Results 681 - 700 of 1003
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Rowdy Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
681 | Nailed to a cross scripture? | John 20:25 | Rowdy | 117963 | ||
John 19:17 So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying his own cross, he went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). 18Here they crucified him, and with him two others--one on each side and Jesus in the middle. I hope this is clear enough. Hopefully you're not insisting on a scripture that actually has the phrase "Jesus was nailed to the cross" because I could not find it. But it's a well documented fact of history that a crucifiction meant nails, one in each hand (actually wrist, but part of the hand in Hebrew culture) and one nail through the feet together. God bless. --Rowdy |
||||||
682 | Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 contradict each o | Acts | Rowdy | 108416 | ||
Acts 9:7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Acts 22:9 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him who was speaking to me. There's a slight contrast but I don't think it's a contradiction. In the first verse, the companions don't see any persons. In the second, they see a light but no persons. Again, in the first verse, they heard the sound whereas in the second, they didn't understand what was being spoken. Maybe you can elaborate and state exactly what do you see as being a contradiction. Please do so. It helps if you've taken a school course in logic wherein they hold discussions depicting this very same kind of contrast in premises and conclusions. Sometimes conclusions are derived from faulty premise and thus cause the conclusion to be faulty as in this case. One condition or description does NOT exclude the other. Please look again. |
||||||
683 | Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9 contradict each o | Acts | Rowdy | 108417 | ||
Very well done. | ||||||
684 | Does speaking in tongues come naturally? | Acts | Rowdy | 108418 | ||
I have a hard time believing in any of the modern practice of miracles such as speaking in tongues and supernatural healing from another human being. However, I'm certainly NOT saying I don't believe in miracles such as the miracle of child birth or the remission of cancer or some other form of disease. I believe those kinds of miracles are relayed directly from God, our Father directly to the recipient, sometimes with the encouragement of prayer from us, His children and sometimes without. This whole topic has to be studied thoroughly by each individual but if we hold to the standards set by the NT, then miracles are the replacement of body parts, or raising of the dead after a few days of confirmed death, enabling the lame to walk immediately after a lifetime of NOT walking, etc. Healing of backpains and headaches or the mumblings of incoherent syllables which doesn't communicate any known language are examples of someone being deceived. But again, these conclusions have to be drawn after much individual study. But this one thing about speaking tongues is fairly easily arrived at: 1 Cor 14 teaches us if the speaking of tongues is not specifically communicating a message to be understood by the audience, then that person should remain silent. Another factor that can be easily proven through the study of history on this topic is the concept of a "speaking in tongues" as depicted in the NT. This simply meant someone was suddenly enabled to speak in a language known throughout a nation or a large group of people. He or she was enabled in this manner without any special efforts on their part in learning this language. This gift and all the other miraclous powers bestowed upon the select few by the laying of hands was manifested for the spreading of the gospel since they didn't have God's word to confirm their message of salvation. After the Apostles and the ones receiving these miraclous gifts died, the Gospel didn't need kind of sign because of the advent of the Bible and the fact everyone knew of this history. This was also predicted by Paul in 1 Cor 13. |
||||||
685 | Does speaking in tongues come naturally? | Acts | Rowdy | 108437 | ||
The history I'm referring to is that of the first couple of hundred years after the death of Christ. The learned folks of that day knew their history preceding their generation just like we know ours. They knew about miracles and where they came from because a few historians recording their happening and their circumstances. The knowledge to which I'm referring is that special dose gifted to a select few, in the same manner as the other miraclous gifts, immediately preceding it. This and all the other miraclous powers could only be bestowed by the Apostles' laying on of hands. So after the death of the Apostles and those blessed with these powers, no one was able to perform these kind of miracles. As you may know this was only way of getting this kind miraclous power was the laying on of hands as shown in Acts 6 and 8. The main purpose of miracles was God's endorsement of the message or Gospel these men were preaching as shown in Acts 5. Now that we have the Bible and secular history recording these facts, we have no need for miracles. I'm always open to discussing this and any other topic of the Bible but let's agree to define miracles in the same manner as they're described in the Bible. That is replacement of body parts, restoring life to the dead after several days of confirmed death or other supernatural acts that are clearly and unquestionably endorsed by God. Maybe we can agree that there is no human being that can claim such wonderful abilities. Let me know what you think. God bless. |
||||||
686 | can you be baptised twice | Acts | Rowdy | 108438 | ||
There's nothing wrong with being baptised as you describe above. But if you want to get it all straight in your mind and others who might read this, there can only be one baptism per person. In this case with you, the first time you had doubts, therefore you just got wet. Thanks be to God, He always wants us to enter the church with full confidence and faith in Him and His Son. So go ahead and get yourself baptized as quickly as possible just like the Phillipian jailer. There's no shame in admitting this kind of thing. That's one reason there should be no big rush to get our kids baptized. It's really something they should study and figure out for themselves, or maybe with a little subtle questioning and answering from their parents. I was baptized at 12 years of age and have had my fair share of a sinful life thereafter. Each individual's baptism is a very personal thing between that person and their God. God bless you in being humble and submissive enough to think about this and your desire to make your salvation certain. |
