(Re: Could Jewish Christians feel hated when other Christians tell them to forsake their Judaism?)
All that Jewish Christians should be told to forsake is the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law Judaism (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19, Acts 15:10, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 2:11-21). For it has been replaced by the better, New Covenant Judaism/Christianity (Matthew 5:20-48, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 10), in which both Jewish and Gentile Christians share (Romans 1:16).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Acts 22:24 -
The original Greek word (epo: G2036) translated as "bade" can mean "commanded" (Luke 19:15). The KJV was using the English word "bade" in the same way that even today we might say that someone "forbade" something, that is, commanded against something.
--
*Acts 23:6 does not mean that Paul as an apostle of Jesus Christ has the leaven/hypocrisy of the non-Christian Pharisees referred to in Luke 12:1. Nor does it mean that Paul is one of the Christian Pharisees who mistakenly teach that Christians have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:5-11, Philippians 3:5c-14). Instead, Acts 23:6 means that Paul believes in the future, physical resurrection of the dead, just as even the non-Christian Pharisees whom he was addressing believed in it (Acts 23:6-9).
--
*Acts 24:15 did not require that a resurrection was "about to" happen from the viewpoint of humans in the first century AD.
(See "Acts 26" under Matthew 16:27 above)
Also, when and how in the full-preterist view did the resurrection of the unjust happen?
~
(Re: One resurrection?)
See John 5:28 above.
--
*Acts 25:8 -
Here the apostle Paul meant that he had not broken the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law while he was among the Jews in the temple in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:20). He was denying the charges for which he had been arrested by the Jews and taken into the custody of the Romans (Acts 24:6-8, Acts 21:29).
--
*Acts 26:5 -
Not all non-Christian Jews consider themselves to be religious Jews. And most who do, do not hold to the mistaken, so-called "Orthodox" Jewish (that is, the Pharisaical) idea that they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. Also, the elect portion of even the small minority of Jews who do hold to this idea can still be converted to faith in Jesus Christ by hearing Biblical truth (Romans 10:17). For even the apostle Paul was once a hard-core, law-zealous Pharisee (Galatians 1:13-24, Acts 26:5, Acts 22:3-4, Philippians 3:5-9).
--
*Acts 26:6-7 refers to the hope of literal, physical resurrection from the dead (Acts 26:8, Acts 23:6b, Acts 24:15, Romans 8:23-25).
(See also Acts 28:20 below, and Luke 24:39 above)
--
*Acts 26:20c -
(Do works meet for repentance)
Here, as in Matthew 3:8, the original Greek word (axios: G0514) translated as "meet" can mean "suitable" or "worthy" (Matthew 10:38). Note, for example, how Zacchaeus' repentance would be shown by his works (Luke 19:8).
--
*Acts 26:22-23 / *Acts 26:22 -
(See Acts 17:11 above)
Acts 26:22-23 is the same idea as Luke 24:44-47.
Neither passage requires a preterist interpretation of the prophecies in Matthew 24 and Revelation chapters 6 to 22.
(See Matthew 24(space) above)
--
*Acts 27:37 -
(Souls)
See Genesis 46:15 above.
--
*Acts 28:13 -
The original Greek word (perierchomai: G4022) translated as "fetched a compass" can mean "wandered about" (1 Timothy 5:13), in this case in the sense of how a ship traveling against the wind has to tack back and forth. Indeed, the English word "fetch" can mean "to reach by sailing esp. against the wind..." (Webster's), just as to "compass" can mean to "achieve" (Webster's). So "fetched a compass" can mean "achieved our goal despite the contrary wind". In this case, the contrary wind would have been from Satan himself, who would have wanted to prevent, or at least delay as long as possible, the apostle Paul reaching Rome to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ there (Acts 23:11b). Likewise, it would have been Satan who had previously brought the tempestuous wind called Euroclydon against Paul's ship, ultimately resulting in its shipwreck (Acts 27:14-41). For Satan, "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2), has power over the winds, just as he had power to bring a windstorm to kill all of Job's children (Job 1:18-19,12).
But YHWH God, and even His angels, are more powerful than Satan (Zechariah 3:2, Luke 10:18, Revelation 12:7-9, Revelation 20:1-2). And so YHWH succeeded in bringing the apostle Paul to Rome (Acts 28:16), just as YHWH was able to give Job more children after his loss (Job 42:13).
Also, for the two years (Acts 24:27) preceding Paul's journey to Rome, YHWH could have purposely allowed Paul to have been imprisoned by the Roman governor in Caesarea (on the coast of Israel) (Acts 23:33-35) to protect Paul from some non-Christian Jews who were determined to kill him (Acts 23:12 to Acts 26:32). Their murderous intent would have been animated by Satan himself, just as the previous and successful murderous intent of some other non-Christian Jews against Jesus Christ Himself had been animated by Satan (John 8:40-47; 1 Thessalonians 2:15). Read also what Ephesians 6:12-18 says.
