- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (mikeboll64 @ May 27 2011,11:50) It's not a contradiction at all. In fact Paul teaches that Jesus must have been the one born first out of all creation, because all other things were created through him.
He did? Where?Quote Paul, you keep glossing over the fact that God ALONE created me, but He did that THROUGH the CREATURES who are my parents. DID God ALONE create YOU, Paul? DID He do that THROUGH CREATURES? Where is the “contradiction”?
I addressed this error in thinking in my last post to T8, refer to that. According to scripture our creation is completely a work of YHWH.Quote Good advice……………now follow it. 
The prayer in Acts 4 CLEARLY speaks of the ONE who created the heavens, the earth, and EVERYTHING in them. Peter and John prayed TO that ONE, THROUGH someone OTHER THAN that ONE.
Already addressed.Quote Do you see how all of this fits together so perfectly, Paul? The other Paul says that all things came FROM the Father, THROUGH Jesus. And there is only one name THROUGH which we can be saved BY God. And we pray TO God THROUGH the one He appointed as a mediator between us and Him.
Getting back to the core issue – Is 44:24 and Job 9:8 make no allowance for a creature intermediary. You still haven't addressed these texts.Quote One is the KING, and the other is the KING's right hand man. No one gets to have a face to face sit down with the KING Himself right now. None of us are yet worthy of this. We can only hope to approach the KING THROUGH his main spokesman, or Word. And the Word of the KING pleads and makes intercession with the KING on our behalf.
Right hand man? Yeshua is the King, the King of kings.And the LORD will be king over all the earth; in that day the LORD will be the only one, and His name the only one. (Zech 14:9)
Quote The way YOU understand it, we pray TO God THROUGH God Himself. How can one go THROUGH God to get TO God? It's pure silliness. In YOUR understanding, God has placed Himself at His own right hand. In YOUR understanding, God has GIVEN all power and authority to Himself. In YOUR understanding, God PLEADS with Himself on our behalf. Not to mention that God IS the savior that He Himself SENT. God IS His own anointed one, servant, son, father, sacrificial lamb, and God. How can you people NOT see the truly comical flaws in this doctrine? It absolutely baffles me how you can think God Almighty Himself has a God, and SURPRISE, God Almighty's God is the same God that we have, who is…………..God Almighty.
All valid points to challenge a modalist with. Problem is – I am not a modalist.Quote Jesus is the Redeemer that his own God SENT to us – just like He foretold in Isaiah 19:20. GOD is the One who saved us. He chose to do that THROUGH Jesus. Just as He chose to save Israel THROUGH Cyrus, whose coming He also foretold, and whom He also called His “messiah”, “faithful servant”, and “good shepherd”. Pehaps Cyrus is God Almighty too?
Getting back to my original point was Yeshua is (rightly) credited in scripture as our Redeemer for his work of redemption. You qualify it and water it down but the NT writers do not, they extoll Him in the highest of language. Yeshua is also credited in scripture as Creator for His work of creation (Heb 1:10).Quote Yes we are. Notice how you pluralized the word “being” in your statement, since you are talking of TWO SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL BEINGS. So YES, we have similar nature, but NO, we are not the same individual BEING. Any time you speak about someone having the same nature AS someone else, you are talking about two different beings, not the same one.
You both have human nature. You are both a human being. Yeshua has the same nature as His Father (Heb 1:3).Quote Well, did Moses SAY they were “false gods” or “idols”? He was speaking of the gods who were able to turn staffs into snakes and make frogs appear out of thin air right before his very eyes. So YES, they were REAL gods, for Moses said nothing to make us think any differently.
Are you saying these are created or uncreated gods? It's my contention that the REAL God is uncreated deity. There is the YHWH and all else are merely creation. Do you agree/disagree and why?Quote And who kicked their butts in the end? The God OF gods. If the latter “gods” does not apply to real gods, then YHWH is in a very precarious position, what with being the God of “false gods” and “idols”. He is the God of UNRIGHTEOUS gods, such as Satan, but Satan is not a “false god”. Satan is VERY REAL, and VERY POWERFUL, and very much a god, in Biblical terminology and understanding.
