“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#468039 Nov 21, 2012
LAWEST100 wrote:
CHILDISH name calling..........
LOL

I liked the word chikdish. Sounds like an alternative to turkey dinner.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#468040 Nov 21, 2012
BROTHER LEE LOVE.....Hey brother..hope u see this cause need to respond here for space. please dont think my short reply is indicative of a lack of appreciation for the good information in your response. I am still at work however and this is a subject that while I have studied it on and off for the last year, i still am nowhere close to the point that I could give a decent reply without my Bible and notes in front of me.I should have time over the holiday weekend to look into this more and will get back to you soon. In the meantime, have a great Thanksgiving!(T) PEACE

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468041 Nov 21, 2012
Qu_innocence wrote:
Hey Bro Lee, I promised to get with the rest of your previous post.
Concerning Michael, he is only one of the Chief Angels according to Daniel as he was fasting and praying to God. Look what the angel told Daniel:
"But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, ONE OF THE CHIEF PRINCES, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia."
Now I'm not sure what those angels names are... I think the Catholics mentioned Rafael, Uriel... I'm just going from old memory and not exactly sure where they got that from. I know the Gnostics have their own version and some even worship Angels... part of the reason why Paul and John wrote the way they did, to refute the Gnostic heresies.
But I do know that there is an innumberable company of angels according to the scriptures... hebrews 12:22... and more than one chief angel... according to the scripture at least.
Greetings, salutations, and shalowm, Brother Qu-innocence.

If it's one thing I have no pleasure of getting into, it's the subject of titles. Even the title "God," as you're more than likely aware of, is shared among many, including mere men. "Prince," too, is shared among many, including our anointed Savior. If I may share with you a couple of examples, please...

Acts 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Savior...

Acts 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called...The Prince of Peace.

Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth.

NOTE: At Revelation 12, the angels are said to belong to Michael, as Michael appears as the leader in this war. But, at Revelation 19, our anointed Savior appears as the leader. I believe both are one and the same.

I'd also like to refer you to 1Thessalonians 4:16. In this verse, it's written that our anointed Savior is going to return "with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God." I believe this voice is his own and not one from a lesser authority.

In light of what you've just read, understand that the title "chief" is just that and can be shared, too. It's also believed that Gabriel is a "chief" angel, by many. But, at Daniel 12:1, we read about Michael again, and in a greater light than even Gabriel.

What say you, my Brother?

Again. Saying that the name of our anointed Savior, while in heaven, is Michael doesn't change who he is, nor his position. It just sheds light on his person. "Michael" means "Who Is Like God?"

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#468042 Nov 21, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
We all have our 'times of incivility' but he seems to make it a career.
Let us give thanks that we were raised above that.
Absolutely.

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#468043 Nov 21, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
I liked the word chikdish. Sounds like an alternative to turkey dinner.
Lol, I have been known to come up with a interesting word or two by incident of a typo.

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#468044 Nov 21, 2012
Given the recent events that have been going on between Israel and Gaza that almost escalated into a full blown war but thankfully a cease fire was agreed upon today, it got me to thinking a little about Israel's part in end times prophetic events, I looked up a very interesting interpretation of Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 that I would like to read others weigh in on http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warning%206%20R...

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468045 Nov 21, 2012
LAWEST100 wrote:
Good E Skom, I hope that all is well with you, I have to disagree with you here my friend, I just don't see three Gods when the bible makes it so clear through out the Word that there is only ONE, and to say that they are three seperate entities is to me saying that there is three gods and the bible just do not say that, so...
Actually, there are many gods. Scriptures attest to this. When it's written that there's only one "God," this is to declare that Father's power and authority are unrivaled. All in all, though, this is why Father is called "God of gods (Deut 10:17)." Obviously, He's not a "God" of false gods invented and fashioned by men, as these "gods" don't actually exist, at all. He's a "God" of gods that He allows. And this is why it's commanded us; "Thou shalt have no other gods BEFORE me (Ex 20:3)." Beneath and after is allowed if according to His standards and stipulations.

