Results 341 - 360 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | Authorized name vs. Unauthorized? | Matt 16:18 | stjones | 52319 | ||
Greetings, justme; Thank you so much for your very kind words. There's a big difference between speaking the truth in love and speaking the truth in anger. As you said, Christians will disagree on interpretations and points of doctrine, but we're still called to love and encourage one another. And, as Hank noted in his reply, there is this little thing known as the Golden Rule, not to mention the forum rules. As a Presbyterian, I thank God for those Southern Baptist missionaries who were in Bolivia in 1983. I may not agree with all of their doctrine but they sure must have gotten the Gospel right. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
342 | Authorized name vs. Unauthorized? | Matt 16:18 | stjones | 52333 | ||
Amen, justme, amen. | ||||||
343 | Who do you believe about Jesus? | Matt 22:42 | stjones | 104936 | ||
Hi, kalos; There is only one authoritative source of information about Jesus - the Bible. Within the Bible, all sources - Isaiah, Jeremaiah, John, Paul, Luke, others - are equally authoritative since all were inspired by the same God. This is true even though John, for example, was much closer to Jesus in time, space, and personal relationship than Isaiah. Apparent differenece among the Biblical sources must be harmonized. Differences between the Bible and extra-Biblical sources render these other sources irrelevant. Josephus, Origen, and spurious gospels such as Thomas and Mary may make for interesting reading, but there is no need to harmonize the Bible with them. The same can be said of any modern writer, whether the great apologist C. S. Lewis or the Jesus Seminar charlatan John Crossan. But you knew all that. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
344 | Does God uses people to prophecy anymore | Matt 23:34 | stjones | 20319 | ||
Acts 13:1 says there were prophets: "In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul." Also 1 Corinthians 12:28 - "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues" Since there is a gift of prohecy (1 Corrintians 12:10), I assume that gift is still given. Of course, a prophet is simply one who speaks a message from God; not all prophecy foretells the future. I hope this is helpful. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
345 | Follow up - how and to whom? | Matt 24:3 | stjones | 20583 | ||
Follow-up question -- How was this revealed? To whom? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
346 | Origin of Rapture of the Church doctrine | Matt 24:3 | stjones | 20669 | ||
Thanks, Prayon; I agree with your explanaion of the questions in this passage. But I'm still confused. I think I didn't make my question clear. Kalos asked about the emergence of the doctrine of the Rapture of the Church. Kalos asked, in effect, what changed in the last 150 years or so that caused this doctrine to emerge when it had not been articulated in the first 1850 years of the church. You replied (I think to that question) that "We have not seen it in the past 2000 years because Christ did not open our eyes to see it until now". I understood this to mean that Christ opened our eyes to the doctrine of the Rapture in the last 150 years. So if I understood your reply correctly, my question addressed this relatively recent eye-opening by Christ: "How was this revealed? To whom?" If I didn't understand your reply correctly, just say so and I'll go back to playing with the cat. Thanks again. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
347 | Origin of Rapture of the Church doctrine | Matt 24:3 | stjones | 20713 | ||
Hi, Serenetime; Thansk; your input is very helpful. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
348 | Origin of Rapture of the Church doctrine | Matt 24:3 | stjones | 20714 | ||
Hi, Steve; Thanks for the info. I've heard of Darby, of course, but such was (is) my ignorance of such matters that I made no connection between the rapture and dispensationalism. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
349 | What does Matthew 24: 28 mean? | Matt 24:28 | stjones | 23763 | ||
Hi, Ross; You said "I also ask church members to explain for me their understanding of Isaiah 22:22-25 and Isaiah 19:18-25, which are also Holy Prophecies concerning which no Christian on Earth is able to provide the accurate explanation of their fulfillment, in the same manner that no Christian could provide the accurate explanation of the fulfillment of Mat.24:27,28." With all respect, Peter and Paul both dealt with similar claims of secret knowledge. It's called gnosticism. I'm sure your understanding of these passages is interesting - perhaps you'll share it some time. But understanding of this passage is not a litmus test for faith in Christ or for maturity in the Christian faith. If you are indeed certain that there is no Christian who understands or agrees with your interpretation of this or any other passage, the explanation is simple. Your interpretation - whatever it may be - is incorrect. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
350 | What does Matthew 24: 28 mean? | Matt 24:28 | stjones | 23775 | ||
Thanks, Tim; In my years of searching, I explored Bahai. At first it looked like Unitarianism with ritual. I eventually realized that its attempt to legitimize just about any and all religions by combining them produced contradictions, not answers. The temple up north of Chicago is impressive though. Peace and grace, Indiana Jones |
||||||
351 | What does Matthew 24: 28 mean? | Matt 24:28 | stjones | 23794 | ||
