Results 101 - 120 of 221
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Explain the Holy Trinity-verysimple form | Numbers | Jesusman | 103669 | ||
But I did hear that from Hank Henegraf. If you don't believe me, call him yourself and ask him. 1-800-ask-hank. That's the number to his radio program. Call about 5 pm central time. You say that it's not a difficult concept. If so, then I must think that you don't fully understand it to begin with. The trinity isn't merely a family, a group, or some team wirking together. The Bible describes God as one single being. I used the term "person" because it conveys the same meaning. However, The Bible also describes The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as each being separate beings, or persons. The Bible further tells us that all three of these eternally distinct beings are the one and the same God. How do you resolve that? There is not one single "thing" in nature that even comes close to reflecting this. This is a concept beyond human understanding. The Trinity isn't a family like yours is. The Tinity isn't a group like AARP or the MOOSE lodge. The Trinity isn't a sports team like the Yankees. Hank describes the Trinity as three "Who's" in one "What". That, I have found, is the simplest and easiest to understand of every analogy, example, and formula that I have ever heard. I have heard the Trinity described as an Egg, A person with multiple personality disorder, a human with multiple responsibilities to multiple people, a sports team, and on and on it goes. All of them have their problems. Even Henegraf's example has it's flaws, but it's also the simplest, and closest to what the Bible teaches. Jesusman |
||||||
102 | must be theologians? | Numbers | Jesusman | 103676 | ||
Hello, Sorry to be blunt, but you are one mixed up person. How else is one supposed to know God and his will except he first study the Bible? The Bible isn't called the Word of God for publicity purposes. You claim that you don't study the Bible, and you also claim that we should not study it. If so, then you must not be familiar with Paul's command to study the Bible. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved, a workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. "Theologians" quote "Study to show thyself approved", because it's in the Bible. Look it up for yourself. In fact, let's take this a step further. Why did Paul praise the Berean church? They examined the scriptures daily. Look it up in Acts 17:10-15. While your at it, look up what John says in 1 John 4:1 Beloved do not believe every spirit, but test the spirit to see whether they are of God. How do you test except through studying the Bible? I do call your post ignorance. Why? Simply because you throw out one of the basic commands of the Bible. Also, you have your terms mixed up, you don't know what a theologian is, let alone what he does, and you even denied known biblical passages. It's apparent that you are either ignorant or heretical. Which is it? I do appologize for the bluntness, but something needed to be said. You prayed that people be granted wisdom and knowledge from God, yet said that one should not study God's word. You said that we should not listen to theologians, yet you expect us to heed your words. You accuse theologians of making up words, turning to the greek and hebrew, and say that it is confusing and non helpful. However, you seem to want clarification on "biblical words" such as sanctification. Where do you think the idea of sancitfication comes from except through the study of the original Greek and Hebrew? Aixen, your post is filled with contradictions, and misconceptions. Jesusman |
||||||
103 | must be theologians? | Numbers | Jesusman | 103709 | ||
Hello, Yes, You still sound mixed up. First off, What's so strange about my name? Never heard of Jesus? Secondly, What is the big difference between "study" and "Search"? They seem like one and the same to me. "Search"? "Study"? What difference does it make as long as you get into the word of God? You're splitting hairs over nothing. Jesusman |
||||||
104 | New Gender-Neutral NIV | 2 Sam 7:28 | Jesusman | 32447 | ||
Hello Hank, To do a gender neutral version would be going against Scripture. Let me explain what would be involved to make the Bible gender neutral. In the hebrew, there is no neuter gender form. The only genders are masculine and feminine. To make a gender neutral translation, you would have to redesign the language of hebrew, and create a whole new set of paradigms for the neuter gender. In greek, you do have a neuter gender, along with the masculine and feminine genders, but the neuter only accomodates a percentage of the language. To make the greek gender neutral, you will have to rewrite the entire greek vocabulary to reflect the neuter forms. This was explained to me by a man who was on the original translation committee for the NIV: Dr. W. Harold Mare. He was, when we last talked, adamantly opposed to the NIV becoming Gender neutral. Jesusman |
||||||
105 | verse Bible- contains all letters but J | Ezra 7:21 | Jesusman | 50855 | ||
It does have the "B" in it. In the word, "Scribe". Also, it's the KJV that this verse has no "J" in it. Jesusman |
||||||
106 | verse Bible- contains all letters but J | Ezra 7:21 | Jesusman | 50856 | ||
Look in the King James. Jesusman |
||||||
107 | verse Bible- contains all letters but J | Ezra 7:21 | Jesusman | 50858 | ||
Hello again, Even in the NASB, Look at the verse carefully. I, even I, (K)ing (A)rtaxer(x)es, issue a (d)ecree t(o) all the treasurers w(h)o are (i)n the provinces beyond the River, that whatever (E)(z)ra the (p)riest, the s(c)ri(b)e o(f) the (l)a(w) of (t)he (G)od of hea(v)e(n), (m)ay (r)e(q)uire of (y)o(u), it (s)hall be done diligently, See? All the letters of the Alphabet besides "J". In fact, How could you miss the letter "B" when there are 2 of them in the verse? Now let's look at your verse in the NASB. 1 Chron. 29:2 Now with (a)ll my a(b)ility I have provided for the house of my God the gold for the t(h)ings of (g)old, and the s(i)lver for the things of silver, and the bron(z)e f(o)r the things of bronze, the iron (f)or th(e) things of iron, and (w)ood for (t)he things of woo(d), o(n)y(x) stones and inlaid stones, stones of anti(m)on(y) and stones of (v)ario(u)s (c)olors, and a(l)l (k)inds of (p)recious (s)tones and alabaste(r) in abundance. OOPS!!! Missing the Letter "Q" as well as "J". Jesusman |
||||||
108 | verse Bible- contains all letters but J | Ezra 7:21 | Jesusman | 50859 | ||
Okay, then where is the "Q"? Jesusman |
||||||
109 | time? | Ecclesiastes | Jesusman | 37810 | ||
Hello, In the Hebrew, the verbs are formed in various "stems". These are similar in function to the Greek tenses. In matters of prophecy, a majority of the verbs used are in a past tense with implications in the future. Hebrew doesn't have a future tense like the Greek. They do have one that functions similar to the Greek aorist tense. IN the Aorist, it is past tense most of the time, but under certain circumstances it can carry a future meaning. This is how the Hebrew stem in question functions. I would like to give the name of this stem, but I don't have my hebrew materials handy. I think it's the Pu'al stem, but I'm not certain. I'll look it up. That's the grammerical side. Now, theologically, God has told the prophets that these events will happen at one time or another. With that, and the nature of God that He cannot lie, It is only fitting to place the prophecies in a past tense. In the eyes of God, these events have already happened, as it were. Jesusman |
||||||
110 | time? | Ecclesiastes | Jesusman | 37840 | ||
Hello, Don't worry. It took me a while to grasp it also. When I started to look at it from a perspective similar to God's, then it began to make sense. Jesusman |
||||||
111 | Did God create evil? | Is 45:7 | Jesusman | 88801 | ||
Are you sure that God created Evil? You do realize don't you that there is a difference between "creating" Evil, and "permitting" Evil? All that God created is "Good". Why? Because God is good. He is truly Just, Holy, and Righteous. That is taught everywhere in the Bible. Sin is everything that is opposite of God. God cannot create anything that he is opposite of himself. Second, How can God be the perfect and righteous Judge of all if he is evil? How can he set laws of right and wrong if he is evil? Since when does an evil person obey the laws? See my point? As for the passage you chose, Are you sure that "Darkness" is refering to "Evil"? Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
112 | Did God create evil? | Is 45:7 | Jesusman | 88837 | ||
No, After creation there was only Good. Somtime after Creation, Satan exherted his own desires in a vain attempt to be like God. God then kicked him out of heaven. Lucifer became lustful over God's power, and attempted to take it for himself. After Lucifer fell, he then tempted Adam and Eve to sin. When Adam disobeyed God, Sin then entered into the World. God did not create Evil and Sin. He permitted it. Satan created evil, and sin. Jesusman |
||||||
113 | during the 3 days? | Matthew | Jesusman | 195348 | ||
Sorry, I'll have to disagree here. Jesus tells us very clearly where he will be during the period between his death and resurrection. Luke 23:43 And he said to him (the criminal with him), "Truly I say to you, Today you shall be with Me in Paradise." Jesus tells the thief on the cross that both he and Jesus will be in paradise. Why would he lie and go to hell instead? The verses stated above by the previous contributor no more supports the idea of Jesus going to hell and facing off against Satan for the keys of hell, than it supports Bush for president. The idea that Jesus went to hell and faught satan for the keys during the three days before the resurrection can't be fully supported by Scripture. The resurrection of Jesus solidifed his power over death and life both. Matthew 12:40, specifically 12:38-45, is a passage about Jesus foretelling his death. However, he says nothing or eludes to nothing to indicate that he will head to hell and face off against Satan for a set of keys. In fact, the first honest mention about any keys over hell is in Revelation 1:18. There is nothing mentioned in scripture to indicate that anyone except God ever had possession of them. From the time Jesus died and was buried until the time he rose from the grave, his body was in the tomb and his spirit was in Paradise. There is nothing mentioned to state otherwise. Jesusman |
||||||
114 | during the 3 days? | Matthew | Jesusman | 195359 | ||
What Jesus told Mary still doesn't imply that Jesus went to hell to fight Satan over a set of house keys. Jesus is implying that what time he has left here will be short. He's trying to get Mary to stop clinging to him and gather his followers and friends together. Remember, Jesus promised to send someone to be their comforter. It wouldn't be him, but the Holy Spirit. Jesus had a few final lessons and commands to issue in order to prepare the flegling church for the arrival of the Holy Spirit. Jesusman |
||||||
115 | during the 3 days? | Matthew | Jesusman | 195361 | ||
