Results 801 - 820 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
801 | Did Jesus die spiritually? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Radioman2 | 83466 | ||
AMPLIFIED 2 Corinthians 5:21 "For our sake He made Christ [VIRTUALLY] to be sin..." (Emphasis added.) virtual (defined) 1 : "being such in essence or effect though not formally recognized or admitted (a virtual dictator) nearly (synonym of virtually) "2 a : almost but not quite (nearly identical) (nearly a year later)" (www.m-w.com) Gracefull: [While the following may not be the complete answer to your question, I believe it will shed some light on the subject. -- Radioman2] Why have you forsaken me? Mark 15:34 "Jesus felt keenly His abandonment by the Father, resulting from God's wrath being poured out on Him as the substitute for sinners." (p. 1500, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) 2 Cor 5:21 "'sin for us.' God the Father, using the principle of imputation, treated Christ as if He were a sinner though He was not, and had Him die as a substitute to pay the penalty for the sins of those who believe in Him. On the cross, He did not become a sinner (as some suggest), but remained as holy as ever. He was treated as if He were guilty of all the sins ever committed by all who would ever believe, though He committed none. The wrath of God was exhausted on Him and the just requirement of God's law met for those for whom He died." (p. 1772, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) |
||||||
802 | Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 not Satan! | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 83462 | ||
re Isaiah 14:12 "Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted." STUDENT7300 [You make some good points in your previous post. I hope the following quotation will prove to be of interest -- to both of us. :-) --Radioman2] Look how you have fallen from the sky, O shining one, son of the dawn![22] You've been cut down to the ground, O conqueror of the nations! Isa. 14:12 New English Translation (NET) 'Study Note 22. What is the background for the imagery in vv. 12-15? This whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler. Other kings of the earth address him in vv. 9ff., he is called "the man" in v. 16, and, according to vv. 19-20, he possesses a physical body. Nevertheless the language of vv. 12-15 has led some to see a dual referent in the taunt song. These verses, which appear to be spoken by other pagan kings to a pagan king (cf. vv. 9-11), contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology, including references to Helel son of Shachar, the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god (Helel son of Shachar) who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur. Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, BKCOT, 1061)' (www.netbible.com). |
||||||
803 | Angels at the door? | Gal 1:8 | Radioman2 | 83432 | ||
NASB Galatians 1:8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! AMPLIFIED Galatians 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to and different from that which we preached to you, let him be accursed (anathema, devoted to destruction, doomed to eternal punishment)! |
||||||
804 | Where did the Holy Spirit go? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Radioman2 | 83427 | ||
NASB Philippians 2:6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, AMPLIFIED Philippians 2:6 Who, although being essentially one with God and in the form of God [possessing the fullness of the attributes which make God God], did not think this equality with God was a thing to be eagerly grasped or retained, Truthfinder writes: 'Philippians 2:5, 6 comes into play here. The KJ reads: “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” (Dy has the same wording. JB reads: “he did not cling to his equality with God.”) However, in NW the latter portion of that passage reads: “who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure [Greek, har·pag·mon´], namely, that he should be equal to God.” Not only the NWT but also the RS, NE, TEV, NAB convey the same thought.' Philippians 2:6 RSV who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, TEV He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to remain equal with God. New American Bible (NAB) Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. CEV Christ was truly God. But he did not try to remain equal with God. GOD'S WORD Translation - Although he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality. NLT Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. NRSV who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, |
||||||
805 | Where did the Holy Spirit go? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Radioman2 | 83422 | ||
