1) And the first thing we know is that no one who is born of God lives in sin (as their habitual, unremitting practice) https://www.preceptaustin.org/1_joh...t=I think God wants the,have its impact on us. 2) They were initially frightened and told no one but later on shared with the desciples. https://carm.org/bible-difficulties/did-or-did-not-the-women-tell-what-happened/
Did David ben Yishai and Jonathan, eldest son of King Saul, have a homosexual relationship? Have you ever heard the claim that David and Jonathan, of biblical fame, were gay lovers? This, of course, is a blatant falsehood, as numerous Bible scholars have demonstrated over the years. After all, the biblical text is quite clear. Jonathan became a married man, with children. And, much more significantly, David married numerous women, almost destroying his whole life because of his lust for a married woman. (This is not what gay men do!) Other biblical scholars have pointed out that the whole testimony of the Hebrew Bible is exclusively heterosexual—meaning, only heterosexual relationships are countenanced, let alone blessed—while any references to homosexual behavior are negative in the extreme. Quite obviously, this same Bible would not paint an openly gay picture about one of its heroes. That's why there are even gay theologians who recognize that David and Jonathan were not gay lovers. And they recognize that, when David said, in eulogizing his slain friend, that Jonathan’s love was better than that of women, he didn’t mean they had better sex together. God forbid. He was simply saying that the covenant loyalty and depth of brotherly love they had together surpassed the love he had known with other women (2 Samuel 1:24). That’s how close their pure and holy bond was. But They Kissed! But what of the fact that the Bible says that they kissed? I [Dr. Brown] actually addressed this in a lengthy endnote (one of 1,500 endnotes) in my 700-page book A Queer Thing Happened to America. I now produce that endnote here for you in full. Texts cited to allege that Jonathan and David were gay lovers include 2 Sam 18:3-4, "Jonathan and David made a pact, because Jonathan loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the cloak and tunic he was wearing and gave them to David, together with his sword, bow, and belt" [which was a covenantal exchange and pledge of loytaly] and 1 Sam 20:41 (when David has to flee for his life from King Saul, Jonathan’s father), "They kissed each other and wept together; David wept the longer." For a comprehensive refutation of a gay reading of these (and other passages), see Robert Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, where he demonstrates clearly how such a reading of these texts is unthinkable from an ancient, Hebraic point of view and totally uncalled for in terms of what the biblical text actually says. Regarding the act of kissing (as distinguished from "making out"), note that kissing was a common way of saying hello or goodbye in the ancient Near East, as it is in many cultures to this day. Furthermore, if all the kisses that the Bible recorded were interpreted in sexual terms, then Isaac would have been erotically involved with his own son (see Gen 27:26, "Then his father Isaac said to him, 'Come here, my son, and kiss me.'"), Laban would have been erotically involved with his nephew Jacob (see Gen 29:13, "He embraced him and kissed him and brought him to his home"), Laban would have been erotically involved with his grandchildren and daughters (see Gen 31:55, "Early the next morning Laban kissed his grandchildren and his daughters and blessed them", Esau would have been erotically involved with his brother Jacob (see Gen 33:4, "But Esau ran to meet Jacob and embraced him; he threw his arms around his neck and kissed him"), Joseph would have been erotically involved with all his brothers (see Gen 45:15, "And he kissed all his brothers and wept over them"), Jacob would have been erotically involved with his grandsons (see Gen 48:10, "So Joseph brought his sons close to him, and his father kissed them and embraced them"), and Joseph would have been erotically involved with his just-deceased father Jacob (see Gen 50:1, "Joseph threw himself upon his father and wept over him and kissed him") – and these are just examples from the first book of the Bible, Genesis! Obviously, all this public kissing was not in the least bit sexual! In the next book of the Bible, Exodus, we see Moses kissing his brother Aaron and his father-in-law Jethro (Exod 4:27; 18:7). For a few examples of non-relatives kissing, see Samuel the prophet kissing Saul (1 Sam 10:1), David kissing Jonathan (1 Sam 20:41), Absalom the prince kissing all who would approach him asking him to adjudicate on their behalf (2 Sam 15:5), David the king kissing the old man Barzillai (2 Sam 19:39), and Joab kissing Amasa (2 Sam 20:9). Kissing as a form of greeting was so customary in New Testament times that Paul and Peter taught the believers to "Greet one another with a holy kiss" (Rom 16:16; see also 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thes 5:26; cf. 1 Pet 5:13), the ancient equivalent of a handshake, and presumably men with men and women with women. Note also that, when the Bible wanted to speak of a sensual kiss, it certainly knew how, as in the bride’s words in Song of Solomon 1:2, "Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth–for your love is more delightful than wine," or as seen in the context of Prov 7:13 – read the whole chapter!). Let this ridiculous myth be laid to rest once and for all. ~Dr. Michael L. Brown
