Results 241 - 260 of 553
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | Christians Demon Plagued? | Mark 16:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205647 | ||
Dear Forum members, I have a friend from school who is a minister in a Pentecostal church, I am Baptist always have been always will be. I went to a function at his church tonight to fellow ship with him and his lovely wife. I heard a number of things I have heard before that I wonder if some of you know more about than I do... Here is the deal; the visiting preacher was talking about a situation where a member of his church who had confessed the Lord Jesus and asked for forgiveness of sins was plagued by demons. Here is what she was doing that was the outward sign, she stripped naked to the nothingness of nakedness several times during services while he was preaching very quickly before the ushers could stop her. This man is an arch-bishop of a Pentecostal church, he had interviewed this woman to make sure she was saved as best he could and had baptized her immediately after her profession of faith and repentance the same day she confessed the Lord Jesus. The deacons in his church were highly upset saying how very fast she took all those clothes off, remarking that she never had any undergarments to hinder her haste and saying as how she seemed to be a demon plagued Christian and some said a demon possesed Christian. I am not so stupid or so new as to think that a Christian could actually have the spirit of the devil and the Holy Ghost at the same time. He never said she was possesed, he said she was demon plagued and that the demon had to be cast out of her in the name of Jesus before her sanity returned to her. We know from the Bible that folks who are saved can actually do things by the spirit of Satan, like Peter did and still be saved, which means the spirit of Satan is operating through them, working through them, even though they are sealed by the Holy Ghost. What do you all think of this? Do you see anything here according to what I have said that you could illuminate by the scriptures on? God's Blessings Tam |
||||||
242 | Evidenc of Signs in 2008 Valid? | Mark 16:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205649 | ||
Dear Forum members, I already know what I think of the Pentecostal belief that speaking in tongues is evidence of the Holy Spirit having entered one and I know all the scriptures to refute that understanding of scriptures. I wonder though how should we understand Mathew verse 17 and 18 - are these signs just to be applied to the first century - the tongues, the casting out of demons, the not being affected by poisons or deadly snakes? Or do you think it is possible that these things could still apply now? Please don't answer with stuff about snake handlers or refutations of crackpot practices in phony bony churches - I am well aware of what types of charlatans are out there, I am well grounded and not in any danger of falling prey to false doctrine. Please try to craft your answer around some scriptures if you can.. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
243 | Christians Demon Plagued? | Mark 16:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205657 | ||
Dear Cheri, My friend did not preach a visiting Arch-Bishop did... I am not talking about Peter's denial I am talking about Mathe 16:23 where Peter had said to Jesus God, forbid it Lord! This shall never happend to You? About Jesus saying He was going to be crucifed. How do you say Peter was not sealed with the Holy Spirit? Are you saying that the disciples, the OT saints somehow got saved without the actions and work inside them of the Holy Spirit? What about the teaching that the blood of Christ and the works of the Holy Spirit towards salvation were working backwards in time from the of the cross and that Pentecost was specifically as Jesus said it was, "you will recieve power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses, etc."? What about Ephesians 1:13? In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation - having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise. How then is it that those who were saved before Jesus died whether disciples or OT saints did not receive the Holy Spirit? If you do not have the Holy Spirit you aren't saved! Here, II Peter 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. Are you going to say that these men were not operating by the power of the Holy Spirit, or that they weren't saved? Jesus does not say in Acts that He was giving a seal of salavtion does He? He says the Holy Spirit will be coming with power so they could witness, there is a difference, the Holy Spirit was definitely working through them all when they were casting out demons and healing the sick... By what other power do you think they were doing it? Yeah okay Turetz, then why after they got they demon out of her was she suddenly healed? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
244 | Evidenc of Signs in 2008 Valid? | Mark 16:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205724 | ||
My dearest Jim, Did you read Pastor Moran's post? Most informing and intersting observations - namely that there is a question in the textual study area of whether or not the end of Mark should even be in the NT at all, that is why in every Bible it appears in brackets (I think I submitted a post not to long ago in answer to someone about this very thing). Since this portion of Mark is still to this day held in question as to whether it belongs in the NT taking it and runnig forward with it is not reccommended by commentators. As to posion, we should never say poison refers to a substance not intended by the original author, I highly doubt if that passage belongs in the NT that Mark meant bad food, I think he meant real poison, like a draught of poison. I think we should also try to look at the whole text there in the end of Mark in the light of the whole rest of what we can find in scripture that there is to see. For instance the use of tongues is not seen through out the NT as a sign of those who have believed consistently after the groups were added in Acts. And we don't here much about casting out demons either. This came up about the same verse in another post a few days ago and Pastor Moran remarked then, that we can't leave out the list of the other gifts as signs that people have believed. Making sense of things literaly must always also take into consideration the other texts that apply to the understanding of the principle to be arrived at as to an application. Some of the scriptures you came up with go off the general page in terms of hitting on the subject matter, but I can understand from reading carefully what you wrote how you got where you got. God's Love To You, Tamara |
||||||
245 | Evidenc of Signs in 2008 Valid? | Mark 16:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205735 | ||
Well thanks for the Help Jim! By the way I am still working on our project my friend! eamil you later! Tam |
||||||
246 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204566 | ||
What is the theme or themes of Luke? Thanks Tamara |
||||||
247 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204582 | ||
Dear Searcher, The threads don't say anything about the theme or themes of Luke whatsoever. Did you check them out before writing me? Is this a well intentioned joke or something? Humor me, just try typing in luke in the search engine up there and you will find a ton of things with the word Luke in them, but none about the theme of Luke. Humor me some more, try typing in the theme of Luke you will find nothing there about the theme of Luke. I tried doing this before I posted my question. Thank you anyway God Bless hat lady |
||||||
248 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204594 | ||
I am laughing really really hard... How in the world can you find out the theme of Luke from typing in a verse when you have absolutely no idea which verse in Luke should be used as the basis for a theme of Luke? Help a gal out here... Maybe you know something about finding themes by throwing a printing press at a wall and somehow ending up with a verse telling you about the theme. I dunno but I highly doubt it.... hat lady, God Bless you John |
||||||
249 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204598 | ||
Yep a doodle my good friend, like yourself the other day, was just looking for someone who might know.... By the way I still intend to try to find an answer to your question about the word making one rejoice amongst all my other questions tonite at Bible study I forgot to ask him that one, darn... No need to be sorry dear heart, you can address things any way you chose...:) Yep, I was being a bit lazy though... I am gonna have to google every single darn question I asked on Tuesday morning and be a better workman II Timothy 2:15... my bad.... God bless hat lady |
||||||
250 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204600 | ||
Dear John, thanks for your persistence in the matter there are about four theories on this thing running around, that I have collected through the years, thanks for adding another one; 1)Jesus compassion to the outcast groups religious or otherwise, the role of the Holy Spirit, the reaction of people to Christ. 2)The complete story of Christ, the compasion of Christ, the joy of salvation. 3)Salvation in the Messiah, the compassion of Christ, the role of the Holy Spirit. 4)The history of salvation in the first century, Jesus as the Son of God, the history of the apocalyptic meeting the eschatology of the glory of Jesus as the ascended God Man. I like yours though... ties everything together in one neat package, thanks that is why I will keep on posting my questions, to get new prospectives on old things and new things (to me). God Bless hat lady |
||||||
251 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204602 | ||
Hey John it's ok about which book you meant I put two out there for good measure just to confuse you OK?:) Now I have an even better view than the last one you sent. You ain't always gotta have a scripture as long as you are answering about one thasssssss cool. And I used to go by the name Aurora because every body made that joke no problem about the joke though you mean it in good fun. My name is pronounced Ta ma ra with all short A's I am startin to like hat lady better and better every day John...:):):) Is there a way to change my handle John, I think I asked this one before somewhere in there. God bles Ta ma ra ha ha ha ha |
||||||
252 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204680 | ||
Dear Searcher, I really appreciate your diligence in trying to help me find a thread about this subject. Using your threads I found the Genre, the audience and some questions about Luke, but to no avail. I am talking about the over all subject or subjects Luke is discussing or presenting to his audience. I do believe John actually did answer the questionn though, but thanks again. God bless hat lady |
||||||
253 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205112 | ||
Dear Jim, We have a clue about why these accounts are different in Luke 1:2,3; just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consectutive order, most excellent Theophilus. Luke interveiwed the apostles and the disciples to get a consectutive order for his account. Mark however may have had sources as well, as he was not one of the twelve. What we can conclude from this is that the women came with spices. We can also conclude that when people tell stories they tell them from a different point of view from one another and the different sources told their stories from these viewpoints that may not coincide from account to account in the minutia of the details, but agree on the substance. I myself have posted similar questions about the end of the four gospels and am laughing to myself that I missed this nugget about the spice! Bravo! The accounts cannot be reconciled in their particulars but can in their substance and that is how you reconcile an account like this one. The Bible is indeed the innerrant word of God and contains some discrepancies at points, but not at any major points and not doctrinally ever. Exegesis can only take you as far as the constraints of the text will allow, the rest is a true mystery of God. I would not say that such forays are fruitless, or meaningless, all of scripture is profitable and God breathed. Here is for you; II Timothy 2:15 Be ready to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handing the word of truth. By His Grace, Tamara |
||||||
254 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205207 | ||
Dear Tim, I did not say contradictory, as in 'Not A', 'Not B', here is what I said in light of the fact that Mark and Luke differed as to whether the spices were prepared before the Sabbath day, or on the Sabbath, which was the original question, and which is not a contradiction, but is a discrepancy a true undenialable discrepancy that cannot as a detail about the act occuring on two different days be reconciled, but can in substance be reconciled; The accounts cannot be reconciled in their particulars but can in their substance and that is how you reconcile an account like this one. The Bible is indeed the innerrant word of God and contains some discrepancies at points, but not at any major points and not doctrinally ever. Quote; Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 252, par. 2 - AVOIDING TWO EXTREMES Two extremes are to be avoided when describing the Bible: Either denying of diminishing its devine characteristics while affirming its human traits, or else affirming its divine properties while denying or diminishiing its human elements. Most liberals do the former (see DeWof, CTLP, 58-66) and many fundamentalists fall into the latter (Rice, OGBBB, 265-285-87). These two errors are the bibliological equivalents of arianism and docetism, respectively (see F.L. Cross, ODCC, 87, 413). Quote Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 257, par. 3-5); THE BIBLE IS WITHOUT ERROR There is one human characteristic of the Bible does not have: errors. Although a more extended discussion of the innerrancy of the Bible is found later (see chapter 27), the basic outline of its errorlessness will be stated here. The Original Text Is Without Error The logic of inerrancy is straight forward: 1)God cannot err. 2)The Bible is God's Word. 3)Therefore, the Bible cannot err. Since Scriptures are breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16-170, and since God cannot breathe out falsehood, if follows that the Bible cannot contain any falsehood. The Copies Are Not Without Error Christians only claim that God breathed out everythign in the original text, not everything in the copies. Divine inspiration and innerrancy, therefore, applies to the original text, not to every detail of every copy. The copies are without error only insofar as they are copied correctly, and they were copied with great care and a very high degree of accruracy. Christians believe that God in His providence preserved the copies from all substatial error; in fact, the degree of accuracy is greater than that of Quote, Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 258, par. 3-4); any other book from the ancient world, exceeding 99 percent (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapter 22). The reasons for this amazing accuracy are: (1) we have many more manuscripts of the Bible than any other books form the ancient world, (2) the manuscripts date more closely to the originals, and (3) they were copied accurately. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
255 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205209 | ||
