Results 301 - 320 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217084 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! They are certainly both Apostles and inspired author's of Scripture. Concerning, 1 Corinthians, where exactly does Paul advocate the keeping of feast days for Christians? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
302 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217078 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! Where did Paul advocate the keeping of feast days for Christians? As for Paul, he did not follow Jesus while Jesus was alive, but Scripture does say: Gal 1:12 - I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
303 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217075 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! The Greeks used the Greek form of Jesus' Hebrew name. I use the English form of the Greek word, since I speak English. :-) If I wanted to use the English form of His Hebrew name, I would call Him Joshua. My whole point in this discussion is simply that there is no special merit to calling Him by His Hebrew name, when even the New Testament doesn't do it. Years ago, I remember a series of posts where someone claimed that Scripture had removed the name of God from Scripture since they translated 'YHWH' as God. In that series, I noted that when Jesus quoted a passage where the word 'YHWH' appeared in the OT passage, He translated it as 'Lord' instead. My point in that series of posts was that apparently God doesn't have the same hangups about the original 'name' that so many of us seem to have. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
304 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217074 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! Certainly, you are allowed to us it. :-) My point simply was that many people act as though they are somehow being more 'true' to Scripture by using an archaic forum of God's name, when even Scripture doesn't follow that practice. Note, I'm not saying that you said that, but there are many who follow this practice that think this way. I am looking forward to your response to my post about Galatians my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
305 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217065 | ||
Greetings Grafted in! You wrote: "Every time a person read the Hebrew scriptures and came to the word spelled yod shin vav ayin, they were calling on their Savior's name (which means salvation). It's the name God gave Him. I'm going to change it? Not me!" Yet, God Himself does not follow this practice in the New Testament. :-) Jesus is not called 'yod shin vav ayin' in the NT. He is called 'iesous'. God is not called 'YHWH', but 'theos'. Simply put, God uses a variety of languages to refer to Himself. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
306 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 217064 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! I have no problem with people using whatever form they choose, but in your post you overlooked the point that in each testament, a different language was used. The NT uses the Greek words, not the Hebrew words. So, why shouldn't we use the English words? :-) When God is referenced in the NT, not once do we see Him referred to as 'YHWH'. He is simply called 'theos', or one of several other titles. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
307 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 217063 | ||
Greetings Rakpak! I have not had the chance to welcome you to the forum yet. Welcome! In response to your post, allow me to make three points. 1) There are a variety of types of literature in Scripture. There is poetry. There is prophecy. There is didactic or teaching material. There is narrative. Each type of literature must be approached differently. Certainly, in terms of doctrine, didactic material should be given the highest regard. Almost every verse you cite to support that Christians are still bound by the law are narrative references that do not directly address the question of the relationship between Christians and the law. For instance, Acts 13:42, 13:44, 16:32, and 18:4 all mention the Sabbath, but say nothing at all about whether or not a Christian was bound by the Sabbath. Certainly, the Jews in the first century meet on the Sabbath. That is all these verses affirm. 2) While we are not bound by the law, there are aspects of the law (particularly the moral commands of God) which we will live out because of the indwelling Holy Spirit. Scripture affirms that we will not walk in the works of the flesh. So, adultery, lying, ect..., would certainly not be something that Christian should do, as they are in direct violation of the Spirit's leading. Rom. 13:9 certainly supports this view. As Christians, we will love God and love our neighbor. But, this does not mean that we are subject to the mosaic law. 3) In my post, I included a lengthy series of quotes from Galatians. You did not respond directly to Paul clear teaching. No matter what you may think about the law, Paul is quite clear on the matter. Gal. 3:22 - " But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Clearly, our relationship to the law has changed in Christ. Paul speaks of submission to the law as being made slaves again. He clearly says: Gal. 5:1 - "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. Gal 5:2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. Gal 5:3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. Gal 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace." This is a major concern in the modern church. The same error that was active in the church at Galatia is still active today. We have many Christians who are being taught that they MUST obey the Law. Paul says this is 'another' gospel, which is no gospel at all. It is a false gospel. If Paul (or anyone else in the NT) was advocating that we continue to be obedient to the Law, then why did he say: Gal. 2:19 - "For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God." Why did he say? Gal. 2:14 - "When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? Gal 2:15 "We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' Gal 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified." Why did he say? Gal. 3:25 - "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Why does he speak so forcibly to those who 'want to be under the law'? (Gal. 4:21-31) I would encourage you to respond to this didactic passages my friend. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
308 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 216910 | ||
Good Morning Grafted In! I would differ with your characterization just a little in that while actions certainly are import, in terms of theology, Paul's words are much more important. :-) We have very clear didactic material concerning the Law from Paul's pen, these passages should take precedence over everything else. Having said that, I will try to touch upon your questions. 1) Acts 18:18 tells us that Paul had taken a vow. Some assume that a Nazarite vow was in view, and that after the time of the vow was over, Paul cut his hair. However, this is an assumption. The verse actually says that he cut his 'for he had taken a vow'. So, it is not clear that a Nazarite vow was in view at all. All we can say for sure is that Paul had made a vow. This really has no relevancy to the question at hand. 2) Acts 15:20-21 simply encourages Gentile believers not to do things that would be extremely offensive to Jewish believers. The justification for the request is given in v. 21, that Moses had been preached in the synagogue of every city. By no means, is that saying that Gentiles (or anyone) was obligated to keep the Law. It would be like a Christian woman wearing a head covering in a muslim country in order not to offend the native citizins. 3) Acts 21:20-24: Now, this passage is much more applicable to the question at hand. There are two main points that I would raise in regard to this passage. First, Paul again was simply trying to not deliberately provide offense. Would we call him a hypocrite for doing that? I wouldn't. :-) Second, the passage (a narrative) certainly does state that there were a large number of Jewish converts who were 'zealous for the Law'. However, this is a narrative, not a didactic teaching. Were they right for being zealous for the Law? This passage doesn't address that question, but Galatians does. Interestingly, Paul's attempt to lessen his offense to the Jews did not work. He was beaten and arrested. :-) Well, I need to get some work done! Thanks for the interaction my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
309 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 216908 | ||
Part 2... Gal. 4:1 - "What I am saying is that as long as the heir is a child, he is no different from a slave, although he owns the whole estate. 2 He is subject to guardians and trustees until the time set by his father. 3 So also, when we were children, we were in slavery under the basic principles of the world. 4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. 6 Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, ‘‘Abba, Father.” 7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. Paul’s Concern for the Galatians 8 Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. 9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? 10 You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! 11 I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you." Gal. 5:1 - "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery. 2 Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3 Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law. 4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace. 5 But by faith we eagerly await through the Spirit the righteousness for which we hope. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision has any value. The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love. 7 You were running a good race. Who cut in on you and kept you from obeying the truth? 8 That kind of persuasion does not come from the one who calls you. 9 ‘‘A little yeast works through the whole batch of dough.” 10 I am confident in the Lord that you will take no other view. The one who is throwing you into confusion will pay the penalty, whoever he may be. 11 Brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. 12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves! 13 You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. 14 The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘‘Love your neighbor as yourself.” 15 If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other." This is a lengthy series of quotes, but it is important for us to understand our relationship to the Law as Christians. The law was only intended to be a guardian over us until Christ came. It was never intended to save, or to rule over us for ever. The Galatians were being taught by the Judiazers that obedience to the Law was ALSO necessary. Certainly, their focus was primarily on circumcision, but Paul made it very clear that to 'obey' (in the sense of necessity) the Law on any point was to be made a slave to it again. Paul also clearly makes the case that there are in fact two covenants (Gal. 4.24). The newer one though is the Law, while the older one is the covenant of promise with Abraham. The problem so many today seem to have is understanding that Paul makes a clean break with the covenant of Law. Paul's point is not that we are free to sin as Christians. We now have the Spirit within us and live in accordance to His will. But, we have no relationship whatsoever with the Mosaic Law as Christians, to do so in any way makes us slaves again and is a rejection of grace. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
310 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 216907 | ||
