Results 701 - 720 of 1275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: srbaegon Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
701 | Born into the Kingdom of God? | Luke 16:18 | srbaegon | 92860 | ||
Hello Ken, I'm assuming too much? :-) You are assuming there was anyone besides Enoch who "still had a retention of God." You are building a theology from silence. I cannot continue if you refuse to adhere to the Scriptures. Steve |
||||||
702 | Born into the Kingdom of God? | Luke 16:18 | srbaegon | 92861 | ||
Hello Ken, I asked for Scripture to prove your case. You can't so you ask for Scripture to prove mine which I've adequately done. The conclusion is obvious--you have no case and refuse to admit it. I will no longer continue. Steve |
||||||
703 | Adam and Eve the first people created? | Luke 17:1 | srbaegon | 70848 | ||
Hello All-Cing-I Just a couple thoughts. If information in the Bible is flawed or inconsistent, none of it can be trusted. We would have no objective criteria on which to base true from false as we read and study the Scriptures. It stands or falls as a unit. Your comment: "Lack of information about Jesus during years before his death." We have ample information. Luke 3:23 (ESV) Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age... The last 3-4 years of his life are what we call the gospel accounts. Steve |
||||||
704 | Was this man saved without Baptism | Luke 23:40 | srbaegon | 100665 | ||
Hello Ken, Searcher is correct. To add to the Scriptural support I would give: 1 Cor. 12:13 (ESV) For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body? Jews or Greeks, slaves or free?and all were made to drink of one Spirit. We were all baptized. It is completed. Not one is left out. Your interpretation of John 1:12 as a gradual process from belief to sonship is invalid. Steve |
||||||
705 | Was this man saved without Baptism | Luke 23:40 | srbaegon | 100725 | ||
Hello Ken, [Notice Henry is saying "when a person is converted"...Not just saved. A saved person is made innocent. Now he must be made pure.] Matthew Henry's theology is good. If you understood it, you would realize that he equates salvation with conversion, even as I do. Therefore the change from glory to glory is as a son along the entire course of our Christian lives. It is not a change unto future sonship. Steve |
||||||
706 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 132078 | ||
Hello J Elkins, You wrote: "I expect you will agree, the text of Acts 10/11 doesn’t say Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism." I don't know how you could possibly say this. Acts 10:1-2 is a clear indication he was a believer before Peter got there. Steve |
||||||
707 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 132140 | ||
Hello J Elkins, Peter did not tell him words whereby he might be saved. Nowhere in Acts 10/11 does one see that Cornelius believed after listening to Peter. What it says is that the Holy Spirit descended on them as He did at Pentecost. On whom did the Holy Spirit descend at Pentecost? Believers. Steve |
||||||
708 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 132237 | ||
Hello J Elkins, Oops! My mistake in not going far enough in Acts 11. However, I must point out that Cornelius did indeed believe in the God of Israel (as noted by his acts) and had already heard of Jesus (noted by Peter). The only thing left was to put the whole package together. Now you miss my point concerning the Holy Spirit. He came on Cornelius and those of the household. They were not apostles! Also we have Paul's witness concerning the indwelling of the Holy Spirit--1 Cor 6:19; 2 Tim 1:14. Steve |
||||||
709 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 132678 | ||
Hello jelkins, The verses you quoted from Romans 2 have nothing to do with God-fearing Gentiles. Romans 1-3 is an apologetic to prove that the every person was guilty before God. Paul was pointing out that there were those Gentiles who did some correct things, but there is no hint that they were God-fearing. They just did things for conscience' sake. You said: "An excellent case can be made from scripture that Christians have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through the medium of the Word." And then you give absolutely no scripture to back it up. Steve |
||||||
710 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 133229 | ||
Hello Country Girl, "The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the primary source for these miraculous powers..." The purpose of baptism is for identification. This is the use of the term throughout Scripture. The primary source for miraculous power was the filling of the Spirit which was periodic. And even then, the primary use of that power in Acts was preaching the gospel. "This also is in harmony with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor as there tends to be much strife and immature bickering between christians when they are blessed with these powers." Any of God's gifts can be misused--even helps and administration. That is not a good measuring stick for appropriateness today. "Subject: why was the thief saved without baptism? Note: You seemed to have left out a very important detail of this discussion and these words are from Christ himself: John 3:4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. John 3:7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.' John 3:8 "The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit." I've mentioned this kind of logic before but I'll repeat myself yet again. When the Bible teaches two or more different ways to answer a particular question such as this, it behooves one to be thorough and study all of what Scripture says about it. Now readily enough, everyone knows about Paul's statement: "one faith, one baptism,... But then the Bible also clearly states there are two different kinds of baptism cited within the Scriptures which were apparently applicable in their day when these Words were written. So we're left with a puzzle. Oviously Paul's words about "one baptism" were issued for guidance to ALL christians throughout all the age or this dispensation. The one single baptism that we can know for certain is indeed applicable to ALL christians is the one as Jesus referred to in being born again and thus the phrase "born again christian." Like I've mentioned before the age of miracles was a temporary one in this Christian dispensation. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the primary source for these miraculous powers so since the Apostles, Cornelius and his family were the only ones blessed with these miraculous abilities from this primary source, it is perfectly logical to conclude that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is no longer applicable in this day and time. This also is in harmony with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor as there tends to be much strife and immature bickering between christians when they are blessed with these powers. I think it is correctly inferred from all this that God never really meant for us as His children to have these miraculous powers throughout this dispensation because in addition to the strife, it takes away from our development of our faith. If we had physical manifestations or demonstrations of miracles all the time like the Jews did in their world, they would become commonplace like they did then." They weren't commonplace. Some were not even witnessed by anyone but the author who recorded it (see Jonah). What we have in Scripture is a condensed timeline of history. Take a Bible history chart and note the miracles against the chart. You'll find several decades, even centuries, between miracles. "The conclusion cited above is shared now and has been promulgated by christians by the tens of millions plus throughout all 2000 years of the church's existence." Which of the church fathers agrees with you? I only request one citation. Steve |