If Jesus is God, then why did He say the Father was greater than He? "You heard that I said to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I'" (John 14:28). Jesus said the Father was greater than He not because Jesus is not God, but because Jesus was also a man and as a man he was in a lower position. He was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." (Heb. 2:9). Also in Phil. 2:5-8, it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ." Jesus has two natures. Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was merely acknowledging the fact that He was also a man. Jesus is both God and man. As a man, he was in a lesser position than the Father. He had added to Himself human nature (Col. 2:9). He became a man to die for people. A comparison can be found in the marriage relationship. Biblically, a husband is greater in position and authority than his wife. But, he is no different in nature and he is not better than she. They share the same nature, being human, and they work together by love. So, Jesus was not denying that He was God. He was simply acknowledging that He was also a man and as a man, he was subject to the laws of God so that He might redeem those who were under the law; namely, sinners (Gal. 4:4-5). For further reading please see the two natures of Jesus. (../doctrine/2natures.htm) SCRIPTURES QUOTED: Phil. 2:5-8, "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." Col. 2:9, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form," Gal. 4:4-5, "But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, in order that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons." Heb. 2:9, "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone." (www.carm.org/witnesses.htm) |
||||||
806 | Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 not Satan! | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 83409 | ||
son of the morning [I submit the following, not to dispute your posts, but merely to present another interpretation. -- Radioman2] 'Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 'Verses 12-14 evidently refer to Satan, who, as prince of this world-system (see "World," John 7:7; Revelation 13:8, note, Scofield, 1917) is the real though unseen ruler of the successive world- powers, Tyre, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome, etc. (see Ezekiel 28:12-14). Lucifer, "day-star," can be none other that Satan. This tremendous passage marks the beginning of sin in the universe. When Lucifer said, "I will," sin began. See Revelation 20:10, note, Scofield 1917. 'See other instances of addressing Satan through another, Genesis 3:15; Matthew 16:22,23. ____________________ 'Ezekiel 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 'Here (Ezekiel 28:12-15), as in Isaiah 14:12 the language goes beyond the king of Tyre to Satan, inspirer and unseen ruler of all such pomp and pride as that of Tyre. Instances of thus indirectly addressing Satan are: Genesis 3:14,15; Matthew 16:23. The unfallen state of Satan is here described; his fall in Isaiah 14:12-14. (See Revelation 20:10, note, Scofield 1917) . But there is more. The vision is not of Satan in his own person, but of Satan fulfilling himself in and through an earthly king who arrogates to himself divine honours, so that the prince of Tyre foreshadows the Beast. (Daniel 7:8; Revelation 19:20).' ____________________ Bibliography Information Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on Isaiah 12 and Ezekiel 28". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes) |
||||||
807 | T or F? "God is a gentleman." | Matt 13:1 | Radioman2 | 83403 | ||
God is at war with the sinner ____________________ Rom 5:1 ASV "Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;" The sinner may think he is not at war with God, but God is most certainly at war with the sinner. "*peace with God.* Not a subjective, internal sense of calm and serenity, but an external, objective reality. "God has declared Himself to be at war with every human being because of man's sinful rebellion against Him and His law "(Rom 5:10; compare Rom 1:18; 8:7; Ex 22:24; Deut 32:21,22; Ps 7:11, John 3:36; Eph 5:6)" (p. 1700, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). [Looking up the above Scripture references and reading them before replying is advisable.] |
||||||
808 | T or F? "God is a gentleman." | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 83376 | ||
T or F? "God is a gentleman. He won't tamper with your free will." 'Sloppy Slogans' 'There's nothing wrong with catchy ways of expressing a conclusion based on careful consideration. In fact, Jesus was a master at using short, pithy statements (known as aphorisms) to drive a point home. Sloganeering in the hands of the unskilled, though, tends to be a sloppy business. The kernel of truth is lost beneath a pile of misleading chaff. 'Many slogans are not answers, but clever dismissals. No careful work has been done to justify the verdict. Let me explain. 'One truism I've heard regarding the problem of God's sovereignty versus man's freedom goes something like this: "God is a gentleman. He won't tamper with your free will." The statement has a ring of truth to it, and as a slogan it has populist appeal. Yet, more often than not, the statement is like a roof hanging in mid-air; the more demanding foundational work needed to support it simply has not been done. 'For example, this maxim is vulnerable to a couple of simple observations. First, the Scripture doesn't make this particular claim about human freedom. It doesn't even imply that God is a gentleman who won't interfere with our lives. To the contrary, there are a number of biblical examples that indicate just the opposite. 