News: Back to Start
Check BLog

Login  |  Register

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10
For Discussion On Christian Matters *CLICK HERE* / Re: Judgment has begun
« Last post by hymnsinger on January 30, 2010, 02:41:09 PM »
How do you reconcile this to the Bible? The Word of God that shall not pass away?
Don't you think that if a person in the church is a Christian that he is "born again?"
And if he is "Born Again" then he must have repented. [John 3:3, 5; Acts 2:38]

My belief is that JUDGMENT is reserved for the end time.
For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life. Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation."  [John 5:21-29]

Whether in the church or not, if you are saved (Born Again) you will not have to face the Great White Throne Judgment. Your sins are paid in full by the JUDGE! If you are not "Born Again" you are NOT saved [John 3:3, 5]

And for the unbelieving dead "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire." [Rev 20:11-15]

Again whether in the church or out of the church, the judgment for the unsaved is going to be at the end time.

Here is probably what you are referring to that all have time to repent and accept the finished work of Jesus the Christ before the rapture of the Bride.

But, for God to destroy the U.S.A. is contrary to His Word in James 1:17 where it says, "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."

I don't think destruction is a Good or Perfect gift even with variation. In fact Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil "He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil." [1 John 3:8]

As for Christians allowing this to happen couldn't be further from the truth. We have limited powers (one vote) and
yes some "christians" still vote from emotions, not Soberly as the Bible tells us;
Yes some vote without checking to see if the party's policies are anti-christian or not;
Yes, some don't seek direction in prayer or from their church.

In a democracy, we get the government we deserve. [Mark Twain] Whether Good or Bad. [Rom 13:1-5]

"All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." [Matt 28:18b]

In His service
>< ))/*>
For Discussion On Christian Matters *CLICK HERE* / Judgment has begun
« Last post by eloquent2 on March 16, 2010, 03:55:13 PM »
God instructed me to write a book telling this country to repent (specifically those in his church) or God will destroy this country.  Judgment has already begun, because what I term as the spirit of Nebuchadnezzar, now controls the White House.  Many people feel we are safe now, because of the recent Massachusetts Senate election, but this all fits into God's plan to judge this country. The president will use this past election to simply get around the Constitution through other means to bring his agenda onto this country. Unless we repent, in the next election, Obama will be reelected as related in my book where God speaks to us directly, "Do not let the prognosticators and false prophets tell you the power of the spirit of Nebuchadnezzar will be broken in the next election. I will increase its stranglehold over you. It will finish the work I have sent it to accomplish." We as Christians have allowed the evil to rule our country and to fill our schools with godless people who want to propagandize our children. God has already begun his judgment on us, but there is still time to repent before it becomes too late very soon. 
 Charles J. Brannan
For Discussion On Christian Matters *CLICK HERE* / Re: Is Spanking Biblical?
« Last post by hymnsinger on January 08, 2010, 08:46:43 AM »
Fox New's reported on Jan 4th 2010 that "Young children spanked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit, a study has found."

According to the research, children spanked up to the age of 6 were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to college than their peers who had never been physically disciplined.

But children who continued to be spanked into adolescence showed clear behavioral problems.

My response to that would be that they must already have clear behavioral problems to warrant their parents disciplining them with physically punishment. If they don't want to be spanked, smarten up! I am sure that most parents would rather have well behaved children that do not require physical chastisement.

The report continues, "Children's groups and lawmakers in the UK have tried several times to have physical chastisement by parents outlawed, the Times of London reported. They claim it is a form of abuse that causes long-term harm to children and say banning it would send a clear signal that violence is unacceptable.

However, Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said her study showed there was insufficient evidence to deny parents the freedom to choose how they discipline their children." Gunnoe studied 2,600 people, about a quarter of whom had never been physically punished by spanking.

Professor Gunnoe disagrees with that notion, arguing that parents should have the freedom to use spanking as an occasional disciplinary tool.

'The claims made for not spanking children fail to hold up. They are not consistent with the data,' said Gunnoe. 'I think of spanking as a dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for a dangerous tool. You just don't use it for all your jobs.'?

Research into the effects of spanking was previously hampered by the inability to find enough children who had never been spanked, given its past cultural acceptability.

I believe that all discipline should be tempered with LOVE. If our Father in Heaven says that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge," [Proverbs 1:7] Then a healthy fear of parental discipline is probably better reinforced with the knowledge of what it is. Don't continue threatening without ever carrying out the action. A child has to learn there are boundaries so that they will have respect for boundaries (laws and rules) instituted for harmonious communal living when they grow up.