Satan is a created being. The qualified term “god” is ascribed to him to denote his power and rulership over the non-christian world, NOT to denote deity.Quote Come on Paul, you're better than this. Instead of listing a bunch of English translations that add the “so-called” and “gods”, why not tell us what the Greek words actually say? Paul said that there are those called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as there are many gods and many lords……..
Called gods (legomenoi qeoi). So-called gods, reputed gods. Paul denied really the existenc
e of these so-called gods and held that those who worshipped idols (non-entities) in reality worshipped demons or evil spirits, agents of Satan (I Corinthians 10:19-21).
Read more:
http://www.bibletools.org/index.c….NTTransliterated it means “called” “gods”. And indeed they are to the pagan worshippers. What they are in reality is created beings whom Paul contrasts with the True God.
Quote But he didn't, did he? And when he said there are many gods, he didn't hint or imply that he meant anything other than real, bonafide gods. He didn't hint that he was speaking of “false lords” either, did he?
Take the pagan view if you like Michael, it's your prerogative to do so. Paul tried to set you straight, but there are none so blind as those who will not see….Quote Paul is talking about the Law that Moses handed down. He says we were enslaved by the Law and the observance of special days, presumably like the Sabbath and the various festivals and sacrifices learned from Moses. But God sent His Son, born under that Law, to redeem those born under that Law. It should read: Formerly when you did not know God, you were enslaved to that which by nature is no god.
Yes, that's right, although they are called god they do not have a divine nature. I like how Barnes exegetes this verse:Unto them which by nature are no gods – Idols, or false gods. The expression “by nature,” ́ phusei , according to Grotius, means, “in fact, re ipsa .” The sense is, that they really had no pretensions to divinity. Many of them were imaginary beings; many were the objects of creation, as the sun, and winds, and streams; and many were departed heroes that had been exalted to be objects of worship. Yet the servitude was real. It fettered their faculties; controlled their powers; bound their imagination, and commanded their time and property, and made them slaves. Idolatry is always slavery; and the servitude of sinners to their passions and appetites, to lust and gold, and ambition, is not less galling and severe than was the servitude to the pagan gods or the Jewish rites, or than is the servitude of the African now to a harsh and cruel master. Of all Christians it may be said that before their conversion they “did service,” or were slaves to harsh and cruel masters; and nothing but the gospel has made them free. It may be added, that the chains of idolatry all over the world are as fast riveted and as galling as they were in Galatia, and that nothing but the same gospel which Paul preached there can break those chains and restore man to freedom.
Read more: http://www.bibletools.org/index.c….bkuzBniQuote But let's talk “lords”. Do you think that the being of YHWH/Jesus is LITERALLY the only “lord” who ever existed? YES or NO? Then “to us”, King David was a “false lord” and “no lord at all”? Is that it? How about the Christians of Paul's day who still had masters? Did Paul teach them to ignore those lords because they weren't really “lords”? Or did he teach them to respect them to the fullest of their ability?
Read it in context Michael – He is a legitimate Lord, in contrast to the lords the pagans serve.Quote Hmmm………..and why, now that he is back in heaven as “God Himself”, with all power and authority and holding the world together by the power of his own word, does he STILL call the Father “my God”?
Because he is still a man (1 Tim 2:5). When He emptied himself and took on the form of a bond servant, it was an irrevocable decision.Quote So your contention is that Acts 4 contradicts other scriptures? It only does if we use YOUR understanding, Paul. (And make no mistake, using YOUR understanding, we have a CLEAR contradiction in the scriptures.) But if we use MY understanding, which is formed around what the scriptures actually teach, there is NO contradiction. God surely DID created all things ALONE, which matches perfectly with the prayer in Acts 4. But He has created everything THROUGH His Son, and almost everything on earth through His Son AND other creatures. You and I are prime examples of this, Paul. We both have only ONE Creator, who created us ALONE through many other creatures. My understanding matches all the scriptures perfectly, because I gained that understanding from the scriptures themselves. Your understanding, on the other hand, claims that Acts 4 is a contradiction in the inspired word of God.
You see Paul, Acts 4 isn't a case of mentioning only one of our Creators, so that other scriptures could add Jesus in to the equation, thus making Acts 4 merely a “part of the whole truth”, like you seem to think. No, Acts 4 specifically mentions the ONE who created all, and then specifically mentions Jesus as the servant OF that ONE, therefore someone OTHER THAN that ONE, clarifying beyond a shadow of a doubt that not only is Jesus NOT the ONE who created all things, but that he MUST be part of the EVERYTHING IN the heavens and the earth that that ONE created.
