|
| |
SOUL AND SPIRIT |
|
|
|
James 2:26
|
| |
In 1 Thessalonians 5:23 God's word tells us that man has a body a soul and a spirit. The spirit is the part of us that makes the difference between us and animals. It enables us to have a relationship with God, who is spirit. (John 4:24) This verse further states He must be worshiped in spirit and in truth. The spirit is what enables us to reason and know. It is the intellectual part. It is this part that makes us responsible for responding to God's provision of salvation in Jesus.
The soul is what makes the difference physical life and death. The soul is the seat of our emotions, feelings and wants or desires.
Humans have 3 parts: body, soul and spirit.
Angels are spirits and animals have body and soul only.
My understanding of this subject has been deepened by WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES which is an Emmaus Bible commentary Published by Emmaus Bible College is Dubuque, Iowa. |
| |
QUESTION CONCERNING KING CYRUS |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
This is a great question! When we concider the context of both passages. The word "annointed" in the OT referred to the relationship that Israels first two kings, Saul and David, had with God. Since Israel was in exile, Cyrus was acting as her king, to bring about blessing. This he did when he releaded Israel and braought judgement upon the nations.
In Ezra 1, God moved Cyrus to accomplish the things that he wanted done. God "stirred" him up, probably planting the thoughts in his head in some way, although that is pure conjecture, and then nudging him to do them. I believe that the main difference that, in Isaiah, we are presented with Cyrus' position as one who had God's hand upon him to bring blessing. In Ezra, we are presented with one who was "moved" by God's hand to bring that blessing.
Again, good question!!!
Sean Lillis
Emmaus Bible College |
| |
What is the sin unto death? |
|
|
|
1 John 5:16
|
| |
That is a very tough question, and although scholars have several differnt theorys, none can be considered definate, although I believe that most can be ruled out. I will present these theorys:1)Possably a specific sin requiring the death sentance(see OT on murder or dissobidiance towards parents). 2) Sins committed intentionally v. accidentaly-in other words, and accidental sin would not carry with it the sentance of death. 3) Mortal sins v. venial sins- this would be most Catholic interpretations, although the Bible clearly teaches in many places elsewhere that all sin is sin, and the penalty is death(Rom.3)4) State of habitual sin willfully chosen and persisted in-This theory has merits, as Jihn has claimed in this epistle that the true believer does not willfully sin habitually, so it would seem to be talking about non-believers.5)Apostacy 6) Mark 3-blasphemy against the Holy Spirit(accrediting the work of the Spirit to the devil) 7) My professor has this theory, and it is the one that I would go with as well-Remember the context of the passage, and that is prayer for believers, that they might escape the sin that has them entangled. The context of the book as a whole has been the hereesy of the false teachers, and John has gone to great lengths to prove that they are not in the Light, but are in fact, un-believers. Their sin is unbelief, and that sin can not be forgiven,since it is a slap in the face of a God who had spilled His blood tht they might be saved(1 John 2:2). When we see our brother committing sin, we need to pray for them, as they have the Spirit in them, and that makes them recoverable. These false teachers have not that help, and so the sin, unbelief, is indeed a sin leading to eternal death. I hope that this helps. Let me know if I can try to comment further. Sean Lillis Emmaus Bible College |
| |
Any consequences for the bad? |
|
|
|
2 Cor 5:10
|
| |
Radio man said it better than I could have, and I concur totally. Christ forever judged sin at the cross, and the only judgement on that issue that will take place is reserved for those who reject the message of the gospel. The Judgement Seat is all about the activities that believers have taken part in since there conversion. I have littel doubt that it will be a sad, certainly embarassing time as the Lord shows us all the worthless things that we did, and it will result in the loss of reward. The knowledge of it should help to "stimulate us to love and good deeds", don't you agree? Its definatly noe a concequence issue, except for the loss od rewards. Thanks slillis20 Emmaus Bible College |
| |
Does Bible support capital punishment? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
It is in my oopinion that you are correct in supporting capital punishment. Most of our brotheren who are against it will say that it is law, and therefore we are no longer under law, but under grace. This is true, except that the command for capital punishment does not come under the Mosaic Law, whci wss obolished by the work of Christ. In fact, it is under the Noahic law(Gen. 9:6), which is still very much in effect! A soverign governments right o use "the sword" to maintain order is clearly present in Rom.13:1-7. I myself am perfectly comfortable teaching that the death penalty is as true a principle today as it was when it was instituted by God in Genesis. I hope that this helps. In Christ, slillis20 Emmaus Bible college |
| |
"3 days" only or "3 days and 3 nights"? |
|
|
|
John 19:31
|
| |
JVH0212, does the Bible say "three days" or "three days and three nights". If anyone leaves out the "three nights" thay are taking away from Scripture. Matt 12:40 says "three days and three nights". Have YOU asked a Jewish rabbi what that phrase means? The "Friday" is an error of tradition.
