- Jul 2, 2018
- 18,580
- 11,393
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
It's a common mistake to use the word "repent" when you mean "confess". Repentance is a turning away from. Away from sin.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's a common mistake to use the word "repent" when you mean "confess". Repentance is a turning away from. Away from sin.IFB tend to add nothing to it, in fact they can get in trouble with some more organized Churches with the idea that even repentance doesn't mean "repent from your sins", but rather the repent is "turn to Jesus".
There's something we can agree on.So I don't treat Christianity as a religion, but rather a personal relationship with Jesus.
Which translation preserved God's word specifically as He wanted it?The bottom line is this....How much faith do you have that GOD perserved a copy of His WORD as He specifically wanted it. Could he prevent any miss translations, etc. One important part is: is there any one chapter that contains the full information about a particular doctrine...NO-----why....if you lose part of the bible you can still learn about every doctrine contained within. I use the KJV but also use others to show the difference in the translations...The KJV has about 200 errors...
The synoptic gospels are too similar to have not been copied to some extent. And there are debates about authorship.Yes, this was removed from the originals by the gnostics and left out quit a bit..However, God's finger prints are all over it...Like the Gospels where it is said they are the same and one copied from another...Yet, they leave out the fact that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all used words that the others did not use. So if they copied from one another, which one wrote their book last....for this is the only way they would have known what NOT to write. a little further study will help..
Earthmover.
The canon was not collected and voted on until the 4th century. It did not exist at the time 2 Tim 3:16 was written.Not sure what you are speaking of here but will take a stab at it.. The Septuagint LXX was the only Bible the people in the first century had...It is included in 2 TIm 3:16 as Jesus was speaking of the whole Bible, not just the NT or just the OT...you cannot separate them for they are one integrated book. ONe Author (Jesus Christ) and 40 writers of 66 books.
The process of translation included comparing manuscript fragments to determine which were the earliest writing dates and seemed most accurate. The best prospects were them used to write a translation.From what I have heard and read of Chuck Missler, is the manuscripts he speaks of being inerrant and infallable are the originals. Yet,GOD told us in PSA12:6-7
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
I believe that God keeps his word and the above should be heeded by all.
earthmover
Brad Jersak informed me about this. I think it was in this video.Since the wages of sin is death, it sounds like you're on the right track.
Done.Add me also please if that's alright with everyone.
Brad Jersak informed me about this. I think it was in this video.
Enjoy this interview with Brad Jersak where he discusses many questions like when salvation occurs, why did Jesus have to die, where did death come from, what did the early church believe about the after-life, etc.
Yes, me too.Thanks for this. I'm a great fan.
I don't think God is fuzzy about heaven and hell, I think for humankind it is far easier to fuzzy the prospect of hell than the presence of heaven.
Philosophical arguments I hear against universalism are pretty similar to arguments I hear against eternal security.
It isn't philosophical arguments against universalism though, it's scripture arguments against universalism.
Jesus didn't say "believe in me, or don't, you'll still get to heaven".
Sounds like a playground bully.It's not like God is a genie in a bottle that gives us everything we wish, far from it, He does everything He wishes, whether we like it or not and yes it is quite possible that God does something in your existence that is downright uncomfortable and causes suffering for you, even if you're saved.
Jesus didn't say "believe in me, or don't, you'll still get to heaven".
I guess it depends on your life experiences.
For me reality of God's wrath and Hell are crystal clear, nothing vague about them at all, it is the rewards that are vague and nebulous
God saying He is our exceedingly great reward and the Lord is our inheritance what does that even mean?
It's not like God is a genie in a bottle that gives us everything we wish, far from it, He does everything He wishes, whether we like it or not and yes it is quite possible that God does something in your existence that is downright uncomfortable and causes suffering for you, even if you're saved. See Job. See Jeremiah, see Paul, see Jesus Himself, while yes, He is the son of God Isaiah 53 describes Him as a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief.
Paul prayed for relief from an affliction multiple times, and God said... no, my grace is sufficient.
So in having the reward simply being..... "You see and get to worship God".. there's the thing of.. "well He's the God who said no to all my prayers asking for help and healing" for Jeremiah "He's the God who said no to me ever having a wife and children". That kind of puts a stain on just... seeing God... being that they're a person who refused to help when you needed it in these cases.
I can understand the Universalists on one thing: If all Jesus has done for us is save us from an eternity of torment, why would we rejoice in that alone? Why even be created in the first place, why even exist?
To sing songs? I don't even like singing, in fact I hate singing.
and before you join on the choir of "well God will change you to make you like singing"
That's worse, that means my hope is in divine brainwash, it also reveals a very depressing prospect: That not even my creator loves and accepts me for who I am, but rather wants to change me to be someone else. If that's the truth, why was I even created? Just to be rejected and replaced by a more convenient personality in my place?
How depressing.
Because of my life being filled with affliction, chronic disease, disability, and loneliness I can fully empathize with the wrath of God, eternal punishment, and fear of the Lord, knowing that no matter how bad I feel I have it, He can always make it worse, He can always ordain that I go through more pain, more chronic illness, etc.
What is far, far, more fuzzy to me.. is reward, and the love of God.
I have to look to what Jesus did for other people, in healing, how He treated other people in His ministry, how He taught.. that's the only way I can love Jesus.
and I have to believe it's more than just singing psalms and falling on our faces for all eternity, or I get depressed and wish I didn't even exist.
and that's one of the reasons I think Annihilationism doesn't work as a punishment... because I can see Annihilationism as an end to misery, loneliness, and rejection.
If Annihilation is preferable to any thing at all, then it does not make an effective punishment.
That was your answer to this by @Jamdoc "Jesus didn't say "believe in me, or don't, you'll still get to heaven". Does not UR claim that ALL mankind will be saved, the righteous and unrighteous alike, no matter what, even after death? A yes or no answer will suffice.That's not what universalism says either so I don't understand your point.
Was the disobedience, rebellion and ultimate destruction of all mankind except Noah and his family part of the system God set up? Did God achieve the outcome He actually wanted? I'm not interested in a bunch of wishy-washy "explanation" a yes or no answer will suffice.It seems like the idea is that God set up a system that He himself doesn't like, and arranged it so that He can't achieve the outcome He actually wants.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?