Search results

They are nuts

Easter is an anomaly only found in the KJV and an improper translation by those translators who took the liberty to impose that word in lieu of 'pascha' which is translated as passover.

I've posted this elsewhere on this forum but I'll also repost it here as it's germane to this discussion. Predestination (based upon the foreknowledge of God) Premise: God knows the beginning and the end, so therefore he must also know all that will occur within the entire expanse of time...

Jesus was blunt and to the point. He also said the below as recorded in Mat 10 "34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law...

Great tribulation (not THE great tribulation) WAS in 70 AD.

God doesn't speak audibly to anyone today; he speaks to us thru his written word, so, I don't know what you heard, but it wasn't the Lord.

Just read the OT and you'll see that God is intolerant, steadfast, and not wishy-washy. There were many ungodly groups of people that were totally enialated; men, women, children, and even their livestock. God also was intolerant of Israel in their disobedience as well.

God knew us because of his foreknowledge not because we were alive prior to our birth

Are those so-called Christian churches that embrace such nonsense really Christian to begin with?? Just look at their beliefs and doctrins for that answer. The vast majority don't know how souls are saved.

Paul was a human being, a male, and one can only assume he had the same urges and desires as do all. And what I'm suggesting is being opposed to his thorn being a physical or medical problem which I referred to as a physical ailment. In this regard the Lord's statement makes zero sense. If Paul...

As I recently supplemented my post to negate the view that it was a physical ailment becsuse the Lord's response would therefore make no sense, I'll repeat it again for you. If it was a physical ailment, Paul's question to the Lord would NOT have prompted the response he received. The Lord's...

Where's all the responses? Erased? Oh well. But I thought I'd supplement my OP with the following to help people in their understanding of this topic, due to the obvious confusion from what I recall from the responses posted. Many responses to this seemed to suggest Paul's thorn in the flesh...

Yes: sex=marriage

NO

So, do you really think numbers serve as justification? The MAJORITY is generally wrong on everything all the time. "Few there be that find it" ain't the majority.

It's not for Christians

The bible gives clear warning in both the OT and NT about the danger of adding to or taking away from God's Word. Is the 'did ache' a supplement to God's Word? Yes or no! If yes, it violates God's very clear and stern warning against against adding to his word. You decide. Believe whatever...

All it takes is a clear understanding of scripture to see the fallacy in infant baptism. 1. No record of any infant being baptized in the scriptures 2. Infants can't satisfy the basic, simple requirements and prerequisites of being baptized. Baptism is not the 1st thing done according to...

Your response is a joke and doesn't merit a response.

And the word "baptism", is self explanatory. One simply needs to look up its Greek origin and definition, and upon doing so, it'll be clear that it means to dip, plunge, immerse, and not sprinkle or pour which are different Greek words and are not interchangeable with 'baptizo'.