Results 21 - 40 of 54
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bjh Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Has the church replaced Israel? | Rom 11:25 | bjh | 139115 | ||
Nicely put. | ||||||
22 | Has the church replaced Israel? | Rom 11:25 | bjh | 139102 | ||
Forgive me if I say that this almost sounds like a loaded question. Many a heated debate have happened over this subject. Some say "Yes" (for the time being). I think Romans 11:25 supports this thought. Others say "No" but the church is Israel. BJH :-) |
||||||
23 | Why Jesus quotings Genesis? Matt 19:1-12 | Matt 19:1 | bjh | 138197 | ||
His purpose was to explain that marriage permanently unites husband and wife together. If the two become one flesh, divorce is like amputating a limb. His intent is to show that divorce is not an option for believers. (Matthew 19:6) |
||||||
24 | What about observing special days? | Rom 14:5 | bjh | 138194 | ||
If we observe to honor the Lord, then that's what we should do. If our motive is to honor the lord by not observing, then we should not observe. Whether we observe or not isn't the issue, it's our motives in doing either that matter. |
||||||
25 | What about observing special days? | Rom 14:5 | bjh | 138192 | ||
If we observe to honor the Lord, then that's what we should do. If our motive is to honor the lord by not observing, then we should not observe. Whether we observe or not isn't the issue, it's our motives in doing either that matter. |
||||||
26 | Death? Where do you go when you die? | NT general Archive 1 | bjh | 124166 | ||
Consider the following... 1) Jesus told the thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43) 2) Stephen cried out to the Lord, "Lord Jesus receive my spirit." (Acts 7:59) 3) The ultimate destination is not the present heaven, but rather the New Heaven and New Earth. (Rev 21-22) |
||||||
27 | can you loose your salvation | Rom 8:28 | bjh | 117659 | ||
NO. Absolutely not. Beginning with Romans 8:28 and working our way to the end of the chapter, we see that our salvation rests in God. NOTHING can separate us from His love - not ourselves. Everything is as secure as if we've already got it -- right down to our glorification --assured. Why? Because God Justifies us - He declares us righteous - (and justified us by the blood of Christ). Nothing we do can separate us from His love. |
||||||
28 | sinful flesh or flesh? | Rom 8:3 | bjh | 116780 | ||
I agree, sarx, the Greek word translated "flesh", can have a wide range of meanings. For my part, I view "man" as being a little broader than just "flesh" - which is where I might take some issue with the NIV. Deeper thoughts which might loose some people... We still sin (Romans 7 and 1 John 1). I think I would be happier if the NIV read, "He condemned sin in man", because Christ did not become "sinful man" but (simply) "man". Unless I'm misreading it, sin was condemned at the cross - in Christ's sinless, yet die-able, flesh (but, admittedly, He became sin on our behalf). |
||||||
29 | sinful flesh or flesh? | Rom 8:3 | bjh | 116738 | ||
No arguments here, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us". (John 1:14) We also read that God the Father "made Him, who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf." 2 Cor 5:21. I do not throw this in as a monkeywrench, because I would argue that this happened at the cross, at the time He was forsaken. (And this would also fit in to the "condemned sin in the flesh," come to think of it.) |
||||||
30 | sinful flesh or flesh? | Rom 8:3 | bjh | 116678 | ||
I think it's funny (perhaps a bad word), but the NIV isn't consistent in this. First it's called "sinful nature" and then "sinful man" (and back again). I would almost take bigger issue with "likeness of sinful man". Christ became fully human (yet without sin - John 1:14; Heb 4:15). I don't take too much issue with the NIV, however. From my understanding it wasn't designed to be an exact verbatim translation, it does have the general idea. At the same time, many times the sinful nature is in view when it says flesh (for example Romans 8:9). In 8:9, unless I am beside myself, few would argue that the physical is in view here. It would appear to be the sinful nature that is meant. |
||||||
31 | Is divorce alright with god | Mal 2:15 | bjh | 114908 | ||
No, divorce is not alright. Here in Malachi 2:15 and 16, we read that God hates divorce. |
||||||
32 | About Premillenialism... | Bible general Archive 2 | bjh | 109362 | ||
I don't see these passages as being figurative. What makes you say they are figurative? Maybe its a matter of one's own interpretation. For example, the Jews look at Isaiah 53 and declare it "figurative" and say it describes the nation of Israel. As believers, we say that it refers to the Messiah. You don't have to be convinced. You asked what premillennialists believed. I responded. However, for the record, from my standpoint, premillennialism has the strongest Biblical support of any eschatalogical scheme. |
||||||
33 | About Premillenialism... | Bible general Archive 2 | bjh | 107946 | ||
Since you asked "what scriptures" I'll file this under general. Basically Premillennialism is the idea where Christ's second coming is followed by a thousand year reign on David's throne. Rev 20:1-6 Gives the time. Romans 8:18-22 talks about creation being restored from its subjection. (As opposed to being burned up, as in 2 Peter 3) How? Answer - millennial reign of Christ. Isaiah 11 also speaks of the millennium. Note the restored earth in terms of the animal kingdom. Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45. Note how the stone destroys the other kingdoms so that not a trace of them is left. We don't see this today, so when? Answer: The millennial kingdom. Back to Rev 20. Note that the Bible says that Satan will be bound and imprisoned for 1000 years. Yet, we know that today Satan prowls about like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour. (1 Peter 5:8). Yet, we see that there is death and a curse, Isaiah 65:20. Again, not today - few people, if any would consider 100 youthful. Answer - millennial kingdom. 1 Cor 15:20-28 - Christ will come, and all of His people will be raised. He will reign until he has subjected all his enemies. After that, he will deliver up the kingdom to the Father. |
||||||
34 | what is the meaning of the name Boaz? | Bible general Archive 2 | bjh | 107066 | ||
I'm not sure the answer is found in the Bible but this is what I found... Boaz means... "In Him is Strength" Copyright info... Youngblood, Ronald F. Nelson’s new illustrated Bible dictionary [computer file] : an authoritative one-volume reference work on the Bible with full color illustrations / Ronald F. Youngblood, general ed.; F.F. Bruce and R.K. Harrison, consulting ed.—electronic ed. of the revised ed. of Nelson’s illustrated Bible dictionary.—Nashville : Thomas Nelson, 1997, c1995. (Logos Library System) |
||||||
35 | Two Christmases? | Is 9:6 | bjh | 106368 | ||
The "Santa Claus" Christmas seems to be a cheap immitation. This is not to say that it is wrong to exchange gifts at Christmas, but we, as Christians, exchange gifts with the understanding that the greatest gift came from God the Father, in the person of His Son. (Of course, we "give thanks to the Lord above" through His Son, and for His Son.). What other thoughts would you add to this, Hank? |
||||||
36 | Does Deut. 24:1 still apply? | Deut 24:4 | bjh | 106233 | ||
I failed to mention one exception, which would account for the Jeremiah passage. Matthew 19:9 gives the exception "immorality". This is exactly why God divorced Israel. Israel was acting immorally. (In other words Israel had already divorced God in their hearts, so God finalized their departure.) | ||||||
37 | Does Deut. 24:1 still apply? | Deut 24:4 | bjh | 106204 | ||
In Jeremiah, Is God not speaking metaphorically? Deuteronomy is speaking of divorce between a man and wife. Jeremiah is speaking of God's relationship with the scattered 10 tribes of Israel who did not return to the land as did Judah. | ||||||
38 | What about NT laws concerning divorce? | Deut 24:4 | bjh | 106186 | ||
The argument was raised that this verse in Deuteronomy doesn't apply because it was OT. My response was that there are also NT verses that regulate divorce. My point was that because divorce is equated with adultery, divorce is wrong. |
||||||
39 | Does Deut. 24:1 still apply? | Deut 24:4 | bjh | 106185 | ||
In the NASB, the word in Malachi and Matthew is divorce, not "putting away". However, even if we were to use the ASV, KJV or Darby's Bible, we would see that in the context of the verses in question,(Mal 2:14-16; Matt. 19:3-9) the Bible itself equates "putting away" with divorce. | ||||||
40 | What about NT laws concerning divorce? | Deut 24:4 | bjh | 106096 | ||
Are you saying that adultery is okay now? (Luke 16:18) Divorce doesn't seem to be right in the New Testament either. (1 Cor 7:10-11) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |