Results 6761 - 6780 of 6970
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6761 | What creatures are small and wise? | Prov 30:24 | Hank | 5066 | ||
Proverbs 30:24-28 lists four things that are small but wise. What are they and why are they wise? What is the lesson or message for us? --Hank | ||||||
6762 | Folks, It's Time for A Change! | Phil 2:14 | Hank | 5034 | ||
If we cannot all agree on the issue of Triunity vs. "Oneness" -- and apparently we can't -- can we at least agree to a moratorium on it? The Triunity people and the "Oneness" people have had more than ample opportunity to air their views. This forum has been virtually paralyzed in the last few days by this issue. It's time to drop, stop it, and move on. Does anyone feel like adding an "Amen" to this proposal? --Hank | ||||||
6763 | When is "Bible Graduation Day"? | Prov 9:9 | Hank | 5030 | ||
Well said. Amen. --Hank | ||||||
6764 | Why did He accept wine the second time? | John 19:30 | Hank | 5015 | ||
prayon, this question, an excellent one, brings to light one of the most poignant aspects of the crucifixion and the most crucial of all things in history -- that our blessed Lord willingly went to the cross, willingly suffered, and willingly died for all the sins of us all. He refused the first offer of sour wine, or vinegar mixed gall, because it contained an opiate to relieve pain. This He did before He was impaled to the cross. He did not drink because it would have acted to dull His senses. He must bear our sins in full consciousness. For Him it was necessary to bear the full load of man's sins with no impairment of His senses, no alleviation of His pain. When, for the second time He was offered it, He took the wine, because He knew then that "It is finished." He had done what the Father had sent Him to do. What a Savior! What a Savior! --Hank | ||||||
6765 | When is "Bible Graduation Day"? | Prov 9:9 | Hank | 5014 | ||
Studying the Bible seems so challenging, so daunting at times. What little I have learned about it pales in contrast to all the things I neither know nor understand. I become discouraged sometimes. Do you feel this way too? We're not alone! Please allow me to share with you a thought along these lines from the mighty pen of St. Augustine, than whom few other persons have delved so deeply for so long into God's eternal Word. He said that even if all he did was simply study the Scriptures and "nothing else, from boyhood to decrepit old age, with the utmost leisure, the most unwearied zeal, and with talents greater than I possess, I would still be making progress in discovering their treasures." His wise words minister to me today, and I pray they will give you too a measure of hope and renewed zeal in your quest to learn more about this blessed Book. --Hank | ||||||
6766 | Who are the scribes? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 5012 | ||
charis, isn't it interesting to follow the metamorphosis of the Biblical scribes from being only secretaries -- we might even venture to call them stenographers -- to being the co-conspirators with olther Jewis groups to do away with Jesus? They relied on tradition for their authority and, of course, Jesus had no "credentials" as an official teacher in their system. Being, as they were, the credited expounders of the, by this time complex, Hebrew system, they sought to discredit and expunge by every possible means those radicals who, like Jesus, would dare challenge their tradition and their authority. What a change from the simple scribe of times past!.....The early church of Apostolic times was shepherded by simple men, commoners for the most part, whose qualifications and credentials were measured not by degrees from academia but by degrees of moral uprightness and by their zeal for Christ and His church. They held their assemblies wherever they could, frequently in one another's homes. They had no creed but Christ, no name but Christians, no complex hierachy, no catechisms to memorize, no ivy-covered seminaries, no massive stained-glass cathedrals, no TV "evangelists" selling books and video tapes, no sacred-cow church traditions -- in short, their lives were simple and their mission clear, to follow Jesus and exhort others to follow Him....The scribe -- the story of the evolution of a simple secretary to a bitter enemy of the lowly Jesus and His teachings. The Apostolic church -- the story of the evolution of a simple, united people to the structured, complex, and highly divided conglomeration it is today. Indiviual factions of the segmented church today all appear to be convinced they are right. The irony and the paradox is that the scribes in Jesus' day were sure they were right too. But they denied the power and authority of the Lord Jesus and sought to superimpose their will and their teachings upon His. Who then are the scribes today? Who indeed? --Hank | ||||||