||||||
687 | where is it that luke wrote acts | Acts | Rowdy | 108442 | ||
It's not stated exactly but most scholars link the first verse in Acts to the first few verses of the Gospel of Luke. That and the fact there is so much documentation about the Apostle Paul in Acts seems to make Luke's authorship unquestionable. But remember, Luke was not an apostle. Another interesting note you may be interested in pursuing is that the tense of Acts. In some cases throughout Acts, Luke speaks in 1st person as though he is traveling with Paul. Then in other places, he speaks of Paul in 3rd person as if Luke stayed behind at one point but caught up with Paul later on. Just another indication that these writings really were recorded by men with God speaking through them. Check it out. |
||||||
688 | connection: baptism and holy spirit | Acts | Rowdy | 113544 | ||
Only in an effort to give this discussion some balance, let's not forget Cornelius and his group (in Acts 10) received the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the miraculous powers to go with it BEFORE they were baptized and became christians. Thus the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of the Gospel are two separate relationships. One carries with it miraculous powers and the other does not. The only other way it was imparted unto disciples/ christians was the "the laying of hands" of the Apostles as you've mentioned. Now that we have God's Word in Its complete form, there's no more need for miraculous acts from human beings to confirm Its coming from God. We have historical testimonies from secular historians to document that fact. God bless. |
||||||
689 | Give three stages in Moses life? | Acts | Rowdy | 113671 | ||
I understand Moses' life was divided in perfect thirds. He spent the first 40 years of his life in Eygpt, then the next 40 in the wilderness (which was actually useful to him and the Israelites) and his final 40 years leading them to the promised land. He lived exactly 120 years. | ||||||
690 | Sanctification - set apart FOR God's us? | Acts | Rowdy | 118121 | ||
Well said and Amen! However, I would like to add a thought or two. We should remember James 1:2 Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, 3because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. 4Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. 5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. 6But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. 7That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all he does. This is also part of the sanctification process and I'm thinking this nation is approaching such a time and need of purification. It does seem that God might visit some discipline to us, His children as cited in Heb 12:4 In your struggle against sin, you have not yet resisted to the point of shedding your blood. 5And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: "My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, 6because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as a son." 7Endure hardship as discipline; God is treating you as sons. For what son is not disciplined by his father? 8If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline), then you are illegitimate children and not true sons. 9Moreover, we have all had human fathers who disciplined us and we respected them for it. How much more should we submit to the Father of our spirits and live! 10Our fathers disciplined us for a little while as they thought best; but God disciplines us for our good, that we may share in his holiness. 11No discipline seems pleasant at the time, but painful. Later on, however, it produces a harvest of righteousness and peace for those who have been trained by it. 12Therefore, strengthen your feeble arms and weak knees. 13"Make level paths for your feet," so that the lame may not be disabled, but rather healed. God bless all those who study and obey God's Word. --Rowdy |
||||||
691 | Jerusalem Council | Acts | Rowdy | 119473 | ||
This was the church's first major confrontation with a major issue. Remember the church had just been established just a short while previously and they were "winging it" on their own with the exception of the Holy Spirit. Also remember God and Jesus were expecting great things out of these gentlemen as cited in Matt 18:18 " I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. Imagine for a moment, you have lived your whole life, like your father and his father with the 600 plus rules and regulations as promulgated by the Law of Moses. Suddenly you're released from all that and are told you've been given all authority to "bind and loose" as you see fit for the whole church for all time till Christ comes again. Yeah, awesome, I know and incredibly humbling at the same time. Personally, I think these gentlemen did an outstanding job, especially considering their educational background. Also I think they followed Jesus plan for resolving conflict from Matt 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. 16But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. They gathered the facts from men they could trust would be unbiased and truthful. The considered their options, prayed carefully and issued a decision reflecting their maturity and love for all mankind for all time. Yes, I think we definitely see the Hand of God in these men and the way they managed the church through its initial development. Thanks be to God they were humble and just like you and me. God bless. --Rowdy |
||||||
692 | Does it say anywhere about blood transfu | Acts | Rowdy | 120973 | ||
