Results 221 - 240 of 7096
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | Why new books? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 98677 | ||
Greetings Soar, Are you speaking of the Apocryphal/Deuterocannonical Books? Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
222 | Is there book by Mary Magdalene ? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 99378 | ||
Greetings Flargaes, There is a "pseudo-cannonical work" called the 'Gospel of Mary', but it's 'authenticity' is questionable at best. There are many reasons why this, and other books like it, are not included in the Bible. This so-called "Gospel of Mary" was not widely accepted by the church, nor was it ever quoted, nor does it appear in any way "authentic." Also, it does not speak "authoritatively" as does the whole of the Bible as we know it. Moreover, the manuscript evidence for this work is very scant, compared to the great whole of accepted Holy writ, which was inspired by none other than the Holy Spirit. In the work itself, it makes many Scipture references, which further casts doubt on its authenticity. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
223 | What #5 really means regarding grace? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 99647 | ||
Greetings Sampq, I'm not sure what you are asking.. "Please explain what the #5 really means in regard to grace." - Makarios |
||||||
224 | Abrahamic covenant fulfillment ?...ect.. | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 99749 | ||
Greetings Notmyown! So how is everything at JBU? My father went to JBU while he was serving as a pastor in Northwestern Arkansas. Now, to your topics: 1. "The church has not replaced God's plan for Israel".. FOR: Those who argue "FOR" the above comment would point to the restoration of Israel (Zephaniah 3:18-20; Zechariah 8:1-17; chapters 12,13,14; 1 Peter 2:9) and verses such as Ex. 29:28; 32:13; 2 Sam. 7:24. AGAINST: Those who argue "AGAINST" the above comment would point to the fact that the Jews have, for the most part, rejected the Gospel, and Christianity has spread and thrived among the Gentiles (Matthew 21:33-46; Acts 10,11; Romans 2; Eph. 2:11-13). 2. "Abrahamic Covenant (not yet fulfilled)".. FOR: Those who argue "FOR" the above comment would point to the fact that there continues to be people being born as Abraham's descendants to this very day (Gen. 45:7; 2 Kings 19:31; Ezra 9:13; Isaiah 10:21; Jer. 23:3; 50:20; Micah 2:12; 4:7; 5:7; Zephaniah 2:9; Zechariah 9:7; Romans 9:27; 11:5), and the nation of Israel has not yet been able to acquire complete, uncontested rights to the land that was promised to them in Gen. 17:8. Also, God promised "to be God to you and to your descendants after you".. (Gen. 17:7), which has not been completed if there continues to be descendants born to Abraham. AGAINST: Those who argue "AGAINST" the above comment would point to the fact that the New Testament itself affirms that the "Abrahamic Covenant" has been fulfilled (Romans 4:16-18; 15:8-12; Gal. 3:29; Rev. 7:9; 21:24). I hope that this gives you a good start. :-) Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
225 | Is the KJV Only position wrong? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 99775 | ||
Greetings G-Zus_777! I suggest you read the following excellent online article: http://www.equip.org/free/DK115.htm I use the NASB, the ESV, the NKJV, the Holman Christian Standard Bible and even the NIV alongside the KJV. The NASB is my favorite translation, followed closely by the ESV. The claims of "KJV Onlyists" have all been proven wrong in regards to inspiration or deliberate "omission" in regards to modern day Bible versions. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
226 | Is the KJV Only position wrong? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 99785 | ||
Greetings Dairy Leader 5, I tried that above link (http://wwww.geocities.com/bible/translations), and the link was not found. - Makarios |
||||||
227 | Is the KJV Only position wrong? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 99790 | ||
DL5, That link is working - http://www.geocities.com/bible_translation/ - Makarios |
||||||
228 | Endorsing the TNIV, how can this be? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 99978 | ||
Greetings Justme! I honestly do not see how anyone could view the TNIV as an improvement over the text of the original NIV.. That completely baffles me! Perhaps some are just enamored with dynamic equivalence to any extent! It amazes me that there is even a market for Bible versions that are so "free"... But some hold it as their preference, I suppose, to have a translation that reads like a sports magazine rather than the Book of Books!! I, for one, am not willing to concede away any reverence at all for Bible translation, and in how it should be presented- in nothing short of Holiness and Authority. The greatest thing about reading the NASB is that you get the impression that you are delving deeply into God's Word, really studying it on a level that is much closer than could be achieved with dynamic equivalence. You come to believe that the words on the page are arranged as you would arrange them, and are placed in the way that would seem the best way in light of the original languages, or you get the impression that it is closer to those languages than any other translation. And that is the single trait of the NASB that draws me to it the most! Yes, the wording may be awkward here or there, or seem 'stilted,' even in passages that I love the most, like Isaiah 53:6. But, even so, there are reasons why the form is presented in those ways! There are reasons behind what seems as the awkward presentation of the text. And such presentation demands deeper study from its readers, causing you to come to an understanding of why the words were put there in that way. The NASB helps me in this way, being in my mind the single translation that has been able to further my study of the Word moreso than any Bible translation yet.. However, the "personality" of the NASB is not in majesty, like the King James, but moreso a humility that is not found in other translations. The KJV alone is such a majestic beauty of translation, that no other translation can come close to it, and all those that attempt to "improve" on its personality are mere copies, mere 'pretenders' to the one that simply is. Every translation is unique, having its own "personality" and way of carrying over the meaning of the text. For me, the NASB carries over a 'personality' that is very well suited to my tastes and demanding precision in study, moreso than any other translation. The original NIV, for me, is the translation of the "common".. :-) The KJV is the Majestic "royal highness" of all translations, flowing in blue and purple robes.. :-) The ESV is a like the ark made out of gopher wood and pitch (Gen. 6:14), carrying forth the gist (essential pieces) of a passage with vigor.. The Amplified Bible is just that- AMPLIFIED.. :-) The RSV is much like the ESV, but a shade colder- lacking in spirit and majesty. The HCSB (New Testament, anyway) is like a breath of fresh air that is warm to the spirit, but at the same time fleeting, difficult to dwell on for a great length of time.. The NKJV at times peaks the curiousity and brandishes the Truth in its eloquence; but yet, other times makes you question whether or not an English sentence should be chopped up in such ways! And then there is the NASB, that is not "flashy" or eloquent at times by any means (that clearly not being its goal), but trips you up when, perhaps you really should be tripped up to understand a particular passage, and is flowing where you have read so many other times before! :-) Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
229 | Last words spoken by Christ on the Cross | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 100717 | ||
Greetings 4square, The seven cries of Jesus from the cross include (in this order): 1. "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." (Luke 23:34); 2. "..To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43); 3. "Woman, behold thy son," (John 19:26-27); 4. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34-36); 5. "I thirst!" (John 19:28); 6. "It is finished!" (John 19:30); 7. "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: .." (Luke 23:46).. God Himself had foreordained the very minutest details of Jesus' death at the cross (Acts 2:23; 4:27,28). Jesus Himself was in absolute control (John 10:17,18). If we compare the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, we find that these separate accounts actually supplement each other instead of contradicting each other. Not one of the accounts is exactly the same, but the narratives combined give us a fuller and more complete picture of what happened at the cross. As we know, the rapid spread of Christianity precipitated the need for written accounts of the life of Christ. As major figures in the stories and eyewitnesses began to die, there was an increasing need for written accounts of what they had seen and heard. The Book of Matthew was written for the Jews; Mark for the Romans; Luke for the Gentiles; and John for Christians. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all present very similar material about the life of Christ; having a pretty common view of His activities and teachings and chronology of events. All but 31 verses in Mark have parallels in either Matthew or Luke, and much of John's gospel is unique. The differences in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John supplement each other without contradiction and the similarities complement each other. The result is a comprehensive fourfold record of the redemptive ministry of Jesus Christ. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
230 | Something to read | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101362 | ||
Shalor, Interesting material. It could be said that either view argued in their greatest "extremes" would both lead to heresy, even though that ground has already been covered on this forum. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
231 | Something to read | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101368 | ||
Excellent verses, Shalor! Isaiah 55:7, the verse before Isaiah 55:8-9, says, "Let the wicked forsake his way and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the LORD, and He will have compassion on him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon." Isaiah speaks volumes! :-) Makarios |
||||||
232 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101776 | ||
Greetings Thokozani! "APOSTLES 1. Identification. The apostles were chosen messengers of Jesus Christ, including specifically the 12 disciples Jesus sent out to spread the good news of the Gospel. "These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him" (Matthew 10:2-4). Once Judas Iscariot betrayed Christ and committed suicide, the number of apostles was brought back up to 12 when they chose Matthias (Acts 1:23-26). Paul and James (the brother of Jesus) were also considered apostles in the New Testament (1 Cor. 1:1; Galatians 1:19)." "2. Agents of Revelation. Just as the prophets were God's representatives in Old Testament times, so the apostles were God's representatives in New Testament times. They were specially handpicked by the Lord or the Holy Spirit (Matthew 10:1-4; Acts 1:26). They were the special recipients of God's self-revelation and were aware that God was providing revelation through them (1 Cor. 2:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; 1 John 1:1-3). It is clear that they recognized their special divine authority (1 Cor. 7:10; 11:23)." "3. Foundation Builders. Ephesians 2:19-20 (NASB) refers to God's household as "having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets," whom Christ had previously promised to guide into "all the truth" (John 16:13; see also 14:26; 15:27). It is particularly significant that God's household was founded on the apostles (Ephesians 2:20). Obviously, once a foundation is properly constructed, the foundation never needs to be laid again. A second foundation is out of the question." "4. Unique. Two key factors show the utter uniqueness of the apostles. First, they were all authenticated by miraculous signs. In Acts 2:43 we read that "everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles" (see also Acts 3:3-11; 5:12; 9:32-42; 20:6-12)." "Second, the apostles (that is, the "Twelve") were granted an eternal place of honor. In the description of the New Jerusalem in Revelation 21, we read: "And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb" (verse 14)." "Scripture indicates there can be no apostles today. An apostle had to be an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ. When Paul was proving his apostleship in 1 Corinthians 9:1, he said, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" Later in the same book, Paul said that the resurrected Christ appeared to James, then all of the apostles, and finally to Paul himself (1 Cor. 15:7-8). Obviously, no one living today can claim to have witnessed the resurrected Christ, and hence there can be no apostles. Further, as noted above, the church was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20), and once a foundation is built, it does not need to be built again." [Taken from "Find It Quick: Handy Bible Encyclopedia" by Ron Rhodes, pgs. 19-21, 2003, Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, OR] - Makarios |
||||||
233 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101783 | ||
"Is baptism necessary for salvation?" "No. Let's examine what the Scriptures teach on this issue: "First, it is quite clear from such passages as Acts 15 and Romans 4 that no external act is necessary for salvation. Salvation is by divine grace through faith alone (Romans 3:22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; Galatians 2:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Philippians 3:9, etc.). "If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture. That is not the case, however. Peter mentioned baptism in his sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:38). However, in his sermon from Solomon's portico in the Temple (Acts 3:12-26), Peter makes no reference to baptism, but links forgiveness of sin to repentance (3:19). If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3? "Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations. In 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, Paul gives a concise summary of the gospel message he preached. There is no mention of baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1:17, Paul states that "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel," thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism. That is difficult to understand if baptism is necessary for salvation. If baptism were part of the gospel itself, necessary for salvation, what good would it have done Paul to preach the gospel, but not baptize? No one would have been saved. Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation. "Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism. We have no record of the apostles' being baptized, yet Jesus pronounced them clean of their sins (John 15:3--note that the Word of God, not baptism, is what cleansed them). The penitent woman (Luke 7:37-50), the paralytic man (Matthew 9:2), and the publican (Luke 18:13-14) also experienced forgiveness of sins apart from baptism. "The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter's message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. Indeed, it is the fact that they had received the Holy Spirit (and hence were saved) that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47). "One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise. Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture. With that in mind, let's look briefly at some passages that appear to teach that baptism is required for salvation. "In Acts 2:38, Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. It is possible to translate the Greek preposition eis "because of," or "on the basis of," instead of "for." It is used in that sense in Matthew 3:11; 12:41; and Luke 11:32. It is also possible to take the clause "and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from that fact that "repent" and "your" are plural, while "be baptized" is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read "Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins." Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26). "Mark 16:16, a verse often quoted to prove baptism is necessary for salvation, is actually a proof of the opposite. Notice that the basis for condemnation in that verse is not the failure to be baptized, but only the failure to believe. Baptism is mentioned in the first part of the verse because it was the outward symbol that always accompanied the inward belief. I might also mention that many textual scholars think it unlikely that vv. 9-20 are an authentic part of Mark's gospel. ..." (Continued) [Taken from http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm] |
||||||
234 | MARK 16:16: Was it perverted? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101784 | ||
(continued, part 2) "Water baptism does not seem to be what Peter has in view in 1 Peter 3:21. The English word "baptism" is simply a transliteration of the Greek word baptizo, which means "to immerse." Baptizo does not always refer to water baptism in the New Testament (cf. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; 7:4; 10:38-39; Luke 3:16; 11:38; 12:50; John 1:33; Acts 1:5; 11:16; 1 Corinthians 10:2; 12:13). Peter is not talking about immersion in water, as the phrase "not the removal of dirt from the flesh" indicates. He is referring to immersion in Christ's death and resurrection through "an appeal to God for a good conscience," or repentance. "I also do not believe water baptism is in view in Romans 6 or Galatians 3. I see in those passages a reference to the baptism in the Holy Spirit (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:13). For a detailed exposition of those passages, I refer you to my commentaries on Galatians and Romans, or the tapes of my sermons on Galatians 3 and Romans 6. "In Acts 22:16, Paul recounts the words of Ananias to him following his experience on the Damascus road: "Arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name." It is best to connect the phrase "wash away your sins" with "calling on His name." If we connect it with "be baptized," the Greek participle epikalesamenos ("calling") would have no antecedent. Paul's sins were washed away not by baptism, but by calling on His name. "Baptism is certainly important, and required of every believer. However, the New Testament does not teach that baptism is necessary for salvation." [Taken from http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/baptism.htm] |
||||||
235 | Is the Heart and Soul the same? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101788 | ||
Greetings Lottieberry, "Wordfocus: soul "(Heb. nephesh) (Psalm 11:5; 103:1,2; Lev. 26:30; Is. 1:14; 42:1; Jer. 5:9; 15:1) Strong's #5315: This Hebrew word occurs more than 750 times in the Bible. It has quite a number of meanings, but most of them can be reduced to the following three categories: (1) life or the life force, especially in connection with blood (Gen. 9:4,5; Lev. 17:11,14); (2) one's soul or the immaterial being, the seat of intellect and emotion (Psalm 42:1,2; 86:4; 1 Sam. 1:10; 2 Sam. 5:8; Prov. 23:7; Song of Solomon 1:7); and (3) an individual or person (84:2; Gen. 2:7; Judg. 12:3; Ezek. 18:4). Originally the word probably referred to the breath (Job 41:21). The Bible typically considers a person as an interconnected whole. This is why the Bible tells us to love God with all our heart, soul, and strength- in other words, with our entire being (Deut. 6:4,5; Josh. 22:5)." [Taken from the The Nelson Study Bible, New King James Version, 1997, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Earl D. Radmacher, pg. 984] - Makarios |
||||||
236 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101794 | ||
Greetings Taleb, Please provide Scripture references of where Junias, Andronicus, Barnabas, Timothy, Epaphroditus and Silas are explicitly described as "apostles." Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
237 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101797 | ||
