₦airaland Forum

shahan:
Abeg, where are the guys who are "guys" on this Forum - we need to bleach this TV01!
_{At least, until he's as white as the rest of us politicised Christians!}

Like stubble, they are blown away  .

mrpataki:
You have said it all man, He is a Sovereign King as you have rightly stated which makes him the Executive Arm of government!

Are the three arms of democratic government not seperate & distinct? Your understanding of government, democracy and sovreignty (& in a sense God), all appear a bit fuzzy  .

TayoD:
I will not necessarily call God a Politician as you have done. While I know that the freest form of government on earth today is derived from Isaiah 33:22, I would rather say that God uses politics to accomplish His will on earth.

Ditto  !

TayoD:
Politics is all about negotiation and we are the once Jesus told to negotiate till He comes. Like my Pastor once said, "when God shows up on the scene, He never comes to take sides, He comes to take over." As the scripture has said "the earth has God given to the sons of men" and it is up to us to use the wisdom He has given us to negotiate our way to establishing His will on earth as it is done in heaven.

Negotiation makes it sound somewhat genteel doesn't it. Actually it's more about compromise.
Negotiate till He comes? The Lord said that? Please show me where!
So, we are to negotiate our way to establishing His will on earth as it is in heaven are we? Again, please expound how.

Psalm 2: 1 Why do the nations rage, And the people plot a vain thing? 2 The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against the Lord and against His Anointed, saying, 3 "Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us." 4 He who sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. 5 Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress them in His deep displeasure: 6 "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion."

If I shake my head much more, I might do myself an injury!! Honestly  ?

Lord, pray open their eyes

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=36661.msg828654#msg828654 date=1169240275]Any corrections for me TV?[/quote]My sister, how now? You know, it's not for me to grade people's posts. I say it as I see it, and I also stand to be corrected.

I wonder how people honestly think that God has or needs a political persuasion. The thinking that God is somehow a "Republican/Conservative", or in anyway politically inclined, or that God endorses/favours any political position, is to me some of the most unsound Christian thinking out there.

Hear this.
Whether it's left or right, republican or democrat, conservative or labour, it's not a real choice, it's two heads of the same snake. Play politics and get bitten, poisoned or both.

You have been warned.

Much love.

God bless

Hold up, wait a minute .
Before you all break your arms patting yourselves on the back and require tongue retreads from hailing each other, can I just say something please?

Thank you for your kind accomodation! Let me say this;

The God of the Bible, is not a democrat, He is a Sovreign!
Please, feel free to kiss-up and brown nose each other all the day long.
But don't reduce God (my God) to being a vote canvasser.

Nonsense and ingre-dent as uncle Titus would say.

Feel free to feel as sheepish as you please !

Hi Guys,

Finally back as promised. I'll keep this short. As I said earlier, I think Shahan', interpretation is the default one for many. I also note TayoD's entry, which to my mind sounds somewhat far-fetched, and I'm far from agreeing with it. I won't give in-depth detail as I feel the explanation speaks the simple truth and will appear as such to those who hear it. Hopefully that will also engender a personal search. But I trust you guys on that anyway. So here goes;

I believe the verse in particular, the chapter generally, (as well as most of the book up to that point), is expounding on the excellency of the NC with particular reference to the saving work of our Lord jesus Christ, and specifically His High Priesthood. What the portion in question is doing is opening up the shadow-type of the day of atonement, outlined in some detail in Leviticus.

Just a little broad background. As many may be aware, on the day of atonement the High Priest would enter the Most Holy place (ceremonially just the one time each year). He would take the blood of a ritually specified sacrifice to make atonement in place of himself). The HP always had a rope tied to his ankle. This was because if the sacrifice was not acceptable to God, the ensuing judgment (by fire!) would kill the HP, and they could retrieve his corpse without having to enter (would you ?) the Holy of Holies.