Also, when was His entry into Jerusalem? I believe it is Nisan 10 (Sunday). Since Passover is Nisan 14 what day did He die? 11-Mo, 12-Tu, 13-We ... and the Nisan 14 is Thursday.
Going backwards, we know that two disciples were going to Emmaus in Luke 24. It is Sunday (Nisan 17, Firstfruits). In verse 21, it says today is
the third day since He died.
What day did He die? One day since-Saturday (weekly Sabbath), two days-Friday (Passover Sabbath) and three days-Thurday (Passover).
Both ways fit. Do not listen to other men, even forget what they said. Study Scripture yourself. |
| |
Why will we know each other? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Glory777,
I see your reasoning and would like to offer a few comments.
It is true that Jesus was recognized by many after His resurrection, but He was also unrecognizable by others on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-16). Either way the fact remains that those who saw Jesus were in a natural state, not supernatural as we will all be in heaven. Men's eyes may be opened by God to the spiritual (2 Kgs 6:15-17) but our natural state is blind to the spiritual world. Therefore to say that natural man being able to see a resurrected Christ on earth is the same as a spiritual resurrected person being able to recognize another spiritual person in heaven is a questionable conclusion.
If we were to recognize one another, we would have retained our earthly memory to some degree? Would these memories be only of loved ones and happy times or would they also include those whom we did not love and memories that are regretful? The Bible states in Rev 21:3-4 [3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them, 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away." NASU] The first things have passed away and God has made a new heaven and a new earth with no more sadness which leads one to think there will be no remembrance of our sinful past.
Our relationship will be with the Father and the Son as in Rev 22:1,3-5 [1 Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb,
3 There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and His bond-servants will serve Him; 4 they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads. 5 And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever. NASU].
We will not have the relationship of Gen 2:24 [For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. NASU]. Regarding heavenly relationships Jesus says in Matt 22:30 [30 "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. NASU]. We will be the bride of Christ!
Bless the Lord, Phillip
|
| |
Why will we know each other? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Phillip-
I do have one verse that might show my position on the idea that we would recognize each other. Luke 24:16 says (speaking about the Emmaus road encounter) "But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him". Mary, at the tomb did not recognize Him at first, either, but she was so filled with grief, crying, and definitely not expecting to see Jesus alive again, she did not recognize Him until He spoke her name. I do believe still that we will recognize each other, but, I know that God would have to do something to the memories of the pain we suffer on earth so it is nonexistant in Heaven. Perhaps the joy of being with the Lord would so outweigh everything that we can't even comprehend it, and in that joy everything that has painful connotations would be so diminished as to not even have happened?
One other part that could substantiate my idea of recognizability is the parable (?) of Lazarus in Luke 16. It does not say what the begger saw, but Jesus told us that Lazarus saw the beggar. Isn't funny how the only parable that mentions a name is this one? Of course, his memory could have been retained because he was in Hell and this recalling all of what he did wrong was part of the torment. But I think if his memories were retained in this respect, so will ours be in the respect of people that we know and love who will be with us in Heaven.