(See also the "Cabal" section of Revelation 13:5 below)
--
*Acts 28:20 -
This refers to the same hope as Acts 26:6-7. (See those verses above)
Also, in Acts 28:20 the "hope of Israel" includes both Jews and Gentiles in the Church.
(See the "Tribes" section of Romans 11:17 below)
--
*Romans 1:11 / *Rom. 1:11 -
This does not mean that none of the Christians in Rome had received God's Holy Spirit. For the apostle Paul subsequently refers to them as already having received the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-16). Also, Romans 1:11 does not require that none of the Christians in Rome were operating in Spiritual gifts at that time. For Christians can receive more Spiritual gifts over time. For example, those who have received the gift of tongues should be praying to also receive the separate gift of the interpretation of tongues (1 Corinthians 14:13; 1 Corinthians 12:10). So Romans 1:11 can mean that Paul wanted the Christians in Rome to receive some Spiritual gift through him which they had not already received. Or, Romans 1:11 may not even be referring to some Spiritual gift in the sense of a miraculous ability from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:8-10), but in a more general sense of Paul wanting to give them through his preaching (Romans 1:15) the gift of some Spiritual truth which they may have not yet been taught.
--
*Romans 1:16 / *Rom. 1:16 -
Jesus Christ's Gospel of salvation goes to Jews first (Romans 1:16, Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24, Acts 3:26, Romans 15:8), and salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22b), because salvation is of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which God has made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Christian Gentiles are grafted into Israel so that they can partake of the salvation offered by God to Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, John 10:16). And all Christians, whether Jews (Acts 22:3) or Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).
--
*Romans 1:17 / *Rom. 1:17 -
Faith must perform works if it is to remain alive (James 2:26). Also, because of free will, faith can be abandoned (Hebrews 6:4-8).
(See the "paramedic analogy" under Ephesians 2:8 below. Also, see Hebrews 6:4 below)
--
*Romans 1:18 / *Rom. 1:18 -
(Re: Isn't He not seen on that day?)
Romans 1:18 does not require that Jesus Christ will not be seen at any of Romans 1:18's fulfillments, such as at Jesus' future, Second Coming (Revelation 19:11-21; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). For "heaven" in Romans 1:18, as in Revelation 19:11 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7, can be the first heaven, the sky/atmosphere of the earth.
(See 2 Corinthians 12:2 below, and Acts 1:11 above)
--
*Romans 1:20 / *Rom. 1:20 -
People can know that God exists simply by seeing everything else that exists (Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1-4). For the universe could not have created itself from nothing by physics, because of the first law of thermodynamics. So something outside of physics had to have created the universe. The term spirit is used to refer to something which exists outside of physics. So what created the universe was a spirit (John 4:24, John 1:3). And this had to be an uncreated spirit, because nothing, not even a spirit, can create itself from nothing. For to create itself, it would have to already exist. So just by being able to see the universe, people have no excuse for denying the existence of an uncreated spirit, who is known as God (Romans 1:20, John 4:24, Psalms 19:1-4). And God must have eternal power (Romans 1:20), for the first law of thermodynamics requires that even the physical energy in the universe is eternal.
(See also Ecclesiastes 11:5 above)
Because knowing that God exists is the only reasonable response to seeing the existence of the universe (Romans 1:20), when educated and intelligent people refuse to admit that God exists, this is only because they are intentionally choosing to be unreasonable (2 Thessalonians 3:2), choosing to be foolish, regarding God's existence, because of their human pride, their unthankfulness to God, and their desire to continue in sinful actions (Romans 1:21-22, Psalms 14:1). But there is no salvation in simply believing that God exists (James 2:19). Believing in Jesus Christ, the human/divine Son of God, and His suffering and dying on the Cross for our sins, and His rising physically from the dead on the third day, is the only way for people to have their sins forgiven, so that they will not have to go to hell when they die (John 3:16,36, Romans 3:25; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
(See also 1 Corinthians 15:1 below, and Matthew 25:41 above)
~
(Re: A *multiverse)
Positing a multiverse, which could very well exist, does not get around the fact that God must exist if anything else exists (Romans 1:20). For even an always-existing multiverse is impossible, apart from God, because of entropy. For our universe is expanding and cooling down and will stay cool. And if it arose from a multiverse, the multiverse is overall cooling down as well. And if the multiverse had existed from all eternity, over eternity past by giving rise to hot universes which cooled down and stayed cool, the multiverse would have, apart from God, cooled down to too low a temperature to give rise to the infinitely-hot Big Bang singularity only some fourteen billion years ago ("only" compared with eternity past). So even if there is a multiverse from which our universe arose, it cannot have existed from all eternity, apart from God, but had to have been maintained in its existence by the eternal power of God (Romans 1:20).
~
(Re: Does God need an external power?)
