Results 1421 - 1440 of 1443
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1421 | Multitude is all tribulation believers? | Rev 7:7 | Emmaus | 66056 | ||
Chusarcik, I believe in the Tribulation since it is scriptural. If pressed would probably say post trib, because I believe when Jesus comes again it will be only once more, not twice more. Emmaus |
||||||
1422 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Emmaus | 84706 | ||
Freethinker, The answer to your good question is that we who believe are bound to proclaim the Gospel and draw others to Christ. That does not mean that God is also not at work in ways known only to Himself and in ways that we may not be able to do nor even perceive Him doing. Below are two paragraphs which explain my understanding of the answer to your questions. For some other Christian where you see baptism below they might substitute profession of faith. "1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.[John 3:5] He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.[Matt 28:19-20] Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.[Mark 16:16] The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. 1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery." Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." The Catechism of the Catholic Church Emmaus |
||||||
1423 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Emmaus | 84727 | ||
Read more closely. Nothing quoted contradicts John 3:5 or 14:6, but only says that they may be fulfilled in ways unseen to us but known to God and accomplished by God in the heart of an individual in the briefest momment of grace not discernable to others. | ||||||
1424 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Emmaus | 84731 | ||
"Jesus said that no one goes to the Father but through him. How does someone, who because of where the were born, raised, and died, and does not know Jesus get to heaven?" How do you know Jesus does not make Himself known to them at the moment of their death and let them make a decision? It is still through Jesus. |
||||||
1425 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Emmaus | 84734 | ||
Of course if as you stated in a previous post, you are a non believer, any explaination is a moot point. Faith is a gift. It is not something that can be aquired by study or knowledge alone or delivered to another by a convincing argumnet or explaination. Those thinks may lead a person to the brink of faith or enhance one's faith, but faith itself is by the grace of God alone. Don't ask others for the proof, ask God for the gift. The proof is in the pudding they say. "Taste and see" Psalm 34:8 "Be still and know that I am God." Psalm 46:10. You asked for 1 kings 18. How about 1 Kings 19:12? |
||||||
1426 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Emmaus | 84736 | ||
How do you know Ceasar or Herod or Alexander or anybody else who died before you existed existed? By faith my friend, because of what has been passed down to you. Faith and reason are not at odds with one another, neither are they the same. They are both gifts, but complementary gifts. No one can make another believe in God by argument or "proof" alone. Never happened, never will. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can not make him drink." On the other hand, if a thirsty horse finds water there is nothing you can do to keep him from drinking. |
||||||
1427 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Emmaus | 84738 | ||
There are non Christan sources from apostolic times that attest to Jesus' existence. Which is all the more remarkable since he lived such an obscure life. But why should you be allowed to discount Christian sources attesting to Jesus' existence? Why is their testimony, for which we have more ancient manuscripts than almost any other historical personage of the same era, discounted as proof of existence. Could it be a double standard? You can't even prove, in the sense you are talking about, that your own great great great grand mother existed, except by the fact of your own existence. And I can use the same argument for a Creator from the very fact of the existence of creation and your own existence for that matter. |
||||||
1428 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Emmaus | 84740 | ||
"Am I evil for wanting/seeking the truth? If there is a God, he is the one that gave me this mind!" Can there be "evil" if there is no God? Without an absolute God isn't everthing relative? Can you prove you have a "mind"? Is it something more than the electrical and chemical reactions in your brain? If you believe it is more than that, how can you prove it? What exactly is your mind? Is it purely physical or is it something more? How do we acquire knowledge? Your questions are not "evil", nor is seeking the truth. But some truth come by revelation which requires faith. Some revelations are religious and they require discernment and faith because they are not purely physical. But your expressed belief in your own mind is an expression of faith in something you can not see, but which you know is realfrom experience. Still it is not evil to test one's perceptions which can be incomplete or misleading at time, and eaxt and truthful at other times. I think we are getting far afield from the purpose of this forum, which is the study of the Bible, so I will leave off here. Thank you for the conversation. God bless you in your searching. |
||||||
1429 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Emmaus | 84742 | ||
See: Jesus Under Fire, Michael Wilkins and J.P. Moreland which has a chapter that shows all of the sources outside the Bible that attest to the exstence of Jesus. Or see: Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" which cites among others: Tacitus, Lucian, Flavius Josephus, Seutonius, Plinius Secundus and several of the Jewish Talmuds mention details of Christ's life and death. And please tell me why you reject Christian writers of the epistles and Gospels regarding the mere existence (not the divinity) of Jesus, but accept the writings of people who lived 1900 years later as more reliable sources about what happened in Jesus' time? The skeptics very own writing start from the point of the bible? Were they just shadow boxing? Are you applying a double standard? You seem willing to swallow a camel but are straining at a gnat. Is it really more likely that Jesus did not even exist, than it is that He did, given the course of history? Keep searching for the Truth Freethinker. The truth will set you free. Good night. |
