Results 401 - 420 of 701
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Sir Pent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Is iT possible to live without sin? | Rom 6:2 | Sir Pent | 23574 | ||
Contrary View .............................. Dear Resurrectioner, I am not prepared at this time to do a full discussion on this topic, but I just wanted to let you know that I think that it IS possible to live a life without sin after salvation (not before). This doctrine is called "Entire Sanctification", and you can find some posts on the subject by doing a search for those words. |
||||||
402 | Forgiveness of What? | Acts 13:38 | Sir Pent | 23571 | ||
Personal Note .................................. Thanks for the compliments on the thread, and I agree with you that remembering the lessons that we learned from past sins can keep us from repeating them. I would encourage you to "hug" the truths that you learned, instead of the sins themselves though. God puts them as far as the East is from the West, and I'd recommend following His lead :) |
||||||
403 | Forgiveness of What? | Acts 13:38 | Sir Pent | 23569 | ||
Clarification ................................. Dear Nolan, Yes you are most definately "on topic". This is exactly what I am wanting to explore. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the long-term punishment (ability to get a particular job) would vary depending on the number of times that a particular sin was committed. So let's say that a certain person was a Christian, and they became an drug addict. Although it is theoretically possible that this could happen after only experimenting once, that is almost unheard of. It would be a safe assumption that this was the result of a large number of bad choices. Then let's say the person repented and asked for forgiveness. Would you then after say 1 year of being "drug-free" hire them to run a Pharmacy that you own? This would be a case where they were not a repeat offender after repentance, but were one while claiming to be a Christian before repentance for that sin. |
||||||
404 | Please help me to find this out for this | Luke 1:27 | Sir Pent | 23565 | ||
Attempt at consensus .......................... Certain scriptures are unclear whether Jesus had brothers in His immediate family, and this has led to variance in beliefs within the Christian Church. Matthew 27:56 says that Mary (the mother of James and Joseph) was at the cross with Mary Magdalene. But John 19:25 says that Mary Magdalene was at the cross with Mary (the mother of Jesus) and also Mary (wife of Clopas, and sister of Mary the mother of Jesus). Therefore, Matthew 27:56 could have been referring to Jesus' mom or his aunt. Matthew 1:25 says that Mary remained a virgin until the birth of Jesus, but this doesn't neccessarily mean that she did or did not remain so afterwards. It could be interpreted either way. However, there are other passages which are less easily explained. Matthew 12:46 says that Jesus mother and brothers came to visit him. (Mark 3:31 and Luke 8:19 repeat the story) Mark 6:3 says that Jesus is the son of Mary and the brother of James, Joses, Judas, and Simon. (Matthew 13:55 repeats the story) Galations 1:19 specifically refers to Jesus brother James. John 2:12, John 7:3, Acts 1:19, and 1 Corinthians 9:5 all refer to Jesus brothers in general. Those who believe that Mary remained a virgin throughout life (mainly Catholics) would interpret these passages to be using the word "brother" to simply mean "male relative". This usage is common amoung many African tribes even today. However, most members of this forum (and most Protestants) would interpret these passages to have a literal meaning. Since the Bible is not completely clear on the matter, and this is not a salvific issue, both perspectives are entitled to their opinions, and either side would probably not be shocked to discover in Heaven that they were wrong. As for myself, I choose to take the Bible literally unless another scripture directly contradicts it. Therfore, since many verses refer to Jesus brothers, and there are no verses that literally say that Jesus did not have any brothers in His immediate family, I figure that He probably did. |
||||||
405 | Forgiveness of What? | Acts 13:38 | Sir Pent | 23555 | ||
Clarification .................................. You also said that "sin does have its consequences", and then went on to talk about how after forgiveness we should no longer be angry with a person. I agree regarding the anger, however, what are the consequences that you speak of? For instance, if you owned a bank, and a forgiven, formerly convicted thief applied for a job, would you hire them. Yes you should not harbor anger towards them, but do you treat them as if it never happened? What about a child molester who turned their life over to Jesus in prison? Would you let them be your son's Boy Scout Leader? |
||||||
406 | What does Matthew 24: 28 mean? | Matt 24:28 | Sir Pent | 23553 | ||
Clarification .................................. Dear Ross, You were asked by another forum member what religion you identify with. I would also appreciate learning more about you, including this information. Would you please either respond to this post, or update your user profile (which is currently blank). Thanks in advance. |
||||||
407 | What does baptism consist? | 1 John 5:6 | Sir Pent | 23546 | ||
Clarification ................................... Dear Tim S. I found this last post of yours to be very helpful in understanding how you see Baptism. I too think that your beliefs are closer to those of most others on this forum than it first appears. It seems to me that you primarily see Baptism as the burial view (being buried with Christ and then ressurected as a new forgiven creation). Therfore, it doesn't make sense to you for a person to be saved and then go back and be buried again. I'd like to possibly help you see it a little differently. If the water itself actually "accomplished" the burial and resurrection, then your view would be logical. However, if the water is "symbolic" of the burial and resurrection, then the timeing is less relevant. For instance, we shoot fireworks in America on Independance Day, July 4th. These are symbols. The fireworks do not grant us independance, and are incapable of earning us independance. Besides that, we actually gained our independance over 200 years ago. Yet we still shoot them off as a way to celebrate and show the world that we are free. Baptism is similar. It is a Christian's way of celebrating their salvation (through faith in Christ), and showing those around them that they have chosen to be buried and become a new forgiven creation. It is an important symbol to participate in, because the Bible says to do it, and because it gives evidence that we are not ashamed of our faith. But it is still a symbol. |