1Corinthians 8:5-6
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven, or in earth,(as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Also, read Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34
LAWEST100 wrote:
lets examine some of these scriptures that you have posted, Jesus said to baptize them in the NAME ( singular ) not NAMES ( Plural ) of the father, and of the son and of the holy ghost and thats because God operates in ONE name in this dispensation of truth and grace, at the ladt supper when when he said that the father will send you another comforter in my name, remember Jesus was still among them in the flesh and also told them that he go away and yet come unto them again, because he is the Holy Ghost in spirit and not in the flesh and so when Jesus left them by ascending back into heaven after his death, burial and resurrection he returned unto them again in the form of the Holy Ghost to dwell with and within them as he promised them tbat he would.
The third scripture that you posted I have also covered with Qu, the father, the word ( not the son ) and the holy ghost bear record in heaven but these three are ONE and it goes on to read in the next verse that there are 3 that bear record in the earth, the water, the blood and the spirit and these 3 agree in ONE and tbat is the human body of which have water blood and a spirit in it but it is still ONE human body, there is not 3 Gods sitting on a throne in heaven but one God only, and Jesus sitting on the right hand of the father is a metaphor meaning that all power is in his name and not a physical position, Ephesians 4:4 says there is ONE Lord,one faith and one baptism, colosians 2:9 says that the fullness of the Godhead is all in HIM ( not THEM or HER ) tell is more to confirm this but I'll stop for right now.
Peace.
I'd like to add, especially if you weren't aware of this, that the term "name" doesn't always equate to a personal designation, like "Brother Lee Love," or "LAWEST100." At times, the term "name" is to designate authority. Case in point...

Peter declared, "...for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12)." Paul wrote, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow..(Philip 2:10)."

What is this name? "Jesus?" Was there none other named "Jesus?" Is it "Jesus," or "Iesus?" Or, is it "Joshua," or "Yeshua?" Or, how about "Yahowshua?"

When it's written that we baptize and be baptized in the "name" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it's instructing us to baptize and be baptized, literally, in their authority, as a Godhead.

And besides, the Holy Spirit is never given a personal name anyway. Not one that equates to "YHWH" and "Jesus," anyway.

Shalowm, Brother.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468046 Nov 21, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
BROTHER LEE LOVE.....Hey brother..hope u see this cause need to respond here for space. please dont think my short reply is indicative of a lack of appreciation for the good information in your response. I am still at work however and this is a subject that while I have studied it on and off for the last year, i still am nowhere close to the point that I could give a decent reply without my Bible and notes in front of me.I should have time over the holiday weekend to look into this more and will get back to you soon. In the meantime, have a great Thanksgiving!(T) PEACE
Greetings, salutations, and shalowm, Brother Skombolis.

I'll be patient. I completely understand. That's why I have a bible app on my phone. I don't even bother visiting Topix with my phone, though. I don't think I could handle it. lol

Until next time...my Brother.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#468047 Nov 21, 2012
Two good articles on gnosticism and gnosis:

"Williams argues that the conceptual foundations on which the category of Gnosticism rests are the remains of the agenda of the heresiologists. Too much emphasis has been laid on perceptions of dualism, body- and matter-hatred, and anticosmism[126] without these suppositions being properly tested. In essence, the interpretive definition of Gnosticism that was created by the antagonistic efforts of the early church heresiologists has been taken up by modern scholarship and reflected in a categorical definition, even though the means now existed to verify its accuracy. Attempting to do so, Williams contests, reveals the dubious nature of categorical "Gnosticism", and he concludes that the term needs replacing in order to more accurately reflect those movements it comprises.[125] Williams' observations have provoked debate; however, to date his suggested replacement term "the Biblical demiurgical tradition" has not become widely used."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Kabba...

