Results 361 - 380 of 449
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
361 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 38120 | ||
Hello, EdB really said what was on my mind. If you were to continue that thinking, the only conclusion that can be developed is that God alone is responsible for Sin. That is what upsets me. You may be able to soften that thought in your mind, but it troubles me deeply. Jesusman |
||||||
362 | What is truth? | John 18:38 | Jesusman | 195116 | ||
It's funny when you speak to someone about the absolute nature of truth and they respond with their relativism philosophy. What they fail to realize is in order to be true to their philosophy, and for others to hold to the same philosophy, that the philosophy of Relativism becomes an Absolute Truth in and of itself. Thus defeating it's own premise. It also opens up the door to the argument that if one absolute truth exists, aka Relativism, then there is the likelihood of other absolute truths existing, aka God. On the other hand, if Relativism isn't absolute, then it shoots down it's own credibility. Relativism can only be true for one person and one person only. It holds no power or authority to another person. If I say something is true because it's true for me, and there are no Absolute truths, then what authority do I have to say that what I say is true should also be true for you. This can lead to anarchy. How can we hold criminals responsible for their crimes against the laws of the land with this being the prominant philosophy? You can't. Even with a majority saying the same relative truth, it only takes one to say that it isn't true for them to begin unravelling authority and credibility. Some of the more zealous supporters of relative truth might disagree here, but the fact is that something needs to be held as an Absolute Truth. There is no way around it. The originator of Absolute Truth is God. Jesusman |
||||||
363 | What is truth? | John 18:38 | Jesusman | 195121 | ||
All I have to say is that if we create our own reality, then can I trade mine in for something different? On top of that, If we reject logic as being merely an illusion, then what's left? Basically, he's reducing life to a tom and jerry cartoon. Everything in existance today revolves around Logic on some level. Jesusman |
||||||
364 | what dis Jesus mean "I thirst" | John 19:28 | Jesusman | 40911 | ||
Hello, Over all, I agree with the others who have already posted. However, there is something to concider about this statement, "I thirst." A while back, the Cathedral Quartet released a song about this statement made by Jesus. It is such that it causes you to wonder. Jesus, being God in Flesh, is the creator of all in existance. Not only did he create the universe, but the water as well. About 75 percent of the Earth's surface is covered with Water. The Human body is about 80 percent water. During the Flood, it rained for forty days and nights, and covered the Globe. The most abundant resource on Earth is Water, and Jesus is thirsty. The man who can control the winds and waves, multiply food, control the body, and even holds the power of life and death in his hands is thirsty. The man who offered "living Water" is now thirsty. It makes you think. Jesusman |
||||||
365 | please provide information on John 19:28 | John 19:28 | Jesusman | 40963 | ||
This question has already been asked and answered. In fact, they are on the same page as this one. | ||||||
366 | Christianity.....idolatry? | John 20:28 | Jesusman | 62292 | ||
No. An idol is anything that becomes more important to you than God himself. Christianity is the Worship of the one true God. Therefore, it's not Idolatry. An Idol is primarily something man made. A representation of the creator instead of the creator himself. Often time, an idol is a representation of something the creator created, like an animal, man, or something else. Christianity, first of all, doesn't use any man made artifacts to worship to. We don't bow down to an item, nor do we pray to one. We bow our heads before God and pray to God. So, no, Christianity is not idol worship. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
367 | Who wrote the book of Acts? | Acts | Jesusman | 50922 | ||
Dr. Luke | ||||||
368 | Who wrote the book of Acts? | Acts | Jesusman | 50932 | ||
Hello, First off, thanks for the suggestion, but I already have one. Also, the NASB study bible's notes, charts, maps, and etc. come from the NIV study Bible. I prefer the Thompson chain referance over the NASB Study Bible any day. It's notes, charts, and maps outweight those found in the NASB SB. It's reference section at the end is designed so that you can find anything you have a need for. It is set up so that you compair scripture to scripture and allow scripture to interpret scripture. It has an archeological section that the NASB SB doesn't have. Overall, the Thompson chain is far better than the NASB. Second, I did answer the person's question. He asked who wrote the Book of Acts, and I told him. If he wanted more information, all he needed to do was ask, and I would've been happy to inform him. Thirdly, Your comment sounded insulting. That may not have been your intention, but that is how it sounded to me. You jumped to the conclusion that I knew little about the Bible and had no resources to study the Bible. The opposite is the truth, friend. I have so many books in which to study the Bible, that I some in storage, and some in my car as well as at my home. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman PS: Hardbacks last much longer than any other binding type. |
||||||
369 | Who wrote the book of Acts? | Acts | Jesusman | 51094 | ||