Nothing requires that the Spirit (God) (John 4:24) who created the universe or multiverse (John 1:3) needs a source beyond Him to empower Him. For nothing requires that the law of entropy applies to anything but that which is physical. Also, God is existence itself (Exodus 3:14, Colossians 1:17, Acts 17:28). And it is impossible for existence itself to ever cease to exist.
(See also Ecclesiastes 11:5 above)
~
(Re: Did time begin with the Big Bang?)
The creation of space-time in the Big Bang could not be the beginning of all dimensions of time. For the Big Bang singularity had to exist in some higher dimension of time before the Big Bang occurred. For without time there can be no change, and so the change in the singularity which caused it to become the Big Bang could never have occurred.
~
(Re: What if the laws of physics did not apply to the Big Bang singularity?)
For science to admit that the laws of physics did not apply to the Big Bang singularity is the same as science admitting that the singularity was not physical. And because that which exists but is not physical is termed spiritual, the singularity would have been spiritual (cf. Ecclesiastes 11:5).
~
(Re: Can man exist forever in this universe without the need for any God?)
No, for our universe is expanding more and more rapidly. Its heat is getting more and more spread out. It will eventually become so extremely cold everywhere in the universe that no life will be able to exist anywhere. So if mankind is to exist forever, it needs God to put mankind in a new universe once this one wears out (Hebrews 1:10-12).
~
(Re: Was the Big Bang singularity an uncaused *quantum fluctuation / *virtual particle?)
No, for quantum fluctuations in the vacuum energy, also called the zero-point energy, only give rise to pairs of tiny virtual particles, not even real particles, much less entire universes of real particles. Also, the first law of thermodynamics is not violated, because half of the virtual particles have positive energy and their partner virtual particles have negative energy. They appear together out of the vacuum energy only momentarily, and then disappear, leaving behind nothing but the original vacuum energy.
Regarding electron/positron pairs, virtual particles can be only virtual-electron/virtual-positron pairs, which are not the same as real electrons and real positrons. They are not the same because virtual particles consist of pairs of virtual positive-energy and virtual negative-energy particles, while real electrons and real positrons both have real positive energy, simply with a different electric charge. Also, when virtual positive-energy and virtual negative-energy particles annihilate each other, they give off no energy at all, while when real electrons and real positrons annihilate each other, they give off positive energy. In both cases, there is no net creation or destruction of energy, as this is forbidden by the first law of thermodynamics. The positive energy given off by annihilating real electrons and positrons is no more than the positive energy which they already contained before their annihilation.
Also, just because science cannot currently prove what causes virtual particles to suddenly appear for an instant even in a vacuum, this does not mean that science has proven that something can come into existence without a cause. All it means is that science has not yet discovered what the cause is for the appearance of virtual particles. One theory is that even a seeming-vacuum could potentially contain an infinitesimal, undetectable amount of each of the different wavelengths of electromagnetic energy, which together could add up to an almost-infinite amount of potential "zero-point energy" in every point of space. This zero-point energy could be where the virtual particles come from. While zero-point energy could theoretically be traced back to the energy originally contained in the Big Bang singularity, science still has to explain where the energy in that singularity came from.
~
(Re: Does gravity = negative energy, so that the net energy in the universe = 0, so that the universe is "flat"?)
No, the net energy of the universe is not zero, but something like 4x10^69 joules positive energy/mass. Also, a "flat" universe does not mean that the net energy of the universe is zero. Also, gravity is a warping of space-time caused by the mass of particles with positive energy. Gravity itself is not negative energy. Only in the extreme gravitational fields of black holes is it theorized that vacuum fluctuations in space could be disturbed to where they give off tiny amounts of negative energy, which could then flow into the black hole, while positive energy from the same disturbed vacuum fluctuations flows out as Hawking radiation. In this way, whenever negative energy is created in the vacuum fluctuations near a black hole, this does not affect the net positive energy in the universe. The total energy of the universe averaged over all space remains positive. Nothing about gravity or anything else cancels out the something like 4x10^69 joules of net positive energy which still exists in the universe, and must forever exist, because of the first law of thermodynamics.
~
(Re: *Newtonian equations)
One reason that Newtonian gravitation appears to science to "fail" at relativistic scales is because, by special relativity, any matter accelerated to the speed of light would have to take on infinite mass. Atheistic science would rather reject the infinities in their equations as "failures" and "not applicable" to the universe, instead of seeing the infinities in their equations as pointing to spirit (Ecclesiastes 11:5). So, for example, instead of it necessarily being "impossible", as science claims, for matter to be accelerated to the speed of light, the truth could be that any matter accelerated to the speed of light would become spirit. Also, since Newton's gravity equation and Einstein's general relativity disagree slightly, and general relativity is more accurate, Newton's gravity equation is just an extremely-good approximation devised by a man, and not some set-in-stone exactly-precise law of the universe itself which "fails" slightly when the fourth dimension of space-time is included with regard to gravity, under general relativity.
