If this is addressing what I think it is, Amen. It makes me sick when someone is accused of something, and every 'Christian influencer' decides to make it their podcast topic to discuss like last Sunday's game. Unless you have direct involvement in a situation you have no idea whether someone has been accused rightly or wrongly. In the case of one most recent and famous, one influencer says, "I have no reason to doubt the conclusion of the elders." But I say I have no reason to believe them either. I just don't know because I am not privy to the evidence. And as a law enforcement veteran, and Christian elder, I have personally seen how Church 'justice' can be a real kangaroo court. People are often treated according to rumor, and the personalities involved rather, than by a fair and impartial process that is aimed at establishing fact. Most often the evidence is hearsay which would be inadmissible in an actual court, and the evidence is never presented to the church. I have never seen a church situation where the accused has a right to question their accuser as is their right in an actual professional process. This low threshold makes accusation a convenient weapon if the preacher offends an unscrupulous person who wants him gone. There are plenty of those folks in churches too. When the bible says don't accept an accusation except in the case of two or three witnesses, that is a reference to civil legal precedent in the law of Moses. The same precedent Western nations adopted in their legal system. Therefore, the church should have just as fair and impartial proceeding as the civil government. But I have yet to see it. And I am older and have handled a lot of accusations in and out of church. I have handled the evidence for true accusations, and I have handled it for false accusations that were based on nothing more than presumption conveniently justified by personal animosity. Be wary about bandwagon accusations!
There is no place in the Church for the offspring of divorced parents, for women whose husbands have abandoned them, for people who live in households ruled by despotic tyrants. There is no place in the Church for people like me and my children.
God's grace in Jesus Christ enables folk like me and you to be family in His church, to be His bride, take heart my friend, you are invited to the supper of the Lamb ❤
"When before the throne, I stand in Him, complete; 'Jesus died, my soul to save,' my lips shall still repeat, 'Jesus paid it all! All to Him I owe!'" 🎶
What do you do when there are no good options? When there is no clarity? When you must choose between protecting your children (tiny children; toddlers) and disciplining them? When to discipline them properly would open them to torment by an abuser? What do you do when every support and every friend is systematically stripped away? When you're caught between duties and commandments - that are not, in themselves, contradictory, but in a Fallen situation, they are? What do you do when abusive situations are thrust upon you - not gone seeking them out, but _thrust_ upon you - over and over? When all your praying and Bible reading returns nothing? When you earnestly seek to do a Will that is just not clear at all? When every single choice makes things _worse?_ What do you do when there are no good options? Please pray for my family. It seems we may be among the number predestined to die.
Our God is beautiful, and so gracious and merciful. God bless you and your congregation, and all who see this video God bless you all. Christ is King and may you find and follow in his peace and his love for eternity my brothers and sisters. Peace be with you all from FL! ✝️🤍☦️
So was it a mass hallucination by the multitudes that saw the ressurected Christ? Or did Christ fool the Romans into thinking he was dead when he wasn't? The Roman persecution and martyrdom of the apostles and early Christians kinda rules out conspiracy theories of a Roman inside job and/or dishonest ulterior motives by the authors of the gospels Honeslty the true resurrection of Christ is a far more probable and simpler of an explaination. It really isnt that big of a leap of faith.
As a theomomist, I have a hard time concluding from the references in the New Testament (acts 20:7, 1 Cor 16:2 etc) to change in sabbath observance.(argument from new practice and not explicit command of the change) That aside, even if Sunday being the new sabbath how many “Christians” Will be for the transgression of the sabbath which is capital punishment.
There is no proof of the resurrection in the Bible is just words printed on people it’s people claiming these things happened. There’s no proof of it just like there’s no proof of Jesus is divinity and there’s no proof of any of his miracle working and besides the flood just proves Christianity altogether because China was a country Win the flood happened. China existed Chinese people existed during the time of the flood, and the Bible says that the flood wiped out every living creature on the earth, except who and what was in the art so clearly the Bible writers didn’t know that China existed because China was not devastated by the flood look around you there’s billions of Chinese people walking in the Earth today, so no flood no Jesus no Christianity Christianity is dangerous man-made manipulative absolute garbage…
God does not hate you because of your evil sayings, but, still there is chance for you to be saved, If you believe in Christ, You still have chance. I will not compel you to believe in Christ, you are the one who can make decision. Jesus Christ is Truly Resurrected, he died for your sin on the cross, Through his Holy and sinless blood, your sin can be atoned forever and you can join heavenly Kingdom with Heavenly GOD. But if you keep attacking Christ and his believers, your end will be SURELY Hell. It doesn't make sense whether you believe in it or unbelieve in it. Eternal Truth does not need verification and Eternal Truth too never needs your confirmation, And Eternal Truth will never be benefitted because i believed in him nor he will be harmed Because you unbelieved in it. The reason i follow Christ is to be saved not to benefit him and the same is true for all believers, Jesus Christ is Absolutely Absolute Truth, You will be ETERNALLY regretted if you mock and deny The Crucifixion, Death, Resurrection and Deity of Christ Jesus The Omnipotent. Jesus Is Eternal Absolute Reality. He will NEVER EVER be Harmed because of your denials in his Deity and Resurrection. You are the one who will suffer Eternal Torment by your denial in his Deity and Resurrection.
