Results 301 - 320 of 2030
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: mark d seyler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | FASTING | Lev 23:27 | mark d seyler | 178863 | ||
How about a spending fast? Sorry! I couldn't resist! I've been in deep financial trouble before, and even now live on the financial edge. . . But in all seriousness. . . In Leviticus 23, as God instructs Israel concerning the day of atonement, He says: Lev 23:27 "On exactly the tenth day of this seventh month is the day of atonement; it shall be a holy convocation for you, and you shall humble your souls and present an offering by fire to the LORD. Other translations say "afflict your souls". This was accounted by the Jews as being an instruction to fast on this day. The purpose is to "afflict", or "humble" themselves. The point of a fast is to deny the flesh so that we can better focus on God. We do not fast as a mechanism to gain favor from God. I would suggest praying about fasting first, that God would direct you to what He wants you do do. Fasting can consist of denying yourself all or some foods, drink, or other things. You can deny yourself TV, bowling, whatever, in order to more fully devote yourself to the Lord. Depending on your health and the type of fast, you may want to consult a doctor. But the main thing is that you realize that fasting is not a barter system, but is a way for us to focus on our reliance on God, deny our self-indulgence and self-reliance, and to use that time, or resource, that we are not using for ourself, and use it for God. I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have further questions about this. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
302 | Degrees of Punishment | Luke 12:48 | mark d seyler | 178838 | ||
Luke 12:47-48 "And that slave who knew his master's will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more." Jesus taught that degree of punishment is based on individual responsibility to God. The one who is given the greater knowledge and rebels against it will receive greater punishment than the one who has less insight into what the Lord requires of him. This is also portrayed in Romans 5:13 "for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law," as God does not count sin against those who have not been told. The one that receives a more severe punishment does so because they have a greater responsibility to God, because of a greater revelation from God. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
303 | Can you direct me to a couple of verses | Gen 3:15 | mark d seyler | 178832 | ||
Hi Marcella, I'd like to add a couple more for you: Acts 20:28 "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." This verse identifies God as the on One Who shed His blood for His church. John 8:58-59 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am. "Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple. This passage is explained better through what happened a little later: John 10 30 "I and the Father are one." 31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." They were very clear on what Jesus was saying, that He was God. I hope this helps! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
304 | speaking with the tongue? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 178828 | ||
Hi lilies, I want to reassure you that you have indeed found a Christian forum, at least, as much as any can be while still being an open forum! :-) I equally want to reassure you that I, as do the majority of posters on this forum, have faith in the Bible's teachings. I truly appreciate the conciliatory tone of your note, and I also wish to express to you that we of this forum represent a variety of denominations, we are not all Baptists, or Pentacostals, or, as I am, non-denominational. Personally, I believe from reading the Bible that God uses the members of the Body of Christ to minister to each other, not in their own strength, but through the spiritual gifts He gives according to His choosing. I believe these gifts are present and active in the church today, at least as much as His children will allow themselves to be used in this way. I believe, as others on this forum do, that the gift of tongues is also present and active today, according to what the Bible teaches. While I have some disagreement with what you have written regarding tongues, for the most part I agree with you. Your goal as you have stated it is the same as mine - to share with others what I have received. And that is what this forum is about. Where the difficulty arises when, as we are discussing these things with others who believe differently, our discussion turns to debate, and debate becomes divisive. Because of the history of this forum, there are certain topics that are more likely for this to happen with, and tongues is one of them. Are the gifts for today? Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib, No-Trib? Calvinism/Arminianism? These are topics that come up regularly, and in my opinion, should be answered, as Scripture contains the answers. But these topics, as well as others from time to time, will very often precipitate an argument. I do not believe in avoiding a question because I expect someone who disagrees with me will argue about it, but there is a certain advisability of simply answering the question, then not being drawn into a debate over it. For me, the best thing to do is to make a Scriptural presentation of what I believe, and when it becomes argumentative, let it go. I would suggest, should you wish to continue on this forum after this bit of a rough start, that you just get to know us a little better. Or, you may be better ministered to by another forum. I pray that God will direct you to where He wants you to be. I am looking forward to reading your profile. Should you wish to contact me directly, please feel free to do so at markdseyler(at)yahoo.com May the LORD bless you! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