~
(Re: Is the universe infinite and full?)
No, the universe is still expanding, and has been expanding for only some fourteen billion years ("only" when compared with eternity past). So it cannot be infinite. Also, it is not completely filled with matter, but contains huge voids between galaxy clusters, and has voids between galaxies, and voids between stars, and even atoms themselves are almost entirely empty space.
--
*Romans 1:26-27 / *Rom. 1:26 -
(Re: Has *homosexuality been proven to be genetic?)
No. Also, note that even if homosexuality could be proven to be genetic, so could alcoholism, criminal violence, and schizophrenia. Human genes in their current, fallen, corrupted state have nothing to do with proving what is moral, or what is good mental health.
Also, Christian Gay Conversion Therapy can help some gay Christians to become straight, or at least to no longer practice homosexuality. For Jesus Christ has the power to deliver Christians from slavery to any sin (John 8:34-36). And He can do this even apart from any human therapy.
Also, it is curious that homosexuals sometimes claim that what they do sexually is okay because it is genetic, while transgender people (who are also homosexual) claim that genetics is completely irrelevant, and even totally-counter, to their real identity. So which claim is right?
But while homosexual acts are sinful (Romans 1:26-27), we too easily forget that homosexual acts (Genesis 19:4-5) were not the only sin of Sodom. For: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). How many of us Christians who love to rail against homosexuality are nonetheless "just like Sodom" with regard to our pride, our fullness of bread, our abundance of idleness, and our refusal to strengthen the hand of the poor and needy? How many of us love to place ourselves above homosexuals, forgetting that even if we were completely free from all sin ourselves, we would still be judged by God for our self-righteousness (Luke 18:9-14)?
But, at the same time, the truth must never be discounted that homosexual acts, if they are not repented of, will, like any other unrepentant sin, keep people from ultimate salvation (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
The list of sins which will ultimately keep even Christians out of the Kingdom of God (if they do not repent from them) is quite long (Galatians 5:19-21), and some of these sins are common in the Church today. So why is there such a focus by some Christians on homosexuality alone? Why does not the Church also focus on, for example, its own very-widespread practice of divorce and second-marriage adultery (Mark 10:11-12)?
(See Mark 10:11 and Ezekiel 16:53 above)
~
(Re: Could Christians be persecuted in our future simply for asserting from the Bible that homosexual acts are sinful?)
Yes, just as they are already being persecuted by major social media corporations by having their pages and posts deleted for "homophobia". And this persecution could expand until even the government itself becomes involved in it. For any assertion that homosexual acts are sinful could become an illegal act of "hate speech", punishable by fines and imprisonment.
A move toward this point could have even started. For example, not long ago, the New York Times (98% of its readers say that they never pray) held a forum for evangelicals, the point of which was to basically accuse evangelicals of causing the Orlando, Pulse-nightclub shooting against homosexuals, because of the evangelical teaching against homosexuality, which it is said puts homosexuals "in danger". Of course, that Orlando shooting was done by a Muslim, not a Christian. But in the twisted, Satanic world of "political correctness", no evil can ever be ascribed to Islam (even though Islam, even in its moderate forms, opposes homosexuality no less than evangelical Christianity), whereas any evil whatsoever can be ascribed to evangelical Christianity.
Also, "political correctness" loves to paint any evangelical teaching against homosexuality as "homophobic", or "hateful", as if evangelical Christians are actually fearful (phobic) of homosexuals, or actually hate them, when in fact evangelical Christianity simply states from the Bible itself that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27). It would be like pedophiles saying that Christians (or even New York Times readers) are "pedophobic", or "hateful", for being against pedophilia, which pedophiles prefer to call "man-boy love". Or, it would be like people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals saying that Christians are "beastiphobic", or "hateful", for being against inappropriate behavior with animals, which people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals prefer to call "inter-species love".
So, along with the acceptance of homosexuality, do not be surprised if the non-Christian world, in the name of "love", eventually begins to also accept pedophilia and inappropriate behavior with animals, so long as (in the non-Christian world's words) "the child or animal involved in each case is okay with the activity, showing no signs of distress, but rather consent, and even pleasure".
And then pedophiles and people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals will walk around with "Love wins" signs at anti-Christian rallies.
(See also section 2 of Numbers 12 above)
~
(Re: Why do you say that "political correctness" is Satanic?)
Because it loves to focus on things which directly contradict Christian, that is, Biblical, morality, making "political correctness" anti-Christian. And so it is one of Satan's tools by which he is preparing the world to accept the future Antichrist's one-world religion (of Gnostic Luciferianism, also called Satanism), which could begin to be foisted upon the whole world in only a few years from now.
(See Revelation 13:4 below)
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 11, 2018
All that Jewish Christians should be told to forsake is the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic-law Judaism (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19, Acts 15:10, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 2:11-21). For it has been replaced by the better, New Covenant Judaism/Christianity (Matthew 5:20-48, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 10), in which both Jewish and Gentile Christians share (Romans 1:16).
