Results 1061 - 1080 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1061 | Die daily for Paul | Mark 8:34 | Radioman2 | 80411 | ||
"Every day I am in danger of death!" Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? [30] Why am I in danger every hour? [31] I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I DIE EVERY DAY! [32] What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." 1 Cor. 15:29-32 (ESV) (Emphasis added.) "Never read a Bible verse. That's right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph -- at least" (Never Read a Bible Verse by Gregory Koukl) [My next post will amplify this quote.] Both in the immediate paragraph (1 Cor. 15:29-32) and in this chapter, the context in which we read "I die daily" speaks of literal, physical death. In the entire 15th chapter the main topics under discussion are death and resurrection. So, taken in context, "I die daily" is speaking of physical -- not spiritual or figurative -- death. If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them? 15:30 Why too are we in danger every hour? 15:31 EVERY DAY I AM IN DANGER OF DEATH! 1 Cor. 15:29b-31a, 32b (New English Translation) (Emphasis added.) "15:30,31 I die daily. Paul continually risked his life in self-sacrificing ministry. Why would he risk death daily, even hourly, if there were no life after death, no reward, and no eternal joy for all his pain?" (MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) "15:31 I die daily. Paul was exposed to so many physical dangers and to such violent attacks on himself and on his teachings that 'daily' cannot be an exaggeration." (Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) |
||||||
1062 | Die daily for Paul | Mark 8:34 | Radioman2 | 80410 | ||
"Every day I am in danger of death!" Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? [30] Why am I in danger every hour? [31] I protest, brothers, by my pride in you, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I DIE EVERY DAY! [32] What do I gain if, humanly speaking, I fought with beasts at Ephesus? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." 1 Cor. 15:29-32 (ESV) (Emphasis added.) "Never read a Bible verse. That's right, never read a Bible verse. Instead, always read a paragraph -- at least" (Never Read a Bible Verse by Gregory Koukl) [My next post will amplify this quote.] Both in the immediate paragraph (1 Cor. 15:29-32) and in this chapter, the context in which we read "I die daily" speaks of literal, physical death. In the entire 15th chapter the main topics under discussion are death and resurrection. So, taken in context, "I die daily" is speaking of physical -- not spiritual or figurative -- death. If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they baptized for them? 15:30 Why too are we in danger every hour? 15:31 EVERY DAY I AM IN DANGER OF DEATH! 1 Cor. 15:29b-31a, 32b (New English Translation) (Emphasis added.) "15:30,31 I die daily. Paul continually risked his life in self-sacrificing ministry. Why would he risk death daily, even hourly, if there were no life after death, no reward, and no eternal joy for all his pain?" (MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) "15:31 I die daily. Paul was exposed to so many physical dangers and to such violent attacks on himself and on his teachings that 'daily' cannot be an exaggeration." (Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) |
||||||
1063 | Is baptism a sign of the New Covenant? | Luke 22:20 | Radioman2 | 80371 | ||
Emmaus: One of the next questions may well be: What is the difference between the sign, the symbol, and the reality? :-) Thanks to both you and Joe for all your good help. Sincerely. Radioman2 |
||||||
1064 | Is baptism a sign of the New Covenant? | Luke 22:20 | Radioman2 | 80367 | ||
Emmaus: I could not and would not disagree that the Bible says "this IS my blood of the covenant," Matt 26:28. However, my point was not that every verse in the Bible is to be interpreted literally. We know that the Bible often uses figurative language. As for the doctrine of transubstantiation, no, I do not agree with this teaching. My sincere thanks to you, Emmaus, for your careful, patient work in presenting the doctrines of your church, often in the face of much hostility. I would that everyone on this forum presented their beliefs with such clarity and courtesy as you consistently show. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
1065 | Is baptism a sign of the New Covenant? | Luke 22:20 | Radioman2 | 80364 | ||
You write: '"This cup" is a sign of His blood.' That may be. I have neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement. You originally wrote: "The cup is the sign of the New Covenant, which is His blood." "That is what I see the Bible say." Again, the word SIGN is not in the three verses you cited. I was not replying to what you meant, but to what you actually said in your post. You yourself used the word "say". I have merely pointed out that the text does not SAY anything about a SIGN; it doesn't even use the word. I have not addressed the issue of what the cup is the sign of. I merely pointed out that the word "sign" does not appear in these texts. We need first to determine what the text says before we can determine what it means. |
||||||
1066 | Is baptism a sign of the New Covenant? | Luke 22:20 | Radioman2 | 80349 | ||
"This cup IS the new covenant in My blood." NASB Luke 22:20 And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. NASB 1 Corinthians 11:25 In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." NASB Hebrews 12:24 and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel. ---------- You write: "Scripture ... Luk 22:20, 1 Cor 11:25, Heb 12:24 ... Emmaus, God's day to you. The cup is the sign of the New Covenant, which is His blood. Searcher" You write: "That is what I see the Bible say" ---------- WHERE do you see the Bible saying this? I ask you: WHERE in the three verses you cited does it SAY "The cup is the SIGN OF the New Covenant"? What it SAYS is: "This cup . . . IS the new covenant in My blood." The verses in Luke and 1 Corinthians say nothing at all about a SIGN. In Hebrews 12:24, -- "...and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant..." -- there is no mention of the word SIGN. We know what the Bible means by what it SAYS. Likewise, we know what it says by what it SAYS. You write: "One could always stretch the Bible to make their case." I agree with you there. |
||||||
1067 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 80334 | ||
'While historic Christianity has debated the issue of whether or not Jesus actually descended into hell (e.g., to proclaim the gospel, declare victory, etc. [1 Peter 3:18-19), no orthodox believer ever held to the belief that Christ suffered and atoned for our sins in hell, rather than on the cross. 'Yet, Word of Faith teachers, including Joyce Meyer, teach the necessity of Jesus having to pay for our sins in hell, under the torment of Satan and his angels -- a teaching both unsubstantiated by and contrary to Scripture. The entirety of Christ’s atoning work (i.e., His suffering and death in our place) occurred on the cross (e.g., 1 Peter 2:24), ending with His proclamation, “It is finished” (John 19:30). The Christ of Faith theology literally had to become sin, taking on the nature of Satan while in hell, thereby needing to be born again in hell before His resurrection could occur.' (To read the entire article, please go to: http://www.equip.org/search/ and in the search field enter the words Joyce Meyer.) |
||||||
1068 | What does end of age mean? | Matt 24:3 | Radioman2 | 80293 | ||
Question: 'The disciples asked JESUS, "AND WHAT WILL BE THE SIGN OF YOUR COMING, AND OF THE END OF THE AGE". MATTHEW 24:3 WHAT IS THIS QUESTION IN REFERENCE TO?' An answer: NASB Matthew 24:3 As He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things happen, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" 'The beginning of the Olivet Discourse 'Mat 24 with Luke 21:20-24 answers the threefold question. The order is as follows: "when shall these things be?"--i.e. destruction of the temple and city. Answer: Luke 21:20-24. 'Second and third questions: "And what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" Answer: Matthew 24:4-33. 'Verses 4 to 14 have a double interpretation: They give '(1) the character of the age--wars, international conflicts, famines, pestilences, persecutions, and false Christs ((cf) Daniel 9:26). 'This is not the description of a converted world. '(2) But the same answer (Matthew 24:4-14) applies in a specific way to the end of the age, viz. (that is to say; namely) Daniel's seventieth week. Daniel 9:24-27. (See Scofield "Daniel 9:24") . 'All that has characterized the age gathers into awful intensity at the end. Verse 14 has specific reference to the proclamation of the good news that the kingdom is again "at hand" by the Jewish remnant (Isaiah 1:9; Revelation 14:6,7). (See Scofield "Romans 11:5") . 'Verse 15 gives the sign of the abomination, (See Scofield "Daniel 9:27") , the "man of sin," or "Beast" (2 Thessalonians 2:3-8; Daniel 9:27; 12:11; Revelation 13:4-7). 'This introduces the great tribulation (Psalms 2:5; Revelation 7:14, note), which runs its awful course of three and a half years, culminating in the battle of Revelation 19:19-21, note, at which time Christ becomes the smiting Stone of Daniel 2:34. 'The detail of this period (Matthew 24:15-28) is: '(1) The abomination in the holy place (Matthew 24:15); '(2) the warning (Matthew 24:16-20) to believing Jews who will then be in Jerusalem; '(3) the great tribulation, with renewed warning as to false Christs (Matthew 24:21-26); '(4) the sudden smiting of the Gentile world-power (Matthew 24:27,28); '(5) the glorious appearing of the Lord, visible to all nations, and the regathering of Israel (Matthew 24:29-31); '(6) the sign of the fig-tree (Matthew 24:32,33); '(7) warnings, applicable to this present age over which these events are ever impending (Matthew 24:34-51; Phil 4:5). 'Careful study of Dan 2, 7, 9, and Rev 13 will make the interpretation clear. See also, "Remnant" (Isa 1:9; Romans 11:5).' Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Matthew 24". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes) |
||||||
1069 | does God know all things? Genesis 22:12 | James 2:21 | Radioman2 | 80285 | ||
You say you "don't want to argue, but this not right." I'm not sure you have an argument. I haven't seen it yet. You make assertions, but what is your argument, what is your scriptural evidence, to prove that "this is not right"? It seems all you have to say on the subject is: No, this is not right. Others present evidence to support their interpretation. You do nothing but make an unsubstantiated claim that they are not right. In short, they've supported their interpretation, but where is your evidence that they are wrong? You disagree with their interpretation, but offer no proof for an alternate interpretation. I'm not even sure that you have an alternate interpretation. Apparently, all you "know" for sure is that those who disagree with you are wrong. In your post, ID# 80205, you again write several paragraphs in which you state your opinion. But, again, you offer no scripture to support your assertions. |
||||||
1070 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80264 | ||
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. (NASB Romans 13:1) You assert: "The government of the whole earth including the realm of the dead was in complete control of Satan and his angels (demons)." The government of the whole earth was in complete control of Satan? HE (GOD) REMOVES KINGS AND SETS UP KINGS AMPLIFIED Daniel 2:20-21 Daniel answered, Blessed be the name of God forever and ever! For wisdom and might are His! He changes the times and the seasons; He removes kings and sets up kings. He gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have understanding! [Dan. 4:35.] THE MOST HIGH [GOD] RULES THE KINGDOM OF MANKIND AMPLIFIED Daniel 4:17 This sentence is by the decree of the [heavenly] watchers and the decision is by the word of the holy ones, to the intent that the living may know that the Most High [God] rules the kingdom of mankind and gives it to whomever He will and sets over it the humblest and lowliest of men. [Dan. 2:21; 5:21.] AMPLIFIED John 19:11a Jesus answered, You would not have any power or authority whatsoever against (over) Me if it were not given you from above. |
||||||
1071 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80261 | ||
Nowhere, by no stretch of the imagination, does the Bible teach that "during the days of the Old Testament, Satan and the demons could bring back the soul of Samuel." P.S. For the sake of clarity, please define "bring back the soul." What exactly does this consist of? What does it mean? Thank you. |
||||||
1072 | Searching for the truth | Matt 24:14 | Radioman2 | 80259 | ||
'The concept that Christ could return at "any moment" since His departure back to heaven is simply not taught anywhere in the entire Bible.' - - - - - - - - - - Does the Bible Teach an "Any Moment" Rapture? I will address your first question: "1. Jesus will come again only after several events have come to past as stated in the bible. So, He will not come to-night, next week nor the week after?" - - - - - - - - - - 'WHAT ABOUT IMMINENCY? '...the doctrine of imminency is nowhere taught in Scripture. The concept that Christ could return at "any moment" since His departure back to heaven is simply not taught anywhere in the entire Bible. Not one of the passages used to sustain imminency, actually teach imminency. Expectancy, yes. Imminency (an any-moment rapture), no. If imminency had been the concept that the writers had wanted to convey, it could have and would have been clearly stated (in fact 19th century promoters of pretribulationism initially taught expectancy rather than imminency for this reason). In addition, there were many events prophesied by Christ, known throughout the Christian world at that time, that still had to occur before He could return, such as the destruction of the Temple (Lk. 21:6) and the death of Peter (Jn. 21:18-19). Imminency was an impossibility until the Temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. 'Likewise, Christ taught that His rescue of the elect of God will occur "on the same day" that His wrath will begin upon the wicked that remain (Lk 17:26-30). There is no gap of time between the rapture and His wrath. If the seventieth week of Daniel is really the wrath of God, as pretribulationism maintains, and the seventieth week begins with Israel's covenant with Antichrist (Dan. 9:27), then Israel must be back in the land and Antichrist must be on the world scene before the Rapture, a simple deduction which once again destroys the unbiblical concept of imminency. But the prewrath position has no problem with any of these passages, including Revelation 12:12, where the persecution of Antichrist against the "elect" of God during the great tribulation is not called the wrath of God, but rather, the wrath of Satan. Pretribulationism makes Antichrist's persecution of God's elect the wrath of God. Prewrath rapturism sees this great persecution as the wrath of Satan (Rev. 12:12 being the proof text). Antichrist's persecution of God's elect is never the wrath of God (Mt. 24:21-22; Rev. 12:7; 13:7; 14:12-13).' (Questions for a Pretribulationist 'By Robert Van Kampen and Rev. Roger Best) (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0006.html) |