Before I was born again, I was married to a man who is now also born again as is his present wife. I am married to another who I am praying will come to the Lord. It is my desire to see all of them in Heaven, where earthly marriage ties have no meaning anymore, only the glorifying and praising the Lord.
(Rev. 21:4 has been my favorite verse for as long as I can remember!)
Deb |
| |
Follow up Peter first Pope |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I checked all 4 gospels, seems like Mary M and other Mary were the first in Matt, Mark, Luke and John, does this mean she should have been the first pope? :) John also mentions he was w/Peter too, then there were the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus... |
| |
Follow up Peter first Pope |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
I checked all 4 gospels, seems like Mary M and other Mary were the first in Matt, Mark, Luke and John, does this mean she should have been the first pope? :) John also mentions he was w/Peter too, then there were the 2 disciples on the road to Emmaus... |
| |
question about salvation |
|
|
|
Phil 4:6
|
| |
Hi, Wendy; Welcome. I'm pretty new here myself.
Whether your friend is saved or not is between your friend and Jesus; no one else knows. Most new Christians go through dry spells, often prolonged. Pray for your friend (and with, if possible) and continue to encourage.
Maybe you can get your friend to look at other Bibles - a paraphrase (such as "The Message") or a modern English version such as the Good News or New Living Translation. Or you might try Christian music - there are artists in practically any style you can think of. Or visit a "seeker" church or other churches.
Or see if there are any communities in your area that conduct three-day renewal weekends - first for yourself, then for your friend. The best-known are Cursillo (Catholic) and Walk to Emmaus (Methodist). This link will get you started to find out about them: http://www.cursillos.ca/en/index.htm (click on the "Expansion" link to read about movements that have grown out of the Cursillo.) This page contains links to many such communities around the country:
http://home.indy.rr.com/indyvoice/links.htm
But keep on praying.
I pray this is helpful to you and your friend.
Peace and grace,
Steve |
| |
Please help me to find this out for this |
|
|
|
Luke 1:27
|
| |
Greetings Emmaus!
You said in your post:
"Matthew 13:55 is undone by Matt 28:1 and 27:55 and John 19:25 and Jude 1:1 which points out that James and Joseph and Jude, the "brothers of Jesus " are in fact cousins and the sons of another Mary."
Yet, none of the verses you listed say that the brothers of Jesus were cousins, or that they were the sons of another Mary! This seems to be pure assumption of your part!
Also, as Searcher56 pointed out, Mt. 1:25 clearly indicates that Joseph and Mary did have sexual relations after the birth of Jesus. The exact wording is, "He did not know her until she gave birth to a son!"
The believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary simply isn't found in Scripture!
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
Please help me to find this out for this |
|
|
|
Luke 1:27
|
| |
Oops! Once again I addressed my Note to the wrong person. I intended to address it to Emmaus. My apologies, Tim. |
| |
Please help me to find this out for this |
|
|
|
Luke 1:27
|
| |
Greetings Kalos!
I agree with you! I was simply quoting from Emmaus's post. The statement you refer to was his, not mine! :-)
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran |
| |
Please help me to find this out for this |
|
|
|
Luke 1:27
|
| |
Greetings Emmaus!
Thanks for the response!
Allow me to respond to your points!
1) Concerning the word ‘brother’: Mt. 13:55 is perfectly clear. It says, "‘‘Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? 56 Aren’t all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?""
It is true that in some cases, like Acts 9:17, ‘brother’ can be used as a generic term of address. However, when this is the case, there is a non-definitive form used. In the case of Mt. 13:55, there is a definite construction used. It says "the brothers of Him". Normal Greek usage would indicate that it means exactly what it sounds like, His brothers.
Mt. 4:21-22 is not an example of a non-definitive usage. The phrase "two other brothers" simply contrasts James and John with Peter and Andrew in v. 18. In other words, there were two sets of brothers.
2) Concerning ‘ews’: The word ‘until’ limits the action of the verb. Joseph did not have sexual relations with Mary until - she gave birth to a son. If Matthew had meant that he never had relations with her, he could have said that.
1 Cor. 15:25 uses a different word than Mt. 1:25, so it really isn’t relevant!
Mt. 13:55 alone settles the question in my opinion! :-)
Your Brother in Christ,
Tim Moran
|
| |
Q: Why? Why? Why?. A: Because. |
|
|
|
Gen 1:1
|
| |
4th alternative: An honest seeking which GOD recognizes, and responds to. Two of my favorite scriptures regarding fellowship in the scriptures are Malachi 3:16-18, and the road to Emmaus at the end of Luke. Jesus joined Himself to them as they wondered about the things which had happened, and GOD hearkened to those who feared Him, and thought upon His word. |
| |
How am I expected to be perfect? |
|
|
|
Matt 5:48
|
| |
Greetings Emmaus!
Thank you for the response, but I tell you in ALL HONESTY and Truth- It was not "me", Nolan E. Keck, who wrote that question, using my User Name, tonight at 9:20 PM!
At 9:20 PM tonight, I was at work, taking Insurance claims and speaking with people over the phone.. And many of my good friends at work can vouch as "alibis"..
I believe that someone has stolen my password to my Forum identity!! So I will immediately change my password.. I apologize for the confusion. If this happens again, then I will directly go to Lockman for immediate assistance.
- Nolan |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Emmaus
Thanks for your input. I have studied the early church and I have reached some conclusions myself.
I think the biggest thing that mystifies me about the whole thing is how did it happen? And when did it happen? Most importantly can it happen again?
History usually repeats itself unless the people learn it's lessons. My question was asked to find out what we have learned. Or put another way what do people defend against in the church today.
Thanks for you input. I would love to hear your thoughts on my original question thanks again!
EdB |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Greetings Emmaus!
Mary was nothing more than a willing virgin of whom God used to deliver His Son. She was nothing more than that.
- Nolan |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Greetings Emmaus!
Mary was nothing more than a willing virgin of whom God used to deliver His Son. She was nothing more than that.
- Nolan |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Greetings Emmaus!
Mary was nothing more than a willing virgin of whom God used to deliver His Son. She was nothing more than that.
- Nolan |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Ok Emmaus,
Here you go!
"I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which He will bring about at the proper time- He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen."
At best, Mary was a disciple of Jesus Christ. NOWHERE in Scripture, even in the verses that you have cited is there any mention AT ALL of Mary possibly being anything more than a disciple of Jesus Christ.
To say that Mary was the "Queen of Heaven" or "New Ark of the Covenant" or "Mother of God" is to apply titles to her that is completely based upon your speculation and cannot be gathered from Scripture alone!
I ask you to support your claims by using Scripture verses and not on your flawed and faulty Catholic tradition.
Where does it say that Mary is the "Queen of Heaven" in the Bible? Not in my Bible, the New American Standard Version..
- Nolan |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Emmaus,
"12:1 a woman. She represents Israel, who gave Christ to the world (v.5) and who will be persecuted severely during the Tribulation (v.13)." [The Ryrie Expanded Edition Study Bible, pg. 2028]
In no way whatsoever does Revelation 12:1-12 state or even imply that Mary should be even implied as the "Queen of Heaven." Such a title only invites heresy.
- Nolan |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Greeting Emmaus!
I'm ready to plunge into this whole Catholicism debate with you and anyone else, and I guarantee that you won't like it! :-)
Yes, you are entitled to your own position, however flawed that it is.. |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Greetings Emmaus!
I hate to say this, but absolutely NONE of the Scriptures that you have cited support your theory that Mary is "The New Eve"..
You're going to have to show me a verse in Scripture that says EXACTLY THAT.
Nolan |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Emmaus:
Before I say anything else, I must say: I have absolutely nothing personal against you or any Roman Catholic. I am not out to attack you. What I write here has nothing in any way to do with personalities or personal criticism.
Having said that, I ask you to show us one -- just ONE -- example in Scripture, in clear and plain language, where anyone was ever saved BEFORE they sinned. For that matter, if one had never sinned, then what possible need would they have of a savior?