6767 | What's Paul describing in Rom.7:13-25? | Not Specified | Hank | 4984 | ||
Robert Louis Stevenson could very well have been inspired by Romans 7:13-25 to write Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. What is Paul describing here, a Christian or a no-Christian experience? Was it unique to Paul in his time or common to all men in every age? | ||||||
6768 | What's Paul describing in Rom.7:13-25? | Rom 7:15 | Hank | 4991 | ||
Robert Louis Stevenson could very well have been inspired by Romans 7:13-25 to write Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. What is Paul describing here, a Christian or a no-Christian experience? Was it unique to Paul in his time or common to all men in every age? | ||||||
6769 | Is there another helper? | John 5:43 | Hank | 4963 | ||
Ray, to your first two questions, the answer is, Nothing more than I indicated in my first note. About John 7:52, I'm not sure what your point of emphasis is, if any, but here is the verse followed by a comment on it. "They answered and said to him, 'You are not also from Galilee, are you? Search, and see that no prophet arises out of Galilee.'" Scanning backward a few verses allows us to pick up the context. Verse 52 is the Pharisees' answer to the question put to them by Nicodemus in verse 51. Here, of course, the Pharisees showed their own ignorance. Jonah was a prophet and he had come from Galilee. --Hank | ||||||
6770 | Why five words? | 1 Cor 14:19 | Hank | 4961 | ||
Hello, Ray. Agree on both points, as I attempted to make clear in my note to which yours is a response. Sorry if it missed the mark. --Hank | ||||||
6771 | Will you join me? | Acts 2:33 | Hank | 4913 | ||
I join you, my dear brother charis. --Hank | ||||||
6772 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Hank | 4901 | ||
Hello, Joe. You understand modalism. I understand modalism. You understand Triunity. I understand Triunity. There have been many, many, many postings lately by some who may well understand neither. Let me post brief definitions of some terms relative to this controversy that has all but paralyzed this Forum in recent days. For starters, the term "Oneness" that has been bandied about is not a legitimate term in any theological lexicon I know of....First I am going to list four "isms" that orthodox Christian teaching has considered heretical since Apostolic times. (1) MODALISM maintains that there is one God who manifests Himself successively as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but who is not contemporaneously all three (2) SUBORDINATIONISM views the Son and Holy Spirit as essentially and eternally subordinate to the Father. (3) TRITHEISM (not to be confused with Triunity) asserts that there are three gods rather than one God who is in three Persons (4) UNITARIANISM rejects the Christian doctrine of the Triunity and of the full deity of Jesus Christ. With too high a view of human reason and too low a view of Scripture, this heresy also denies other important Christian doctrines.....The "Oneness" idea appears to be a confusing amalgam of various of the foregoing concepts.....What is left, then, is the orthodox Christian teaching, fully supported by Scripture: TRIUNITY, the distinctive and essential Christian doctrine that there is one God in three Persons. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. There is a disctinction between the Persons so that the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Spirit, and the Son is not the Spirit. Each is a Person. The Holy Spirit is not to be envisioned as a mere force or influence. This is the teaching of the Bible. This is the teaching that has been held dear by orthodox Christianity for nearly two thousand years....let us now move forward to other matters. Have we not had enough of this one for now?....Thank you, Joe, for your fine posts and for Biblical answers to Biblical questions. May God bless. --Hank | ||||||
6773 | John 3:16 | Heb 4:15 | Hank | 4879 | ||
RevC, are we to go through our New Testaments and take out all the statements that clearly say that Jesus is the Son of God? There won't be much left. Just a pamphlet. | ||||||
6774 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Hank | 4877 | ||
So what do we do, RevC -- go through our New Testaments and take out all references that say Jesus is the Son of God? We want have much left, just a pamphlet. | ||||||
6775 | Sectarians go to Hell? | Gal 5:20 | Hank | 4875 | ||