||||||
408 | So when did "evil" start? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 23540 | ||
Contrary View .................................. Dear Lisa, You asked how many people on this forum are "bible scholars with credentials". I honestly don't know. However, I know many of them are pastors of churches. Several have seminary training. Several have a solid background in the original languages of the Bible. And all deserve respect and at least a good hearing of their ideas. If I understand your post, the idea seemed to be that we should read "extra-Biblical" texts because they too were inspired by God, but were not included in the Bible because "the compilation of the book (Bible) was still in the hands of man". I fundamentally disagree with this position. This topic has also been discussed on this forum (do a search for "inspired consensus", and check out the thread: how inspired is the NASB today). |
||||||
409 | So when did "evil" start? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 23537 | ||
Defense of my recommendation ................. Dear Lisa, Let me first say that I did not intend to be rude to you. I have found your posts overall to be heartfelt and Biblically sound. I also am a strong supporter of treating all forum members with respect regardless of our feelings towards them. Therefore, I certainly did not mean to hurt your feelings with my last post. At the same time, I still feel that my original recommendation for you to do a search on your topic before asking further questions on it was appropriate. I understand that you don't have time in the day to take "every person's recommendation". However, that particular one happens to be a guidline established by the people who provide this site. In addition, it just makes sense to see what information is already available before asking a question that comes across as redundant. |
||||||
410 | Should we redefine terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 23536 | ||
Personal Note .................................... Dear Searcher, Thanks my friend. I think that it would help if this were made more clear in the future. An added benefit of you saying "worship (which Searcher believes to be specific to prostrate submission to God)" is that myself and others then shouldn't feel compelled to contradict, becuase it clearly states that it is your opinion. |
||||||
411 | Forgiveness of What? | Acts 13:38 | Sir Pent | 23373 | ||
Clarification .................................... Dear Searcher, It is this "still may bear the consequences of our sin" that I would like to investigate further. Perhaps you and others could elaborate on that topic. |
||||||
412 | Should we redefine terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 23363 | ||
Personal Note ................................... Dear Searcher, You seem to agree that "there are times we need to explain what we mean". In that case, would you also agree that those times would include times when one regularly used a word in a different sense than either the dictionary or the vast majority of forum members? |
||||||
413 | Forgiveness of What? | Acts 13:38 | Sir Pent | 23359 | ||
Forgiveness of What? .......................... There have been multiple discussions on this forum about whether a person who commits some sin or breaks some requirement in the Bible deserves permanent punishment of any sort. The basic line of reasoning that most people seem to support is that if the person is truly sorry for the wrong doing, and has changed, then they should be treated in all respects as if it had never occurred. Is this a Biblical perspective of forgiveness? |
||||||
414 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Sir Pent | 22905 | ||
Personal Note ................................. Dear Raul, Thanks for sharing the Martin Luther quote. I completely agree with it, and think that it is a great maxim for Biblical understanding in general. I also want to take this chance to welcome you to the forum, and let you know that I have apprecitated your recent participation. |
||||||
415 | N.T. circumcision? | Col 2:12 | Sir Pent | 22903 | ||
Support, Personal Note ......................... Dear Nolan, I completely agree with you on this post. It occurs to me that I don't seem to get to respond to you very much, mainly because I agree with you so often. Therfore, I thought I'd take this chance to just encourage you to keep up the good work! |
||||||
416 | A divorced pastor in ministry? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Sir Pent | 22901 | ||
Contrary View, experience ....................... Dear Raul, You are correct in a theoretical sense that it is possible for a marriage to fall apart based completely on the faults of only one person in it. However, I have never known anyone to whom that applied, and find it incredibly unlikely that it would be the case for anyone. It has been my experience that when a relationship of any kind (and especially one with the strength of marriage) destructs, that there are at least two people at fault. I would be fairly certain that somewhere along the line, the "Christian" half of the marriage was also at fault. Maybe it would be in how they responded to problems. Maybe it would be in lacking sensitivity to even notice the problems until it was too late. Maybe it would go all the way back to making a poor decision regarding a life partner. Any of these flaws in a person (and many others that could be involved) would also be a serious hinderence to effective leadership in a church. I realize that this is rather harsh, and that I am quite possibly offending those of our forum who have been divorced. Please be patient with me, for I only share what I have observed and believe. I still love you all in Christ, and fully believe in His forgiveness for all of your and my sins. I just feel that we need to have a higher standard of leadership in the church (at least in America). The failings of prominent church "leaders" in our country have done more to damage the Kingdom of God than anything else that I know of. |
