Results 201 - 220 of 221
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | sharing our faith to unbelievers so hard | 1 Cor 1:18 | Jesusman | 199461 | ||
Fine .. I guess I am a false prophet I have tried hard to teach others to resist. Good bye. You won't see me on here again. | ||||||
202 | sharing our faith to unbelievers so hard | 1 Cor 1:18 | Jesusman | 199738 | ||
Greetings, I do forgive you, John. I take my faith very seriously. I also strive very hard to not cloud my views of the Bible with anything beyond what the original writers intended. I try very hard to put myself into their shoes and understand the Bible from their perspective. History, archeology, and science aid in that. When I teach others about the Bible, I share with them what history, apart from the Bible says about christ, as well as offer up resources they can research as well. Let me close by asking this. In college, high school, and graduate studies, and even beyond, any form of research paper, report, or type written study requires a bibliography, or a works sited page. It is a sheet that lists all the books and resources referred to during the course of writting the Paper. If every person who persues such an assignment is required such documentation of their research, why should we, as christians, be exempt from also providing such resources? We aren't dealing with a simple 3 page report for a teacher in school, but the eternal existance of a person's soul. I would rather give them the information they need about God and the Bible and even too much information, than to have them walk away with questions and not enough information about God and the Bible. Jesusman |
||||||
203 | sharing our faith to unbelievers so hard | 1 Cor 1:18 | Jesusman | 199789 | ||
Is there some huge falicy in supporting what you teach others? Is it some giant sin that I'm not aware of? In the course of this discussion, I've been accused of throwing the Bible away, speaking for God, not trusting God, even so far as not having Faith in God, and worse. Quite frankly, I'm tired of it. What happened to research and study? What happened with trying to pull out every ounce of understanding from a passage of scripture? This is a "STUDY" Bible forum isn't it? Or have I been going to the wrong place for the past few years? Studying the Bible involves more than reading a text from the bible and praying about it. Hermaneutics is the study into the background of the Bible. Exegesis is a study into the context and language of the text and pulling out the meaning. Apologetics is defending the faith against other religions and beliefs. All of these areas involve not simply reading the text of scripture, but also involves the history and culture of the land and time surrounding and pertaining to the text of scripture. My entire original point at the start of this mess was to simply incorporate that level of study into your witness. Adding in some additional truths and support that may not be found in the Bible, but will help support the Bible isn't wrong. You're not speaking for God, throwing the Bible away, or anything of the sort. So where's the Big huge sin???? Jesusman |
||||||
204 | sharing our faith to unbelievers so hard | 1 Cor 1:18 | Jesusman | 199796 | ||
Scripture is the sole authority in God's revelation to man. God reveals his will to us through the proper interpretation and understanding of Scripture. However, to fully understand and interpret scripture, it is also important to understand the events, culture, history, and people that influenced the Bible. There are subtleties and changes in meaning with the words and phrases that have taken place over the centuries. There are phrases and idioms in the Bible that would normally make sense only to the intended original audience. Studying the history and science behind the scripture helps shine light on these meanings. The Bible was inspired by God, but it was human hands that transcribed it. It's not enough to ask "What does the Scripture mean to me?" and "What is God trying to say to me?" You need to also ask "What was God trying to say to them?", "What did the Scripture mean to the ones who first read it?" and "What did the Scripture mean to the one who first transcribed it?" There is more to scripture than just the message to you. Jesusman |
||||||
205 | Theology of Glory versus the Cross | 2 Tim 3:13 | Jesusman | 195162 | ||
There's nothing wrong with trying to motivate others to do better. Paul even tried to motivate others to do better in service to Christ. By what is presented here, I see nothing wrong with what is stated. What is the context of the excerpt from Osteen? Did he site any passages from scripture? Context applies to more than just scripture, but to all things we experience. There's not enough given here to dictate one way or another. Jesusman |
||||||
206 | Discussion of Heb 2:9 and I John 2:2 | Heb 2:9 | Jesusman | 31131 | ||