So what the verse is doing is comparing the yearly atonement sacrifice (verse 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands), where the HP entered with blood of another, to the spiritual fulfilment of this type, where Christ offered up Himself. Verses 25 goes on to explain how the shadow-type was repeated yearly, with blood of another, while verse 26 explains and exalts at the superiority of Christs sacrifice, being just the once, and with His own blood.

And the verse in question: verse 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,

This refers to the appointment of the house of Aaron (as HP) to ceremonially die once (but this was done vicariously via the ritual offering). The judgement being the judgement of God on the sacrifice offered for atonement. An imperfect (blemished!) sacrifice would have resulted in a consuming judgement and the death of the HP. It's acceptance being witnessed by the return of the HP (a type of ressurection in a sense as the blood should have been his?).

I believe that in a simple way unlocks and explains that particular verse. To me it fits the context, harmonises with the surrounding verses, the chapter and the book and offers by far the clearest interpretation I've heard. And no, I never really doubted the rendering, just the interpretation.

But then the Bible, the Gospel is essentially simple. It doesn't require heaps of theorising and lengthy discourse, nor does it need excessive spiritualising. Default positions arise as a result of dogma. If we seek Him and not them, He will surely speak. I heard Him once and I haven't been the same.

I feel we've all been given pieces off the big picture. We can seek Him for yet more, and come together to share. The Christian discourse on Nairaland is hereby declared a Dogma-free, tradition-free, mog-free zone! Give God glory.

Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out![color=#990000][/color]

God bless

@All,

The bible says "restore such a one in love".

I'm sure Sister trini_girl appreciates the cut and thrust of debate, but regardless of our differences, can we desist from ad-hominem remarks. Judge the position all you will, but please lets refrain from summarily condemning anyone.

Stay out of His seat!

God bless

Hi Everyone,

Apologies for my not being able to post as intended, technical hitch. I'll try and post as promised soon.

God bless

mihai:
but who are you to say that you are worthy to judge anyone else? Your Christianity does not buy you a JD (juror's doctorate), neither does your Christianity make you God, nor Jesus, leave the judging to He who is Perfect. I have a feeling that no one is supposed to judge (at the very least not by God's Law, although of necessity, there is the law laid down by man, and, sometimes, enforced by man).

Irony apart, I think you miss my point. So for example, is premarital sex wrong? One makes a judgement on that. That is to judge a situation not to condenm people. Likewise for teaching that does not align to scripture.

God bless

mihai:
Anyway, TV01, so what if a pastor is gay (we're all free to do as we please), as long as he's teaching the Bible and stays away from Romans 1 ^24-32. And the Bible does tell us, in Mat. 7: 1 to not judge others, else we ourselves will be judged.

Actually, I think it says with what measure we judge, is the same we will be judged by. And not that old "do not judge argument". We are not to judge as in "condenm", but are to "judge rightly", to discern. If Christians can't judge, no one can.

Or did I just miss the Irony?

God bless.

babyosisi:
Again we seem to be hammering on just adultery,there are many Christians that have divorced for other reasons like extreme physical and mental abuse,as a woman,I advise any woman in that situation to get out before she is killed or she goes mental.
What do you people say?Should the woman(or man) remain unmarried?

Not really, adultery and forgiveness appear to be the the two crux issues.

I don't deny spousal abuse is real, but the truth is, it is not essential to an understanding of the scriptures, is it? For a start, like you mentioned it's "extreme", and again like you mentioned, the foundation should be right. If it is, abuse should be very rare. And where it does occur, the "shared values" (and proper Christian intervention) should convict and help the errant partner revert to that foundation (which is Christ).

Again, on a basis of marriage being a lifelong bond, the suffering party may have to seperate, but it is always with a view towards healing and reconciliation (on that same basis). I think the error is to see seperation/divorce as a pre-cursor to re-marriage. No, no, no. 

I think most points have been covered and well articulated. I'd be interested to see if anyone can bring additional insight or nuance to the discussion.

