Results 801 - 820 of 1935
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: BradK Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
801 | Paul had problems? No one acts good? | Matt 11:28 | BradK | 164736 | ||
Hi Doc, Just a quick observation as I had similar thoughts. I think a very telling and important fact is in the grammar. In verses 7-13, the verb tenses are all past tense. In verses 14-25 the verbs are all present tense! So, in light of that, why would Paul distinguish tenses if he were not refering to himself as well as the clear fact that text uses "I"! Does I in grammar refer to someone other than the one writing? As usual, I believe the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion to prove it true! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
802 | Paul had problems? No one acts good? | Matt 11:28 | BradK | 165042 | ||
Dear atdcross, How would Paul be using the First Person in Romans 7 as a literary device? In 7:6 it is the First Person singular with the Active mood. This would describe Paul as the one acting! I see no such evidence to support your claim. Verses 7-13 are all in the Past Tense, describing Paul before his coming to Christ, while 14-25 are all in the Present Tense, describing his current state. Your view seems to be at odds with the grammar. As 7:25 is also, First person singular, Present tense, Active voice, how would this not be descriptive of his experience as a believer? The only way I see this is a contradiction is if one were advocating sinless perfection?! Is this your position? Paul is not. There is the ongoing struggle against our 2 natures. That is why Paul implores us to "walk in the Spirit" (Gal. 5:16-17). Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
803 | seriousORjustPlaying? | Matt 12:25 | BradK | 74079 | ||
Dear inajon, I'm still not abundantly clear on what you're trying to say. How does Daniel 2:43 in context relate to your response or this discussion? Your syntax is very difficult to understand:-) Speaking The Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
804 | Heb 6:4-6 | Matt 12:31 | BradK | 151629 | ||
Hi Candy, This is one of the most frequently discussed and debated topics on the SBF. While some will agree with your view, many will not:-) I don't think it's quite as simple as you make it. Even so, with that said please avail yourself of the discussions of this matter from both sides by typing in the Heb. 6:4-6 in to the "Quick Search" box. This should help- hopefully:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
805 | Heb 6:4-6 | Matt 12:31 | BradK | 151638 | ||
Hi Candy Lee, You're covering a lot of ground and bringing multiple issues into play with your post. I think there's more to "The difference between the forgiven and the unforgiven is the forgiven sinner asked to be forgiven. There is an action going on here. ASKED TO BE FORGIVEN." Correct- IF we're talking about faith! (Rom. 4:3) Faith is our "requirement", Forgiveness is: in pardoning sin, God absolves the sinner from the condemnation of the law, and that on account of the work of Christ, i.e., he removes the guilt of sin, or the sinner’s actual liability to eternal wrath on account of it. Colossians 2:13 and 3:13 answer the forgiveness part as does Eph. 4:32. The believer needs 2 things: Forgiveness as well as imputed righteousness! Consider: Rom 5:1 "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ." Eph. 1:3-4 "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him..." Eph. 1:7 "In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace..." 2 Cor. 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." These are but a few of the "spiritual blessings" that we HAVE been blessed with! Our position with Christ is much more than just "asking for forgiveness". If it weren't, we'd end up on a treadmill, constantly asking God to do something His Word says He's already done! As a note, the NT does not use the term "backslider". We are implored to "walk by faith, not sight" in 2 Cor. 5:7. I would call it walking by sight. Hebrews 11 deals with this in depth! Without FAITH it is impossible to please God (11:6) I'm not sure what you mean or where you're going with, "So those who believe that God punishes the wicked in hell forever then also believe that the wicked will have eternal life,for how can a person be tortured unless he has life?" Could you elaborate? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
806 | Did Jonah die in the belly of the fish? | Matt 12:40 | BradK | 192330 | ||
