Results 181 - 200 of 567
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: disciplerami Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Incesat of affinity or consaguinity? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77658 | ||
Thanks for helping me study this out. I've been reading some notes from J.W.McGarvey's "Fourfold Gospel." He says that Herodias was the daughter of Herod Philip's and Herod Antipas' half-brother Aristobulus. That would make her a half-neice of them both. Disciplerami |
||||||
182 | Are there still "unlawful" marriages? | Luke 3:19 | disciplerami | 77657 | ||
Are there unlawful marriages today? Herod married Herodias, - Mark 6:17 "For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her" Herod also wouldn't repent of it and put her away. - Lk 3:19 "But when Herod the tetrarch was reprimanded by him because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and because of all the wicked things which Herod had done," Herod was living in an unlawful marriage. In Luke 3, people were not allowed to be baptized by John "for the remission of sins" unless they first brought forth "fruits in keeping with repentance." Herod is shown to be less open to the truth, instead he throws John into prison. As a preacher or teacher, do you tel people that some marriages are unlawful in the eyes of God? Disciplerami |
||||||
183 | Why couldn't Herod have Herodias? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77656 | ||
Unlawful marriage? Herod married Herodias, - Mark 6:17 "For Herod himself had sent and had John arrested and bound in prison on account of Herodias, the wife of his brother Philip, because he had married her" Herod also wouldn't repent of it and put her away. - Lk 3:19 "But when Herod the tetrarch was reprimanded by him because of Herodias, his brother's wife, and because of all the wicked things which Herod had done," Herod was living in an unlawful marriage. |
||||||
184 | Was Herodias Philips Lawful Wife? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77655 | ||
Mark 6:17 | ||||||
185 | Was Herodias Philips Lawful Wife? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77653 | ||
Euphemism for marriage | ||||||
186 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 77652 | ||
I like the way you put it. This is the very conclusion that I've come to. When I hear the command of God, I DO it. But I don't look for payment or reward for the work the way a Pharisee does. I do not even expect that the work is sufficient 'earn' me a place in heaven. I DO it because I know it is His will. I do it because he rewards a man who has faith in what he can't see. That's why is says baptism is an appeal to God for a clean conscience. Only a fool would believe that getting dipped 'in and of itself' could merit salvation. If you want to show God your faith, then go get baptized. He cares WHY you are doing it. God bless you Sniper, Disciplerami |
||||||
187 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 77651 | ||
Greetings, No offense, but I think you are wrong twice. Commenting on 1 Peter 3:21, you say: "Corresponding to" or "symbolizes" (NIV) or "like figure" (KJV) is the Greek word antitupon. It means copy, a thing formed after some pattern, a thing resembling another, its counterpart. Baptism is a copy of or corresponds to something else. What is it? We need to look at the context." Wrong: Baptism is the 'antitype' and the thing he referred to in the previous verse is the 'type', the shadow, the symbol. Commenting on 1 Peter 3;20, you say, "Baptism is a copy of or corresponds to something else. What is it? We need to look at the context. I see two choices - the flood or the ark? Which saved Noah and his family? It was the ark. " You are wrong again: The antecedent is the 'water' they were brought safely through. I think it is an easy mistake to make, but the water has to be the 'type' of baptism. Noah and his family was baptized in water, a type of the antitype baptism which now saves us. You had the answer, but missed it. The water was a type of baptism, just as Moses passing through the sea was a type of baptism. Some were saved through it and other were swallowed up by it. Likewise, those who rejects Jesus' simple command to be baptized, will not be saved. You are so close to the truth but don't see it. You write: "The spiritual element associated with that water is what saved, not the water." How right you are. I couldn't have said it better myself. Here is the only problem you have, you keep denying what the Bible asserts: SALVATION HAPPENED AT THE WATER. Again, the spiritual element associated with the water is what saved, not the water. But the salvation happens AT the water. Good day. Disciperlami |
||||||
188 | Incesat of affinity or consaguinity? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77650 | ||
Greetings, I read somewhere that Herodias' was half-neice to both Philip and Herod. Maybe John, like Jesus in Matthew 5:28-32, was pointing people back to the original plan. What do you think? Thanks, Disciplerami |
||||||
189 | What does it mean? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77635 | ||
I agree with you Sniper, Baptism that is days, months, years later after hearing the Gospel is contrary to Scripture; Baptism that is sprinkling or pouring is contrary to Scripture; Baptism that gives salvation, in and of itself, is contrary to Scripture; Baptism that is an outward sign of a previously received inward grace is contrary to Scripture; Baptism that is for the remission of sins; that is a burial with Christ; that is a resurrection into new life through faith in God's grace; that is received by men and women who can choose; that is in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; this baptism is Scriptural. Do you agree? Disciplerami |
||||||
190 | Is hearing necessary for salvation? | Rom 10:17 | disciplerami | 77632 | ||
continued... I choose to believe that our nature is such, that with sufficient evidence, man can be held accountable for making his choices. It is overwhelming evidence that God exists. Therefore, those who go the godless, atheistic path deserve no pity. They, in essence, have looked God in the face and turned away. Every sinner stands before the two paths. The one is fun and easy for a while with the promise of punishment at the end. The other is straight, narrow, and difficult with the promise of eternal blessings at the end. Men know the choice: some say I'll take the easy path now and later switch to the straight and narrow when I won't have to walk it so long. Men know the punishment and rewards. Too bad that they choose the immediate over the long-term. The good news is that we all can watch the fleeting, passing pleasures of this life and come to our senses. We can note our mortality and act upon our longing to live forever. Making the choice to turn from the world and to God is sort of like a young man who looks at the girl of his dreams. Asking her to marry will mean responsibility, committment, sacrifice and rewards of love and children and friendship that a single man can never know. If he chooses not to marry, he chooses the freedom, and materialism: the selfish, short-term, lonely path. The man makes a judgment about values, about what is worth more? You can't have the rewards without the sacrifice. This lesson Jesus taught us. Part of following the Savior is the requirement that we count the cost of being a disciple. The rich young ruler had the potential of being saved, but he made a value judgment--Jesus loved him, so it doesn't make sense that he turned away because God didn't give him that extra bit of desire. The young man made a choice on his own. Jesus stipulated that only those who deny themselves and carry the cross could follow Him. You must believe that the cross carrier is the one that God placed the desire in, and I believe that the cross carrier is the one who considered the merits of both paths, and chose to follow Christ. Just as a man can make a choice to invest in long-term versus short-term, any man can weigh the evidence [hear the purity and promises of the Gospel versus condemnation for sin] and make an intelligent, spiritual decision to become a Christian. Thanks for the thoughts you shared. Disciplerami |
||||||
191 | Is hearing necessary for salvation? | Rom 10:17 | disciplerami | 77631 | ||
Greetings John Reformed, I will grant that you see our sides fairly clearly. I do think the Gospel is a lifepreserver that God has tossed out to all men. However, the analogy isn't exact because what is the other alternative for the drowning person? The way you have depicted it, everyone would be pulling on the preserver. But everyone doesn't take it because there is an alternative. The man who is drowning in sin thinks something else looks pretty good and rejects God's help. If there were no alternatives, everyone would take the God's salvation. When Paul talks about the war in his own body, the war between body and soul, he speaks of the challenge that we each face (Romans 7). The bad news for man is that he is in a body that needs but also wants. He needs food, but he wants too much. Paul said, "who will set me free...?" Romans 8 gives the answer. God has done through Christ what the Law could not do. The righteous requirement of the Law was perfection and God through faith [the kind of faith demonstrated in Paul's words of chapter 7, 'the thing I do, I hate; that which I want to do, I do not do'] is able to make sinful men perfect. He goes on to say that the mind set on the flesh is death, the mind set on the spirit is life. Here is where we can't agree. HOW is the mind set on the flesh or on the things of the Spirit? You see the total depraved nature of man and insist it is God who does the ‘setting'; I see God appealing to man with ample evidence so that even the most hardened can be made soft. Both ways get people saved, but which way is right? Both ways get people saved by the grace of God, but which way jives with the rest of the Scripture? Why does the Holy Spirit fill Scripture with the conditional statements; why the imperatives: the 'thou shalts', the must, the demands; why the warnings of hell and hopes of heaven; why the vocative laments: the hopes and wishes and desires. Why does God speak to man at all in Scripture if the facts can't phase the hardened sinner? From your perspective/belief, you must grant that no one would ever be saved, no one would ever grab the 'preserver', no one would ever 'set his mind on the Spirit' unless God personally put it in their hand and plucked them to safety. Nothing, not the truth of Scripture, not the glories of heaven get even a spark from the depraved man. In my way of thinking, these are very powerful messages, ones that can overcome the fog of error and lies that surround the sinner. I see the difficulty you have in accepting a Gospel that is made available to all, but assured only to those smart enough to take it. It's a risk. But God takes risk. When God made a Garden with choice, God took a risk. It was an experiment, if you will, to see if man would choose good over evil. Man with freewill chose to disobey God: that was part of the nature given him. When God flooded the earth, it was a risk. He didn't make or spark or place desire in Noah to obey and build the ark. That was Noah; he was righteous and blameless. God found the only eight people on earth who still loved Him and so God provided them a way of salvation. The sovereignty of God provided that if Noah built an ark, man would be saved. Noah didn't build the ark because of an ALL CONTROLLING SOVEREIGN GOD put it in him. Think about it, we don't marvel at the faith of Noah because God made Noah build the ark, we marvel because WHAT a FAITH he had! continued... |
||||||
192 | Why couldn't Herod have Herodias? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77596 | ||
Thanks for giving me food for thought. | ||||||
193 | Saved !! | Rom 8:1 | disciplerami | 77593 | ||
Joh 10:27 - My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: [BUT SHEEP SOMETIMES STRAY] Joh 10:28 - "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." Do not misunderstand, there is a great deal of security in being a Christian and the enemy has no power to pluck the saved from the hand of God. But he tempts and deceives that he might cause us to fall. Salvation isn't gained, lost, gained, and lost in a day. To lose salvation, you must remove your hand from the Christian plow (Lk.9:62) "For if AFTER they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them that the first." 2 Pt 2:20 |
||||||
194 | Is salvation revocable? | Rom 8:1 | disciplerami | 77590 | ||
Dear phruubel... I can imagine that many Christians do doubt, but the question is whether their doubt leads to a wholesale departure from God because that is what takes to lose salvation. Doubt can be very displeasing to God: 'the one who doubts is like the surf of the sea driven and tossed by the wind' (Jas. 1:6). The essence of doubt is a lack of faith. "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Obviously, Job didn't understand why bad things were happening to him, but he did not stop believing in God: he simply wanted to inquire of God why? Good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
195 | Saved !! | Rom 8:1 | disciplerami | 77576 | ||
So many verses warn Christians to be faithful, it is impossible to believe in "once saved, always saved." | ||||||
196 | What "norms" can we disregard? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77574 | ||
If we may cast aside the 'norm' of immersion, what other norms may we cast aside? Can we do anything with the neither 'add to nor take away' norm, it is a bothersome one :) Thanks, Disciplerami |
||||||
197 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | disciplerami | 77572 | ||
This question is leading because we don't know that God changed anything. Baptism has always been by immersion. The Scripture hints at no other mode. The other modes that are common today are the traditions of men, instituted long after the Scriptures were completed. Good question. Thanks, Disciplerami |
||||||
198 | Was Herodias Philips Lawful Wife? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77570 | ||
Greetings We know that Herod 'had his brother's wife', which means he had married her. My question has to do with John's rebuke that "it was not lawful for him [Herod] to have his brother's [Philip's] wife." What was Herod's 'unlawful' act: marrying a blood relationship [incest] or committing adultery? Which? Here is another question that might help you understand what I'm looking for (the truth): Was Herodias' the lawful wife of Philip, Herod's brother? Looking for help. Disciplerami |
||||||
199 | Not incest, but adultery? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77568 | ||
Justme, I appreciate your thoughts and John did pay a heavy price because he stood up for the truth. Here is another question that might help you understand what I'm looking for (the truth): Was Herodias' the lawful wife of Philip, Herod's brother? I looking for some help. Thanks. Disciplerami |
||||||
200 | Is Mt 28:18 commanding water baptism? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 77566 | ||
1 Peter 3:21 "And corresponding to that Baptism now saves you....it saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Thanks |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [29] >> |