Masked Chris

I don't think all dreams are visions... yet I also don't think all visions are from God. I think we need to test the spirits as Paul instructs us. I think if you dream something and you honestly think it's a vision than you need to check it out and see if it lines up with scripture. I used to have visions of me going to Hell and it used to get me real down in the dumps and it killed my hope and peace. Someone counceled me that while not all dreams are visions... not all visions are from God. Remember Satan comes to us in sheep's clothes. The bible says that I am blood bought and my sins have been taken care of.... so therefore I can write off that vision as a lie and rebuke it in the name of Jesus hope this helps

See what I mean? Not a single response to my post. Invisable. I see you. You are certainly NOT a nobody, insignificant, or invisible. You are a princess, an heir, a daughter of the King. AND, you're my sister. hehe I'd say thats a high honor if I ever heard one .

now as the thread is about a christian, one with photos and one swearing after dropping something, can someone show me where it says the consiquences are differant...using biblical referances? thanx. it never even says the sins are on the same level. This is a beleif adopted by modern Christainity that has no biblical backing. Jesus often used the phrase "the greater sin" when talking to people. Jesus didn't think that all sins were equel. However the bible DOES seem to say that the punishment for sin is equel "for the wages of sin is death". A common quistion here though is "why does God even punish sin?" and lets get that out of the way before anyone even asks God punishes sin because if he didn't there would be choas. We must change our ways because sin at it's full effect creates the streets of L.A. at 1:30 am. Sin is a dangerious dangerious way to live that births fear in the lives of those around us and destories everything lovely and is the enemy of love itself. That is why god deals with sin. So he calls us to repent and if we refuse to... well he will deal with us accordingly than.

I don't know if it's that simple really. Yes if you divorce you are breaking marrege vows "for better or worse". Yet... elsewhere Jesus permits divorce if the spouse has already broken the marrege vows. Lets take a look at the vows: 1] to love and to cherish [if you are ignoring your spouse you are being unfaithful to him/her] 2] for better or worse [love is a choice and if you hate your spouse when he/she is having a bad day than you are being unfaithful] 3] till death do you part [this is how long these vows must be kept] you have to work at a marrege and you have to constently "feed" your spouse your love and make sure he/she is loved by you. Marrege is a wonderful thing when the vows are kept. Yet if one member breaks the vows [even in the slightest] and the other member is told he/she must keep the vows than marrege has offically turned into a prison. It's at this time a divorce is the wisest option. God never intended marrege to be a trap.

I struggle alot with pride and self-centeredness. I wish my struggle was something diffrent because I hate pride and I hate it with a passion. However I guess this is the thorn God chose to place in my side

you gotta keep in mind that Jesus came down in flesh and was human. He needed to pray for the same reason he needed to eat and drink. It's what humans need to do to connect with God. Even though Jesus was God he was still a real human while he was on earth and had to submit to the laws of human nature that us humans have to submit to everyday.

I actully agree here. to use this to prove the truth of something would be to reserect Hitlers beleif in the supremacy of Nazism

ok... seems I got a little fired up and jumpped ahead. I'm sorry. Please remember that fourms aren't an easy way to comminacate... I simply misunderstood

I think claiming something as a conspiricy happens when people hate the idea of something but have no logical understanding of why they hate it.... so they use the "conspiricy therey" as an excuse. Though.... before the Christains and the Atheists go to war here lets not forget that there have been alot of quistions brought to Christainity that Christains have wrote off as "part of a conspiricy against God".

I think Jesus was trying to reconcile Peter's sin. Later in Acts Peter has full confedence when he shares his message and I beleive this is why. When Peter betrayed Jesus he felt so guilty that he cried because of it. I think Peter would've felt guilty his entire life if this sin wasn't reconciled by Jesus.

LOL If I gave my cat a bath I think he attempt to murder me in the process and than wait very patently for me to fall asleep that night in order to finish the job

show me the refrence. Acts 5:33 When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. I'm not sure what this really says man. Paul isn't even mentioned until Chapter 7. The early Christains didn't techniquely have a New Testment bud. The New Testment was develepted over time and it was St. Augustine who first introduced it as "The New Testment" and that was 100 some years later. Until than? All they had was their "Christain documents" and the Old Testment. At this point of time The Old Testment is seen as authoritive... the "Christian Documents" are not. These documents are simply letters that were written by the early church leaders and written gospels that were used to advance the knowlege of Jesus Christ. The Old Testment men and women lived their lives following an unseen God. When Jesus tells Thomas "blessed are those who have not seen me and still beleive" he is refering to those people in the Old Testment who followed an unknown voice by faith and found themselves very blessed. As I said before just because the temple event is written like a prophesy doesn't mean it isn't actully a real prophesy. Paul claims the Damascus event happened, Acts seems to record that it did indeed happen. But you are right.... besides Paul's own admission there is no proof it actully did happen. However... that still doesn't shake the claims I have made before. your right. The requirements for Apolstleship was being an eyewitness to Jesus... it's clear that Paul wasn't an eye-witness. though I'll let Paul himself back up his own claim. Read 2 Corinthains because the Corinth church brought the same charge against Paul and Paul argues in favor of his apostleship

ok that makes sence it still deosn't add up to me though really. In heaven we will be in our perfect state and sinless. When Jesus washes us our sin is thrown as far away as east is from the west. So...... why would he bring it up again in Heaven? The bible says there's tears..... but there are many things that give a person tears. I think our tears up in heaven will be an overwhelming sence of God's love. It says "he will wipe away every tear"... it never says what causes the tears. I imagen it will be something like this God: "why are you crying?" Us: "everything is so wonderful here" God: *as he wipes away our tears* "rejoice for this is your home now"

yes... or Jesus could've actully told a prophesy. The super-natural shouldn't be that easily dismissed. for the same reason the post office doesn't mark every peice of mail with an account of every other peice of mail ever deleivered. To mention the progress of "the post office" wasn't Paul's agenda also... you gotta remember without the internet and all that people were forced to be extra extra careful not to lose important information.... after awhile a person will prolly get so used to this kind of responsability that it will seem normal... and therefore they won't need to mark down "important documents" because they always know where they are. Paul says alot about Jesus words and stuff actully. He just caters it to his purpose. In the church of Corinth people abused the Lord's Supper and treated it like Happy Hour at the local bar. So there is a detailed discription of the Lord's Supper in either 1st or 2nd Corinthains [can't remember which one]

I think God expects obedence... but in the same way a father expects his son and daughter to obey. We have freedom of sins by Jesus Christ.... however if God doesn't dicipline us as his sons and daughters than we will be self-centered all our days. Infact... God's dicipline furthers the proof that we are his sons and daughters. A father has certain rights to his children... if a complete stranger rebuked a young boy than you would prolly have a sence of "why doesn't that man just leave that poor kid alone!?". however... if a father diciplines his son you say "he's being a good dad"

I don't beleive this is true.... Jesus washes us of every sin and sence God is outside the boundries of space and time than why would he limit this redemption to the past and present and not the future? There's a reason it's called good news! The Christain is free from any and all wrongs he/she has ever done and is also free from the conseqences and guilt of those wrongs. If there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.... than it's crazy talk to say there will be condemnation in heaven... even for a short time. Heaven will be nothing but joy and excitement as we love and embrace the Father who saved us through his Son.

Paul's Epistles were written as letters to diffrent churches in order to address certain issues. The Gospels [Matthew Mark Luke and John] were written in order to give people an idea of Jesus's life on earth. Both the Epistles and the Gospels were circulated during the same time so Paul really didn't need to state Jesus minstry in his letters because it wasn't the point of his letters and also the Gospels did that already. If the Gospels were circulated during this time, show me the evidence. None of the external evidence supports this. We don't see a church father speak about the gospels until the 2nd century. And again, why would Paul not mention any of the miracles? There are certain parts in the epistles where this would help his case so much more to mention at least a single miracle. Why does he never use any of Jesus' own sermons to strengthen his own teaching? If he had access to the gospels then why not use some of Jesus' words from the Sermon on the Mount? It doesn't add up... your talking like the early church's agenda was to prove a point. Remember this culture is pre-modern.. they know nothing of proof textes. I think Paul didn't address this stuff because his letters were written not to prove his stance but to address issues within the churches. Paul wasn't seeking to prove anything... he was just writing letters but yeah evedence. Ok. The cut off point for the New Testement has been marked at 70 AD sence that was when the temple was destoried by the romans and this event is not mentioned even once in the New Testment. How do we know the Gospels were circulated though? Because it was simply custom to pass around the letters and stuff. Paul's letters were passed on to diffrent churches also. The early church knew nothing of internet and telephone... so this is how they passed on information. They simply passed the writings back and forth non-stop.

there's 2 ways to answer this. First there's the "right" way and than there's the truth. The quistion seems to state that suicide is seperated from other deaths..... which i don't think it is. So the answer is simply "what happens to a person when they die?" If you can answer this one i think you can answer the suicide one as well

Paul's Epistles were written as letters to diffrent churches in order to address certain issues. The Gospels [Matthew Mark Luke and John] were written in order to give people an idea of Jesus's life on earth. Both the Epistles and the Gospels were circulated during the same time so Paul really didn't need to state Jesus minstry in his letters because it wasn't the point of his letters and also the Gospels did that already.

I've heard it to... however you gotta kind of take a stand back and really notice something here. Many people bash the church... could it be something the church is actully doing to upset the world? I have noticed most modern churches have gotten into the habit of controlling the world and the lives of other people.... to be honest... the world kind of has a right to complain

just yesterday I heard about global warming from the news... to be honest... i think the news should stick with the facts... it throws the world into a panic when it talks about "good guesses"