God bless.

@Goodguy, nicely put. I see your point, can't say I disagree with anything and you've helped me see the same position from a slightly different view, adding depth. Thank you & God bless.

neelsel:
Where does this Androgyny takes us? Nowhere.

My pastor is a Woman and a very powerful one if I may add. I do not have a problem with male or female pastors, as long as they preach the Word of the Lord as it was intended,

Any takers for powerful homosexual preachers? Or how about powerful preachers who steal, kill etc etc.

Indeed, they will do wonders in His name.

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg821342#msg821342 date=1168971716]TV,

some new chick you got there buddy! mouth of fire worse than mine.  Good luck!

(you tell him euphoria girl!  )

**see what being sarcastic causes?**[/quote]You are both dumped forthwith  !

Later!

ps pray tell, what do lmao & roflmao mean?

Eurphoria:
errm lol look there you pot are telling me kettle to repent? roflmao
Listen i don't carry myself around this place like a saint, like many do. So don't judge me by any fake standards. Either that or pray for a sense of humor. You were abusing and cussing trinin not long ago and tried to get me involved and i simple made light of things and expressed not to be involved, don't now turn around to lay bible to me, you no saint buddy Apart form that we cool. Just don't be hypocritical to me, because i will tell u plain and simple how i see it.
what you got amnesia? please no need to bring that joke up again thanks

Sister Euphoria, I do have a sense of humour. I just didn't find that remark funny. Neither am I foul mouthed, I don't re-call cussing or abusing trini_girl, just ribbing her . And I wasn't judging you, there is One who sits in that seat.

Apologies if you took it other than as it was meant. Please don't take offence.

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg821237#msg821237 date=1168969245]1. Can Homosexuals Be Married?
2. Does Marriage Begin After The Wedding?
3. The Source of Homosexuality: Spiritual, Societal or Physical, Can It Be "Cured"?
4. How Do I Divorce In The Eyes of God, Not Just Legally In The Eyes Of Man.
5. Is Civil Union Marriage?

Any takers? I vote TV. [/quote]1. No
2. Marriage commences upon consumation => the physical fulfilment of the "one flesh" union
3. All, man is a fallen creature, spiritually & physically degenerate. Yes, holistic Xtian deliverance!
4. Kill him (and then repent, leaving you free to re-marry!)
5. No, it's civil union .

There, that was easy wasn't it. Why waste thread space?

Later peeps

God bless

Hi Euphoria,

You may be funny, pretty too, but the remark below does not suggest God-fearing .
Repent or you're dumped !


Eurphoria (f)
London
Posts: 2148

Re: Pre-Marital Sex Is Not Fornication
« #275 on: Today at 01:42:38 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watever when you two are done , please wipe the sheets thanks night love birds

Grouppoint:
If you are stating this within biblical context, then you need to show us where the bible states that Marriage must be performed before courts and Parents.

If however, you are referring to marriage in a civil society, then you have to accept that pre-marital sex, Homosexuality are not unlawful.

I believe that if two people are living together and committed, then they are joined together. If they be Christians, then they should invite God into their union. That is marriage. You don’t need Parents or Court.

All you need is God as the 3rd person in your union to be considered a wife or husband.

While we make proviso for parents, church and society, stripped bare, I think this is pretty spot on. Isaac effectively married Rebeccah when the relationship was consumated. Even now a civil marriage can be annulled on the basis of non-consumation.

Amongst other things, people who take the stance that pre-marital sex is not immoral need to understand that in a very real spiritual sense,  you cannot have pre-marital sex, as the very act signifies marriage and the ongoing consumation of that holy estate. It's why Paul said having sex with a harlot joins you with her".

And two more things.
Firstly, still on a spiritual note. Pray tell are you married to Christ? Part of the Bride of the Lamb? Or are you just in a male-female, adult, consensual, monogamous relationship with Him? Please think about that!