"Cosmogonic-theological speculations, philosophemes on God and the world, constitute the substance of gnosis. They are based on the first sections of Genesis and Ezekiel, for which there are in Jewish speculation two well-established and therefore old terms: "Ma'aseh Bereshit" and "Ma'aseh Merkabah." Doubtless Ben Sira was thinking of these speculations when he uttered the warning: "Seek not things that are too hard for thee, and search not out things that are above thy strength. The things that have been commanded thee, think thereupon; for thou hast no need of the things that are secret" (Ecclus.[Sirach] iii. 21-22, R. V.). The terms here emphasized recur in the Talmud in the accounts of gnosis. "There is no doubt that a Jewish gnosticism existed before a Christian or a Judo-Christian gnosticism. As may be seen even in the apocalypses, since the second century B.C. gnostic thought was bound up with Judaism, which had accepted Babylonian and Syrian doctrines; but the relation of this Jewish gnosticism to Christian gnosticism may, perhaps, no longer be explained "(Harnack," "Geschichte der Altchristlichen Litteratur," p. 144). The great age of Jewish gnosticism is further indicated by the authentic statement that Johanan b. Zakkai, who was born probably in the century before the common era, and was, according to Sukkah 28a, versed in that science, refers to an interdiction against "discussing the Creation before two pupils and the throne-chariot before one."

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/67...

Note that Kabbalah (Jewish) and Cabbalah (Christian) are both Gnostic based beliefs and clodely related to the 1st Cent. Egyptian texts from the Nag Hammidi collection.

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#468048 Nov 21, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, there are many gods. Scriptures attest to this. When it's written that there's only one "God," this is to declare that Father's power and authority are unrivaled. All in all, though, this is why Father is called "God of gods (Deut 10:17)." Obviously, He's not a "God" of false gods invented and fashioned by men, as these "gods" don't actually exist, at all. He's a "God" of gods that He allows. And this is why it's commanded us; "Thou shalt have no other gods BEFORE me (Ex 20:3)." Beneath and after is allowed if according to His standards and stipulations.
1Corinthians 8:5-6o
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven, or in earth,(as there be gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
Also, read Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34
<quoted text>I'd like to add, especially if you weren't aware of this, that the term "name" doesn't always equate to a personal designation, like "Brother Lee Love," or "LAWEST100." At times, the term "name" is to designate authority. Case in point...
Peter declared, "...for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12)." Paul wrote, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow..(Philip 2:10)."
What is this name? "Jesus?" Was there none other named "Jesus?" Is it "Jesus," or "Iesus?" Or, is it "Joshua," or "Yeshua?" Or, how about "Yahowshua?"
When it's written that we baptize and be baptized in the "name" of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it's instructing us to baptize and be baptized, literally, in their authority, as a Godhead.
And besides, the Holy Spirit is never given a personal name anyway. Not one that equates to "YHWH" and "Jesus," anyway.
Shalowm, Brother.
Thank you BLL, very interesting scriptures you posted that I have been spiritually Blessed to understand for a very long time now but thank you all the same for your commentary, when I was refering to the ONE GOd I was refering strictly to the creator God that is the Word that was made flesh and dwelt among mankind and not other Gods that are man made, and we do know that the name of Jesus Christ is the ultimate name in power and authority and tbe name of the ONE true God.

As for the baptism that you mentioned that is so much a essential part of our salvation..........it's all IN the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only as there is no "they" to give homage to in this action, Colossians 3:17 instructs us that what so ever we do in Word or in deed do all IN the name of the Lord Jesus givibg thanks to God and the fatber by him, because again all AUTHORITY is in the name of JESUS CHRIST and that IS the name of the father, and of the son and of the holy ghost, taking someone under water saying the words " I therefore baptist you in the name of the father and of the son and of the holy ghost ( or holy spirit as many of you chose ) is not doing what the Lord said do but is only repeating after him, you may want to read the book of acts as Peter and the rest of the Apostles clearly understood what Jesus instructed them to do.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468049 Nov 21, 2012
Qu_innocence wrote:
Praise The Lord Bro... Good Morning to you. A question for you, are women also created in the image of God and His likeness or is it just the man only?
Ooh-hoo-hoo-hoo!

Now, you've done it! One can of worms and you went and opened it! lol

If you don't mind, I'm going to make this as brief as possible, so you can examine the scriptures yourself and share, with me, your findings. I might not be right in this. Anyway...

We know that the woman is the glory of man, but I don't believe women are made in the image of man. And why not?

I don't believe the man Adam was, literally, the first man created. Rather, I believe he was the first created after mankind was created. And here's why...