305 | Is there any scripture regarding whether | Gen 3:15 | mark d seyler | 178826 | ||
Hi Marcella, There are not any Scriptures that specifically state whether or not it would have been possible for Jesus to sin. As some have pointed out, God had already told through His prophets that Christ would be victorious, so it was knowable that He wouldn't sin. The debate over whether Jesus could have, hypothetically, sinned is referred to as the "peccability" of Christ. One side will say that Jesus, being God, could not have sinned. The other side will counter asking "how could Jesus have been tempted if He could not have sinned?" Heb 4:15 "For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin." Adam was tempted to sin in that he had a choice to make, and he choose to sin. If it was not possible for Jesus to sin, then there wasn't a choice for Him to make to not sin. So to restate the positions: Some will say that Jesus, being God, was completely outside of the possibility of sinning. As He acted according to His nature, He always acted righteously. Some will say that Jesus, being man, was as capable of sin as Adam was, though being God, was also capable of resisting temptation minute by minute, day by day, year by year. I think it was Dwight Pentacost that offered the anology of an impregnable city, or a general with an infinite number of troops. Either way, He was victorious! I hope this helps! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
306 | Genre of 2nd Timothy? | 2 Tim 2:15 | mark d seyler | 178774 | ||
Hi Vix, I'm not familiar with a genre called "logic". I have never thought of a book of the Bible that way. But that asided . . . This is for your homework? You may well benefit by choosing a short passage from this letter, and writing down how you understand that passage was meant by Paul to be understood by Timothy. Include how Timothy would have applied it to his life and ministry. Then include how you can take this information for your own life and ministry. God bless your studies! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
307 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | mark d seyler | 178773 | ||
Hi Edwin, While you didn't directly answer my question, I suppose in a round-about way you did. Since you hold to the divine inspiration of the autographs only, and you declare the Greek New Testament to be a translation, with the possible exception of Luke and Acts, you must not, then, believe that the majority of the Greek New Testament is the inspired and authoritative Word of God. That being the case, I don't really know that there is anything else to discuss. Even if I did believe that the "original" New Testament was written in Aramaic, and I don't, it's not and Aramaic NT that was received by the early church as Scripture. If you were to produce an ancient Aramaic NT tomorrow, I would be interested in it the same as I am in the Peshitta, but it would not have the benefit of canonization, and therefore, I would not accept its authority. The fact of the matter is that Paul' letters contain what scholars say is some of the finest Greek writing and thought extant. That would be completely inconsistant with the notion that these letters were composed in Hebrew, and translated into Greek. Regardless, my interest here is to explore and discuss the writings of the Bible as presented in the Canon. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
308 | Why God ask Saul to kill if is forbidden | Deut 32:4 | mark d seyler | 178755 | ||
Hi Marcela, Deut 32:4 "The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He. In His Law, God prohibited murder, which is the unjust taking of life. For instance, God told Noah that if a man killed a man, then that man is to be killed by man. This is the just taking of life. If God decreed that the Amalekites are to be killed, then, because all that God does is right, this is the just, or righteous taking of life, and so is not murder. Does that help? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
309 | Genre of 2nd Timothy? | 2 Tim 2:15 | mark d seyler | 178752 | ||
Hi vikki, 2nd Timothy is a letter. It is didactic, which is to say teaching, and as such contains many doctrinal statements. It is a letter from an apostle, and shows the heart and mind of an apostle. It is a letter from a person, to a person, and as such contains personal instructions and comments from Paul to Timothy. It is a letter to a pastor, and so it contains pastoral instruction, encouragement, and direction. It is a letter to a Christian, and so tells Christians how to live, how to serve, and what to expect. I hope this helps! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
310 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | mark d seyler | 178749 | ||
Hi Edwin. Thank you for your answer. The only thing that I still have a question concerning is this: Do you consider the Greek New Testament, or portions of it, to be among the translatations? Or when you say “autographs”, do you include, for example, the first Greek manuscript of Matthew’s Gospel? Concerning Mark 16:9-20, were you aware that one of these “early manuscripts”, the Vaticanus, while it does not contain this passage, does leave a blank space where that text would fit? But this really isn’t a problem either way I look at it. Its addition doesn’t conflict with any other teachings, and it omission doesn’t remove anything that’s not taught elsewhere. And nowhere, including in Mark 16, are we told that we should test the Lord, with the one exception that the Jews under the Old Covenant were to prove God concerning His promised blessing in their tithes - at least to the best of my knowledge! :-) This gets into a whole different subject of textual criticism. But I have to say that I am uncomfortable with the idea that we would reject a portion of Scripture as being authentic because we don’t happen to like or approve or understand or agree with what it says. I have to conform to Scripture, not conform Scripture to me. The only sound basis I would accept for disallowing a passage from the text of Scripture would have to be based on textual evidence alone. May the Lord bless you! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
311 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | mark d seyler | 178748 | ||
Hi Edwin, I do believe that the Greek New Testament was inspired, not just the general ideas expresses, but the specific words and word forms used, by the Holy Spirit. This is, as you have also said, true of the autographs, but not so of the copies and translations. I will be happy to look at the passages you have asked me about. Matthew 26:64 Jesus said to him, You said it. I tell you more. From this time you shall see the Son of Man sitting off the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of the heaven. Mark 14:62 And Jesus said, I AM! And you will see the Son of Man sitting off the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of the heaven. Luke 22:67-69 If you are the Christ, tell us. And He said to them, If I tell you, you will in no way believe. And also if I ask, in no way will you answer Me, or let Me go. From now on the Son of Man will be sitting at the right of the power of God. And they all said, Then are you the Son of God? And He said to them, You say it, because I AM! The chief priests had asked Jesus if He was the Christ, the Son of the Blessed. He answered them saying all of these things. “If I tell you, you will not believe, and if I ask, you will not answer or let me go.” “You say it, because I AM.” “After this you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power of God, and coming on the clouds of heaven.” While there are minor differences in word order, and not every account is a full account, I don’t see any conflicts. The only account that has timing indicators is Luke’s, as he records a conversation. Matthew and Mark record their question, and Jesus’ response. Mark, for instance, says Jesus said these things, and I believe He did. Mark doesn’t say that this was all Jesus said. If he had written that, there would be a conflict. He doesn’t say that Jesus first said “I AM”, and then said the rest. He simply says Jesus said these things. So I don’t see a conflict with these passages, just that you can gain a greater sense of what happened there that day by reading all the accounts. Matthew 20:20 Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came near to Him, along with her sons, worshipping, and asking something from Him. Mark 10:35 And coming up to Him, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, said, Teacher, we desire that whatever we may ask You would do for us. Now, this may seem foolish to you, but this is how I approach Scripture. What prevents both of these from being true? When Jesus responded to their question, He addressed His remarks to the sons: Matthew 20:22 But answering, Jesus said, You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup which I am about to drink, and to be baptized with the baptism with which I am to be baptized? They said to Him, We are able. Mark 10:38 But Jesus said to them, You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup which I drink, and to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with? I don’t doubt but that James, John, and Mom were all in agreement her, and the may well have each voiced the same request. All three come up asking Jesus for something, and He says to them all, “what do you want me to do?” I don’t see a conflict here either. Regarding the inscription posted on the cross: Mat 27:37 And they put up over His head His charge, it having been written: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mar 15:26 And the inscription of His charge was written over Him, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Luk 23:38 And also an inscription was written over Him, in Greek and Latin and Hebrew letters: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS. Joh 19:19 And Pilate also wrote a title and put it on the cross. And having been written, it was: JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Would not the inscription then have read “This is Jesus the Nazarene, the King of the Jews”? If it had, then each account is correct. So this is how I approach such things. I begin with the presupposition that each is true, and then reconstruct the scene using what each has told us. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
312 | verse explains nonChrist knowing savior | 2 Cor 5:15 | mark d seyler | 178669 | ||
