Sevenseas

I think it is Lifetime actually...my husband mumbled something about 'well that's lifetime for you' several times LOL! so prob is fiction is as fiction does...but Rebekah as a whip welding mean old fortune teller who said that Joeseph had her 'gift' too? shudder oh by the way, Dinah or Deenah here, was a 'gifted' midwife...seriously gifted in fact...she even midwifed herself in one scene

My husband and I watched The Red Tent last night. A great movie if you want to view one of the most distorted depictions of a Biblical narrative If Jacob et al were still alive on planet earth, they would sue for defamation of character one example: they portrayed Rebekah as still alive after Jacob meets Esau but as a fortune teller. And a cruel one at that I guess 'they got the name right' would be appropriate here too they pretty much murdered Joseph as well and the rest was a fantasy that may very well leave those who either do not know their Bible very well or, if an introduction to the Bible, with the opinion that God was playing cards while the story unfolded and the people in the story thought of God as a bit of a jokester What is with all the Hollywood does the Bible stories lately? Other then distortion, deception and utter drivel Dinah, pronounced Deenah in the movie, was the main character....and here, we had either total fiction or worse, lies You can tell I have no opinions at all

So which part don't you like? All the Biblical sources they refer to? or the part where those verses put your opinion into ...well, where it belongs....opinion The defintion of what constitutes a heretic has borders. It is not a squishy feely meely open source opinion poll platform You can live by your own opinions but it would actually and quite probably be considered heretical if you start teaching them as they are not sound and seem to be based somewhat on cherry picking verses, stirring them together, picking out what might cause questions, and then displaying them as support for a pre-determined bias. That is no way to discover truth either in scripture or in any other sphere actually. I'll use that quote again from gotquestions as it DIRECTLY from scripture...please note that heresy is considererd destructive and is given a two thumbs down in the Bible Regarding biblical Christianity, what is heresy?Second Peter 2:1says, “There will befalse teachersamong you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.” From this verse, we see that heresy is anything that denies the teaching of Jesus. In1 Corinthians 11:19, Paul takes the church to task for having heresies among them—heresies that led to schisms in the body. These verses touch on both aspects of what constitutes heresy in the church: denying the doctrines God has given, and dividing the body He has created. Both of these are dangerous, destructive actions that are soundly rebuked by Scripture. See also1 John 4:1-6;1 Timothy 1:3-6;2 Timothy 1:13-14; andJude 1.

ummmm....I don't think that is a reference to the Trinity...keeping in mind that I do believe the Trinity is a biblical doctrine From what I can gather, it seems most scholars believe that is a reference to the two witnesses of Revelation I am not big into biblical prophecy, but it appears that most believe that is actually what that passage is referring to

I gave an entire passage of scripture, which you promptly ignore and then determine that you have the goods on the truth while those who are determining what they believe FROM scripture, are creating doctrines as they merrily go along. What's your take on Matthew 22? That is way more then a single verse and if you insist on having 2 or 3, you can add it to the other verse and voila...should be fine then according to your analysis. The verses I quoted were with regard to establishing innocence or guilt. I guess you may have skipped that part of the post The problem for yourself that you are creating, is that there are more then one verse regarding marriage in heaven. You would have to ignore the passage in Matthew 22 for example, in order to stop counting after "1"

Uh huh...I know that. what I expressed was my personal opinion. No no one has to agree with me. I really see a spiritual side to these things.

I'm guessing you know something about the Amish. Interestingly, they have that same 'we are not really individuals' mentality not comparing them to Muslims, but since you brought them up

'Bout sums it up. Its the sheep mentality which we find in scripture. Thinking now days is out of vogue....never mind critical analysis

Interesting in more than one way. Apparently it is compliant with Shariah law. My personal take is not the explanation given. I see this faceless representation of a compliant Muslim doll as their view on the human race. Just a bunch of faceless beings who will be subjected to their law, no exceptions. Spiritually, that fits right in with world domination and one world religion Whereas God sees us as individuals and says His Son died for each one of us and even the hairs on our head are numbered

Better yet, humor all of us and explain away the New Testament references. The problem for you, is that in your keeping of certain parts of the law, you are holding the law over your own head and you just do not recognize that even though scripture tells us in the most simple of words that is what happens. That may also be why you seemingly cannot understand what most folks here state, which, again, I am in agreement with. So, perhaps you just actually need to source that other thread and satisfy your humor over there as you may consider those responses in opposition to your viewpoint, as my own.

