Results 81 - 100 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | I am confused | Rom 8:30 | biblicalman | 229734 | ||
EJJ No I was not referring to you. I was referring to people who speak about 'crawling out of God's hand' as though God had a weak grip (John 10.29). |
||||||
82 | why are there rewards in heaven | 1 Corinthians | biblicalman | 229076 | ||
Not wishing for a moment to disagree wth Seth's excellent posting. but there are just two points I would wish to raise. Firstly that when Jesus said of John the Baptist, 'Among men that are born of women there is none greater than John the Baptist but he who is least in the Kingly Rule of Heaven is greater than He', I do not see it as referring to their comparative righteouness. Indeed John the Baptist has entered Heaven through the righteousnes of Christ in the same way as we will. For Romans 3.24-25 applies to 'sins done aforetime', that is prior to Christ's coming. In my view it is referring to status. It is bringing out that Jesus was saying that what He had come to introduce was far, far more significant than all that had gone before. God's Kingly Rule had come into the world in Jesus, and thus all Who respond to Him and come under the Kingly Rule of Heaven achieve a status unknown in the Old Testament. They are adopted as 'sons of God' (Galatians 4.1-7), a term never used of God's people, certainly in this sense, in the Old Testament. They call God 'Abba Father' becaue they have received the Spirit of His Son (Galatians 4.6). They have been made one with Christ. They are 'greater', because their King is greater,and they share in His glory. And they are greater because they humble themselves as servants. Who is greatest among them? The one who is least among them (Luke 9.46, 48; 22.24-27). Secondly that when the mother of James and John spoke of their sitting on Jesus' right hand and left, what she was really asking was that they might take the positions of prime importance in what she saw as the soon coming kingdom. Like most who followed Jesus she was expecting Him soon to make the move that would drive out the Romans, establishing God's kingdom in Israel. Jesus of course sits on two thrones (made clear in Rev 3.21). One is the throne of His Father, at which in His manhood He sits at God's right hand (Heb 1.3 etc), while in His Godhood He sits in the midst of the throne (Rev 5.6). The other is His Messianic throne on which we as overcomers will sit with Him (better than being at His right hand). This was the one at which one would sit on His right hand and the other on His left, a position reserved for those whom God determines. (But does this mean that they will not sit on His throne. Of course not. They will be overcomers. This reminds us that thrones are earthly things. They magnify the one who sits on them. In Heaven we will not be seeking a throne. we will be longing to be servants along with the great Servant (Matthew 20.25-28; Mark 9.35; Luke 12.37; 17.8). Those who are looking forward to sitting on thrones have the wrong spirit. They should be looking forward to being the servants all. Heaven should not alter what our attitude should be. How sad if we enter Heaven wanting a throne. (It is quite another thing what God decides to give us). Nor does God sit on a throne except when he is making a theophany for our sake. He is Spirit. What is being indicated is that God is Lord over all. |
||||||
83 | Sanctification Process? | 1 Cor 1:2 | biblicalman | 228428 | ||
Sanctification is not just 'setting apart', it is setting apart for a holy purpose, and when it is by God it results in being acceptable as holy in His eyes through Christ, and in His work of continually sanctifying us by His Spirit, with a view to our becoming holy in practise. We can see sanctifiction as God's side of it and consecration as man's side. In that sense man consecrates hoping that God will sanctify. Many a building is consecrated but not sanctified. But it is a matter of definition. Thus 'sanctify yourselves' is an Old Testament command, indicatng putting oneself in a position physically to be able to approach God(e.g. by washing our clothes and abstaining from sexual activity). Compare 2 Timothy 2.21. Consecration can indicate consecration by God, the equivalent of God sanctifying. The process of sanctification actually commences before we become Christians. 'God has from the beginning chosen you unto salvation through sanctificaton of the Spirit and belief of the truth' (2Thessalonians 2.13). The Spirit begins to set us apart to holiness resulting in our believing the truth and being saved. Thus we can be guided by the Spirit before we are born frm above. We must not limit what God can do by our definitions. I suspect that you are using the term consecration to signify your activity of submitting yourelf to God so that He will bless you and hopefully sanctify you continually. Thus consecration by you and sanctifying by God goes on hand in hand, indeed your consecrating of yourself, assuming it is genuine, will be a result of His sanctifying work. Thus one form of sanctification commences before we become Christians, as God works towards making real in us His choice of us before the foundaion of the world (2 Thessalonians 2.13; 1 Peter 1.2). Then as we respond to Christ for salvation God sanctifies us once for all as His (Acts 20.32; 26.18; 1 Corinthians 1.2; 1.30; 6.11; Hebrews 10.10; Jude 1.1). Then He commences His process of sanctification, the making of us holy in practise (Ephesians 5.26; 1 Thessalonians 5.23; Hebrews 10.14). And finally we will be presented to Him as fully sanctified, made holy in status and in reality, 'holy and without blemish' (Ephesians 5.27). |
||||||
84 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228072 | ||
