Results 3661 - 3680 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3661 | Is the Christian under Law? | Ex 1:1 | kalos | 12925 | ||
WHOA! STOP! HALT! GET BACK! Bill MC: Did I hear you right? "The Jews INVENTED the other 613 OT laws to give practical application as to how to keep the primary ten"? No way, Jose. Nothing against you personally, sir. Not trying to bite your head off here. :-) But the Jews did not "invent" any part of the inspired Word of God. "All scripture is inspired (God-breathed)." It is a grave error to assert that the Jews invented the other 613 laws. The other 613 were given to Israel by Jehovah through Moses, just as surely as the 10 Commandments were. To say that the Jews invented them for reasons of their own and added them sounds like higher criticism, i.e. liberals tearing apart the Bible to discredit it. Again, nothing personal against you. I merely question your assertion. Thank you for all your good participation in the forum. --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3662 | Clones | Genesis | kalos | 12920 | ||
You "think" that the clone will have a soul and that the genetic material will be the same, but on a spiritual level he/she will be a completely different person? How do you know that? I am not necessarily disagreeing with you. I tend to agree that the cloned person will have a soul. But pn your second point especially, I neither agree nor disagree because I don't have enough factual information to make a decision. Do not take this as a criticism in any way. I really want to know: What scientific information AND what scriptural information do you have to back up your assertions? Especially the one that says the cloned person will be on a completely different spiritual level. This intrigues me. (By the way, I must disagree with whoever it was on the forum that recently remarked that God made us but he didn't make clones. As I pointed out recently, Adam and Eve are the only two humans EVER to be a product of direct creation. "We" are not created. We are born. God does not repeat the act of creation every time another human comes into the world. Scripture nowhere supports such a notion. (You did not say this. But someone else recently said it.)) Grace to you, JVH0212 |
||||||
3663 | Why Papal rule all wrong? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 12828 | ||
EdB: I want to thank you for your patience in clarifying and giving further explanation to your points in the previous post. I do appreciate it, my friend. God bless, John |
||||||
3664 | Heb. 8 and Jer. 31 | Matt 10:5 | kalos | 12799 | ||
You are most welcome. Thank you also for your post in which you presented a scriptural answer. I would only change one thing about my recent post. In it there is one sentence that sums up the whole thing. I should have pulled that quote and put it by itself at the very top of my posting. Here is the quote: "That the Christian now inherits the distinctive Jewish promises is not taught in Scripture." |
||||||
3665 | Why Papal rule all wrong? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 12797 | ||
EdB: You already know of my respect for you. Having said that, I have a problem or two with what you said in your previous post. You write: "Are they not claiming what could be considered divine interpretation of the Scripture? Are not their findings then viewed as infallible within the denomination?" My answers are no and no. That is NOT what they are doing. Catholic and Baptist or Pentecostal church leaders are not the same. It's like comparing holy water with the Holy Spirit. I have never in my life heard a Baptist or Assemblies of God leader who claimed he was infallible. Nor will you find the word infallible applied to any man in the written statements of what each denomination believes. Nor do the churches or individuals in those denominations view the leaders' findings as infallible. In the first place, the demonational leaders of those two churches, when they publish a statement of beliefs, they are not writing or publishing "their findings." They are merely codifying beliefs that the Baptist or AG church already held. Those beliefs came over a period of time and after much studying and growing. No Baptist or AG leader sits in a palace and confers with a church hierarchy to make up doctrine that they claim is infallible. What they do and what they claim is completely different than the practice of the popes of the Roman Catholic Church. If no one in a church takes the responsibility for codifying, writing and publishing what the church specifically teaches, then who would know WHAT the Baptists or AG believed? And it's not enough to say, "Well, we just believe the Bible." As has been illustrated numerous times on the Forum, one must ask the question: What interpretation of the Bible do you hold to on various doctrinal points? We all use the same Bible and all quote the same verses, but we do not all see eye to eye on the meaning of those verses. If the AG modified or cancelled a certain policy, so what? Never did any of the leaders claim for himself infallibility. Would you rather they stuck rigidly to some past century and refused to walk in increased light as God gives it to them? I just think it's ludicrous to compare AG and Baptists leaders to the Pope and to insinuate that these Protestant denominational officers are pretending to be infallible, when in fact they are not. EdB, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that YOU are ludicrous. I'm just making an obeservation on what you said. I must say that, if anything, I am your defender not your attacker. Your colleague, not your critic. Grace to you, John |