And on a more physical note, this position is a "cheats charter". Any predatory person (male or female), could simply seduce anyone into a " male-female, adult, consensual, monogamous relationship (a sorry excuse for a covenant, nowhere attested to in scripture or civilisation, but a glaring and damning indicator of the moral decline and wooly thinking in todays society _{preach it!)}, and then after a short interval call the whole thing off.

I ask anyone who holds to such a position as scripturally mandated to prayerfuly consider the possibilities and the dangers.

God bless

Weighty arguments guys. I 'm ust say a lot of effort is going on here I'm sure a lot of people are being educated and edified.

I hesitate to assume in all cases that words translated minister always signify office. I believe the import of that word is usually to signify service, not function or title. When Paul was acting in his capacity as an Apostle, he was always quick to say so.

Whilst I don't think it's far off to call Timothy & Titus bishops, I believe the capacity they were acting in was more akin to the apostolic. Remember, they were effectively establishing the church. When the men (I stress men here), whom they were instructed to equip were in place and a certain degree of all round maturity existed in the body, then the church could function according to the blueprint. Which I simply see as this, Male elders (who may or may not teach, as gifting, maturity or experience allowed) shepherding the flock. But so's not to overly digress, there's an ongoing thread "Church Structure & Sole Authority Pastors" discussing that.

As for the NIV+ version, lets just say it's way down on my list as well.

I really appreciate the excellent work so far.

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg820134#msg820134 date=1168906947]You're funny. I can't believe you're trying to insult me (you'll deny it I'm sure).[/quote]Sure will, 'cos I ain't. I will admit to having a good laugh at you expense though. Nothing personal, I quite like you and I'm sure you'll eventually see the error of your thinking (Notice I didn't say ways girl ).

Truth be told, your position became untenable about 8 pages back, I'm just enjoying the reparte.

Sorry for the impromptu dumping, but you know blokes nowadays, so fickle. Hey I see no ring on this here hand! Anyway, good thing you can test 'em first using the PMSPCCM model .

Now, where's Sister Euphoria?

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg820109#msg820109 date=1168906082]Did Paul join a "monastary"? Did he not simply say that he wishes that all men were like him, but if they can't take a wife so they won't fornicate?[/quote]Sister trini-girl, your arguments are consistently proving contradictory, not very well thought out and worst of all scripturally flawed. Why would Paul counsel wives in order to prevent fornication, or at least fail to mention (your supposed alternative), consenting male-female, adult monogamous relationships?

Errrrrr, by the way, you're dumped. I've fallen for sister Euphoria ! It doesn't just rain, it pours hey!
But look on the good side, you can just go find yourself another consenting, male-female, adult, monogamous relationship. No sin, no repentance!

I haven't had this much fun on Nairaland for ages (sure beats bullying TayoD ).

Lord have mercy

Eurphoria:
why you cracking up?

Sister Euphoria, if you are as pretty as you are funny, show me the queue, I'm joining it!

Eurphoria:
trini can i ask if all you are saying are based on some religious belief?

I beg O, help me ask am!

That right there is beyond sarcasm. I'm cracking up! And I thought I was funny ! lol

Hi Sis' TG,

Hope this finds you well.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg820030#msg820030 date=1168903763]hmmm  I'm not surprised ,  everyone else has digressed and speculated about my lifestyle so why not you  [/quote]Nothing to do with your life style my sister, just questioning your study/information gathering methods  . But enough coarse jesting. Such (along with lewd speaking, and foul language) is unbecoming of saints. I both repent and apologise.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg820030#msg820030 date=1168903763]How about you show new covenant evidence to back up that opinion first.[/quote]How can I evidence something that I claim is not there? Surely the onus is on you to show me it is?

