Results 41 - 60 of 71
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: There Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | matthew chapter 24 what does is mean | Matthew | There | 16847 | ||
The apostles asked Jesus what the "sign of His coming and the end of the age" would be. His answer to them is in chapter 24. First will be the beginning of sorrows (vs. 5-8) leading up to Daniel's 70th week (the 7 year tribulation period). Then there will be tribulation (vs. 9-14). Verse 15 depicts the middle of the tribulation period (3 1/2 years into it), when the Jews will recognize the Antichrist, and flee into the wilderness. Christ goes on to explain that the last 3 1/2 years will be such "great tribulation... as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time". Then states that at the end of the period of tribulation (v. 29), the sign of his coming will appear (v. 30) and the rapture will take place (v.31). Verses 32-35. Jesus explains that the people alive when these things begin to happen, will see them unfolding, and recognize that He will be returning soon. Verses 36-44, Here Jesus explains that no one knows exactly when that day will occur, except for the Father in heaven. People will generally will be doing all the normal things just as they did up to the time of the great Flood. We're warned to be ready at all times. Verses 45-51. He's telling us to behave as a Christian... in season and out, or He will leave us behind when He comes for His own. The tribulation period and Christ's return is told in more detail in Daniel, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Revelation (along with others mentioned by Steve and CDBJ). |
||||||
42 | did adam and Eve ever get forgiveness? | Matthew | There | 16850 | ||
Good question! The Bible does not say whether Adam and Eve ever repented of their sin. The one sad thing is that both Adam and Eve, when confronted by God after their sin, made excuses for their actions but never told Him they were sorry for disobeying Him. There are other possible references by which one could make the assumption that they did not repent, but it is not stated in so many words. If they did not, then they were not forgiven. As to the angels, it is my understanding that the angels who rebelled against God KNEW exactly WHO they were rebelling against... and for that reason those angels will spend eternity in everlasting fire (Matthew 25:41). I'm reminded of Paul's words in Hebrews 6:4-6. It speaks of "people" but is also pertinent I think, as far as the angels are concerned too. |
||||||
43 | Divine Healing, True or False? | Matthew | There | 16852 | ||
I think the Prosperity Gospel or the Faith Movement are contrary to God's word. Divine Healing in regards to the above. Generally lack of healing is accredited to the ill person not having "enough faith" to be healed, or that the illness itself is caused by "unbelief" or "sin". But biblically there are examples to the contrary. Check out Acts 3:1-10. Who's faith healed the lame man? And Luke 7:1-10. Who's faith healed the centurion's servant? And when questioned about whether a man's blindness was the fault of sins of the parents or the man himself, Jesus replied "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in Him." John 9:3. The Faith Movement was not the first to think that illness is caused by sin in a person's life apparently. Nowhere does the NT teach that complete physical healing is the right of all Christians. In fact, Paul reports the near death illness of his colleague Epaphroditus (Phil. 2:27), the fact that he had left Trophimus sick in Miletus (2Tim. 4:20), and his encouragement of Timothy to take some wine for his frequent stomach illnesses (1Tim. 5:23). Apparently Paul did not consider facing illness a "negative confession" to be totally avoided and never discussed (as in the Faith Movement's "positive confession" theology). As to the whole of the Prosperity Gospel, again, I believe it contradicts scripture. Generally they base their claim for wealth on several verses. In Gen. 17 God's promise to make Abraham a father of many nations with great wealth. And then Gal. 3:13-14,29; where Paul promises to Christians the "blessing of Abraham". Hagin explains "Abraham's blessing is ours... and the first thing God promised Abraham was that he was going to make him rich." Yet Paul states that "Christ redeemed us... that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles" (Gal. 3:13-14). The context shows that the only part of Abraham's blessing of concern to Paul is that the Gentiles would be included in God's people. By faith they would be justified and "receive the promise of the Spirit" (v. 14). Nothing is said about poverty or sickness. In Mark 10:29-30 Jesus promises that those who leave home and fields for him will receive a hundred times as much. Gloria Copeland explains this "spiritual law" or "seed money". "You give 1 dollar for the Gospel's sake and 100 dollars belongs to you; give 10 dollars and receive 1000 dollars... In short, Mark 10:30 is a very good deal." They need to misinterpret or leave out a lot of scripture to come up with their theology. *Quote by Kenneth Hagin, from "Redeemed" p, 5. *Quote by Gloria Copeland, from "God's Will Is Prosperity" p. 54. |