continuation, Tamara There are, however, some minor copyist errors in the biblical manuscripts - two examples will suffice: Second Chronicles 22:2 says Ahaziah was forty-two, yet 2 Kings asserts that Ahaziah was twenty-two. He could not have been forty-two (a copyist error), or he would have been older than his father (see NIV and NKJV). Also 2 Chronicles 9:25 affirms that Solomon had four thousand horse stalls, but 1 Kings 4:26 says there were forty thousand horse stalls, which would have been far more than needed for the twelve thousand horsemen he had (see NIV and NKJV). It is important to note of these copyist errors that: 1)No original manuscript has ever been found with an error in it. 2)Errors are relatively rare in their copies. 3)In most cases we know which wording is wrong from the context or parallel passages. 4)In no case does an error effect any doctrine of scipture. 5)Errors vouch for the accuracy of the copying process, since the scribes who copied them knew there were errors in the manuscripts were duty-bound to copy what the text before them said. 6)Errors don't effect the central message of the Bible. Quote, Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 494, par.2); SOME IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS The terms inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy are all related. Inspired means, "breathed out by God", "what comes from God Himself" (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Infallibility means, "what has divine authority", "what cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35). Inerrancy means, "what is without error," "wholly true". What is inspired is infallible, since inspired means to be breathed out by God, and what is God-breathed cannot be in error. Likewise, what is infallible, since it has divine authority, must also be inerrant - a divinely authoritative error is a condtradiction in terms. However, not everything inerrant is divinely authoritative. A phone book could be without error, but it would not thereby have divine authority. Hence,inerrancy is implied in a proper understanding of infallibility, but infallibility does not follow from inerrancy. Quote, Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg.507, par.3,4; THE OBJECTION THAT INERRANCY IS CONTRARY TO FACT Finally, some insist that the doctrine of inerrancy is contrary to fact - that there are demonstrable errors in the Bible. This view, however, makes errors of its own. The fact is that no one has ever demonstrated that there is an error in the original text of the Bible; rather, those who allge errors in the Bible have been found in error. Here is a list of the errors of those who claimn to find errors in the Bible (Geisler and HOwe, WCA, chapter 1). Quote, Systematice Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg.511, par.1; Mistake 15: Forgetting That Only the Original Text, Not Every Copy of Scripture, Is Without Error When critics do come upon a genuined error in a biblical manuscript copy, they make another mistake - they assume it was in the original inspired text of Scripture. They forget that God uttered only the original text of Scripture, not the imperfect copies. Inspiration does not guarantee that every copy of the original is without error, and therefore, we are to expect minor errors will be found in manuscript copies. When we run into a so-called "error" in the Bible, we must assume one of two things: either the manuscript was not copied correctly, or we have not understood it rightly. What we may not assume is that God made an error in inspiring the original text. Several things should be observed about these copyist errors. First, they are errors in copies, not the originals. No one has ever found an oringal manuscript with an error in it. Second, they are minor errors (often in names or numbers) that do not affect the doctrine of the Christian faith. Third, these copyist errors are relatively few in number. Fourth, usually by the context, or by another Scripture, we know which one is in error. In conclusion I never purported that the text were in contradiction to one another, but that there was an apparent and obvious discrepancy as to a difinitve time frame of an event as being recorded differenty from one author to another, which it undeniably was, as being the same in substance while having a discrepancy in time frame. We see according to the quotes I included that it is quite possible for there to be real copyist errors while maintaining without a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant word of God. By His Grace, Tamara |
||||||
256 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205210 | ||
Dear Val, Please see my answer to Pastor Moran. God Bless you, Tam |
||||||
257 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205212 | ||
Dear Jeff, Please see my reply to Pastor Moran. God Bless you, Tam |
||||||
258 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205213 | ||
Dear Jim, Please see my reply to Pastor Moran. God Bless you, Tam |
||||||
259 | What is the theology of Luke? | Luke 9:20 | Tamara Brewington | 204568 | ||
What if any is the theology of Luke? Thanks, Tamara |
||||||
260 | Why did Jesus perform miracles? | John | Tamara Brewington | 203724 | ||
To fulfill Old Testament prophecies of the deliverer, the Messiah, Immanuel, to show the people that the kingdom of God had come, to provoke the Pharisees to kill Him to fulfill God's plan, to show compassion to the masses... | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [28] >> |