Percival, please see two other of Paul's lists in Rom.1:24-32 and 1 Cor.6:9,10. Charles Ryrie says of this list, "The tense indicates habitually practicing these sins, exhibiting a life-style that shows an unsaved condition." John MacArthur says, "These sins characterise all unredeemed mankind living under the impotent commands of the law which produces only iniquity, though not every person manifests all these sins nor exhibits them to the same degree." To extend Paul's meaning to encompass sects (or factions) in the same sense as we commonly use it, i.e., denominations, is probably a strained interpretation. That would rather force upon us the conclusion that no Baptists, or Methodists, or Lutherians, etc. would enter the kindgom of God. And the next question to ask would be, "Then who will?" It would seem that Paul had in mind more grievous issues. --Hank | ||||||
6776 | CHRIST IS jehovah | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4832 | ||
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 | ||||||
6777 | Was Adam a White Man | Gen 1:26 | Hank | 4829 | ||
Gen. 1:26 comes as close as the Bible ever gets to revealing to us the physical attributes of Adam. Perhaps it's just as well. Theologically, it's a moot question anyway. If we venture out into extra-biblical sources, we can get all sorts of "answers" -- but of what value are they, really? We can subscribe to the happy theory that we all came from slime in some primordial swamp, and thereby be able to say that Adam was green, if that is the color of slime. Or we can do Adam in handily by buying into various brands of "higher criticism" of the Bible being bandied about in our time, which are eager for us to believe that the Genesis story of creation is nothing but fanciful myth and fairy tale passed down from generation to generation and woven into the folk-lore of a simple-minded people who were gullible enough to believe almost anything. The issue always turns to the matter of faith. Do we believe in a God who is Sovereign and who reveals His purpose and will for our lives through the Bible, or must we continually seek in our own feeble way to find fallible human sources to supplement and approbate what He has revealed in His Word? The Christian world is not measured by line and rule but by faith. If we feel that the eternal truth of God must be helped along by our weak and pale efforts, then perhaps we need to take a closer look. The God of the universe is simply not that small. --Hank | ||||||
6778 | What does "kingdom of God" mean? | Not Specified | Hank | 4801 | ||
The phrase "kingdom of God" is used more than 70 times in the New Testament. What does it mean? Has it more than one meaning? -Hank | ||||||
6779 | What does "kingdom of God" mean? | Matt 6:33 | Hank | 4807 | ||
The phrase "kingdom of God" is used more than 70 times in the New Testament. What does it mean? Has it more than one meaning? -Hank | ||||||
6780 | Is there another helper? | John 5:43 | Hank | 4794 | ||
Ray, the interpretation I gave in my original answer is that agreed upon by two of my most respected Bible commentators, Charles Ryrie and John MacArthur. I have read the context surrounding these verses and fail to see any other reasonable interpretation that squares with the text.....And I will add an additional thought to the matter of capitalization upon which you appear to place a great deal of weight and about which I am not attempting to be critical. Nonetheless, I don't share your views about its importance for reasons that I will now outline. In the first place, capitalization as we use it was foreign to the Greek manuscripts from which we get our best New Testament texts. They were written in what is called "uncials" which were somewhat like our capital letters. In a real sense, everything was capitalized. They were also written without spaces between words, called "scriptio continua". The manuscript books were not divided into chapters and verses such as we have in our Bibles today. The nearest I can come to illustrating what one of these manuscripts might look like in English is this: "FORGODSOLOVEDTHEWORLDTHATHEGAVEHISOWNLYBEGOTTENSONTHATWHOEVERBELIEVESINHIMSHOULDNOTPERISHBUTHAVEETERNALLIFE". That is, of course, John 3:16. The point is this, Ray, that capitalization itself is a fairly new invention in language. And certainly the practice of capitalization of personal pronouns that refer to the Deity is newer still. While the NASB and NKJV follow this element of style, the KJV did not and most other modern versions do not, including the NIV and RSV. It may in some cases add clarity. Some feel that it shows respect for the Deity. Both are a matter of opinion and taste; neither is vital to the comprehension of a text that is otherwise rendered in clear, standard English. In summary, capitalization is far down on the list of my priorities. Correct interpretation based on context is the premier issue in Bible study. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 ] Next > Last [349] >> |