||||||
3666 | Does John 1:1 say there are two Gods? | 1 Chr 17:16 | kalos | 12794 | ||
Hello, Ray: Yes, I also count you as my friend. In my last Note to you I may have sounded harsher than I intended to. You actually said nothing about reversing the meaning of a passage. It just seemed to me that someone reading your posting as you worded it might incorrectly infer you were saying that updates and revisions of Bible translations might be doing that. The situation I was talking about was more hypothetical than actual. I am very familiar with your interest in capitalization and I know that you mean no harm to anyone. And I know you are not the sort to distort the Scriptures. You have a high regard for the inspired Word of God and would no more add to or take away from it than anything. Yes, I remember you explaining that the capitalization issue is a personal study of your own that has meaning to you. You are a gentle man and it seems that whenever you make a point or raise a question on capitalization in a given passage, you do so with a gentle spirit. You never hit us over the head with it or insist that we MUST agree with you. You are just not that kind of person. You know the reasons why *I* would not want to second guess the translators and start capitalizing freely. But, as far as friendship, our differences on this issue don't mean a thing. At least your aim is to prove the Deity of Christ and not to disprove it. Also, I must acknowledge that your method of capitalization doesn't reverse or change the meaning of any verse. I understand that your changes are meant to clarify and to increase accuracy. I know your motives are good and you are not setting about to distort the Scriptures. So, in short, there is no problem between us, my friend. Sorry if my previous post gave you that impression. You go right on following the Lord as He leads you. And stay with your eager and diligent study of the Bible. Ray, the forum would not be the same without you. And I mean that in a positive way. God bless you and have a blessed Sunday. Your brother in the Lord, John (JVH0212) |
||||||
3667 | Heb. 8 and Jer. 31 | Matt 10:5 | kalos | 12779 | ||
Bill Mc: You write: "There are some who would say that Israel forfeited being God's people so the Christian now 'inherits' everything Israel was supposed to. I believe that certain promises were given only to Israel and that God is not finished with that nation yet." The Bible and I agree with you: "...certain promises were given only to Israel and God is not finished with that nation yet." Israel cast away? "Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin. "That Israel has not been forever set aside is the theme of this chapter. "(1) The salvation of Paul proves that there is still a remnant (Romans 11:1 ) "(2) The doctrine of the remnant proves it (Romans 11:2-6). "(3) The present national unbelief was foreseen (Romans 11:7-10). "(4) Israel's unbelief is the Gentile opportunity (Romans 11:11-25). "(5) Israel is judicially broken off from the good olive tree, Christ (Romans 11:17-22 ). "(6) They are to be grafted in again (Romans 11:23,24). "(7) The promised Deliverer will come out of Zion and the nation will be saved (Romans 11:25-29). That the Christian now inherits the distinctive Jewish promises is not taught in Scripture. The Christian is of the heavenly seed of Abraham ; (Genesis 15:5,6 ; Galatians 3:29) and partakes of the spiritual blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant." (See Scofield Genesis 15:18) but Israel as a nation always has it own place, and is yet to have its greatest exaltation as the earthly people of God. See "Israel" (Genesis 12:2 ; Romans 11:26 "Kingdom"; Genesis 1:26-28 ; Zechariah 12:8). Bibliography Information Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Jude 1". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/ ) --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3668 | How many guards? in Matthew 27:65 | Matthew | kalos | 12772 | ||
Some posters have raised the issue whether there was one guard or more than one. Consider the following. Matthew 28 New American Standard Bible 11 Now while they (plural) were on their (plural) way, some of the guard (obviously more than one person) came into the city and reported to the chief priests all that had happened. 12 And when they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers (plural), 13 and said, "You are to say, 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we (plural) were asleep.' 14 "And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble." 15 And they (plural) took the money and did as they (plural) had been instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, [and is] to this day. (Parenthetical comments added.) --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3669 | How many guards? in Matthew 27:65 | Matthew | kalos | 12769 | ||
Matthew 27:66 So they went, and made the sepulcher sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch. Note: THEY went. Apparently the very next verse after verse 65 indicates that two or more soldiers made up the guard. Also, in the military, when someone sets a watch or guard, never is only one guard used to keep watch for 24 hours. The person standing guard duty at a particular post is relieved by ANOTHER person at regular intervals, which usually vary from once every four hours to once every three hours. As to the exact number of guards assigned to this post in Matthew 27 note: Since the Bible is silent regarding your question, how are we to know the answer with any certainty? We can speculate from now until Armageddon, but that will not get us anywhere. Speculation will not bring us any closer to the truth. Approximately 90 percent or more of the posters at this Forum need to learn to respect the silence of the Bible. Where the Bible is silent, we need not speculate. |
||||||
3670 | Why does Paul say "not I, but the Lord"? | 1 Cor 7:10 | kalos | 12760 | ||
Nolan and EdB: I want to thank both of you for your kind words. But let it be known that Nolan made a very valuable contribution on this topic. Nolan's entry adds much weight to my argument (my point). | ||||||
3671 | "seal of God" | Ex 1:1 | kalos | 12756 | ||
Seventh-day sabbatarians do indeed believe that keeping the seventh day sabbath is the seal of God. They also believe that keeping Sunday sabbath is the mark of the beast. These are basic tenets of their faith -- their official position on the subject. | ||||||
3672 | Why does Paul say "not I, but the Lord"? | 1 Cor 7:10 | kalos | 12742 | ||
The contrast is not between inspired teaching and uninspired teaching. 1Corinthians 7:1-12. "(7:12) In vv. 1-12 the contrast is not between inspired teaching and uninspired teaching, as some have supposed. In vv. 10-11 Paul is repeating in substance something already taught by the Lord; but in v. 12 he is dealing with a situation not covered by our Lord's teaching. Instead of disclaiming inspiration for what he writes in v. 12, the apostle is actually claiming for his own words here the same authority as for the words of Christ Himself" (note at 1 Cor 7:12, New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967). Please note: in 1 Cor 7:12 "*I...say.* Not a denial of inspiration or an indication that Paul is giving human opinion, but simply a way of saying that Jesus had not spoken on this and God had not previously given revelation on the matter, as Paul was then writing" (p. 1738, MacArthur Study Bible, Word, 1997) Why in the world would Paul write something in the NT that is not in accord with what Jesus said? This is a very strange notion indeed. "All scripture is inspired..." (Nolan and Tim, help me out here please. ) |
||||||
3673 | why order is different in scripture? | 1 Cor 12:27 | kalos | 12415 | ||
Nolan: I, too, disagree with Hanegraaff. After all, the Bible is not sufficient and needs to be supplemented by visions and revelations through modern apostles and prophets. I see nothing wrong with placing the church at the mercy of false prophets. We need not take the warnings of scripture (e.g. 2 Cor 11:13-15) literally. As for Hanegraaff, he must be the biggest idiot in the business. Every time he is quoted on the Forum, someone eagerly comes forth to denounce him as a troublemaker and as one whose theology and research methods are faulty. Now that that's settled, would anyone like to buy a bridge? --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3674 | Discernment for the believer is required | 1 Thess 5:21 | kalos | 12378 | ||
"The ability to think biblically about all areas of life" is called discernment . The statement is often made: "I guess I don't know what's of God and what isn't either and don't feel qualified to make those decisions either." This statement shows much wisdom on the part of the one who makes it. It is wisdom to know and admit that one does not feel qualified to "make those decisions." This kind of honest self-appraisal is to be applauded. Yet "According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer-it is required." One who does not have the required discernment should not be condemned. Rather they should be encouraged and helped to gain discernment. What follows is not intended to hurt anyone, but to help. What is biblical discernment and why is it important? "In its simplest definition, discernment is nothing more than the ability to decide between truth and error, right and wrong. Discernment is the process of making careful distinctions in our thinking about truth. In other words, the ability to think with discernment is synonymous with an ability to think biblically. "First Thessalonians 5:21-22 teaches that it is the responsibility of every Christian to be discerning: "But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil." The apostle John issues a similar warning when he says, "Do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world" (1 John 4:1). According to the New Testament, discernment is not optional for the believer-it is required. "The key to living an uncompromising life lies in one's ability to exercise discernment in every area of his or her life. For example, failure to distinguish between truth and error leaves the Christian subject to all manner of false teaching. False teaching then leads to an unbiblical mindset, which results in unfruitful and disobedient living-a certain recipe for compromise. "Unfortunately, discernment is an area where most Christians stumble. They exhibit little ability to measure the things they are taught against the infallible standard of God's Word, and they unwittingly engage