||||||
44 | Why only a worthy person's home? | Matt 10:11 | There | 15692 | ||
A worthy person was someone that was willing to accept the gospel of Christ. (WORTHY - "axios", deserving, comparable, suitable (as if drawing praise) No contrast. They were to bring God's peace to those who were willing to hear the gospel, not force it on those who were not. |
||||||
45 | Can A Christian disown Christ? | Matt 10:33 | There | 15691 | ||
No, I don't believe a born again, Spirit filled Christian can deny (reject) Christ. To confess Christ means more than just mouthing the words. It means making a commitment (covenant) with Him... and acknowledging Him as our Savior and Lord. I don't believe that once we become a Son of God (led by His Spirit) that we could reject Christ. Jesus was speaking to the twelve apostles in those verses, beginning in verse 5 (see also Luke 12:1-12). In Matthew Jesus said he would either "confess" or "deny" people "before MY (His) Father", and in Luke he said "before the angels of God". It makes sense that Jesus would call God "MY" Father since He was Jesus' Father. Is your question "why did He not call God OUR Father" when speaking to the apostles? He is the mediator between God and man... whether men choose to "confess" or "deny" Him, God is still His Father and that point is clearly stated in those two verses. Remember, the TWELVE apostles were there... including one named Judas, who was later referred to by Jesus as a "diabolos" devil (John 6:70; 13:27). Wouldn't it have been wrong for Jesus to give Judas a false view of his position with God -- KNOWING what would occur later? So... I believe Matt. 10:32 applies to believers, whereas 10:33 applies to unbelievers. |
||||||
46 | WHY WAS JESUS | John 11:15 | There | 17757 | ||
So He could show them He truly did come from the Father by raising Lazarus from the dead. ("that you may believe" - same verse) | ||||||
47 | Women speak in church? | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 25851 | ||
Hi, I thought I'd share something I found, and my opinion at the end of course. :) In verses 34 and 35 the same Greek word (2980 "laleo") is translated "speak". It is also used in other verses, but it is not the only word that is translated "speak" in the New Testament. "laleo", preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. The other Greek word that is generally translated "speak" is "lego", which gives us a better understanding of "laleo" with a comparison included therein. "lego", a prim. verb; prop. to "lay" forth, i.e. (fig.) relate (in words [usually of systematic or set discourse; whereas 2036 and 5346 generally refer to an individual expression or speech respectively; while 2980("laleo") means an extended or random harangue]); by impl. to mean: -- ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say (-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter. Repeat: "laleo", preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. 2980("laleo") means an extended or random harangue Wouldn't that mean that Paul was saying that women were not to give long, huffy, off the point, preachy sermons"?? And since he seemed to need to make the point that women were to be "submissive, as the law" states... and then mentions the fact that the submission he is talking about is that which places her in "submission" to her husband, it seems that the speeches given by those women were possibly good old fashioned "tongue lashings" toward their husbands or men in general before the entire church. By the way, "harangue" means long, blustery or scolding speech; tirade. I certainly understand why Paul would tell women in all the churches of God not to do that. I would suppose he probably would have told men not to do that too if he had come across the same problem with men when he wrote ICorinthians. That type of behavior/talk coming from anyone does not show or promote "love". So I think Paul was telling women to behave themselves. And I don't think Paul was addressing the role of women as elders, deacons, pastors, nor any other role in the church in these verses. I don't think the Lord distinguishes between men and women in the church because we are all "one" in Jesus. Gal. 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I'd just like to add my opinion quickly about submission. Submission really is two-fold. Submission to husbands is for order within a marriage. "Submit yourselves one to another" is for order (oneness) within the church. That's just the way I look at it. |
||||||
48 | Would you kindly explain this text. | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 25869 | ||
In verses 34 and 35 the same Greek word (2980 "laleo") is translated "speak". It is also used in other verses, but it is not the only word that is translated "speak" in the New Testament. "laleo", preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. The other Greek word that is generally translated "speak" is "lego", which gives us a better understanding of "laleo" with a comparison included therein. "lego", a prim. verb; prop. to "lay" forth, i.e. (fig.) relate (in words [usually of systematic or set discourse; whereas 2036 and 5346 generally refer to an individual expression or speech respectively; while 2980("laleo") means an extended or random harangue]); by impl. to mean: -- ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say (-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter. Repeat: "laleo", preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. 2980("laleo") means an extended or random harangue [Harangue means a long, blustering or scolding speech, tirade.] So, in my opinion Paul was chastising the women at the "house" churches in Corinth for giving a "tongue lashing" to others in the church. Instead those women were to "keep silent" and learn from their husbands at home. In verse 35, Paul says "... for it is shameful for women to 'give an extended or random haranguing' in church". In doing so they were apparently not only disrupting the meeting, but were also quite high-minded since Paul also admonished by asking "Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?". God bless. |
||||||
49 | Can we be baptised on behalf of the dead | 1 Cor 15:29 | There | 12962 | ||
If you don't mind I'm going to throw a couple of things out here because I don't believe there are any relevant scriptures to explain just what Paul meant. I may be wrong, and if someone has some I will be grateful to read them. 1) To begin with I want to copy something from Halley's Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, pp. 598-600, concerning chapter 15 in 1Corinthians. "The fact that some of the Corinthian Church Leaders were already denying the Resurrection (12), is an indication of the extent to which false teaching, of the very worst kind, had crept into the church." "Paul insists, in the strongest language of which he is capable, that except for the hope of Resurrection, there is no excuse for the existence of Christianity (13-19)." "The Resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the one unvarying refrain of the apostles. This 15th chapter of 1Corinthians is the fullest discussion of it in the New Testament. In the meaning it gives to human life it is the most significant and grandest single chapter in the Bible." (skipped some parts) "Baptized for the Dead (v.29). This seems to mean vicarious baptism, that is, baptism for a dead friend. But there is no other Bible reference to such a practice, and no evidence that it existed in the apostolic Church. Perhaps a better translation would be "Baptized in hope of the resurrection." 2) And I will give you another possibility since Paul sometimes went into "argument" mode. :) It disagrees with Mr. Halley's last statement. Possibly Paul was saying something like this, "Hey people, what do you mean they are saying that there is no resurrection?? Even those who are making these false claims get baptized for the dead. If they don't believe the dead rise at all, then why are they getting baptized for the dead?? They must believe in the resurrection if they're doing that!" And then in verse 34 Paul explains that "some do not have the knowledge of God". That "some" are those who do not believe in the resurrection, AND are getting "baptized for the dead". |
||||||
50 | Where is the line? | 2 Cor 9:7 | There | 22097 | ||
Hi Prayon, Actually, since the ceremonial/Levitical priesthood has been done away with by Jesus Christ, we no longer are under the laws that apply to ceremonial acts or the Levitical priesthood. In the NT there are examples of showing our love to others through "giving" though... Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. (Matt.25:34-40), Feed and give drink to your enemy (Rom.12:20), Collections for other less fortunate brethren (1Cor.16:1), To share in all good things with him who teaches (Gal.6:6), To aid our leaders to meet their necessities (Phil.4:10-20; 1Peter5:1-4), A worker is worthy of their wages [not necessarily money - see references] (1Tim.5:17-18; Matt.10:9-10; Luke 10:7; 1Cor.9:14), To meet urgent needs (Titus3:14), For the brethren and for strangers (3John5-6). All of those things are not to be done by our pastor or church board either. We're told to do them ourselves. If we look in the Books of the law, what we find though is that the Israelites were to give 10 percent of their increase (tithe of the land; tithe of the herd; tithe of thy corn; tithe of the increase of thy seed; tithe of thy wine and oil, firstlings of your flocks; tithe of the oxen and sheep; etc.) to the priests to provide for their support and to provide for the needy. It wasn't to support the Temple. And it wasn't for the Levite's needs alone. |
||||||
51 | Do we play or pray? | Col 2:16 | There | 25947 | ||