Romans 3:10,23 includes Mary. Even your attempt to twist the Scripture to intepret it in a new and strange way does not invalidate the points I made in my previous posting.
Grace to you,
kalos |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Greetings Emmaus!
Hebrews 9:4 never states that the Ark of the Covenant was made of 'incorruptible wood'. Exodus 25:10 does not say this either! So if you are saying that the Ark was made of 'incorruptible wood', then either you are basing these assumptions on your own conclusions (which one cannot come to just by reading the text), or on the conclusions of a long standing tradition that does not prove to be 'supported' by Scripture here. All things must be supported by Scripture. If we begin to believe in tradition rather than Scripture, then we are taking our focus off of God's Holy Word, and putting our 'faith' in man's tradition, which is full of flaws, and God's Word is flawless (Psalm 12:6-7).
I now see where you make the connection between Mary having the 'midden manna' of Jesus Christ and giving birth to Him, thus making her the new "Ark of the Covenant" and the "Queen of God", but this is nowhere to be supported in Scripture! Is it only coincidence that none of the Biblical writers ever even alluded to the same thing that you are talking about? Yes, all generations will call Mary 'blessed', since she was in a sense, the hand-maiden of God. However, Mary is in no way equal with God, nor does she have any characteristics of the Deity. If you read in Luke 2:34-35, does not Simeon say to Mary, "and a sword will pierce even your own soul"?? If this is so, then in what way is Mary shown to be Deity, since she will also be convicted of her sins? We should not call Mary, the mother of Jesus, 'blessed' to the point of worshipping her! This would be idolatry, and something that is not even acceptable to angels (Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9)! Mary was a servant of God as we are. In no way has she been placed as a "Goddess" over mankind. Not only does this teach polytheism but it is not Scriptural and is actually contrary to the teachings of the Bible.
I agree with you that Jesus is the 'new Adam' because the Bible says so in 1 Corinthians 15:45. And 1 Corinthians 15:22 tells me this also.
But Emmaus, where in the Bible does it say that Mary is anything more than a God fearing woman who gave birth to the Man, Jesus Christ? Mary may have given birth to Jesus, who was the fullness of God in bodily form, and Mary was the 'vessel' that God used to deliver His Son to this earth, but Mary did not 'give birth' to God. For God has no beginning and no end! (Revelation 22:13) And how could Mary be the mother of God if God has existed forever? Jesus Christ has always existed, even before the foundation of the earth! (John 17:24, Hebrews 13:8) So was Mary really the 'mother of God'? Or was she just a willing servant of God whom God used to 'introduce' His one and only Son into this world?
Emmaus, I am not trying to put you on the spot here. I humbly ask you to please show me in Scripture with Bible Verses where it 'proves' that Mary is anything more than just a humble servant of God.
Also, "man that was at the foot of the cross" and this brings me to John 19:26-27 where Jesus says, "Woman, behold, your son!" and to the 'man', "Behold, your mother!" If you were referring to these passages, where Mary, the mother of Jesus, is standing at the foot of the cross with John, His disciple, then please show me where it says here that Mary is anything more than just a woman of God. Emmaus, I ask you humbly, and not as a request!
Your Brother in Christ,
Nolan |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Greeting Emmaus!
You are not the first to come along on this Forum and to press the belief that Mary was something more than just a woman and disciple. Your power to convince doesn't come through your assumptions- it comes through Scripture! And so far, you have not proved anyone that Mary was anything more than just a woman disciple.
Blessings to you and every other Catholic on their search for the truth!
Nolan |
| |
When did the catholic church go wrong? |
|
|
|
Bible general Archive 1
|
| |
Dear Emmaus.........With all due respect indeed.....but the doctrine is Galatians 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
If the first Pope taught through his actions that there was indeed a difference between Jew and Greek, that would be doctrinal. The doctrine of the seperation of Jew from everyone else. Would it not?
God Bless....Jensen |
| |
| To See More, Click Here... |
|
|
