Search results

Personally, I believe every new believer should read their Bible in the following order: John, Romans, Galatians, Matthew, and then as the Spirit leads.

So this is John 1:3? All things were made by it: and without it was not anything made that was made? Now you have all things being created by an impersonal force; and that God Himself is an impersonal force. Your Christianity may as well be Buddhism.

The extent of my fasting discipline is that I may skip one to three meals from time to time as the Holy Spirit leads. Really, for me, it has more to do with the fact that I just get busy in the things of the Lord and forget to eat. If the bridegroom (Jesus) is with you, you don't need to fast...

Which brings up another point: if the Logos is not a Person, why is "it" called "him" in verse 3?

John 1:3 says that Jesus is the Creator of everything... All things were made by him: and without him was not anything made that was made.

All of humanity is composed of spirit and soul and body (see 1 Thessalonians 5:23). Jesus, in John 4:23-24, said that God the Father is a Spirit. Then, in John 14:7-11, He said that He was in the Father and the Father in Him; and that in this if you looked at Him you would see the Father. I...

Job was perfect and upright for all practical purposes, when looked at by the eyes of man. However, further reading into the book of Job will reveal that Job had one major flaw...he knew that he was righteous! This translated into self-righteousness for Job; which ended up being addressed...

If it actually were the truth that Jesus isn't the Lord (God), then you might have had a point here. But as what was spoken is something that will put someone out of the kingdom (see John 8:24), it is worse than a load of poop...it is like arsenic that you are trying to put in people's milk...

Of course, the answer to those statements is that Jesus was less than the Father in His humanity (John 14:28), but equal to Him in His Deity (John 5:18) in what is called the hypostatic union...the doctrine that Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man. Because the Holy Ghost became One with the egg in...

Is YHWH or Jehovah a name that is given under heaven among men? yet it is not the name by which we must be saved...YHWH reserved the name of Jesus Christ (YHWH is salvation, the anointed One) to be the name that we are saved by if we call upon it...now compare Joel 2:32 to Acts of the Apostles...

Those are not gems, those are a load of poop...I would not value those words more than I value my own feces that I flush down the toilet every time I go #2!

That is completely bogus...How can the greatest prophet who ever lived not enter into the kingdom?

I think that you would know that better than me since you spend more time in the OT than do I... However, we are told that Jesus was and is without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5). How is He without sin, since the word of God says For all have sinned and come...

What you added in parentheses is the teaching of man. Take out what is in parentheses and you will get the real message of that scripture.

It is sound doctrine within Trnitarianism that Jesus is less than the Father concerning His humanity (John 14:28)...but equal concerning His Deity (John 5:18). It is called the doctrine of the hypostatic union...that Jesus is 100% God and 100% Man. The Holy Ghost became One with the egg in the...

What difference does it make? I see that scripture as saying that among those born of women (men) there is none greater than JTB. And you have also ignored the primary question: If all have sinned and come short of the glory of God (except for God Himself), then how can Jesus be without sin?

Only God is perfect...didn't you read that part?

Read Acts of the Apostles 4:10-12.

There is only one name given that saves, of a Saviour. Is that name Jehovah or Jesus? Why doesn't Jehovah make His own name the name that saves if He is a Saviour apart from Jesus?

Okay, my bad. Somehow the reference (John 10:29) ended up being on the end of the previous thing and I didn't notice it because of that (I normally expect the reference to be on the end of the quote rather than before it).