Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent


About Ariel16

  • Birthday 03/21/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You need to consider the whole context. First off, you need to understand the role an angle plays. Like prophets, they bring messages from God and speak on his behalf. the Angel is the mediator of communication between the Lord and Satan. To be more direct with question "B)," I would simply say that it is typical for Angels to speak for God so when it says "And the LORD said.." I see this simply as the LORD speaking through his "angelic messenger." Angels are the ministers who bring messages. So answer B) is it is a mere angel and he is referred to as the Lord because he speaks as a mediator what God desires to speak. Notice in vs 7 the Angel of the Lord says "THUS SAYS THE LORD" indicating that the Angel is only channeling God's words to those before him. Rightly so, anytime a prophet said "thus says the Lord, I will destroy..." it can be equally written "The Lord said: I will destroy," because it is the same thing. So this is not an angel using his own words to "rebuke" Satan but God's words. Angels cannot utilize their own words for judgement on higher beings. The Lord rebuked Satan even in Zechariah by responding back at Satan saying "Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?" Satan wanted Israel completely destroyed but The Lord reminded him how Israel was (1) chosen by God and (2) a brand plucked out of his fiery judgment because they were chosen. This would have silenced Satan and his goal to destroy Israel forever.
  2. Ariel16

    My First Kiss

    How long have you known Christ? I didn't even care for marriage nor did my wife. I just came to the realization that she is a great spiritual partner and an amazing helper to my soul so I asked her in marriage 2 weeks into meeting her. I wasn't even thinking about kisses or kids or future dad. All I thought about was "Wow, this woman just loves God because she can hold a conversation for DAYS about God and nothing more." There was no dating, no dreaming, no contemplating on how wonderful she looks or how amazing are the things she likes. You seem to be absorbed into this whole marriage thing that it may cost you. I knew a girl who always had this in mind when she came to the Church and said within herself when asked how she was, she said, "I want a husband." Well the day came true for her because she went after the first man that was interested w/o rightly assessing his spiritual state and left the church because they became sexually immodest in their behavior prior to marriage and flaunting it over the internet and the man rejected the elders council and off she is with a husband who will cause her sorrow and misguidance. So stop thinking about marriage and think more about God in this case as Scripture says "Are you released from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But brethren I say this, the time has been shortened (1 Cor 7: 28-29)"
  3. Ariel16

    Authority of the Husband

    I do not quite understand that translation. What does it mean for a woman to "want to please her husband" and the husband (in response) will "lord it over her?" I agree it is descriptive but I believe it is to be translated in a negative sense. The whole dictation is negative, nothing good. The idea of the woman wanting to "please her husband" would have already been a godly trait from creation, not after the fall. I don't understand what a "fleshly perspective" implies. I see it as the woman will desire to "own" the husband in the sense of "control" or "rule" but the man will, in contrast, seek to "master" his wife (unlimited authority). It is much like sin desiring to enslave us to its "way" but we are told to in Gen. 4:7 "you must mater it" (that's instructive there.)
  4. Ariel16

    Girlfriend/Boyfriend Travelling Together

    Why don't you marry her already?
  5. Ariel16

    The Quran and the Bible -- revelations of God - PART 1/2

    I think I can see what you are getting around to. Let's start with the idea of an uncorruptable Qur'an. The Qur'an says "If all mankind and the jinn would come together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce its like even though they exerted all and their strength in aiding one another (Surah 17:88.) You stated "there was no challenger who was able to successfully attempt this (also until this day!)" What you stated is problematic. You see, the idea of producing something like the Qur'an requires a standard to judge between the two books. Muhammed gave no standard to meet so of course there would be no attempts. Now since there is no standard such as "to produce something like the Qur'an, a man must make it as beautiful, must contain a phrase that makes one cry, it must have the most chapters and it must be even less violent." Now Muhammad gave no standard at all so for us we can simply say that the "Book of Mormon" is like the Qur'an because it too was given by "jabril" and it too was from God (so they say,) and that would be the perfect challenger against the Qur'an because indeed it is "like it." But we know that the book of Mormon is not from God and we know that Muhammad gave no standard but simply said "produce something like it" w/o stating the qualifications. This proves nothing about the truth of the Qur'an. Secondly, I suppose because you see our division you say "God has one message for mankind" that you think our Bible is not a source for truth (?) Well lets not forget that Islam has division itself such as the sunnis, Shiites, mutazillis, etc. So lets establish that the Qur'an itself has divided interpretations as well. Therefore, the Qur'an really has no validity simply because there is division in our religion. Lastly, how do you know Muhammad was a prophet? Tell me, if you lived in that time when he was alive, how would you know he was a prophet? We have bibles that existed in His time so we can read exactly what Muhammad did and find out if the trinity was in Scripture even in His time.
  6. Ariel16

    Authority of the Husband

    Hey you need my permission to mention my wife okay!
  7. Ariel16

    Authority of the Husband

    I don't believe you answered the questions. Now I believe we agree on authority applied in love. However, authority applied in love is not without submission to others feelings or perspectives. Elders have authority over young men and young men are to submit. 5 You younger men, likewise, be subject to your elders; However, although Scripture acknowledges the authority of the Elders it also says this 5 moreover ALL of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, for GOD IS OPPOSED TO THE PROUD, BUT GIVES GRACE TO THE HUMBLE. At this point he emphasized the need for everyone to subject toward one another because we are all to be humble. The verse in Genesis is not God giving the husband that type of rulership no more than God is planting an evil desire in Eve to trample over her husband. 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. Both are simply the effects that sin will cause between the two, namely, the wife is going to want to walk over her husband and the husband is going to want to dominate his wife. The "shall" is futuristic, like when God said 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. As history has unfolded men have indeed dominated women because that was sin playing out since the garden. Now I do not believe in 4 curses like 2 for man (sweat by your brow and rule your wife) and 2 for woman (bear children in more pain and I will give you a desire to rule your husband) this I do not believe. Remember, Adam had headship at creation, not after the fall. Plus, God gave both man and woman authority to dominate the earth but after the fall Man began to dominate his wife (the only creature in Genesis not subject to be dominated as all other creatures.) 26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."
  8. Ariel16

    Authority of the Husband

    That's a really hard position to take on believing mutual submission only applies to Church relationships. Given that one's wife is a sister in Christ and to negate that submission simply because a couple is now married is hard to argue. It is as though you are saying that once your married your wife is no longer your sister in Christ. What do you think it means to "render honor to the weaker vessel?" Eph. 5 speaks to us as Christians to demonstrate this submission to other Christians. How do you get that the wife in Christ is excluded?
  9. Now in my opinion, there is and always will be unclean creatures and will remain inedible. The only reason its even somewhat safe to eat pork is because of all the antibiotics and other chemicals they put it in to make it okay. Otherwise, you would be a fool to eat a pig. When you see a pigs lifestyle, it is sickening. But you will never see that at the grocery store. Now I am not saying its sin, but its not intended for consumption naturally. I sure would never eat a bat, but I suppose some think its okay. Again, its not sin but scripture never said all things were clean which were previously unclean. John in Rev. still acknowledged clean and unclean creatures way after Jesus so we must keep note of that. It may appear that Jesus said what you think but in light of Revelation, you have to question the common interpretation because its not consistent with John.
  10. Love your neighbor is part of the law. "Do not muzzle an ox," which Paul quoted was part of the law. What does it mean to be under grace if these things are still binding? I am not saying that all of the law is binding. There is certainly things that have continuity but, in general, we just appear as cherry pickers when it comes down to it. You easily believe its okay because theology of this matter is of no importance to you. I mean, if it's not an issue with you, well that is fine for you. However, merely replying "Yes its okay to eat pork...We are under grace" is the most unhelpful response. Of course we are under grace! I am pretty certain he understands that too. But, that does no explain why or how somethings that were at one point, sin, are now not sin. He is being noble and is not convinced for Gods' sake. That is very pleasing if anything to God. It is like when Ezekiel would not do as God had said because of his conviction of something God said previously, [Eze 4:12-14 ESV] 12 And you shall eat it as a barley cake, baking it in their sight on human dung." 13 And the LORD said, "Thus shall the people of Israel eat their bread unclean, among the nations where I will drive them." 14 Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I have never defiled myself. From my youth up till now I have never eaten what died of itself or was torn by beasts, nor has tainted meat come into my mouth." This is kind of what the OP is struggling with. He knows what is in the NT but cannot understand it.
  11. Ariel16

    Authority of the Husband

    So what is everyone's interpretation on Genesis 3:16 which says, To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” How do you understand this?
  12. Ariel16

    Authority of the Husband

    I think that is significant! As opposed to the idea of some on here making the husband out to have a Dictator given position. I think the husband does have the final say but absolutely no decision can be made w/o having given consideration to the woman. I do not believe woman is to be dominated in the negative sense in which the pro-dictator in that debate said it. You can have authority on your head for certain but not in the way he said it. Imagine "I have decided to move us away from your mothers. What I think is what matters most. This is what I want and that's how it will be." I believe they were made to both have influence in single matter, not the man alone. That would just be inconsiderate of her own feelings and emotions. Although he has the right to make the decision, it would be an abuse of a power that's wielded in an unloving way. That text you quoted has a major place in the health of a marriage.
  13. Ariel16

    Authority of the Husband

    Now I noticed this was debated already, but I want to know what everyone else thinks about that debate and express their views on the "Authority of a Husband." What is the biblical view of the husband and the wife?
  14. This issue was how it could be an abomination then but not now. I personally find that passage in Genesis not strong. Not everything is intended for food. The expression means that "whereas before I gave you only plants, now I give you meat, I give you all for food." It was the combination of the two that the "all" was intended to be used. It was not literally every type of meat just as it was not every green plant that was for food. He says to Noah regarding green plants 21 "As for you, take for yourself some of all food which is edible, and gather it to yourself; and it shall be for food for you and for them." There were certain plants not for food though he said He gave "every" green plant for food at Creation. It was hyperbolic. Its the same for meat. Some things are just not edible. Leviticus 11 46 This is the law regarding the animal and the bird, and every living thing that moves in the waters and everything that swarms on the earth, 47 to make a distinction between the unclean and the clean, and between the "edible" creature and the creature which is not to be eaten. God did not make the creatures "not edible" from edible in Leviticus. He simply told them to avoid certain creatures. Just as clean and unclean animals were already around in Noah's time in Genesis. See we just have to learn how to resolve this issue of it being an abomination other than an ambiguous " we are under grace" superficiality " Remember, love your neighbor is also law and laws on family incest. Are we to say those are not sins now? What is continual and dis continual. It must be reasoned theologically. How would the disciples justify their claims before their audience? or did they even truly make that claim?
  15. Okay. It's good you get that there needs to be support for the claims from the OT. Yet quoting a verse does not explain the problem. What he is searching for is how you reconcile two opposing things so that they no longer oppose each other. For example, If God says He does not delight in human sacrifices. How do you reconcile the idea that God sacrificed Jesus and was pleased. thats the issue. Simply quoting say.. Isaiah 53 does not resolve the theological problem.