Hello, Hey, no problem. I'm sorry also if I came across rather harsh. Jesusman |
||||||
370 | Which Philip is described in Acts 8? | Acts 8:14 | Jesusman | 32088 | ||
Hello, A possible answer is given in chapter six. Among the first deacons was a man named Phillip. Given this, and the verse you pointed out, it is reasonable that the Phillip in chapter 8 is Phillip the deacon, not Phillip the apostle. However, it is also likely that after the death of Stephen, that some of the Apostles returned to Judea and Samaria, namely Phillip, and later John and Peter. Acts 8:5 seems to present the idea that Phillip didn't come from jerusalem, but from an area to the North of Samaria. While it is true that the common meaning of the phrase "went down to" is that the person left Jerusalem to go to another city, we must, however, remember that Dr. luke isn't writing to a jewish man who would understand that. He is writing to a gentile, and would use words and phrases that he would understand. Whenever we have jewish related references from Dr. Luke's writings, he often provides an explaination of some kind. So, I think that Phillip was at an area somewhere north of Samaria, and returned to the area of Judea and Samaria. So, you have two possible explainations. I personally believe that it is Phillip the Apostle returning to the area after hearing about the death of Stephen, especial taking into concideration the events of Chapter 8 and the amazing testimony Phillip gives to Simon and the Etheopian eunuch. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
371 | Acts 9:5 Versions Miss Last Sentence | Acts 9:5 | Jesusman | 192778 | ||
Both the NIV and the NASB are missing this portion. One simple solution is that since the KJV was based off of relatively newer manuscripts than the NIV and NASB, that the older and more reliable manuscripts that the NASB and NIV were based on didn't include this phrase and as such wasn't included. | ||||||
372 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 50849 | ||
Hello, As for your first question, One of the main differences between being Christian and being a Catholic was started by the Catholics themselves. When the Great Reformation grew more and more, the Catholic church excommunicated most of those involved. As a result, those people were viewed not only as non-catholic, but non-christian as well. In fact, you will find it a popular belief among catholics that the Catholic church is the only true christian church and all others are phoney. In addition to that, they believe that they haven't changed since Christ first started the Church, which is laughable when you read some of their history and beliefs. The "true" church is stated clearly with in the Bible (Old and New Testament). When you look at some of the Catholic traditions and practices, you see many heresies, falsehoods, and questionable practices. For example, there is no office of Pope mentioned by name, described, or explained at all in the Bible. According to Catholic beliefs, the Pope is infallible, sinless, and the head of the Church. That is the description of Jesus Christ alone, not some man. In fact, Paul in Romans clearly teaches that all people have sinned. Paul also teaches that Jesus alone is the head of the Church. Jesus christ himself even confirms all of this in numerous places. It is clear that the office of Pope is a non-biblical role, and is even heretical because it goes against Biblical teachings. Another example, from many, is their teaching about Mary. According to Catholic tradition, Mary was born of a special birth just as John the Baptist and Jesus was. According to tradition, if I remember correctly, Mary's parents were visited by an angel and told about the importance of their future daughter. Now, on the surface, this appears to be okay. However, it goes against the Old Testament Prophecies. Allow me to clarify. The Prophet Micah speaks of a period of darkness in which the Prophets will go blind, and where God will NOT speak to mankind at all. According to Micah, this period of Darkness begins with the return of the Isrealites to their homeland after the Babylonian Exhile, and ends with the coming of the Messiah. Now, the Prophet Malachi, the last prophet of the Old Testament period, prophecied during the Return from the Exhile. He prophecied that the Messiah will arrive after Elijah. A prophet will come before the Messiah, will be in the spirit of Elijah, and will prepare the way for the Messiah. So, in all, you have the Period of Darkness ending with the Coming of Elijah, or John the Baptist as Jesus confirms. Now, according to biblical teachings, an angel being sent to earth is the same as God speaking. Any miracles happening is God speaking. So, if Catholic tradition is true, then Mary the Mother of Jesus is Elijah returned, John the Baptist is the Messiah, Jesus is wrong, the entire Bible is false, and we've all been practicing the wrong religion for 2000 years. Athiests could have a field day with this one! Also, those two prophecies of Micah and Malachi prove that the Apocrypha is not canon and should not be in the Bible. Why? The Apocrypha is proven to have been written during the 400 year period between the Testaments. To be canonical, a book must be insired, or spoken, by God. So, how can the Apocryphal books be canonical if they were written in a time when God was not speaking? See my point? As you can see, the Catholic church has some major areas to work on if they want to be concidered the "True" Church. Now for you other question. The matter of not being able to show how you feel about God in church is a matter of tradition, privacy, and fear. First off, the main factor is fear. Many people are afraid to show anything in public for fear of looking like fools. The Second factor is privacy. Jesus commanded that our prayers should be private. In fact, many of the prayers in the Bible were done in private. IN fact, the Bible teaches that our relationship with God should be largely private. The idead being that if our private lives are in sinc with God, then our public life will reveal that as well. The final factor involves tradition. This goes all the way back to the hebrew worship practices. Much of the hebrew worship services were quiet occasions. Then add on the Catholic Church's influence on that, and you have people not speaking or anything during worship. Also you have the verse from Paul being majorly distorted that reads, "Women should keep silent in church ...". Bring all of these together, and you have your answer. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
373 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 50904 | ||
Hello, There maybe sincere Catholics who are truly saved. I am not doubting that possibility. However, I do doubt the Catholic Doctrine. Their doctrine is full of biblical inaccuracies, herecies, falsehoods, and much more. Everytime the Catholic church claims to have never changed, they are telling a bold-faced lie. While there is a possiblity that there are sincere Catholics who are also truly saved, I question the likelyhood of that possibility due to the enormous amount of falsehoods that the Catholic Church claims, teaches, and belives. Now, am I saying that my own faith is perfect and true? No, not in the least. I realize that my own faith and denomination have serious falsehoods of their own. However, that does not deter me from doing my Christian duty as a Pastor to point out that which goes contrary to Scripture, and to reveal what the Scriptures truly say. Jesusman |
||||||
374 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 50918 | ||
Hello, I am misinformed?? Alright. Let's take a look at some of the things I said. Let's start with what I said of Mary. According to Catholic tradition, Mary's parents were Joachim and Anna. Through their "fervent prayers", Mary was born to them in their old age. This is viewed by Catholics as a special intervention of God's power, just as in the birth of John the Baptist. This birth is viewed as an "Immaculate Conception". This is the same identification they place up the Birth of Jesus. On top of that, this identification of her birth includes that she was immune from original sin. According to Pius IX, Mary was as sinless as Jesus was. They are making Mary out to be just like the Messiah. This was all done "PRIOR" to the birth of John the Baptist. As I showed in my previous post, this all goes against the prophecies of Micah and Malachi. Am I mistaken about this? Not in the least! How about the office of Pope? According to Catholic Tradition. Peter was assigned to be the first Pope in Matthew 16:16-20. They claim that Jesus ordained Peter to be the first Pope and that the Church will be built upon Peter. However, when you examine this passage in the Greek, using proper usage of Greek, you find that Jesus is saying something different. When Jesus says, "Upon this rock I will build my Church ..." He isn't talking about Peter. Yes, Peter means "rock" in Greek, but it carries the implied meaning of a pebble or stone. A small rock. In the quoted phrase, the word is Petra, and means a large rock, a boulder. Jesus is refering to what Peter said, not about Peter himself. Also, you have the continuous themes throughout the Bible of Jesus being the Chief Cornerstone. Jesus is referring to himself in the quoted phrase. He is telling Peter that the future Church will be built upon Christ's work and that Peter and the rest of the Apostles will be the shepherds of it. All of this is confirmed by Paul. No where in Paul's writings does he acknowledge Peter as the Head of the Church or as it's foundation. He always refer to Jesus Christ in this role. Again, the Catholic church is mistaken when they call Peter the first Pope. So, am I misinformed? Nope. Perhaps you should take a step back and look at the Catholic Church in light of what the Bible says. Jesusman |
||||||
375 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 50945 | ||
Hello, My sources on this matter were Catholic sources. So, if my information is incorrect, then it is the Catholic who are incorrect. I stated what the Catholics believed as dictated from the online Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org. I also have numerous texts in my personal library which confirm the information listed on the website. With that information, I then turned to the Scriptures to examine the information in accordance to what the Scriptures teach. I found that the information was unbiblical. So, I will stand beside my findings. Jesusman |
||||||
376 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 50948 | ||
I concur. The Catholic church teaches that Salvation is achieved through works as well as through grace and faith. However, Paul teaches that Salvation is achieved by Grace through faith and not of works. Also, the scripture teaches that Christ is the head of the Church, yet the Catholics have the Pope as the head. How can they claim to be Christian if what they teach is contrary to scripture? Jesusman |
||||||
377 | Name of first Chirstinas 0-33 AD? | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 50950 | ||
If "Christian" carried implied meanings of slavery in it's original usage, then that would explain my Paul continuously calls himself a "slave" for Christ. Jesusman |
||||||
378 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 51101 | ||