Already addressed.Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,13:11) Quote Well, did Moses SAY they were “false gods” or “idols”? He was speaking of the gods who were able to turn staffs into snakes and make frogs appear out of thin air right before his very eyes. So YES, they were REAL gods, for Moses said nothing to make us think any differently.
Are you saying these are created or uncreated gods? It's my contention that the REAL God is uncreated deity. There is the YHWH and all else are merely creation. Do you agree/disagree and why?
Just to expand on this idea a little more and make it crystal clear for you Michael… in the Old Testament YHWH commonly uses His work of creation as a authentication device, it serves to establish Him as the True God and distinguish Him from the other gods (the ones you claim are also diety). Jeremiah 10:10-12, for instance, is a classic compare/contrast:“But the LORD is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King At His wrath the earth quakes, And the nations cannot endure His indignation. Thus you shall say to them, “The gods that did not make the heavens and the earth will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.” It is He who made the earth by His power, Who established the world by His wisdom; And by His understanding He has stretched out the heavens.“
Do you see it now? It's very straight forward…
True God – created the heavens and the earth
Other gods – did not make the heavens and the earthQuote (t8 @ May 27 2011,18:53) Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2011,07:08) Keith,
Sometimes it is the Father who speaks to us and sometimes it is the Son, we can call either one of them 'Lord' and say the 'Lord spoke to me.' Usually I just know that the impression or thought came from one of them but not sure which one and I don't know if it matters…if it did then that would be made plain, imo. One would not say one thing to me and the other contradict it. They are united in what they do or say.Is that not true in your experience?
Kathi
Revelation 1:1 spells it out.
It is always the Father speaking through his agency.
And we know that no man has seen or heard God speak, except through his agency.Jesus himself said that he only speaks that which he hears from his Father.
Even a messenger was sent to Moses on Mt Sinai.
I really am perplexed as to why people have to make it so complicated. Scripture is really simple, it is all these doctrines that acts as filters to scripture that cause problems. Confusion is not of God and truth is.
When man meddles with the things of God, it causes great problems and confusion and worse than that is the world doubts further. The price is often the souls of men.
John 5:37
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me.
You have never heard his voice nor seen his form.
t8,1 John 1:3
what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.Why does it not say that our fellowship is with the Father through His Son if we are hearing from the Father's words only. The Son has a mind separate from the Father and He always makes intercession for us…those words are His own. Why would He, when talking to the Father just repeat the Father's words right back to Him? I believe that the Son is interested in a personal relationship with you as well as the Father.
Do you think the Son is only a perfect puppet who just passes on whatever He sees and Hears, or can we truly have fellowship with Him AND the Father, not just the Father through Him.
who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
I believe the Son is far more than just a messenger. He is our 'head' and our great God and Savior as the scripture puts it. I believe scripture calls us to believe IN two…the Father AND the Son…and that is simple. We understand a Father and a Son, like begets like.
People complicate it by saying that the Father is one type of being and His own Son is a completely different type of being from His Father. Isn't that like telling a child that a human father could have a true and proper son that is a monkey. Tell me what is simple about that? Like begets like…simple…God begets God, perfect begets perfect. That which you seem to believe is like begets unlike, God begets a god, perfect begets imperfect…that is not simple. Maybe I misunderstand what it is that you believe but it seems like you cannot see how two that are called God can become one Godhead and be referred to as one as well as referred to individually. I'm surprised that you would find that complicated. We have that example in marriage.
God is self-sufficient…both principal AND agent in one Godhead. If He is not both principal AND agent, He is not perfect and complete and is needy of another to create through and save that creation through, and to relate to that creation through because He can't do that by Himself. Does the Father dwell in us through His Son…No! It says that both the Father AND the Son dwell in us if we are believers.
t8, I thought that you believed in the divinity of Christ and that He was uncreated. Do you now disbelieve that?
