nope ... not loaded and not irrelevant. The question is pertinent to the discussion. I have even given you the answer to the question. Why can you not just simply answer the question?
Because a question can be simple to ask and still be loaded with assumptions. Repeating it a dozen times doesn’t magically make those assumptions legitimate.
And no, telling me the answer you want to hear doesn’t mean you’ve answered the argument. It means you’ve announced your preferred conclusion and are demanding that I rubber-stamp it. That’s not a discussion; that’s a pop quiz where you wrote the answer key yourself.
Have you ever studied how the tabernacle reflects the Lord Jesus Christ?
Ah, the classic move: imply that your opponent hasn’t studied the Bible because they don’t accept your interpretation of it.
Yes, biblical typology is a legitimate subject. No, recognizing typology doesn’t require accepting every proposed application of it. The question isn’t whether the tabernacle points to Christ. The question is what conclusions can legitimately be drawn from that fact.
You’re confusing agreement with your interpretation for biblical literacy. They aren’t the same thing.
wrong. the term "face to face" is an idiom and it refers to the close personal relationship enjoyed between God and Moses. See Psalm 103:7 for further clarification. And if you still do not understand, I suggest you pray to God ... perhaps God will reveal the meaning to you.
Thank you for the unsolicited spiritual diagnosis. I was wondering when the discussion would progress from interpreting Scripture to questioning someone else’s relationship with God.
You’re right that “face to face” can describe a close personal relationship rather than literal face-to-face visibility. Numbers 12:6–8 itself contrasts ordinary visions and dreams with the distinctive way God spoke to Moses. Psalm 103:7 says God made His ways known to Moses and His acts to Israel. That’s relevant, but it doesn’t settle every question about the precise nature of Moses’ access to God.
So make your exegetical case. Explain what the passages establish and how they support your conclusion. “You don’t understand, so go pray” isn’t an argument. Prayer is not a substitute for explaining your interpretation, and invoking God doesn’t automatically make your reading correct.
Did you read Numbers 11 when I asked (more than a week ago) if you have ever read it?
If the argument is that the Holy Spirit was active before Pentecost, nobody needs to deny that. If the argument is that the Spirit’s activity and the believer’s access to God were identical in every respect before and after Christ’s ascension, then you need to establish that further claim.
You can’t simply point to the same Holy Spirit operating in different covenantal circumstances and conclude that every aspect of the experience was identical. Same Spirit does not automatically mean identical circumstances, ministry, or covenantal arrangement.
I’m beginning to suspect that the problem isn’t that Numbers 11 hasn’t been read. It’s that you expect one passage to settle more than it actually says.
I have already discussed this issue ... again more than a week ago.
The fact that the same Holy Spirit worked in both periods doesn’t mean that nothing changed with Christ’s coming, death, resurrection, and ascension. In fact, your own distinction between what was available before Christ’s ascension and what became available afterward acknowledges that there was a difference.
You can’t acknowledge a change in the availability of something and then act as though discussing the nature of that change is somehow dishonest.
again, I am not speaking of your "worldly, carnal marriage", notwithstanding your insistence to the contrary.
Then perhaps stop using language that makes it sound as though you’re dismissing ordinary human marriage whenever someone challenges your argument.
More importantly, what exactly distinguishes the marriage you’re talking about from the marriage you insist I’m talking about? If both refer to the same earthly institution, calling one spiritual and the other carnal doesn’t establish two different categories of marriage.
Of course, marriage can have spiritual significance. That’s not the point in dispute. The point is whether your interpretation of that significance establishes every claim you’re making about the institution.
You can’t escape criticism of your argument by inventing a distinction whenever the ordinary meaning of your words becomes inconvenient.
You again misunderstand ... not because God cannot reveal to you, but because you are rebellious in your continued rejection of truth concerning the marital relationship being a reflection of the "great mystery concerning Christ and the church" as revealed in Ephesians 5.
Nobody said Ephesians 5 is irrelevant today. That’s another straw man.
The real question is what the passage requires of Christians today and whether it supports the conclusions you’re attaching to it.
A biblical institution can have theological significance without being mandatory for every believer. Paul himself discusses marriage and singleness in 1 Corinthians 7, where he recognizes both as legitimate circumstances and even describes singleness as advantageous in certain respects.
So, yes, Ephesians 5 remains relevant. No, its relevance does not automatically mean that every Christian must marry, that marriage is the only legitimate expression of spiritual maturity, or that an unmarried Christian is somehow resisting God’s design.
You’ve established the relevance of the passage. You haven’t yet established all the conclusions you want to derive from it.
Those are different tasks.
My relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is fully intact, Lovette. I abide in Him and my husband did so as well ... gasp even when we were married we were abiding in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Who claimed that being married makes someone incapable of abiding in Christ?
That’s not the question.
The fact that a married person can abide in Christ proves that marriage and a relationship with Christ are compatible. It doesn’t prove that marriage is necessary for abiding in Christ, that every Christian should marry, or that singleness somehow places someone outside God’s design.
Your personal experience is perfectly consistent with the legitimacy of Christian singleness.
Nobody needs to deny your relationship with Christ to argue that marriage is not a universal Christian obligation.
And the dramatic “gasp” adds precisely nothing to the argument. Married Christians can abide in Christ. Unmarried Christians can abide in Christ. What a shocking development.
You are completely rewriting Scripture to align with your erroneous dogma ... all in your effort to not acknowledge that the unity of husband and wife in marriage is a reflection of a deeper truth ... truth which you refuse to acknowledge and of which you are completely unaware due to your obstinate rebellion.
No, we haven’t entered the resurrection age in its fullness, and yes, people are still dying. Nobody is disputing either point.
But notice what follows from that: the fact that marriage belongs to the present age doesn’t establish that everyone must marry during the present age.
Your questions establish the temporal setting of Jesus’ statement. They don’t establish your claim about the obligations of every Christian.
You’re proving that we live in the age Jesus describes, not that every person must participate in every social institution characteristic of that age.
People still work, but not everyone must pursue the same occupation. People still have children, but not everyone must become a parent. People still marry, but that doesn’t mean everyone must marry.
A description of a general practice is not a universal command. This really shouldn’t be so difficult.
.
. I just try to stay calm and not curse or name call myself . People can get very heated when they r passionate about something and I believe that most on here r passionate about their faith , so sometimes things get a bit hot 
. If it's too hot for u then best try a different thread and don't get tangled up in other people's passion , or , do like I do and put some ice cubes in your shoes 
. As Christians we have to learn to forgive and forget , this is a good place to test your ability to do that 
.