Hi Paul, Rather than just give us your own claims, please share with us those Scriptures that teach these things. I don't beleive they exist. The Bible says: Eph 2:1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, Eph 2:2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. Eph 2:3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. Eph 2:4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, Eph 2:5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), You were dead, but God has made you alive. You say that in death is the resurrection, yes that's true, but only for the redeemed. Those who have not been redeemed, who are still facing the result of their sin, are lost, there is no resurrection for them, only eternal death. Sin is not to be tolerated, condoned, looked on as good, or any such thing. The least sin you can imagine was sufficiant to separate you, or me, from God forever. But He died to pay for it, so that we might live. I will never waver from that truth. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
313 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | mark d seyler | 178666 | ||
Hi Edwin, We could talk about the differences in how the apostles recorded the sign above Jesus' head, and these other things, and I will do that with you if you wish, but before we do that, I would like to know from you: Do you believe that the Greek New Testament was inspired by the Holy Spirit, and as such, is an accurate record of what happened, and what Jesus said, and taught? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
314 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | mark d seyler | 178634 | ||
Hi Edwin, We accept the Greek New Testament to be the divinely inspired Word of God. Even if Jesus gave the original Sermon on the Mount in Aramaic, or Hebrew, nonetheless, it is the Greek record that was given to us by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we consider the Greek words to be authoritative. Rather than believing that Jesus spoke something different than Matthew recorded, and therefore Matthew's record is somehow deficient, I accept Matthew's record, in Greek, to be correct and accurate, and that if Jesus did speak these things in another language, that Matthew, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, gave the correct teaching in the Greek language. I hope this helps to clarify the matter. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
315 | verse explains nonChrist knowing savior | 2 Cor 5:15 | mark d seyler | 178630 | ||
Hi Paul, As far as I can tell from reading the Bible, sin is death, and sin is what Jesus died to save us from. Sin is not part of the path to knowing God. I do not consider the line of thinking which you are presenting to resemble any true Biblical concept, and in fact, seems to directly fly in the face of much that is written. The sinner has not "gained vital information", the sinner is dead. Unless Jesus saves that sinner, the sinner remains dead. When Jesus saves a sinner, He tells them, "leave your sin, and do not return to it. Go and sin no more." Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
316 | Does Satan Know Your Thoughts? | Rev 2:23 | mark d seyler | 178611 | ||
Hi Gaggyball, Rev 2:23 'And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds. Jesus says of Himself, "I am He who searches the minds and hearts". If Satan could do that also, Jesus would have had to say "I am one of the ones..." So based on this, I would answer no, Satan cannot read your mind. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
317 | verse explains nonChrist knowing savior | 2 Cor 5:15 | mark d seyler | 178603 | ||
Hi Paul, As I am sure you already know, Hebrew is a very conceptual language in that its letters are pictorial, and as such, relies more on context than many other languages to understand the correct meaning. I myself rely heavily upon the Hebrew scholars, as my grasp of Hebrew is extremely limited, but this I know - the Bible is consistant throughout, and what is true in clear passages is equally true in difficult passages. You have stated that "Jesus died not for our sins but for THE SIN of man." (sic) The Bible says in 1 Cor 15:3 "For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;" this is specific, "our", yours and mine, "sins", indefinite plural, all of each of our sins. You wrote, "You can no longer be fined for speeding if the speed limit is removed." Jesus said, (Matthew 5:17-19) "Do not think that I came to annul the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to annul, but to fulfill. Truly I say to you, Until the heaven and the earth pass away, in no way shall one iota or one point pass away from the Law until all comes to pass. Therefore, whoever relaxes one of these commandments, the least, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven. But whoever does and teaches them, this one shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven." Christ did not remove the penalty for breaking God's law, He paid it for us. There is a huge difference. We can become God's children because we died in Christ. Death is the penalty of sin, so we had to die. It's our blessing that we are able to die in His death, so that the curse was upon Him and not on us. Sin is by definition what is not of God. Sin, "hamartia", is to miss the target. "For all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory." Count me among the "legalistic orthodoxy" that calls sin sin. And sin does not help us. Sin kills. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
318 | How to Discern a Servant of God | Acts 5:15 | mark d seyler | 178600 | ||
There have been several posts regarding Kathryn Kuhlman that I would like to respond to. If we are to discuss another person, and especially someone not present with us, I just think there are certain ways to go about it. For one thing, I would find any number of quotes both for and against Kathryn Kuhlman, claiming false healings, claiming true healings, claiming all sorts of things. But that is true of most public figures - they have their detractors and supporters. Can this for the basis for our conclusions on people? What seems to me to be the Biblical way to discern regarding a person is to compare what they do and what they teach with Scripture. Would you agree? Now, I know right off the bat, that if someone believes it is impossible that a person could be used to heal large numbers of people in the modern day, then they would quickly conclude that Kathryn Kuhlman's ministry was not Biblical. For the person who believes that this is possible, then it remains to determine if her ministry was Biblical or not. As I scour the web looking at her teaching, not as reported by others, but direct quotes only, I do not find teaching that is unscriptural. Now, this is not to say that its not there, just that I haven't seen it. But this is a strong area to look at to me. If she teaches what is unscriptural, then that's a big red flag. I would be interested if anyone is aware of any unscriptural teaching she gave. Now, she has been compared to Benny Hinn, and its easy to find where Benny Hinn claims to have gotten his start from seeing Kathryn kuhlman. But its equally easy to find, and I have heard it from his lips, teaching that is in clear contradiction to Scripture. So in this way I do not see that she compares to Benny Hinn. The other part of the equation is what she does. In this way, at least so far as appearance goes, Benny Hinn seems to copy her. Kathryn Kuhlman's claim was that people would be healed at her meetings from the sovereign touch of God. Again, some believe that doesn't happen today. Others, who accept modern day healings, think that it wouldn't happen that way. Steve, and many others as well, have pointed out that Kathryn did not make a ministry of visiting hospitals to clear out the wards. But did the apostles? Now, when I read the Acts of the Apostles, I do not find them visiting hospitals, or walking through disaster zones. I find them walking down the street, or going into crowded areas, and healing people. People would line the sidewalks so Peter's shadow would fall on them. Others would pass around Paul's sweatband to be healed. Imagine if someone was doing that today! Most people would probibly say what a crock it was, yet that is what happened in NT times. Do we ever read of Jesus or the apostles visiting a leper colony? Not to my recollection. What we do read is that people came to them, or they healed people wherever they happened to be. Now, let me be clear - I am not saying that I believe or disbelieve in what Kathryn Kuhlman was doing. I wish to examine her ministry in light of Scripture, as well as understand how we are to go about doing that. There is one thing about her ministry I have a huge problem with, and that is this "slaying in the spirit" business. I find no mention of that in Scripture period. Its seems to have been a regular component of her process, yet there is no teaching, demonstration, or example of it in Scripture. It also seems that she lived a lavish lifestyle, which is between her and God, as having nice things is not declared sinful, but it does seem contrary to having the servant's heart. This brings up the issue of judging another man's servant. I have had a difficult time verifying if the churches, clinics, and so forth that the Kathryn Kuhlman Foundation claims were built (dozens, according to them) were actually built. This would be meaningful to me to know. Benny Hinn, again, claimed to have done all these great works, churches, schools, orphanages, which proved fraudulent. So at this point, I do not have a solid opinion on Kathryn Kuhlman. I do have some questions about her ministry. But I am more interested in your understanding of how we are to Biblically judge someone. Am I on the right track here? Do you agree or disagree? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
319 | Free will and predestination co-exist? | Rom 8:29 | mark d seyler | 178599 | ||
Hi Edwin, That was an unexpected answer! I find you to be refreshingly challenging! I had in mind such verses as: Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to flesh, but according to Spirit. While we once were "by nature, children of wrath, even as the rest," (Eph 2:3), now that we are "in Christ", there is now no condemnation. There was a time before we were "in Christ", in which we were under God's righteous condemnation. 2Co 5:17 So that if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new! Once we were dead in trespasses and sins. Now we are alive, having been born again, born of God. If anyone is "in Christ", he is a new creation. If we were "in Christ" before the foundation of the world, then when was it that we were dead in our trespasses and sins? It seems to me that there was a time when we were dead in sins, before we were in Christ, then, when we became "in Christ", this involved re-birth, and we became a new creation. This is my understanding. What is your understanding of these verses? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
320 | who tasted the king's drink? | Neh 1:11 | mark d seyler | 178571 | ||
Are you thinking of Nehemiah? Neh 1:11 "O Lord, I beseech You, may Your ear be attentive to the prayer of Your servant and the prayer of Your servants who delight to revere Your name, and make Your servant successful today and grant him compassion before this man." Now I was the cupbearer to the king. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [102] >> |