Results 741 - 760 of 4232
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
741 | Why was Christ baptized? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 2711 | ||
"And I did not know Him and did not recognize Him [myself]; but it is in order that He should be made manifest and be revealed to Israel [be brought out where we can see Him] that I came baptizing in (with) water" (John 1:31, The Amplified Bible). . . . "I didn't know who he was. But I came to baptize you* with water, so that everyone in Israel would see him" (John 1:31, Contemporary English Version). . . . *you. Here John was speaking not to or of Jesus, but to the other people to whom he was talking as he saw 'Jesus coming toward him'. . . . "...so that everyone in Israel would see him." He does not say so that he, John the Baptist, but so that "everyone in Israel" would see him (Christ). |
||||||
742 | Why was Christ baptized? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 3050 | ||
Your answer makes several valid points. Nevertheless, the question remains: "WHAT DOES THE BIBLE PLAINLY SAY about the purpose of His baptism?" Maybe I should have phrased the question, "What does Jesus plainly say is the reason for him to be baptized," since Jesus Himself plainly answered the question when he said "to fulfill all righteousness." Matt 3:14-15 NASB But John tried to prevent Him, saying, "I have need to be baptized by You, and do You come to me?" But Jesus answering said to him, "Permit it at this time; for in this way it is fitting for us TO FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS (emphasis mine)." Then he *permitted Him. |
||||||
743 | Is church attendance important? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 3116 | ||
Dear JonnyRay49423: Thanks for a very thorough answer, one that covers most and probably all the main reasons we Christians ought to attend church regularly. Someone is always making the comment, "Why go to church? You don't have to go to church to get to heaven." Maybe not, but going to church is something a person does because he is already a Christian, not something he does in order to become one. Having read your excellent, good-sense answer, I sincerely wish that you could be with me when I hear this challenge thrown out by someone seeking to justify his own non-attendance at church. --JVH0212 | ||||||
744 | once saved always saved? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 4664 | ||
Dear Morant61: My answers to your three points are as follows: 1) Amen. 2) Amen. 3) Amen. It's refreshing to read a Scriptural, reasonable, balanced comment on this issue. I mean it. I sincerely thank you for a very positive reply. May I add?: Let there be a balance between the Sovereignty of God and the responsibility and accountability of man, both of which are clear teachings of the Bible. The two teachings are not a contradiction, merely one of many paradoxes found in the Bible. Why must some (but neither you nor I) insist that it has to be either/or? I'm not suggesting compromise, but merely a reasonable balance between two equally true concepts. Peace be multiplied unto you. JVH0212 |
||||||
745 | Angel of the Lord - where in NT? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 7503 | ||
If you are doing a search for the words "Angle of the Lord" you will never ever find it in the Bible. If I explain my question any more, I'll be answering it. :-) |
||||||
746 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9628 | ||
This is more than just a secondary issue. Jim Dunne: You write: "It is not clear to me that the creation story is intended to be taken as historical fact. (Nor do I see it as particularly necessary that it be so.)" My attempt to answer your implied question follows. Again, nothing in my answer is meant as a criticism or putdown of you or your question. By no means. I welcome your honest questions. I know the quote that follows is a bit lengthy, but bear with me. I'm sure if I gave only half an answer, I would subsequently need to write the second half to explain and expand on the first half. So I'll just give my complete answer here, though it be a bit lengthy. Why is it necessary that the Genesis account of creation be taken as historical fact? "...understanding origins in the book of Genesis is foundational to the rest of the Bible. If Genesis chapter 1 and chapter 2 don't tell us the truth, then why should we believe anything else in the Bible? If it says in the New Testament that the Creator is our Redeemer, and if God is not the Creator, then maybe He's not the Redeemer either. If it tells us in 2 Peter that God Himself will bring about an instantaneous dissolution of the entire universe as we know it, that God in a moment will uncreate everything, then that has tremendous bearing upon His power to create...the same One who with a word can uncreate the universe is capable of creating it as quickly as He desires. "So what we believe about creation, what we believe about Genesis has implications all the way to the end of Scripture, implications with regard to the veracity and truthfulness of Scripture, implications as to the gospel and implications as to the end of human history all wrapped up in how we understand origins in the book of Genesis. The matter of origins then is absolutely critical to all human thinking. It becomes critical to how we conduct our lives as human beings. Without an understanding of origins, without a right understanding of origins, there is no way to comprehend ourselves. There is no way to understand humanity as to the purpose of our existence, and as to our destiny. If we cannot believe what Genesis says about origins, we are lost as to our purpose and our destiny. Whether this world and its life as we know it evolved by chance, without a cause, or was created by God has immense comprehensive implications for all of human life. "Now there basically are only two options. You can either believe what Genesis says or not. And that is no over- simplification. Frankly, believing in a supernatural creative God who made everything is the only possible rational explanation for the universe, for life, for purpose and for destiny. "Now the divine equation given in the Bible in contrast to nobody times nothing equals everything, the divine equation is found in Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I don't know how it could be said any more simply or more straightforwardly than that. Either you believe God did create the heavens and the earth or you believe He did not. Really those are the only two valid options you have. And if you believe that God did create the heavens and the earth, then you are left with the only record of that creation and that's Genesis 1 and you are bound to accept the text of Genesis 1 as the only appropriate and accurate description of that creative act. "So again I say, you're left really with two choices. You either believe Genesis or you don't. You either believe the Genesis account that God created the heavens and the earth, or you believe they somehow evolved out of random chance. "Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition....In the first verse of the Bible God said plainly what man didn't catalog until the nineteenth century. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse. "Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence. "This is more than just a secondary issue. " (http://www.gty.org/Broadcast/transcripts/90-208.htm) |
