Search results

Why would one go to someone other than the author for an alternative explanation of a book that gives its own explanation by the author? (rhetorical)

At first I didn't understand your reference to the earth being "personification" (personified). But the scriptures that you post and the use of personification, simply refer to the person of God bringing all things to fruition according to his word and promise. The personification is God.

So why are you making accusations, making things personal, getting off topic, and name-dropping Jesus in your own self-defense? I wanted to say, "Good, keep doing that!" But your above statement doesn't line up with what you've been doing.

Great, demonize what you don't fully understand. Such fruit is not of Christ. No wonder you think we're not going to get along.

You assume too much. I never said anything about violating the law of sin. On the contrary, I have only warned against swinging the pendulum too far the other way and becoming legalistic against the full knowledge of God, for lack of understanding.

Of course not. But it is interesting that what they meant for evil...God saw fit to include in His eternal word, for good. Because the law (theirs or God's) is not a rule to live up to, but rather a foundation that we rise above with Christ.

You know the answer. Nonetheless, that is all just semantics. The truth of this topic is not defined by any private interpretation, it is defined by Him who has the power to give it. And he has defined it.

Okay. The greater explanation, is that "To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven", which changes the meaning of much of what would be considered sin. Killing, for instance: "You shall not murder.", but "he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to...

I explained and quoted three scriptures also. What is it that is not clear to you?

No, you have only justified your own position by secular means. However, society does not correct God, nor does God or those in His service, follow society and the ways of men. On the contrary, if Paul took opportunity by using their own words, it was God who set it all up. The point of that...

You should listen to this, Josef Tson (all 5 videos):

The explanation is that even we are to forgive sin "seventy times seven", and God, not until the end "at His appearing." I explained already:

Genesis 3:24 "So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life."

The scripture is true, but your placement of where it occurs is not. All such sin was cast out of the kingdom, and is not allowed back in.

Ah, hmmm, no, there is no "junk " in the kingdom. The kingdom of God remains holy. But that's another topic I suppose.

That is not possible, a good tree does not produce bad fruit. So, the real question becomes: If a person claims to be saved, but continues in sin, are they really saved? The answer is, No, they never were saved. They have not changed, all things have not become new, etc., but they rather are...

Yes, "S" as in "Saved", as in "salvation." Exactly on topic.

What, are we playing volleyball? I paraphrased the scriptures to explain the truth of salvation, which is what they mean, to me and otherwise. You asked for the actual scriptures to support my doing so, which I did. Now you want me to go back and restate what they mean? That is what I did...

This is where I am temped to respond as Jesus responded seven times, saying, "Have you not read" (what is written)? But, I digress. You said, "please." John 17:22 "And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one" 2 Timothy 2:10 "Therefore I endure...

Well...thanks for being so clear! Name-calling, and speaking against the spiritualizing nature of God who "is spirit." That's all quite clear. But no, you are not defining God or salvation or eternal life correctly. Salvation is when one comes to be One with God (just as Jesus prayed), at which...