Just wondering,
KathiQuote (Lightenup @ May 28 2011,17:00) Quote (t8 @ May 27 2011,18:53) Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2011,07:08) Keith,
Sometimes it is the Father who speaks to us and sometimes it is the Son, we can call either one of them 'Lord' and say the 'Lord spoke to me.' Usually I just know that the impression or thought came from one of them but not sure which one and I don't know if it matters…if it did then that would be made plain, imo. One would not say one thing to me and the other contradict it. They are united in what they do or say.Is that not true in your experience?
Kathi
Revelation 1:1 spells it out.
It is always the Father speaking through his agency.
And we know that no man has seen or heard God speak, except through his agency.Jesus himself said that he only speaks that which he hears from his Father.
Even a messenger was sent to Moses on Mt Sinai.
I really am perplexed as to why people have to make it so complicated. Scripture is really simple, it is all these doctrines that acts as filters to scripture that cause problems. Confusion is not of God and truth is.
When man meddles with the things of God, it causes great problems and confusion and worse than that is the world doubts further. The price is often the souls of men.
John 5:37
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me.
You have never heard his voice nor seen his form.
t8,1 John 1:3
what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.Why does it not say that our fellowship is with the Father through His Son if we are hearing from the Father's words only. The Son has a mind separate from the Father and He always makes intercession for us…those words are His own. Why would He, when talking to the Father just repeat the Father's words right back to Him? I believe that the Son is interested in a personal relationship with you as well as the Father.
Do you think the Son is only a perfect puppet who just passes on whatever He sees and Hears, or can we truly have fellowship with Him AND the Father, not just the Father through Him.
who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
I believe the Son is far more than just a messenger. He is our 'head' and our great God and Savior as the scripture puts it. I believe scripture calls us to believe IN two…the Father AND the Son…and that is simple. We understand a Father and a Son, like begets like.
People complicate it by saying that the Father is one type of being and His own Son is a completely different type of being from His Father. Isn't that like telling a child that a human father could have a true and proper son that is a monkey. Tell me what is simple about that? Like begets like…simple…God begets God, perfect begets perfect. That which you seem to believe is like begets unlike, God begets a god, perfect begets imperfect…that is not simple. Maybe I misunderstand what it is that you believe but it seems like you cannot see how two that are called God can become one Godhead and be referred to as one as well as referred to individually. I'm surprised that you would find that complicated. We have that example in marriage.
God is self-sufficient…both principal AND agent in one Godhead. If He is not both principal AND agent, He is not perfect and complete and is needy of another to create through and save that creation through, and to relate to that creation through because He can't do that by Himself. Does the Father dwell in us through His Son…No! It says that both the Father AND the Son dwell in us if we are believers.
t8, I thought that you believed in the divinity of Christ and that He was uncreated. Do you now disbelieve that?
Just wondering,
Kathi
I would say that was well written, and once upon a time I would agree with most of what you said.I learn lots from my online friend (a woman) on another forum. She accepted me from day one. We have never had any bad feelings only good. We are the only two woman and she is a moderator.
Shes a trinitarian.
Its not what people teach but the way they teach it.
One either makes people listen or drives them away.
Some people can see through what others cant.
“Who is wise and intelligent among you? let him shew out of the good behaviour his works in meekness of wisdom, and if bitter zeal ye have, and rivalry in your heart, glory not, nor lie against the truth; this wisdom is not descending from above, but earthly, physical, demon-like, for where zeal and rivalry are, there is insurrection and every evil matter; and the wisdom from above, first, indeed, is pure, then peaceable, gentle, easily entreated, full of kindness and good fruits, uncontentious, and unhypocritical: — and the fruit of the righteousness in peace is sown to those making peace.”
Quote (Lightenup @ May 28 2011,16:00) 1 John 1:3
what we have seen and heard we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.Why does it not say that our fellowship is with the Father through His Son if we are hearing from the Father's words only. The Son has a mind separate from the Father and He always makes intercession for us…those words are His own. Why would He, when talking to the Father just repeat the Father's words right back to Him? I believe that the Son is interested in a personal relationship with you as well as the Father.
Do you think the Son is only a perfect puppet who just passes on whatever He sees and Hears, or can we truly have fellowship with Him AND the Father, not just the Father through Him.
who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is He who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.
I believe the Son is far more than just a messenger. He is our 'head' and our great God and Savior as the scripture puts it. I believe scripture calls us to believe IN two…the Father AND the Son…and that is simple. We understand a Father and a Son, like begets like.
People complicate it by saying that the Father is one type of being and His own Son is a completely different type of being from His Father. Isn't that like telling a child that a human father could have a true and proper son that is a monkey. Tell me what is simple about that? Like begets like…simple…God begets God, perfect begets perfect. That which you seem to believe is like begets unlike, God begets a god, perfect begets imperfect…that is not simple. Maybe I misunderstand what it is that you believe but it seems like you cannot see how two that are called God can become one Godhead and be referred to as one as well as referred to individually. I'm surprised that you would find that complicated. We have that example in marriage.
God is self-sufficient…both principal AND agent in one Godhead. If He is not both principal AND agent, He is not perfect and complete and is needy of another to create through and save that creation through, and to relate to that creation through because He can't do that by Himself. Does the Father dwell in us through His Son…No! It says that both the Father AND the Son dwell in us if we are believers.
t8, I thought that you believed in the divinity of Christ and that He was uncreated. Do you now disbelieve that?
Just wondering,
Kathi
Great post. Well thought out and articulated.Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,18:09) Its not what people teach but the way they teach it.
That's an interesting view. I'm curious, why do you think that? To my mind it's what people teach that is of far more importance, as salvation depends may on it. You could deliver the wrong message in a loving way and be complicit in sending someone to hell.Apologetics is not all beer and skittles. The reality is you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. (Matthew 10:34-36)
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,20:25) Great post. Well thought out and articulated.
I agree, but if the truth is spoken, if it causes well-being and builds up others, then that is good right. But if the truth is spoken, and it causes feelings of hurt, NOT because of the truth spoken but because of feelings of anger that the speaker has brought up in some people, then is that good? Is it good to drive people AWAY from what they once believed?Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,19:46) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,20:25) Great post. Well thought out and articulated.
I agree, but if the truth is spoken, if it causes well-being and builds up others, then that is good right. But if the truth is spoken, and it causes feelings of hurt, NOT because of the truth spoken but because of feelings of anger that the speaker has brought up in some people, then is that good? Is it good to drive people AWAY from what they once believed?
The way I look at it – it's better to speak truth with a bad motivation than to withhold it or speak untruth for the sake of someone's feelings. For me speaking the truth in love does necessarily equate to speaking the truth nicely.Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,19:46) Is it good to drive people AWAY from what they once believed?
Yes, if what they believe is false.Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,20:39) Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,18:09) Its not what people teach but the way they teach it.
That's an interesting view. I'm curious, why do you think that? To my mind it's what people teach that is of far more importance, as salvation depends may on it. You could deliver the wrong message in a loving way and be complicit in sending someone to hell.Apologetics is not all beer and skittles. The reality is you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. (Matthew 10:34-36)
“If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling; and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing; and if I give away to feed others all my goods, and if I give up my body that I may be burned, and have not love, I am profited nothing.”
The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up, doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil, rejoiceth not over the unrighteousness, and rejoiceth with the truth; all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth.”
“whoever may cause to stumble one of the little ones believing in me, better is it for him if a millstone is hanged about his neck, and he hath been cast into the sea”.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,20:55) Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,19:46) Is it good to drive people AWAY from what they once believed?
Yes, if what they believe is false.
WHAT IF what they believed was the truth?Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,19:56) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,20:39) Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,18:09) Its not what people teach but the way they teach it.
That's an interesting view. I'm curious, why do you think that? To my mind it's what people teach that is of far more importance, as salvation depends may on it. You could deliver the wrong message in a loving way and be complicit in sending someone to hell.Apologetics is not all beer and skittles. The reality is you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. (Matthew 10:34-36)
“If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling; and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing; and if I give away to feed others all my goods, and if I give up my body that I may be burned, and have not love, I am profited nothing.”
The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up, doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil, rejoiceth not over the unrighteousness, and rejoiceth with the truth; all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth.”
“whoever may cause to stumble one of the little ones believing in me, better is it for him if a millstone is hanged about his neck, and he hath been cast into the sea”.
.
What is love? Define it in a scriptual context.Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,19:58) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,20:55) Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,19:46) Is it good to drive people AWAY from what they once believed?
Yes, if what they believe is false.
WHAT IF what they believed was the truth?
