Search results

After. And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. - Colossians 1:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians1:18&version=NKJV and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the...

At His resurrection, they were raised, and at His ascension, He led them to Heaven. And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split,and the graves were...

Actually, not that you mention it, it makes more sense that "death" was led captive, but that doesn't change anything regarding the city of refuge portion.

Fruit cake? How about in video form? https://store.kgov.com/video-fruitcake-dvd-or-video-download/

Then you need to provide the evidence that they were. You're the one making the claim. You need to support it. I'm not going to make your argument for you. No. No one. You seem to be misunderstanding something: The terms are used interchangeably, AS FIGURES OF SPEECH, but that doesn't...

You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either: Peter has a will. Or: Jesus knew the future because it's set in stone. The two are mutually exclusive, because a will is the ability to choose otherwise, and if there's no alternate outcome, then there is no will possible, and...

Yes, we agree. Please catch up to the rest of us here. God knew what Peter was going to do because He knew Peter, not because He knew the future. Reducing? No. I'm simply acknowledging that He, as the Creator of the universe, can make a rooster crow when He needs one to, as in the case...

Then why didn't he say "the face of the earth"? Why did he say "descended into the lower parts of the earth" instead? Words have meaning, Hoping. You don't get to just assert that he meant something else because you want it to or because it doesn't comport with your theology. The lower parts...

Yes, it is. How you get "God knows the future" out of that is beyond me. Easily explainable by Christ knowing Peter. No need for God to know the future. Isn't that far simpler of an explanation than "God knows the future"? Now you're moving the goalposts. We've been over this part...

Yes, that's our position. What we differ on is the "why." Your position is that God knows the future, that's why He knew what Peter would do. Our position is that God, being God, and having been in a personal in-person relationship with Peter for the past 3 years, that He knew him well enough...

I can assure you that God knows people far better than humans do. Never did. Yes, I'm well aware what the verse says. Jesus knew Peter, enough to know that he would deny Him at least three times, and then all He needed was a rooster to crow. Your challenge is to show how Christ needs to...

The MOST IMPORTANT THING TO GOD is RELATIONSHIPS! It's not knowledge of the future. To repeat myself again, because I seriously want to drive this point home: Jesus didn't have to know the future, because Jesus knew Peter. And the fact that He knew him so well is why Jesus was able to say "I...

Yes, He was. Correct. What don't you get about what I said? My position fully accounts for what Jesus said Peter would do, because Jesus knew Peter! Let me repeat that: JESUS. KNEW. PETER. You interact with someone long enough, and you get to know them very well. Jesus, being God, not...

Consider the history of the valley of Gehenna, instead of the Dead Sea.

He said He was going to destroy Nineveh in forty days. At the end of the forty days, Nineveh wasn't destroyed. Was God lying, or is there something else in play here that might explain it?

My position just as easily explains why Jesus said what he said, without requiring God to be irrational, in that He knows infallibly the future while He still allows men to chose. Have you never said to yourself that there's something important to do, and then you see or hear something later...

Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,“Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.”But Jonah arose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord. He went down to Joppa, and found a ship going to...

You didn't answer this when I asked it of you: If Peter had not denied Jesus the second time, but instead acknowledged that he was part of Jesus' posse, do you think Christ would have been mad that what He said didn't come about? OR do you think He would have been glad that Peter didn't deny...

So then... Does what Jesus said sound more like like Jesus was making a prophecy of what the future would be, or does it sound more like Jesus is telling Peter He knows him well enough that He knows Peter will deny him?

https://babylonbee.com/news/retiring-dr-fauci-to-be-honored-with-21-booster-shot-salute