Search results

Michael had respect for Satan, and Michael is greater than me. we aren't just talking about any serpent but "the" Serpent. there is no record of Satan speaking to Adam. he spoke to Woman. Just "adam" in Hebrew means mankind, and it isn't a proper noun - not a name - it isn't capitalized...

yeah really. Satan is a liar. it is not written that the Serpent told Adam anything. if he did, he did not succeed - that is written in 1 Timothy 2: "not deceived" one does not, as the Serpent would have us believe, become like God by committing sin. God said Adam, not Adam and his wife, had...

if Adam believes he won't die from committing sin, he is deceived. Adam was not deceived. therefore Adam knew that eating the fruit was death, and therefore his wife didn't tell him otherwise. she knew what had happened to her, immediately. her eyes were opened. and Adam saw it too: the only...

you believe the Serpent, father of lies? nothing he told Woman was true.

Depends on what she said to him, which, we aren't told.. We are told (1 Timothy 2:14) he wasn't deceived - so I think it's clear that whatever it was she said, yes, he agreed to, but she did not tell him anything untrue. For example if she had said the serpent was correct, God had lied to...

most of the first Christians, including the ones Hebrews was originally written to, were Jews :unsure:

this directly contradicts scripture. Adam was not deceived. it also does not make sense with the account: God did not accuse or condemn her for tempting or murdering Adam - those things are said of Satan. Woman and Adam both confessed their sin, saying that they are - Woman never said she...

Woman had no capacity for imagination? no capability of independent thought?

also pants don't forget wearing pants :D

i think you should read Romans 4 again..

the scripture says Abraham in fact did receive and believe the gospel, and that we are his children if we are members of the faith. Galatians 3:7-9 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the...

we are blessed now to have the scripture and be able to read it; it wasn't always this way.

It doesn't even say they were baptized with water at all. but it does say God baptized them with the Spirit: that Christ baptized them with fire.

there was along period of time during which the church was called 'catholic' meaning general, and it didn't have anything to do with Rome. Rome was only one of several major centers of the church, alongside Smyrna, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople. It was during this first...

i do - and it may not really be a hypothetical, because there was a time in the history of the church that people refused baptist until the end of their life, believing any sin after baptism wasn't forgiven. not everyone has the luxury of knowing when they will die, and i am sure some people...

the question has never been whether we should be obedient or not. the question is whether Christ alone saves or if something must be added to the work He did to make it sufficient.

who do you think baptized the apostles?

baptized by John? but then there is in Acts, a record of people who are called believers, who had received John's baptism and didn't know anything about the Spirit being given through another baptism. there is a record of Christ breathing on each of them saying, receive the Spirit - and...

for me, a young boy at a camp who sat in his bunk thinking and praying all one summer night, it seemed very personal, and it also seemed like i knew just how i should go about things. so i did not say anything to anyone about what had happened in my heart, and waited until camp was over, and the...

baptism therefore proves nothing about salvation, but faith in the true gospel is greater. unbelief certainly condemns. lack of baptism is uncertain - and no one knows a man's heart but God alone