Greetings Asis! You wrote: "Are some of the instructions to be followed and others not? Galatians is and instruction to those people that they do not have to follow the rabbinical law to be saved. Circumcision of the flesh does not save. Salvation is only obtained through faith in Jesus. His substitution on the cross gives us the gift of God. We are free. Free to follow God's instructions because we want to not because we have to. Not a jot or tittle will pass away, so how can we follow some but not others. Is there really two covenants. I am not sure." Read Galatians very carefully. Paul does not just say that we are now free to obey the Law. He argues that subjecting ourselves to it again makes us slaves. Consider the following: Gal. 3:1 - "You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by observing the law, or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now trying to attain your goal by human effort? 4 Have you suffered so much for nothing—if it really was for nothing? 5 Does God give you his Spirit and work miracles among you because you observe the law, or because you believe what you heard? 6 Consider Abraham: ‘‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 7 Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham. 8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: ‘‘All nations will be blessed through you.” 9 So those who have faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. 10 All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: ‘‘Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law.” 11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, ‘‘The righteous will live by faith.” 12 The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, ‘‘The man who does these things will live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: ‘‘Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree.” 14 He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit." Gal. 3:15 - "Brothers, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say ‘‘and to seeds,” meaning many people, but ‘‘and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22 But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. 23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24 So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Continued... |
||||||
311 | Walk as He walked | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 216892 | ||
Greetings Flinkywood! Good quotes! You wrote: ""If you love me, you will keep my commandments,” (John 14:15) implies that keeping—doing--His commandments is required to love Jesus. Since Jesus is the Law, and since apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:5) doing the Law flows from loving Christ in return; therefore not doing the Law--breaking any of the 10 commandments--is to fail to love Christ (1 John 2:4; 4:20)." The first sentence I would have disagreed with in isolation, but you explained it in your second sentence. If I may phrase it in a slightly different manner: Obedience is the result of the love of Christ, love is not the result of obedience. I have had some good Bible studies trying to get people to understand that concept. Our culture wants so much to be able to stand before God and say, "I deserve to be here because I obeyed your commands". Yet Scripture makes it clear that we are saved because of what He did, not what we do. If we were to be 'judged' based upon our works, we would all be in serious trouble. :-) Well, I have to get ready for our youth group now! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
312 | All you need is love? | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 216889 | ||
Greetings Asis! Just a quick reminder! When you respond to a post, just select 'note' rather than 'question'. When you select 'question', your post gets put on the unanswered question section of the forum. This spot is usually reserved for open ended questions rather than ongoing discussions. :-) I like your title by the way! "All you need is love" ;-) I notice in your profile that you have a Jewish background. You are probably familiar with the fact then that the Old Testament laws and rituals were fulfilled in Christ. No where in the New Testament are Christian 'obligated' to keep the Old Testament laws and rituals. In fact, many sections of the New Testament explicitly state that to do so is a perversion of the Gospel (see Galatians for instance). The Gospel presents us with a better way (i.e. - the Law of God is now written on our hearts and we do by nature what we could not previously do at all). So, a Christian will walk in holiness and obedience to God because they are a Christian. They do not walk in holiness and obedience to God in order to become a Christian. Do you understand the distinction? p.s. - Everything is fine. Thanks for asking! We are considering adopting our four grandchildren, so we could use everyone's prayers. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
313 | Walk as He walked | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 216887 | ||
Greetings Asis! Sorry for the delay, I had some family issues that I had to deal with yesterday. Is it really that simple? Yes and no! :-) It is that simple in that John specifically spells out for us what he means by obeying His commands. John is simply spelling out what Jesus Himself said, Love God and love one another. John repeatedly makes clear that obedience to God is to love one another, as Jesus loves us. Consider the following verses: John 13:34 - "‘‘A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”" John 15:12 - "My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you." John 15:17 - "This is my command: Love each other." 1 John 3:23 - "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us." 1 John 4:21 - "And he has given us this command: Whoever loves God must also love his brother." 1 John 5:2 - "This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. 3 This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome," 2 John 5 - " And now, dear lady, I am not writing you a new command but one we have had from the beginning. I ask that we love one another. 6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love." Now, it is not that simple in that walking in love (or walking like Jesus) means that we will live holy lives - lives that match the demands of the ten commandments. Consider what Jesus said to the Pharisees: Matt. 22:34 - "Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. 35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: 36 ‘‘Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: ”‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”" All of the law could be summed up as, "Love God and each other". Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
314 | Do what He did | 1 John 2:3 | Morant61 | 216871 | ||
Greetings Asis! This is one of those questions which could evoke lots of opinions. :-) Was John referring to the ten commandments, the Law of Moses? Was he inferring that one must obey these commands to be saved? Fortunately though, John himself tells us exactly what he means when he says that we must keep His commandments. Here is what John says in 1 John 3:23-24: "And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us. 24 Those who obey his commands live in him, and he in them. And this is how we know that he lives in us: We know it by the Spirit he gave us." So, the answer is conclusive that we must believe in Christ and love one another. These are the commands to which John is referring. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
315 | SOMEONE PLEASE HELP ME!! | Mark 12:31 | Morant61 | 216866 | ||
Greetings Jessica! May I give you a couple of pieces of advice? First of all, move out, immediately! Secondly, seek out a local pastor and get some wise counsel. This guy is a jerk and is simply trying to misuse the Bible to get what he wants from you - that is not love. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
316 | Why do we delay baptism, not His Supper? | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 216776 | ||
Greetings Searcher! I don't believe there is a Biblical reason to wait for baptism. As you aptly demonstrated, most salvation experiences were almost immediately followed by baptism. There really doesn't seem to be any time requirement either way, but the sooner seems to be the better. :-) I remember praying with a young man once, who wanted to be baptized that night. The only problem was that we had to break the ice off of the swimming pool in order to baptism him. :-) It was cold. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
317 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | Morant61 | 216673 | ||
Greetings CDBJ! Great question! The adjective 'his own' is neuter in gender because it modifies 'blood', which is also neuter in gender. So, the gender doesn't really solve for us whether or not the blood is the blood of God or of the Lord. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
318 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | Morant61 | 216672 | ||
Greetings CDBJ! Actually, the manuscript evidence is pretty strong for both readings: 'church of God' or 'church of Lord'. Interestingly, the early manuscripts were all uncials (or capitals) and 'God' and 'Lord' were, as holy names, customarily abbreviated. The difference between the two abbreviated words would have been a single letter. Thus, either reading could have been original. Thus, the external evidence is pretty even. The internal evidence, though, favors 'church of God'. It would be difficult to see why anyone would deliberately change 'Lord' to 'God' in light of the fact that 'church of God' and 'the blood of God' are much more difficult and unlikely readings than 'church of Lord' and 'blood of Lord'. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
319 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | Morant61 | 216654 | ||
Greetings Colin! I was particularly disappointed with the Net Bible. It is usually very sound. The reasoning behind their translation involves two main points. First of all, does the verse speak of the 'church of God', 'the church of the Lord', or 'the church of the Lord and God'? There is manuscript support for all three. Some support the 'church of God', some support for the 'church of the Lord'. If the second reading is correct, then 'his own blood' would obviously be a reference to the blood of Christ, not God. So, the translations you refer to would be correct, if they accept the second reading. The longer reading is supported by the largest number of manuscripts, but it is a later reading and an obvious combination of the two earlier variant readings. Interesting, the NET Bible accepts the reading 'church of God'. Why then do they translate the last phrase as 'with the blood of his own Son'? This leads us to the second consideration. 'the blood of his own' could be seen as a reference to God's Son. Here is what the Net Bible notes say about this point. "tn Or "with his own blood"; Grk "with the blood of his own." The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning "his own blood"; or (2) as a possessive genitive, "with the blood of his own." In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity. See further C. F. DeVine, "The Blood of God," CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408." What do I think? I still think that for some reason, some translators will go to almost any lengths to avoid saying what these Christologically pregnant passages actually say, that Jesus is God. If one accepts the 'church of the Lord' reading, the Net Bible translation could be acceptable. But, if one accepts the 'church of God' reading, it is a major stretch to deny the full import of this verse. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
320 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | Morant61 | 216650 | ||
Greetings Colin! Good points my friend! Concerning Acts 20:28, the final phrase reads: "through the blood his own" For whatever reason, even orthodox scholars are reluctant to accept the reading that indicates that the blood was the blood of God. We really need to stand up for this truth. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [339] >> |