in all kinds of unbiblical decision-making and behavior. In short, they are not armed to take a decidedly biblical stand against the onslaught of unbiblical thinking and attitudes that face them throughout their day. "Discernment intersects the Christian life at every point. And God's Word provides us with the needed discernment about every issue of life. According to Peter, God "has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence" (2 Peter 1:3). You see, it is through the "true knowledge of Him," that we have been given everything we need to live a Christian life in this fallen world. And how else do we have true knowledge of God but through the pages of His Word, the Bible? In fact, Peter goes on to say that such knowledge comes through God's granting "to us His precious and magnificent promises" (2 Peter 1:4). "Discernment-the ability to think biblically about all areas of life-is indispensable to an uncompromising life. It is incumbent upon the Christian to seize upon the discernment that God has provided for in His precious truth! Without it, Christians are at risk of being "tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14)." (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/discern.htm) --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3675 | Does John 1:1 say there are two Gods? | 1 Chr 17:16 | kalos | 12354 | ||
Ray: I have known you long enough here on the Forum to know that you are okay. You have a (normally) harmless obssession with capitalization -- an obssession that the writers of scripture themselves never had. But I've come to accept that this is just part of who you are. But, if you're going to start casting doubt upon the reliability of the NASB or other translations, then you need to be very careful, lest you go too far. If a Bible translation has gone through revision(s) or update(s), is that to say that the meaning of certain verses has been reversed? To believe this is to believe a gross absurdity. Even the time-honored King James Version has gone through five major revisions. So what? None of those revisions dispute or refute the Deity of Christ, the doctrine of the Trinity, God's plan of salvation or anything else of significance. To make a blanket accusation that the translators have reversed the meaning of an earlier edition is to make a silly and unfounded assertion. I know you didn't use the word "reverse" in your question (about how many copyrights does your translation have). But, the implication is there. Nothing against you, Ray. In fact, according to the Word, I must esteem you better than myself (Php 2:3). And in lowliness of mind I do so esteem you. I do not say that you have done what I now speak of. I honestly do not mean you when I say: I am just sick and tired of everyone casting doubt on the reliability of the words of Jesus, the teachings and writings of the Apostles, the Genesis account of creation, the Word of God in general, those who devote their lives to the study of God's Word, God's intent in His past choices and acts, etc. This is not what StudyBibleForum is about. It is about honoring and obeying the written Word of God, not tearing it apart with unending questions and careless speculations. Let's all make an honest attempt to rightly divide the Word of God. Not to subject it to microscopic analysis and criticism, but to rightly divide (accurately handle) the Word of God. --JVH0212 |
||||||
3676 | Question on spiritual covering? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12311 | ||
Satan is NOT attacking his own house, the Watchtower Organization. A house divided against itself shall not stand. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but anyone who really believes the Watchtower organization and Dr. Mantey are equally deceptive and misleading needs psychiatric help. Not just an hour a week of therapy. Such a person needs to be in a clinic in Vienna with a whole team of psychiatrists studying his case. But by all means, do as others on the Forum have done. If you have no counter-argument, then ignore the issues and attack the credibility and character of the author quoted by your opponent. It's a nice try and a cheap trick, but it won't work with everyone. |
||||||
3677 | Question on spiritual covering? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12308 | ||
Mt 11:14 "And if you are willing to accept [it,] John himself is Elijah who was to come." Mt 17:12 "but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Mark 9:13 "But I say to you that Elijah has indeed come, and they did to him whatever they wished, just as it is written of him." Although John the Baptist himself denied that he was Elijah (John 1:21), he came in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17). In Mark 9:13, Jesus directly addressed the disciples' question: the prophecies of Elijah's coming had been fulfilled in John the Baptist. Even if another comes in the spirit and power of Elijah before the second coming of Christ, please note: He will not be spouting Watchtower rubbish or quoting from the New World Translation. --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3678 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12301 | ||