It's always wrong to drive someone from the truth. If you enter into the dialogue you better be sure of your own theology.Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,21:08) Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,19:56) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,20:39) Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,18:09) Its not what people teach but the way they teach it.
That's an interesting view. I'm curious, why do you think that? To my mind it's what people teach that is of far more importance, as salvation depends may on it. You could deliver the wrong message in a loving way and be complicit in sending someone to hell.Apologetics is not all beer and skittles. The reality is you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. (Matthew 10:34-36)
“If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling; and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing; and if I give away to feed others all my goods, and if I give up my body that I may be burned, and have not love, I am profited nothing.”
The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up, doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil, rejoiceth not over the unrighteousness, and rejoiceth with the truth; all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth.”
“whoever may cause to stumble one of the little ones believing in me, better is it for him if a millstone is hanged about his neck, and he hath been cast into the sea”.
.
What is love? Define it in a scriptual context.
If I think of a loving person who is a believer then love defined is loving, kind, thoughtful of others above self, gentle, humble and meek, welcoming, understanding, sympathetic, peaceful, tolerant, helpful, all of the things that are described in the above verses.Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,20:21) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,21:08) Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,19:56) Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,20:39) Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,18:09) Its not what people teach but the way they teach it.
That's an interesting view. I'm curious, why do you think that? To my mind it's what people teach that is of far more importance, as salvation depends may on it. You could deliver the wrong message in a loving way and be complicit in sending someone to hell.Apologetics is not all beer and skittles. The reality is you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to SET A MAN AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND A DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND A DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER-IN-LAW; and A MAN’S ENEMIES WILL BE THE MEMBERS OF HIS HOUSEHOLD. (Matthew 10:34-36)
“If with the tongues of men and of messengers I speak, and have not love, I have become brass sounding, or a cymbal tinkling; and if I have prophecy, and know all the secrets, and all the knowledge, and if I have all the faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing; and if I give away to feed others all my goods, and if I give up my body that I may be burned, and have not love, I am profited nothing.”
The love is long-suffering, it is kind, the love doth not envy, the love doth not vaunt itself, is not puffed up, doth not act unseemly, doth not seek its own things, is not provoked, doth not impute evil, rejoiceth not over the unrighteousness, and rejoiceth with the truth; all things it beareth, all it believeth, all it hopeth, all it endureth.”
“whoever may cause to stumble one of the little ones believing in me, better is it for him if a millstone is hanged about his neck, and he hath been cast into the sea”.
.
What is love? Define it in a scriptual context.
If I think of a loving person who is a believer then love defined is loving, kind, thoughtful of others above self, gentle, humble and meek, welcoming, understanding, sympathetic, peaceful, tolerant, helpful, all of the things that are described in the above verses.
For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights. (Proverbs 3:12)He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently. (Proverbs 13:24)
Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. (Revelation 3:19)
Love encompases correction/reproval and discipline.
Quote (Is 1:18 @ May 28 2011,21:36) For whom the LORD loves He reproves, Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights. (Proverbs 3:12) He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently. (Proverbs 13:24)
Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent. (Revelation 3:19)
Love encompases correction/reproval and discipline.
Our Heavenly Father is a strict Father who does discipline us in love… I have experienced this many times… actually it was the first thing God did in my life, and I obeyed. But God told me very soon after I obeyed… that He disciplines those who he loves..Quote The way I look at it – it's better to speak truth with a bad motivation I completely DISAGREE with that!! How can you speak truth with a bad motive?
It was our heart that was to be circumsized.
Quote (shimmer @ May 28 2011,21:02) Quote The way I look at it – it's better to speak truth with a bad motivation I completely DISAGREE with that!! How can you speak truth with a bad motive?
It was our heart that was to be circumsized.
Please don't just quote part of my statement, it misrepresents what I was conveying. Quote the whole statement. Here's what I wrote in full, with emphasis of the part you omitted:“The way I look at it – it's better to speak truth with a bad motivation than to withhold it or speak untruth for the sake of someone's feelings.”
Do you completely disagree with that?
Is 1:18,
I'm too tired to think now, it's night-time where I live.
Quote “The way I look at it – it's better to speak truth with a bad motivation than to withhold it or speak untruth for the sake of someone's feelings.” Even worded in the whole sentence, I still disagree.
See ya.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
