Results 581 - 600 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
581 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104262 | ||
Thanks, Makarios; I appreciate your taking the time to say so. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
582 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104395 | ||
Thanks, Makarios; I always appreciate encouragement from one of the forum's stalwarts. - Indy |
||||||
583 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104398 | ||
Hi, wordoer; I'd be willing to discuss this further but I'm afraid I've shot my bolt. I've explained why I believe all the passages cited (in Mark 7, 1 Timothy 4, 1 Corinthians 10 and Acts 10), taken as a whole, convey the same message: ": Jesus declared all foods 'clean.'" (Mark 7:19) I know I'm repeating myself, but Jesus stated unequivocally: "Nothing outside a man can make him 'unclean' by going into him." (Mark 7:15) What effect does eating a pork chop have one me? But to address your questions: 1) "Where does the Word of God teach 'unclean animals' are for 'food'?" a) Assuming that "food" is what I eat, the above passages make it clear an unclean animal can be eaten. b) Acts 10:9-16 includes examples of "unclean" animals that Peter is told to eat (make them "food"), together with this admonition: "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." (Acts 10:15) 2) "What leads you to believe there are no unclean animals?" See 1b above. There may be a sense in which an animal is still unclean but can nonetheless be eaten (because all can be eaten), but I don't think it would be relevant to a discussion that started with a question about eating pork. As I've explained, I can find nothing that prohibits a Christian from eating pork, even if swine are still unclean under the Law of Moses. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
584 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 104399 | ||
Hi, Makarios; Don't get too puffed up; I only meant to thank you once. ;-) ;-) ;-) But thanks again. - Indy |
||||||
585 | how should christians view evolution | 1 Tim 6:3 | stjones | 28200 | ||
Hi, ddrundle; [sound of can of worms opening] With healthy curiosity tempered with skepticism. In my opinion there is no easy answer. Other Christian brothers and sisters on this forum find the answer very simple. We disagree, but that's not unusual. ;-) The work of the scientist is to discover the nature and workings of God's creation. The men who invented modern science in the 18th century were mostly Christians and mostly viewed their work this way. Unfortunately, many scientists now start with a closed mind, assuming without proof that there is a naturalistic explanation for everything. They assume that God either does not exist or is irrelevant. There are others, not necessarily creationists, who acknowledge that a valid scientific investigation may lead to the possibility of a supernatural explanation. At that point, theology takes over. Also, there are many variations of evolutionary theory, even some that acknowledge God in the process. There is no single monolithic "evolution" that all scientists agree on. Lumping all variations and their proponents together makes for an easy target but ignores many of the issues. You can click on the "Search" link in the upper left corner. At the bottom of the search screen, right above the "Search" button, enter the word "evolution" to search for. Pick an interesting message and click on the link. When you get there, you will be able to open and follow the entire thread. My advice is to decide for yourself. If you don't have a firm grounding in the Bible, forget evolution and study the Bible. If you do (or when you do), decide how you should view evolution in light of what the Bible teaches. Don't let a Bible scholar explain the science and don't let a scientist explain the Bible. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
586 | how should christians view evolution | 1 Tim 6:3 | stjones | 28222 | ||
Hi, Mommapbs; Thanks for the reply. Behe's book is excellent. I don't know that he did away with every nuance of evolutionary theory but he certainly threw a huge monkey wrench into Darwin's works. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
587 | Is Prosperity wrong in light of Mk 16:15 | 1 Tim 6:17 | stjones | 53558 | ||
Greetings; God is not against money and prosperity. As this passage indicates, He is against people who put money and prosperity ahead of Him. I have two different problems with some televangelists. (1) Some of them preach a greedy theology that says all faithful Christians are entitled to be rich. This is heresy. (2) Some of them live very ostentatious lives that make me wonder what their viewers who send in the money had in mind. Did they intend to build the Kingdom or the televangelist's portfolio? I have even heard some of these folks claim that Jesus was wealthy, thus excusing their own greed. When I financially support a ministry, I don't expect my money to buy garish gilded furniture, fancy clothes, or pink wigs. I expect it to feed the poor, provide medical assistance, and most of all to support missionaries in the field who live their lives and their faith in full view of those they are struggling to reach. I'm not sure whom your last question is directed to - who are the "hypocrites"? For those of us who are not in full-time service, God asks for our tithes and our free-will offerings. So a faithful, godly person might easily "spend more money on self than the Gospel". For example, my employer gives me money for writing computer programs and considers it value given for value received. It is up to me as a Christian to turn a portion of it over to God. To the extent that a televangelist makes me feel good, I guess he or she can keep the money and call it value given for value received. But to the extent that I give my money in trust that it will be used to effectively spread the Gospel, most of it should go for just that. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