'Take Paul on the road to Damascus, for instance. He was in total rebellion against God. He dragged Christian men, women, and children into prison and even presided over executions. Paul was, in his human will, an enemy to the cross of Christ. So God knocked him off his horse on the Damascus Road, blinded him, then spoke to him like thunder from the sky (Acts 9:3-7). Was God tampering? It looks like it. 'Consider poor Nebuchadnezzar. God had him chewing grass with the cows in the fields of Babylon for three years until he finally looked heavenward, came to his senses, and gave God the glory (Daniel 4:28-37). Was there any divine pressure here? Seems like it to me.' ____________________ Faith and Philosophy by Gregory Koukl. To read more go to: (www.str.org) |
||||||
809 | T or F? "God is a gentleman." | Matt 13:1 | Radioman2 | 83383 | ||
T or F? "God is a gentleman. He won't tamper with your free will." 'Sloppy Slogans' 'There's nothing wrong with catchy ways of expressing a conclusion based on careful consideration. In fact, Jesus was a master at using short, pithy statements (known as aphorisms) to drive a point home. Sloganeering in the hands of the unskilled, though, tends to be a sloppy business. The kernel of truth is lost beneath a pile of misleading chaff. 'Many slogans are not answers, but clever dismissals. No careful work has been done to justify the verdict. Let me explain. 'One truism I've heard regarding the problem of God's sovereignty versus man's freedom goes something like this: "God is a gentleman. He won't tamper with your free will." The statement has a ring of truth to it, and as a slogan it has populist appeal. Yet, more often than not, the statement is like a roof hanging in mid-air; the more demanding foundational work needed to support it simply has not been done. 'For example, this maxim is vulnerable to a couple of simple observations. First, the Scripture doesn't make this particular claim about human freedom. It doesn't even imply that God is a gentleman who won't interfere with our lives. To the contrary, there are a number of biblical examples that indicate just the opposite. 'Take Paul on the road to Damascus, for instance. He was in total rebellion against God. He dragged Christian men, women, and children into prison and even presided over executions. Paul was, in his human will, an enemy to the cross of Christ. So God knocked him off his horse on the Damascus Road, blinded him, then spoke to him like thunder from the sky (Acts 9:3-7). Was God tampering? It looks like it. 'Consider poor Nebuchadnezzar. God had him chewing grass with the cows in the fields of Babylon for three years until he finally looked heavenward, came to his senses, and gave God the glory (Daniel 4:28-37). Was there any divine pressure here? Seems like it to me.' ____________________ Faith and Philosophy by Gregory Koukl. To read more go to: (www.str.org) |
||||||
810 | Must Christians keep the Sabbath today? | Ex 20:8 | Radioman2 | 83343 | ||
"Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath." ____________________ 'Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today?' 'We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. 'In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. 'The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. 'The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. 'In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). 'Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. 'There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. 'When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. 'The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. 'In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). 'In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). 'The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). 'Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). 'So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath."' (www.gty.org) |
||||||
811 | No limit on what faith can do? | Matt 6:10 | Radioman2 | 83337 | ||
mommapbs: You are correct in saying it is "the OBJECT of our faith that is without limit." If one were using a wooden plank to cross a raging river, one would find that: It is better to have weak faith in a strong plank than strong faith in a weak plank. And, of course, the object of our faith is the Lord Jesus Christ, whose power is without limit. He is the One in Whom we have faith. Sorry for the confusion. When I asked, "Don’t several New Testament passages declare that there is no limitation on what genuine faith can do?", I didn't really mean I believed this to be so. Rather, I posted a question so that I could then provide an answer to it. It's like when a preacher asks: "Isn't there more than one way to heaven?" Then in his sermon he goes on to explain, "No, there is only one way." My sincere thanks to you for pointing out that my question was a bit confusing. In my writing I always strive to make my meaning as clear as possible. When I do not achieve the desired clarity, other people are sometimes very helpful to point out that I missed the mark. That gives me the opportunity to try harder and do better. Thank you for your reply and for the many fine submissions you have posted. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
