GSMontana wrote: sc may be referring to the women on the show being immodest. I've never watched it since I don't watch tv (and wouldn't watch redneck reality shows even if I did), but I have seen pictures of the family on a book and remember one of the women being immodest.
got it, thanks, sc is saying If ladybug goes to a family reunion and there are relatives and friends there who don't share her view of modest apparel and the she is having a discussion of the perverseness of the sodomite movement, the fact that she is willingly at that gathering silences her witness. Jesus was teaching moral perfection before you could speak out against sin, not humility and self-examination. Got it
Ladybug wrote: The Robertsons believe in baptismal regeneration. This is interesting as well- http://pulpitandpen.org/2013/08/16/why-christianity-doesnt-need-duck-dynasty-or-other-celebrities/
appreciate the link, thus it is good not to follow his doctrinal teachings. Probably he has other issues when you think of the entertainment business, still doesn't explain the sc comment about sexual immorality, especially when the thumbnail bio has him speaking against it. Just wondering
s c wrote: Some moral endorsement- like the kettle calling the pot black. Maybe Robertson should pull the beam out of his own eye when it comes to immorality so that he might see more clearly to deal with the speck in others. So many "Christians" who protest sodomy are steeped in sexual immorality themselves.
sorry, not an endorsement of Mr. Robertson, but what are you talking about, he has what is describe as a rock solid marriage and has not been involved in any infidelity that I could find.
s c wrote: ...just the fruit of a nation that wants to do it their way. No surprise. We embrace lewdness,promiscuity,glamorize prostitution,wink at infidelity,cram porn/immoral pictures down the throats of all to see,encourage our little girls/young women to dress like whores,watch slutty television programs like nfl football and dancing with the stars and other "reality" shows and then we wonder why men are so uncommitted.
so that makes it ok? Elbret from Belfast lamented the effects on the children. Tell me where you show any sympathy for those who are suffering. They got was coming to them, is that the attitude we should have? just wondering
because the person immodestly dressed isn't demanding a cake celebrating nakedness. Because the fornicator is demanding a cake celebrating immorality. Because the drunkard isn't demanding a cake with a bottle of whiskey as a topping. Because the thief isn't saying you need to bake a product that honors stealing. These same businesses would turn down a cake honoring abortion or rape. If you can't see an agenda being pushed by the LGBT group to shutdown and silence any opposition is different that what others are doing, then you haven't been reading the news articles here at SA.
It would be nice for a return to morality and decency in our society.(see II Timothy 3:13; Matthew 24:37) However, spending time condemning those who take a stand for righteousness because it is not at the top of your list of ungodly practices seems a little over the top.
We all struggle with sin, so technically all of us are hypocritical. Should your witness be silent because you sin against God? Should you stop reading the Bible because you have disobeyed it? What happened to a bruised reed shall He not break and a smoking flax shall He not extinguish attitude? Are we not to bear the infirmities of the weak? Far different than saying they got what's coming to them.
Now Lurker, not sure how that is a fair response when I actually did what you requested. Not only that I have neither stated my position nor condemned yours. You stated that if I read Isaiah 49 and compared with Acts 13:47 I couldn't help but see your view. I believe I demonstrated that it does not necessarily do that. (sorry I don't get your Holy Spirit comment,are you saying my examples are inaccurate?) I do not question your scholarship or even the many fine points made by others.
I am trying to point out that in the area of prophecy it is just not all black and white. My questions were legitimate questions and I appreciate your answers. I am thankful for your willingness to exhort in these areas.
It is obvious not all viewpoints can be correct. I don't believe if a pre-trib rapture occurs anyone will be saying I told you so on the way up. I don't think Christians will be comforted in the tribulation they face by someone saying I told your eschatology was wrong. (not saying you have said or insinuated that)
Not trying to press this conversation beyond your willingness to respond. So, will drop out of discussion and just read whatever your response is, if you chose to give one.
s c wrote: If wedding-related businesses hadn't already compromised in catering to the fornicators and adulterers, they may not be in the position of having to set boundaries now when it comes to the homosexuals. Soon, we may be asking the same question when it comes to the union of pedophiles, beast lovers and incestuous partners. Welcome to the land of the "free".
So, are you saying. 1. business should only serve people they have checked out as living a godly lifestyle? 2. Are you saying businesses shouldn't have any boundaries because they served a person involved in sin? 3. Are you blaming the business for the actions of its customers? 4.Are you saying that only businesses with signs that say we don't serve fornicators and adulterers can also turn down homosexual wishes to honor their lifestyle? 5. Do you truly believe that homosexuals would not persecute these businesses had they done as you had said and not served fornicators and adulterers? 6.What is your understanding of first Corinthians 5:9,10?
Lurker wrote: Not agreeing with your assertion that the prophecy speaks of ethnic Israel..
Ezekiel 37 (as does the passage from Isaiah you quoted) speaks of the tribes of Israel, so unless you want to assign tribes to the Israel of God, then you shouldn't pass over the assertion that it is ethnic Israel.
Paul did not say that the time in which he lived was the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37 or even Isaiah 49. As stated previously, Ezekiel 37 speaks of a king, Israel had none, it speaks of Israel as being a people walking in the ways of God, not true of them in Christ's and Paul's day.