588 | What is the Bible for? | 2 Timothy | stjones | 19639 | ||
In another thread, I was asked, more or less, what my views on the Bible are. I had unwittlngly offended several people with my statements about the Bible. If I'm going to offend people, I'd like to at least be sure that they're offended by what I really think, not by a mistaken impression. ;-) In that thread, I often referred to 2 Timothy 3:15-17 - "15 ... you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." [NKJV] I love the Bible and I read and study it regularly. But I don't love it for itself. So let me sum up my view of the Bible. I apologize in advance for any further offense I may give. I believe that, having created us and knowing us intimately, God desires us to also know him and to spend eternity in fellowship with him. Because of the Fall, our only means to that end is Jesus, foretold in Genesis 3:15. It appears that early people (Enoch, Noah, Job, Melchizedek, Abraham, and others) received instruction in righteousness directly from God. After the Exodus, instruction was given to Israel through the Law (and, had they been faithful, to the world through their example). Further instruction is revealed in the history of Israel and Judah, the prophets, and the wisdom literature. Throughout OT times people failed to live up to the instructions and so failed to achieve the righteousness required by God for fellowship with him. But as the book of Hebrews tells us, God's grace was active even then. For the faithful, their faith was "credited to them as righteousness". When Jesus came to Earth, the object of that faith was revealed and God's grace was fully disclosed in him. In addition to the accumulated instruction in the OT, instruction in righteousness is now given in the example of Jesus' life, in the gospels and epistles, and in God's law written upon our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33). I believe that the Bible is God's progressive revelation of his character, holiness, and grace, given for the purpose of leading those who will believe and obey to that final reconciliation through Christ. The Bible is absolutely authoritative in matters of faith and practice. The Bible informs our faith so that we can have a right relationship with God. It informs us of how to live our faith so that we can have a right relationship with other believers and with the world. I believe that this purpose is revealed in the passage cited above. Please note the word "complete" in verse 17; there is no part of our lives that is not subject to this instruction. This is how Jesus used scripture. Of course, the Bible often provides comfort, encouragement, advice, hope, even ammunition for theological discussions. But those things flow from God's faithfulness, mercy, love, power, and other aspects of his character. Knowledge of those attributes and the response this knowledge elicits within us still fall under the purpose described in the passage. I suppose I'd better duck now. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
589 | What is the Bible for? | 2 Timothy | stjones | 19659 | ||
Hi, Waldo; Thanks for your comments. No, I should have said that none of us - OT times, NT times, or present time - can achieve by our own efforts the righteousness that God requires. Then as now, faith is the only means. Then as now, God's law convicts us of our shortcomings and shows us our need for a savior. I'm glad you gave me the opportunity to clarify that. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
590 | What is the Bible for? | 2 Timothy | stjones | 19677 | ||
Hi, Kalos; Thanks for your excellent statement - much shorter than mine. I think we agree that the Bible is utterly authoritative in all matters related to 3:15-17. As I read them, all of the references you provided confirm that the law, the prophets, and the scriptures as a whole serve the purposes detailed in that passage - to point people to Christ, to train believers in righteousness, and to complete and prepare the faithful for every good work. Where some may disagree with me is my belief that the Bible is more open to interpretation in other matters. The basis for this belief is (1) the fact that the Bible doesn't claim authority for itself in any other areas and (2) Jesus used scripture only for those same purposes - to point to himself, to train his followers in righteousness, and to prepare his followers for good works. One of your references was particularly interesting - John 5:39: "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me." [NKJV] I have encountered Christians - not necessarily on this forum - who are so devoted to the Bible that they seem to have lost track of the one it testifies to. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
591 | 2Tim 2:15 Study dispensationally? | 2 Timothy | stjones | 108948 | ||
Hi, Ken; Why do you say it is a fact that one needs to study the Bible dispensationally? Is there a scriptural directive to approach it this way? In the interest of full disclosure, I am skeptical about this. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
592 | 2Tim 2:15 Study dispensationally? | 2 Timothy | stjones | 109031 | ||