There: You write: "I have read the Articles of Faith of the Pentecostal Church." I have just one little question. It is not a disagreement of anything you've said here, There. I'm just asking for clarification. When you say "the Pentecostal Church" it is not clear to me what church you are referring to. I belong to "a" Pentecostal church, one of many Pentecostal denominations. There are the Assemblies of God, Church of God, United Pentecostal Church, and many more. But I honestly don't know who you mean when you say "the Pentecostal Church." Please clarify. Thank you. --JVH0212 |
||||||
3679 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12292 | ||
Debbie: Because of my appreciation of and respect for you, I feel I owe you the courtesy of a full reply to your previous posting. It surely is your place to respond to me or anyone else on this Forum. Everyone is equal here and I welcome your reply. First I need to clarify something. Do I believe that God's presence sometimes overwhelms people and sort of saps their physical strength? I must believe that. First, because there is scriptural precedent for it. Second, because I have experienced it myself. And in two major experiences I remember, I had not psyched myself up for any kind of experience. In these two experiences, there was no preacher who advertised that God would slay everyone in the Spirit on the schedule that the preacher had set for the Holy Spirit. In fact, both times occurred BEFORE "slain in the spirit" was ever heard of and before it became popular. And my point is: yes, God can and will do what He wants to. He can and does overwhelm individuals with His presence. But where outward manifestations such as slain in the Spirit are concerned, God never has to do the same thing in the same way twice. "Slain in the Spirit" is not something God does on some man's schedule. It is not anything He does in assembly line or cookie cutter fashion. What I don't believe is that a man can line up everybody in the building night after night on the assumption that "OK, folks, now God is going to do the exact same thing to everybody here at the laying on of my hands." That is what I find no Biblical precedent for. "Slain in the Spirit" is not one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I hope I make myself clear. God can do it, but He doesn't do it on an assembly line basis by the laying on of hands. The two times I was overwhelmed by God's presence (for lack of a better phrase) it had nothing to do with any man. God and God alone did it without the aid of "catchers." If the slayee believes they had a genuine experience from the Lord, that's one thing. But does anyone think God does something to people that results in their spiritual, emotional, or physical harm? May it never be! And I didn't mean that if anyone believes in assembly line slaying in the Spirit that they believe a fairy tale. What I meant, and perhaps did not make clear, is that if one takes facts supported by evidence and denies the facts, he is no different from someone who believes in fairy tales. Believing something is true is one thing. But being presented with truth supported by facts and then choosing not to believe it is what I find objectionable. It has nothing whatever to do with faith or righteousness or anything else. Christianity is not a blind leap of faith. The inspiration and infallibility of the Bible can be backed up with evidence. The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a historical fact supported by an abundance of historical evidence. I agree with you: when we disagree over secondary matters (I didn't say trivial or unimportant), we are still members of the body of Christ and we ought to respect and care for each other. Again I agree with you: This forum is not just for one religious view. This forum is based on the Word of God and upon the essentials of the Christian faith, i.e. basic Bible doctrine. Agreement on every last detail is neither required nor humanly possible. :-) Lastly, I will say again what I've already said dozens of times on this forum. I will be the first to proclaim that no man, no Study Bible, no church, no ministry, no "expert", etc. is infallible. Only the Word of God in the original manuscripts is without error. So I never have held up Hank Hanegraaff or John MacArthur or anyone else as infallible. The issue here is not about Hanegraaff. If it makes you feel any better, most of my relatives and most of the people in my church do not like Hanegraaff. He has the inconvenient habit of not going along with their pet beliefs. On the other hand, many pastors in my denomination fully support Hanegraaff. But again, Hanegraaff is not the real issue here. Debbie, I hope I have not needlessly offended you or anyone else. It is my desire to present my understanding of the Scriptures in a clear, biblically supported manner. But it is never my desire to do so in a caustic or hurtful manner. Wherever I may have been rude or harsh, I sincerely apologize. As the Bible says, we ought to be "speaking the truth in love," not in arrogance or in condemnation of others. Thank you again, Debbie, for your reply. I have followed your postings ever since you've been with the Forum. I look forward to reading your future postings. Grace to you, --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3680 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12286 | ||
I see that I unintentionally posted the same Note twice. My apologies to all. I was having a PC problem when I posted and re-posted. I didn't intend to post it twice. :-) --JVH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 ] Next > Last [212] >> |