Results 3681 - 3700 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3681 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12283 | ||
Debbie: You write: "I don't think taking one man's opinion as fact and saying his opinion overides everything and all else is like believing in UFO's etc. " Did I not say that in regard to people suffering spiritual, emotional and physical damage, this "is NOT Hanegraaff's opinion...It is a simple matter of fact which can be supported by objective evidence." Debbie, I honestly appreciate and respect you. But I wonder, does anyone on this forum understand the difference between fact and opinion? |
||||||
3682 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12281 | ||
Debbie: You write: "I don't think taking one man's opinion as fact and saying his opinion overides everything and all else is like believing in UFO's etc. " Did I not say that in regard to people suffering spiritual, emotional and physical damage, this "is NOT Hanegraaff's opinion...It is a simple matter of fact which can be supported by objective evidence." Debbie, I honestly appreciate and respect you. But I wonder, does anyone on this forum understand the difference between fact and opinion? |
||||||
3683 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12254 | ||
EdB: In regard to "slain in the spirit," you ask: "But is it wrong? Can we say it is wrong because it isn’t spelled out in the Bible? Again if it violated any Biblical teaching then yes we could. But in this case nothing is violated, no doctrine is modified, no commandment, precept, statute, teaching, or counsel is jeopardized so what makes it wrong? " First, let me say, EdB, I think you know that I esteem you very highly, have a great deal of respect for you, and count you as a friend. So, I want you to know that no personal offense or criticism is intended in my Note here. Let everyone understand that EdB is a conscientious, honest-hearted follower of the Lord. With all respect, I would like to reply to your question, as quoted above. It has already been adequately shown that "slain in the spirit" is absolutely without scriptural precedent. Nevertheless, I will not be drawn into a quarrel over this point. Believe it or don't believe it. It's each one's own choice. What makes the practice of being slain in the spirit wrong? I'm not saying the slayee is sinning when they experience being slain in the spirit. What I am saying is that the experience has been the cause of spiritual, emotional and physical damage. I quote Hank Hanegraaff regarding this. The following is not Hanegraaff's opinion or interpretation of Scripture. It is a simple matter of fact which can be supported by objective evidence. (I realize many people do not "like" Hanegraaff for various reasons. The main reason being that he points out error and bad doctrine wherever he finds it. God forbid that anyone should do that. Let's just go along with anything in the name of unity. I don't think so.) Hank Hanegraaff, in his Counterfeit Revival, has written about being “slain in the Spirit”: “Despite the pious attribution of this phenomenon to the Holy Spirit as well as the pragmatic addition of ‘catchers,’ multitudes continue to suffer spiritual, emotional and physical damage from this practice. Some have even died.” (www.equip.org/ ) "Furthermore, let me underscore the fact that I continue to be gravely concerned about the spiritual and physical consequences of unbiblical manifestations such as spasmodic jerking and being “slain in the spirit.' " (STATEMENT DP385 CRI Statement on December Meetings Between Hank Hanegraaff and Brownsville Revival Leaders) (www.equip.org/ ) If anyone still insists upon pretending there is nothing wrong with this harmful practice, then that is their right. It is also their right to believe in UFOs, leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, etc. (Please, don't reply to me asking me if Hanegraaff is my god? That is absurd. And don't ask me to explain Hanegraaf. If you want further explanation or amplification of what he writes, go to the website and read the entire article for yourself. At the website, click on"Free Articles." Then use the Search function to find the above quoted articles. --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3684 | Question on spiritual covering? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12094 | ||
Part Two. Many questions have been asked of Elijah -- questions that he has never answered. Below is a sampling of questions people asked Elijah and which he chose not to answer. 7) Question (Hank): Elijah, for what sins are infants to be judged? Are the redeemed in Christ subject to the judgment by which the unredeemed will be judged? How could anyone be judged and sentenced twice? --Hank (Question remains unanswered.) 8) (JVH0212): Nehemiah: You are wasting your time when you ask Elijah to show you this in the Bible. I have repeatedly asked him where one or another assertions of his were supported in Scripture, only to have my question go unanswered. I suppose when there is no defense of one's position, the easiest thing to do is remain silent when called upon for proof. 