||||||
1073 | Where are Ephraim and Dan in Rev 7 | Judg 18:30 | Radioman2 | 80256 | ||
from the tribe of Asher twelve thousand, from the tribe of Naphtali twelve thousand, from the tribe of Manasseh twelve thousand, (NASB Revelation 7:6) Rev. 7:6 "Manasseh. One of the two Joseph tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), yet mentioned separately, probably to make up 12 tribes since Dan is omitted. This omission is due perhaps to Dan's early connection with idolatry (Judg 18:30)" (p. 1857, Zondervan NASB Study Bible, Zondervan, 1999). |
||||||
1074 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80236 | ||
gracefull: Thank you. I share with you the desire to bring the discussion back to Biblical comparisons. Is there hope for the forum? I hope so! :-) You ask, "Paraphrase 'Satan is not the warden living in hell, and running the earth.' Is this a correct rendering of your statement? No, it isn't, but thank you for asking for clarification. When I say, "Satan is not the warden down in hell, running the place;" what I mean is "Satan is not the warden down in hell, running the place [hell]." Where is Satan and what is he doing? 1Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour: Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
1075 | What was the answer? | 1 Sam 28:12 | Radioman2 | 80230 | ||
gracefull: You write: "Satan had authority to beckon souls from the dead." Other than 1 Samuel 28, are there any passages that clearly indicate this is true? If so, what are the scripture references that support this idea? Moreover, could you give scriptural support for the idea that the souls of men (dead or alive) were under the "jurisdiction" of Satan? As we all know, Satan is not the warden down in hell, running the place. Thank you for your help. Grace and peace to you. Radioman2 |
||||||
1076 | does God know all things? Genesis 22:12 | James 2:21 | Radioman2 | 80211 | ||
AMPLIFIED Genesis 15:6 And he [Abram] believed in (trusted in, relied on, remained steadfast to) the Lord, and He counted it to him as righteousness (right standing with God). [Rom. 4:3, 18-22; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23.] NASB Genesis 15:6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness. Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? (James 2:21 NASB) 2:21 *justified by works.* "This does not contradict Paul's clear teaching that Abraham was justified before God by grace alone through faith alone (Rom. 3:20; 4:1-25; Gal. 3:6, 11). "For several reasons, James cannot mean that Abraham was constituted righteous before God because of his own good works: "1) James already stressed that salvation is a gracious gift (1:17,18); "2) in the middle of this disputed passage (v. 23), James quoted Gen. 15:6, which forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on the basis of his faith; and "3) the work that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Isaac (Gen. 22:9,12), an event that occurred many years after he exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Gen. 12:1-7, 15:6). Instead Abraham's offering of Isaac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. "James is emphasizing the vindication before others of a man's claim to salvation. James' teaching perfectly complements Paul's writings; salvation is determined by faith alone (Eph. 2:8,) and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God's will alone (Eph. 2:10)" (page 1930, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). - - - - - - - - - - 'If you think you're on safe theological ground because of a pet verse, better look twice. Simple prooftexting has its perils.' (Gregory Koukl, Stand to Reason) - - - - - - - - - - |
||||||
1077 | does God know all things? Genesis 22:12 | James 2:21 | Radioman2 | 80207 | ||
Romans 4:2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 'Cf. (compare) James 2:24. These are two aspects of one truth. Paul speaks of that which justifies man before God, viz.: faith alone, wholly apart from works; James of the proof before men, that he who professes to have justifying faith really has it. Paul speaks of what God sees--faith; James of what men see--works, as the visible evidence of faith. Paul draws his illustration from Genesis 15:6; James from Genesis 22:1-19. James' key phrase is "ye see" (James 2:24 ) for men cannot see faith except as manifested through works.' Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Romans 4". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/) |
||||||
1078 | Where a Ephraim and Dan not listed in Re | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80202 | ||
DUPLICATE POST | ||||||
1079 | Where a Ephraim and Dan not listed in Re | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80200 | ||
DUPLICATE POST | ||||||
1080 | Where a Ephraim and Dan not listed in Re | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 80198 | ||
DUPLICATE POST | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 ] Next > Last [66] >> |