This was excellent. Had me thinking nking about the art vulture and its decadrnce...wanting to little gods...godlike...there s a art movement called fluxus that celebrates randomness . We look at our art culture and can see the gods of our generation. As art reflects the current culture...you want you want to know where the culture is at , look at what type of art its creating.
Man, the thruth is only one, all those who claim to be Christians must believe in the ministry and resurrection of our Lord Jesús christ. Remember, Just like the ancient apostles in fact Paul himself stated in Hebrews 11:1 what faith is all about. And that is the key. We no longer need to see but believe with our hearts that Jesús is the Son of God and the unblemished 5:27 Lamb the second Adam if you want to call it who took the sins of all of us to the grave and reconcile us with His God and Father Yehovah. 2 Corinthians 5:7.👊
Maybe this preacher doesn’t have Mark 16:17-18 in his Bible 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have the verses to which you're referring. As such, I'm cautious to embrace this passage as equally convincing as the ones referenced in the video. Additionally, people who handle venomous snakes to demonstrate their "Spirit-given" immunity are "putting the Lord God to their test" which violates God's command as reiterated by Christ during His temptation in the wilderness. I'm certainly not implying that you engage in such practices or approve of those that do, but certainly it is the verses you mention to which such individuals appeal. Most importantly, the speaker wasn't denying that the miraculous still happens, only that we must be cautious to credit the Spirit at large and not some modern day "prophet" who has God "on tap." Many so-called contemporary prophets have made false predictions, thus nullifying any claims they have made about themselves as scripture clearly teaches. Many healers have been proven charlatans who are more interested in a cult of personality than promoting Christ. While these examples don't negate the possibility and truth of modern miracles, believers should exercise great discernment when encountering those who claim to be particularly gifted in supernatural abilities. I cannot necessarily capture the tone I wish to convey in my response. I don't believe that I'm more knowledgeable or more righteous or even more theologically sound than you. I simply wished to add a caveat to your claim. I hope we can both agree that God is most interested in the fruits of the Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit are simply a means for advancing His kingdom. Have a good day.
@@erikgriffith8857 I am sorry I am not a Theologian. Just quoted from my King James Bible. It is there in NKJV as well. Pasting ESV version also. For me the Bible is the most up to date manuscript. Yes of course, I agree with you that Cults have risen in the name of "Picking up snakes with their hands". This was not referring to us picking up snakes to test God or prove that we are believers. Apostle Paul had a viper coil around his arms from the fire. Nothing happened to him. He did not go around looking for snakes in that instance. ESV version given below: The Great Commission 14 Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. 15 And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.” All I was trying to say that the gifts still exist today based on Jesus' above statement. The main verse quoted by cessationists is 1 Corinthians 13:8-10. 8 Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if one is a cessationist or now. Both group will see Jesus in Heaven if they are really saved. The only thing is one group will operate in power and gifts of the Holy Spirit(At least they will expect). I expect the sick to be healed every time I lay hands on them. But do everyone get healed? NO. I do not have an answer as to why some get healed and some don't. Nevertheless, I will continue to do what Jesus commanded in the Bible.
Luke did not say "that's crazy". He would never insult or deprecate the work of the Holy Spirit like that. He said some some miracles were special (Gr. tychousas). As far as apostles go, Ephesians 4 tells us how long these gifted men will be around, why they are given: Eph. 4:11-16. "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head-Christ- from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love." Why are these gifted men given to the church? for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ. How long are they given for? till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; What should their ministry result in? that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting. ask yourself ... do the saints still need equipping? does the work of ministry still need divine help and direction? does the body of Christ still need edifying? have we all come to the unity of the faith? have we all come to the knowledge of the Son of God? To a perfect man? To the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ? do we still have children tossed ....????????????????? Toby, this is why we still have Apostles and the gifts of the Spirit.
I would agree to 90% of what you said and would like to add my two cents here about this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.
So what would "your translation" of 1 Cor 11:5+6 be: "but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short."
@@RebekkaMH13 Well first of all my KJ translation of 1 Cor 11:5+6 does not say “wife” and the reason is because it would be wrong to translate it to wife given that verses 8 and 9 refer to creation therefore this passage has to do with ALL women both single and married. It says that the reason for a WOMAN to have a covering (long hair) is due to the fact that she came from man. Also, if we read verses 4 and 5, which begin with the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman,” we can see they are referring to all men and all women. You will note how it doesn’t make sense in some parts if you were to exchange the words for husband and wife, because then it would seem like all the single men CAN wear a covering or all the single women can be WITHOUT a covering and I'm sure many veil promoters would not like that. It's simply saying that every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered (in LONG hair), dishonors his head and that every woman that prays or prophesies with her head uncovered (meaning NOT covered in long hair aka short hair} dishonors her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven (shaved bald). And as I mentioned before Paul was not making conditions just examples in that it would look bad if they were to be doing godly things with hair normally attributed to the other sex. Nothing about taking something off or putting something on. Plus what you don’t seem to explain is that IF Paul were meaning a veil then why would the lack of it equate her to being shaved? Without making much of an explanation you are implying that Paul was seeing women EVEN if she had long hair as shaved bald if she were lacking a veil. That is illogical. Now if he was saying that a woman who was NOT COVERED in long hair looked shaved then that at least makes more sense because obviously it implies that her hair must have been short. Lastly (and perhaps due to a bad translation) you stated verse 6 implies that a woman should cut her hair short which is not true. The word in the KJV states “SHORN” which means CUT BALD. It is the exact same word used when Paul cut off all his hair doing a vow (Acts 18:18) Shorn is the same word used when one sheers sheep… one cuts it down to the stubble leaving the skin virtually bald. So whether one cuts it bald or shaves it bald the result, as Paul notes, BOTH cause shame as any sudden baldness would be the normal reaction. For if the woman be not covered (meaning not covered in long hair because she cut it short), let her also be shorn (cut bald): but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn (cut bald) or shaven (shaved bald), let her be covered (in long hair).
@@robertmiller812 I don't mean any of these points. I agree it could be woman, I'm not arguing it has to be "wife" or "short". I'm arguing that the text clearly speaks of two different things. If she doesn't cover her head, cut her hair. Whatever that cover is, it can't be the hair. How could it mean "if her hair is shorn, cut it off"? It doesn't make sense to say "if she doesn't have hair, cut it off".
@@RebekkaMH13 My point about the woman/wife issue is that if this was not translated correctly then what else was not translated correctly, which can include your particular argument. I do not understand where you got the idea that I said or even implied that “if she doesn't have hair, cut it off", which I AGREE that it doesn’t make sense. I said if she doesn’t have LONG hair NOT if she has NO hair. If the woman is not covered in long hair because it is short THEN she should cut it all off and be BALD. So far you have not addressed the issue about why would Paul say that a woman without a hat or veil is like a woman with a shaved head? This would be a ludicrous conclusion as it wouldn’t be true. Can you answer this question or can’t you? I disagree that it speaks of two different things as the words veil or cloth or any synthetic covering is NEVER mentioned YET (as I mentioned before) hair is referred to about 7 TIMES. There is no way to escape this fact. Zero words for a hat or veil and 7 regarding hair. Paul blatantly states in verse 15 that long hair IS the covering, Therefore the covering is long hair making to be uncovered the opposite which is short hair which makes sense since men are to be uncovered or simply not covered in long hair.
@@robertmiller812 You say "if this was not translated correctly then what else was not translated correctly" - exactly! I was trying to get clarity on what you think the translation should say. Which is why I asked how you would translate it in the first place. I would also (genuinely) like to know what having long hair has to do with praying or prophecying. It's not like you can grow it out for that, cut it after, and then grow it back for the next time. If the hair is all the text is talking about, why doesn't it just say to have long hair at all times? That would require one sentence. It seems a very strange and roundabout way of saying something in the most complicated way possible, if hair is all it's talking about.
You had me until the point where you added, turning away from your sins as part of salvation and the gospel for one to turn away from sins to be saved is a work.
Miracles in the Midst of Suffering: Annie's Testimony of God's Faithfulness | ISRAELMediaMinistrie In this testimony it gives one hope. The Lord never quit doing miracles, large or small, we quit expecting them. We stopped trusting for the Lord to fix it, we do it ourselves. We stopped believing the word is fire today. We need to get back to the basics. If you do you will see your miracle.