Hi John, I think you're making more of an issue on this matter than needs be? I did not read Jesusmans' report of this incident as a substitution for the gospel or that it was relayed as "a fantastic tale"! Show a little grace, my friend:-) (As an FYI-Here in the Puget Sound region of the NW, Great White Sharks are a very rare sighting. Yet, I recall 2-3 years ago I personally read a report by someone from the Tacoma Pt. Defiance Zoo that one had indeed been sighted in those waters. While this has no direct bearing upon this thread, the "fantastic: and bizarre do occur.) My take on his comments was only that the example served to add credibility to the story of Jonah! Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
807 | Is Hell fire literal that burns forever? | Matt 13:40 | BradK | 122137 | ||
Rowdy, The only direct Biblical reference to be "fallen from grace" is Gal. 5:4 : "You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace." Properly translated, it means "You have become void from Christ", our connection to Him has become void by our endeavoring to be justified by the law. Further, The Commentary Critical says, "fallen from grace—Ye no longer “stand” in grace (Ro 5:2). Grace and legal righteousness cannot co-exist (Ro 4:4, 5:11:6). Christ, by circumcision (Lu 2:21), undertook to obey all the law, and fulfil all righteousness for us: any, therefore, that now seeks to fulfil the law for himself in any degree for justifying righteousness, severs himself from the grace which flows from Christ’s fulfilment of it, and becomes “a debtor to do the whole law” (Ga 5:3). The decree of the Jerusalem council had said nothing so strong as this; it had merely decided that Gentile Christians were not bound to legal observances. But the Galatians, while not pretending to be so bound, imagined there was an efficacy in them to merit a higher degree of perfection (Ga 3:3). This accounts for Paul not referring to the decree at all. He took much higher ground. See Paley’s Horae Paulinae. The natural mind loves outward fetters, and is apt to forge them for itself, to stand in lieu of holiness of heart." Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
808 | God created Jesus? | Matt 14:30 | BradK | 136850 | ||
CiY127, Part of the Forums' Posting guidelines are as follows: "Postings must be Biblically based and not opposing to the authority of the Bible, Christianity, or the deity of Jesus Christ. Whenever possible, postings should include supporting Bible references" To take the position you do, is either an Arian stance or as was suggested, that you are a JW. Neither view of the diety of Christ is supported by historical, orthodox Christianity. BradK |
||||||
809 | Knocked out by holy spirit | Matt 16:6 | BradK | 90394 | ||
The Curt Man, Whiteeagle1a made some good observations. I think the term you're referring to is "slain in the Spirit" which is (correctly) NOT found in scripture. The Apostle Paul warned us against these types of happenings in 2 Tim. 4:3-4. We must distinguish between mere "theatrics" and good Biblically based theology. Obviously and sadly, many can't. Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
810 | Knocked out by holy spirit | Matt 16:6 | BradK | 90403 | ||
Dear Pastor Floyd, The tone of your response is harsh to say the least, brother! My main contention with the phenomena of being "slain in the spirit" is that it is nowhere found in scripture! Can you show me otherwise? Personal experience is a poor basis for establishing Biblical doctrine! This "touch not mine anointed..." has been so overused and misused as to be almost meaningless.It reeks of spiritual superiority! Brother, we are ALL "anointed" according to 2 Cor. 1:21. I ask you "Have you ever poured anointing oil over a dead person and proclaim life into them by the Name of Jesus, and seen them rise from the dead?" I would find that extrememly difficult to believe- on the basis of only 8 Biblical examples of anyone dead being raised. Where is the normative scriptural warrant for this? As far as what I would like to see is sound biblical doctrine proclaimed. As Paul wrote in 2 Tim. 2:2 "preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction." Brother, I have no qualms with your right to disagree. What I do take issue with is the manner in which you do so. To call fellow brothers 'deluded fools' and tell us that we "ought to be ashamed" of ourselves is simply not called for. "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." Rom. 1:16 Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
811 | Knocked out by holy spirit | Matt 16:6 | BradK | 90423 | ||
Pastor Floyd, I'm glad you can admit that there is no scriptural reference for "being slain in the spirit." However, my concern is this: Does personal experience trump scripture? What I hear you saying is that even though there is NO Biblical basis for this term or practice-and you were skeptical- God showed it to you one night! So, what do I now believe, your personal experience or scripture? You are indeed in a very tenuous position my friend. You see Pastor Floyd, I believe in Gods' Word as being not only inspired, but inerrant,and wholly sufficient as well as being our final authority. As I stand on the Bible as Gods' final authority, no doctrine and no binding of conscience can be asserted through revelation that comes from another source than the Bible. It seems that we depart in our understanding of the General Rules for understanding and interpreting scripture. The salvation of men would, in my estimation be of higher concern than the mere healing of our mortal flesh. We need to be more concerned with the eternal, than that which is perishing(1 Cor. 1:18). For if we remember these words, herein our hope lies: "in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed." 1 Cor. 15:52 Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
812 | Is "slain in the Spirit" biblical? | Matt 16:6 | BradK | 90487 | ||
Mathew, At the risk of being criticized, I'll offer this observation: There is much out there in Christendom being presented as truth, that is in fact nonsense if not outright fraud! Much of this this "Toronto Blessing" is so highly subjective and extra-Biblical that I find it hard to take seriously. Check out Hank Hanegraffs "Counterfeit Revival" if you want a well-documented source. The Apostle Paul left us with this admonition: "I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction.For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires,and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." (2 Tim 4:1-5) Who do you suppose he was referring to? Mathew, my honest feelings are that we are too much immersed in a 20th and 21st Century Media-dominated culture that DEMANDS the bizarre and visual to be accepted. Shock-value is entertaining! Sound doctrine has very little part in this medium- it doesn't sell well and is not visually appealing. Again, if you want a good source, read Neil Postmans' "Amusing Ourselves to Death." He hits the nail right on the head. Speaking The Truth In Love, BradK |
||||||
813 | Jesus called himself the son of man why? | Matt 16:13 | BradK | 128060 | ||
DBR, You write "Hence he had not simply materialized a human body as angels had previously done; he was not an incarnation but was actually a ‘son of mankind’ through his human mother". Wrong. Scripture teaches no such thing. Christ, as the second Person of the Trinity had two natures- one Divine, one human. He was and is the eternal Son of God and His nature is fully Divine- Ps. 2:7, Heb.1:5. He was also fully human- 1 Tim. 2:5, 3:16. As to the use of the term "Son of man", Easton's Bible Dictionary comments "In the New Testament it is used forty-three times as a distinctive title of the Saviour. In the Old Testament it is used only in Ps. 80:17 and Dan. 7:13 with this application. It denotes the true humanity of our Lord. He had a true body (Heb. 2:14; Luke 24:39) and a rational soul. He was a perfect man." With the "Father-Son " language we have to link this terminology with the claims of Jesus Himself, namely, that He was sent to earth by the Father (John 14:24; John 5:26). Or the claims of those he taught, namely that he is the eternal God who created everything (John 1). And then there is also the hostile witness of his enemies: they sought to kill him because he made himself equal with God (John 5:17). From a human point of view, that is why he died: the charge was blasphemy. Or, study the parable of the vineyard: the owner sent his son to the vineyard, and they killed him (Matt. 21:33-46). Why? Because he was the son. In other words, there would have been no cross without Jesus’ claim to be equal with God the Father and heir of all things. And everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, acknowledges that Jesus was crucified. So the point of Jesus’ use of the “Father-Son” language was meant to teach that he was equal to the Father in nature but subordinated to the Father for the mission. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
814 | Jesus called himself the son of man why? | Matt 16:13 | BradK | 128080 | ||