Hello, I have long given up in trying to understand the thinking of Calvinism. While I agree with parts of it, I find it difficult to accept Calvinism fully. From the reading of the two verses, It sounds like you are questioning the Calvinistic belief that Christ died for the elect only. Correct? I have argued this over and over with many Calvinists, and the reply I recieve is always the same. I personally believe that Christ died for the Sins of every person. He had to, or else his job would've been only half completed, and death would not have been fully conquired. Also, in Revelation 20, you have the scene before God, where the final judgement takes place. It is recorded that all people are there before God. In another passage (I don't remember where), it says that God cannot be in the presence of Sin. Now, how can God and every person who has ever lived be in the same place at the same time, especially in heaven? The only answer I have been able to find is that Jesus died and paid for the sins of every person, and that we are responsible for accepting that payment. If not, we pay for it ourselves with our souls. I am not saying that every person is saved, but that the overall debt to sin was paid for on the Cross, and it then becomes a matter of whether you'll accept this payment, or pay the debt on your own. I attempt to back this up with passages that refer to Christ dying for all of mankind, like John 3, these that you have listed, and others. Now, for the Calvinist response I keep getting. As for the term "everyone", "whole world", "mankind", and etc, they'll tell me that it is a generalization. It doesn't mean every single individual. Christ died for mankind as a whole, not for every individual in mankind. Such is the case for these verses. An example that some have used to clarify this is talking about a person who travels a lot. Sometimes we will talk about that person and say something like, "He has been all over the World ...". Now, has this gentleman stepped onto every single square inch that is upon the globe, or has he been to a lot of places around the world? So, that is the answer I keep getting. I still disagree with it, but I keep getting it. I hope this helps. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
207 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | Jesusman | 36232 | ||
Hello, Just because someone didn't sit down and put pen to paper, and wrote down the concise doctrine of the trinity until after the New Testament period was done, does not mean that the Doctrine did not exist. For example, the scientific comunity didn't really formulate the laws surrounding many of the basic fuctions of nature until well into the 1800's. However, these same laws were seen and commented upon in the Bible. Most of these biblical comments are found in the later chapters of Job, which dates back to the time of Abraham. Now, since these scientific laws weren't written down until the 1800's, does that mean that these functions of nature did not happen before then? No, it means that no one took the time to write it down in a concise manner until then. Now, as with the Trinity Doctrine, it is seen all through out the Bible: Old and New Testament both. You asked about my comments about Denying the trinity is to deny Jesus as God in the Flesh. Simply this. The Doctrine of Jesus Christ as God in the flesh is universal within the christian community. This doctrine implies that Jesus was God in his earthly form. Now, when we read the gospels involving Jesus talking about or to God, he speaks of another person altogether. Jesus refers to himself as another person from The Father. He refers to the Holy Spirit as being different from himself and the Father. So, from Jesus' talks about The Father, we find that there are three aspects, essences, people, or whatever term you choose within the God-head. So, now we change gears to God being one God. Again, this doctrine cannot be denied because many verses come right out and declare it. So, when you put this all together, you have the doctrine of the Trinity. So, you see that the doctrine that Jesus is God in the flesh, a universal doctrine, is undeniably linked to the Doctrine of the trinity. Now, for the point about at hand, because of this link, you cannot pick one and deny another. When you reject the trinity doctrine, yet believe the Doctrine that Jesus was God in the flesh, you get a contradiction in theology. How can God be in heaven, as Jesus clearly says, while he is on the earth as Jesus? Does God have some cosmic form of Multiple personalities? The only way to smooth out this contradiction is the doctrine of the Trinity. That God, being one God, manifests himself as three (insert term here). Jesusman |
||||||
208 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | Jesusman | 36722 | ||
Hello, Tell me, how do you rectify the passages where Jesus speaks not only about God the Father, but to God the Father as well. Here you have God talking to God. Also, you have Jesus' statement in the Great Commission: "Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit". Jesus states three identities in which we are to Baptize in. It is clear that the Apostles believed in the Trinity. Look at Peter's sermon in Acts 2. In verse 33, Peter speaks about Jesus saying, "Therefore having been exalted to the righthand of God, and having recieved from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear." This verse supports that the Apostles believed in the Trinity. Paul, time and time again, speaks of blessing Both the Father and the Son in many of his introductions to his epistles. A clear sign that he believed in the Trinity. John the Beloved in 1 John 4 speaks of God the Father sending God the Son to earth in human form. Another sign that John the Beloved believed in the Trinity. So, the doctrine of the Trinity is all throughout the New Testament. As I said before, Just because someone didn't write it all down until later doesn't mean that no one believed it until then. I was beginning High School when I first picked up a superman comic and began drawing the pictures I saw in there. The first picture I drew was a picture of the Eradicator dressed as Superman from the Reign of the Supermen series that followed the Death of Superman series. I saw this picture of him, liked it, and drew a copy of just him without the background. Now, did I invent this Character when I drew him? No, he was already a part of the Story. Did I invent the suit he wore? No, someone else designed it. In fact, all I did was I copied someone else's design by free hand, meaning that I didn't trace it. The