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg820030#msg820030 date=1168903763]Please clarify.  If you think that, you have not been reading my posts.[/quote]Yes I have;

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg819945#msg819945 date=1168901169]There is no evidence that pre-marital sex with one partner, by consenting adults, in a committed monogamous relationship, over an extended period of time, is fornication.  It is not illicit, it is not illegal, it is not immoral. IT IS NOT FORNICATION and IT IS NOT A SIN[/quote]You said that! Clearly stating one partner, consent and monogamy as the imperatives. Sounds like a gay-homosexual charter to me. It certainly ain't Bible girl.

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg820030#msg820030 date=1168903763]Who do you think you're bossing around.  Try another one.  [/quote]To beseech,is not to boss my sister, it's to beg. But then it quite clear that words aren't your strong point.

All for Him.

God bless

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg819945#msg819945 date=1168901169]Let me expand my definition a bit at the risk of appearing to contradict myself, since I am also learning more about fornication.[/quote]Hmmm. Some sort of empirical study presumably  !
(I do apologise sister trini-girl, but you walked right into that one! lol!

[quote author=trini_girl link=topic=35449.msg819945#msg819945 date=1168901169]There is no evidence that pre-marital sex with one partner, by consenting adults, in a committed monogamous relationship, over an extended period of time, is fornication.  It is not illicit, it is not illegal, it is not immoral. IT IS NOT FORNICATION and IT IS NOT A SIN[/quote]But on a more serious note, your argument breaks down right here. Not least because the Bible does not attest to or outline any relationship commitment that allows sexual intimacy outside marriage. Unless of course you can show otherwise.

Further if your quote above is Biblically accurate, it equally serves to legitimises gay-homosexual relationships. Think about that. Then again, maybe you have?

By the sure mercies of God sister trini_girl, I beseech you desist. Now!!

With love

God bless

shahan:
@TV01,

Lol. . . I was only offering help, and my persuasions are borne out of having carefully studied that verse in Heb. 9:27. The one thing that came across to me is that you were beginning to sound argumentative without offering an alternative opinion if you were not satisfied with my inputs. Let me assure you: I'm not the writer of the Bible, and to keep questioning the rendition of the verse is simply to question the Word of God. What you read in my lines are my persuasions of the verse in its contexts.

Perhaps you should give it a careful study and offer us your views: you might do well to add to our understanding, rather than long drawn-out debates on just one point.

That said, I think if you take a look again at the verse, it does not drive just one point hinged on the word "once". Verse 27 is illustrative of verse 28: both are connected, and to just hinge this discussion on that one word is counter-productive. However, if your concern is basically about that one word, your will get help by understanding how David himself said in I Kings 2:2 - "I go the way of all the earth: be thou strong therefore, and shew thyself a man."

Might I say that "the way of all the earth" does not conflict with what I sahred earlier, for the patriarch was stating the same truth as that physical death is the common experience of men. Some men may experience death more than once; but Heb. 9:27 is not saying that men can experience death only once! neither does it say that judgement takes place immediately upon death.

Cheers.

Thanks shahan, you are absolutely right, in answering out of your persuasions, and I particularly appreciate your forthrightness and willingness to hear a contrary position (and rightly invite me to enunciate it rather than circling).

First let me digress a little. I took a 2 month posting hiatus from this forum (and I only really post to the thread on religion), although I read pretty much everything posted. One of the things I ruminated on was how much benefit I derived from posting and what was my attitude (and also that of others) when posting.

I really feel we could all be so much more edified if we pooled our experience, walks & understanding. I'll stop here as I have to dash now, but I shall return with an alternative understanding of this verse. I intend to be no later than tomorrow night and possibly earlier.

Back soon.

God bless

lafile:
yes, i believe he/she can.

1 Cor 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. [b]A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.[KJV][/b]
I believe when Paul says a brother or sister is not under bondage when his/her unbelieveing partner leaves it indicates that if a believing partner decides to leave, then the other party IS under bondage in the sense that he/she CANNOT remarry.
I believe this passage was directed specifically to people who got married outside Christ. Why?
In verses 10 and 11 of 1corinthians, Paul gives the command concerning divorce.