Hi, Ken; I wasn't even sure that by studying "dispensationally", you were referring to dispensaionalism. And I haven't studied Scofield's ideas or the modern variants, so I really don't know much about it. I'm not a Greek scholar, nor do I play one on TV, so I seldom venture into any language other than Endglish. But I did use Strong's numbers to help understand the passages you cited. I don't really see anything in them beyond the plain meaning of the words: - 2 Timothy 2:15: "rightly divide" is translated in most of the versions I looked at as "handle rightly", or "correctly", etc. My Thayers defines "orthotomeo" as 1) to cut straight, to cut straight ways 1a) to proceed on straight paths, hold a straight course, equiv. to doing right 2) to make straight and smooth, to handle aright, to teach the truth directly and correctly. I take the passage to mean that the workman approaches God's word in the right way - accepting its divine inspiration, earnestly seeking its meaning (not imposing his own), and relying on the counsel of the Holy Spirit. - Ephesians 3:2: "dispensation" is also rendered as "stewardship" and "administration" in various translations. At any rate, Paul seems to be simply saying that he is the steward of the knowledge graciously given to him by Jesus. I suppose a parallel could be drawn to a pharmacist dispensing drugs. There's more to it than just getting the right pills into the right bottle. There's a responsibility to both the patient and the doctor to ensure that the patient recieves the full benefit from the doctor's best effort and intentions. Colossians 1:26: Paul seems to use the word "ages" to refer to a period of time longer than generations. The KJV says the mystery has been hidden "from" ages and generations; other translations say the mystery was hidden "for" ages and generations. The Greek word "aion" seems to mean nothing more than a long period of time, so I don't see this as referring to separate, distinct periods of time, just a long time. I don't see that the passages tie together in any particular except that they were inspired by the same God. I don't see enough to hang a theology or a method of study on. But that's just my two-hundredths of a U.S. dollar. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
593 | Why are there disagreements... | 2 Tim 2:15 | stjones | 109657 | ||
Hi, Emmaus; I don't intend to start a denominational debate (which our hosts wouldn't appreciate anyway). The problem is that Councils and Magesterial authorities are still men (at least to the Reformed mind). Such institutions simply move the disagreement behind closed doors. My (Reformed) denomination agrees with the value of collective wisdom in discerning the Holy Spirit's counsel. But, as you would expect, we consider the results less authoritative than Scripture because there is no Biblical basis for claiming that the results are inspired. Individual conscience - guided by the Holy Spirit - can't be ignored because we are each individually accountable to what God has revealed through his Word (not his servants). You probably disagree with me and I respect that. I just figured I'd defend the Reformation's teaching of Sola Scriptura. The answer to kalos' question, of course, ist that my crowd listened to the Holy Spirit and got it right and the rest of you just weren't paying attention! ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
594 | Where's the line? | 2 Tim 2:23 | stjones | 23905 | ||
Hi, Lion; I would consider an argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin to be foolish or ignorant speculation. Perhaps I would apply a two-part test: (1) If the answer is generally known, it is ignorant. (2) Ask yourself - if you knew the answer, would it matter? If the answer is no, it wouldn't matter, the speculation is foolish. If it's neither ignorant nor foolish, it might be worthwhile. Just my opinion. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
595 | Purpose of the Bible | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 23765 | ||
Nolan, of course, is right. Be sure to look at the surrounding verses as well: "...from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work" (verses 15-17). Verse 15 echoes Jesus' words to the Pharisees: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (John 5:39-40) Peace and grace, Indiana Jones, formerly "Steve" (too many Steves around here) |
||||||
596 | Purpose of the Bible | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 23777 | ||
Hi, Kalos; I just happened to think that I ought to go back to just plain (if confusing) "Steve". Indiana Jones managed to insult: (1) the Jews with the idea that the Ark of the Covenant could be used as a weapon ("Raiders of the Lost Ark"), (2) the Hindus by associating their goddess Kali with child abuse and torture ("The Temple of Doom"), and (3) Christians with the idea that drinking out of the chalice used by Jesus at the last supper could confer immortality ("The Last Crusade"). Peace and grace, Steve, formerly "Indiana Jones", formerly "Steve" |
||||||
597 | all scripture for doctrine? | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 24819 | ||
Great answer, Hank. Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones from the Amen corner |
||||||
598 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32115 | ||
Hi, Curt; Let me offer partial support for your view of the Bible. I would suggest that it is not man's record of God's interaction with humanity, it is God's record communicated through inspired human writers. There were no eyewitnesses to the creation. If we don't assume that God inspired the writing of Genesis, then we don't know whether or not God created the universe. If we don't know that, we know nothing. Like you, I question the lieteralness of the creation story. But first a disclaimer: There is a great deal of wisdom and discernment on this forum. I have been truly blessed by both participating and lurking in many of the threads. And I have found that those who have hammered me hardest on Creation issues have often enlightened me the most on other questions. Now into the fray.... As you've begun to discover, the only unpardonable sin is to question the historicity of the creation story. It is not enough to know that God predated the universe and personally created it out of nothing. Nor is it enough to know that God's Creation was perfect or to know that sin entered this perfect world through the lies of Satan and the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Nor is it sufficient to know that Jesus' ultimate defeat of Satan was foretold at the moment of his greatest victory. No; for many there is a further requirement that one must know the exact mechanism and timing of certain events during the process. The prevailing wisdom on the forum is that if one questions the literal interpretation that it took God precisely 144 hours - no more, no less - then one automatically rejects the rest of the Bible or arbitrarily picks and chooses what one wishes to believe. Few here seem to be bothered by the fact that the Bible itself does not claim to be a source of scientific knowledge. Yet in this and the surrounding verses, Paul has summarized the only purpose that the Bible claims for itself. The assertion of scientific accuracy is of man, not Scripture. Over the years, I have developed a simple test of whether the historicity of any Genesis passage is really important: If the story as related in Genesis were different or inaccurate, would it contradict what the whole of the Bible teaches us about God? For example, if God had actually just grounded Satan for a week, or given Adam and Eve a second chance, or killed Satan on the spot, it would change what the rest of the Bible teaches about God. If God took two weeks or two centuries or two billion years to create the universe, it would still be his creation and would contracdict nothing elsewhere in the Bible. A different period of time would still be consistent with everything else the Bible teaches and would still fall within this passage's definition of what the Bible is meant to do - lead us to Jesus. As long as God did it, it does not matter to me how he went about it or how long he took. In this way, I have come to understand that Adam and Eve were indeed historical people and that the events in the Garden must have taken place. Much of the Bible would have to be ignored if Adam and Eve were not real people. Not so with 6 24-hour days. And, no, I am not making God out to be a liar. I am making God out to be a loving father who is more interested in conveying spiritual truths - on which hang our salvation - than giving lectures in physics or cosmology. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
599 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32133 | ||
Greetings, Tim the other Indy; Reasoning backwards from what the Bible as a whole says, one has little choice but to accept that Adam and Eve were historical persons with the special roles and characteristics the Bible describes. The most obvious instance, of course, was Jesus' reference to them in Matthew 19:4-5. As I said, I see the Bible as God's record of his interactions with humanity. From Adam and Eve forward, historicity matters because God chose to reveal himself in the lives of real people. But if Adam had thrown on a three-piece suit instead of fig leaves, it wouldn't matter. The creation of the universe, however, took place before there was any history for God to intervene in and before there were any human lives to touch. Like the difference between a suit and a fig-leaf, the difference between 144 hours and 14 billion years is irrelevant to understanding the attributes of God or the work of Jesus. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
600 | Infallibility of the Bible questioned. | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 32178 | ||
Hi, Tim; Hope you got your beauty rest. ;-) Sunday's a busy day, I know. I think the difference is in the method, the reasoning backwards. If one built one's entire worldview and theology on a literal reading of Genesis 1 and worked forward to belief in Jesus, any doubts about that interpretation could bring the whole edifice down. But I've said before that I believe in the Bible because I believe in Jesus, not the other way around. As I work my way back in time from Jesus' earthly ministry, I eventually encounter the historical Adam and Eve. With them I also encounter the beginning of human history, the first eyewitnesses to God's actions, the introduction of sin into a perfect world, the first foreshadowing of Jesus, the introduction of Satan, and the first pronouncement of his ultimate fate. These things cannot be denied. As I continue backwards from there, the next significant thing I encounter is "In the begining, God". I can't find any theological importance in the duration or manner of creation, so I don't see any reason to assume scientific rigor in the Bible's description. You may be interested to know that for most of my Christian life, I doubted the historicity of Adam and Eve. I was perfectly content with the notion that Jesus simply built on his Father's parable when he referred to them in his discussion of marriage. But I evenrually realized that I could not get around Paul's contrasting of Jesus to Adam. If Adam didn't really exist, that part of Paul's theology would simply be wrong. Since I believe beyond doubt that God inspired Paul's theology, it couldn't be wrong. So Adam must have existed. This proves I am teachable. ;-) And plaase note that I am not insisting on my reading of Genesis 1. As in the recent "Judas in hell" debate, I think there is room for differing views without doing harm to any aspect of Christian theology or the authority of Scripture. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones who fervently hopes God agrees that the renewing and restorative power of the Sabbath can be accomplished through watching football playoff games. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 ] Next > Last [33] >> |