(See the "Law" section of Ephesians 2:15 below)
--
*Acts 22:24 -
The original Greek word (epo: G2036) translated as "bade" can mean "commanded" (Luke 19:15). The KJV was using the English word "bade" in the same way that even today we might say that someone "forbade" something, that is, commanded against something.
--
*Acts 23:6 does not mean that Paul as an apostle of Jesus Christ has the leaven/hypocrisy of the non-Christian Pharisees referred to in Luke 12:1. Nor does it mean that Paul is one of the Christian Pharisees who mistakenly teach that Christians have to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Acts 15:5-11, Philippians 3:5c-14). Instead, Acts 23:6 means that Paul believes in the future, physical resurrection of the dead, just as even the non-Christian Pharisees whom he was addressing believed in it (Acts 23:6-9).
--
*Acts 24:15 did not require that a resurrection was "about to" happen from the viewpoint of humans in the first century AD.
(See "Acts 26" under Matthew 16:27 above)
Also, when and how in the full-preterist view did the resurrection of the unjust happen?
~
(Re: One resurrection?)
See John 5:28 above.
--
*Acts 25:8 -
Here the apostle Paul meant that he had not broken the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law while he was among the Jews in the temple in Jerusalem (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:20). He was denying the charges for which he had been arrested by the Jews and taken into the custody of the Romans (Acts 24:6-8, Acts 21:29).
--
*Acts 26:5 -
Not all non-Christian Jews consider themselves to be religious Jews. And most who do, do not hold to the mistaken, so-called "Orthodox" Jewish (that is, the Pharisaical) idea that they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. Also, the elect portion of even the small minority of Jews who do hold to this idea can still be converted to faith in Jesus Christ by hearing Biblical truth (Romans 10:17). For even the apostle Paul was once a hard-core, law-zealous Pharisee (Galatians 1:13-24, Acts 26:5, Acts 22:3-4, Philippians 3:5-9).
--
*Acts 26:6-7 refers to the hope of literal, physical resurrection from the dead (Acts 26:8, Acts 23:6b, Acts 24:15, Romans 8:23-25).
(See also Acts 28:20 below, and Luke 24:39 above)
--
*Acts 26:20c -
(Do works meet for repentance)
Here, as in Matthew 3:8, the original Greek word (axios: G0514) translated as "meet" can mean "suitable" or "worthy" (Matthew 10:38). Note, for example, how Zacchaeus' repentance would be shown by his works (Luke 19:8).
--
*Acts 26:22-23 / *Acts 26:22 -
(See Acts 17:11 above)
Acts 26:22-23 is the same idea as Luke 24:44-47.
Neither passage requires a preterist interpretation of the prophecies in Matthew 24 and Revelation chapters 6 to 22.
(See Matthew 24(space) above)
--
*Acts 27:37 -
(Souls)
See Genesis 46:15 above.
--
*Acts 28:13 -
The original Greek word (perierchomai: G4022) translated as "fetched a compass" can mean "wandered about" (1 Timothy 5:13), in this case in the sense of how a ship traveling against the wind has to tack back and forth. Indeed, the English word "fetch" can mean "to reach by sailing esp. against the wind..." (Webster's), just as to "compass" can mean to "achieve" (Webster's). So "fetched a compass" can mean "achieved our goal despite the contrary wind". In this case, the contrary wind would have been from Satan himself, who would have wanted to prevent, or at least delay as long as possible, the apostle Paul reaching Rome to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ there (Acts 23:11b). Likewise, it would have been Satan who had previously brought the tempestuous wind called Euroclydon against Paul's ship, ultimately resulting in its shipwreck (Acts 27:14-41). For Satan, "the prince of the power of the air" (Ephesians 2:2), has power over the winds, just as he had power to bring a windstorm to kill all of Job's children (Job 1:18-19,12).
But YHWH God, and even His angels, are more powerful than Satan (Zechariah 3:2, Luke 10:18, Revelation 12:7-9, Revelation 20:1-2). And so YHWH succeeded in bringing the apostle Paul to Rome (Acts 28:16), just as YHWH was able to give Job more children after his loss (Job 42:13).
Also, for the two years (Acts 24:27) preceding Paul's journey to Rome, YHWH could have purposely allowed Paul to have been imprisoned by the Roman governor in Caesarea (on the coast of Israel) (Acts 23:33-35) to protect Paul from some non-Christian Jews who were determined to kill him (Acts 23:12 to Acts 26:32). Their murderous intent would have been animated by Satan himself, just as the previous and successful murderous intent of some other non-Christian Jews against Jesus Christ Himself had been animated by Satan (John 8:40-47; 1 Thessalonians 2:15). Read also what Ephesians 6:12-18 says.
(See also the "Cabal" section of Revelation 13:5 below)
--
*Acts 28:20 -
This refers to the same hope as Acts 26:6-7. (See those verses above)
Also, in Acts 28:20 the "hope of Israel" includes both Jews and Gentiles in the Church.
(See the "Tribes" section of Romans 11:17 below)
--
*Romans 1:11 / *Rom. 1:11 -
This does not mean that none of the Christians in Rome had received God's Holy Spirit. For the apostle Paul subsequently refers to them as already having received the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9-16). Also, Romans 1:11 does not require that none of the Christians in Rome were operating in Spiritual gifts at that time. For Christians can receive more Spiritual gifts over time. For example, those who have received the gift of tongues should be praying to also receive the separate gift of the interpretation of tongues (1 Corinthians 14:13; 1 Corinthians 12:10). So Romans 1:11 can mean that Paul wanted the Christians in Rome to receive some Spiritual gift through him which they had not already received. Or, Romans 1:11 may not even be referring to some Spiritual gift in the sense of a miraculous ability from the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:8-10), but in a more general sense of Paul wanting to give them through his preaching (Romans 1:15) the gift of some Spiritual truth which they may have not yet been taught.
--
*Romans 1:16 / *Rom. 1:16 -
Jesus Christ's Gospel of salvation goes to Jews first (Romans 1:16, Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 15:24, Acts 3:26, Romans 15:8), and salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22b), because salvation is of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15), which God has made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Christian Gentiles are grafted into Israel so that they can partake of the salvation offered by God to Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29, John 10:16). And all Christians, whether Jews (Acts 22:3) or Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).
--
*Romans 1:17 / *Rom. 1:17 -
Faith must perform works if it is to remain alive (James 2:26). Also, because of free will, faith can be abandoned (Hebrews 6:4-8).
(See the "paramedic analogy" under Ephesians 2:8 below. Also, see Hebrews 6:4 below)
--
*Romans 1:18 / *Rom. 1:18 -
(Re: Isn't He not seen on that day?)
Romans 1:18 does not require that Jesus Christ will not be seen at any of Romans 1:18's fulfillments, such as at Jesus' future, Second Coming (Revelation 19:11-21; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). For "heaven" in Romans 1:18, as in Revelation 19:11 and 2 Thessalonians 1:7, can be the first heaven, the sky/atmosphere of the earth.
(See 2 Corinthians 12:2 below, and Acts 1:11 above)
--
*Romans 1:20 / *Rom. 1:20 -
People can know that God exists simply by seeing everything else that exists (Romans 1:20, Psalms 19:1-4). For the universe could not have created itself from nothing by physics, because of the first law of thermodynamics. So something outside of physics had to have created the universe. The term spirit is used to refer to something which exists outside of physics. So what created the universe was a spirit (John 4:24, John 1:3). And this had to be an uncreated spirit, because nothing, not even a spirit, can create itself from nothing. For to create itself, it would have to already exist. So just by being able to see the universe, people have no excuse for denying the existence of an uncreated spirit, who is known as God (Romans 1:20, John 4:24, Psalms 19:1-4). And God must have eternal power (Romans 1:20), for the first law of thermodynamics requires that even the physical energy in the universe is eternal.
(See also Ecclesiastes 11:5 above)
Because knowing that God exists is the only reasonable response to seeing the existence of the universe (Romans 1:20), when educated and intelligent people refuse to admit that God exists, this is only because they are intentionally choosing to be unreasonable (2 Thessalonians 3:2), choosing to be foolish, regarding God's existence, because of their human pride, their unthankfulness to God, and their desire to continue in sinful actions (Romans 1:21-22, Psalms 14:1). But there is no salvation in simply believing that God exists (James 2:19). Believing in Jesus Christ, the human/divine Son of God, and His suffering and dying on the Cross for our sins, and His rising physically from the dead on the third day, is the only way for people to have their sins forgiven, so that they will not have to go to hell when they die (John 3:16,36, Romans 3:25; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4).
(See also 1 Corinthians 15:1 below, and Matthew 25:41 above)
~
(Re: A *multiverse)
Positing a multiverse, which could very well exist, does not get around the fact that God must exist if anything else exists (Romans 1:20). For even an always-existing multiverse is impossible, apart from God, because of entropy. For our universe is expanding and cooling down and will stay cool. And if it arose from a multiverse, the multiverse is overall cooling down as well. And if the multiverse had existed from all eternity, over eternity past by giving rise to hot universes which cooled down and stayed cool, the multiverse would have, apart from God, cooled down to too low a temperature to give rise to the infinitely-hot Big Bang singularity only some fourteen billion years ago ("only" compared with eternity past). So even if there is a multiverse from which our universe arose, it cannot have existed from all eternity, apart from God, but had to have been maintained in its existence by the eternal power of God (Romans 1:20).
~
(Re: Does God need an external power?)
