StanJ

You'll have to corroborate that because according to all the info I read that is not the case. I have no idea what you mean by the globalist agenda.

I have no problem whatsoever recognizing false prophets or false teachers but so far since Pope Francis has been elected, I see nothing that would cause me to think he does not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Colouring a leader with your biased disposition about a denomination, is to say the least short-sighted. He has already turned around a lot of false teachings that were being taught in the RCC and I pray he will continue to do so.

He's the head of a Christian denomination just like any other Christian denomination. I'm sure if you knew every single denomination in the world you would find a lot that doesn't sit right with the Bible but unless you're God you don't know his heart and from what I have seen his heart is right with God.

What's not to like about Pope Francis?

What did you not understand about... "I am not talking about the house of Israel"? The entire New Testament is about the nation of Israel as a whole not the split between the 10 and two kingdoms or tribes. Do you see any split in Revelation 7 or 14? Please try to stay on point.

I'm not talking about the house of Israel I'm talking about the lost sheep of Israel who are the 12 tribes as referred to in Revelation 7 and 14. God knows what he's talking about and I'm not going to get caught up in semantics. The hundred and forty four thousand Jewish male virgins in Revelation 7 and 14 for the purpose of evangelizing lost sheep of Israel and have nothing to do with the Gentiles. Remember Jesus said there were two sheet pens, not just one. Gentiles are not subject to the same promises that God made to the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant.

Jesus came for the lost sheep of Israel and as such those are the ones that Paul talks about in Romans 11 they will be saved. The 144,000 in Revelation 7 and 14 will be the evangelists that Jesus uses to reach the Lost tribes of Israel wherever they may be in the world to enable them to be saved.

Romans 11:26 shows all Israel will be saved, and Revelation 7 & 14 shows by whom God will save those Jews who are not saved at his return.

The following may be helpful to some who are truly interested in this subject. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/9780830839636.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjx8sPNo8rPAhUB8WMKHQ1_DOsQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHzdpPyOXGGyJjmbDtETJFCc6yeyA&sig2=lvZWFwvjqO1dijfqOcvXRQ

Indeed...but we are supposed to look at it, if we are believers, through the eyes of Scripture. No?

Spoken like a mom, which is why moms usually are not the ones who do the corporal disciplining. We are told in the Bible that sparing the rod does spoil the child and we're told that who God loves he disciplines. We're also told that whatever we sow we reap and that can be a lot more debilitating than being spanked as a child.

As the Bible does endorse it then I think our opinions have to be in line with the Bible, don't you think? Not all children need corporal punishment but having raised four children, I remember that there were very few times I had to spank them and it was usually because of defiance not just disobedience. I guess the point is that if a child is trained up in the ways of God then this is just one small part of the overall training.

The kingdom of heaven and Heaven are two different places/things. Heaven is where God is but the Kingdom of Heaven is where True Believers here on earth allow God to rule in their lives. The Book of Matthew is the only New Testament book that uses the term 'Kingdom of Heaven'and it is used 31 times.

No problem.

This is another typical understanding of trying to interpret 400 year old English with her understanding of modern-day vernacular. What Paul says in modern-day English vernacular in 2 Corinthians 5:8 is; Thus we are full of courage and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. Paul's preference or desire does not teach a fact, it is his preference that he would rather be with the Lord, but that doesn't mean when he dies he will be with the Lord, unless the Lord is in Paradise at that time.

Deirdre, the Bible doesn't say we go to heaven but it does say on numerous occasions that we are given eternal life if we confess Jesus as their savior an eternal life his life just as we know it except it's eternal and we spend it with God. Revelation 21 shows a cell to my destination and Jesus gave hints to where we would be until he returns. Read Luke 16 and Luke 23.

Paul does not say that read it again. You actually know what sitting at the right hand of God means? Under the New Covenant we are given eternal life that does not mean when we die the first time we go into the presence of God it means ultimately we will have eternal life. It was never God's intention for us to live in heaven with him it was his intention to live on Earth with us, which is what the scriptures teach.

I don't see this as an authority issue in the scriptures. The scriptures talk about headship of the husband and of Jesus. Headship comes with a lot of responsibility, the least of which is telling others what to do. It's also important to see that if you can't fight gives responsibilities to all concerned and they are not dependent on others fulfilling their responsibilities. Jesus does everything required of him as head of the church and doesn't need to be told what to do for obvious reasons. However as humans we do need Jesus's Direction at all times and as such it's a paramount importance that the husband and wife both have a well-established relationship with God in order for their marriage to work properly. If men are properly instructed in their responsibilities of headship, and follow their admonition to love their wives as Christ loved the church then it will go a long way to alleviating conflict that is bound to arise in any marriage. Also if women are properly instructed in what submission actually means and the husband understands what submission actually means then there will be no conflict in that regard as well. Many seem to be aware of Ephesians 5 :22-33, but at the same time they miss what Ephesians 5:21. We all as Servants of God must start with a submissive spirit and go from there. The instruction from Paul starts at verse 21 and moves on from there. We start with being submissive to one another as Brothers and Sisters in Christ and then let everything else fall in place. There is indeed an Order that God wants to have in the body and that order has certain steps that must be complied with at all times. Above all, love of the brethren is the beginning of that order.

Old Testament Filling. Was John the Baptist filled with the Holy Spirit all the time? Before Pentecost, the Holy Spirit never lived inside a person all the time – continuously. The Holy Spirit did not remain permanently in a person until the New Testament. That is why Jesus said He was going to send the Holy Spirit (John 16:7). Something new was going to occur. Saul is one example where the Holy Spirit did not remain (1 Sam. 10:6; 16:14) and King David is another. In fact, King David feared the Lord would take the Holy Spirit from him (Ps. 51:11). Today, the Holy Spirit lives inside a Christian forever. This is implied in the great promise of God (Heb. 8:7-13). source: http://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/did-jesus-have-the-holy-spirit-in-him-before-he-was-baptized/ ............................................... About Jesus it said: " If the Holy Spirit “came on” John the Baptist at birth, the Holy Spirit could have come “on” Jesus at birth. But we do not know if that happened since the New Testament does not explicit say so. None of the gospels explicitly say that Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit before His baptism. " Is the idea that Jesus did not need the input of God's Holy spirit while he served his time on Earth Stan? Since he did have it. Yes, Matthew 1:20 tells us that the Holy Spirit caused Mary to conceive, then verse 23 tells us that his name means 'God with us'. He did not need the infilling of the holy spirit because his DNA was from the Holy Spirit and he was born God incarnate. Matthew 3:17 says; After Jesus was baptized, just as he was coming up out of the water, the heavens opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming on him. The spirit of God is not the Holy Spirit and the dove descending on him showed a recognition of his deity that he already had.

John 1:18 (NET) No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known. Jesus himself tells us that there is no one who has ever seen God. This means no one is in heaven except God. He also Joseph in Luke 16:22 that the beggar Lazarus died and went to be with Abraham in Paradise, not God in Heaven. When Jesus was crucified he said to the thief that believed in him in Luke 23:43; “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.” If we are believers when we die, we go to paradise and we wait for Jesus to return. Once he returns and we are resurrected we reign with him on Earth for a thousand years and after that there is a new Heaven and a new Earth and we will live with Jesus and God on the new earth, in the New Jerusalem, for eternity.

Actually he was not solely human, Jesus existed as a hypostasis of God and man. Heb 1:3 Matthew 12:15 & 22 are just two of many verses in the gospels that show Jesus healed.

Yes well the Pharisees stood on what they said as well but look how far got them. As far as me belonging to another site, that's well known. What you probably don't know is that there are others from that site that are also on this site except they don't use the same name as they do on the other site. I for one have never been ashamed of my first name, nor showing people what I look like. You apparently like to live in an anonymity so you can get away with your ad homonyms. This style of attack is typical for those who can't support their beliefs with proper hermeneutical exegesis. You keep saying I've been reproved yet you can't even show where that is let alone how that is. There are always people that disagree with my point of view but there are very few people that can prove me wrong, mainly because I only state what the Bible shows and not from a doctrinal bias like you do. I would be very happy to not have to hear from you again. Thank you.

Just because William Smith was a good lexicographer does not mean that he was a good Greek scholar or that he understood how to properly interpolate the Greek. Along with many others, Smith made the mistake assuming that Jesus did not heal people himself, but that the Holy Spirit did which is strange given that he was also a believer in the Trinity. If Jesus was God incarnate why would he not be healing people himself? Matthew 12:22 states Jesus healed the demon-possessed man. And if we are to believe that the Bible is inerrant and absolutely true then why would he disagree with this and imply or think that it was the Holy Spirit that healed the demon-possessed man and thus the Pharisees were blaspheming the Holy Spirit, when clearly Jesus said firstly that denigrating him would be forgiven?

Not surprising if you and Tyler were the only ones that won't accept what the scripture says but that again that's the way it goes. By the way tag team doesn't work on me. I'm not the one that's trying to make the Pharisee you seem saved because that is a modern New Covenant terminology that you and Shiloh insist on using... What I'm saying is that under the old Covenant they were believers. Don't expect to use words and then have people understand what you mean when you're not saying what you mean. There are no Christians in the Old Testament or before Jesus died but there were believers and many of them lived in Israel. One of the main tenets of hermeneutical exegesis is understanding what you're reading in the time and place into the audience it was intended for, which apparently you and shilo can't do. Jesus never established that Pharisee for not saved his tablets that sound Pharisees were hypocrites and evil in their intent. Again you not understanding the vernacular used in Matthew to convey the situation is your problem not mine. James has nothing to do with what's going on in Matthew 12 and again this just proves but you don't know the hermeneutics you say you do. Bringing in other scenarios and situations where Jesus spoke to the Pharisees about different issues and using the word you to try to apply it to this situation is definitely not proper hermeneutical exegesis. Please look up the meaning of the phrase. You and shilo do share one bad habit... You constantly deflect and avoid pointed questions. How does whether or not I was ever a Catholic have anything to do with your belief in OSAS or do you not believe what Paul writes in 1st Corinthians 10:13 or 1 Timothy 1:13? You know me from another site and want to lecture me on honesty and you can't even be honest yourself? What exactly are you afraid of?

So not all Pharisees as you previously claimed but just those that were there? So basically you stereotyped all Pharisees based on those that were present in Matthew 12? I don't miss any problem with Nicodemus, I believe that what he said was true. You are now casting dispersions on his character without any scriptural evidence, and that my friend is absolutely eisegesis. His confusion was that he took the words of Jesus literally and not figuratively and spiritually. It was confusion nothing else and after his query in v9, Jesus fully answered him in v10-21, with no denial or other question by Nicodemus. Again you are reading into the scripture, something that is not there. You are operating on the modern 21st century standard of understanding as to what you perceive a Believer to be. Remember, proper exegesis is to put yourself in the place of the writer. The writer or what you like to call the narrator did not have your current date perspective on salvation. Even Paul himself did not have that perspective which explains why he wrote what he did in 1 Timothy 1:13, where he admits to blasphemy but not knowingly. Paul was typical of many Pharisees in his day but much more hateful than a lot were, and yet Jesus chose him to be his Apostle to the Gentiles. Now how exactly could Paul blaspheme, and to use your logic commit the unpardonable sin, and then be chosen by Christ to be his Apostle to the Gentiles? And where exactly in their worst they commit blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? The warning was right afterwards because of what they said and what did Jesus say right after? His responses in verses 24 to 30 and then he says in verses 31-32; And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. He recognizes and identifies their slander against him but warns them that the same kind of slander against the holy spirit will not be forgiven and then he reiterates the same thing. Nowhere does he say or imply that what they had just done was actually blaspheming the Holy Spirit. You were reading that into the scripture based on your own doctrinal predisposition. Even his own family and Mark 3 asks him if he is out of his mind, so are you also advocated that they were not believers and had committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? That's right I did, and now you're just ducking and deflecting. You're the one that said the narrator identified it. I actually have already done this and you completely ignored the commentator and I doubt very much if I posted 20 more links to commentators, that you would accept any of them nor comment on them. The Pharisees were believers in the contextual sense of the old Covenant and the Old Testament and so is Jesus for that matter until he died and rose again, ushering in the New Covenant and the New Testament. There's a distinct demarcation in the scriptures between those two, despite your unwillingness to identify it. I fact, it's a parable and you have not demonstrated what you say you have, which is evidenced by your continual lack of doing so. I don't have a problem with the translation at all but the wording and the grammar of the English is actually something you're having a problem with. You don't have to use anything as far as my definition of exegesis is concerned, look it up for yourself. I have completely engaged to text what you continue to do is enter or add to its meaning, which definitely doesn't allow for sound theology.