812 | revelation 13 | Revelation | Radioman2 | 83329 | ||
"666 is an English number. The Bible was not written in English. The book of Revelation is a Greek document." ____________________ NASB Revelation 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him who has understanding calculate the number of the beast, for the number is that of a man; and his number is six hundred and sixty-six. "In recent times, speculations about the exact nature of this mark have abounded. Since the exact name of the beast is unknown, speculation as to what the mark is has received the most attention. A computer chip implant, a bar-code, or a physical brand on the skin have led the list of possibilities at one time or another. However, a closer examination is warranted. "Based on Revelation 13:16-17 and 14:9, there will be three lines of identification: a mark, a name or a number. Most attention has been focused on the number of his name, which is 666. Most fail to appreciate the fact that 666 is an English number. The Bible was not written in English. The book of Revelation is a Greek document. This demands a Greek numbering scheme. So whatever John saw was certainly not the English number 666. ( . . . ) "True believers in Jesus Christ will not take the markings of Satan/Antichrist. "It is important at this point to add that believers will not be tricked into taking the markings. Satan/Antichrist has nothing to gain by marking people who are not truly his. With starvation as the penalty, people will gladly take the identification system. Believers will not want to attempt subterfuge--take the identification system externally, but hold allegiance to Christ in their hearts. There are things far worse than physical death. Trying to explain to the Lord our reason for taking a Satanic identification system to escape physical death is one of them." ____________________ What is the mark of the Beast? by Rev. Charles Cooper. To read more go to: (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/faqs/faq_0006.html) |
||||||
813 | No limit on what faith can do? | Matt 6:10 | Radioman2 | 83311 | ||
No limit on what faith can do? Don’t several New Testament passages declare that there is no limitation on what genuine faith can do? 'Several other passages, such as Matthew 7:7; 21:22 ; John 14:12-14 ; and 1 John 3:22-23 are often mistakenly understood to mean that God places no restrictions on what we should be able to receive in response to our prayers. But if there were no limitation on the things we could receive from God through prayer, why would Jesus say, “Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. . . .Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”? ( Matthew 5:4,10 ). 'In other words, if our lack of faith is all that stands in the way of our having whatever we want, we should never be mournful, persecuted,or afflicted. But that was not what Jesus promised, and His disciples did not receive everything they might have wanted. Just as Jesus had no permanent place to lay His head ( Matthew 8:20 ), the apostles suffered persecution and hardship ( 2 Corinthians 6 ), and eventually all but John were martyred. 'These passages assume that we will pray in humble, childlike faith (Matthew 7:11; 17:20 ), with sincerity, out of genuine love ( Matthew 5:44 ), with good motives ( Matthew 6:5 ), with perseverance( Matthew 7:7 ), and in submission to God’s sovereign will ( Matthew 6:10 ). When we pray this way, we won’t make improper requests. Also, we will be so in tune with God that we will be satisfied when His plans prove to be different than we hoped they would be.' ____________________ Written by: Dan Vander Lugt (http://www.gospelcom.net/rbc/questions/answer/bible/passages/ntmiracles.xml/) |
||||||
814 | Posting a privilege, not a right | 1 Cor 16:14 | Radioman2 | 83310 | ||
inmyheart: Regarding my previous post, ID# 82737, you write: I took the time to review the Terms of Use and found no statement "Posting to the forum is not a right; it is a privilege. To abuse it is to lose it." You are absolutely correct. :-) But if you'll take another look at that post of mine, you will note there are no quotation marks around those two sentences. The quotation marks begin at the next paragraph, where the Lockman Foundation is directly quoted. Thank you for writing. I appreciate you. Grace and peace, Radioman2 P.S. If anyone feels I have violated the Terms of Use, they are free to file an abuse report in regard to my post(s). |
||||||
815 | Will God bless a union if sex before mar | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 83247 | ||
"it is better to marry than to burn with passion" New King James Version New King James Version 1 Corinthians 7:9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. NASB 1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. AMPLIFIED 1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they have not self-control (restraint of their passions), they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame [with passion and tortured continually with ungratified desire]. NIV 1 Corinthians 7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. |