Nothing requires that the Spirit (God) (John 4:24) who created the universe or multiverse (John 1:3) needs a source beyond Him to empower Him. For nothing requires that the law of entropy applies to anything but that which is physical. Also, God is existence itself (Exodus 3:14, Colossians 1:17, Acts 17:28). And it is impossible for existence itself to ever cease to exist.
(See also Ecclesiastes 11:5 above)
~
(Re: Did time begin with the Big Bang?)
The creation of space-time in the Big Bang could not be the beginning of all dimensions of time. For the Big Bang singularity had to exist in some higher dimension of time before the Big Bang occurred. For without time there can be no change, and so the change in the singularity which caused it to become the Big Bang could never have occurred.
~
(Re: What if the laws of physics did not apply to the Big Bang singularity?)
For science to admit that the laws of physics did not apply to the Big Bang singularity is the same as science admitting that the singularity was not physical. And because that which exists but is not physical is termed spiritual, the singularity would have been spiritual (cf. Ecclesiastes 11:5).
~
(Re: Can man exist forever in this universe without the need for any God?)
No, for our universe is expanding more and more rapidly. Its heat is getting more and more spread out. It will eventually become so extremely cold everywhere in the universe that no life will be able to exist anywhere. So if mankind is to exist forever, it needs God to put mankind in a new universe once this one wears out (Hebrews 1:10-12).
~
(Re: Was the Big Bang singularity an uncaused *quantum fluctuation / *virtual particle?)
No, for quantum fluctuations in the vacuum energy, also called the zero-point energy, only give rise to pairs of tiny virtual particles, not even real particles, much less entire universes of real particles. Also, the first law of thermodynamics is not violated, because half of the virtual particles have positive energy and their partner virtual particles have negative energy. They appear together out of the vacuum energy only momentarily, and then disappear, leaving behind nothing but the original vacuum energy.
Regarding electron/positron pairs, virtual particles can be only virtual-electron/virtual-positron pairs, which are not the same as real electrons and real positrons. They are not the same because virtual particles consist of pairs of virtual positive-energy and virtual negative-energy particles, while real electrons and real positrons both have real positive energy, simply with a different electric charge. Also, when virtual positive-energy and virtual negative-energy particles annihilate each other, they give off no energy at all, while when real electrons and real positrons annihilate each other, they give off positive energy. In both cases, there is no net creation or destruction of energy, as this is forbidden by the first law of thermodynamics. The positive energy given off by annihilating real electrons and positrons is no more than the positive energy which they already contained before their annihilation.
Also, just because science cannot currently prove what causes virtual particles to suddenly appear for an instant even in a vacuum, this does not mean that science has proven that something can come into existence without a cause. All it means is that science has not yet discovered what the cause is for the appearance of virtual particles. One theory is that even a seeming-vacuum could potentially contain an infinitesimal, undetectable amount of each of the different wavelengths of electromagnetic energy, which together could add up to an almost-infinite amount of potential "zero-point energy" in every point of space. This zero-point energy could be where the virtual particles come from. While zero-point energy could theoretically be traced back to the energy originally contained in the Big Bang singularity, science still has to explain where the energy in that singularity came from.
~
(Re: Does gravity = negative energy, so that the net energy in the universe = 0, so that the universe is "flat"?)
No, the net energy of the universe is not zero, but something like 4x10^69 joules positive energy/mass. Also, a "flat" universe does not mean that the net energy of the universe is zero. Also, gravity is a warping of space-time caused by the mass of particles with positive energy. Gravity itself is not negative energy. Only in the extreme gravitational fields of black holes is it theorized that vacuum fluctuations in space could be disturbed to where they give off tiny amounts of negative energy, which could then flow into the black hole, while positive energy from the same disturbed vacuum fluctuations flows out as Hawking radiation. In this way, whenever negative energy is created in the vacuum fluctuations near a black hole, this does not affect the net positive energy in the universe. The total energy of the universe averaged over all space remains positive. Nothing about gravity or anything else cancels out the something like 4x10^69 joules of net positive energy which still exists in the universe, and must forever exist, because of the first law of thermodynamics.
~
(Re: *Newtonian equations)
One reason that Newtonian gravitation appears to science to "fail" at relativistic scales is because, by special relativity, any matter accelerated to the speed of light would have to take on infinite mass. Atheistic science would rather reject the infinities in their equations as "failures" and "not applicable" to the universe, instead of seeing the infinities in their equations as pointing to spirit (Ecclesiastes 11:5). So, for example, instead of it necessarily being "impossible", as science claims, for matter to be accelerated to the speed of light, the truth could be that any matter accelerated to the speed of light would become spirit. Also, since Newton's gravity equation and Einstein's general relativity disagree slightly, and general relativity is more accurate, Newton's gravity equation is just an extremely-good approximation devised by a man, and not some set-in-stone exactly-precise law of the universe itself which "fails" slightly when the fourth dimension of space-time is included with regard to gravity, under general relativity.