In the Hebrew texts, the actual man, Adam, isn't mentioned until Genesis 2:21. The 4 times "Adam" is used prior to verse 21 (vss. 19-20), the literal translation is "man," or "mankind." Even the 3 times after (vs. 23, 3:8, 9) translates, literally, to the same. The man, Adam, isn't mentioned by name again until Genesis 3:17. And after this, even though the name "Adam" appears another 6 times, the man "Adam" isn't mentioned again, literally, until Genesis 5:3. Yes, it's possible that Adam is alluded to, but I'm only suggesting a possibility based on the literal translation. Anyway...

When we read of the creation of mankind, many merely assume that the first human ever was Adam. And then, of course, Eve was made from him. In the meantime, Genesis 1:26-28 raises questions in my ever-seeking mind.

And God said, Let us make ['adam] in our image, after our likeness: and let *THEM (*emphasis mine) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created ['adam] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; *MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM.
And God blessed *THEM, and God said unto *THEM.....

I believe that when it's first written, "..in the image of God created he him," that this supposed singularity was used purposely to declare two things-- In no particular order, our "natural use" of one another, as man and woman become "one," and the order in which man is designated as the head of the woman.

Again, I could be wrong. But, this is the conclusion I've come to, so far. And in this conclusion, I've found it a much easier task explaining why Cain feared for his life after he was cast out and how he was able to marry even though only Adam, Eve, Abel, and Cain, were mentioned up to that time.

What say you, my Brother?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#468050 Nov 21, 2012
On the word "Logos" which is translated as "Word" in English translations of the Gospel according to John:

Logos is an element of Greek philosphy from 500 BC (Heraclitis) and became heavily infused with Jewish gnosticism, esp. the Jewish doctrines espoused by Philo of Alexandria (20BC to 50AD).

"Philo (20 BC 50 AD), a Hellenized Jew, used the term Logos to mean an intermediary divine being, or demiurge. Philo followed the Platonic distinction between imperfect matter and perfect idea, and therefore intermediary beings were necessary to bridge the enormous gap between God and the material world. The Logos was the highest of these intermediary beings, and was called by Philo "the first-born of God." Philo also wrote that "the Logos of the living God is the bond of everything, holding all things together and binding all the parts, and prevents them from being dissolved and separated."

"The Platonic Ideas were located within the Logos, but the Logos also acted on behalf of God in the physical world. In particular, the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) was identified with the Logos by Philo, who also said that the Logos was God's instrument in the creation of the universe."

Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy, Volume 1, Continuum, 2003, pp. 458462.

Philo, De Profugis, cited in Gerald Friedlander, Hellenism and Christianity, P. Vallentine, 1912, pp. 114115.

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468051 Nov 22, 2012
LAWEST100 wrote:
As for the baptism that you mentioned that is so much a essential part of our salvation...it's all IN the name of the Lord Jesus Christ only as there is no "they" to give homage to in this action, Colossians 3:17 instructs us that what so ever we do in Word or in deed do all IN the name of the Lord Jesus givibg thanks to God and the fatber by him, because again all AUTHORITY is in the name of JESUS CHRIST and that IS the name of the father, and of the son and of the holy ghost.

EDITED FOR SPACE
By mentioning Acts, you reminded me of a past discussion I had with a vehement atheist that attempted to convince all in the thread that the apostles willfully disobeyed the specific command of our anointed Savior. Their point and contention was a simple one. I'm paraphrasing, but they asked, "Why did the apostles baptize in Jesus' name only when Jesus instructed them to baptize, specifically,'in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost'?" This atheist could easily be deemed as one that lacked understanding (and was by some), but nonetheless. Their question was a valid one.

First, I believe that their primary goal was to create more dissension between believers, because (if memory serves me correctly) we were actually discussing whether or not a "trinity" truly exists. Obviously, Matthew 28:19 is a favored verse in such discussions. Regardless, they brought one major point from the verse that we had no choice but to accept.

In Hebrew and Greek, the simple term "and" is used to indicate a continuation. And we can easily see that the term "and" is twice used in the construct of the sentence. And not only that, but a comma is used, too, which indicates a natural division. Therefore, they contended that the verse could be easily reconstructed to read as such:

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and [in the name] of the Son, and [in the name] of the Holy Ghost."

They were right.