This teaching is also prevalent among dispensationalists as well. Scofield and Ryrie both spread the idea that Jesus went to hell and fought Satan over these keys. A Closer look at the verses you sited reveals that Paul is talking about the power of Jesus's crucifixion, and the authority in Christ. On a side note, people like Copeland, Hagin, and Hinn have about as much biblical truth in their teachings as the Sunday Morning newspaper. Their butchering of the scriptural context is horrible. Jesusman |
||||||
116 | during the 3 days? | Matthew | Jesusman | 195366 | ||
Scofield more so than Ryrie, but Ryrie was dispensational. As for the different opinions, if you look at them closely, many of them are arguing the same point, just from different perspectives. Jesusman |
||||||
117 | during the 3 days? | Matthew | Jesusman | 195405 | ||
Greetings Tron613, We commanded by John in 1 john 4:1 to not believe everyone who claims to be of God, but to put them to the test. Paul told Timothy to study. in Acts 17:11, Paul and Silas were at the church in Berea, and the congregation was comparing what they were taught against the scriptures. We are under the mandate to make sure that everything we teach in God's name and from God's word is done so truthfully and accurately. Jesus himself even said that if we witness a brother sinning, then to confront that brother. In this case, scripture was being taken out of context, and false doctrine was being taught. It is the duty of every Christian to ensure that the Bible is taught with the utmost accuracy. Now, in reguard to my comment about "butchering" the Scripture, the WoF leaders, such as Hagee, Hinn, Copeland, and others do just that. This morning, I watched a portion of Hagee's sermons on the TV before I went to church. In the time span of only 5 minutes, he misquoted the Bible 4 times. After that, I changed the channel. This is supposed to be a trained biblical scholar, and he got the story of Adam and Eve totally backwards. So .. Yes, we do have the authority to question any teaching that is supposed to be about the Bible, and to test it against scripture. Yes, we do have the authority to correct the false teachers. If they correct their ways, then Jesus tells us to welcome them. If they refuse, then ultimately, they are to be shunned. I have no problems with any questionable or controversal teaching, so long as it can be accurately supported by scripture. I also have beliefs that some concider controversal. I also strive to accurately support every belief with scripture, not resorting to taking scripture out of context to support any of my claims. Jesusman |
||||||
118 | during the 3 days? | Matthew | Jesusman | 195409 | ||
Its becoming clear that the best we can do is to agree to disagree. When I hear or see false doctrine being taught, I am greatly offended. Why? Because I have devoted my life to the studying and understanding of the Bible. If I have a means of speaking out against false teachers, I do. If I have a means to correct the false teaching, I do just that. Taking no action is as much of a sin in my eyes as teaching these falsehoods myself. If no action is taken, then these false teachings will pass onto others, and will spread wildly. If anyone has problems with what I teach, then by all means, grab a Bible and let's talk it out. jesusman |
||||||
119 | during the 3 days? | Matthew | Jesusman | 195427 | ||
Let me clarify what I am saying with something that happened to a friend of mine. I had a friend that worked at a bank for several years. Most of the time, he was a teller, handling money. One day, he was invited by the Bank manager to go to the local federal reserve to count money all day. All he did during the period was count money that was fresh off the printers. He did this for a week straight, 8 hours a day. Over and over again. When he got back to the bank the next week, he began counting out money for a customer and stopped. He set a bill aside and pulled another out to replace it. He took the bill he set aside to his bank manage and told him it was a counterfit bill. The bank manager asked how he knew. My friend told him that he had counted the real thing over and over for a week straight. He knew it was counterfit because it didn't feel like the others. A christian who has been faithfull in his walk with christ will be studying and praying continuously. He won't have to study and pray further because as soon as a false teaching comes to him, he'll know it instantly. It doesn't matter who presenting the false teaching. I don't care if it is the Pope himself. If what they are teaching is contrary to the Bible, and if I have a means to communicate with them, I will tell them. I will also show them why their teaching is wrong with scriptural support. If I don't have a means to communicate with them, but can do so to the ones listening to the false teachings, I will counter with the true and scriptural message. Jesusman |
||||||
120 | What was the point of the temptation ? | Matt 4:1 | Jesusman | 193118 | ||
But you are forgetting one small detail. Jesus, while on earth, was not in his full glory. Paul tells us in one of his epistles that Jesus limited himself, Phillipian 2:1-11. Let me ask you this. Can God die? He can .. and did .. on the cross. God should not be able to die, yet he did. Am I saying that Jesus was a sinner? Definitely no .. far from it. I am saying that in order for this to be a genuine temptation, there had to be a risk of giving in, even if it's a small miniscule chance. Jesus did not have the sinful nature that we have. Adam didn't have our sinful nature that we have. However, Adam sinned. He wasn't sinful born like us. He was created perfect and holy, yet fell to temptation. Jesus, like Adam, came into this world perfect and holy. He remained that way. Jesus succeeded and endured where Adam failed. Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [12] >> |