Results 1061 - 1080 of 1443
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1061 | How does John 3:13 fit with Genesis 5:24 | John 3:13 | Emmaus | 64864 | ||
Orangejay, It is possible that in some respects they can be considered Old Testament "types" or foreshadowings of Christ. But Old Testament types are always imperfect foreshadowings of their New Testament fulfillments. Emmaus |
||||||
1062 | Does "'almah" mean "virgin"? | Is 7:14 | Emmaus | 64862 | ||
Sorry dj, It was not until I looked at the thread context that I realized you were not raising a question but rather updating your resource for the answer. Emmaus |
||||||
1063 | Does "'almah" mean "virgin"? | Is 7:14 | Emmaus | 64861 | ||
djconklin, It is apparent that the writer's of the New Testament felt that alma in this case meant virgin. It would also be worth checking how the Septuagint translated the word into Greek, since they also were Jews and the choice of a Greek would imly their understanding of the Hebrew word. I believ the Greek uses a word explicit for virgin, whereas almah means a maiden of marriagable age, which may imply virginity but is not explicit like the Hebrew word betula. Also important is the name Emmanuel for the child referred to. There has been much ink spilled over this passage since the acendency of the modernist historico critical method of exegesis, but I do not think there was a lot of dispute before that, although I may be wrong. Emmaus |
||||||
1064 | Seven Steps of Spiritual Love? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 64733 | ||
Hank, Is there a Walmart in heaven? On secondthosught, never mind. I don't want to start that thread. Emmaus |
||||||
1065 | Where in the Bible? | Rev 12:9 | Emmaus | 64341 | ||
Salt, I think you have to look at the style Rev 12 and for that matter all of Revelation for what it is: apocalyptic. That means it is highly symbolic and many passages can have polyvalent or more than one level interpretation. So, for example, Rev 12 may be interpreted as Satan being cast out of heaven before the creation of man, being cast down by the power of the death and Resurrection of Christ and or being cast down finally at the end of this age when Christ returns. You could see that there was a battle in heaven before the creation of man, an ongoing battle until Satan was defeated by Christ's death and Resurection, which severely impinges on his power here on earth, though he still rages on against Christ's followers, until the final battle and humilition at the end Second Coming. Job is written in a different style. It is a dramatic poem. Satan means accuser. So Satan is described as one of the angels, a very cynical one about man and Job in particular. The whole setting of God's court is anthropmorpized and represented like an oriental king's court. Satan is presented as one of his agents (angels) who keeps tabs on things throughout the kingdom. The Hebrew concept of the devil was not very developed at the time Job was written. And God in Job feels no need to explain what happened or why to Job. He just makes it clear that He is in control and He does not have to explain Himself. Notice that satan, which should be taken as a description of what he does rather than as a name in this situation, disappears from the picture completely after Job 2 when Job is smitten with bodily afflictions. All of this takes place after the Fall in Eden, so obviously Lucifer had already been cast down to the earth. But it is interesting to not that in Genesis the tempter is described as a serpent, but not specifically as a fallen angel. Hewbrew theology about evil and how it comes about grew over time. But back to Rev 12:10. It says that Satan, the accuser, was cast down. But we know he still accuses us and tempts us to sin. Since God is omnipresent, Satan can continue to accuse us before God, just as we can call on God for assistance in prayer.And in the risen and ascended Christ we have an Advocate (1 John 2:1-2)more powerful than Satan the accuser can ever or will ever be. I would not want to say what is "generally held," but this would be brief version of how I see it. I hope it helps clarify things a little for you rather than making them more confusing. Emmaus |
||||||
1066 | What do Catholics teach about salvation? | Matt 22:37 | Emmaus | 64213 | ||
FTimA, Regarding the assurance of salvation, the Catholic Church holds that one can have a moral assurance, but not an absolute infallible asurance unless by a special revelation from God. The Catechism adresses the question as follows: "2005 Since it belongs to the supernatural order, grace escapes our experience and cannot be known except by faith. We cannot therefore rely on our feelings or our works to conclude that we are justified and saved.[56] However, according to the Lord's words "Thus you will know them by their fruits"[57] - reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that grace is at work in us and spurs us on to an ever greater faith and an attitude of trustful poverty. A pleasing illustration of this attitude is found in the reply of St. Joan of Arc to a question posed as a trap by her ecclesiastical judges: "Asked if she knew that she was in God's grace, she replied: 'If I am not, may it please God to put me in it; if I am, may it please God to keep me there.'"[58] 57 Mt 7:20. 58 Acts of the trial of St. Joan of Arc." Emmaus |
||||||
1067 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | Emmaus | 64172 | ||
FTimA, I think you misunderstood my point in my old post of 1-11-02. The ending of my post was a question. I am not an adherent of "once saved, always saved," although it may be that there are those who once saved do remain always saved. If you look at my profile you will see that I am Catholic, which rules out my holding to the "once saved, always saved" doctrine, a rather recent teaching among many non Catholic Christians that goes back only 500 years. At least that is how Catholics see it. Emmaus |
||||||
1068 | Mary is Sinless? | Luke 2:24 | Emmaus | 63878 | ||
teragram, "Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is often misunderstood by non Catholics. It does not refer to the conception of Christ in the womb of Mary but rather the conception of Mary's mother with Mary... thus saying that she was immaculately conceived ... therefore spared from the original sin. There is absolutely no scripture to support this erroneous doctrine but it is taken from the Babylonian Mysteries Religion as well as many other of the Catholic doctrines." The first part of your statment is accurate. The second part is nonsense. Emmaus |
||||||