They would repeat, as one point of their argument, how that Father's name is "Jehovah," and that the Son's name is "Jesus," but that the Holy Ghost doesn't have a name as Father and Son do. Of course, they would then ask how anyone can baptize and be baptized in all three names when all three don't have names? Then, they would return to their initial argument, accusing the apostles of willfully disobeying our anointed Savior's "specific command." Understanding that the interpretation of the term "name" can exceed that of a personal identification, but can also be used to indicate power and authority, I discussed the matter with the atheist. Sadly, the discussion ended with an agreement to disagree. Even now, I don't believe the atheist cared, either way. But, for the sake of Truth, I did what I believed necessary.

All in all, I understand your point. But, I believe it's important that we remember that all things is to, in the end, give glory to Father. The woman gives glory to the man. Man gives glory to our anointed Savior. Our anointed Savior gives glory to Father. I call this "The Divine Trickle Effect."

Please and if you will. Allow me to slightly alter these next few verses, and tell me if they make sense to you. The alterations will appear in brackets.

Philippians 2:9-11
Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a [authority] which is above every [authority];
That at the [authority] of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

KEY POINTS: "..highly exalted him," and "..is Lord."

Also, keep in mind that "Jesus" was a most common name in Israel. And secondly, he wasn't the only one that was believed to be the promised Messiah of prophecy. Therefore, I believe many of these verses that use the term "name" must be directing us to a deeper interpretation.

What say you, my Brother?

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#468052 Nov 22, 2012
Skombolis wrote:
<quoted text>Hey Serah!Thank you.Same to you my friend.(T) PEACE
Cheers Skom ~ I guess you are in your Thanksgiving day now as mine is drawing to a close. It is a lovely Spring evening here, mid 80's and I might just take little Pugstar out for a stroll. I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving; perhaps we don't always appreciate what we have, but in reflection, we have much more than many others.

GOD Bless, enjoy your day, and Peace to you too, friend :)

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#468053 Nov 22, 2012
Lawest wrote:
<quoted text> Hey there Serah, you did miss ME but I won't hold it against you, you and yours have a Blessed Thanksgiving as well.(C:
Ahh; let me jump in right now and wish you a very Blessed Thanksgiving, with many more to follow :O)

GOD Bless.....

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#468054 Nov 22, 2012
LAWEST100 wrote:
<quoted text> He has really displayed childish and immature behavior here that's very unbecoming of an adult let alone someone professing to be filled with God, he chosens to result in chikdish name calling instead of civil debate and vilifies those who disagrees with him on anything, but as it is said..........prayer can change things.
Have a Blessed Thanksgiving D.
Prayer and an internet that is working ~ YAY!! I can't believe what a difference a bit of speed makes to the laptop, and no dropping out!! Finally rang my internet provider last night, and they have fixed it for me.... a great Thanksgiving gift :)

“Thank you GOD for JESUS”

Since: Jul 07

And thank you JESUS for caring

#468055 Nov 22, 2012
Brother Lee Love wrote:
<quoted text>Ooh-hoo-hoo-hoo!
Now, you've done it! One can of worms and you went and opened it! lol
If you don't mind, I'm going to make this as brief as possible, so you can examine the scriptures yourself and share, with me, your findings. I might not be right in this. Anyway...
We know that the woman is the glory of man, but I don't believe women are made in the image of man. And why not?
I don't believe the man Adam was, literally, the first man created. Rather, I believe he was the first created after mankind was created. And here's why...
In the Hebrew texts, the actual man, Adam, isn't mentioned until Genesis 2:21. The 4 times "Adam" is used prior to verse 21 (vss. 19-20), the literal translation is "man," or "mankind." Even the 3 times after (vs. 23, 3:8, 9) translates, literally, to the same. The man, Adam, isn't mentioned by name again until Genesis 3:17. And after this, even though the name "Adam" appears another 6 times, the man "Adam" isn't mentioned again, literally, until Genesis 5:3. Yes, it's possible that Adam is alluded to, but I'm only suggesting a possibility based on the literal translation. Anyway...
When we read of the creation of mankind, many merely assume that the first human ever was Adam. And then, of course, Eve was made from him. In the meantime, Genesis 1:26-28 raises questions in my ever-seeking mind.
And God said, Let us make ['adam] in our image, after our likeness: and let *THEM (*emphasis mine) have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created ['adam] in his own image, in the image of God created he him; *MALE AND FEMALE CREATED HE THEM.
And God blessed *THEM, and God said unto *THEM.....
I believe that when it's first written, "..in the image of God created he him," that this supposed singularity was used purposely to declare two things-- In no particular order, our "natural use" of one another, as man and woman become "one," and the order in which man is designated as the head of the woman.
Again, I could be wrong. But, this is the conclusion I've come to, so far. And in this conclusion, I've found it a much easier task explaining why Cain feared for his life after he was cast out and how he was able to marry even though only Adam, Eve, Abel, and Cain, were mentioned up to that time.
What say you, my Brother?
Hey BLL, I give some scriptures much thought, as I suppose many of us do, but Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch gives much to think about too.