||||||
816 | Did Jesus die spiritually? | 2 Cor 5:21 | Radioman2 | 83243 | ||
Spiritual death denies Christ's deity - - - - - - - - - - - - - 'The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity.' - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and went directly to paradise (v. 43). " - - - - - - - - - - - - - SPIRITUAL DEATH AND REBIRTH IN HELL: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers in text are footnote numbers. To read footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'When it comes to defining the Atonement, Copeland says, "It wasn't a physical death on the cross that paid the price for sin...anybody can do that."63 Jesus supposedly "put Himself into the hands of Satan when He went to that cross, and took that same nature that Adam did [when he sinned]."64 Copeland is here referring to the nature of Satan, as God pronounced that "Adam would die spiritually - that he would take on the nature of Satan which is spiritual death."65 He adds that "the day that Jesus was crucified, God's life, that eternal energy that was His from birth, moved out of Him and He accepted the very nature of death itself."66 'During an alleged conversation with Copeland, Jesus is said to have remarked, "It was a sign of Satan that was hanging on the cross....I accepted, in my own spirit, spiritual death; and the light was turned off."67 We are told that Jesus "had to give up His righteousness"68 and "accepted the sin nature of Satan."69 'Contrary to the teaching that Christ underwent a change of nature (into a satanic being), the Bible depicts Jesus as having an immutable divine nature (Heb. 13:8; cf. Mal. 3:6). Moreover, in saying that "spiritual death means separation from the life of God,"70 Copeland tacitly admits that Jesus completely lost His deity. For, as we noted earlier, Copeland defines the "life of God" as "the unseen force that makes God, God." However, Scripture declares that God is eternal and unchanging and thus never ceases to be God. The Father says of Christ, "But you remain the same, and your years will never end" (Heb. 1:12). 'Finally, the notion of Jesus being overtaken by "the very nature of death" is contradicted by Jesus' claim that He has "life in Himself" (John 5:26; cf. 1:4), is "the resurrection and the life" (11:25), and is "the way, the truth, and the life" (14:6). The "spiritual death of Christ" teaching entails an implicit denial of Christ's deity and, in turn, of the Trinity. 'Still, Copeland insists "Satan conquered Jesus on the Cross and took His spirit to the dark regions of hell" (emphasis in original).71 Copeland's description of Christ's ordeal in hell is nothing short of chilling: "He [Jesus] allowed the devil to drag Him into the depths of hell....He allowed Himself to come under Satan's control...every demon in hell came down on Him to annihilate Him....They tortured Him beyond anything anybody had ever conceived. For three days He suffered everything there is to suffer."72 'The situation seemed hopeless, as Jesus' "emaciated, poured out, little, wormy spirit is down in the bottom of that thing; and the devil thinks he's got Him destroyed."73 However, Copeland explains that "Satan fell into the trap. He took Him [Jesus] into hell illegally. He carried Him in there [when] He did not sin."74 God found the opening He needed: "That Word of the living God went down into that pit of destruction and charged the spirit of Jesus with resurrection power! Suddenly His twisted, death-wracked spirit began to fill out and come back to life....Jesus was born again - the firstborn from the dead the Word calls Him - and He whipped the devil in his own backyard."75 'Copeland's account, vivid though it may be, is not in the Bible. It misuses the phrase "firstborn from the dead" (Col. 1:18) to bolster the "born again Jesus" doctrine. Actually, the term "firstborn" (Greek: prototokos) primarily denotes primacy, headship, and preeminence. And the phrase itself points to Christ's supremacy "over all creation" (v. 15) in general and those who will be raised from the dead in particular (alluding to Christ's bodily resurrection - not some spiritual resuscitation in hell). 'Moreover, Jesus was not dragged into hell by Satan, but instead committed His spirit to the Father (Luke 23:46) and went directly to paradise (v. 43). Nor was He tortured by a host of demons; He triumphed "over them by the cross" (Col. 2:15). Jesus paid for humanity's sin in full (Greek: tetelestai) at the cross (John 19:30) - not by becoming a satanic being, but through His physical sacrifice (Heb. 10:10; Col. 1:22). ____________________ To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
817 | 5. MEMBERS OF GOD'S CLASS? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 83223 | ||
... | ||||||
818 | How Do You Know Christianity Is True? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 83160 | ||