~
(Re: Is the universe infinite and full?)
No, the universe is still expanding, and has been expanding for only some fourteen billion years ("only" when compared with eternity past). So it cannot be infinite. Also, it is not completely filled with matter, but contains huge voids between galaxy clusters, and has voids between galaxies, and voids between stars, and even atoms themselves are almost entirely empty space.
--
*Romans 1:26-27 / *Rom. 1:26 -
(Re: Has *homosexuality been proven to be genetic?)
No. Also, note that even if homosexuality could be proven to be genetic, so could alcoholism, criminal violence, and schizophrenia. Human genes in their current, fallen, corrupted state have nothing to do with proving what is moral, or what is good mental health.
Also, Christian Gay Conversion Therapy can help some gay Christians to become straight, or at least to no longer practice homosexuality. For Jesus Christ has the power to deliver Christians from slavery to any sin (John 8:34-36). And He can do this even apart from any human therapy.
Also, it is curious that homosexuals sometimes claim that what they do sexually is okay because it is genetic, while transgender people (who are also homosexual) claim that genetics is completely irrelevant, and even totally-counter, to their real identity. So which claim is right?
But while homosexual acts are sinful (Romans 1:26-27), we too easily forget that homosexual acts (Genesis 19:4-5) were not the only sin of Sodom. For: "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy" (Ezekiel 16:49). How many of us Christians who love to rail against homosexuality are nonetheless "just like Sodom" with regard to our pride, our fullness of bread, our abundance of idleness, and our refusal to strengthen the hand of the poor and needy? How many of us love to place ourselves above homosexuals, forgetting that even if we were completely free from all sin ourselves, we would still be judged by God for our self-righteousness (Luke 18:9-14)?
But, at the same time, the truth must never be discounted that homosexual acts, if they are not repented of, will, like any other unrepentant sin, keep people from ultimate salvation (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
The list of sins which will ultimately keep even Christians out of the Kingdom of God (if they do not repent from them) is quite long (Galatians 5:19-21), and some of these sins are common in the Church today. So why is there such a focus by some Christians on homosexuality alone? Why does not the Church also focus on, for example, its own very-widespread practice of divorce and second-marriage adultery (Mark 10:11-12)?
(See Mark 10:11 and Ezekiel 16:53 above)
~
(Re: Could Christians be persecuted in our future simply for asserting from the Bible that homosexual acts are sinful?)
Yes, just as they are already being persecuted by major social media corporations by having their pages and posts deleted for "homophobia". And this persecution could expand until even the government itself becomes involved in it. For any assertion that homosexual acts are sinful could become an illegal act of "hate speech", punishable by fines and imprisonment.
A move toward this point could have even started. For example, not long ago, the New York Times (98% of its readers say that they never pray) held a forum for evangelicals, the point of which was to basically accuse evangelicals of causing the Orlando, Pulse-nightclub shooting against homosexuals, because of the evangelical teaching against homosexuality, which it is said puts homosexuals "in danger". Of course, that Orlando shooting was done by a Muslim, not a Christian. But in the twisted, Satanic world of "political correctness", no evil can ever be ascribed to Islam (even though Islam, even in its moderate forms, opposes homosexuality no less than evangelical Christianity), whereas any evil whatsoever can be ascribed to evangelical Christianity.
Also, "political correctness" loves to paint any evangelical teaching against homosexuality as "homophobic", or "hateful", as if evangelical Christians are actually fearful (phobic) of homosexuals, or actually hate them, when in fact evangelical Christianity simply states from the Bible itself that homosexuality is sinful (Romans 1:26-27). It would be like pedophiles saying that Christians (or even New York Times readers) are "pedophobic", or "hateful", for being against pedophilia, which pedophiles prefer to call "man-boy love". Or, it would be like people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals saying that Christians are "beastiphobic", or "hateful", for being against inappropriate behavior with animals, which people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals prefer to call "inter-species love".
So, along with the acceptance of homosexuality, do not be surprised if the non-Christian world, in the name of "love", eventually begins to also accept pedophilia and inappropriate behavior with animals, so long as (in the non-Christian world's words) "the child or animal involved in each case is okay with the activity, showing no signs of distress, but rather consent, and even pleasure".
And then pedophiles and people who are into inappropriate behavior with animals will walk around with "Love wins" signs at anti-Christian rallies.
(See also section 2 of Numbers 12 above)
~
(Re: Why do you say that "political correctness" is Satanic?)
Because it loves to focus on things which directly contradict Christian, that is, Biblical, morality, making "political correctness" anti-Christian. And so it is one of Satan's tools by which he is preparing the world to accept the future Antichrist's one-world religion (of Gnostic Luciferianism, also called Satanism), which could begin to be foisted upon the whole world in only a few years from now.
(See Revelation 13:4 below)
-
Next entry / Prior / Table of Contents
Dec 11, 2018
