Search results

So you presumably believe that the apostles were making a mistake when they said to the jailer at Philippi: (Act 16:31) So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Perhaps you think they should have said, ""Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and when you die and...

Sorry, entirely my mistake. You "invented" a verse in Romans., Romans 6:24, when there are only 23 verses in Romans 6. I apologise for the error.

I am sorry, but I see no reason for "inventing" a spurious Acts verse. If I remember correctly, Anchorite's point was that we don't read in Acts (by which I assume he meant the verses that actually are in Acts) of any Christians retaliating with physical violence or weapons when they were...

Yes, but when has Anchorite brought up non-existent verses in Acts? It seems quite legitimate to say that a certain teaching is not found in Acts. That's quite different from putting forward the notion of a Bible reference that does not exist.

Verse 24 doesn't say anything, because there is no such verse. Saying that a non-existent Bible verse doesn't say something is not compelling at all, because a non-existent verse doesn't say anything.

But neither is there any mention in the Bible of marriages taking place in a church building, or with a pastor leading the ceremony. It's not a case of leading to redemption. That is entirely done by the Redeemer, Jesus Christ. We have commands in the Bible to honour, pray for, and obey our...

But the context of Luke 11:21 is not of a physical battle against human enemies. Here is is in context: (Luk 11:17) But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls. (Luk 11:18) If Satan...

Is there a typo in your post? I ask because Romans chapter 6 only has 23 verses, so what verse did you mean?

I still fail to see what connection the verses you have now quoted, 1 Peter 2:5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:4, have with the question of Christians retaliating with physical weapons against those who oppose or persecute them. Being lively stones, a spiritual house, offering spiritual sacrifices, and...

The glorious truth that born again Christians do not bear their sins, or the punishment due for them, does not mean that we should not confess our sins. It was to Christians that these words were written: (Edited to add): I have just seen that your claim is that 1 John 1 was addressed to...

Yes, I agree that witnesses are desirable. I don't view the state as my master. If the UK government suddenly issued a law that nobody should read the Bible, or meet with other Christians to worship and study God's word, I would have to say as the apostles did, "I must obey God rather than...

I don't drive, but the signs I have seen at petrol stations show prices round about £1.54 per litre of unleaded, more for diesel.

And the point is, where does he get the idea of such a thing as "the mark of the beast" or about such a Being as the Holy Spirit? From the bible, of course. It just doesn't make sense.

Yes I agree. But we don't see the matter of marriage having to be before witnesses in the Bible (as far as I am aware). Yes, I cannot off-hand think of any other reason than secrecy. Had the Jews "bought the Roman Empire/Caesar into their union"? Of course not. They didn't say to...

I agree, but I would add that the only death that can cover all my sins is the death of my sinless Saviour. Without Him, my own death wouldn't cover even the smallest of my sins.

I really don't see what the matters of almighty God reigning from everlasting to everlasting, or of the Lord saying to David's Lord (Matthew 22:41-46 makes clear that this refers to Jesus Christ) have to do with the matter of whether Christians under persecution are to retaliate with physical...

If that is what you are discussing, it goes a long way to explaining why we keep disagreeing. Thanks for the explanation.

I agree that the crucifixion did not happen in Galatia, and that Christ had been presented to the Galatians as having been crucified. But that is a long way from what you have been saying, that Paul distributed Luke's Gospel to the various churches.

I am finding that a problem with this thread is that we seem to be discussing two different things as if they were the same thing: whether Christians are commanded to retaliate physically when they are persecuted for being Christians, and whether nations should be involved in wars. I thought...

Sorry I had not read the OP. I have remedied that now, and there I see you say that it was Ananias who gave Paul what we call the Gospel of Luke. We are not told that in Acts: (Act 9:17) And Ananias went his way and entered the house; and laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the...