I don't believe any of the ten commandments are "out". I just think we need to be able to look at the 4th commandment from the Lord's perspective. (Just like the 6th and 7th (Matt. 5:21-30), and all the others.) God's understanding of His laws have never changed... only man's understanding has changed because of more in depth teaching. Yet I do not think the 4th commandment says we are to sabbath on Saturday. The Hebrews kept the sabbath on Saturday because they understood the 4th commandment to tell them to do so. Yet I think God's intention (and I said "think") was not that they keep the Sabbath on Saturday, but that they rested every 7th day. God knew man needed physical rest and a time to rest in Him - spiritual rejuvenation -- at least once a week. Here's a bit of Jewish tradition based on their historical accounts. The Ten Commandments were given to Moses on a Sunday -- the same Sunday as Pentecost. The first time God wrote His law on stone (the first time before Moses threw them down and broke them), and the second time (Pentecost) He began writing His law on hearts. If the law was given to the Hebrews on Sunday, would the following Sunday be the 7th day that God was referring to in the 4th commandment?? It is a possibility. Did it matter to God which day they kept... as long as they kept every 7th day?? Again, I don't think so. The 4th commandment basically says to do our customary work for six days and then rest the 7th. I think when the command states "but the 7th is the Sabbath of the Lord"... God is stating that He was making it for man... but it was God doing the making and it was therefore God's Sabbath. He owns it, but he made it for man. And God used the example of creation to show man what He meant. Work six days, rest one. I think it's possible that the millennial Sabbath will be on the Lord's day, just as it is now. |
||||||
52 | GOD DID NOT LEAVE US | Heb 4:12 | There | 15683 | ||
Ephesians 6:13-17. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchfull to this end... " And when in spiritual battle keep in mind Romans 8:37. And we can grow in the Lord during these times. (1John 4:18) |
||||||
53 | Why must we divide soul and spirit? | Heb 4:12 | There | 15684 | ||
It is my understanding that this "division of spirit and soul" has to do with death. In Ecclesiastes 12:7 states that "then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it." When we become "saved", we undergo a renewal of our mind, or another way of putting it is that we become "born again of the Spirit". When a believer dies, their body returns to dust, and both their soul and spirit go to be with God in heaven, because the soul (mind, thoughts, inner man) has been rejuvenated or born again into God's family. When an unbeliever dies, his body returns to dust, and his spirit 'returns to God who gave it', but his soul... because it has not been "made new", born again of the Spirit... cannot enter heaven. Only God can divide the soul from the spirit of man, which is necessary at the death of an unbeliever. Probably why Paul says "Let us be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall after the same example of disobedience" Heb. 4:11. |
||||||
54 | Please explain "double edged sword" | Heb 4:12 | There | 15685 | ||
Hank did a good job! A "double edged sword" means that God's word can comfort/save, or condemn. He uses both in dealing with mankind. | ||||||
55 | Do those in heaven know what's happening | Heb 12:1 | There | 15693 | ||
I think that when we are in heaven within sight of the glory of God... watching the goings on down here will be the last thing we concern ourselves with. The Bible does state that just before God's wrath is poured out on the earth, that those who have victory over the beast (believers) (Rev. 15:2) have harps, and they are singing praises to God. "Do those in heaven know what's happening on earth?" In Rev. 6:10, the martyrs only seemed to know that God's wrath had not been completed yet. The "cloud of witnesses" mentioned in that verse are those who have come before us (reference to those previous verses) whose lives and faith provide a witness to us in God's power to save. |
||||||
56 | Could one think anger got righteousness? | James 1:20 | There | 12928 | ||
Example: A man kills an abortionist. The man that did this thought his anger was righteous. Yet as you mentioned James 1:20 says "... the wrath of man does not produce the righteousness of God." Wrath, from "orge" means violent passion or justifiable abhorance. |
||||||
57 | Who should bring the stray back? | James 5:19 | There | 12936 | ||
Since James is speaking to Christians, I'd say that verse is talking about Christians. Secondly, a person could not "wander from the truth" if he had never known the truth in the first place. Is it a loving act to allow someone to wallow in their sin? Did Christ, our example, allow those he had opportunity to address about their sin, leave them to dwell in it? Or did He tell them their wrong and encourage them to get the sin out of their life? Jesus' words say it this way in Matthew 18:15-17 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained a brother." "But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established." "And if he still refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." Also Galatians 6:1; 2Thessalonians 3:13-15; 1Corinthians 5:1-13) |
