What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

THE FORMULA FOR SALVATION

P
JLB said:
How did the discussion go from having the Spirit within, to understanding?

Did you know that the Spirit of understanding is the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Understanding is developed as our mind is renewed.

The OT prophets had the Spirit of Christ within them.

Just because someone doesn’t have the baptism of the Holy Spirit as on the Day of Pentecost doesn’t mean they don’t have the Spirit.


And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
John 20:22-23


Pentecost is where they receive power; the baptism with the Holy Spirit.




JLB
Click to expand...
Being baptized in the sea and in the cloud is in fact being baptized in Jesus. I get it. But. It is a type and shadow of things to come. It is not about immersion in one sense, and at the same time it is about immersion. The water was stacked up crossing the Red Sea.

We are trying to say the same thing.

Symbolism has two elements, just like metaphysical. The physical and the greater thing it relates to.

The parable of the sower to the multitudes was about seeds and ground and crops.
But
Explained to the disciples it was about Jesus, the Word of God, (both being the same), and men’s hearts.

The disciples understood because Jesus explained the parable to them.

We are guilty because creation speaks.
But
We do not understand till the Holy Spirit leads us into understanding.

Jesus breathed on them and said receive the Holy Spirit.
So
On the day of Pentecost the mighty rushing wind was the breath of God baptizing all of them ( he told them to go and wait for power). The. Disciples received a foreshadowing when they were breathed on.

I did not read a book on all this. The word foreshadowing probably came from reading something sometime.
So, maybe I take things in the natural and am led into understanding. I see through dark sunshades (welding goggles).

It is a lot of work talking to you, but the joy is usually much greater.

eddif
 
Dorothy Mae said:
I’m not at all convinced many know how to please God. Jesus said believers will murder others thinking they’re pleasing God. Other sins are even easier to do fooling yourself that you’re pleasing God. I’ve seen direct violation of scripture and am very sure the perpetrators thought they were pleasing God.

I could be wrong but I mentioned the selling of “get out of purgatory” tickets by giving the Pope money, I assume that offended Mungo.

If he were to be honest, he ought to have admitted this was in their history but they’ve abandoned that in year xxxx. Instead he left in a huff hurling insults.
Click to expand...
Some muslims think they're pleasing God by killing people.
It's dishonesty though...used for one's own purposes.
If a person wants to be honest, they'll know they must adhere to the 10 commandments - at the least.
And do not kill is one of them. (for instance).
 
wondering said:
Some muslims think they're pleasing God by killing people.
It's dishonesty though...used for one's own purposes.
If a person wants to be honest, they'll know they must adhere to the 10 commandments - at the least.
And do not kill is one of them. (for instance).
Click to expand...
Those who claim to be christians have killed too and thought they were offering service to God.
 
Dorothy Mae said:
Not to me. I think it’s ok.

If a person was wrong and they are told that, it’s a fact. The answer should be “how so” not “that’s an insult!”

That was theoretical. No particular discussion in mind.

Evidence. Don’t you think you’re right on anything? How can you have faith?

We’d have to give it a go. How about preterism? I’m 100% sure when Jesus talked about there being not one stone upon another, he was talking about the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. That’s not personal, is it?

😘
Click to expand...
I do agree that Jesus was speaking about the fall of Jerusalem.
 
heartwashed said:
It's good to keep abiding topics in their specific areas of discussion.
Click to expand...
I know it’s a rule but I don’t understand why. The natural warm human element of conversation wandering about is lost. The whole thing becomes a rigid classroom exchange. We can’t fellowship as all topics but one are verboten. Violate that law, no matter how cheering and the teacher hits you with a ruler. Imagine sitting in a circle of people and you’re sent out of the room if you forget the topic being discussed.
 
I don't think it should be a rule.

However, it does make for things being done more decently and in order, so there is something to be said for it.
 
As for preterism, it should be clear that Jesus didn't come back in the late 1st or early 2nd century.

And for that reason I reject it.

Some things in Matthew 24, Luke 21, and Mark 13 can be applied to 70 A.D.; other things cannot be applied to it.

Have you heard of what they call the mountains of prophecy?

In that doctrine, prophecy can be fulfilled almost immediately and then be fulfilled again many centuries down the line.

It is as though there are two mountains...the tops of both of them being at the same level as you look at them from the ground...and you don't see the valley in between them.

So, you see two fulfillments of the same prophecy, one immediately after the prophecy is given and the other as an ultimate fulfillment of the prophecy as God intended it to be His perfect fulfillment of that prophecy.
 
heartwashed said:
I don't think it should be a rule.

However, it does make for things being done more decently and in order, so there is something to be said for it.
Click to expand...
It’s a rule. I still don’t see that in a “room” of people there can’t be different conversations happening. It makes our exchanges rigid and formal if applied consistently.
 
Last edited:
Dorothy Mae said:
It’s a rule. I still don’t see that in a “room” of people there can’t be different conversations happening. It make our exchanges formal.
Click to expand...
If it''s a rule then you broke it...

And so did I by responding to your post according to the subject that was brought up by you.
 
Dorothy Mae said:
No, you are responsible for what YOU write and do. Back to the OP.
Click to expand...
:hysterical:hysterical:hysterical.

Nope, you started a subject; and you should expect people to respond to your posts.

It is unrighteous of you to speak of something that is off-topic in the hopes that no one will be able to respond; so that you can have a monopoly on the conversation.
 
heartwashed said:
:hysterical:hysterical:hysterical.

Nope, you started a subject; and you should expect people to respond to your posts.

It is unrighteous of you to speak of something that is off-topic in the hopes that no one will be able to respond; so that you can have a monopoly on the conversation.
Click to expand...
Enough people.
This is getting silly....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top