Results 901 - 920 of 1309
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
901 | john 7:16 | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 82005 | ||
This and all your other questions have been repeatedly asked and answered. Use the forum Search function to look it up. | ||||||
902 | Who is "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? | John 21:20 | Radioman2 | 81998 | ||
EdB: WITHIN THE CONTEXT, the expression "the one who Jesus loved" IS exclusive. It DOES mean John and John only. IN THE CONTEXT. What I mean and what the verse means is: "Peter, turning around, saw [John] following them; [John] who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" "Avoid spiritualizing or allegorizing the Bible. This is that which gives to the Bible some kind of mystical meaning. In other words, what is on the surface is not the meaning, but what is hidden becomes the meaning. This is very popular. Allegorizing means to say that the historical meaning is not the real meaning, and in fact may be nothing but a fabrication. The historical meaning is not the real meaning, the real meaning is the spiritual meaning hidden beneath the surface. "And once you say that something in the Bible is an allegory, that is, it is only a symbol of the reality, you have just made it impossible to know what that reality is because if that reality cannot be discerned through the normal understanding of language, how can it be discerned?" (from the radio message: "How to Study Your Bible: Interpretation" by John MacArthur on Grace to You broadcast) Neither I nor the verse mean that Jesus only loved John and not the other disciples. Neither I nor the verse mean that Jesus only loved John enough to go to the cross. Neither I nor the verse mean that Jesus did not go to the cross out of love for all of us. Neither I nor the verse mean that Jesus does not love you. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
903 | Why is "forty" such a common number? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81996 | ||
'Matt 12:40 *three days and three nights.* Quoted from Jon. 1:17. This sort of expression was a common way of underscoring the prophetic significance of a period of time. 'An expression like "forty days and forty nights" may in some cases simply refer to a period of time longer than a month.' (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1415, Word Publishing, 1997). |
||||||
904 | Why do we pray if God already knows all | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81994 | ||
Prayer does not change God. Prayer changes us. One reason we are to pray is to remind ourselves that God is sovereign and not we ourselves. |
||||||
905 | Are habitual sinners still Christians? | 1 Cor 6:11 | Radioman2 | 81990 | ||
Are HABITUAL sinners still Christians? If they claim to be Christians, yet continue to live in the life of sin, are they still a Christian? [9] No one born of God makes a PRACTICE of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. [10] By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not PRACTICE righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. 1 John 3:9-10 (ESV) (Emphasis added.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 John 3:6-10 (Amplified) 6 No one who abides in Him [who lives and remains in communion with and in obedience to Him—deliberately, knowingly, and HABITUALLY] commits (practices) sin. No one who [HABITUALLY] sins has either seen or known Him [recognized, perceived, or understood Him, or has had an experiential acquaintance with Him]. 7 Boys (lads), let no one deceive and lead you astray. He who practices righteousness [who is upright, conforming to the divine will in purpose, thought, and action, living a consistently conscientious life] is righteous, even as He is righteous. 8 [But] he who commits sin [who practices evildoing] is of the devil [takes his character from the evil one], for the devil has sinned (violated the divine law) from the beginning. The reason the Son of God was made manifest (visible) was to undo (destroy, loosen, and dissolve) the works the devil [has done]. 9 No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and HABITUALLY] practices sin, for God’s nature abides in him [His principle of life, the divine sperm, remains permanently within him]; and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God. 10 By this it is made clear who take their nature from God and are His children and who take their nature from the devil and are his children: no one who does not practice righteousness [who does not conform to God’s will in purpose, thought, and action] is of God; neither is anyone who does not love his brother (his fellow believer in Christ). (Emphasis added.) |
||||||
906 | Who is "the disciple whom Jesus loved"? | John 21:20 | Radioman2 | 81987 | ||
jswife: NASB John 21:20 Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, "Lord, who is the one who betrays You?" Basically, there are three steps involved in Bible study. We must ask: 1) What does the passage SAY? 2) What does it MEAN? 3) How can I apply this in my life? We know what the Bible means by what it says. We need to be careful that we don't get carried away when we start spiritualizing the narrative portions of the Bible. In the immediate context of John 21:20, "the disciple whom Jesus loved" means John and only John. If it referred to "all Christians", then the verse would mean that: All Christians leaned back on His bosom at the supper. Of course, no such thing happened. As far as we can determine from the biblical account, there were no more than 13 people present at the last supper. All Christians of all ages were not even there. My point? When the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense lest it be nonsense. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
907 | Why Jews are always persecuted? | Ex 22:21 | Radioman2 | 81984 | ||
blinkie8: Why are the Jews always the ones to be persecuted? Basically, it is because true adherents to Judaism have always stood for righteousness. The world hates righteousness. Therefore, the world has throughout history persecuted Jewish people. The user Acts 22 has given an excellent, accurate answer to your question. He is to be commended. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
908 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81980 | ||
EdB: I see your points. I agree that we ought not to label people. Thanks! :-) Radioman2 |
||||||
909 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81949 | ||
Hank: It may be that the only thing more foolish than blindly following the teachings of some blind guide would be to follow that person without having bothered to study what he/she actually teachs and believes. After all, if one doesn't know the teachings of Dr. Sounding Brass or Professor Tinkling Cymbal, then one will have nothing by which to be offended or disillusioned. Radioman2 |
||||||
910 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81942 | ||
Just take their word for it? gracefull: You write: "They encourage others to just take their word for it that these teachings are unscriptural, and heretic creating fear in them." Just take their word for it? Anyone with an understanding of basic Bible teaching would know WOF teachings are unscriptural merely by reading them in the words of the teachers themselves. In my postings regarding Copeland, Meyer, Hinn, etc., their very words are quoted. Then each quote is footnoted giving the name of the article, book or TV program in which Copeland and others spoke those words. Before you make a statement like the one above, you need to look at the quotes and footnotes. If you did, then you would see that I am not encouraging others just to take my word for it. In light of the fact of the inclusion of footnoted quotes in the very words of WOF teachers, your accusation is false and unfounded. What about you? Do you encourage others to just take your word? I have seen little or no evidence to support your defense of WOF leaders. You write: "They encourage others . . . to read books which talk 'about' the teachings rather than imparting to the seekers to search the scriptures, compare understanding and then ask the Holy Spirit for the revealed spiritual truth." Wrong. The recommended books do indeed encourage seekers to search the scriptures, compare understanding and then ask the Holy Spirit for the revealed spiritual truth." You write: "Purhaps some will begin to reason scripture more and allow the Spirit of God to do the rest." If people relied upon the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit and reason, they wouldn't fall for WOF teaching to begin with. Radioman2 |
||||||
911 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81938 | ||
EdB: You write: "Then the question arises who should choose what is right and the answer is the Church! Not the church of Methodist, not the church of the AoG, not the church of the Baptist, not the church of Calvin, but the church of Jesus Christ." If I had the email address or phone number of "the church of Jesus Christ", I would contact them so that I, too, could know what was right. I know this sounds sarcastic and for that I apologize. My intent here is not to be sarcastic. Yet, if the above quote is the answer, then how can one gain access to what is right and true? I agree with you, Ed, that no denomination has the copyright on THE TRUTH. Yet, my question remains. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
912 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81931 | ||
2. FROM OBSCURITY TO CENTER STAGE: The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland [Note: Numbers within or at the end of sentences are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes providing reference sources for this article, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm)] 'FROM OBSCURITY TO CENTER STAGE 'Though best known for his "prosperity" message, Copeland began his ascent to Faith stardom from a state of financial disarray. Beset by monetary problems, in 1967 he decided to resume his education at Oral Roberts University (ORU), where he subsequently "landed a job as copilot on Oral Robert's [sic] cross-country crusade flights."4 'It was not until August of 1967, however, that Copeland experienced a revolution in his outlook through the preaching of yet another evangelist - Kenneth E. Hagin, regarded by many to be the "father of the Faith movement." With reference to his "distant mentor," Copeland has been quoted "as saying that he 'learned nothing' during six months at Oral Roberts University but was so excited by Hagin's teachings that...[he] spent the next month in his garage listening to them."5 'The Copelands returned to Fort Worth, Texas in 1968 where they established an evangelistic association. Within a few short years their home-based Bible studies reportedly grew into large revivals, sometimes with crowds large enough to fill entire "civic centers and international arenas."6 'In 1973 the ministry began publishing its own newsletter, Believer's Voice of Victory. Two years later, Copeland claimed the Lord "commanded him to 'preach the uncompromised Word on every available voice.'"7 This prompted him to launch the Believer's Voice of Victory radio broadcast in 1976. By 1979 Copeland's ministry was established firmly enough to enter the arena of television, paving the way for its 1981 venture into satellite communications. And in August of the following year "the ministry made history by initiating the first global religious broadcast" (emphasis in original).8 'Copeland continues to experience popular acceptance within various charismatic and Pentecostal circles. His books, booklets, and taped messages can be found in a number of Christian bookstores, and his crusades and revivals consistently produce large turnouts. Furthermore, the ministry's international scope and influence is well attested by its offices in England, the Philippines, South Africa, Australia, Canada, and Hong Kong. 'While not every Faith teacher holds to all of Copeland's doctrines, they, along with his followers, consider him a leading - if not the leading - authority on Faith theology. "Many have already coronated Copeland as the new king of the Faith movement," writes one observer. "In a recent article, even Time magazine refers to Copeland as the 'chief exponent' of the Faith movement."9 ____________________ The Teachings of Kenneth Copeland. To read more, including extensive footnotes, go to: (www.equip.org/free/DC755-2.htm) |
||||||
913 | What about so-called revelation knowledg | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81905 | ||
justme: Thank you for your kind remarks. Good to hear from you, my friend. How have you been? Hope you are feeling well. God bless you in every way, Radioman2 |
||||||
914 | What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81901 | ||
winstonchurchill: Thank you for your replies to this and other posts. Your feedback is much appreciated. I've been enjoying reading your posts. You give sound, thoughtful, scriptural insight in what you write. Grace and peace, Radioman2 |
||||||
915 | did Jesus ask Barabbas to follow Him? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81895 | ||
No, Jesus did not ask Barabbas to follow him. There is no record of it in the Bible. | ||||||
916 | No need of proof? Faith in faith? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81887 | ||
No need of proof? Faith in faith? People MUST believe in spite of the lack of any evidence? I know because I know? What is this -- the "We Say So" School of the Bible? Hank's post, ID# 81883, is excellent as it stands. Also it is a post that stimulates me to ask questions. These questions are directed to any and all -- anyone who wishes to reply. Could it be that people who need no facts, no proof, no reason, no logic are also people who are receptive to voodoo apologetics? If an unbeliever initially does not accept the authority of the Bible, do we just give up on him/her? Do we write that person off? If someone asks us WHY we believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, we'd better be ready to give a good reason. We need to have to have something to say in addition to or instead of "Because it says so." There are a number of good reasons for accepting the authority of the Bible. One of them is that fulfilled prophecy is proof of inspiration. If we are not familiar with this and other proofs, it's time we made the effort to become familiar with them. "And if you are asked about your Christian hope, always be ready to EXPLAIN IT" 1 Peter 3:15 (NLT) (Emphasis added.) We need to be ready to explain it. KJV 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. AMPLIFIED 2 Timothy 2:15 Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth. Finally, the idea that someone's faith could be LESS because of the proof they've found doesn't even make any sense. How could a person have less faith in a fact after he's discovered more evidence to prove that fact? |
||||||
917 | Did Jesus die on Wednesday or Friday? | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81882 | ||
"If Christ was crucified on a Friday, and His resurrection occurred on the first day of the week, by Hebrew reckoning this would qualify as 3 days and 3 nights." "ALL SORTS OF ELABORATE SCHEMES HAVE BEEN DEVISED TO SUGGEST THAT CHRIST MIGHT HAVE DIED ON A WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY" - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Three days and three nights. (Matt 12:40) This phrase does not necessarily require that 72 hours elapse between Christ's death and resurrection, for the Jews reckoned part of a day to be as a whole day. Thus this prophecy can be properly fulfilled if the crucifixion occurred on Friday." (Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) "'Three days and three nights' was an emphatic way of saying "three days," and by Jewish reckoning this would be an apt way of expressing a period of time that includes parts of 3 days. Thus, if Christ was crucified on a Friday, and His resurrection occurred on the first day of the week, by Hebrew reckoning this would qualify as 3 days and 3 nights. "ALL SORTS OF ELABORATE SCHEMES HAVE BEEN DEVISED TO SUGGEST THAT CHRIST MIGHT HAVE DIED ON A WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY, just to accommodate the extreme literal meaning of these words. But the original meaning would not have required that sort of wooden interpretation (emphasis added)" (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1415, Word Publishing, 1997). |
||||||
918 | wednsday or friday Jesus died | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81880 | ||
"ALL SORTS OF ELABORATE SCHEMES HAVE BEEN DEVISED TO SUGGEST THAT CHRIST MIGHT HAVE DIED ON A WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY" - - - - - - - - - - - - - "Three days and three nights. (Matt 12:40) This phrase does not necessarily require that 72 hours elapse between Christ's death and resurrection, for the Jews reckoned part of a day to be as a whole day. Thus this prophecy can be properly fulfilled if the crucifixion occurred on Friday." (Ryrie Study Bible, Moody Press, 1976, 1978) "'Three days and three nights' was an emphatic way of saying "three days," and by Jewish reckoning this would be an apt way of expressing a period of time that includes parts of 3 days. Thus, if Christ was crucified on a Friday, and His resurrection occurred on the first day of the week, by Hebrew reckoning this would qualify as 3 days and 3 nights. "ALL SORTS OF ELABORATE SCHEMES HAVE BEEN DEVISED TO SUGGEST THAT CHRIST MIGHT HAVE DIED ON A WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY, just to accommodate the extreme literal meaning of these words. But the original meaning would not have required that sort of wooden interpretation (emphasis added)" (MacArthur Study Bible, p. 1415, Word Publishing, 1997). |
||||||
919 | What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? | Not Specified | Radioman2 | 81876 | ||
What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? (Latter-Rain) What in the world is "dominion theology"? And is it really consistent with the Bible? 'DOMINION THEOLOGY 'Dominion theology is associated with two distinct movements. In order to give an accurate assessment of this very controversial issue, I'll need to spend a few moments discussing the elements which characterize these two movements. [Reconstructionism] 'The first of these movements is known as "Reconstructionism," which arose within Reformed (Calvinistic) Christianity...Well, no matter how controversial you may think Reconstructionists are, the fact remains that this is a perfectly acceptable orthodox movement. ["Latter-Rain"] 'The same, however, cannot be said about "Kingdom Now Theology," which represents the other movement associated with dominion theology. This movement, popularized by Earl Paulk, basically boils down to a systematic presentation of what is commonly referred to as "Latter-Rain." Central to this system is the belief that since the time of the Reformation, God has progressively restored "truths" to the church. It also includes the view that the offices of apostle and prophet remain in effect to this very day, which is why submission to spiritual leaders is so heavily emphasized. Kingdom Now Theology also subscribes to the "Manifest Sons of God" doctrine, which holds the heretical position that the church is the incarnation of God and is therefore to "take dominion" -- politically and otherwise -- before Christ can return. For these and a host of other reasons, we strongly advise Christians to steer clear of Kingdom Now Theology.' To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0606.pdf) |
||||||
920 | What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 81891 | ||
What is "Kingdom Now Theology"? (Latter-Rain) What in the world is "dominion theology"? And is it really consistent with the Bible? 'DOMINION THEOLOGY 'Dominion theology is associated with two distinct movements. In order to give an accurate assessment of this very controversial issue, I'll need to spend a few moments discussing the elements which characterize these two movements. [Reconstructionism] 'The first of these movements is known as "Reconstructionism," which arose within Reformed (Calvinistic) Christianity...Well, no matter how controversial you may think Reconstructionists are, the fact remains that this is a perfectly acceptable orthodox movement. ["Latter-Rain"] 'The same, however, cannot be said about "Kingdom Now Theology," which represents the other movement associated with dominion theology. This movement, popularized by Earl Paulk, basically boils down to a systematic presentation of what is commonly referred to as "Latter-Rain." Central to this system is the belief that since the time of the Reformation, God has progressively restored "truths" to the church. It also includes the view that the offices of apostle and prophet remain in effect to this very day, which is why submission to spiritual leaders is so heavily emphasized. Kingdom Now Theology also subscribes to the "Manifest Sons of God" doctrine, which holds the heretical position that the church is the incarnation of God and is therefore to "take dominion" -- politically and otherwise -- before Christ can return. For these and a host of other reasons, we strongly advise Christians to steer clear of Kingdom Now Theology.' To read more go to: (www.equip.org/free/CP0606.pdf) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ] Next > Last [66] >> |