||||||
58 | Who is saving his soul from death? | James 5:20 | There | 12922 | ||
If a person sees another in sin and convinces them to change their mind about commiting that sin, then the person who did the convincing is saving the other person from coming under judgement in that area. Another example: Romans 11:14 "if by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh and save some of them..." Neither of the above persons are THE SAVIOR of the World, Jesus Christ, but the above persons can rescue or "save" someone from God's judgment by convincing them to change their thinking or behavior. As to the last part of that verse in James "... and cover a multitude of sins." Peter says it is an act of loving others that covers a multitude of sins (1Peter 4:8). Would it be a loving act to leave a brother drown in their sin, if we could convince them to change their mind? No, none of us would consider that love, but would prefer that someone would talk to us if they noticed sin in our life. |
||||||
59 | The Great Prostitue? | Revelation | There | 12623 | ||
The Great Prostitute, "harlotry" represents false religion (idolatry). Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots, depicts the supreme system(s) of false religion that focuses on the "Queen of Heaven", with it's mother/child worship, which in one form or another has dominated almost all the beast empires of Satan and has sought to destroy Israel and the church in general since their beginnings. The most visible manifestation of that false religion is seen today in Rome (Catholicism) and Constantinople/Istanbul (Byzantine/Eastern Othodox. So in Revelation, both terms are speaking of the same thing, a false religion( that will have authority over the masses, and deal harshly with anyone who disagrees with its teaching and worship. In essence it will lead it's followers to worship "Satan" during the latter days. Today, it is involved in an "ecumenical movement", attempting to bring about a sort of one world religion whereby all faiths (Christian, Islam, Budhist, etc.) would all be under one central authority. They claim that no matter who one worships it is the one and same God/god, so therefore we should be able to find some middle ground for world worship. |
||||||
60 | What is 666? | Revelation | There | 12625 | ||
It represents the man who will be empowered by Satan. The identity will be scrupulously concealed to the world until the middle of the seventieth week. Quite probably if he were to be revealed before this time, before he took over the 3-nation power base, before he made his covenant with Israel, before he assembled his massive military strength, before being supernaturally empowered by Satan -- he would likely be killed or imprisoned long before God's words were fulfilled. Other descriptions of Antichrist(666) by various names and titles: Antichrist (1John 2:18); the beast (Rev. 13:4); the man of lawlessness and the son of destruction (2Thess. 2:3); Gog (Ezek. 38:2); the little horn (Dan. 7:8); the destroyer and extortioner (Isa. 16:4); the head of the house of evil (Hab. 3:13); and even the personified abomination of desolation (Matt. 24:15). The only real clue to where he will come from is in the book of Ezekiel 38: "[from] the land of Magog"... "from the remote parts of the north" (vv.2,6) and will descend on Israel "like a storm... "like a cloud covering the land" with a vast army and massive weapons of war (vv.4,8,9). Antichrist is also described by John in Rev. 17:10,11. When Revelation was written by John at the end of the first century A.D. we see that 5 beast empires of Satan had come and gone ("five have fallen"), "one is" (i.e. the Roman Empire), one was yet to come in the future and would "remain for a little while" (i.e. the Nazi Empire of the Third Reich seems most probable). Also there will be an 8th leader who will lead the final ten-nation confederation -- namely the Antichrist, who "was and is not", and who is also "one of the seven" rulers of the preceding seven beast empires. This last reference clearly refers to a man, not an empire as seen in John's choice of words stating that "the beast (Antichrist)... is himself also the 8th (head or king), and is one of the seven (heads or kings)" (v.11). "Himself" is obviously a reference to Antichrist as a man. The other strange truth about this passage seems to be that this man (8th king) will be one of the previous 7 kings "who was and is not", i.e he has already died. So we are told that the man (Antichrist) will be one of the 7 leaders of the previous 7 beast empires and has since died. So he will be a dead man brought back to life to rule the final beast empire. Verse 13:3 "...and all the world marveled (was amazed) and followed the beast". It would seem that this is Satan's final attempt to appear to the world as their resurrected savior. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |