The doctrines of MEN have perverted the Word of God ! They have been deceived through the deceitfulness of SIN, and actually believe that they can go to a PURE place laden with sin !!! The Bible is explicit : The soul that sinneth SHALL die ( BE SEPARATED FROM THE SPIRIT OF GOD ) ! Mans doctrines teach that there is an ever flowing river of blood for man, but the WORD OF GOD declares different ! James 1 : 12 - 15
1st. Peter 1 : 13 - 16
1st. Peter 4 : 17,18
1st. John 1 : 5,6
2nd. John 5 - 11
Hebrews 10 : 26 - 31
Hebrews 6 : 1 - 8
Hebrews 3 : 6 - 14
Yes, it does...
Jesus is coming for a bride without spot of blemish...
WAKE UP PEOPLE !!! GET YOUR MIND RIGHT !!!
2007-12-16 03:10:40
·
answer #1
·
answered by Eagle Feather 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Is this incoherent rambleing diatribe actually a question? or It this some kind of pathetic attrempt to stir up controversy in an area free from it? If a supersticious organization, i.e. a church, builds a hospital and qualifies for government funding for health related services, who cares what the halfwits call it. When in a St. Hospital, if they only treat people of their own cult, well then that is wrong, of if they preach about whatever version of their god to the patients, also wrong. There are plenty of secular and non-secular charities that get government funding, as well as individuals and business that get funding. There are monastaries that get government funding for soup kitchens. Government funding to religious institutions doesn't constitute a breach of the church and state rules. Having a bible class as a manditory class in a public school would, as an elective, in a non-rleigious anthropological method wouldn't either (I think everybody should study the bible in that way, it would destroy every modern religion if people really understood the truth about that book.). As soon as it's prayer time in a public school is where it becomes state sponsored religion. The problem is that most religious people think their version of whatever god they worship is the "one true" god or faith, and have no respect for other gods or faiths. That slippery slope is what the founding fathers had to deal with, that and they understood the history of how state sponsored religion had led to many a persicution in the past, from Rome to Henry VIII. In todays world the slope is even slipperier, as the religious right in the US wants to dictate what and how we are goverened, and taught. My opinion is that believe what you want, but do not interfere in my families rights to believe what we want.
2016-05-24 02:00:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The phrase "to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad" in James 1:1 is a reference to the Jews in general, which is also referenced in verse 2 "my brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;". Since chapters 2 & 3 are also addressed to the brethren, then it seems logical that James 5:19.20 where it speaks of the "brethren" would also be the Jews. Romans 8:16 - "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God." Whether a Jew or a Gentile, we are all brethren when we have accepted the atoning work of Jesus Christ for our sins.
2007-12-15 15:51:17
·
answer #3
·
answered by Virginia B (John 16:33) 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
My Bible translates this to "brothers".
We will all be Saints in Heaven. So fellow believers or brothers of Jesus Christ here on earth will be Saints in Heaven. So in a way, this does pertain to saints.
Ephesians 2:19
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God,
Philippians 4:21
Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren who are with me greet you.
2007-12-15 05:01:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Malaika 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
The followers are the "brethren" and it is our duty to The Lord God, to try to turn a sinners eyes to God and to hep him find the right path to The Lord God
2007-12-15 07:18:36
·
answer #5
·
answered by Linda S 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes, all saints even the Latter-day saints www.lds.org
2007-12-15 05:02:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It's an archaic word referring to a group of brothers. 'Children' is one of the few surviving words with a similar plural for child.
2007-12-15 04:11:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
I had no idea what that word meant, so recently I looked it up, and the definition was "brother".
Peace!
2007-12-15 16:04:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Яɑɩɳɓɵw 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The correct translation is "my fellow believers"
2007-12-15 04:11:46
·
answer #9
·
answered by Stag S 5
·
2⤊
0⤋