Hi, Ross; Even the original disciples acted on their own sometimes, arguing about their places in Heaven and such. It should come as no surprise that we more recent ones don't always get along as Jesus wants us to. All that proves is that Christians are not perfect - something that most of us already know. Your comparison with Babel is off the mark - the languages of the workers were confused by God's design. In fact different churches and different denominations work together often. If they fail to do so when they should, that's simply a human failing, not God's design. As for the passage at the top of the page, I have no idea what it means; it's not a passage I've studied. But that's not the point. You claimed to have knowledge about a prophecy that "no Christian on Earth" has an adequate understanding of. That's gnosticism. If gnosticism masquerades as Christianity, it's a heresy that was exposed in the first century. If it does not masquerade as Christianity but comes from another religion altogether, it is of no theological significance to a Christian. Muhammad misreprented both Moses and Jesus. You could hardly expect a Christian to learn anything about either of them from the Qur'an. Or from any other religion that departs from orthodox Christianity. From what I've seen, Bahais misrepresent Jesus in a similar way. You and I can respect each other and learn from each other as fellow humnas on this earth. But I can learn nothing about Jesus from any source but the Bible, the Holy Spirit confirmed by the Bible, or brothers and sisters in Christ confirmed by the Bible. Peace and grace, Steve "Indy" Jones |
||||||
352 | Why did Peter deny Jesus? | Matt 26:34 | stjones | 34791 | ||
Greetings, Barry; I think Peter denied Jesus because he was Peter - flawed, bold, impetuous, the one who wanted to camp out on the Mount of Transfiguration, the one walked briefly on water. I'm sure he meant it when he told Jesus he would never fall away but when push came to shove, his boldness failed him. I think he tended to rely on his own strength until Pentecost. I think (but can't prove) that when he discovered the power of the Holy Spirit that day, he realized that his own was insufficient. I think Jesus predicted it because he wanted Peter to know that he knew. If Jesus had not told Peter ahead of time, then when he did deny Jesus, Peter would have thought that his failure was private. Jesus' prediction enabled Peter to feel the full weight of his sin, to experience all the remorse, and to finally see that he could not rely on his own strength to do God's work. I agree that there is a parallel (3 denials, 3 opportunities to express his love for Jesus). It is interesting that what is translated as "love" all three times is actually different the third time: The first two times, the Greek word is "agape", the third it's "phileo". I've read and heard various explanations for this difference; I'm not really sure what it means. ;-) I think all this was to prepare Peter for his ministry and martyrdom. Just my two one-hundredths of a dollar. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
353 | Why did Peter deny Jesus? | Matt 26:34 | stjones | 34798 | ||
Greetings, Clay, my brother; Thanks for your comments. The first paragraph applies to me in its entirety. Thanks for your honesty; it's also an encouragement. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
354 | Why was Judas' kiss needed? | Matt 26:48 | stjones | 21196 | ||
Hi, SpreadWord; Perhaps when Judas arranged to betray Jesus, they didn't know whether any Jewish officials would accompany the Roman soldiers. So they made sure that Jesus could be identified either way. Of course, as I'm sure you know, the gospels don't agree on whether or not Judas actually did kiss Jesus: 'Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him' (Matthew 26:35; Mark is similar) 'While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?"' (Luke 22:47-48) John makes no mention of a kiss at all. (John 18:2-8) Don't know what to make of that.... Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
355 | Was Judas truly repentent? | Matt 27:3 | stjones | 104686 | ||
Greetings, Chusarcik I think he might have been; I don't know for sure. If you have LOTS of time on your hands, search for message # 3132. You will find a long, often impassioned discussion on this subject. Happy reading! Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
356 | The tomb is empty! | Matt 28:6 | stjones | 81783 | ||
The tomb is empty! Blessings to all this joyous morning! We discuss many things on this forum and we sometimes disagree passionately. But let us all agree with greater passion this morning: Jesus Christ is risen; he is risen indeed! Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
357 | The tomb is empty! | Matt 28:6 | stjones | 82525 | ||
Amen, fran1947; amen. | ||||||
358 | What are the evidences of it, and how? | Matt 28:7 | stjones | 52452 | ||
Hi, SoC; I'll take a different approach. There is only one reliable and authoritative source of information about Jesus - the Bible. [Various spurious "gospels" (Mary, Thomas, etc.) have found new favor among worldly theologians even though they were recognized as heresy by the church in the second and third centuries. But there is no reason to accept them or their fables about Jesus. So apart from the Bible, there is no where else to go.] Jesus was a either liar, a nut, or a truth-teller. The evidence in the Bible all points to him being who he said he was. He said he was divine and there's no reason to dispute his claim. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
359 | explain Mark 15:34 | Mark | stjones | 21007 | ||
Hi, Pixie; I can't prove this, of coure, but it seems to me that for the substitutionary atonement to be real, Jesus must have died with our sins on him. If he shed them before he died, then they're still awaiting payment and we're stuck with the bill. The wages of sin is death, not a momentary separation from the Father. I think part of the shame and horror and utter injustice of the cross is that the man Jesus did die utterly alone. He was as separated from the Father as anyone carrying a burden of sin to the point of death would be. Because he carried the burden all the way into death itself, we who put our faith in him won't have to. Just my opinion, not worth arguing over. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
360 | Are theregospels about Mary Magdeline? | Mark | stjones | 21011 | ||
Hi, Freespirit; Jesus cast out seven demons from her (Luke 8:2) while healing several women. And she was a witness to Jesus' crucifixion. There is a book called the "Gospel of Mary" purportedly by or about Mary Magdelene. This book was known and rejected by the early church. In the last 100 years, it has become one of the treasures of liberal (scewball?) theologians who want Jesus to be anything but the holy Son of God. Hope this is helpful. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [33] >> |