||||||
1430 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | Emmaus | 84744 | ||
I said "You can't even prove, in the sense you are talking about, that your own great great great grand mother existed, except by the fact of your own existence." You said: "Again you are going off track. My great great great grand mother is not said to have the power to come and go as she pleases. We know and understand how procreation works and since I was born before test tube babys, it is easy to deduce that she existed." You either completely missed my pointed or did not comprehend it. And when you quoyed me you left out the very sentence which made my point. Logical decuction is not the phsyical proof you are demanding here. In fact I made the same logical deduction about the existence of God, which was the portion of my post that you chose not to quote. |
||||||
1431 | Profets killed then go back to heaven | Rev 11:1 | Emmaus | 150440 | ||
No. | ||||||
1432 | destroy 1/3 of the population? | Rev 12:4 | Emmaus | 79961 | ||
Timla6, Revelation 9:18 Emmaus |
||||||
1433 | Where in the Bible? | Rev 12:9 | Emmaus | 64341 | ||
Salt, I think you have to look at the style Rev 12 and for that matter all of Revelation for what it is: apocalyptic. That means it is highly symbolic and many passages can have polyvalent or more than one level interpretation. So, for example, Rev 12 may be interpreted as Satan being cast out of heaven before the creation of man, being cast down by the power of the death and Resurrection of Christ and or being cast down finally at the end of this age when Christ returns. You could see that there was a battle in heaven before the creation of man, an ongoing battle until Satan was defeated by Christ's death and Resurection, which severely impinges on his power here on earth, though he still rages on against Christ's followers, until the final battle and humilition at the end Second Coming. Job is written in a different style. It is a dramatic poem. Satan means accuser. So Satan is described as one of the angels, a very cynical one about man and Job in particular. The whole setting of God's court is anthropmorpized and represented like an oriental king's court. Satan is presented as one of his agents (angels) who keeps tabs on things throughout the kingdom. The Hebrew concept of the devil was not very developed at the time Job was written. And God in Job feels no need to explain what happened or why to Job. He just makes it clear that He is in control and He does not have to explain Himself. Notice that satan, which should be taken as a description of what he does rather than as a name in this situation, disappears from the picture completely after Job 2 when Job is smitten with bodily afflictions. All of this takes place after the Fall in Eden, so obviously Lucifer had already been cast down to the earth. But it is interesting to not that in Genesis the tempter is described as a serpent, but not specifically as a fallen angel. Hewbrew theology about evil and how it comes about grew over time. But back to Rev 12:10. It says that Satan, the accuser, was cast down. But we know he still accuses us and tempts us to sin. Since God is omnipresent, Satan can continue to accuse us before God, just as we can call on God for assistance in prayer.And in the risen and ascended Christ we have an Advocate (1 John 2:1-2)more powerful than Satan the accuser can ever or will ever be. I would not want to say what is "generally held," but this would be brief version of how I see it. I hope it helps clarify things a little for you rather than making them more confusing. Emmaus |
||||||
1434 | Whose will causes a believer to sin? | Rev 13:8 | Emmaus | 88211 | ||
"Whether man has free-will? Objection 1. It would seem that man has not free-will. For whoever has free-will does what he wills. But man does not what he wills; for it is written (Rm. 7:19): "For the good which I will I do not, but the evil which I will not, that I do." Therefore man has not free-will. Objection 2. Further, whoever has free-will has in his power to will or not to will, to do or not to do. But this is not in man's power: for it is written (Rm. 9:16): "It is not of him that willeth "namely, to will nor of him that runneth" namely, to run. Therefore man has not free-will. Objection 3. ...What is moved by another is not free. But God moves the will, for it is written (Prov. 21:1): "The heart of the king is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever He will He shall turn it" and (Phil. 2:13): "It is God Who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish." Therefore man has not free-will. Objection 4. Further, whoever has free-will is master of his own actions. But man is not master of his own actions: for it is written (Jer. 10:23): "The way of a man is not his: neither is it in a man to walk." Therefore man has not free-will. ... I answer that, Man has free-will: otherwise counsels, exhortations, commands, prohibitions, rewards, and punishments would be in vain. In order to make this evident, we must observe that some things act without judgment; as a stone moves downwards; and in like manner all things which lack knowledge. And some act from judgment, but not a free judgment; as brute animals. For the sheep, seeing the wolf, judges it a thing to be shunned, from a natural and not a free judgment, because it judges, not from reason, but from natural instinct. And the same thing is to be said of any judgment of brute animals. But man acts from judgment, because by his apprehensive power he judges that something should be avoided or sought. But because this judgment, in the case of some particular act, is not from a natural instinct, but from some act of comparison in the reason, therefore he acts from free judgment