Tattoos are forbidden in the book of Leviticus. The Holy Spirit would not be comfortable with a person who got one. Jesus' ministry is to fulfill the law, not subvert it. To those who question this, I simply say that unless you have the love of God in your heart you WILL be judged by the law. and that's just me, hollering from the choir loft... I don't care for tatoos and have no problem telling people its better not to get one. However, if someone does, as a Christian have one done, I would not agree that the Holy Spirit leaves that person...or is 'uncomfortable' with that person That really smacks of what we do is more important than heart issues Again, I am fine saying do not get a tatoo...I don't think we should actually, but this confusion with the law in our standing with God is what upsets me So many many people already struggle with issues like that...condemnation...or loosing your salvation every 5 minutes...its no wonder some get confused, hurt, feel rejected and just walk away Thank God, we have the Good Shepherd who does in fact, actually go out after that one sheep and brings it back to Himself I have to say, that right now, I am so over judgemental and self righteous Christians ...those who view their salvation as something they have to keep by what they do... that I think it must be a stink in God's nostrils I am anything but the best example of a Christian...yet (and I think this is a big yet) I KNOW that a desire to be what and who God wants me to be, burns in my heart, but I will tell you...there is NO Christian on this earth that put that desire there because most Christians I have known or almost ALL have miserably failed me as have I failed those whom I loved the most I really think people need to get their stuff together and understand that no one is better than another and in the end, ONLY What Christ has accomplished will get you to heaven on the other side...the rest is just wishful thinking I've been in the choir loft and left because the atmosphere is just too thin. I found Jesus was a little closer to the earth with most of the regular folk and still trying to get His original message across

uh huh. you have consistently not responded to any verses myself and others have quoted regarding the law with reference to the NT For example:For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh Romans 8:3 NO portion of the law is able to save ANYONE I believe things have been explained quite nicely in the other thread you started that directly references your questions... As I agree with other responders who do NOT have your understanding, perhaps you might just refer back to those both in the aforementionned thread and in others in which I have addressed your same question put to me in various ways but always with the seeming intent to somehow change what I actually wrote even though much of it is a direct response from scripture, with references, to check them out Your post, to which I am currently responding, is another example of you misquoting me and putting a spin on what I post Maybe you could explain why you seem to do that, because I don't find it useful at all I believe the inconsistencies to which you refer are actually your inability to be able to understand that the law does not save and keeing the law does not save and following Christ means you will no longer have the desire to continue to sin God always had in mind the perfect sacrifice...the law was given to point out sin. He gave us Jesus to keep the law and we IN Him, do so ourselves I just do not think you quite understand that.

And yet, we have all these references as well. It seems that sometimes people may try to find what they already believe, rather then allow the Bible to tell them how it really is That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 24“Teacher,” they said, “Moses told us that if a man dies without having children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up offspring for him.25Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had no children, he left his wife to his brother. 26The same thing happened to the second and third brother, right on down to the seventh. 27Finally, the woman died.28Now then, at the resurrection, whose wife will she be of the seven, since all of them were married to her?” 29Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’b ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” Matthew 22 God created marriage as a means of procreation and the filling of the earth with human beings. Heaven, however, will not be populated by procreation. Those who go to heaven will get there by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; they will not be created there by means of reproduction. Therefore, there is no purpose for marriage in heaven since there is no procreation or loneliness. Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-heaven.html#ixzz3LhFqSFzr I don't believe that actually is applicable to deciding whether or not marriage will be an event in heaven..other then the marriage supper of the Lamb. The witnesses here are meant as witnesses to events that have happened in order to determine innocence or guilt. For example, if you look up the same quote in the OT, you find this: One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deuteronomy 19:15 The same verbage is used here: If your brother or sisterb sins,c go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’d 17If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. Matthwew 18 I would conclude from these and other references with similar import, that this is not a reference to future events...as you seem to state regarding marriage in heaven. And finally, as a third reference, (there are others)...we have: Have you been thinking all along that we have been defending ourselves to you? It is in the sight of God that we have been speaking in Christ, and all for your upbuilding, beloved. 20For I fear that perhaps when I come I may find you not as I wish, and that you may find me not as you wish—that perhaps there may be quarreling, jealousy, anger, hostility, slander, gossip, conceit, and disorder. 21I fear that when I come again my God may humble me before you, and I may have to mourn over many of those who sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual immorality, and sensuality that they have practiced. II Corinthians 12 This is the third time I am coming to you. Every charge must be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 2I warned those who sinned before and all the others, and I warn them now while absent, as I did when present on my second visit, that if I come again I will not spare them— 3since you seek proof that Christ is speaking in me. He is not weak in dealing with you, but is powerful among you. 4For he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but in dealing with you we will live with him by the power of God. II Corinthians 13 So, you have to back it up to II Cor 12, as chapter 13 continues from 12 The word 'charge' here indicates that Paul is being accused of something as you can tell if you read the entire passage So it seems that using your prescription for ascertaining whether or not marriage occurs in heaven, falls somewhat short of what is acceptable doctrine...while the reverse of what you state actually appears to be established by the words of Jesus Himself.

I understand that you do not agree and therefore conclude you cannot make sense of what I write. The problem lies in your interpretation. You have adhered to a doctrine that is not found in the NT and no amount of trying to make it fit works, so you conclude that what I write, irregardless of the fact I simply state we are not under the law, appears to send you off into a tailspin of attempting to make me admit to stating things that are ridiculous. In case that is not clear, you have not actually replied to my posts; rather you have distorted and exaggerated. It would make more sense if you would just state you disagree. Trying to rewrite my posts is not working. That is not my position. This is my position: Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. Romans 3:19-29 (as quoted from FresnoJoe) This is your position: The Bible does not teach that we are under any law whatsover. As we cannot keep the law, the law condemns...and the Bible states that if we break even ONE part of the law, we have broken ALL of it. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. James 2:10 I don't think you understand that. That is why God sent His Son to die. In His sinless death, the law was satisfied by a perfect sacrifice as the atonement for our sins. Pay particular attention to this verse...this seems to be where your difficulty lies: Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:23-28 You should at least try to address the scripture which directly refutes your opinions on the law rather then have another go at trying to change what I actually wrote

As a work of fiction, your response is not very creative. David also had Bathsheeba's husband killed...murder by proxy...and he did not repent of his sin of adultery and murder until Nathan, sent by God revealed the sin in a way that David had not choice but to admit to what he had done. That's interesting because David's first choice was to COVER up his sin...not REPENTANCE by any means. Apart from that oversight on your part, your post is rambling and actually untruthful. However, I'm used to dealing with that so let's have a closer look. Actually, I like lying even less...but as I have stated elsewhere, I believe forgiveness is the first option. However, whether it is a man or a woman who commits adultery, they need to stop. Pay attention to scripture. By your own admission, Jesus said that adultery is grounds for divorce. Now if you deny saying that, you perjuring yourself. This is awkward. It demonstrates that you appear to categorize people by judging them. According to the Bible, I am actually one of the sanctified of God. It is God who sanctifies through His Holy Spirit and you no say in the matter whatsoever. Are you sure that you are not condemning me? However, you can't and I am not your judge either. Have you overlooked the passages in scripture that state there is NO condemnation for those who are IN Christ Jesus? Here is a reference, which you can find in Romans chapter 8 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set youa free from the law of sin and death. 3For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh,b God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering.c And so he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. That is false. What I have said and will continue to say ALONG with most people here, including moderators, is that a woman should not stay in an abusive relationship where her physical being and possibly also that of any children, mayb e in danger. I have advised women who are being beaten to leave if they can...certainly they should dial 911 and have an intervention as some men go as far as to commit murder or put a woman in the hospital...some with broken bones or worse. I have never told any woman to leave her husband. I would also advise counselling for that woman as her self esteem would be at rock bottom. I don't believe most people consider beating and endangering a person's life to be part of a committed and loving healthy marriage. I certainly don't and most people here do not either. There is just no defending that type of thing. You don't address the scripture I posted...again that is typical of your 'style'. You accuse and distort and make false statements. It is a truly obnoxious way of trying to conceal the fact that your particular doctrine of needing to still fulfill only certain parts of the law in order to be saved, is wrong. As you are unable to demonstrate that you are right, you attack and try to create a messy fight which will derail the thread. I would hope that someone who claims to know as much as you claim to know, would be above that sort of thing, but I guess not. You appear to have difficulty in understanding scripture. I'll quote the following again: It is crucially important that we understand repentance is not a work we do to earn salvation. No one can repent and come to God unless God pulls that person to Himself (John 6:44).Acts 5:31and11:18indicate that repentance is something God gives—it is only possible because of His grace. No one can repent unless God grants repentance. All of salvation, including repentance and faith, is a result of God drawing us, opening our eyes, and changing our hearts. God's longsuffering leads us to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), as does His kindness (Romans 2:4). Read more:http://www.gotquesti...l#ixzz3L9RTLC3X

I am glad we can come to atleast the understanding that heresy is condemning. Now on what we consider heretical varies greatly. You are disagreeing with what the Bible itself tells us heresy is as the quotes used from that well known site, 'gotquestions' uses scripture in their definition I don't believe we do have an understanding at all. You are not understanding the simple explanation from scripture and appear to believe you have a better definition I have not really followed your posts, but I noticed that Willa quoted some things you believe...you don't deny believing them, so I'll say the following also. It seems you have certain beliefs that are in error and you dogmatically stick to them. That's dangerous...I hope you don't teach them Quote from Willa's post in response to your op: Your doctrine that a person must believe in Christ's baptism to be saved is not found in Scripture. Your idea that John the Baptist was a priest who laid hands on Jesus as a scapegoat at His baptism, so that He received the sin of the world upon Himself at that time, and that during His earthly ministry that He carried upon Himself the sin of the world, is a very doubtful doctrine that I have not found in scripture. Nor is it believed by the rest of the churches. Believing these suppositions is not necessary for salvation. Therefore I suspect that your own teaching may be in error. Being dogmatic about things not stated in Scripture is not a good idea. Blessings, Willa

oh that one we can ignore........I know because that was addressed some moons back

yeah Butero we have been around that block many times and you still ignore what I actually post...from THE BIBLE and try to state I say its ok to sin Same ole same ole This would be funny if you did not appear to be getting a tad desperate at trying to make it seem I might have schizophrenia of the spiritual sort I pray one day you actually understand what I write instead of trying to tell me what you think I think or possibly left out of my post and you see fit to add Writing about me in the third person may be another attempt to make it seem I cannot fathom what you write..therefore you must needs address any and all save me I find that ... well....condescending and feeble...and the same way you have posted any time I or really anyone, try to point out that we are no longer under the law and the law saves no one The law was given to point out sin. It seems to be working

Well, I have already been long winded, so here is a link to gotquestions that I thought explained repentance in a way that expresses the thought from scripture and hopefully answers the question that maybe we all ask from time to time HERE And I will also add this paragraph from that same page on the site It is crucially important that we understand repentance is not a work we do to earn salvation. No one can repent and come to God unless God pulls that person to Himself (John 6:44).Acts 5:31and11:18indicate that repentance is something God gives—it is only possible because of His grace. No one can repent unless God grants repentance. All of salvation, including repentance and faith, is a result of God drawing us, opening our eyes, and changing our hearts. God's longsuffering leads us to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), as does His kindness (Romans 2:4). Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/repentance.html#ixzz3L9RTLC3X

Didn't David sin willfully? Yes, he certainly suffered for that willfullness, but did God forgive him or not? and if God did in fact forgive King David, then how much more those who turn from sin, willfull or not so then, we might ask is any sin included in the reference given in v 26 of Hebrews 10 or is the meaning more specific? the answer is in v. 29...the specific sin actually being referenced here is denying Jesus Christ What a difference that makes!! Of couse God forgives if you sin because not a one of us will never sin again once we are saved. Anyone that tells you that is lying or dead Denying Christ is turning away from God and more or less trampling the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf...it does not mean adultery or any other sin that is MOST certainly covered. Hebrews 10:14 states that For by one offering he has perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Who are the sanctified? Matthew Henry...that good ole dependable commentary puts it this way: Under the new covenant, or gospel dispensation, full and final pardon is to be had. This makes a vast difference between the new covenant and the old one. Under the old, sacrifices must be often repeated, and after all, only pardon as to this world was to be obtained by them. Under the new, one Sacrifice is enough to procure for all nations and ages, spiritual pardon, or being freed from punishment in the world to come. Well might this be called a new covenant. Let none suppose that human inventions can avail those who put them in the place of the sacrifice of the Son of God. What then remains, but that we seek an interest in this Sacrifice by faith; and the seal of it to our souls, by the sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience? So that by the law being written in our hearts, we may know that we are justified, and that God will no more remember our sins. and the pulpit commentary, for the more studious among us, puts it this way: For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. The tense of the participle ἁγιαζομένους, instead of as ver.ἡγιασμένους, in 10, does not involve a different sense of the verb, viz. the ordinary one associated with the word "sanctify." When it was necessary to express by the word itself the accomplishment of sanctification in the sense intended, the perfect participle was used; here the subjects of the same sanctification are denoted, the accomplishment being expressed byτετελείωκε (cf. οἱ ἁγιαζομένοι, Hebrews 2:11). The meaning of τετελείωκε("hath perfected") may be taken as ruled by τοὺς ἁγιαζομένους: hath perfected them as ἁγίοι, done all that was required for their being such, without any need of any further offering So Who sanctifies? God Himself through the shed blood of His Son Which means, WE don't, we can't...we would not even know where to begin so quit trying to do it via works No one becomes instantly sinless. therefore, there is no way that we can understand Hebrews 10 is saying to us that if we sin we loose our salvation and further, what is being addressed, is the specific turning away from salvation...that is REJECTING Christ after accepting Him If you sin, it does not mean you have rejected your Savior. It means you need to have a heart to heart with Him and acknowledge your sin

OK, sorry I know this is not a response to something I posted, but I gotta ask: Do you think that churches that now espouse homosexual marriages have adjusted or have they joined the devil's throng (who by the way is currently, although admitedly on borrowed time, jumping up and down)? It seems to me that adjustment, as referenced in this thread, is simply joining the gang Again, apologies, for jumping in on this one...but I'm, like 'whaaaa?'

Well I wouldn't just dismiss everything there. However, I will not accept extra Biblical sources as prevalent OVER scripture. I will also state that everyone does notat all have the same conclusions regarding what scritpure itself does in fact say. And that, even though the Bible says it is not open to private interpretation, But there yah go... Well ok then...thanks! Lol I don't think I will blow up the thread by pointing out that protestanism is a result of private interpretation . I've started reading the about the Church Fathers and what they believed and preached. The claim by the reformers ( I might be over simplying) was that the Church had become corrupted. If that's so than logically there should be a time when it wasn't. Will I blow it up my mentionning that most of the first Christians were Jewish? dunno...u tell me..... its like when people say how wonderful the first church must have been...I used to think so too...but then it dawned on me that most of the NT was written to refute bad doctrine and downright heresy The church is an interesting place...the more it changes the more it stays the same Which is why it is the best thing that God knows our hearts

Well ok. I am kind of impatient with people who state another is wrong and then walk off also. Well I wouldn't just dismiss everything there. However, I will not accept extra Biblical sources as prevalent OVER scripture. I will also state that everyone does not at all have the same conclusions regarding what scritpure itself does in fact say. And that, even though the Bible says it is not open to private interpretation, But there yah go... Well ok then...thanks!

Wrong headed? Actually two heads would serve better in order to comprehend why you say you are saved by grace and yet insist that parts of the law are still valid and supercede grace. Getting a tatoo is not an immoral act and neither is wearing slacks if you are woman. However, you continue to confuse those issues and attempt to state that unless a person follows some parts of the law, they are not saved. It's confusing to say the least. I don't have that interpretation and I certainly cannot find it in the New Testament. You repeatedly refuse to acknowledge that believing the Bible teaches we are no longer under the law does not mean one is free to sin. Instead, you avow that if you believe we are saved by grace, without the works of the law, then we are believe we are free to sin. Howlever, that is a very lopsided view of what the Bible actually states. Well, there again we have illustrated your apparent inability to grasp what is actually being said. Is there some reason you appear to believe I just threw out the OT? or is that done on purpose to make it look like my arguement is to ignore the OT? Either way, you believe it is ok for a man to have multiple wives and I believe that it is not. so I guess you can make up your own mind about incest

This is true. Though I do not see what that has to do with getting a tattoo. Maybe some people want to decorate their vessels. Should we also not wear make up, and ear rings? How about a nose ring? Can I have purple hair? I like purple hair. So why is it must to follow one part of the law and not the other? The problem you are creating is comparing what a believer should do to what the rest of the world does. Tatoos are mentionned in OT law...did I state do not get a tatoo? Well, no I didn't. I basically said look into, consider what God stated and then make a decision. I also do not advocate following one part of the law and ignoring another. In fact, my argement has always been against that way of thinking. What you should follow is actually Who you should follow. I think a person has enough information regarding what they should and should not do from scripture. I don't think it is difficult to examine one's heart in light of scripture and then decide whether or not to go ahead with any given course of action. Actually, we are to judge ourselves in light of the word of God...doing so, most often creates forgiveness for others when we acknowledge that we are also saved by grace not works, which means no one gets to boast. Sometimes (and here I am just trying to see things from another POV cause I don't much care for super spirituality myself) those who point fingers are wishing those who seem to think they can do anything they want would clean up their act. Perhaps both sides have valid points?ps: My fav jacket is a black leather jacket....I'm not a biker chick