How Do You Know Christianity Is True? "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." ____________________ "...one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view." ____________________ 'What is the simplest, most direct way-- without sacrificing the compelling nature of an argument--to answer this question: Why do I believe that Christianity is true?...my answer "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." (...) 'If people are willing to quote Jesus as somebody who is an authority, doesn't it seem to make sense to be careful to quote not just Jesus' words, but Jesus' ideas. We can't just pluck statements that Jesus made out of context to support our point of view. We under gird our point of view by referring back to Jesus as an authority, but that only works if we accurately understand what Jesus had to say. The only way we can do so is by studying the teachings of Jesus in some kind of systematic fashion. It's mystifying to me that so many people who quote Jesus in this fashion have not the slightest idea of what Jesus was all about and what He taught. ____________________ "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." ___________________ 'When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." It's an effective parry unless you know how to deal with it because this objection misses the point entirely. My response is this: "I am no one to say. That's the point. I am not speaking about spiritual things on my own authority. I am deferring to Jesus. I am not asking you to listen to my view of the truth. Jesus is the one who is the expert, so let's listen to Him." 'What about the issue of it being your own interpretation? That is why we have to look closely at what Jesus said. I've studied Him for twenty some years. I've studied His teachings carefully. That doesn't mean that I necessarily understand everything accurately. However it strikes me that one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view. 'This brings us, by the way, to the goal of interpretation. The goal of interpretation is not to invent ideas that I can put into Jesus' mouth and then call it my interpretation. The goal of interpretation is to figure out what Jesus meant since He is the authority, not I. 'This, by the way, is where the argument turns into a liability--not for me, since I've clarified now what we are trying to accomplish with interpretation and who the authority is, but it turns it into a liability for the objector. The reason is because Jesus' teaching is not all that hard. It certainly is not as hard as people make it out to be. It just takes a little attention. 'Quite frankly, the real problem is that much of what Jesus taught is not only obvious, but so deeply offensive to the modern mind, that only the most benign and general of His teachings and moral principles can be seized upon without much threat. People who make these kinds of statements never seize on statements of the woes and judgment that will fall on those who reject Him and don't believe Him. Rather, they seize things like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or, "You must have the faith of a child to enter the Kingdom of God." Or, "The Kingdom of God is within you." All this kind of mysterious, gentle, easy-going ideas that don't make a strong challenge to your moral choices.' _____________ How Do You Know Christianity Is True? by Gregory Koukl To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/index.htm) |
||||||
819 | How Do You Know Christianity Is True? | 2 Corinthians | Radioman2 | 83169 | ||
How Do You Know Christianity Is True? "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." ____________________ "...one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view." ____________________ 'What is the simplest, most direct way-- without sacrificing the compelling nature of an argument--to answer this question: Why do I believe that Christianity is true?...my answer "I believe Christianity is true because Jesus said it was." (...) 'If people are willing to quote Jesus as somebody who is an authority, doesn't it seem to make sense to be careful to quote not just Jesus' words, but Jesus' ideas. We can't just pluck statements that Jesus made out of context to support our point of view. We under gird our point of view by referring back to Jesus as an authority, but that only works if we accurately understand what Jesus had to say. The only way we can do so is by studying the teachings of Jesus in some kind of systematic fashion. It's mystifying to me that so many people who quote Jesus in this fashion have not the slightest idea of what Jesus was all about and what He taught. ____________________ "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." ___________________ 'When you appeal to Jesus' authority like that, the rejoinder you might get--and this represents the liability in presenting this kind of argument--is something like this: "Who are you to say? That is just your own interpretation." It's an effective parry unless you know how to deal with it because this objection misses the point entirely. My response is this: "I am no one to say. That's the point. I am not speaking about spiritual things on my own authority. I am deferring to Jesus. I am not asking you to listen to my view of the truth. Jesus is the one who is the expert, so let's listen to Him." 