Search results

I just base my commentary on the Bible. If I have missed something regarding marriage requirements please let me know.

In light of the Jewish law concerning non-virgin brides nothing much changes from my previous comment. The only guideline regarding a wedding ceremony in the Bible is simply "becoming one flesh" which is just a euphemism for sex.

On the other hand, the things that constitute a marriage are "leaving one's parents" and "becoming one flesh" which is the same thing that people who fornicate do. The line between "pre-marital" sex and consummating a marriage actually quite gray from a Biblical standpoint.

The elect being led astray by false Christs is a Biblically viable teaching, Mark 13:21-22, 2 Thess. 2:9-12, 1 John 2:18-19, etc. I think it's not good to brush it aside with a simple "this is false" as if it doesn't deserve the attention it requires. It's obviously not false. It may be false...

The "elect" can be deceived into believing in false Christs, false prophets, taking the mark of the beast, etc. Being elect isn't about being predestined to salvation unfortunately. Matthew 24 24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders...

I think it's interesting that only Matthew recorded it as being a vision while the others recorded it as something they saw. I don't find any inconsistencies with what Matthew said because visions are seen. It's just that using the word vision is more specific and nuanced than seeing something...

I work in a job where these Biblical teachings roughly translate to crowd control and psychology. I would add that, in addition to what you said, we should also be useful. Think along the lines of going the extra mile if you're asked, being a "good Samaritan," and things like that.

I think there is something about riches that God doesn't like. It's probably less about the riches themself and more about what they can do to people. When I say riches, I am talking about gold and money, that sort of thing. I believe God defines riches in a different way, but tells us not to...

Really I am not even sure what my point was. I may have been focusing on a different aspect of your previous comment, at the time, that is now somewhat escaping me. I do agree with your general reasoning behind why Yeshua became Jesus though.

The idea you have provided falls apart when the name Melchizedek is taken into consideration.

How about the parts where the made they decision to not translate it into their language? They showed awareness that their translation was merely a preference. The Hebrew words actually appear in the New Testament manuscripts. Matt 27 45From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came...

God probably isn't one to make idle threats. If He can do it then I suppose He will. I see no reason to not take it seriously and literally.

I think I am leaning toward how you see this as well. Jesus and Paul spoke of eternal life as something that is received in the future.

In some cases it's probably apocalyptic language and not meant to be literal because we can verify that Sodom isn't still burning. I believe in this case the language is meant to be vivid and dramatic to convey the idea of God triumphing over evil. It is literal other times because we can surely...

I gather the point of Melchizedek having no end or beginning to his days is a play on a technicality because his genealogical record seems to be missing. I didn't think they actually thought he was still alive, but who knows honestly. However, why couldn't 1 John 5:13 actually happen? Is it that...

I doubt Melchizedek is actually still alive right now. I was thinking of 1 John 5:13 for example. 1 John 5 13These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

That's a good point, but why did they also change Yeshua's name? His name isn't actually Jesus. Is it possible he hates being called that?

There's probably enough room to assign a theological definition to eternal life in a way that it doesn't necessarily refer to immortality. However, the text book definition of eternal life should be equal to immortality or it would be possible that all of the promises of eternal life would only...

If we can't discuss it outright then let the Bible make your arguments for you. John 17 1When Jesus had spoken these things, He lifted up His eyes to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son may glorify You. 2For You granted Him authority over all people, so...

The immortality of the soul is a curious thing because it pre-supposes that eternal life is not conditional on the gospel. Why would one need the gospel if their soul is already immortal? I believe this doctrine undermines Christianity.