Search results

I'm not choosing sides, but I will point out that Karl Marx and Vladimer Lenmin would be thrilled to have lived long enough to see this thread. It's exactly what they fought for. Just make Yahweh your king. If enough folks did that, we'd see some real and positive change. But, alas, that...

I understand what you are saying and there is certainly some truth to it. However, I think Christianity is about what God has done through Jesus Christ. The Bible is about God, not the behavior of people. People are quite helpless without the mercy and grace brought to us by Jesus. Rom 3:10...

An often used argument for saying only God could redeem mankind is that "a mere human" could not do the job. But that argument is disingenuous. The choice is supposedly that either Jesus is God or he is a "mere human." But are there only two options from which to choose? No other options? How...

Thank you. That's very kind of you. God bless you.

The main thing is that you do glorify God by speaking in tongues. The thing about calling it a "gift" is that it is easy to think that only certain Christians have the "gift." But if it is understood that the gift is actually holy spirit, and that all Christians have the gift of holy spirit...

Thank you very much! I'm blessed.

I think a huge part of misunderstanding tongues is that, right out of the gate, very few call it what the Bible calls it. Most call it a "gift" whereas the Bible calls it a "manifestation." God is perfectly capable of using the word "gift" but he chose to call tongues a "manifestation" instead...

Well thought out, but why choose the parts that say God is a God of genocide and disregard the parts that say He is a God of love and mercy? Why not go the other way around and become a Christian? I'm being a bit facetious. The fact is, there is a way to understand the seeming contradiction...

That's a good question. But God did say a child would lead animals. That much is clear. So the question is, when and where will (or, as some say, did) that take place?

You are absolutely correct in saying that John prologue became one of the biggest proof texts behind the trinity. They did so by changing "logos" to "Jesus." But there was no reason to do that. It was done to make John 1:1 a proof text for the extra-Biblical trinity. When the logos is understood...

Jesus was certainly not a "mere" man. Actually according to Ps 8:4-5, there is no such thing a "mere" man, but that's another story. Adam was created perfect. But he had free will. He could have obeyed God, but he didn't. The point is, a man has the potential to live a perfect life. Genesis 1...

NO! John did not rely on Greek philosophy for truth! John's gospel, particularly the first chapter, is a brilliant polemic against Greek philosophy. It was because Philo and others "harmonized" Greek philosophy with the scriptures that the trinity was born. There were plenty of trinities in...

There is not a chance that the Jews (the ones to whom God actually spoke) of the 1st century would have thought the "word" in John 1:1 was "Jesus." The word "logos" has a rich history. It really can't be boiled down to a single English word. Essentially, in the 1st century the word "logos"...

If only people stop substituting "Jesus" for "word" in John 1:1 and learn what "logos" actually means, there would be less confusion. The Bible would actually make sense. But, 2,000 years of tradition is a tough nut to crack. Nonetheless, every day more and more Christians are starting to...

I'm not saying there is no trinity, but 1 John 5:7 is not a good proof verse. If you dig around a little, you can easily find that the words, "and these three are one" are not found in any early manuscripts. The words were added at a rather late date. There are several modern English that rely...

Specifically, I'd be interested in your take on Isaiah 65:17-25. What does it mean to you? When do you see this happening? Clearly it's not happening just yet. If it is indeed symbolic, who determines its meaning. You? Me? The Pope? Franklin Graham? If it is me, why can't I say that it means...

They are not the same thing. A "leader child" is a specific child. "A child will lead" is not. It could be any non specified child. As far as marriage in the new earth; most say there will not be marriage based on Matt 22:30. While I'm not 100% sure about marriage, I am hesitant to build a...

No, Jesus does not have a miniME. Isaiah does not speak of a "leader child." It says a child will lead the animals. In our language there is a difference between the two phrases. If you recall, the animals in the garden of Eden ate fruit to live. There was no shedding of blood. But after the...

It's not complicated. A little child is a little child. I could quote any dictionary, but why bother? "Little" and "child" are well known words in the English world.

If these passages are not literal, who determines what the actually mean? Why couldn't I say the really mean that humans will co-exist with aliens from a star in the constellation Leo? What do you see in the scriptures that makes you think there will be no animals in the new earth? If you read...