Search results

Agreed on KJV as for english. Translations, however, are translations. So let's always go back to the original languages and texts.

Anybody know anything about this? I would be talking about Malay "informal" house churches in muslim dominated areas. Not the chinese/indian dominated "official" churches. As for the Karaites, which do have a presence in MY, there seem to be a growing interest from muslims to join these study...

Ping-pong games.

Red flags - Mayday There's gotta be a better way. Red thanks - massgraves red liars always get their say..

Some do, some don't. That's fair. However those that do usually (if not always) use the rhetoric of those who are propagating "ordaining women to clergy" and take it that step further as they go about. And that was my very point.

And they won't stop at that, now it's "rainbow" and "queer" theology that folliows. A few old men warned for this "development" in the early 60s, too few listened to them or took it seriously enough.

I am talking about people who converted (to judaism) after the cross. No they are not jewish and rabbinic judaism is of course not part of the Body of Christ. Bottom line is: yes, God made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not rabbinic judaism.

For me it means what it says. And so it did for throughout church history until some people in some mainline protestant denominations on the drift in the 1960s decided to break with this godly tradition.

So I mean those that have converted to judaism long ago (but after the cross) and they are part of judaism today although they are not descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Agreed here on most, however I explicitly asked regarding converts to rabbinic judaism, who are not descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I see no covenant here with rabbinic judaism.

Who among you got born into this world as a result of your own "free will choice"?

Well, I get that. To clarify: What I meant was that if somebody yet married someone who is already married (spouse still living), then what would the way be out of that?

Yet the way out of such a marriage (to someone who already has a spouse living) would have to be...divorce?

If someone really wants to be born again, chances are that that may already have occurred. Since the new birth is not a work of man, nor does it stem from man's will. Only a child of God would want to receive Jesus.

I interpret that as positive for such marriages mentioned, even though they may "paper-wise" be incorrect, that they still do constitute marriage. Thank you for your replies.

I guess that usually such "guys", once they abandoned their wife, would continue to prey upon victims and sleep around, so then it'd be ground for divorce.

Thanks for the reply. What would you say about marriages that are not authentically approved (meaning invalid, forged or non-authoritative licenses, or marriages that were never legally registered or notarized). These marriages are still binding? Not common in the west today but in some third...

Would abandonment be a reason too?

John Piper's position on Divorce and Remarriage: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/divorce-and-remarriage-a-position-paper

Yes. Basically and principally same gospel all of it. Just as "the gospels" of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all are the same gospel. Do not let anyone deceive you with teaching otherwise. Just stay with these plain scriptures.