Norm, Am I reading you right here when you say "God never was and never will be human. God certainly did not die on the cross:" ? Scripture clearly teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully man. The doctrine of the incarnation is central to the Christian faith because it is central to the eternal plan of God. Without this doctrine, Jesus is just another human being; without this doctrine there is no salvation for us in him; and without this doctrine it is wrong for people to worship him. It is a fundamental teaching of the historic Christian faith that God came into this world in mortal flesh to redeem us. The word “incarnation” means “in flesh.” And John declares this truth very early: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . . The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:1 and 14). This is how the prophecy of Isaiah about “Immanuel,” God with us,” came about (Isa. 7:14). Paul writes, “But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, to redeem them that were under the Law” (Gal. 4:4). There was a birth in Bethlehem, but that birth was anything but natural. It was the birth of Jesus, a Jewish man from Galilee; but it was in that birth that God the Son entered the human race. The one born to the virgin Mary was conceived by the Holy Spirit; he would be fully human, but he would also be divine--this is his twofold nature. Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
815 | Authorized name vs. Unauthorized? | Matt 16:18 | BradK | 52251 | ||
Hi Steve and Forum, Well said and long overdue! Enough is Enough!!! This Forum is better served by uplifting, encouraging, and edifying dialouge. The apostle Paul spoke directly to this type of situation in Titus 3:9-11. (Reject a factious man after a first and second warning). Yours in Christ, BradK |
||||||
816 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | BradK | 139590 | ||
MJH, The Net Bible .org has this to say regarding the language of the NT and Jesus: "Question: Are you familiar with Norman Willis' claim that the NT may have been written in Hebrew instead of Greek? [An email from Norman Willis included in original question.] Answer: The question you have raised is not my area of expertise, but the Norman Willis' theory is on the one hand, speculation, and on the other, a veiled attempt to exalt the Old Testament and the Old (Mosaic) Covenant above the New. The Book of Hebrews was written to dispute folks like this, by constantly showing how Christ and the New Covenant was "better" than the old. To my knowledge, it is almost universally accepted that Jesus and His disciples spoke in Aramaic. The theory that the New Testament was written in Hebrew is without basis, though I believe that I have heard some suggest that some of the sources may have been in Aramaic. The simple fact is that the Jews lost their facility in Hebrew. That is why the Old Testament had to be translated into the Greek language (this translation is known as the Septuagint). You will remember that when Jesus cried out from the cross, "Eli, Eli, LAMA, SABACHTHANI"(Matthew 27:46-47). Jesus was citing the Hebrew text of Psalm 22:1, and no one there seemed to understood it. They thought Jesus was calling for Elijah. How could this fellow’s theory hold up if no one at the cross could understand the Hebrew words Jesus spoke. (Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages, but not the same.)" Mr. Willis starts by saying that he was taught certain things, all of which were justified by the fact that the New Testament was inspired and written in Greek. I have never heard this argument before. He is seeking to refute Christian doctrine on the basis of some falsehood that he heard. In Romans 9-11 we find the inspired version of the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the program of God (especially chapter 11). The same subject is addressed in Ephesians chapter 2. Mr. Willis should give special attention to Paul's view of his "Jewish good works" in Philippians 3:1-16, especially verses 7-10. Mr. Willis' words are so filled with error that one could spend countless hours refuting his every point. I don’t have the time, so let me give you an example, which seems to suggest that Mr. Willis is not really a student of the New Testament. His statements regarding the New Testament seem second-hand: The "gentiles" and "Greeks" that we have always been told that Sha'ul's was sent to minister to were in actual fact Diaspora Israelites of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (the Lost Ten Tribes), and the Hellenized Jews of the Diaspora and the Babylonian Exile, respectively. They are not the same as what we in Christian culture think of as Greeks and gentiles at all. I looked up every reference to "Gentiles" in all four Gospels and Acts. Not one time was "Gentile" used for a Greek speaking Jew. Look at these instances, where Gentiles are contrasted with Jews: Luke 2:32; Acts 4:27; 9:15: 13:48-50; 14:2, 5; 17:17; 21:21; 22:21-22; 26:17, 23; 28:17-29. The arguments he puts forth reveal a gross ignorance of the New Testament, and should not be taken seriously. Willis spends a great deal of time trying to convince his reader that the New Testament was not written in Greek, but in Hebrew. That's false, but so what? His real heresy is his denial of the gospel: As long as we get it in to our heads that Yahshua came not to replace Israel and the Torah, but to show people how better to keep the Torah, then we have a chance of getting it right. He came not to replace what He Himself handed down to Moses in the Wilderness, but to clarify it. Otherwise, when Yahshua, Moses and Elijah (Eliyahu) were all standing there together in the transfiguration on the Mount of Olives, talking amongst one another, why did Yahshua not rebuke them for teaching the wrong thing? In other words, Jesus came to show us how to better keep the law. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus showed that keeping the law of Moses was impossible. In Romans 3 Paul concludes that law-keeping can save no one, for we must keep the whole law, without violating one point (see James 2:10 as well). Paul shows us that the law cannot save anyone; it can only condemn us (Romans 3:9-20). Apart from the Law, the righteousness of God was manifested in Christ. It is His sacrificial death for our sins that saves us, and not our efforts to keep the law. Willis' bottom line is wrong, dead wrong; heresy. It is that simple." I think it depends "who" you're getting your info from and listening to:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
817 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | BradK | 139610 | ||
MJH, The Net Bible .org has this to say regarding the language of the NT and Jesus: "Question: Are you familiar with Norman Willis' claim that the NT may have been written in Hebrew instead of Greek? [An email from Norman Willis included in original question.] Answer: The question you have raised is not my area of expertise, but the Norman Willis' theory is on the one hand, speculation, and on the other, a veiled attempt to exalt the Old Testament and the Old (Mosaic) Covenant above the New. The Book of Hebrews was written to dispute folks like this, by constantly showing how Christ and the New Covenant was "better" than the old. To my knowledge, it is almost universally accepted that Jesus and His disciples spoke in Aramaic. The theory that the New Testament was written in Hebrew is without basis, though I believe that I have heard some suggest that some of the sources may have been in Aramaic. The simple fact is that the Jews lost their facility in Hebrew. That is why the Old Testament had to be translated into the Greek language (this translation is known as the Septuagint). You will remember that when Jesus cried out from the cross, "Eli, Eli, LAMA, SABACHTHANI"(Matthew 27:46-47). Jesus was citing the Hebrew text of Psalm 22:1, and no one there seemed to understood it. They thought Jesus was calling for Elijah. How could this fellow’s theory hold up if no one at the cross could understand the Hebrew words Jesus spoke. (Hebrew and Aramaic are related languages, but not the same.)" Mr. Willis starts by saying that he was taught certain things, all of which were justified by the fact that the New Testament was inspired and written in Greek. I have never heard this argument before. He is seeking to refute Christian doctrine on the basis of some falsehood that he heard. In Romans 9-11 we find the inspired version of the relationship of Jews and Gentiles in the program of God (especially chapter 11). The same subject is addressed in Ephesians chapter 2. Mr. Willis should give special attention to Paul's view of his "Jewish good works" in Philippians 3:1-16, especially verses 7-10. Mr. Willis' words are so filled with error that one could spend countless hours refuting his every point. I don’t have the time, so let me give you an example, which seems to suggest that Mr. Willis is not really a student of the New Testament. His statements regarding the New Testament seem second-hand: The "gentiles" and "Greeks" that we have always been told that Sha'ul's was sent to minister to were in actual fact Diaspora Israelites of the Northern Kingdom of Israel (the Lost Ten Tribes), and the Hellenized Jews of the Diaspora and the Babylonian Exile, respectively. They are not the same as what we in Christian culture think of as Greeks and gentiles at all. I looked up every reference to "Gentiles" in all four Gospels and Acts. Not one time was "Gentile" used for a Greek speaking Jew. Look at these instances, where Gentiles are contrasted with Jews: Luke 2:32; Acts 4:27; 9:15: 13:48-50; 14:2, 5; 17:17; 21:21; 22:21-22; 26:17, 23; 28:17-29. The arguments he puts forth reveal a gross ignorance of the New Testament, and should not be taken seriously. Willis spends a great deal of time trying to convince his reader that the New Testament was not written in Greek, but in Hebrew. That's false, but so what? His real heresy is his denial of the gospel: As long as we get it in to our heads that Yahshua came not to replace Israel and the Torah, but to show people how better to keep the Torah, then we have a chance of getting it right. He came not to replace what He Himself handed down to Moses in the Wilderness, but to clarify it. Otherwise, when Yahshua, Moses and Elijah (Eliyahu) were all standing there together in the transfiguration on the Mount of Olives, talking amongst one another, why did Yahshua not rebuke them for teaching the wrong thing? In other words, Jesus came to show us how to better keep the law. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus showed that keeping the law of Moses was impossible. In Romans 3 Paul concludes that law-keeping can save no one, for we must keep the whole law, without violating one point (see James 2:10 as well). Paul shows us that the law cannot save anyone; it can only condemn us (Romans 3:9-20). Apart from the Law, the righteousness of God was manifested in Christ. It is His sacrificial death for our sins that saves us, and not our efforts to keep the law. Willis' bottom line is wrong, dead wrong; heresy. It is that simple." I think it depends "who" you're getting your info from and listening to:-) Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
818 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | BradK | 183645 | ||
Hello jonp, Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure if they were directed to me, as I have a bit of trouble connecting what you said to the matter of Preterism. Did I miss something? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
819 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | BradK | 183672 | ||
Hello Coper, Some questions arise from your reply to Tim: 1.Why do you think, "It seems that you may have read more into the Acts 1:11 passage than is written? How so?; 2. If we are talking about Acts 1:9, what makes you conclude "cloud coming" is metaphorical? I don't see this:-) Again, to continue, Dr. Mal Couch writes, "While the entire verse of Acts 1:11 describes a literal taking up of the Lord into heaven, how He comes again is the focus that is most important. Notice how the disciples saw ("blepo") visually His bodily ascension, in like manner He will return—visually and literally. Concerning that return the Greek text reads, Likewise, He shall come (Fut.) in the exact manner you saw Him "going" into the heaven. Likewise is houtos in Greek and means "in this way."[i] "In this manner."[ii] Or, "in the way it was done."[iii] And, "just like."[iv] Thus, "in the very same way" He shall come. This idea is fortified with the expression, in the exact manner ("hon tropon"). According to the great Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, Luke the author of Acts, reinforces the idea of "how" Jesus will return by using this expression, and by using hon tropon. He writes, "(houtos … hon tropon) This points to the same idea twice. "So in like manner." Luke points to the fact of his second coming and the manner of it also …" (Word Pictures) Along with houtos, hon tropon rebuts loud and clear the main thesis of the preterist position, and that is, that Christ will return in some figurative or spiritualized form and not bodily, literally, and visibly, as the Scriptures say. In the Exact Manner (hon tropon) Scholars who are not premillennial and/or futurists agree on the meaning of this expression. The little word hon is an accusative, singular, masculine form of the relative pronoun hos generally translated which, that which. Joined to tropon, the expression is going to be: in exactly the same way. In other words, "as Jesus went into the heaven in an absolute physical and visible way, He will in just the same manner, physically and visibly, return!" Hon tropon leaves no possibility for the preterist interpretation of simply a spiritual return of Christ and not a visible coming back to earth." 3. Lastly, why must the meaning of scripture only be confined to what was relevant to the original audience? Where is the support for this? The logical extreme is, then, scripture has no real meaning for any of us! Certainly this is not what you're postulating? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
820 | Moses appeared from where? | Matt 17:3 | BradK | 225364 | ||
Hello drbloor, So, I'm understanding that you take this passage in Matthew as figurative vs literal? I understand the Greek and it's useage, etc. However, a couple questions come to mind: 1. Does the context support this?; 2. Would a plain straight-forward reading arrive at this interpretation? Speaking the Truth in Love, BradK |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ] Next > Last [97] >> |