Will Those With Severe Intellectual Disabilities Go to Heaven? — Dr. Mohler Responds to Letters from Listeners of The Briefing Listeners to The Briefing send in such good questions. I want to thank one mom for writing in on behalf of herself and her husband. She speaks of listening to The Briefing and thinking of questions, and then she writes, "We also have the privilege of raising two beautiful daughters with severe intellectual disabilities, both of whom are nonverbal. Both girls are active in our church and love to be there. One in particular loves to listen to praise music and worships in her own way. Both recognize Jesus' stories and their Bible and know they go together and go with church. Both can sign Jesus. In their own special way, they love Jesus. However, they cannot, in any way, acknowledge their sin and their need for savior. My husband and I have talked a lot about what that means for their salvation and would love your input." Well, my heart goes out to this sweet mom and dad. I'm just so thankful for this question and I thank God for this sweet family. I thank God for these two beautiful daughters given to this very sensitive, very committed, very loving mother and father. I thank you for this family as a gift to Christ Church. I'm so thankful that they're involved in a local church. And by they, I mean the parents and their beautiful daughters. This mom raises a huge and very important question, and I address that question in an article entitled, "The Salvation of the Little Ones." I'm going to ask that that be sent to this mom who asked this question. But the bottom line in this is that I believe the Scripture is actually clear about God's intention for those who are born without the opportunity to respond to the gospel of Jesus Christ in terms of the fact they die in infancy, that's one category, or they have profound intellectual disabilities as they are often defined and never have the opportunity cognitively to respond with repentance and faith. I think one of the key issues here is understanding in the Old Testament, the distinction made even in terms of the generation of rebellion in the desert where God's condemnation came upon the adults who had rebelled and then God says, "But as for your little ones who know not the difference between good and evil," in other words, I'm making a distinction here, but I believe it's a distinction that God makes in Scripture, between those who have the cognitive ability to know our sin and those who do not. Now, nowhere in that does it say that those children are not sinners. The Bible actually says they are sinners, they're conceived in sin, they are born in sin. But the reality is that I believe the distinction that God himself makes between those who know of their conscious sin and those who do not, I think that's theologically important. And I think there is abundant biblical evidence to believe that those who are described there as the little ones, and I mean that chronologically and intellectually, are indeed safe with Jesus. And I think biblically understanding our necessary affirmation of the biblical truths of all the soul laws and of the doctrine of sin and of our understanding of the exclusivity of the gospel of Christ and this centrality of faith, I think the importance of that underlines what you actually reference in your letter here, mom, and that is that you are showing Jesus to your daughters. You are teaching and preaching Jesus to your daughters. You are surrounding them with the gospel. And under every single condition that is exactly the right thing to do. By the way, I want to shift this to address not only this mom and this dad and this family, but the church of Lord Jesus Christ. We have a fundamental point of decision to make and it reveals our understanding about the entirety of God's plan and purpose in Scripture. When we meet persons who have what are identified as intellectual disabilities, and that would include for example, down syndrome, we have to ask the question, "Are these individuals made in God's image burdens to us or gifts to us?" I think the church of the Lord Jesus Christ must answer unequivocally that every single human being given to us, every one of our children given to us, every member of our fellowship given to us, every person, regardless of intellectual ability or disability, every single person given to us is sheer gift and is to be welcomed as sheer gift.