Uh? No. The words for "Peter" and "Rock" may derive from the same basic word, but they are different. "Peter" or "petros" in greek means "stone, rock, pebble." It carries the implied meaning of a small rock. "Rock" or "Petra" in greek means "Boulder, rock." It carries the implied meaning of a giant, huge rock. This difference is significant. Jesus is calling Peter a small rock, and in turn is saying that his church will be built upon a big rock. That "big rock" is Jesus himself. Paul confirms this time and time again throughout his epistles. You always read Paul referring to Jesus as the Head of the church and never Peter. Also, Paul often argued with Peter. If Peter was the first Pope, then why did Paul often argue with him. Also, why, in his own epistles, did Peter never refer to himself as Pope or describe himself in such manner? Why aren't there ever any references to Peter being the head of the Church? I will go so far as to say that the Jesus is prophecying that Peter will be a ruler in the future church. However, I do not go so far as to say that Jesus is prophecying that the future church will be built upon Peter, and that Peter will be the head of it. Besides, concidering Peter's life and actions, I wouldn't want the Church to be built on him. Would you? Would you want to be a part of a group whose leader was prone to violence, often denying his own loyalties, predjudice, presumptuous, timid, cowardly, impulsive, and even blasphemous when it suited him? If you believe that the church was built upon Peter, then that is what you are getting. Jesusman |
||||||
379 | ROMANS STUDY | Romans | Jesusman | 27417 | ||
Hello zion, I may be late in responding to this, but I have some insight into this chapter of Romans. During my exigetical classes in college, I spent 16 weeks on this chapter. Allow me to share with you some of my research. First off, the "truth" that was revealed then supressed as spoken of in verse 18 is the truth about God and his wrath. In the first chapter, beginning with verse 16 and on, you have two things being revealed to mankind. The first is in verse 17, and it is the "Righteousness of God". The second is in verse 18, and it is the "Wrath of God". These two verses touch on the subject of revelation. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, so I'll clarify. There are two types of revelation: Special and General. Special revelation is where God reveals himself through special or supernatural means. The handwriting on the wall in Daniel, Moses and the Burning Bush, and Joseph's dreams in Genesis. These are all examples of Special Revelation. It is this Special Revelation that is spoken of in Verse 17. The Righteousness of God is revealed through Faith to those who are faithful, meaning that it is done through special revelation. Now for General Revelation, This is God's revelation in Nature and through natural means. In Verse 18, the Wrath of God is revealed to all mankind. It is evident not only within them, but through creation. This is God's presence being seen in nature. Now, Romans 1:18-32 goes into detail about general revelation. The Law that was given to Moses bridged Special and General Revelation. The Law, given through Special means, was also given to prove that mankind has no excuse for his actions. It is our standard to know when we are living contrary to God's will. All of this together is what Paul is referring to in this first part. It is the Truth about God, his wrath against sin, his righteous nature, and his existance. It was this truth that mankind corrupted, ignored, turned into lies, and dishonored. For example, what is the common thought about Christians among those who call themselves "freethinkers"? That Christians are fools to believe in such stupidity. Correct? This supports what Paul is talking about. Now, on to your next question. Why does a sinner need to Honor God as God? Jesus touches on this in the sermon on the mount. He states that Man cannot serve two masters. He cannot serve both God and money. This is what Paul is saying in Romans. Basically, that if you do not honor God as God, then you won't take God seriously and you won't truly be saved. It will only be an outward action. Paul is trying to make it clear that salvation begins with placing God first, honoring him as LORD, and submitting to his authority. Paul reflected that same attitude throughout his life. Almost every one of his letters begins with him referring to himself as a slave or servant of God. That is the mindset that is needed for salvation, that God is master and only he is master. Idolotry is more than wrongful worship. It is anything that gets between you and God. Sin is more than wrong doing. Sin is also not doing what God desires. I hope this helps. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
380 | Romans 1:18 taking sin seriously | Rom 1:18 | Jesusman | 194341 | ||
The importance of taking Sin seriously is evident in nearly every verse you have asked about. Romans chapter 1 is one of personal interest to me. If you read from verse 18 on to the end of the chapter, Paul makes it crystal clear about the consequences of sin. Sin is more than simple disobedience or the small white lie. It has stages. Each stage building on the one prior. As Paul describes here, it begins with burying the truth revealed about God in unrighteousnes. It escellates to idolotry. Then to sexual immorality and homosexuality. It escellates further to depravity, and hatred of anything Godly. The final solution, without Christ's involvement, is death. It all begins here in verse 18 with God revealing his nature and feelings about sin. Jesus Loves you, Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Next > Last [23] >> |