||||||
417 | So when did "evil" start? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 22894 | ||
Clarification ................................... Dear LisaMarie, I recommended that you do a search on this topic. Obviously, you did not do that. If you had, you would have found the following posts (among many others) which are clearly speaking about the exact same books that you are talking about. For your convienence, I'll just quote several of my distinguished colleagues on this subject. 1. "Fortunately, there aren't any lost books of the Bible. There are apocryphal and pseudepigraphal which were excluded from the Old and New Testament canons. There are also gnostic writings found at Qumran. However, there isn't any historical evidence that any of these three classes of writings belonged in the Bible. Now, there are some that think some of these belong, but it is pure speculation. For instance, many liberal scholars love the Gospel of Thomas because of its New Age style theology. If you want to read some of these various kinds of texts, you can go to: http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/(tilde)humm/Resources/Texts/index.html Note: put a 'tilde' where you see the (tilde) in the adress above. These are interesting historical texts to read, but please remember that they are not Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran" 2. "There are several "lost" books; the "Gospel of Thomas" is probably the most infamous. There is also a "Gospel of Peter", a "Gospel of Mary [Magdalen]", "Pistis Sophia", and a few others. There is also a hypothetical Gospel named "Q" which is not known to exist in any form. Copies of many of these were found in Egypt at Nag Hammadi in 1945. Liberal theologians are making a lot of noise about the "discovery" of these "lost" books despite that fact that most of them have been known and their authenticity and claims refuted for more than 100 years. The reason these books were "lost", of course, is that they espoused heretical views - mostly gnosticism - that the early church firmly rejected. They are now presented as equivalent or even superior to the NT, revealing "alternate Christianities". The appeal is obvious: if you don't want to be accountable to a Jesus who sits in judgment, just hang out with one who learned his stuff in India. If you are prepared to believe that Jesus was a Buddha (please say you're not!), you may enjoy them. I recommend "Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way" by Philip Jenkins (Oxford University Press, 2001). Hope you find this helpful. stjones" 3. "Hi and Welcome to the forum! From time to time there are have been those that pop up and say they have found a lost book of the Bible. However God in His faithfulness has completed and preserved the Bible through centuries without fail. Or in other words there is no lost book of the Bible. Those that have claimed to be are the Gospel of Thomas, Book of Enoch, Book of Jasher, Book of Isaiah II, and at one time or another most of the books of the apocrypha. However after close examination all have been found to fail to meet the requirements of the Cannon of the Bible. And many have been declared actual frauds. As I said the Bible is complete. Hope this helps. EdB" |
||||||
418 | Should we redefine terms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Sir Pent | 22857 | ||
Should we redefine terms? ..................... There have been a couple of ideas in recent posts from different members of our forum that have basically made statements using words to mean something different than normal. For instance, one member uses the word "rational" to mean something other than basic intelligence. Another member uses the word "worship" to mean only a specific form of expressing reverence towards God (in a prostrate position). The problem with this is that on a forum such as this, where we all are reading these posts in one language, English, we have to assume that people are using words similarly. Thus we can go by the dictionary definitions of words to interpret what a person posts. This doesn't work if the person posting has their own private definition of the words that they use. Do others see this as being a potential problem? Would it be a good idea for us all to point out when we do this ourselves? For instance, a person could write, "I don't believe that God cares for us. This is because my definition of care is to worry about someone's well-being, and God doesn't worry." This could prevent much misunderstanding in my opinion. What do you all think? |
||||||
419 | does eternal have a beginning? | Jer 1:5 | Sir Pent | 22848 | ||
Personal Note .................................... Dear Johnny, As you said, this is off the original topic, and therefore I generally would not wish to respond to it in this thread. However, since you mention that you have asked it repeatedly with no answer, I'll make an exception. It is my opinion that Adam had a better picture of Heaven than any of us, because he lived in a closer approximation than we can even imagine. The Garden of Eden (before the fall) seems like it was very close to Heaven. Adam got to physically walk with God and talk with Him in a much more direct sense than when we pray today. My view of Heaven is a place where we will have uninhibited communion with God. We will actually be able to see Him, and there will be no sin to muddle our relationship. Adam seems to have had both of these things to begin with. Therefore, I think that Adam knew very well, what he was choosing to reject by disobeying God, and therefore deserved to suffer the consequences. I hope this helps, and I'll refrain from adding anything else to this thread since I am off topic. |
||||||
420 | must we eat Jesus literally? | John 6:53 | Sir Pent | 22745 | ||
Clarification ................................... Dear Joe, This last post of yours was excellent. It accurately presented the nuances of several different protestant groups beliefs regarding communion. I just want to point out that I think you meant the word "cannibal" (eaters of humans, which Christians are not) instead of "carnivore" (eaters of meat, which many Christians are). |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [36] >> |