In His service
>< ))/*>
For Discussion On Christian Matters *CLICK HERE* / Was Jesus Born In a Barn?
« Last post by hymnsinger on December 20, 2009, 09:47:50 PM »
Every Christmas we hear the story of how Joseph and Mary journeyed to Bethlehem to be registered in the census decreed by Caesar.

Some stories mention they traveled by donkey which is not mentioned in the Bible. When Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem they were turned away from an inn and had to sleep in a stable where Jesus was born. Some stories even say the stable was where the inn keeper allowed travelers to put up their animals during their stay. Akin to a modern-day parking lot.

The Catholic church has built a monumental church at the supposed site. A cave!

Matthew has a sketchy account, but Luke goes into a bit more detail except where the actual birth occurred.

I believe they showed up at their ancestral home to stay with relatives on the second floor. Because in ancient Palestine the ground floor was used to house a few domestic animals and would have a manger.

Because they arrived later then other family members and would have had to displace some. Mary was so near her "time" that they probably were put up for the night in the stable area (the ground floor) and she gave birth before other arrangements could be made.

"So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." [Luke 2:6,7]

Her days, all 270 of them, were complete and she gave birth in the stable area of the ancestral home because there was no room in the guest chambers upstairs. It is always assumed that Jesus was born in a barn because of the "manger" or feeding trough. There is also no mention of animals being present and because the shepherds were still in the fields there would be no reason to bring an animal into the stable area of the house except to prevent theft.

The website -> states:
"A small number of flock animals were housed, not in attached exterior sheds, but inside the house in one of the ground floor rooms. Here, animals, tools and agricultural produce were stored. Here, too, food was prepared and possibly consumed. Family sleeping quarters were on the second floor (an upper room). By being inside, the animals were protected from the elements and theft. In addition, their presence provided body heat for cool nights, access to milk for the daily meal and dung as a critical fuel source."
The Greek word translated inn [kataluma, pronounced kat-al'-oo-mah; from G2647; properly a dissolution (breaking up of a journey, i.e. (by implication) a lodging-place:--guestchamber, inn.] You can take your pick of meanings, among them inn or caravansary. Jesus spent His first and last night in the "kataluma" which was probably the "upper room" in a house. [Luke 2:7 & 22:11]

In conclusion, the long and short of it is that you could say that Jesus was born in the stable area. It would appear they stayed downstairs in the domestic stable, still within the ancestral home, where a manger was located. The shepherds probably visited the Baby Lord Jesus there.

In His service
>< ))/*>
For Discussion On Christian Matters *CLICK HERE* / Re: What Is a Woman's Role?
« Last post by hymnsinger on November 27, 2009, 11:33:01 PM »
Same woman, same question and I am going to remain civil and not scream, "Read your Bible!"

She writes "You didn't answer my question, Verse 14 says that a woman's hair is her head covering!"

First of all, I think you mean verse 15 and taken in context, you will see that Paul is saying her hair was given to her by God as a covering and if she does not cover it in submission to man she should shave it off. Some believe that men prayed with their heads uncovered to indicate reverence and respect. Women covered their heads to demonstrate modesty. Immodest women were immoral. Immoral women were shorn.

Maybe I should have gone through the whole half chapter in the beginning. Here is my interpretation of 1 Cor 11:3-16

3  But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
Here is the hierarchy where Paul lays the foundation.

4  Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.
Man not to cover his head while addressing God, and this doesn't mean to depilate his head.

5  But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved.
Women should be veiled or covered in the church. Paul's reasons were based on headship, v. 3, the order in creation (vv. 7-9), and the presence of angels in the meeting (v. 10). Not one of these reasons was based on local customs of the Corinthians.

6  For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered.
Paul is saying that a woman's hair is her glory given to her by God as a covering and to shave her head is a sign of rebellion. But if she refuses to cover her head, including the hair, then she may as well shave her head. It is the same sign of disobedience. If she finds a shorn head shameful and is obedient, let her  head be covered.

7  For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.
Here Paul states that man being the image and glory of God that he should not cover his head, but the woman being the glory of man should be in submission.

8  For man is not from woman, but woman from man.
Man was created from dust, woman was taken from man.

9  Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man.
God said it is not good for man to be alone and created a help mate. A complement not a competitor. She is to bear and raise his children, not vie for his job.

10  For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
Some think that this is using the angels as symbolic of true submission, where they veil themselves before God with their wings (Isa 6:2; Eze 1:11). I believe that the angels witnessed the disobedience in the Garden and need to see a sign of submission because they can't read thoughts. Are we still that close to the rebellion in the Garden? Have we forgotten that Jesus died for our disobedience?

11  Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord.
12  For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God.

Mothers tell their children that they made and birthed them and are deserving of proper respect for that. "I brought you into this world and can take you out!" The Bible paints a different picture in that children come through woman, not from. They are from God.

13  Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?
Having said all the above, you judge. What does head uncovered mean? She is shorn or has not veiled her head? I think this verse would preclude any thinking that the hair can be removed to uncover the head and replaced to cover.

14  Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him?
15  But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
Already explained above.

16  But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.
This could either mean some churches are contentious about this topic or it could mean that there is no custom of churches being contentious.

The Bible Believers' notes give this explanation.
"Paul insists that women who pray or prophesy in the church do so with covered heads. The rationale is as follows: (1) The covered head was the symbol of a woman's submission to her own husband. (2) To fail to acknowledge publicly this headship was a disgrace of such magnitude as to be equal to having a shorn head, which in antiquity was the symbol of a shameless, dishonored woman [v. 6]. In the presence of ministering angels, who were attendant upon gatherings of the church, women were to demonstrate their submission to their respective husbands by wearing "authority," which was symbolized by a head-covering [v. 10]. (3) This practice was based upon the prior creation of man, who then is in the image of God in terms of authority. On the other hand, the woman was created for the man [v. 8]. The passage reflects no antagonism toward women. This text, and indeed the entire corpus of Scripture, affirms the essential equality of men and women. Subordination on the woman's part is of a functional nature in her divinely assigned role. Her example in this functional submission is none other than Christ Himself [v. 4]. Paul is making every attempt to protect the status of women in their relationship to their own husbands as God intended."

There are a lot of commentaries available that give slightly differing opinions. Choose one and pray for enlightenment. But to be safe, pray with your head covered.

I hope I didn't muddy it up as much as Paul.

In His service
>< ))/*>
An usher and someone asked me if I didn't shake hands because I was afraid of the swine flu.

Let me just say, I trust God to be a shield about me and I don't like to shake hands because it is symbolic of Hollywood's influence on modern day values and traditions.

The movie industry showed people shaking hands as greetings to distinguish friends from the bad guys. This is not a traditional greeting. It is the world dictating worldly standards and has no place in the Christians lifestyle.

If you feel it is necessary to have your hands all over a person and hold hands, er, ah, I mean shake hands, then you really should see if it is acceptable according to God.

"Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." [1 Cor 7:1-4]

No matter what you see on the big or small screen it is never okay for a man to touch a woman's hair or bare skin unless it is her traditional spouse. Her body belongs to her husband. It is also not okay for a woman to expose more skin than her husband. If he is wearing a tie than no neckline should be exposed, especially cleavage. If he is wearing long sleeves, than she also should be covering her arms and shoulders.

Whatever happened to modesty?

If this rule is followed than in a traditional church greeting, no bare skin is touched. If a woman extends her hand to greet with a handshake. She is wrong, as it is no different then holding hands.

The church has to either adhere to Biblical standards or take the broad way which leads to destruction.

As for being afraid of catching the swine flu? No, I just don't want to share germs or pass them on to someone with less faith than I. Also, swine are unclean animals and no Christian should be affected by anything named after it.

"... if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. ..." [1 Cor 7:9]

In His service
>< ))/*>
"The LORD your God in your midst, The Mighty One, will save; He will rejoice over you with gladness, He will quiet you with His love, He will rejoice over you with singing." [Zeph 3:17]

I sometimes wonder how the translators choose to interpret certain original Hebrew, Aramaic, Babylonian or Greek words.

It would certainly be nice to think that our Creator rejoices over us in song, but the Hebrew word here is:
H7440. rinnah, pronounced rin-naw'; from H7442; properly a creaking (or shrill sound), i.e. shout (of joy or grief):
Other interpretations used in the English Bible --cry, gladness, joy, proclamation, rejoicing, shouting, sing (-ing), triumph.

In other passages rinnah it is translated differently, i.e. "and listen to the cry and the prayer" [1 Kings 8:28]; "as the sun was going down, a shout went throughout the army," [1 Kings 22:38]; "listen to the cry and the prayer which Your servant is praying before You:" [2 Chr 6:19]; "Now when they began to sing and to praise," [2 Chr 20:22]; "Attend to my cry; Give ear to my prayer" [Psalm 17:1]; "Weeping may endure for a night, But joy comes in the morning." [Psalm 30:5]; "I went with them to the house of God, With the voice of joy and praise," [Psalm 42:4]; "Shout to God with the voice of triumph!" [Psalm 47:1]; "HEAR my cry, O God; Attend to my prayer." [Psalm 61:1]

I think the above scriptures should get the point across that we have too many different meanings for one word in English. Etymologists like to say that the English language is dynamic and ever evolving. It would appear more to be devolving. Every year Websters comes out with a new list of words or meanings for existing words.

However it is translated the shrill sound more describes my singing than what I would like to think our heavenly Father sounds like. To have Him crying out, shouting a joyful noise, a song to His children for triumph over evil by the Blood of His only begotten Son, Jesus is most comforting.

"So I will sing praise to Your name forever, That I may daily perform my vows." [Psalm 61:8]

In His service
 >< ))/*>
"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lor"For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." [Romans 8:38, 39]

I had a long discussion with a retired Pentecostal pastor on OSAS and my first question to him was, "What does Romans 8:35-39 mean when it says nothing can separate us from the love of God?"

He said "we can choose to walk away."

I replied, "Aren't we created things as Paul said in verse 38 and 39?"

He tried to bring in other scriptures from Hebrews 6 and 10, and 2 Peter 2, but I said lets stick to the clear scripture here and reconcile the ambiguous ones to it. In other words, let's let the Bible interpret itself.

He insisted that other created beings did not include us. uhmm.

Regardless of my arguments, we agreed to disagree and left the subject unresolved. But, I pray that he will open his eyes and heart and know that once the God who is LOVE accepts us we are His according to the Bible.

"'And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand. I and My Father are one.'" [John 10:38, 39]

As for the other scriptures:
2 Peter 2:22  refers to unclean animals, pigs and dogs, and that definitely cannot be referring to the born again believers.

Hebrews 6:4-6 is a  much-debated passage has been understood in several ways.

* Arminians hold that the people described in these verses are Christians who actually lose their salvation. If this be so, notice that the passage also teaches that it is impossible to be saved a second time.
* Some hold that the passage refers not to genuine believers but to those who only profess to be believers. Thus the phrases in verses 4-5 are understood to refer to experiences short of salvation (cf. v. 9). The "falling away" is from the knowledge of the truth, not personal possession of it.
* Others understand the passage to be a warning to genuine believers to urge them on in Christian growth and maturity. To "fall away" is impossible (since, according to this view, true believers are eternally secure), but the phrase is placed in the sentence to strengthen the warning. It is similar to saying something like this to a class of students: "It is impossible for a student, once enrolled in this course, if he turns the clock back which cannot be done, to start the course over. Therefore, let all students go on to deeper knowledge." In this view the phrases in verses 4-5 are understood to refer to the conversion experience. Notice how the words "enlightened" (10:32), "taste" (2:9), and "partakers" ("share," 12:10) are used elsewhere in Hebrews of genuine experiences.
(Ryrie notes)

Hebrews 10:26-29 talks about sinning willfully. Remembering that this is a letter written to the Hebrews, the background is the defiant sin of Num. 15:30-31 for which there was no propitiatory offering. there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins. If a person rejects the truth of Christ's death for sin, there is no other sacrifice for sin available and no other way to come to God. Here he is explaining that sacrifices and the law cannot save you only the blood of the One they rejected. The blood of Jesus is not a common thing. Only judgment remains. So I think what is happening here is the new Hebrew believers are attending temple on Saturday (the Sabbath) and attending the Christian congregation on Sunday. But they are still presenting their animal sacrifices for sins that the blood of Jesus already paid for, Once for ALL, (v. 10) not appreciating that "there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins." All sins are paid in full...Once for all! Their animal sacrifices are a carry over from their Jewish heritage and they're not fully understanding that counting the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, he has insulted the Spirit of Grace?" (v. 29 ) How much worse punishment? It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (vv. 29a, 31)

If you instruct the brethren in these things, you will be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished in the words of faith and of the good doctrine which you have carefully followed. [1 Tim 4:6]

In His Service
>< ))/*>
I am known as the fist bump guy, because I don't like to shake hands.

There is nowhere in the Bible or in secular tradition that indicates that a handshake is required for greeting. Actually ancient tradition is that men do not touch a woman's bare skin or hair. That would preclude handshaking unless she went back to wearing gloves. Oh, yeah! that's why women used to wear gloves in 90 degree temperatures. The reason that men and women were not to make skin to skin contact is because the skin is the largest organ in the body and one of the 5 erotic zones.

The original reason for a handshake was to show that you didn't have a weapon concealed in your hands. Originally it was a salute to your superior officer and the Romans, the Germans, and the native Americans used a raised open hand gesture.

Then men used to cut their palms and make a blood covenant with the handshake. Next it was used for sealing a deal prior to writing it down without, the blood or spit. After that it was used to greet superiors to show the empty hand. I believe Churches get carried away in forcing you to greet one another. A greeting should be spontaneous. So back off! I am friendly and believe in tradition and I will greet in a Biblical custom.

Handshaking was not performed by women, neither same gender or opposite. Probably because women didn't normally carry weapons.

There are more germs and other pathogens spread by handshaking than any other means. The church is NOT immune to colds and flus. There is no reason to shake hands as a greeting. If this were so then you would have to shake hands with everyone you acknowledged in public. If you got on a bus, train or other forms of public transit, you would be obliged to shake hands with everyone you acknowledged. You can''t ignore people and show Christ in you. Even if you spoke to your neighbor over the backyard fence, or met someone on the sidewalk you would have to extend your hand as a greeting. I don't think so, Tim!

Myself, I fist bump the men and hug the women trying not to touch their skin. Some have noticed that I sidle up to them at an angle. Sometimes it is impossible to not take their extended hand. And I do it in a way as to not touch the palms and pull them in for a hug.

The hand is often involved in a lot of private action and 70% of men and 40% of the women do not wash their hands after using the restroom facilities. This alone turns me off.

The Bible says to greet the brethren with a holy kiss. I don't know if this applies to opposite sexes or not. It's a little before my time. In the middle eastern countries the women do not participate in contact greeting with men. Muslim women are not supposed to show their face to any man she is not related to.

So, until I see it in the Bible or the law of the land is changed, I will continue fist bumping and hugging. I know that that will reduce the probability of any contagious disease being spread and a few less people that will require prayer for their suffering with someone elses viruses. I do hug some men either because I want to or because they need more than a fist bump.

In His service
>< ))/*>
I have been getting a lot of flack on my comment about Luke's writings not being Spirit inspired.

I certainly don't consider myself an expert on whether a book should be considered canon or apocrypha. This is just my opinion from reading Luke. To me he appears to be more of a historian than a man of God.

He appeared to be writing to his friend fondly referred to as Theophilos, from G2316 and G5384; friend of God.

"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed." [Luke 1:1-4]

I see Luke having a Christian friend and seeing the person struggle with limited knowledge of their Savior that he set about to get as much info as possible. There were no Bibles and the O.T. was mostly passed on verbally. Luke being a physician had access to more people than his friend would have.

So, I am not saying that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of the Acts of the Apostles are apocryphal as they do contain information garnered from eyewitnesses and Paul.

What I am saying is that he has some things in his writings I consider Old Wives Tales. Some things were probably third or fourth hand testimony. Glowing reports from a loving Mom and her friends. More glowing reports from those healed. The latter 2 could very well be embellished. He probably had a lot of information and testimony from the disciples and other eye witnesses which are good and legitimate sources. A better source would have been directly from the Holy Spirit rather than from Spirit filled saints. He even had one Jewish fable included in Chapter 16 of his Gospel.

I think he has enough good stuff to be considered canon. I also don't think I can pick and choose scriptures making the Bible of no effect. The Bible is the Word of God as it is accepted and to say that some passages don't apply is using it for my own personal interpretation. I am just saying that the compilers of the original Bible should have checked every jot and tittle before including books. Everyone knows that if you set out to write an account of someones life that you get conflicting stories. You will even get differing opinions from the same sources if the work you are doing is a biography or a eulogy.

Anyway this should be a new topic.

The other thing was whether angels sing or not. My Bible, The NKJV and the original KJV do not say the angels sang. My Strong's Concordance also does not indicate that they sang. I believe that if they sang it would make our best efforts sound horrible. We have something to sing about that they don't. The old, old story!

The final discussion was, can God have angels appear in any shape? Yes!

Can they appear as women? Why Not?

Would they have wings? Probably not, as wings would be useless on an incarnate body. The only time wings are mentioned in scripture is when the angels (Seraphim, Cherubim) are seen in spirit form.

There is no mention of wings on the angels that physically appeared in the Old or New Testaments.

But the better question, is why should an angel appear to us at all? If they are to minister to us, then we would have to be in really dire straits. I still don't think we need personal guardian angels. Angels are God's messengers sent to encourage and minister as directed and in the end times to gather the saints. We have the Holy Spirit to guide, lead, direct and thus protect us!

In His service
>< ))/*>
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 10