||||||
747 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9710 | ||
Nolan, Hank, MoranT: Today I read the following: "Some unimportant historical details in the Bible are false, but the important stuff is true." I am writing to you because I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Please advise. JVH0212 |
||||||
748 | Don't sweat the small stuff? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9725 | ||
Hank, I have spent most of my adult life telling people that "truth" is not established by a majority vote, contrary to liberal humanist propoganda. But, if I believe what I read on this forum, then apparently I was in error. To get at the truth, you post survey questions. If you do not get the answer you wanted, just keep re-posting the question until someone agrees with you. Or if your circuitous logic fails to persuade anyone to agree, then the next best thing apparently is to so confuse your readers with nonsensical babbling, that they give up and agree to anything just to change the subject. | ||||||
749 | Don't sweat the small stuff? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9756 | ||
Prayon: Amen and Amen! Well put! JVH0212 |
||||||
750 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9764 | ||
Nolan: If the progenitor of that sentence only believes parts of the Bible, then I guess we're even. Because I only believe parts of what that person posts. (Although, in all fairness, it is not easy to discern what he believes since his postings give few clues.) | ||||||
751 | What are our options? | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 9831 | ||
Hank and Nolan: It seems we have yet another poster who delights in creating confusion and doubt regarding the truthfullness and inspiration of the Word of God. Where do they all come from? Maybe we need an alternate forum. In addition to StudyBibleForum.com, perhaps someone should start up a CriticizeBibleForum.com or an Anti-BibleForum.com. I've never before seen such calculated deception in action. That the Bible is inspired but not true is just about the silliest thing I've ever read on the Forum. Mixing in the word literal with truthful is a very cunning trick, obviously designed to deceive. --JVH0212 |
||||||
752 | 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 |
||||||
753 | 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 |
||||||
754 | 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 |
||||||
755 | meaning of numbers in the bible | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 21930 | ||
"accept what is written at face value" Nolan: What I write now is not an attack upon Casiv himself as a person. Rather, I am questioning the soundness of what he wrote, not of who he is. Casiv writes: "If you want to take the numbers at face value that is your perogative (sic)." Nolan, I trust that you do take what is written in the Bible at face value. "As I look back over years of wrestling to understand what the Word of God teaches, I have come to realize that the only valid way to truly discover what the writers of Scripture intended to communicate is to accept what is written at *face value*. By face value I mean the normal, natural, customary sense of the text intended by the Author/author at the time it was written" (Emphasis added, page 5, Understanding Scripture at Face Value: Plain and Simple, published by Sola Scriptura, 1999). (BTW, the principle of interpretation is "sola scriptura" (scripture only), not "solo scriptura" (me and my Bible only).) kasiv |
||||||
756 | meaning of numbers in the bible | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 21931 | ||
Folks, I have made an error in the previous post. The last word in the posting should be "kalos," not "kasiv." It was an honest mistake. Apparently I don't know how to spell my own username. :-) | ||||||
757 | meaning of numbers in the bible | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 22006 | ||
Nolan: You write: "Also, have you ever noticed that Casiv, Serenetime and Praisemaster are NEVER logged in on this Forum at the SAME TIME???? :-)" Yes, I have noticed that. Likewise, have you ever noticed that you never see Clark Kent and Superman together at the same time? What do you make of it? kalos |
||||||
758 | end times | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 23220 | ||
stjones: Sincere thanks to you for sharing with us your "inflammatory 2 cents' worth." :-) Now for my inflammatory 2 shillings worth. I agree with you in that I find nothing in the Bible that PROVES the Second Coming is imminent. Good point. However, with all respect, I disagree with your statement that "Whatever is going to happen - and there's no general agreement on that except that Christ will return..." As I see it, I would agree that there is no universal, unanimous agreement on what is going to happen. But, there is a consensus among many, if not most, evangelical Christians concerning what the events are which are prophesied in Ezekiel 38, Matthew 24, 1 Thess. 4, 2 Thess. 2, and Revelation. The main point of disagreement is the sequence in which those events will happen. I wonder what some of you other forumites think. Do you agree or disagree? Here's a chance to exercise your liberty of opinion. :-) Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
759 | end times | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 23221 | ||
Nolan: I agree with you about being better prepared to be watchmen. I disagree with the idea of certain others that "'que sera sera.' Let's not worry about what will happen or in what sequence it will happen." Surely Jesus had a purpose when, in Matt 24, he answers the disciples' questions, "Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" (ASV). Jesus went on to tell them WHEN these things shall be, what shall be the SIGN of his coming, and what shall be the SIGN of the end of the world. This chapter was not put in the Bible to fill up space. What was Jesus' purpose in giving the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24? It was to warn us to be ready: 1) "Take heed that no man lead you astray." 2) "See that ye be not troubled." 3) "Behold, I have told you beforehand" to warn believers not to be led astray by false prophets and false christs. 4) "Watch therefore." The main reason for these prophecies is to warn us, "Be ye also ready" Matthew 24:44 (ASV). BE READY! BE READY! How then can anyone say we need not try to understand what events will take place or in what sequence? We have every reason to be concerned about what Jesus means in Matthew 24 and the meaning of 1 Thess., 2 Thess., Revelation, etc. The reason is so we can BE READY. (FYI: Here I have quoted no man's book, article or commentary. I'm getting this straight from the text of the Bible itself.) Grace to you, kalos |
||||||
760 | end times | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 23773 | ||
Thanks, Steve. Good to hear from you. :-) Happy Thanksgiving! kalos |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 ] Next > Last [212] >> |