These two verses are about the same story. It recounts the first major decision settling controversy in the first century. Very interesting story, I recommend your reading it. Acts 15:29 that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication; if you keep yourselves free from such things, you will do well. Farewell." Acts 21:25 "But concerning the Gentiles who have believed, we wrote, having decided that they should abstain from meat sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication." In direct answer to your question, there is no such prohibition concerning blood transfusion. As a matter of fact, I think our Lord would be proud of us if our action in this regard were to save someone's life. God bless. --Rowdy |
||||||
693 | Is it necessary to be a member? | Acts | Rowdy | 121340 | ||
The only other guidance I can think would come from Acts 2 where the Lord started the pattern of adding folks to the church. Throughout the rest of the NT, we see that responsibilities AND vital benefits come with that addition. We should be reminded of the multitude of the "one another" passages, too many to list here but inserting that phrase into the search function is adequate. That's all I can think of. I guess some would say that's not much but as I see it, God is God and doesn't have to repeat Himself. The few times He does repeat Himself is a bonus for us and even then we humans are inclined to take them apart and critique them so as to look for discrepancies. How sad? Hope this helps and God bless. --Rowdy |
||||||
694 | who is the number twelve person in 1 Cor | Acts 1:21 | Rowdy | 119891 | ||
Remember this Book was written by Luke who "interviewed" the Apostles and other key folks and of course was guided by the Holy Spirit. So his perspective was from a historical viewpoint; that is, he wrote long after it happened. Hope this helps and God bless. --Rowdy |
||||||
695 | Differences Between Protestant Groups | Acts 2:1 | Rowdy | 109049 | ||
Personally, I found Halley's Bible Handbook has a very good and brief historical account. After that I'd refer you to the many books recounting the history of the Restoration movement. In my opinion, a listing of all the many controversies in today's world doesn't do much good. Instead, we as christians ought to stick to studying God's Word and derive in a simple but thorough manner, all of what God has for us. Remember, our Lord's last prayer was for unity, which is different from perfect union as in a military marching parade. A more accurate picture would be that same military unit persuing its mission and goals. Our aim should be to study God's Word so we really can identify the One Body, One Mind, One Lord, One Faith, and One Baptism and all the other ones. I know it sounds simplistic and mayben unrealistic for some but our Lord and King prayed for this and His official representatives, the Apostles provided some wonderful guidance and examples. You must admit, they provided an amazing little amount in the way of restrictions. So it shouldn't be all that difficult to agree on these few and the rest are available as options. The most important thing to remember is who is the Authority in these discussions: One single source, God's Word since that is the only place where we find true guidance from God Himself. |
||||||
696 | YOU SHALL RECEIVE POWER | Acts 2:22 | Rowdy | 117706 | ||
You might get a few more responses by using more lower case letters and reserve upper case letters for those few instances when you want to emphasize a particular one/two word point. All upper case letters suggests you're shouting at folks. I'd like to cite Acts2:22 "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. Also 2 Cor 12:12, Heb 2:1-4. When one does a thorough review of this whole subject throughout the Bible, you quickly get the idea that God did these kind of miracles through a select number of persons for the single purpose of confirming the words being preached as coming from God. Look at Mk 16:20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it. Another fact of the Bible is that NOWHERE is there an example of ANYONE getting these miraculous powers from any other source other than from the "laying on of hands from the apostles." Now the two exceptions to this is in Acts 2 with the apostles initial "baptism of the Holy Spirit" and Acts 10 with Cornelius and his family which was done for the express purpose of endorsing the Gentile world with the same endorsement from the Holy Spirit as was done for Jews in Acts 2. If after all this you've still got questions, I could only urge you to look for people who claim to have this measure of power and compare it to what you see in the Bible. In other words, do people raise up from the dead, are limbs replaced, eyesight restored to a person BORN blind. The miracles in the Bible are unmistakable acts of the supernatural, something that is ABSOLUTELY unquestionable acts and NOT a cure of a headache or backache or something else that can be conceled or possibly governed by someone's sincere mind control. In other words, look for the same kind of miracles in today's world and TRY to match them with what you see in your Bible. Remember 1 Jn 4:1 Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. God bless. --Rowdy. |
||||||
697 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Rowdy | 110527 | ||
This debate will probably go on till the end of time and we face Judgement Day but I gotta say that once again the attitude of "Better safe than sorry" should prevail in these kind of discussions. When presented with two or more conflicting interpretations, why would a person want to take a chance and regret the wrong choice all through eternity? It seems relatively clear to me that baptism is required, especially when you get a clear picture from Paul's Letter to the Romans, Chapter 6. There, it is clear baptism represents the burial that Christ went through and from which He was resurrected. It's there we contact the life-saving blood of Jesus through faith and rise up a new creature. There's just too many scriptures leading me to believe this conclusion in spite of the discussion of Greek grammar which is difficult to fully comprehend even by the scholars. I don't think I would want to take a chance and face the wrath of God on such questionable evidence. I would beg of you to keep studying and make up your own mind. It's important, at least to God and His Son. And I still pray for God's blessing on ALL of you. |
||||||
698 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Rowdy | 110546 | ||
I too enjoy reading your stimulating messages and appreciate your knowledge of the Word but I'm afraid I must stand by my original statement. In support of that, I can only say there are just as many scholars with PhDs on both sides of this controversy. The fact is that the Koine Greek is no longer spoken or written anywhere in the world. (Ironic isn't it...so our Father wants us to accept Him on His terms on faith. That means we can't know absolutely with such certain evidence that we could prove it in a court of man's law.) Anyway, the bottom line boils down to what is meant by "Better safe than sorry," just like Mommaphs and I have been discussing. In this particular scenario, I'm contrasting the two views of being saved with or without baptism. Some people think that too much emphasis is placed on this single point but it's not our emphasis, it's God's. He sent His Son to take our place on that cross and He gets to dictate the terms of His Last Will and Testament. The Holy Spirit is the executor and bestows the gift of salvation to those who qualify, those who accept the terms and obey God's commands in order to please Him. In Mark 16, Jesus Himself commissioned his disciples to teach everything He taught them to the whole world. He said he who believes and is baptized is saved...I know you're going to quote the rest of the verse back to me about the missing word "baptize" in that latter phrase. But don't you see, if a person doesn't believe there's no need to mention baptizing to him. It's illustrated as follows: If a man wants to live, he must consume nourishment and digest it into his body. If a man doesn't ingest that food or nourishment somehow, there's no need to discuss digestion, he will simply die. We see this kind of consummation of relationships throughout the world. When does a man and woman actually get married in the eyes of the world, at least here in America. It's the point they both say "I do" and not before. When does a person actually receive the gift from his dead benefactor, after he's completed ALL the requirements as provided in that will. Throughout the NT, we see many scriptures on this subject of baptism. It's done for the remission of sins, it represents the burial of Jesus as I stated earlier. There's just too much emphasis from God's Word to ignore this conclusion, at least for me. But one last item and I'll hush at least for now. Let's take the two different views to their ultimate conclusion (and utlimately Judgement Day): 1) my view as I've stated above with the conclusion that all who have been baptized are indeed in God's family. And 2) your view that one can be saved without baptism. With the latter view, one goes to God with His faith in the words, the grammar and Greek as has been discussed. But God asks "But did you obey?" like I instructed you. Remember, God's words through the phrophet Samuel, "It is better to obey God than to make sacrifice." That's what I mean with the phrase "Better safe than sorry." Please think about all this and pray about it. God bless. |
||||||
699 | Acts 2:38 Repentance and Baptism? | Acts 2:38 | Rowdy | 110622 | ||
Thanks for the encouragement. I'll let you have the last word. Do keep studying my friend. Hope to see you in Heaven. | ||||||
700 | Baptism-What Does the Bible Teach? | Acts 2:38 | Rowdy | 133381 | ||
I must admit, at first glance your post seems to be well written and appears quite logical but there's a big flaw in the logic. For some strange reason there seems to be a growing tendancy to question the fact of the Apostles being baptized when the Scriptures don't address that issue EXCEPT for this one instance. Acts 9:8 Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank. 10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Here I am, Lord." 11 And the Lord said to him, "Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, 12 and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight." 13 But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem; 14 and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on Your name." 15 But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; 16 for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name's sake." 17 So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." 18 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, You might notice that here Paul is baptized in a hurry (like the Phillipian jailer) as he does so before he eats a meal after 3 days of fasting. If baptism wasn't required for salvation, don't you think he could have waited? Similar to the jailer, if baptism isn't important, he could have waited till daybreak especially since he placed a high priority on tending to the ex-prisoner's wounds. You see, the whole logic of your article falls apart. The Bible simply doesn't address the issue of the other Apostles getting baptized at all, only Saul, later Apostle Paul. But throughout the Bible, I can see there are a few minor places where the emphasis isn't quite as plain as in Acts 2:38 so ultimately a person is faced with a quandry in his lap. 1) Should I be conservative, play it safe and be baptized to have my sins forgiven as cited in Acts 2:38 OR 2) Should I take a chance, take my salvation for granted like others do and get baptized at a later date? I've said this many times now and will repeat myself again and again as needed. When the Bible places these kind of options in front of us in response to this issues, I'll always recommend the "better safe than sorry" approach as endorsed by our Lord with his parable about cutting off a hand or gouging out an eye. Why take a chance with a controversial handful of verses when they ARE very definitely some few verses that clearly depict what I'm saying to be true. It's also in keeping with the practice of circumcision. A convert to Judiasm was NOT considered a Jew until AFTER the circumcision and we both know how our God truly is a bloody God. And since the Bible doesn't say one or the other about the Apostles, it's safe to say they were baptized before receiving salvation, since they would want to be consistent with what they were preaching. I do hope you'll keep studying and praying on this subject. God bless. Rowdy |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ] Next > Last [51] >> |