Beja. I would not call 1 Corinthians 6.16 speculation. It clearly teaches that sexual union makes us one with the person we have sex with. And that is marriage in God's eyes (Genesis 2.24; Mark 2.7-8) if we have not had sexual relations before. If we have tnen it still makes us one but in an adulterous relatonship. The principle is that sexual union makes us one with the person whom we have sexual union with. In the case of the first sexual union that is marriage (the two have been made one). A second sexual union is adultery. It is not marriage in God's eyes because the person had been made one with someone through the first sexual union May I suggest that your illustration misses the whole point In God's eyes (and in Jesus' eyes)she was married to the first man that she had had sexual union with. That being so Jesus would clearly not see her as married to the fifth or sixth man. Have you considered the fact that that was why He said that the man she was living with was not her husband (even if she was married to him, we do not know)? Man's misuse does not cancel the word of God. But we are not talking about a multiple adulterer who is at odds with God anyway. We are talking abut a pure girl who has had sexual union with a man she intends to marry. She can still have a husband in the eyes of God by marrying the man that she has had sexual relations with. If she marries anyone else she will be an adulterer. That is why if anyone in the Old Testament had sexual relations with an unmarried girl he was required to marry her and had no choice. As Jesus would have said concerning your illustration, 'from the beginning it was not so'. |
||||||
85 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228074 | ||
Beja, you are of course always entitled to disagree with me but i would claim that the Scripture is quite clear: 'perhaps you dont know that the man who joins his body to a prostitute becomes physically one with her'. to me that is quite clear the two have become one. and that is the essence of marriage as in Genesis 2.24. Jesus was not speaking in Biblical terms to the woman at the well, He was using common parlance. he was using the words as the woman understood them. you really cannot base your doctrine on what is said to a worldly woman. lol u wont offend me by disagreeing with me. you are welcome to do so. if what i say does not stand up then it deserves to be knocked down. thats what a forum is all about. i just happen to think that it does stand up. others must decide :-)) why do u think in the Old Testament that a man who had sexual relations with an unmarried woman was forced to marry her? it was for the reason i have stated. why was divorce permissible after adultery? for the same reason. the relationship of marriage had been broken by the sexual act best wishes |
||||||
86 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228078 | ||
Beja Marriage consists of two vital parts, the taking of oaths before God and the consummation of those oaths by sexual union. This is even recognised by churches which do not allow divorce. If the marriage is not consummated by sexual union they consider that it can then be annulled, whatever the oaths made, because Scripture teaches that sexual union is an essential part of marriage. Thus an unmarried pair having had sexual union should marry. That is the essence of what the Old Testament was teaching. Having consummated the marriage before it has taken place they are then bound in God's eyes to take oaths of loyalty before God. Their very sexual union has bound them to it. And this is because the sexual union has made them one person (Genesis 2.24). The two have become one (1 Corinthians 6.16). It was because of the hardness of men's hearts that God made allowance for man's weakness. BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO (Matthew 19.8). Thus what you are describing as marriage is the lesser version which is not real marriage in accordance with God's purposes. It is lesser form of marriage, a sinful form of marriage, ssomething which falls short of true marriage. You may interpret Deuteronomy 24 as referring to unfaithfulness, but the Rabbis did not do so, and the Hebrew does not state it. It simple refers to some lack. That is why Jesus said that they allowed divorce 'for any cause'. However, Deuteronomy 24 does not permit divorce. It declares that if divorce has taken place and one party has remarried, the two can never again be married. Why not? Because that party has by sexual union become one with another. Thus for them to remarry is forbidden. So you are in fact wrong in saying that sexual union with another does not (in God's eyes)cancel marriage. It does. The fact that as a result of the innocent party forgiving there can be a renewal of that marriage by further sexual union does not mean that God did not see the marriage as broken. Jesus' teaching demonstrates that that is exactly how God saw it. That is why He stated that in that case divorce was permissible. The view of the Jews was that adultery ended marriage. That is why Joseph determined to put away Mary. Betrothal was a pre-marriage contract only breakable by adultery. So it was the same as marriage. No God's purpose was not that marriage should go on at all costs. God purposed that marriage be non-adulterous. It was man who messed things up. Anything following that was not God's purpose. It was thus not true marriage as God intended it to be. |
||||||
87 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228087 | ||
Beja, If we are going to count Scriptures quoted you quoted two, I quoted four. So I suggest you read what i said again (u claim i only quoted one). I also cited an Old Testament fact about marriage which is in fact found in Deuteronomy 22.28-29. Possibly i should not have assumed that you would recognise the Scripture. I also explained why u were misinterpreting Deuteronomy 24. I do not think that you can honestly call what I said about that a 'dismissal'. Let others judge. Thus i guess I win 5-2 lol Best wishes |
||||||
88 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228091 | ||
lionheart. i am not sure what u are talking about. perhaps you could cite the passage in question. i have never said that sex outside of marriage could be justified. i think u have read something wrongly. Best wishes |
||||||
89 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228110 | ||
hi doc my point was the translation of a phrase in an old testament passage. The general consensus of the Rabbis may not lead to acceptable doctrine but it is very useful in deciding what Hebrew words mean to people who spoke Hebrew. i could have said in my view and according to my knowledge of Hebrew. but people might then have dismissed it. Jesus did not argue that the Scribes were wrong in their translation of the Hebrew. He said that Moses had spoken of divorce becos of the hardness of men's hearts. In fact both the Scribes and Beja misunderstood the real meaning of Deuteronomy 24. But that did not mean that the Scribes were incorrect in their translation. I agree completely that American dispensationalists who teach what you state are misinterpeting Scripture. I lay no emphasis on what the Rabbis teach, except as showing Jewish opinion. But I do respect their knowledge of Hebrew, even though they may sometimes fail to distinguish between their Hebrew and ancient Hebrew. May i suggest that you read what i actually wrote again |
||||||
90 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228111 | ||
Beja Unfortunately you have misunderstood what I said. I did not say it was 'worldly'. My point was that words mean different things in different contexts. For example someone might speak of homosexual marriages. They are using marriage in a modern sense as simply a personal contract between two people. If I were to use the word in that way I would not expect everyone to always assume that i meant that when i used the term marriage in other contexts. It would depend on the context. When Jesus was speaking to the woman about her spiritual condition he was using common parlance so that she would understand what He was talking about. What other words could He have used without getting over-complicated? But that fact cannot be used to declare what He would have said if He was asked to define God's view of marriage, and to say what an authentic husband would be like. If you cannot see that then there is little point in discussing with you. Meanwhile i also find your postings on this issue very short on Scripture, lol. Meanwhile I deny your claim that my thought forms are required before you can understand what 1 Cor 6.16 means. It is quite clear. It is that if you have sex wth someone you are made physically one with them. That is WHAT IT SAYS. It requires no thought form to understand that. And that should then affect your thought forms. Best wishes . |
||||||
91 | regulation regarding tattooing | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228269 | ||
Personally I cannot agree that 1 Corinthians 6.19 applies only to immorality. It was a statement of a fact which certainly demonstrated that immorality was wrong for the reason given, but ti was stating a general principle that applies to everything that we do If we know that we are the Temple of God and that the Holy Spirit dwells in us, and that we and our bodies are not our own, but are bought with a price so that we belong to Him, then it affects every part of our lives, and especially what we do to our bodies. I must therefore agree with Makarios that what we do with it should not be decided by the fad of the moment, which has a totally worldly basis, such as tattooing, but should be decided by what Jesus Himself would have done. And in my view it is totally impossible to conceive of Jesus as tattooing Himself. To do such a thing would have been the very opposite of what He was and is. Tattooing is on the same level as braiding the hair, or gold, or pearls or expensive designer clothing (1 Tim 2.9-10). They are self indulgent and vain. All these things will stand as a witness against those who indulge in them on the last Day. And whereas you can cease to do most of these things, you will not be able to remove your tattoo. |
||||||
92 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228334 | ||
The questioner specifically asked whether we saw obesity as a sin. And yes, I do see obesity as a sin. Are you then suggesting that I should evade the truth? Are you denying that obesity is due to a lack of self-control? I am sorry but I consider that it is our responsibility as pastors and teachers to guide people aright, and that we will be called to account for not doing so. I would be wary of judging an individual, but I have no hesitation in declaring obesity to be a sin unless it is due to a medical condition. As to tattoos and ultra-fine clothes, the latter were condemned by Paul, and the former is another evidence of self indulgence, to say nothing of a sign of vanity. A Christian being tattooed also gives a wrong impression about Christianity. It suggests concern for one's own vanity rather than for the needs of others. When we are asked on the forum what our view is on such things it is our responsibility to give an honest view. I do not want to face the Master and explain why I failed to draw attention to men's besetting sins simply because I was afraid of what others would think. You may of course view things as you will. I see myself as having a responsibility to direct men's thoughts aright. They are of course quite able to disagree if they wish. I will pass no judgment on them for that. In the end I am only responsible for myself and what I teach. Best wishes. |
||||||
93 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228343 | ||
Hi justme, thank you for your apology which is gladly accepted. We both share the same dilemma. How to be tough on sin and yet compassionaten with the sinner, a word that includes ourselves. We have to be aware of our own failures first. Best wishes |
||||||
94 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228345 | ||
First let me make clear that I do not think the obese person is somehow more sinful than other Christians. We all sin daily, and come short of God's glory. As you will appreciate I answered a question about a sin, I did not raise an issue about obese people. I will speak against laziness, but I do not go round telling people they are lazy. I leave the Holy Spirit to do His work. All of us are starting from a base of imperfection and wrong attitudes and are hopefully being transformed by the Holy Spirit 'from glory to glory' (2 Corinthians 3.18). What are not sins for us today, might well be sins for us tomorrow as we grow closer to our Lord Jesus Christ. There are times when we make great leaps forward, such as at times of dedicating ourselves again to His service. There are times when due to our indolent natures we allow ourselves to drift back into different sins. As Paul made clear, 'I AM fleshly -- it is sin that dwells in me'. It has to be constantly watched and overcome. And that is true for all of us. And we have a 'low' view of sin. Jesus must have been appalled at the sinfulness of His Apostles, for He had a high view of sin. But we would not be able to tell that He was appalled by what He said. He understood their weakness, as He understands ours. His words do, however, make clear that He was appalled at sin. What we can only do therefore is deal with the sins as they arise and are brought to our attention by the Holy Spirit. Obesity and being overweight, result from sin, the sin of overindulgence. But that does not mean that the obese person is at the present stage sinning, although yes i do think he/she should be trying to deal with the matter. The overweight or obese person is suffering for past sin. But I have no intention of targetting obese persons. I want to help them, as I hope they want to help me with my failings. I am not obese, but I certainly have to watch myself. And sometimes I have to take myself in hand and say, 'watch it'. The line is actually not easy to draw as with much sin. But the sin is in the attitude and failings that produce such a condition, and sometimes it can be upon us before we are aware. As we grow in Christ we become aware of things as sinful which previously we would not have seen as sinful. Paul saw sin as so powerful within him that he was ashamed. When we read his description we think, surely he couldn't have been as bad as that! Had we been watching him we would in fact probably have seen him as nearly perfect. We would have admired his spirituality. But he knew his inner self. He knew how sometimes he indulged himself by failing to pray as he should have done (something we might not even have considered). He knew of times when had he been a little more aware, rather than being taken up with other things, he would have been able to help a struggling Christian or church. He bore the burden of all the churches, and he was aware that sometimes he fell short. To him that was a gross sin. We on the other hand would have been commending his efforts, watching in silent admiration. It is not for me to draw lines. I leave that to the Holy Spirit. And remember that sin is to fail to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbour as ourselves. It is to come short of God's glory. So we are all sinners seeking to rise above what we are, while at the same time we are all saints, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.. We must never be judgmental of the sinner, for we too are sinners who will have to give account, but we must be judgmental of the sin. And we must help each other, coming alongside to help. Best wishes. |
||||||
95 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228346 | ||
Hi Doc Thank you for your 'correction'. My statement that obesity from non-medicsl causes was a sin was a little careless, seeing the end process in terms of what caused it, but as you will note below I was in process of correcting it when you wrote. It is as you rightly say sin that results in obesity. Although in my view to continue in obesity and not to be doing something about it is sin although possibly not the worst of sins. Anything that comes short of the glory of God is sin Thank you for taking the trouble to write. Best wishes |
||||||
96 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228270 | ||