1069 | Difference between Rhema and Logos. | Acts 10:44 | Emmaus | 63854 | ||
Hank, "This is the third time in a row that a Baptist has agreed with a Catholic. What's going on?" :-) Hank :-) It must be the Holy Spirit. Beyond that I will not speculate but only give thanks. Emmaus |
||||||
1070 | Difference between Rhema and Logos. | Acts 10:44 | Emmaus | 63848 | ||
Ray, I agree that scripture is the word of God but not in the same sense that Jesus is the Word (Logos) of God as in John 1:1. One Word is God and the other is of God, but not God in Person. I believe there must be that distinction. Otherwise we have what some call Bibliolatry. Emmaus |
||||||
1071 | Elders anointing sick with oil. | James 5:15 | Emmaus | 63710 | ||
justme, I have never received this sacrament myself, but was present when my wife did once before a surgery several years ago. Very recently she was prayed over by our pastor, at her request during another medical crisis. She did not receive the sacramental anointing that time. She only asked him to pray over her this time, which he did. In the Catholic Church the preists and bishops are the elders. The biblical word for elders is presbuteri (sp?), which is the root for the English words prebyter and priest. Emmaus |
||||||
1072 | scripture on healing | James 5:14 | Emmaus | 63681 | ||
Pastor Glenn, You and EdB may find this article on the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick from the Catechism of interest. I have never received this sacrament myself, but my wife did once before a surgery several years ago. Very recently she was prayed over by our pastor, at her request during another medical crisis. She did not receive the sacramental anointing that time. She only asked him to pray over her this time, which he did. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/heal2.html#SICK Emmaus |
||||||
1073 | Catholic Jew? | Gal 2:7 | Emmaus | 63626 | ||
Association of Hebrew Catholics http://www.secondexodus.com/html/guests/ahc/centralahc.html Remnantof Israel http://www.remnantofisrael.net/ |
||||||
1074 | Christian Ecology | Gen 1:28 | Emmaus | 63531 | ||
Lionstrong and Hank, This is an interesting subject and I can relate to the feelings expressed by Lionstrong and his wife. This post and Hank's other response about Dakes and the dictionary made me go to my own Mirriam-Websters. I always had a nagging question in the back of my mind why man would be told to "subdue" the earth before the Fall when all creation was in its proper order and balance. "Subdue" in the common meaning seemed to indicate nature was out of control already before the Fall. Interestingly the fourth and last definitions given for "subdue" was "to till or cultivate (land)." No indication of struggle there. Of course after the Fall subdue took on some of the common implications of struggling to "subdue" as well. Francis Schaeffer was an interesting writer. I wouldn't mind a brief review of his book also. Emmaus |
||||||
1075 | Jesus know all things why marvelled? | NT general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 63528 | ||
Lionstrong, "How can one be fully human without being a human person? We have to know what we mean by person in order to deny personhood to Jesus' humanity. I'm not quibbling about the word person or its origin. I'm talking about its meaning. What does it mean to be a person? If man and person are synonymous, how can we say that Jesus was not a human person? The Second Person of the Trinity became fully man in order to represent fully redeemed man. Again, how can he be fully human (in order to represent us) without being a person?" Jesus is fully human, having a fully human nature, but He is a pre-existing Divine Person, with a Divine nature. Could a human person save us? Or can that be done only by a Divine Person with a divine nature who has taken on our nature? If we ask who Jesus is, we have to say in the ultimate sense, He is God the Son. But is we ask what Jesus is, we can say He is a man, but we can also say He is divine. The definitions here are just as important as in a discussion of the Trinity. One What(God), Three Whos(Persons). With Jesus it is One Who (Person: God the Son), two whats(natures: human and divine). He represents us in His human nature. He is able to save us because of His Divine nature and Personhood. He became like us, so we could become like Him. But we will always be human persons elevated to be partakers of His Divine nature and He will always be a Divine Person who lowered Himself to partake of our human nature and in the process save us. But you are probably right, this is a subject for another thread and another time. Peace, Emmaus |
||||||
1076 | Imputed sin | Rom 5:12 | Emmaus | 63462 | ||
Steve, "I like the definition offered by Beensetfree." Me too. I don't think it is different from what I described as the position I take in my first post on this thread. Emmaus |
||||||
1077 | Imputed sin | Rom 5:12 | Emmaus | 63461 | ||
Steve, "Imputed sin is thus distinguished from inherited sin (our sin nature) by which we suffer spiritual death." I am not sure I understand the distinction you are trying to make. Could you please elaborate? Emmaus |
||||||
1078 | Imputed sin | Rom 5:12 | Emmaus | 63459 | ||
Pator Glenn, No argument on the citiations in your last post. Adam and Eve did not "require grace" before the Fall because God created them in a state of grace and they had it from their beginning. After they lost that grace, the state of original justice or justification, that was God's gift in creation, they ten "required" grace to restore their relationship ith God. And I also agree with Joe that the second gift restoring grace and the lost relationship with God is an even greater than the first because by disobedience the opposite of grace was "earned" or deserved. Emmaus |
||||||
1079 | Imputed sin | Rom 5:12 | Emmaus | 63438 | ||
Pastor Glenn, You are not barging in on the thread. I think the discussion of exactly what grace is, is central to the question. What was the initial creation of Adam and Eve by God in His image and likeness and in friendship with Him if not grace? If that is not unmerited favor what is? What did Adam and Eve fall from if not a graced relationship with God? Emmaus |
||||||
1080 | Imputed sin | Rom 5:12 | Emmaus | 63412 | ||
Pator Glenn, Some would say that in the Fall Adam and Eve were dis-graced. Grace being the source of spiritual life and nature as a gift of God when He created them. After the Fall Christ can make us new or re-creations by grace. "And He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit."" Emmaus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ] Next > Last [73] >> |