Eradicator was already an established character. He was an adversary of Superman some five years before this appearance. The Eradicator was a kryptonian computer hologram that was programed into Kal-El's shuttle with the program to re-create Krypton on what-ever planet the shuttle landed. It remained dormant until it was discovered. Superman defeated him by throwing him into the Sun. When Kal-El died, the robots from the Fortress of Solitude revived the Eradicator program to replace Superman. Later, the Eradicator played a key part in bringing Kal-El back to life. Now, did I invent this story just now? No, this was all thought up and written nearly 5-10 years ago. I have the comics at home to prove it. I just took the time to sum it up for you, just as the fore-fathers took the time to write down the Doctrine of the Trinity for the people of their times. Do you see my point? The doctrine of the trinity wasn't invented after the New testament period. It was written down, or summed up, as it were. It was believed by the Apostles and Jesus Christ well before someone wrote it all down. Jesusman |
||||||
209 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | Jesusman | 37339 | ||
So, are you saying that Jesus was able to switch his Godhood on and off like a light switch? Are there any verses that support that? The main problem I see with what you are saying is that it is saying that Jesus was in fact a blasphemer. The only way that Jesus could claim to be the "Son of God" and able to pray to him as a "Son" is if the "Son" with in the Godhead. So, when Jesus is praying to God. It isn't his humanity only that is praying, it is his unified Man and Godhood praying together within the role of God the Son praying to God the Father. Hebrews 1:1-4 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. It's clear that Jesus was perfectly God while still being perfectly Human, and that he didn't switch his deity on and off. He was always God and always human, even while he was praying. Therefore, Jesus had to be God the Son of the tri-une Godhead. ON top of that, you have Jesus living the perfect life, free from Sin. The only way he could remain that way, and become the perfect and final sacrifice was if he was fully God all throughout his life. If he kept switching between man and God, then he wouldn't have lived the sinless life because the human nature, described as sinful, would've lead him into sin. However, we know that that isn't the case. Therefore, Jesus was always fully God while still being fully Human, and thus being a member of the Trinity. Sola Scriptura is a very good basis to study from. Let scripture interpret Scipture. However, that does not mean that we should throw all other documents and resources out the window. Jesus commanded his followers to teach and make disciples. The early church fathers who sat down and wrote out the early concise forms of Christian doctrine were doing just that. They were teaching, and they continue to teach us today. To remain strictly "sola scriptura" would be self-defeating because your students would have to reject your biblical insights because it wouldn't be Scripture. There needs to be some form of supplimental resources to clarify the Scriptures. For that, we turn to those who lived and studied before us. I am not saying that these resources should replace the Bible in importance and supremicy. I'm saying that they shouldn't be rejected. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
210 | Do not conform! | 1 Pet 1:14 | Jesusman | 31379 | ||
Hello, I like the meaning for "Holy". "Hagios" in it's simplest meaning is "to be pure". It stems from cultic practices where the quality of one's worship of their deity was of supreme importance. The intension was to be so "holy" that you became divinity. I find it ironic that we, as Christians, are called not only to be Holy, but to live as Christ lived and to possess the mind that Christ possessed. Not only are we called just to be holy and pure, but to be as Holy and pure as christ is holy and pure. This even ties into the being made righteous, or sanctified, before God. In fact, "sanctified" and "Sanctuary" both have origins connected with "Hagios". There's a lot of doctrine in that little word, "hagios". Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
211 | why was this epistle written? | 1 John | Jesusman | 36020 | ||
Hello John, From your post, I gathered that you wanted a critique of sorts. I have viewed many of your posts. One thing that I have noticed is that you have a strong background into Doctrine and Scriptural interpretation. This is good. We should all be well versed in the Doctrines and the Scripture. However, there are other areas which would provide helpful insight into the meaning of the Scriptural texts. It is good that you are able to interpret the Sriptural truths into modern thinking through the benefit of the great theologins. However, a good understanding of biblical history is important as well. Remember, the original authors of the Bible weren't writing to the future Church. They were writing to a specified group in a specified time in a specified culture. The main thrust of Hermaneutics is to gain insight into that culture, audience, and time. For example, Let's look at the final point in Calvinism: Preservance of the Saints. From an interpretive view, the proofs for this point are found throughout the New Testament. Take 1 Peter 1:3-7 for instance. In this Passage, Peter clearly say that our inheritance is reserved for us in heaven. He says that it is undefiled, imperishable, and won't fade away. It is clear that while we may back slide into sinful actions, our eternal life inheritance will remain in heaven. Now, from the hermaneutical view, the proofs for this point can be found in the history behind the terms used in the New Testament. Take Romans 8:12-17 for instance. In this passage, Paul says that all who have been saved have also been given a "spirit of adoption". He says here that we have the full right to call God, "Abba, Father", or "Daddy" as it would be more accurate. Now, a look into the Roman and Jewish culture of the first century reveals some interesting views behind "adoption". First, every "legit" child was adopted. Second, an "adopted" child, no matter what the circumstances, could NOT be denied his/her inheritance. Third, The adoption contract was so strong and binding, that not even the courts could nullify or desolve it. The adoption was permanent, even through death. So, with that historical insight, the proofs for the preservance of the Saints is clearly seen. So, you can see that the history and culture pertaining to the Bible is extremely important when interpreting Scripture. As for Limited Atonement, from one perspective, I agree, yet from a different perspective, I disagree. Atonement is for all of those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Any who believes will achieve atonement. Now, From that perspective, I agree that atonement is limited to those who believe and call upon the Lord Jesus Christ. However, there are many Calvinists, especially the more dogmattic ones, who take this a step further and say that Christ died for the elect alone for it is only they who will achieve atonement. I have argued with many of them over the past few years. This perspective I disagree with. I believe that Christ died for the Sins of all mankind, not just those who will be saved. As I said in another thread all together, there are many things in which I agree with Calvinistic Theology. However, there are many places where I disagree as well. So, overall, I would suggest that you do some research into the history and culture of the Bible. As for the Biblical language aspect, which I didn't cover, most commentaries will decifer through most of it for you. A couple good references to look into are: Vincent's word studies of the New Testament, and The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible by Zodhiotes(sp). Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
212 | why was this epistle written? | 1 John | Jesusman | 36230 | ||
Hello, I did demonstrate how to use history and culture to study Biblical Doctrines. I just did it with a different subject. I used the subject of Eternal Security as opposed to particular redemption. Why? I have studied the history and culture behind Adoption in relation to Security more than I have the topic of Redemption and election. I am more familiar with that area. I don't know enough about Election and Redemption in the New Testament culture to comment fully. So, I chose a different subject. As for your other concerns, I never said that we should ignore the Scripture's applications to the Church of today. I am saying that we should use the meanings of then to amplify how the text means to us today. After all, terms change over the years. While a word in the Greek may say this in english, the implied meaning and history behind it has a different meaning and application all together. Take "Logos" for example. IN english, this word means "word". However, when you study the history, cultural, and implied meaings inherant within "Logos", the more accurate translation and meanings would be " the Logic or understanding behind the spoken word, the thought, and so on." Now, this doesn't change the meaning of Jesus being refered to as the "Logos" as used in John 1. The same meaning still applies. Jesus is not only the Word from God, but he is the thought, logic, and understanding behind that word as well. Do you see my point? Jesusman |
||||||
213 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 35901 | ||
Hello, First off, is the "law of double jeopardy" in the Bible? Secondly, The question must be asked, "Was Jesus judged, or did he die in order to pay the debt of Sin that all of Mankind owes?" Thirdly, The Bible never says that the saved are exempt from being at the final Judgement. It says that the final judgement is where the separation is to take place: ie: the separation of the Saved from the Non-saved. That is what Revelation 21 reveals. Finally, God is on throne. He can judge whoever he feels like judging. Do you honestly believe that you are exempt of being held accountable for your actions, and that you have no need to Fear God? Jesusman |
||||||
214 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 35918 | ||
Hello, Ok? First off, you are correct that Jesus was not judged. However, he did pay the price for Sin. The price of sin is death, which Paul reveals in Romans 3. Jesus paid that price for us, for all of mankind in fact. Now, as a result, Salvation is not entirely the cleansing of our sins, rather it is our acceptance of the Payment made by Jesus. The Final Judgement, which every person shall go through, concerns this. Involved with in the final judgement is the separation. Jesus three time refers to this. In one parable, He talks of separating sheep and goats. IN another parable, he talks of separating wheat and tares. In a third parable, he speaks of a dragnet which contianed all types of fish, which were sorted through between the good and bad fish. So, it is clear from Jesus alone that there will be a time of separation. As we turn back to the passage in Revelation 20:11-15, the first thing that happens after they are all gathered is that they are all judged according to their deeds. Just following, they are separated. Now, The key factor is found in verse 15. Notice, that those who were not listed in the Book of Life were cast into the Lake of Fire. It wasn't those who were judged according to their actions, it was those who accepted the payment by christ. A former pastor of mine explained it this way. The court is gathered, and the defendants are placed, one by one, before God. The accuser reads off the actions that this person committed during his/her lifetime. Just before the gavel hits, the defendant's attorney arrives and states that the defendant's punishment has already been paid and accepted. The judge confirms this in the Book of Life, and the defendant is set free. However, this is not the same for every defendant. For there are those who refused to accept the Attorney's counsel. As for the difference between the Judgement seat and the Great White Throne, I see them both as the same event, namely the Final Judgement. Both Romans 14 and 2 Corinthians 5 speaks of giving an account on that day of our deeds, and that all must endure this. Just as Revelation 20:11-15 describes. Besides, you never hear in Scripture of two final judgements. Only one, the one before God. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
215 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36018 | ||
Hello, My reason why I asked about whether or not the Double Jeapardy law is int the Bible is because I didn't remember seeing it in the Bible. I thought that it was an American political law that was developed. That's all. Look at Revelation 20:11-15 again. John clearly says that "the dead" appeared before the throne. Now, if this was only the non-saved, then why go through and separate them by looking in the Book of Life. They would all be non-saved people. Looking into the Book of Life would be a waste of time. However, we have the parables that reflect this time from Jesus. As I listed in my previous post, Jesus says that all of mankind will be gathered together, then separated. Just as Revelation 20 points out. Now, we, the saved, still pass on into Life after the judgement due to our names being in the Book of Life. It is our actions that are judged, as the passage reveals. It is the non-saved who will be judged twice. Once for their actions and a second for their souls. As a result, the non-saved will be thrown into the Lake of Fire as a punishment. As for the Judgement seat of Christ, this is also the Great White Throne, or Final Judgement. Both the Judgement Seat and the Great White Throne are wrapped up into one single event, the Final Judgement. As for your comment about Jesus' sacrifice being a judgement call from God upon the Human race, I must disagree slightly. It wasn't just a judgement against Man, but a payment for Sin. The price of Sin must have been paid. Sin was already judged as a violation, and man was already judged as being a criminal long before Jesus died on the Cross. God's speach to Adam and Eve just after they sinned is a clear sign that Mankind and sin was already judged as a whole. The final judgement is a one on one basis, if you will. Why would God have sent the Law if he already didn't have a judgement against Mankind? Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is a Judgement against Man. The Plagues in Egypt is a judgement call from God. The Exile in Babylon and Persia was a judgement call from God. God's cursing of David shortly after the affair with Bathsheba was a judgement by God. The Bible is filled with times where God has judged mankind whether it be as a whole, as a nation, or individually. The Great white throne is the last judgement that God will ever make against mankind. The Final Judgement is not a payment for Sin. That was done with Chist on the Cross. The Final Judgement is against man alone. A judgement against his actions during his life when all of his deeds will be made public, both private deeds and obvious deeds. Jesusman |
||||||
216 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36019 | ||
Hello, Sorry, but based on the Context, All of the Dead, saved and non-saved alike, will be at the Great White Throne. The Great White Throne is the time when the wheat will be separated from the Tares, the Sheep from the Goats, and the Good Fish from the Bad fish. All of mankind will be there, not just the non-saved. Jesusman |
||||||
217 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36236 | ||
Where do they go? That should be obvious. Jesusman |
||||||
218 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36712 | ||
Let me see if I got this correct. Those, whose names were found in the Book of Life, were thrown into Hell. So, it doesn't matter if your saved or not? Saved or un-saved, all go to hell, no matter what? Is that Biblical? In the words of my generation, "NOT!" Those who were found in the Book of Life were granted eternal life in heaven as according to God's promise. It was those who were not found in the Book of Life who were cast into hell. Jesusman |
||||||
219 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36713 | ||
Let me see if I got this correct. Those, whose names were found in the Book of Life, were thrown into Hell. So, it doesn't matter if your saved or not? Saved or un-saved, all go to hell, no matter what? Is that Biblical? In the words of my generation, "NOT!" Those who were found in the Book of Life were granted eternal life in heaven as according to God's promise. It was those who were not found in the Book of Life who were cast into hell. Jesusman |
||||||
220 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36732 | ||
That's not what you said. You asked where the ones whose names were found in the Book of Life went, I commented that it should be obvious, and then you said that they went to hell. Now, you're saying that only those who weren't found in the Book of Life go to Hell. Make up your mind. Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [12] >> |