Results 481 - 500 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
481 | smile.amazon.com | Acts 3:19 | Beja | 243880 | ||
EdB, I could answer "why I would want to" and I could engage your logic, but it would only distract from the point I truely want to make. If scripture does not bind the believers conscience, none of us have any business adding a nonscriptural obligation upon a believer. We believe in the sufficiency of scripture. Part of that is the understanding that I can not please God further by adding my own moral additions. Give me scripture or let my conscience be free. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
482 | smile.amazon.com | Acts 3:19 | Beja | 243884 | ||
EdB, I stand by my previous posts. I'm surprised that you cry out, "scripture alone" in the face of quotes from men far wiser than the two of us, yet when one cries out "scripture alone" rather than your words, you accuse them of being a Pharisee. I won't answer because I have zero interest in discovering our preferences or best practices. The question is if I sin by shopping from such places. And for that you must provide scripture. If standing on scripture alone means I'm a Pharisee. So be it. And for the record I believe abortion, heroin, and homosexuals in the pulpit can all be addressed with scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
483 | smile.amazon.com | Acts 3:19 | Beja | 243890 | ||
EdB, I can't keep up with the multitude of posts. I'm working from a smart phone and won't be back until tomorrow. Most of what I saw was just gobs of speculation, but you did ask one valid question: why do I assume the 2 cor passage doesn't apply to business. I will bow out with an answer to that. I think that passage is specifically appealing to the church. It should be believers only. Paul states extremely clearly in 1 cor 5 that he has never meant for Christians to abandon interactions with outsiders. So I don't have to make lists for the 2 cor passages. Because it's talking about just one thing. Try reading it in that light. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
484 | Where does it say that Jesus stands? | Acts 7:56 | Beja | 225763 | ||
Dennis, Acts 7:56 when stephen is stoned. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
485 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227294 | ||
Holmes, These scriptures are rather devoid of context. It was certainly Paul's practice to go to the synagogues on the sabbath day in order to preach Christ to the Jews. This you have showed amazingly well. However, this doesn't show in any way that Christians were not meeting on the first day of the week. It simply doesn't address that. I think the 2 Corinthians passover passage also needs to be considered in context. Finally, two points with regards to the breaking of the bread. First, it would be quite remarkable if scripture intended to let us know they had lunch that day. Second, your estimate of that verse disagrees with how the church has always understood it. That should at least give you pause and cause you to consider on what basis you so readily dismiss it as not being communion. In many cases just listing a stream of verses is a good way to respond to a question. But it is indeed possible to misrepresent a verse simply by quoting it in the absence of any context or explination. Let me give you an example. Suppose I told you that it was wrong for people to use public water and I gave this verse to give support. Pro 5:15 Drink water from your own cistern And fresh water from your own well. Pro 5:16 Should your springs be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets? Pro 5:17 Let them be yours alone And not for strangers with you. Now, that might sound like a passage telling us what is right and wrong concerning water. However, simply posting that passage is the height of deception because within its context it has absolutely nothing to do with water or cisterns. Check the passage to see what I mean. We must have context, and that context can greatly impact the message of a verse that might have seemed to say another thing in absence of the context. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
486 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227297 | ||
Holmes, It says Paul extended his message until midnight. You are going by pure assumption when you say that the meal came afterwards, and indeed if you honestly think it was simply an ordinary meal then why would you think they didn't eat prior to midnight? Nothing in the text suggests the meal happened the next day. And additionally, if the meal had happened an hour after midnight, which there is no reason to believe, there is nothing to say that it would then follow that they saw it as a monday event rather than a continuation of the sunday worship. If you would like some explination as to why we would believe this was indeed communion then I would rather quote at length one a bit more knowledgable than myself. Here is John Gill on the issue. With regards to their coming together to break bread: not to eat a common meal, or to make a feast, or grand entertainment for the apostle and