Would one call a home of Father, Mother and Son a city?

And Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown...

Where did the giants come from?

Ahhh, much to think about indeed, and I think that is why I love the Bible so much, it surely swims with time and knowledge :)

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#468056 Nov 22, 2012
To BROTHER LEE LOVE:

Have to respond in this manner for space as my original response to your post went over Topix 4000 character limit..........what I would say as you asked me is that it appears that we are on the same page as far as Jesus Christ being the ultimate name in authority as well as the only name that we have any hope in as far as salvation is concerned as outlined in Acts 4:12, however it would seem as far as your conversation with that Atheist goes is that like so many people fail to understand wnd including those who profess to be born again Christians is that the terms Father, Son and Holy Ghost are TITLES of the ONE God and NOT NAMES and when you take a candidate under water for baptism as I've said before calling out the titles and not IN the name of Jesus Christ that is not a baptism because you have only repeated after Jesus and have not done what he actually said to do, it should be no secret that I do not believe in the trinitarian doctrine as the Bible lets us know that there is only ONE God who was manifested in three different ways and not three Gods..........Father in creation, Son in redemption and the Holy Ghost in the church today.

The Atheist that you were talking to very likely as you said was probably only trying to csuse division among you and not really interesting in learning for spiritual edification for himself and all involved in the conversation, our former pastor and overseer once warned us to be careful of how deeply you get into these spiritual discussions with unbelievers as you can end up making yourself upset trying to get the understanding of the Word over to them, they have to be honest and sincere in their hearts for the power of God to work with their understanding.

Have a Blessed Thanksgiving BLL.

“Jesus is coming soon”

Since: Nov 09

Location hidden

#468057 Nov 22, 2012
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Ahh; let me jump in right now and wish you a very Blessed Thanksgiving, with many more to follow :O)
GOD Bless.....
Thank you Serah, I really didn't believe that you forgot me on purpose, happy Thanksgiving and God Bless you as well.(C:

“Become Love!”

Since: Jan 09

Nowhere/Now here

#468058 Nov 22, 2012
Serah wrote:
Hey BLL, I give some scriptures much thought, as I suppose many of us do, but Genesis 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch gives much to think about too.
Would one call a home of Father, Mother and Son a city?
And Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown...
Where did the giants come from?
Ahhh, much to think about indeed, and I think that is why I love the Bible so much, it surely swims with time and knowledge :)
Greetings, salutations, and shalowm, Serah.

I'm aware of the commonly accepted interpretation of these "giants," but the truth of the matter is, the actual translation of the Hebrew term (nephiyl, or nephil) means, simply, "tyrant," or "bully," and not some extraordinarily large man at the top of a beanstalk, or guarding vegetables for a kid named "Sprout." But, that's an excellent observation, indeed! By examining the verse, it seems to do more than just imply that these "giants" were alive and well even before these "sons of God" decided to come "into the daughters of men."

And you're absolutely right? Why would he build a whole city for himself, his wife, and their son? Or, why would they call whatever plot of land they lived on, and whatever buildings they built on it, a "city?"

Inquiring minds want to know!

Kudos, Serah.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 4 min Wordsworth 4,474
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 4 min New Age Spiritual... 542,263
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 4 min ROCCO 739,071
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 5 min JudgeNJury 259,340
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min Eagle 12 227,456
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 23 min feces for jesus 95,466
Mars Colony....NFL's Adrian Peterson....ISIS...... 49 min End Of Days 6
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 3 hr Catcher1 173,663
•••
Enter and win $5000

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••