I am unable to find in my Bible where 1 Corinthians 15.25 is 'a specific reference to the millennial rule'. There is nothing specific about it at all. It is an interpretation and many would disagree with that statement. It is reading into Scripture what is not there and then calling it specific. Revelation 11.15 specifically refers to the coming eternal reign of Christ. There is no mention of anything else (neither any millennial reign or His present reign as both LORD and Christ - Act 2.34-36). I have found nothing in Scripture about the Temple being rebuilt. In Revelation the Temple is in Heaven both before and after chapter 11. 2 Thessalonians 2.4 probably refers to a pagan Temple in the Roman empire where Caligula did set himself up to be worshipped as theos (it is the Temple of theos, a word which refers to any divinity). Revelation 11 cannot be literally interpreted. It is impossible to conceive of a Temple where the Gentiles control in hostility (trample) the courts of the Temple with the sanctuary alone being occupied by God's people, espcially as it exists for three and a half years. The Gentiles would take over the whole Temple. The Temple must therefore be the Temple of the Holy Spirit, the body of Christ. There was no command to build the Temple in Ezekiel. It was not intended to be built. It was on a mountain some distance from Jerusalem.(Jerusalem was defiled) as an encouragement to God's people.. What was to be built was the altar (Ezekiel 43.18). The Temple was a heavenly Temple situated on a mountain some distance from Jerusalem (which like the angelic armies of Elisha were visible only to those gifted with spiritual sight) which demonstrated that God was still with His people even though there was no physical Temple. That altar was built by Zerubbabel and Joshua (Ezra 3.2). I know of no Scripture which says that the Messiah will build a Temple. Perhaps you can enlighten me. We must be careful not to stretch Scripture so as to fit it into our own theories. We must look at what is ACTUALLY said. |
||||||
97 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228275 | ||
Hi Searcher, I was not saying what Holmes said, I was laying the background for what I was going to say. But clearly Holmes was suggesting that the Temple would be built, otherwise it would not have supported his case. My point was that the Temple in Ezekiel was not erected by man but by God, and it was directed towards the people of his day. I will deal with each quotation in separate posts so each can be debated on if people wish, otherwise posts will be too long. The house of the Lord from which the waters will flow in Joel 3.18 was partly fulfilled when Gods Temple, Jesus Christ came into the world (John 2.19) (he who drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst - John 4.14) and also finds its fulfilment in the church of Jesus Christ which was the Temple of the living God (2 Corinthians 6.16), out of the innermost beings will flow rivers of living water (John 7.38) and finally in the Temple which John saw in Heaven which helps to sustain believers in coming days (e.g. Revelation 6.9-11). It is interesting that Jesus never said that the Temple would be rebuilt, only that it would be destroyed. All this is in the same bracket as the Jerusalem which is in Heaven, which Paul says is the true Jerusalem (Galatians 4.25-26; Hebrews 12.22). If the true Jerusalem is in Heaven so is the true Temple. Much of Old Testament prophecy and promise will be fulfilled in the New Earth, consider for example the promise of the land to Abraham (Hebrews 11.10-14). But there will be no Temple in the New Earth. Best wishes |
||||||
98 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228276 | ||
There is no one in the world who takes every word of the Bible literally (no one that I know of thinks that Nebuchadnezzar was a tree). The only question is how we are to decide on what is literal and what is not. Now when we come to Revelation it is particularly difficult as it is a book of 'signs'. John 'signified' things through signs. The four horsemen of Revelation 6 are not literal, although the devastation that followed was. Thus we have to weigh each chapter up and consider what is literal and what is not. In Revelation 13 it is not really talking about a beast which will arise out of the waters. We have to interpret who the Beast is and what the waters represent. So especially at the commencement of each chapter we may expect symbolism. And so I could go on. Or perhaps you do expect a dragon to come from the sea? It is not for me to say what you believe. Best wishes. |
||||||
99 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228279 | ||
Hi Searcher, Now let us look at the second of your quotations which you seem to think indicate a Temple in the end times. In Isaiah 2.3 we read, the mountain of the house of the Lord will be established as the highest of the mountains and will be raised above the hills. Now if we take that literally (and a literalist should do no other) then it means that the Temple will be built on a mountain raised higher than Mount Everest. Now I recognise that God could do that, but it would mean the nations flowing uphill for over 29,000 feet. Is that what the Spirit through the prophet was indicating? My view is that the Spirit, speaking to Old Testament people who had no conception of a heaven to which people go, (such beliefs were left to pagans and their gods), was indicating that the Temple would be exalted far above all. The New Testament equivalent is the heavenly Temple in Revelation. It was as a result of the coming of Jesus the first time that God exalted the living Temple of Jesus and of His people, (or don't you believe that God's people are literally the Temple of the Living God?) and that instruction went out of Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem, and that as a consequence peace spread throughout the world as a result of the Gospel under the reign of He Who is both judge and Saviour. Now if you do not believe that the Temple will be built in a mountain over 29,000 feet in height you have to deny the literalism. Then ANY interpretation is failing to be literal. |
||||||
100 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228280 | ||
Once again I wrote a long explanation on Isaian 60 and when I moved back to make an alteration it was deleted. This site is not very efficient. This has happened to me before. Does anyone else experience this? My next answer will now have to wait until tomorrow. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |