least for me it does so I focus on the words and thoughts and not on the divisions. I would only suggest that such an outline memorization could hurt if the outline heading ends up causing an interpretation or application or limitation not suggested by the text bur by someones opinion of the text. I have seen many outlines that annoyed me becuase of the flagrant denominational slant suggesting a chapter of part of a chapter had to do with something it did not in my opinion. In which case it would be better to memorize the text first then come up with your own outline based on what you think it means. That outline could change of course as you get more light but at least you are not tainting your mind to think in terms of something that is not there. For example you could memorize an outline about Romans 7 as "The christian's struggle with the flesh" whereas I would rather memorize it as "the struggle with the flesh while trying to obey the law" two entirely different meanings as to what the passage is about. May God Bless you As You Memorize His Word, His Word is ALIVE and POWERFUL. |
||||||
73 | Where are these names written down? | Jer 17:13 | Scribe | 86237 | ||
Man, what an awesome verse of scripture. Thanks for sharing it mommapbs. I noticed that the KJV says it like this... Jeremiah 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters. I was thinking of Jesus writing in the sand while waiting for those without sin to cast the first stone. I like the idea (I know it is only speculation) that Jesus was writing the names of people they had sinned with like in adultery and they saw their names there and were so shocked by his omniescience they left. I think it had to be something like that becuase there are plenty of people who would pick up a stone and hurl it and declare they had never sinned people who are obstinate and beligerant and do not care whether they were lying or not, but something about Jesus writing in the sand made them all convicted. |
||||||
74 | Pt.1 Female Overseer | 1 Tim 2:12 | Scribe | 86222 | ||
How far do you go with this. I mean, I agree that a man should be a pastor. But what about people who work for women bosses? Are these men messed up? Should they be seeking a different job? What about women in the church who work and are in management positions over men. Are they out of the will of God? Does this rule that women should not be in authority over men only apply to church? If we believe that the correct interpretation of these passages is that women should never be in a position of authority over a man, then are we going to live like we believe that or are we going to play games with it, saying a woman cannot teach in our church and yet go to work on Monday and say yes maam to our boss? What kind of truthfulness is that? We either believe this is the interpretation or we are not sure. I think most people who are so adament about not believing a woman can pastor are compromisers becuase they will work for women and submit to women on their jobs. Where do we get the authority to say that it is ok to submit to a woman on your job and not in the church? Either stand by your principles or admit your not clear about this authority and women thing. And if you are not clear about it, then maybe we are messing up the meaning of these passages. If there is room to submit to a female boss at work then we are seeing some kind of "acception" to the rule. If we have confidence we are in the will of God while living with this "acception" to the rule, then we have moved into the realm of spiritual application to New Testament rules or given ourselves liberty to apply the spirit of the rule rather than the letter of the law. And what then is the meaning of the spirit of the rule here, if it is about authority then we have "bent" the rule at work by submitting to women bosses, if we say the rule cannot be bent or we are in violation to the word, then we should be true to our convictions and quit our jobs and not accept another that places us under the authority of women. If we believe this is wrong and yet we continue under the authority of women, we sin. Romans 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. I would not sit under a woman pastor. I do not believe it is correct to have women pastors but I do think that it is becuae of a hard fast rule about authority, I believe I can have a woman at work in authority over me, but I (would never marry such a woman :) ) Have you ever considered that Paul was speaking about spiritual things. That in the church it is Love that matters and it would be a hinderance to the spreading of the Gospel in that day when women were not allowed to lead in Jewish religion to allow them to lead in the church, it would make it unnecessarily hard for men to hear or even listen to the message. It would be better for if a woman who was gifted and called to ministry of the word to submit to men so that the message could be recieved, so we have Pricilla and Aquila and Pricilla seems to be the main teacher and even teaches a man Appollos but she is always named with her husband Aquilla which shows a submissive heart and therefore men like Apollos are well able to recieve her teachings becuase she is not usurping authority over a man. By the way let us always focus on every word of the text, the words are must not usurp authority over a man which speaks of a brash sort of pushing oneself forward in a fleshly authority. But having a gift to minister does not automatically put the woman in violation of the authority issue. As a matter of fact there are more instances of women usurping authority over men is brash and fleshly way at your work than in the church. Often in the church you have a "submitted" woman getting grief for daring to teach the Bible, and yet the women who are USURPING authority over men at work are left alone. Just a few thoughts to help kick off the second round of the debate. :) |
||||||
75 | What is truth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 86218 | ||
Bible Truth Follows. John 1:1-4 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth. Revelation 5:8-14 And when he had taken the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having each one a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests; and they reign upon earth. And I saw, and I heard a voice of many angels round about the throne and the living creatures and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; saying with a great voice, Worthy is the Lamb that hath been slain to receive the power, and riches, and wisdom, and might and honor, and glory, and blessing. And every created thing which is in the heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and on the sea, and all things are in them, heard I saying, Unto him that sitteth on the throne, and unto the Lamb, be the blessing, and the honor, and the glory, and the dominion, for ever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen. And the elders fell down and worshipped. Whatever your views on Jesus, it better be like these above if you want to be in the number that worship the Lamb (Jesus). Most that deny Christ are not worth arguing with, they are blaspheming and opposing themselves, they will not listen to reason because you have to twist too many scriptures to teach such strange things, but I am really just posting this for any that might come across these cult teachings you have posted, those that have not read the bible much need to know that there are hundreds of scriptures that declare the Jesus is the Son of God and therefore God. We pray to the Father in Jesus Name becuase only when we accept the Divinity of Jesus do we have access to the Father. Many will pray "God get me out of this mess" and they feel like their prayers rarely get answered, but when they turn to Christ they are saved and God hears. There is no other salvation but faith in Jesus Christ and all those that deny His divinity will be cursed from His presence forever. 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. This verse alone should be enough to stop the argument and cause all cult members to repent for ever saying Jesus was not God. But I have even heard cult teachers try and twist this verse. They can't do it, and every attempt exposes that they are not honest truth seekers but that they have some hidden agenda and are willing to go to any means to blaspheme Christ. When this happens you have to shake the dust of your feet and move on. Acts 18:6 And when they opposed themselves and blasphemed, he shook out his raiment and said unto them, Your blood be upon your own heads; I am clean: from henceforth I will go unto the Gentiles. I believe that after Paul prooved from the scriptures that Jesus was indeed the Christ, these Jews in this passage said something that amounted to "even if this is the Christ.. We will not follow him" and so Paul knew there was nothing else to say. When a person takes a verse like 1 Timothy 3:16 1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. And says.. it does not mean God here when it says God was manifest in the flesh.. he is doing what John warned us about... 2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 2 John 1:10-11 If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting: for he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works. So this would be a direct commmandment to not play around with JW cult but be direct with them that unless they repent they will indeed find that hell is real and the flames never cease. |
||||||
76 | is matted hair inappropriate for woman | 1 Tim 2:9 | Scribe | 86182 | ||
1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; As already mentioned. Think of it in the 1st century AD. They that looked this way stood out way beyond the norm. They would appear more like the wicked women of the Greecian temples and the Rich women who spent their time in sensual pursuits. Today it would be like saying.. Don't cut off have your hair and paint the other half green and pierce your tongue with jewlry becuase you will not appear as one that is full of charity and good works but more like someone who is committed to a more wicked lifestyle. I think your pastor following the same spirit of Paul could say, young women, don't follow the fashion of the day and see how low you can wear your jeans before you expose yourself, and go about showing your stomach for the whole world to gaze at. This is not becoming a woman who's heart is set on Glorifying Christ and leading others to the salvation of the Lord. The pastor might not be popular for saying it and will definitely hear the accusation of legalism, but holiness is not something that has to do with the exact clothing or hair style but what it suggests as it relates to the message we are projecting. Dressing in ways that makes most godly men have to pretend they don't see you is probably in the realm of dressing immodest. When even the world and sinners wreck their cars to stare at you, you might be dressing immodestly. If the lost whisper behind your back, you might be dressing immodest.. (sounding like a Jeff Farley list) The New Testament does not introduce legal laws and rules that have no meaning, the spirit of the commandment is what we follow, the Spirit of the Lord in our heart tells us that Paul is speaking of not being immodest. |
||||||
77 | Why was the Holy Spirit delayed? | Acts 8:16 | Scribe | 86180 | ||
Acts 8:14-17 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. I don't see any reference to a delay. As you read through the book of Acts after Acts 2 you see several accounts of believers recieving the baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues and prophesying. It was poured out initially on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 on the 120 in the Upper Room. Then as they go forth being witnesses in the power of the Holy Ghost they prayed for others and they recieved the Holy Ghost. This happens so often that you can't help but get the idea that this is a pattern for world evangelism. There is no verse that says this would stop when the last book of the bible was written. People like to make up explanations like that to help them understand their own life experiences but if we want to be as biblical as we can we will assume that what we read in Acts can still happen today. |
||||||
78 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Scribe | 86179 | ||
Revelation 1:10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, This verse has nothing to do with the sabbath. I think it makes more sense to view it as John saying that He was translated by the Spirit into that Day of the Lord. And so he is just introducing to us what the whole series of visions had to do with.. THE DAY OF THE LORD .. the prophesied Day of the Lord to come in which the wrath of God is poured out on the world and all that is prophesied concerning the Day of the Lord will come to pass. THIS MAKES IT 100 percent Crystal Clear that what follows is future and begins when the DAY OF THE LORD begins. Because the Day of the Lord is still future, we know Revelation is future. And just so no one would be confused as to what time these things would take place he begins with "I was translated by the Spirit into the Day of the Lord" My paraphrase Actually I really did not paraphrase it because the Greek words hear translated The Lord's Day can be translated the Day of the Lord as well. Just as The Lord's Table and the Table of the Lord. I am not a Greek scholar but Joseph A. Siess has presented this at length in his book The Apacolypse and he has done it in a way that all Greek scholars will enjoy. There is no reference to the either the sabbath or Sunday being called the Lord's Day. When you take a step back and think about it, it makes sense that we messed it up along the way because of our church denominational filters. I think the first church thought John meant the Day of the Lord, and much later someone interpreted it as Sunday and it was repeated that way often until many have never heard it interpreted any other way. But the scriptures no where speak of Sunday or sabbath called the Lord's Day. But we read often of The Day of the Lord or the Lord's Day in that sense. This is what John is saying. I was taken by vision into the "Day of the Lord". May God Bless You as you stay humble to the Word and allow the Word of God to transform you into the image of Christ. |
||||||
79 | Justification? | Rom 2:13 | Scribe | 86161 | ||
I don't mean this in a mean spirited way, but I can never make sense of this concept of man having no part that you speak of, so I don't try. Philosophize it until Jesus comes, the truth is that Jesus said that Those that do not do the Word are like those that build their house on the sand. I don't think it is required for us to understand the mechanics of the spiritual workings of God, but for us to do the word is the difference between standing and falling. What does it mean to fall? I don't plan to find out. |
||||||
80 | In Gen.46:27, the number is 70, why? | Acts 7:14 | Scribe | 86160 | ||
Amen, God's Word is Perfect. Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [25] >> |