Fulfilling one part of a passage from the O.T. in the N.T. is not necessarily the fulfilling of the entire text as you imply in your response.
Observe Micah 5:2 which was quoted of Christ's birth in Bethlehem, at what point did He govern and rule Israel?
Zechariah 13:7-9 speaks of judgment of fire and refinement on God's people, but verse 7 clearly refers to the crucifixion.
Hosea 10 is a passage about the Assyrian judgment upon the ten northern tribes, a past event, but verse 8 is quoted by Jesus as a future event. (Luke 23:30)
As noted before, the moon did not turn to blood or the sun into darkness on the day of Pentecost.
Lurker wrote: ... So what, in particular, requires further explanation?
the nation had no king after the exile into Babylon and Assyria, and at time of Christ they certainly could not have been said to have been cleansed of their sinful ways. They are said to be put back into the land and God would dwell with them and they would be his people. This is definitely the physical descendants of Israel. When do you see this as being fulfilled?
Lurker wrote: This is getting interesting. If God brings about the salvation of Jews by their own freewill, their free will is not free. Or is it that the Jews who do believe of their own, un-manipulated by God, free will are real ethnic Jews and those who don't never were ethnic Jews? And then the question arises; what is the difference between the believing ethnic Jews and believing Gentiles? Will any of the unbelieving Jews inherit the promises? And what promise will the Christianized ethnic Jews receive? And what promise will Gentile Christians receive? Quite a quagmire you've bought into.
pennned wrote: Around 30 AD... Mark 13: 1-2 The disciples marveled at the temple, Jesus said, its so great? Its going to be destroyed. Mark 13:4 Disciples asked when temple would be destroyed. Mark 13:14 Jesus said per Daniel (9) just after abomination of desolation. Mark wrote the book around 50 AD blueletterbible, when Mark written? The Christians read the warnings. The Roman-Jewish war of 66-70 ADecclesia, abomination of desolation 70 AD --- The temple was destroyed. In this way the Christians were warned ahead of time to what was about to take place. But a greater event is that the temple was destroyed, it was no longer needed. the curtain in half --the veil is gone, the holy of holies no longer just for priests. Christians are a royal priesthood, both Jew and Greek.
are you saying that all the foretold events of Mark 13 happened in a 20 year period?
John UK wrote: You have understood the question right well. Now please observe: ...
Yet John UK punctuation, like chapters and verses, was added later and the word "and" appears to separate the events from the whosoever statement in verse 21 as far as time goes. ie There is an art fair in your area in February 2015 AND whosoever wants to go needs to register for it now
Pennned the following line goes beyond my understanding of what you are trying to say
when Jesus warned of the abomination that would directly preceed the fall of the temple, it was recorded in Mark 13, which was written some 20 plus years BEFORE the fall of the temple
Jesus was obviously predicting a future event, not a current happening.
For all you this is that people, where on the day of Pentecost are the signs and wonders of verses 19 and 20, is that a future event? Did Peter mess up by not cutting short the quote at verse 18?
Acts 2â€˜And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. 18 And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. 19 I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. 20 The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood,
Jim Lincoln wrote: ... Any government that says anything different is wrong.
So, you are saying the current occupant of the White House and his polices are wrong and should not be supported? Are you saying that we should vote for people for office who oppose gay marriage and vote out those who do? Just wondering
s c wrote: Knowledge of how they partook of the Lord's Supper helps...
Still at a loss here, just trying to be on same page.
I Corinthians 11:20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper
(then he speaks of the agape feast you referenced, but Paul is clearly speaking of the way after the resurrection believer's practiced the Lord's Supper)
(v23-26) 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread:
24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, this cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.
26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
The apostle Paul referenced the supper found in the gospels as the pattern for communion. You seem to be saying, no that was a Jewish custom or holiday not to be emulated. So, who is right, you or the apostle Paul?
s c wrote: Instead of celebrating communion by partaking of wine, juice or bread/crackers which are symbolic and being unsure of which best represents it and to hat frequency, why don't Christians understand that every time we come together to meet and to glorify God, that we are celebrating communion in that we partake of Him (His Word) as in He is the Bread of Life and His Spirit (the new wine)?
How does that line up with I Corinthians 11:20-34, Matthew 26:17-30, Mark 14:12-26, Luke 22:7-39 and John 13:1-17:26?
Jim Lincoln wrote: ....In so far as prayer is concerned, the school is not a religious or home setting so perhaps, Matthew 6:6 "But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.---...
So, when Jesus made the crowds of 5,000 and 4,000 to sit down for food, He should not have offered a prayer of thanksgiving, like this child was trying to do, because it was not a religious or home setting?
I'm very much aware that their jesus is not the Lord Jesus Christ of Scripture so much so that my stands against these things in my family (transubstantiation in particular) has cost me their wrath, even to denying me those things that sustain life, if the Lord had not been pleased to deliver me, and I trust he will continue to deliver me. They have escalated in recent days on another front hoping to get support for me from outside the family, against my conscience. Will I buckle in my understanding of the Truth?, not if He sustains me. I face another questioner on Friday.
You did not however answer my question which was: Do they actually deny his humanity? Think about it.