his company, before they departed; but, as the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist", by which the Lord's supper was called in the primitive times; or as the Arabic version, "to distribute the body of Christ", which is symbolically and emblematically held forth in the bread at the Lord's table. Now on the first day of the week, the disciples, or the members of the church at Troas, met together on this occasion, and the apostle, and those that were with him, assembled with them for the same purpose; the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, "when we were come together"; Paul and his company, together with the church at Troas; for it is plain from hence that there was a church in this place, not only by disciples being here, but by the administration of the Lord's supper to them; and so there was in after ages. Who was the first pastor or bishop of this church, is not certain; perhaps Carpus, of whom mention is made in 2Ti_4:13 though he is said to be bishop of other places; See Gill on 2Ti_4:13. In the "second" century, in the times of Ignatius, there were brethren at Troas, from whence he wrote his epistles to the churches at Smyrna, and Philadelphia, and who are saluted in them by the brethren at Troas (k): in the third century, several martyrs suffered here, as Andreas, Paulus, Nicomachus, and Dionysia a virgin: in the "fifth" century, Pionius, bishop of Troas, was present at Constantinople at the condemnation of Eutyches, and afterwards he was in the council at Chalcedon; and even in the "eighth" century mention is made of Eustathius, bishop of Troas, in the Nicene council In Christ, Beja |
||||||
487 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227305 | ||
Holmes, I stand corrected regarding the timing of the meal in acts 20. I suppose I need to brush up on Acts some. I was running out of time for church and I was far more alarmed by your use of passover feast verse and spent my time double checking its context. Anyways, I clearly mispoke and it was right for you to correct me. However, as I stated in my previous post, even the fact that the meal took place after midnight impacts nothing in the discussion for the reason I stated. In addition to this, it would be rather misleading to focus this discussion on acts 20 in the first place. It was fitting for you to correct my error however for the convesation to remain at acts 20 unduely gives the impression that it is the basis of believing the early christians met on sunday when it is not. To suggest that sunday worship is based on acts 20 and a stray comment in revelations is to set up a straw man. A much more compelling arguement is made from 1 Cor 16:1,2. Now there is a passage I personally find to impact the discussion of when the early church met. Jonathan Edwards discusses this passage very well in "The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath." And even beyond all of these things we still focus on the wrong aspect. Looking at the ventures of the apostles and trying to piece together their mindset is all well and good but it is to never trump clear teaching which we have regarding the Christian's observance of sabbaths. Col 2:16,17 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. I have no expectations of persuading you regarding any of this. But I hope to establish that verses showing Paul went to evangelize Jews during the sabbath and presenting the case for sunday worship in unduely weak light is not sufficient to upset either the conscience of those who meet at sunday or the fact that the churches of God have always affirmed that the first day of the week is the day which scriptures displays as fit for the gatherings of the saints. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
488 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227320 | ||
Holmes, I am eager for this thread to end on some point that serves to edify, so let me make my cheif point a response to something which you have said that I agree entirely on. You said, "I think we can worship God and our Lord Jesus Christ on any day and at any time." With this I agree. I do not take the things which I am saying so far as to make sunday the day we "must" worship. And our disagreements will be minor if you do not take what you are saying to the point that you suggest saturday is the day we "must" worship. Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. Now, that being said, I would offer an important qualification and I only bring this up out of concern who might be reading this thread and how they would take it. We should not let the fact that we may, within bounds of Christian liberty, gather for worship on any day be twisted into the perversion that we gather for worship on no day. We should not jump from the fact that since everyday is holy to the Lord, then at no day do I need to set aside time for Christian fellowship specifically. We are clearly commanded to gather with Christian fellowships not simply in classes, not simply for music, not seminaries, not in para-church organizations, but we are to gather as churches. If that church wishes for their day of gathering to be saturday, I have no issue with it. If it be sunday, all is well. But we are to gather as Churches for mutual edification and accountability, and out of obedience. Now, I will say something small about your closing question, in which you ask where scripture changes the sabbath to sunday. I'll leave it to two simple points. 