9) (Elijah): Has Dr. Martin become your God and spiritual guide now, you seem to like to condemn any thing the world has cast off, just as the world cast off Jesus when he was in the world. (JVH0212): Has Dr. Martin become my God? What about you? Has the 'Jehovah' of the Watchtower become your God? (Question remains unanswered.) 10) (Nolan): Elijah, Are you a Jehovah's Witness? (Elijah): Nolan: If you knew who I was, you wouldn't ask me stupid questions, but the day is coming when you will know me, but you will call me evil, before that day because the world will call me evil (Elijah was asked a direct question, one that could have been answered with a simple yes or no. He does not give a direct answer to the direct question.) 11) (Nolan): Dear Elijah, Why would the world call you 'evil'? (Question remains unanswered.) 12) (JenkinsDE): Are the "sons of God" pre-Fall children? (Elijah): 2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; 5and did not spare the ancient world, but saved Noah, (Nolan): Elijah, what exactly does 2 Peter 2:4 have to do with the topic at hand? (Question remains unanswered.) 13) Question (Elijah): Why do we grow old? Answer (Ray): Hi Elijah, Do you have a scripture in mind? Psalm 90:12 says, "So teach us to number our days, That we may present to Thee a heart of wisdom." (Elijah): It would be hard to give you a scripture, because the answer is in Gods way of doing things 14) Question (Elijah): The Bible says that what is put to death is dead both in heaven and earth,so how did Jesus raise himself from the dead? Answer and a question (JVH0212) : You write: "The Bible says that what is put to death is dead both in heaven and earth." Where does it say that in the Bible? Scripture reference please. Answer (Elijah): Read the Bible and you'll find it and Hay its good to see you back! (Question remains unanswered.) 15) (Elijah): These scriptures have been change in every Bible that I know of, but one, they were change to look as though they were speaking of Jerusalem. This was done through Satins religions as an attempt to keep the women from knowing what they must do and what has to take place just before the end. (JVH0212): Dear Elijah: You write: "These scriptures have been change in every Bible that I know of, but one..." My question for you is: They were changed from what? From what? Were they changed from the original Hebrew text or were they changed from a particular English *translation* of the text. For example, were they changed from the so-called "Authorized" King James Version? I say "so-called Authorized" because the only authorization the KJV ever had was given by man, i.e., by a Gentile King of a Gentile nation. --JVH0212 (Question remains unanswered.) 16) (Sam Hughey) Elijah, You have twice not answered my question about the source of the alleged changes you claim to have been made in the Bible. So, I will suppose you do not have an answer and the accusation is false. Do you understand the seriousness of such an accusation? (Question remains unanswered.) 17) (JVH0212 to Elijah): Really? I don't suppose you could document your answer by supplying us with the title of the book and the name of the author, could you? Or do we have to accept your answer based on faith in Elijah? (Question remains unanswered.) --JVH0212 |
||||||
3685 | Question on spiritual covering? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12093 | ||
Part One. Many questions have been asked of Elijah -- questions that he has never answered. Below is a sampling of questions people asked Elijah and which he chose not to answer. 1) Question (Elijah): The beast with seven heads and ten horns anyone know what it actually is and who strikes the one head Answer (JVH0212): Sir, if you would please provide the book, chapter, and verse to which your question refers, then it would facilitate answering your question. Thank you. (Question remains unanswered.) 2) (JVH0212): That was some clarification of the Holy Spirit. Only 3 "things" in heaven, the Father, the son and the angles? And maybe satan? My only question is: To support your opinion could you cite chapter and verse please? CHAPTER AND VERSE. I see the answer is: NO, you cannot cite chapter and verse for your assertion that "There are only three things in heaven, the Father,the son and the angles, unless you count satan and his bunch than there's four" (Question remains unanswered.) 3) Question (JVH0212): I ask you whom we should believe: 2000 years of the historic Christian faith backed up by the Word of God in PLAIN English or the unsubstantiated opinions of one who is so secretive about his identity that "no personal profile [is] on record" with the Forum? Or whom should we believe: God's own son Jesus Christ who is the second person of the Trinity or the Jehovah's Witnesses, the men who came up with the anti-Trinity doctrine? Answer (Elijah): There was about 2000 years between Adam and Noah man had gone so fare from what was right that the world was almost destroyed, God said it would the same in are day, can you afford not to test what the worlds teaching, or are you so sure that the worlds teaching right that you don’t care 4) (Reformer Joe): I did re-read it, and the question I asked was NOT address in what you said. According to Hebrews 1:8, who is God calling "God"? And according to Hebrews 1:10, what did the Lord Jesus do? I AM being open-minded, Elijah, and I think that you should be open-minded enough to question why in 2000 years that the unique view of Christ presented in your post has hardly ever been articulated, if indeed it ever has. Also, I would suggest you being open-minded enough to check out the book I recommended in my previous post, since the ironclad arguments for the Trinity are much too numerous to present in a bulletin-board format. If you have responses to White's thorough analysis of the Trinity which takes into account the entire body of Scripture, I will be more than happy to look at them with an open-mind! (Question remains unanswered.) 5) (Hank): Elijah, you use the words, speaking of Christ, "the Father created Him." When did this occur, before or after Adam? And did God make Christ out of the same clay, and with the same mold, He used to create Adam? If Christ was created, then He is not God, not Deity, but a creature like Adam was and like you and I are, is that correct? Or was He perhaps created as an angel of sorts? Surely you know. You must be privy to information than most of us don't have. Will you therefore enlighten us? We are in the same predicament and face the same question that troubled Pontius Pilate long ago, "What must I do with Jesus?" --Hank (Question remains unanswered.) 6) Question: Why do we grow old? (Elijah): Theologians say that we grow old and die because of sin, that’s like a half truth, because of there lack of understanding of Gods ways, the truth is that we die because of sin, but we grow old because of justice. God is a just God, who always prepares his people for every thing. Because sin brought on death, death brought on the need for justice, justice being Gods preparation for that death, thought a natural process of ageing, not only dos it provide time for us to grow into maturity and the knowledge of God, but it provides time to become fruitful and become many, fulfilling Gods will, to fill the earth and than prepares us for death, not only in this system of things, but also prepares us for life in that system to come, all threw the same process. Answer (JVH0212): "Theologians say..." How convenient! Which theologians? What are their names? Can you give direct quotes with attribution? In what books or articles did "they" say that? How easy it is to set up and knock down a straw man by making a general statement with no attribution and then go on to attack that statement. One thing you have to give theologians credit for: even IF they misuse logic, at least they know what it is. (Question remains unanswered.) |
||||||
3686 | Question on spiritual covering? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12087 | ||
Has Dr. Martin become my God? What about you? Has the 'Jehovah' of the Watchtower become your God? | ||||||
3687 | Question on spiritual covering? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 12012 | ||
Dr. Martin: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” Dr. Mantey: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it’s a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture! Elijah writes: These scriptures I'm giving you are from the New world translation its the only Bible that still has the scriptures as they were originally written, JVH0212 writes: The above statement by Elijah is the most outrageous lie I have ever heard regarding the New World Translation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Read on: STATEMENT DJ265 The New World Translation Dr. Julius R. Mantey was a first-rate scholar who studied Greek for more than 65 years. He was well known for A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, which he co-authored with Dr. H. E. Dana. The following is a discussion that took place between Dr. Martin and Dr. Mantey on the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation. Dr. Martin: In John 1:1, the New World Translation (NWT) says that “The Word was a god,” referring to Jesus Christ. How would you respond to that? Dr. Mantey: The Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) have forgotten entirely what the order of the sentence indicates — that the “Logos” has the same substance, nature, or essence as the Father. To indicate that Jesus was just “a god,” the JWs would have to use a completely different construction in the Greek. Dr. Martin: You once had a little difference of opinion with the Watchtower about this and wrote them a letter. What was their response to your letter? Dr. Mantey: Well, as a backdrop, I was disturbed because they had misquoted me in support of their translation. I called their attention to the fact that the whole body of the New Testament was against their view. Throughout the New Testament, Jesus is glorified and magnified — yet here they were denigrating Him and making Him into a little god of a pagan concept. Dr. Martin: What was their response to what you said? Dr. Mantey: They said I could have my opinion and they would retain theirs. What I wrote didn’t phase them a bit. Dr. Martin: I don’t know whether you’re aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn’t tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology — except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there. Dr. Mantey: He was born in Greece, wasn’t he? Dr. Martin: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, “How would you translate it?” He said: “Well, ‘the word was a god.”’ I said: “What is the subject of the sentence?” He just looked at me. So I repeated. “What is the subject of the sentence?” He didn’t know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn’t know the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours. Dr. Mantey: That’s right. Dr. Martin: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context? Dr. Mantey: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that ‘The word was a god.” Dr. Martin: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” Dr. Mantey: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it’s a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture! Dr. Martin: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth? Dr. Mantey: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell. (www.equip.org/search/) These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Mantey on the New World Translation" It is available from CRI. --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3688 | Is the KJV "Supreme"? | Ps 12:6 | kalos | 11847 | ||
STATEMENT DK115 IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates by James R. White Summary "King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God. (...) "The importance of the topic should not be underestimated. While the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position, the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates causes unnecessary concerns among many believers. It is a sad truth that most Christians have only a vague knowledge of the history of the Bible and almost no knowledge of the mechanisms by which the Bible has come to us today. Issues regarding the transmission of the text over time (the process of copying), the comparison of one written text to another (textual criticism), and translation are not popular topics of discussion or study in the church today. Therefore, the claims of KJV Only advocates are liable to deeply trouble many Christians, even to the point of causing them to question the reliability and usefulness of their NIV or NASB Bibles. When believers are wrongly led to doubt the integrity of the translation they have used for years, Christian scholars have a responsibility to set the record straight. "Moreover, there is a real desire on the part of many to hold to the "old ways" — the "traditions" of the "good ol’ days" when things were so much better than they are today. Since many believers distrust anything connected with the term "modern," for them the KJV becomes an icon of what was "good" about the past, and modern translations end up representing everything that is wrong with today’s church. "Is there any weight to the charges being made against the manuscripts used by modern translations? Should one distrust modern translations? Those are the questions we must answer." To read this entire article, go to (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) ((DK115) IS YOUR MODERN TRANSLATION CORRUPT? Answering the Allegations of KJV Only Advocates (www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm) (For further reading see STATEMENT DB015 A Summary Critique: New Age Bible Versions, G. A. Riplinger (A. V. Publications, 1993) by H. Wayne House found at (www.equip.org/search/) --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3689 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 11619 | ||
"...the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage." Joseph is the descendant of David. Mary is also the descendant of David. "Luke's entire section [of genealogy] from Joseph to David differs starkly from that given by Matthew. The two genealogies are easily reconciled if Luke's is seen as Mary's genealogy, and Matthew's version represents Joseph's. "Thus the royal line is passed through Jesus' legal father, and His physical descent from David is established by Mary's lineage... "Joseph was "the son of Heli" by marriage (Heli having no sons of his own), and thus is named in Luke 3:23 as the representative of Mary's generation. Moses himself established precedent for this sort of substitution in Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1-12" (pp. 1518-1519, MacArthur Study Bible, 1997, Word). --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3690 | "...you can believe anything." | Acts 4:12 | kalos | 11536 | ||
"And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 NASB) At the beginning of the new millennium, Christians find themselves living in a spiritually eclectic time. In "Jesus Among Other Gods," Ravi Zacharias observes: "Philosophically, you can believe anything, so long as you do not claim it to be true. "Morally, you can practice anything, so long as you do not claim that it is a 'better' way. "Religiously, you can hold to anything, so long as you do not bring Jesus Christ into it." Unquestioning acceptance of all things "spiritual" is absurd. --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3691 | Created for heaven or hell? | John 3:16 | kalos | 11338 | ||
Proorizo writes: "I'm sorry God, I thought maybe Your Word had not been dealt with correctly here! "Give me a break!!!!!!!!" JVH0212 writes: "'This thread has been temporarily restricted.' How's that for a break?" JVH0212 |
||||||
3692 | Does anyone have a Bible question? | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 11335 | ||
Nolan: I agree with you. We are having an outbreak of people soliciting email. Of course, all are invited to participate in this forum and observe the Terms of Use as well as the guidelines found under criteria for voting. But I would like to point out two things. First, if one wishes to receive email, there are plenty of email addresses given in Personal User Profiles. Second, is this a Bible Forum or an introduction service? --JVH0212 |
||||||
3693 | Can one who commits suicide be saved? | Mark 3:28 | kalos | 11333 | ||
1) Good for you. 2) (Matthew 5:21-22) "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." 3) "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7). 4) I would like to join with the rest of humanity in expressing my gratitude that you will not be the judge. |
||||||
3694 | Created for heaven or hell? | John 3:16 | kalos | 11313 | ||
(Before I begin, let me say: This morning I have read no farther than your post to which I am now replying. I don't even know whether Nolan has already replied to your post. If so, I haven't read it and don't know anything about it. So if I repeat what Nolan or someone else has already stated, it's because I haven't read that far yet and am unaware of it.) proorizo: I am not speaking for Nolan. I speak only for myself. Although you addressed you questions to Nolan, I will take the liberty of answering for myself. After all this is a PUBLIC forum. It is not a discussion group; it is a Forum with a stated purpose. It is very perceptive of you to notice that Nolan did not want to go over what had already been covered once before. It was not covered merely between Nolan and someone else. There was a long, bitter debate that involved many people. No one has any wish to rehash all of that and stir up more strong feelings. We've been all through that. I suppose this is a "Don't bring up what has already been covered" type of message board. You will go to a message board that is productive? What is productive about taking another month to rehash what has already been discussed from every possible angle? In the case of Calvinism vs Arminianism, the only thing a second round of debate would "produce" is more hard feelings -- more heat, but surely no more light. I agree with you, but I don't feel what you said applies to Nolan. Never underestimate what Nolan knows or understands. It is true that many people do not understand Calvinism. It seems that the majority on this forum sure don't understand and apparently don't want to understand the Bible doctrine of election. But I think who understands what is not the issue here. Avoiding another knock-down, drag-out battle over Calvinism is the issue. You don't care to be told to look into the Forum's history. And we do not care to be told once again that which we have already debated endlessly. Nor do we care for more fighting and quarreling here. Does one understand how long it could take you to look into the Forum's history? What about how long it would take for everybody to re-state what they have already stated before? To do so would be very time-consuming for a number of people and in no way productive. As far as I can see, all the Calvinists and all the Arminians do have the same old questions that they ask over and over and over again. The questions are then followed by the same answers over and over again -- answers that apparently neither side is listening to. It is highly unlikely that anyone on either side will post something new on the subject, something that already hasn't been argued to death. In a practical sense, no, we do not have time to go over the same issues every month. We especially do not have time to go over the debate between what I call divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Every possible jot and tittle of this centuries-old debate has already been presented here previously. I do not think anyone has anything against you personally. I know I don't have anything against you. It isn't you, sir, it's the subject. Frankly we are all sick unto death of the quarreling over it. --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3695 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | kalos | 11111 | ||
In this post I wish to clarify and expand upon my earlier comments. I want to go on record as being in agreement with our respected fellow Forum member, Steve Butler. I agree with Steve Butler when he says the experts should not be our source as soon as we read a passage. One of my favorite Bible scholars and teachers on the radio always encourages people to equip themselves with the necessary methods and principles of rightly interpreting the Word of God for themselves. He urges people to read and study the Bible first to determine what it means on their own. This teacher especially recommends about a dozen books that are basic Bible study tools. But he never encourages people to read the books first or as a substitute for reading the Word of God itself. I agree with him and with Steve. It is healthy and appropriate for us as believers to search the Scriptures for ourselves. --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3696 | spirit/soul | John 1:14 | kalos | 11105 | ||
MacArthur's note at Heb 4:12. "*division of soul and spirit.* These terms do not describe two separate entities (any more than 'thoughts and intents' do) but are used as one might say 'heart and soul' to express fullness. Elsewhere these two terms are used interchangeably to describe man's immaterial self, his eternal inner person" (p. 1903, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). MacArthur's note at 1 Thess 5:23. "*whole spirit, soul, and body.* This comprehensive reference makes the term 'completely' more emphatic. By using spirit and soul, Paul was not indicating that the immaterial part of man could be divided into two substances (compare Heb 4:12). The two words are used interchangeably throughout Scripture. There can be no division of these realities, but rather they are used as other texts use multiple terms for emphasis. Nor was Paul a believer in a 3-part human composition, but rather two parts: material and immaterial" (p. 1850, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). (Note: many, many Scriptures were cited by MacArthur in the above note on 1 Thess 5:23 -- too numerous for me to include in this posting. However, one can read and look up for oneself the Scripture references cited in the MacArthur Study Bible.) --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3697 | Were the Apostles theologians? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 11067 | ||
richilou: Thank you for your thoughtfulness, sir. But I deliberately chose to use the word theoreticians. Yet I appreciate your kindness in pointing it out to me. Grace to you, JVH0212 |
||||||
3698 | Jesus is a Prophet? | John 9:17 | kalos | 11034 | ||
Nolan: No need to be sorry. The more answers and the more info the better. Thanks for your good information. JVH0212 |
||||||
3699 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | kalos | 11006 | ||
Hank: Do you mean to tell me that the best way is not to read a verse and assume that the first interpretation of it that comes to mind must be THE RIGHT ONE? :-) Thank you for a fine posting, one that is intelligent, reasonable and filled with common sense. To expand on the subject a bit, it seems to me that to belittle and ignore teachers such as you and I have named is to deny the truth of Scripture that tells us the Holy Spirit gives gifts to men and then Christ gives those gifted men to the church for its edification. One category of gifted men that Christ Himself gives to the church is teachers. Many of these teachers have written books. Again, to whom it may concern, this is NOT rocket science. A little common sense, please. Also it is interesting to note: There is a consensus among prominent evangelical teachers and authors regarding the essentials of the faith. The fact of their consensus demonstrates that each teacher is not off on another planet of their own making. The fact that they don't agree on every last verse in the Bible ought to be sufficient to show that there is no "conspiracy" among them to defraud and deceive. The argument that the Roman Catholic hierarchy of the 15th Century were the experts of the day and were wrong is the poorest argument I've ever heard to ignore all Christian teachers. One might as well say that since the Pharisees had strayed from the truth of the Bible (2,000 years ago), then to be on the safe side we ought never again trust any Bible teacher. Or as you yourself (I think it was) once said, if we don't need men to interpet the Scriptures (which happens every time someone delivers a sermon), then why did Jesus commission the disciples to "go" into all the world? Wouldn't it have been equally effective and more efficient to just mail out copies of the Bible all over the world and let the unevangelized figure out the plan of salvation on their own? Alas, you and I waste our time presenting these truths. If one has some kind of psychological hang-up or childhood trauma in regard to "experts", then they will never change their mind though the apostles or an angel from heaven tries to explain it to them. (Of course, the apostles and angels are just so many "experts," so what do they know? After all, they're all in cahoots with each other?) --JVH0212 "In essentials unity, in nonessentials liberty, and in all things charity." |
||||||
3700 | Who is the 'lady'? | 2 John | kalos | 10954 | ||
I give up. I'll just drop the subject. By the way, the next time you are sick or in trouble, stay away from a licensed physician or a lawyer who is a member of the bar. Just read a book on surgery, contract law, or whatever. What need do we have of experts in any field? And don't forget to send your kids to a school where all the teachers are unlicensed college drop-outs. Let's be consistent. Maybe an angel will appear to you in a vision and show you how to remove an appendix. Maybe he will lay hands on you and impart the training and experience you would need to argue a case in court. Maybe if your kids or grandkids stayed at home, alone in their rooms with nothing but their textbooks, they would figure out everything for themselves. Whatever. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 ] Next > Last [212] >> |