Greetings Taleb, Please provide Scripture references of where Junias, Andronicus, Barnabas, Timothy, Epaphroditus and Silas are explicitly described as "apostles." Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
238 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101922 | ||
Greetings Taleb and Tim Moran! Whew! What a day.. :-) Tim Moran: To bring you "up to date", I cited a reference from one of Ron Rhodes' books about "Apostles", and Taleb asked what about some other so called "apostles".. Since I was lazy, I asked Taleb if he had any Scripture references for those other "apostles." :-) Taleb: I apologize for the wait in getting back with you.. By no means am I "inflexible" on this issue, and I hope that you didn't take my post as such. I was simply asking for the Scripture references for those other "apostles" that you mentioned.. Now, let's look at it... Acts 14:14 "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their robes and rushed out into the crowd, crying out.." Romans 16:7 "Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me." Yes, Scripture states that Barnabas, Junias, Andronicus and Epaphroditus were "apostles." So, Taleb, you are absolutely right, and I was wrong in my first post in saying that there were only 12. Now, I have to re-define what I wrote regarding what is meant by "apostle", and how an "apostle" is distinguished from a regular disciple of Christ, since we have no Scriptural record of Christ appearing to Barnabas, Andronicus, Junias or Epaphroditus, even though Scripture clearly refers to them as apostles also. I also agree that Timothy and Silas are not mentioned as "apostles" in Scripture. So, therefore, that is where I suggest we draw the line: that if a person is not explicitly described as an "apostle" in Scripture, then they did not hold that office. After reading 2 Cor. 8:23, I believe that this passage is much too vague to lend apostleship to Timothy.. With 2 books written from Paul to Timothy alone, you would think that there would at least be another verse or two that would confirm Timothy's apostleship if he actually held that office. So therefore, in my 4 points in my first post, we have to completely throw out point #1, since it is obvious that apostleship extends beyond the original Twelve. As for point #2, the "revelation" spoken of would then extend to Barnabas, Junias, Andronicus and Epaphroditus, since they are also considered as apostles. I have always believed that Barnabas was the author of Hebrews, so I have no problem with extending this point to those who are specified as "apostles" in Scripture. But as for points #3 and #4, I believe that they still hold true, since the apostles were especially commissioned as such in order to 'lay down the foundation' for the church (point #3). Therefore, if we hold to this point, then there can be no "apostles" of the church today, since the foundation of the church has already been laid. As for point #4, that point would also hold true for all of the apostles (Barnabas, etc. included), since through them alone would there be miraculous signs performed. In that sense, we can only understand Revelation 21:14 in a sense that the verse would be referring to the original Twelve apostles, and not the other apostles that are seen in the rest of the New Testament, which I personally find a bit "odd." I do not believe that an apostle is the same office as that of the missionary. Interesting material! Blessings to you both, Makarios |
||||||
239 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 101923 | ||
Greetings Taleb, I agree, Scripture does mention Epaphroditus, Barnabas, Junias and Andronicus as apostles.. You are absolutely right, and I was wrong in my first post. Now, let's look at Silas and Timothy.. Tim Moran mentioned a vague reference for Timothy in 2 Corinthians, which I believe does not have enough weight, in and of itself, to lead us to believe that Timothy was also an apostle, but let us look at the other verses that you have come up with before making a final verdict on the matter.. As for 1 Thessalonians 1:1 and 2:6, I agree that the book was written to Christians from Paul, Silas and Timothy, but I am not so sure that 2:6 is "concrete" evidence for the apostleship of Timothy and Silas, even though we know that Paul was indeed an apostle. Therefore, I need a little more "solid" Scriptural evidence that speaks more directly about Silas and Timothy to convince me that those two were also designated as "apostles" in Scripture. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||
240 | What is an Apostle? | Bible general Archive 2 | Makarios | 102045 | ||
Greetings Tim, You have a very interesting view on the word "apostle" that does work, at least, even though it seems a bit strange to retain the word "apostle" for those who are 'sent' today.. I guess we could say little "a" and bit "A", or something of that consequence.. I'm sure Ray would enjoy that. :-) Interesting stuff! Perhaps I could just drive over there to Evansville and you could show me in person.. :-) Between you and I, I would say that we represent the Hoosier state very well at this Forum! Blessings to you dear Brother, Makarios |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [355] >> |