1. Nowhere does scripture state, "Now sunday will be the new sabbath." I do not suggest you will find such a statement. What we see however is the combination of two things. First, the sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. Second, there is clearly a high reverence and perhaps even bias towards meeting on the first day of the week. In 1 Cor 16:1,2 we even see it to be a matter of Paul's teaching, in my opinion. He taught them that on the first day of the week their offering was to be collected. What shall we suggest about it? That they met on saturday then were commanded to come give their offering the next day on which they were not to meet? And this was not something peculiar to the church in Corinth as if it was convenient for them to do so on the first day and for that reason it was to be the first day. No, instead we see Paul affirming that this is exactly what he taught to the Galatian Christians. In other words, we see that Paul habitually taught that on the first day of the week it was proper to fulfill this religious duty. However, even if that passage isn't persuasive to you it still ought to be evident that sunday holds itself to be a favorite meeting time. So in short, if you wish to see where the doctrine is coming from, it is in the sabbath being fulfilled and no longer binding, and the pattern we see. 2. If any would truely wish to know truth on this topic and be either confirmed in their belief or corrected of their error, he must go to those who are its chief defenders. In a word, the puritans. I am a babe in Christ compared to many who walk today, how much more so the giants of the past? For a man to think sunday worship holds no basis because I can not convince them would be comparible to a man thinking he had disproved the doctrine of particular redemption without having ever read John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ," his masterpiece on the topic. In other words, go to those who have defended it so well and read them. Many will say, no, let us simply stand on God's word. Amen, and I agree. However, would you have a man show if you are in error in how you understand God's word? If not, then why do we discuss? If you do then find that man who is mighty in scirptures. And often you will find those men have long left to be with the Lord. They have left their teachings in books. Books which seek to explain the word of God. I pray no man would dismiss the historical teachings of the Church until they have first understood why the Church has understood scripture to teach those things, and that they would hear them from the very best of those who have articulated and defended the position. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
489 | Cain was cast out to the Land of Nod, | Acts 17:26 | Beja | 223540 | ||
Rodnword, From Adam. Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place In Christ, Beja |
||||||
490 | Cain's wife is from who? | Acts 17:26 | Beja | 223592 | ||
Grandpa, This forum has a specific terms of use that you must agree upon to be welcome to use the forums. Part of this is confessing that scripture is the error free word of God and the ultimate authority. It is alright to suggest that scripture is using metaphors or symbolism, it often does so. However, when it does so, it does so intentionally. So the notion that scripture is inaccurate or unreliable is not welcome on the forum. I encourage to read the TOU carefully because our gracious host has in the past restricted users from the site for not following this very thing and I would hate to see you not be able to learn and study scripture with us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
491 | Cain's wife is from who? | Acts 17:26 | Beja | 223594 | ||
Grandpa, Here is why, you said: "That is why we end up with seemingly impossible things like talking snakes and such" The suggestion seems to be that whatever else can be said, the language isn't really truely reliable. Or rather incapable of expressing the truth. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
492 | Cain's wife is from who? | Acts 17:26 | Beja | 223602 | ||
Seems this verse throws a pretty big wrench in the theory of creating other lines of people. Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, In Christ, Beja |
||||||
493 | Cain's wife is from who? | Acts 17:26 | Beja | 223604 | ||
Preston, Read the context, this is not a parable at all. Rather it is an explicit teaching from Paul. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
494 | Explain Acts 19:2 | Acts 19:2 | Beja | 227244 | ||
James Love, Read 19:1-6 as a whole. Then consider if this idea fits: Salvation does not come through just repentance, but through forgiveness offered only in the name of Jesus. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
495 | What should I say? | Acts 20:20 | Beja | 227069 | ||
Julia, I would say something along these lines. "True, and it makes me very glad that our God is far more patient with the shortcomings of his people than your doctrine teaches." Beware setting up obedience in one specific area, or to one specific command as the end all test of true Christianity. If any command has that privledge it is the command to love one another. I challenge you to do a little reading. See 1 Corinthians 13. We see a long list. If I prophecy and have not love, if I have knowledge and have not love, if I give to the poor and have not love, if I am a martyr and have not love... Could we not so easily add, "If I go door to door witnessing every day and have not love.."? Christ himself says that it is by love all men will know we are disciples (John 13:15.) It is not by going door to door all men know that a church is the true church! See also 1 John 3:10, and 1 John 4:21 and see how this command is singled out as evidences of real Christians. Going door to door is simply not given that place of honor in Christians such that it is the mark of true and false churches or disciples. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
496 | all have opportunity to know Christ | Romans | Beja | 221473 | ||
Bellshu, I know of no place in all of scripture that says this. I think this is a misconception that modern Christians have. Sadly, I can't quote a verse for what is not in scripture to prove it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
497 | Actual process? | Romans | Beja | 228175 | ||
Doc, Well said. Especially the summary recommendation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
498 | Who is revealing God's wrath? | Rom 1:18 | Beja | 225583 | ||
wick08, It seems to me, that in Romans 1, that the depravity being spoken of in Romans 1:26 is clearly God's punishment for their idolatry. Now from a more complete biblical study we know that there was already an existing depravity that spurred this sin, but here we seem to see God allowing a further depravity as punishment. It is important to note this is not God putting a greater sin into their hearts, but rather this is God letting up on his actively restraining the sin already there. So the punishment is God ceasing to restrain, so that they heap up greater judgment upon themselves. However, I suspect that the revelation of God's wrath referred to in this chapter could possibly extend beyond chapter one. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
499 | The people that never heard of Jesus? | Rom 1:20 | Beja | 213836 | ||
Vintage, You are sorely in error here. The entire idea in this section of romans is that this group of people are without excuse. The entire point is that the idea of some noble minded, good man out there who perished and just didn't get a fair shake is a myth that Paul is purposely doing away with in this passage. Pay close attention to verses 18-20. Also, consider chapter 3, verse 9. This is a key verse for interpreting everything that has come before because in it he states what in his mind is what has already been covered, "both Jews and Greeks are all under sin." The entirety of Paul's point in Romans 1:18-3:20 is that nobody is excusable. Not through ignorance, not through presuming on God's mercy, not through hearing the law, not through doing the law, not from anything at all. We are all under God's righteous judgement. Understanding this, is key to understanding the amazing gospel that follows in 3:21 and on. There is no second arrangement! There is no other criteria of judgement! It is Christ or the inexcusable law. The fact the gentiles have it written on their hearts IS what makes them without excuse! Because deep down they knew what was right and they chose evil anyways. NOBODY will arrive at heaven and hear God say, "Gee, you never got a chance to hear my gospel, and you didn't get the law, but I see you always did right by your concience, come on in to heave because you are a good guy!" EVERYBODY has chosen wrong, sin and wickedness, and we will all be judged apart from Christ. I would give a much more thorough and organized defense of what I've stated, but its 2:15 am here right now and I just logged on because I couldn't sleep. I look forward to the more well laid statements of what I've just said that are sure to come! In Love, Beja |
||||||
500 | The people that never heard of Jesus? | Rom 1:20 | Beja | 213837 | ||
Skasian, I encourage you to read my reply to Vintage also, but to answer your question...It is not failure to receive Jesus that sends us to hell, it is sin. Sin sends a person to hell. Sin is why we rightly deserve to go to hell. Rejecting Jesus is simply refusing the solution to the problem that is already there. So, in applying this to your question, yes they would go to hell. Though not because they didn't get to hear about Jesus, but rather because they have in fact sinned. And as a sinner, they are rightly and justly condemned by God. The gospel is the life line being extended to those who are already perishing. In love, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ] Next > Last [40] >> |