7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

7:11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
why then did he give another set of rules from verse 12? and who where "the rest" he was refering to at the beginning of verse 12?

7:12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away

Doesn't the scripture quoted suggest otherwise? In the event of a spouse leaving (even with due cause, i.e. adultery), he/she is to remain single.

If you say there is an exception for those married outside Christ (and for those who repudiate the faith maybe?). That is still just the one exception, which I have had cause to ponder.

In a marriage between a couple outside Christ which ends in divorce. Both parties move on and re-marry. Then one or both of the seperated and remarried couple comes to Christ? Do they term their current relationships adulterous? due to the previous marriage?

It's indeed very tricky. Lets say after coming to Christ the new spouse leaves? Then what? Singledom? re-marriage?

Making hard and fast rules can make one seem legalistic. Trying not to make hard and fast rules can open up all sorts of "reasoning" to justify actions which may be contrary.

What do people think?

God bless

Back again,

shahan:
2. The rendering of Heb. 9:27 is not wrong, as is given in most translations and versions:

I never said it was categorically wrong, I said it was possibly rendered wrong or the interpretation is incorrect. That is, if it's not incorrectly rendered. could this verse be better or differently expounded. You appear to be certain that both the rendering and interpretation are correct, right?

shahan:
"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."

The appointment to die is once and after this the judgement. It could have said finally permanently ultimately or even severally. It does not, it say's once. A one time occurence. And it's emphatic in stating the occurence/event as once.

shahan:
3. The fact that people have been raised from the dead does not conflict with the verse above. It rather points out the following: (a) it is the common lot of (appointed unto) men to experience death at least once; (b) judgement does not take place immediately upon death: rather, "after this" - after the common lot of men has run its course - at the end of it all, then the judgement takes place.

I find this explanation a bit of a stretch. Are you emphatically saying that is the best interpretation of this verse? Or that no other is plausible/possible? King David said, "I go the way of all the earth". Death is fully expounded on in the Scripture, both OT & NT. Why the need to emphasise the "once" in this verse, which bringss into question other verses and accounts of Biblical events?

shahan:
(a) the common lot of men to experience death at least once:
This does not stretch the idea that all men must die at least once; for in I Cor. 15:51-52 we are given the mystery that some will be alive and not have experienced death when the Lord Jesus Christ returns. The construct of Heb. 9:27 is a general sense of what is common to all men; and that at the last, when all things would have run their course, then the judgement takes place.

I am not infering that it says all men must die at least once, it doesn't say that. Scripture plainly teaches that there will be some alive at His coming. What it clearly says is that it is appointed for men to die once. And how can it be common to all men, if not all die?

shahan:
(b) the judgement does not take place immediate upon death:
Notice that it is a specific judgement here referenced - "the judgement". Of course, we know that this occurs only at the end of the age when Jesus returns for expressly that purpose. We understand this from the fact that verse 27 illustrates verse 28; as if to say, "Just as men die once, so Christ died once" - to strengthen the fact that both the judgement of men (at the end of the age) and the sacrifice of Christ for salvation occur once without the hint of repetition.

True, Christ died the once, but some men died more than once, so again, again, this could be stretching it. Neither am I questioning the timing of the judgement, understanding it to be as it is rendered, sometime after death, and said death is appointed to take place once. There is nothing ambiguous about this verse. Or anything that suggests it requires added non-contextual comment.

So again, is everyone satisfied that both rendering and generally accepted interpretation are spot on? is there no suggestion that there may be an alternative or deeper interpretation of this verse in lieu of any change to it's rendering? Anybody?

Let's keep talking.

God bless

shahan:
@TV01,

Notice my phraseology: "One verse in the Bible that guarantees there is no reincarnation is Heb. 9:27" - I didn't say that is the only verse in the Bible that guarantees there is no reincarnation.

Now the text you might have been alluding to:

II Kings 13:21
"And it came to pass, as they were burying a man, that, behold, they spied a band of men; and they cast the man into the sepulchre of Elisha: and when the man was let down, and touched the bones of Elisha, he revived, and stood up on his feet."

First, this does not indicate reincarnation, as you well know; for reincarnation and rising from the dead are not the same thing. The former speaks of an idea that a dead person is re-birthed as a baby and assumes another personality. That is totally antithetical to a rising from the dead, where people never lose their identity.

The case of Hebrews 9:27 is a summing up of stated divine judgement that men will face when the Judge sits expressly for that purpose. It does not suppose that men who rise from the dead as in the afore-mentioned miracles, will not be judged; rather, it affirms that all will stand before God to give an accounting of their lives on earth - at that Day.

The strength os this is that a man being miraculously raised from the dead comes in his own personality and identity - not as in the case of reincarnation into someone else's personality. On that Day, we can be sure that John the Baptist will stand distinguished from Elijah the prophet; as well everyone else. No one will stand before God in that day with multiple identities of reincarnation.

Erudite post shahan, and thank you.

But I thought I clearly stated,  the question was not about re-incarnation. I am settled on that.

The question is the interpretation of Hebrews  Chapter 9 verse 27.
It clearly says "it is given unto men once to die". And almost universally interpreted to mean that the sequence is death then judgment.

But as I mentioned, there are numerous cases of people being revived (not re-incarnated), in the Bible. That says to me either the rendition is wrong or the generally accepted interpretation is incorrect.

Now back to my question;
If the verse simply means "it is given to men to die once and then judgement", as most interprete it, how do you explain Lazarus et al being raised from the dead?

Thanks

God bless

shahan:
One verse in the Bible that guarantees there is no reincarnation is Heb. 9:27 >> "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." There's no coming back this side of existence, just as the rich man had requested but was denied his wish in Luke 16:27-31.

While I fully accept that Christianity does not teach re-incarnation in any form. I am not convinced that this is the verse that teaches that.

The almost universally accepted understanding of this verse leaves questions in my mind. And I guess now is as good a time as any to ask  .

In 2 Kings (ch 13 I think, sorry posting ad-hoc), a dead man fell into Elisha's tomb and was revived. Paul, Peter and the Lord Himself all raised people from the dead. Remember lazarus?

So pray tell somebody, if it is "apponted unto men once to die then judgement", do we have (at least) four people who died more than once? were/will be judged twice? Or are still walking the earth?

I believe the scriptures are perfect, innerrant, infallible and immutable. So could someone please help breach this gap in my understanding or provide an alternative explanation  .

Thanks & God bless

Analytical:
I'm not advocating feminism, neither am I saying women should not be submissive to their own husbands and defer to them in authority. The scripture is clear. But that is as far as authority goes. All women cannot submit to all men. I can't find any scripture that supports that. Rather, everyone, male and female, should submit to higher authority (Heb 13:17).

The logical extension of such thinking, is that a woman can be a submissive wife at home, but then take authority over her husband in church. Sorry, thats warped.

To avoid just that we now have the hypocritical wife as "co-pastor " arrangement. Whereby to avoid a woman taking authority over her own husband she is made a pastor. Over other men, but not over her own husband. Again, plain convoluted.

No, women do not submit to all men, only to their own husbands. In a church setting they submit to the male eldership like everyone else (including their husbands). The exception to this being if her husband (whatever his position in church) instructs otherwise. Eldership authority does not supercede spousal authority.

And mature adult men do not submit to any women, only the male eldership.

I have said it severally before, home first then church.

God bless

shahan:
3. "can he/she remarry?"
". . .In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved" (vs. 15).

Yes, but can she re-marry? Especially in light of Romans 7 & 1 Corinthians 7, which stipulate a lifetime bond until death do part.