||||||
711 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 133230 | ||
Hello Country Girl, Please exceuse the first posting. I messed up. :-( "The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the primary source for these miraculous powers..." The purpose of baptism is for identification. This is the use of the term throughout Scripture. The primary source for miraculous power was the filling of the Spirit which was periodic. And even then, the primary use of that power in Acts was preaching the gospel. "This also is in harmony with Paul's teaching in 1 Cor as there tends to be much strife and immature bickering between christians when they are blessed with these powers." Any of God's gifts can be misused--even helps and administration. That is not a good measuring stick for appropriateness today. "If we had physical manifestations or demonstrations of miracles all the time like the Jews did in their world, they would become commonplace like they did then." They weren't commonplace. Some were not even witnessed by anyone but the author who recorded it (see Jonah). What we have in Scripture is a condensed timeline of history. Take a Bible history chart and note the miracles against the chart. You'll find several decades, even centuries, between miracles. "The conclusion cited above is shared now and has been promulgated by christians by the tens of millions plus throughout all 2000 years of the church's existence." Which of the church fathers agrees with you? I only request one citation. Steve |
||||||
712 | However, after Jesus finished His work o | Luke 23:43 | srbaegon | 173027 | ||
Hello koscheiman, There is such a thing as applying typology too far, so that it becomes totally analogical. Many have fallen into this trap, and you would do well to do some critical and rational thinking about these things. A well-known hermeneutical principle is to retain the literal sense unless there is good and obvious reasons to do otherwise. Steve |
||||||
713 | Did Jesus suffer in hell when he died? | Luke 23:46 | srbaegon | 65277 | ||
Hello Gracefull I will answer your question: "What is the penalty of the sinner..physical death or eternal punishment?" It is eternal punishment. But since the Lord Jesus was not a sinner, this doesn't apply to Him. You asked John: "Did you read the Apologetic I suggested?" I read the beginning of the one entitled The Mystery of the 3 Days and Nights by Gregory J. Bitgood. I hope that was the intended work. I founded glaring errors in the Introduction under "Incarnation". For instance: "It is true that God in Himself could not submit to death, but if He could become a man, a true man, then as such He could experience all that we experience, including spiritual death. If Jesus could not experience sin and death, then Jesus was not a real man but something in between God and man, a spiritual hybrid." These statements assume that we were designed to die spiritually. True humanity does not include a sin nature. If it did, then Adam was created a sinner and was under the penalty of death when created. Gen 1-3 instead tells us that God's creation was very good and that death came because of disobedience. For Jesus to die spiritually, He would have had to sin personally. This he never did. Hebrews 4:15 (ESV) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Another quote: "The Creator made Himself lower than even His own creation: HEBREWS 2:9 But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man;" This verse is not saying that the Creator was made lower than His creation but lower than a part of His creation. If the rest of the paper is as poorly done as the beginning, I can see why people would be deluded. Steve |
||||||
714 | Did Jesus suffer in hell when he died? | Luke 23:46 | srbaegon | 65284 | ||
Hello gracefull 1 John 5:14-15 (ESV) And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us. [15] And if we know that he hears us in whatever we ask, we know that we have the requests that we have asked of him. I think the intent is to know His will by careful study of His word before we ask. Steve |
||||||
715 | OT importance for todays Christians | Luke 24:44 | srbaegon | 129701 | ||
Hello jlpwilley, "And yes, the law is still in effect..." Do you have difficulty from your community with the animal sacrifices? Most frown on that. Steve |
||||||
716 | Gosple of John | John | srbaegon | 47503 | ||
Hello TKO John 6:4 (ESV) Now the Passover, the feast of the Jews, was at hand. Steve |
||||||
717 | Gosple of John | John | srbaegon | 47616 | ||
Hello TKO I don't doubt the accuracy of the length of time you give for the trip to Galilee. But you miss this succession of events: Passover (2:23), trip to Galilee (4:1-54), "After these things there was a feast in Jerusalem" (a different feast from Passover -- 5:1), back to Galilee (6:1), Passover draws near (6:4). Even if you would disagree concerning the intervening events, the wording between 2:23 and 6:4 clearly indicates a different Passover. John 4:54 states that the miracle was "a" second sign, not "the" second sign. John is simply stating this was the second sign used in the gospel account. Steve |
||||||
718 | Gosple of John | John | srbaegon | 47620 | ||
Hello TKO I'm curious how you see 2:23 as the time of preparation. The verse says "at the Passover, during the feast". Steve |
||||||
719 | if Jesus died on Friday and rose Sunday | John | srbaegon | 118509 | ||
Hello Searcher, I remember the first time I read the logic you have presented (in a book) and thought the writer was a heretic. After further investigation, the facts were inescapable. To completely fulfill the typology shown in the Passover lamb, he had to die on Thursday. Steve |
||||||
720 | who was Jesus | John 1:1 | srbaegon | 125205 | ||
Hello pcdarcan, My response to your comments. 1. As the only begotten Son of God, Jesus would have God's nature and attributes making Him equal with God. Since there are no gods but Jehovah, Jesus is God. 2. "the only Son produced by Jehovah alone" - I could have sworn Mary was a part of this. Perhaps the gospel accounts are incorrect. 3. No created being has the power to create anything, therefore Jesus is Jehovah God. 4. Jesus is not "second greatest." He is Jehovah. Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ] Next > Last [64] >> |