and retains the power of being inclined to various things. For reason in contingent matters may follow opposite courses, as we see in dialectic syllogisms and rhetorical arguments. Now particular operations are contingent, and therefore in such matters the judgment of reason may follow opposite courses, and is not determinate to one. And forasmuch as man is rational is it necessary that man have a free-will. Reply to Objection 1. As we have said above, the sensitive appetite, though it obeys the reason, yet in a given case can resist by desiring what the reason forbids. This is therefore the good which man does not when he wishes--namely, "not to desire against reason," as Augustine says. Reply to Objection 2. Those words of the Apostle are not to be taken as though man does not wish or does not run of his free-will, but because the free-will is not sufficient thereto unless it be moved and helped by God. Reply to Objection 3. Free-will is the cause of its own movement, because by his free-will man moves himself to act. But it does not of necessity belong to liberty that what is free should be the first cause of itself, as neither for one thing to be cause of another need it be the first cause. God, therefore, is the first cause, Who moves causes both natural and voluntary. And just as by moving natural causes He does not prevent their acts being natural, so by moving voluntary causes He does not deprive their actions of being voluntary: but rather is He the cause of this very thing in them; for He operates in each thing according to its own nature. Reply to Objection 4. "Man's way" is said "not to be his" in the execution of his choice, wherein he may be impeded, whether he will or not. The choice itself, however, is in us, but presupposes the help of God. ... Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 13 th century. Ah, those terrible Middle Ages." Emmaus |
||||||
1435 | Please explain Revelation 14:12 ? | Rev 14:1 | Emmaus | 83988 | ||
Norrie, My answer would be to go to the words of Jesus in Matthew 25 which is a continuation of the "little Apocalypse" in Matt 24. Jesus makes it clear what kind of works follow the saints. "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, "Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me." Then the righteous will answer him and say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?" And the king will say to them in reply, "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me." Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me." Then they will answer and say, "Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?" He will answer them, "Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me." And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." Matthew 25:31-46. Emmaus |
||||||
1436 | Put in Your [sic] sickle and reap? | Rev 14:15 | Emmaus | 110206 | ||
Ray, You give away your position by the "One" in your question on Is 63:1. But this one is easy because it is a dramatic dialogue between God and the prophet and God explains that "it is I." Emmaus |
||||||
1437 | Put in Your [sic] sickle and reap? | Rev 14:15 | Emmaus | 110217 | ||
Ray, I thought I indicated in my previous post that it sa is God, Yaweh to Isaiah, but a foreshadowing of Christ as seen in Rev 19:13. The Word of God is the revelation of the Father, John 1:1, 14; 1 John 2:14. Emmaus |
||||||
1438 | Compare Rev 16:17 with John 19:30? | Rev 16:17 | Emmaus | 46523 | ||
Momapbs, Those who bow down in liturgical celebrations are bowing down to the Lord. It may seem strange to those who are from a non liturgcal tradition, but it is perfectly natural to those who worship the Lord in a liturgical manner. On the other hand Evangelical "altar calls" may make those who worship liturgically somewhat uncomfortable. One might ask what "altar" are they being called to, especially in a Church that does not believe in sacrificial worship and may not even have an altar? The answer of course for both Evangelical and liturgical worshipers is the heavenly altar before the throne of God referred to in Hebrews 9:11-30 and Rev 4 and 5 and 6:9 and 8:1-4 and Rev 11:1. It is no accident that John had his vison of liturgical worship in heaven on the Lord's Day. The pattern of Liturgical worship is closely related to what John describes in Revelation. Liturgical worship is done in form that expresses the prayer that God's "will (including worship) be done on earth as it is in heaven." The opening prayer to the old latin Mass was "I will go to the altar of God," from Psalm 43:4" And we later pray, "Lift up your hearts! We lift them up to the Lord!" That is, like John in Revelation, we go to the altar of God in heaven and lift up our hearts to God in heaven and make ourselves present to the one eternal sacrifice of Jesus in heaven, sometimes on our knees and sometimes with a profound bow and sometimes standing. I presume that the person responding to an "altar call" in an Evangelical church is being called to do the same after he has given his life to Christ, although it may not look the same outwardly. Emmaus |
||||||
1439 | who is the great whore in rev chap 17. | Rev 17:1 | Emmaus | 41943 | ||
Elizabeth, "On the other hand the Vatican is not a superpower in these end-time days." The Vatican is also not on the seven hills. Vatican hill is across the Tiber River from the seven hills of ancient Rome. Emmaus |
||||||
1440 | Searching for the truth | Rev 20:11 | Emmaus | 90040 | ||
FytRobert, "According to the Bible, a wicked and sinful man will be punished in hell after death.But his physical body will decay and return to earth over a period of time, then what will go to hell for punishment?" What do death and the sea and Hades give up in Rev 20:13 if not the bodies of the dead to be united with their spirits just as the bodies of the just are resurrected to be rejoined to their spirits or sould. The difference is where the just and the unjust then go for all eternity. Maybe I am missing something in your question. I seem to be seeing something in this passage that you are not seeing. Emmaus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 ] Next > Last [73] >> |