Everyday for about the last week, I have found at least one dime lying on the sidewalk, the street or in a parking lot. So, I just asked cohesive.so if the Bible assigns special significance to the number ten. Here is what it wrote... Yes, the number 10 holds special significance in the Bible. It is referred to multiple times throughout the scriptures and carries symbolic meanings. Here are some notable instances where the number 10 is significant: 1. The Ten Commandments: In Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:4-21, Moses receives the Ten Commandments from God on Mount Sinai. These commandments form the basis of moral and ethical guidelines for believers. 2. The Ten Plagues of Egypt: In Exodus chapters 7-12, God sends ten plagues upon Egypt to compel Pharaoh to release the Israelites from slavery. 3. The Ten Virgins: In Matthew 25:1-13, Jesus tells a parable about ten virgins waiting for the arrival of the bridegroom. Half of them were prepared with enough oil for their lamps, while the other half were not. This parable emphasizes the importance of readiness and preparedness for the return of Christ. 4. The Ten Talents: In Matthew 25:14-30, Jesus tells another parable about a master who entrusts his servants with different amounts of talents. Two of the servants use their talents wisely and are rewarded, while one servant buries his talent and receives punishment. This parable highlights the responsibility and stewardship of the gifts and resources given by God. 5. The Ten Lepers: In Luke 17:11-19, Jesus heals ten lepers, but only one returns to give thanks. This story demonstrates the importance of gratitude and acknowledges God's healing power. Overall, the number 10 in the Bible symbolizes completeness, divine order, and fulfillment. It represents God's commandments, testing, and the responsibility of believers to use their gifts wisely. This morning, I found four dimes lying on the sidewalk. I once heard a Catholic priest say that the number forty represents change; a new era, day, generation, beginning, etc. So, what does cohesive.so have to say about what the number 40 symbolizes in the Bible? In the Bible, the number 40 holds special significance. It often represents a period of testing, trial, or preparation. Here are a few examples: The Flood: In Genesis, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, flooding the earth to cleanse it. Moses and the Israelites: They wandered in the desert for 40 years before reaching the Promised Land. Jesus' Temptation: After being baptized, Jesus fasted in the desert for 40 days and was tempted by the devil. Elijah's Journey: Elijah traveled for 40 days and 40 nights to Mount Horeb where he met God. The Nineveh Prophecy: Jonah warned that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days if they did not repent. In these instances, the number 40 represents a significant period of preparation, purification, or testing.
I was puzzled by the death of Ravi Zacharias and wondered why the sarcoma (an uncommon group of cancers which arise in the bones and connective tissue such as fat and muscle) won out in the end. Consequently, I was not surprised when it was revealed he had been concealing a major transgression in his life that had been going on for a number of years. Would he have gotten the cancer had he repented early on? There is no way for me to know. Still, I think it is very foolish for a Christian to live life in such a way that might compromise the protection offered by God, and in looking for an explanation for how Ravi was able to "get away" with his sinful behavior, I came across this article which is too long for me to copy and paste here... https://www.christianitytoday.com/n...-investigation-sexual-abuse-sexting-rape.html ...but, two paragraphs I do what to note in particular are these: "Zacharias spoke about the importance of 'physical safeguards' to 'protect my integrity,' but the Miller & Martin report notes that 'As the architect of those "physical safeguards," Mr. Zacharias well knew how to elude them.' "The investigation confirmed that Zacharias lied about not being alone with a woman other than his wife or daughters. He also maintained multiple phones at all times, kept them on a different wireless plan than RZIM, and never used the wireless network at the office. Zacharias said this was for security, but it ensured his communication could not be monitored." So then, if I am ever in a position of leadership, I need to submit to whatever safeguards are designed by those to whom I have assigned the responsibility of overseeing my ministry or ministries; refrain from appointing family members to leadership positions; and ensure that all my communications can be monitored at all times.
by Dr. Michael Brown It was C. S. Lewis who coined the phrase "chronological snobbery," which he defined as "the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out-of-date is on that account discredited." So, according to this way of thinking, anything new and current 'must be better' than that which is old and out-of-use. New scholars 'know better' than old scholars. New technology is 'better' than old technology. New morals are 'better' than old morals. But not everything new is better than what came before it – unless you actually believe that the latest, ultra-vulgar, musically-flat, hip-hop song is better than Bach. For Lewis, there was a simple way to refute chronological snobbery. Speaking of things that had become passé, he wrote, "You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also 'a period,' and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions..."
What does it mean to "take up your cross"? https://stream.org/what-does-it-mean-to-take-up-our-cross/
Cohesive.so In what way does use of an egg as a metaphor for God's being three in one break down? The use of an egg as a metaphor for God being three in one breaks down in a few ways. Firstly, the egg metaphor suggests that God is composed of three separate parts, just like an egg has a shell, egg white, and yolk. However, this can be problematic because it implies that each part of God is independent and separate from the others. In traditional Christian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are considered to be distinct persons within the Godhead, but they are also believed to be inseparable and unified in essence. Secondly, the egg metaphor can lead to misunderstandings about the nature of the Trinity. It may suggest that God's three persons are merely different aspects or manifestations of a single entity, rather than truly distinct persons in relationship with one another. The Trinity, however, teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons who interact with and relate to one another in a divine community of love. Lastly, the egg metaphor fails to capture the complexity and mystery of the Trinity. While an egg is a tangible object that can be easily understood, the nature of God as three in one is beyond human comprehension. The Trinity is a divine mystery that cannot be fully explained or grasped by human language or analogies. In conclusion, while the egg metaphor may provide a simple and visual representation, it ultimately falls short in accurately conveying the profound truth and depth of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.
That's why He invented scrambled eggs. The unfathomability of the Godhead in one easy meal. Little black pepper and onion, and you have a tasty Trinity!