'What about the issue of it being your own interpretation? That is why we have to look closely at what Jesus said. I've studied Him for twenty some years. I've studied His teachings carefully. That doesn't mean that I necessarily understand everything accurately. However it strikes me that one who has given more consideration to the full body of Jesus' teachings in the context of the language, culture, and thinking of the time is more likely to give an accurate interpretation than someone who has given no thought whatsoever to it and is simply plucking sayings out of the sky hoping that it will substantiate his own point of view. 'This brings us, by the way, to the goal of interpretation. The goal of interpretation is not to invent ideas that I can put into Jesus' mouth and then call it my interpretation. The goal of interpretation is to figure out what Jesus meant since He is the authority, not I. 'This, by the way, is where the argument turns into a liability--not for me, since I've clarified now what we are trying to accomplish with interpretation and who the authority is, but it turns it into a liability for the objector. The reason is because Jesus' teaching is not all that hard. It certainly is not as hard as people make it out to be. It just takes a little attention. 'Quite frankly, the real problem is that much of what Jesus taught is not only obvious, but so deeply offensive to the modern mind, that only the most benign and general of His teachings and moral principles can be seized upon without much threat. People who make these kinds of statements never seize on statements of the woes and judgment that will fall on those who reject Him and don't believe Him. Rather, they seize things like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Or, "You must have the faith of a child to enter the Kingdom of God." Or, "The Kingdom of God is within you." All this kind of mysterious, gentle, easy-going ideas that don't make a strong challenge to your moral choices.' _____________ How Do You Know Christianity Is True? by Gregory Koukl To read more go to: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/index.htm) |
||||||
820 | 1. Summary.Teachings of Kenneth Copeland | Matt 24:11 | Radioman2 | 83151 | ||
9. THE BELIEVER'S AUTHORITY: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers in text are footnote numbers. To read footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'Copeland's basis for the believer's authority can be viewed in three distinct stages. First, upon conversion the believer undergoes a total and immediate change of nature. At the moment of spiritual birth "the spirit of God hovered over you, and there was conceived in your body a holy thing identical to Jesus....And there was imparted into you zoe, the life of God" (emphases added).76 Hence, "you are to think the way Jesus thought. He didn't think it robbery to be equal with God."77 Copeland's remarks, "You are not a spiritual schizophrenic - half-God and half-Satan - you are all-God"78 and "You don't have a God in you; you are one,"79 demonstrate that being born again means nothing less to him than becoming a god. 'Yet Scripture states there is only one God who indwells all believers (John 14:17, 23). Additionally, the Bible views spiritual birth not in terms of a change of nature (from satanic to divine), but as the regeneration of a uniquely human spirit by God (2 Cor. 5:17; Tit. 3:5). 'In the second stage of his discourse, Copeland teaches that the believer's change of nature (into a god) brings with it a proportional change in ability. "Every man that has been born again has had this faith [viz. God's] put inside him," he writes. "This faith is good enough to make all things possible to the believer."80 'Copeland comments, "As a born-again believer, you are equipped with the Word. You have the power of God at your disposal. By getting the Word deep into your spirit and speaking it boldly out your mouth, you release spiritual power to change things in the natural circumstances."81 'The believer is thus allegedly able to speak things into existence by way of faith-filled words, or positive confession. But as we have already shown, Copeland's views of faith and words are without legitimate scriptural warrant, and are therefore invalid when applied to the believer. 'In the third stage of Copeland's teaching on the believer's authority, we are told that knowing and exercising the rights set forth under the covenant guarantee success in confession. He remarks that the Bible "is the wisdom of God placed in covenant contract....Everything in it is mine....You just keep looking at it, and keep reading it, and that covenant will turn you into that kind of person - whatever it is you decide to be."82 'Copeland translates his concept of covenant rights into what has been termed the "health and wealth" or "prosperity" message. "The basic principle of the Christian life is to know that God put our sin, sickness, disease, sorrow, grief, and poverty on Jesus at Calvary," he asserts. "For Him to put any of this on us now would be a miscarriage of justice."83 ____________________ To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) matt2411 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ] Next > Last [66] >> |