Results 3561 - 3580 of 3692
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Makarios Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3561 | What happened to the disciples? | Mark 3:16 | Makarios | 7098 | ||
Thanks brothers Joe and Hank! Joe, I'll look into Eusebius and see what it has to say.. I appreciate any information. I realize that the sources will be outside the Bible, and I apologize for that.. But I was curious if anyone had any information or a website. Blessings! |
||||||
3562 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6991 | ||
Dear brother Chris, thank you for sharing some verses that show 'variance' and your own conclusions! I appreciate your input and its has been very helpful.. God bless you! Nolan | ||||||
3563 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6990 | ||
Amen retxar! I sincerely appreciate the dialogue concerning this discussion, since I have also struggled with this over the years. Thanks and blessings to all who have contributed and will contribute! God bless you! Nolan | ||||||
3564 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6981 | ||
Steve, once again, I believe that you are way out of context here. I would ask that you would further explain (using the Bible) what it is that you mean, but I will respect your decision to leave this issue alone. | ||||||
3565 | What does 1 Tim 3:2 mean? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6980 | ||
Dear PSP, prayon, Hank, and JVHO212, I believe that the question posed by 1 Tim. 3:2 "the husband of one wife" is best interpreted within the context of the passage as referring to one's moral character. Having more than one wife at any time or practicing any extramarital sexual activity would be in violation of this charge. Therefore, a candidate should be a 'one-woman man' if they are married, and there shouldn't be even a hint of sexual immorality. In this way, a candidate can prove themselves to be a worthy and considerable person for office because of the example that they set forth. I feel that this verse in no way bars those who have been divorced and remarried, widowed, single and never married, or those who are single from divorce to have the ability to take office and be able to perform the duties that God has called them to do. In fact, I find it couragous for those who are widowed or single from divorce to be willing to step back into a position of leadership and to be a 'role model' of purity and restoration with a testimony to share after being through such experiences as they have been through. | ||||||
3566 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6976 | ||
Steve, after reading your response, all I have to say is "WHAT?" My point still stands and you haven't even begun to answer the half of it.Steve, do you honestly think that people can take you seriously after what you wrote?This is exactly the type of thing that is proving to be a 'cancer' for the Forum. People who post things that are not biblically based or who hold to their opinions rather than Scripture. All you fellow members out there, please don't hold or continue in this example- of pressing your non-biblical opinions or just arguing for the sake of arguing- and provide some good, Bible based, sound answers to good questions. I feel that in every good post or question that has been maligned in some fashion by someone who has infused their own misinterpretation into the topic, the one who originally wrote the post must be apologized to by the one who has engendered such debate that is so far removed from the discussion at hand. And in this case, so far in left field that it reaches beyond the dugout.Please don't take this too much as a 'slam', Steve, but as 'positive criticism', and I hope that this would bear fruit. | ||||||
3567 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6947 | ||
Steve, Paul most definitely was the leader, being a minister to the Gentiles. Here's more to consider: Enoch, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Elijah, Elisha, John the Baptist, Andrew, and John the apostle, who is also called 'the elder'.. Where is there any mention of their wives, since they were so prominent in leading Israel and the church? These were all single men, unless you can prove me wrong. Would each one of these be qualified to be a pastor/deacon/bishop/elder in a church? | ||||||
3568 | More on 1 Tim. 3:2 | 1 Tim 3:2 | Makarios | 6946 | ||
Steve, once again you are reading the text way too literally here and missing the meaning altogether! Does not Paul wish that every man could be as he is (single)? (1 Corinthians 7:7) Since it was true that Paul was single (and so was Jesus), then does this disqualify Paul from being a true leader of the church? By no means! Then Paul would be disabasing himself, since he was the one that spoke those words in the book of Titus! Would Ezra or Nehemiah not be considered as leaders, since there is no mention of their wives in either of the books that bear their names? And they led the nation of Israel to rebuild the temple. Jesus, the ultimate leader, lived a life of celibacy. Is He therefore, not qualified for leadership, being the very Son of God? Was Paul not speaking of his leadership and apostleship while in imprisonment (Phil. 1:12-14, 2:12,14) even though he himself was single? I fear that you have once again misinterpreted a verse with a point of view that is way too literal to be able to derive the true meaning from the text.I am a single man and a leader in my church! And my witness or ministry is not restrained whatsoever by the fact that I am single. In fact, I can do many things that would be difficult for a married couple to do at the drop of a hat, since I only have to answer to one Person, my Lord, and follow Him as a Godly man. | ||||||
3569 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6922 | ||
Ok, Ray, I see what you mean now. :) What you are saying is: That even though Jesus was human in every way, He was a Man (capitalization showing Deity, the word "Man" showing humanity) instead of a man (only a common man, which would take away from His Deity). So in this way, you are pointing out that you believe that 'Jesus was fully God and fully Man'. I now realize what exactly you are saying here, and I agree with this premise. If you are looking at it this way, then I can see where capitalization would mean a great deal. But I do not believe that it would be wise to read other people's posts with this presupposition, since they could be easily confused or thrown off subject simply because of 'overlooking' capitalization. :)Thanks Ray and God bless! | ||||||
3570 | Ray, do you believe that Jesus was God?? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6921 | ||
Thank you Ray for clarifying for me exactly where you stand on the Diety of Christ! Now that I know where you are coming from, I can better understand what you write and therefore be better suited to answer your question. You are not an 'ism', you are a fellow brother in Christ! And I will try to help you with this issue, since you also believe in the Trinity. Thanks Ray! God Bless.. | ||||||
3571 | Scripture is clear if we are open, right | Acts 11:1 | Makarios | 6901 | ||
Amen Phillip! I have been confronted by this idea- 'that one should speak in tongues upon receiving the Holy Spirit' before and I must say that you gave a great response! The two people that have confronted me on this issue (because of their church) were women who believed that you must speak in tongues to inherit salvation. This couldn't be farther from the Truth! I believe that speaking in tongues is one of the many gifts of the Holy Spirit (a gift that I do not have), but it is not in any way, shape, or form a prerequisite for salvation or 'evidence' that one has received the Holy Spirit. You gave the best and most succinct answer available by saying that the best 'evidence' for one receiving the Holy Spirit is a changed life! Amen! God bless, Nolan | ||||||
3572 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6897 | ||
Good observations retxar, and I appreciate your honest answer and coming forward!You specifically mentioned certain verses, like Matt. 17:21.. The critical text seems to lead us to the conclusion that this verse was 'borrowed or copied' from Mark 9:29- thus a scribal error.. Good observation on John 7:8! I think that the 'broader range' of the question concerning this verse could be addressed on its own in a different thread. I agree with you on John 8:1-11 and Mark 16:9-20, these should be in the Bible even though many manuscripts do not include these, they include them in different places, or they contain fragments of each or even a different rendering than that which is traditionally agreed upon. I also agree that Acts 8:37 should be at least in brackets and not excluded from the text. This was one of the main reasons that drove me away from the NIV and to the NASB. The NASB includes this passage (and other critical renderings) whereas the NIV takes it out of the text and places it in the commentary. Another good observation on Romans 8:1. However, it could appear that Romans 8:1 is the 'introductory' verse, therefore making it possible that a scribe could have copied part of 8:4 into the 'heading' of 8:1. I agree with what you said about the addition/deletion issue on part, but I also believe that one could place an addition to a verse after copying so many manuscripts that sound almost exactly the same! As far as deletion, if they skipped over a verse or phrase than they would have to scrap the entire manuscript that they were copying, since they adhered to strict 'rules' while copying Scripture. So either premise for addition/deletion could explain why there are so many variants. But like you said, the history of Alexandria cannot compare to the history of Constantinople. But we must not forget the other cities and sources of 'found Biblical manuscripts'. God indeed has blessed the texts (and the cities) that used the Byzantine family of manuscripts. However, that is not to say that the Alexandrian family of manuscripts are in any way inferior, since they have a greater age then any of the Byzantine manuscripts. This is all very good food for thought! Thank you retxar, and I look forward to more input.. | ||||||
3573 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6895 | ||
These are great observations! That is a question, why are there no major translations that use the Majority Text? Is it that way because the translators seek to base their works on what they view as a text that is closest to the original autographs instead of one that includes everything, even supposed errors of medieval scribes? Chris, were there any particular places in the Majority text (besides the book of Revelation) that 'prove' that the Majority text is 'stronger' or 'weaker' then the Critical text? There are over 5,000 manuscripts of the Bible, and no two are exactly the same! But as seen in the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Qumran in the 1940s, where the text of Isaiah that was found was almost word for word exact with the text that we 'agree' upon today, that the Bible that we have today is very accurate despite the common variants, and that this large weight of proof (5,000 manuscripts throughout the ages) can only solidify and work to strengthen our faith in God and the Bible as God Holy Word. Thanks for your thoughts and I hope to inspire more thoughts on this issue! | ||||||
3574 | Will there be degrees of judgment? | Matt 11:22 | Makarios | 6882 | ||
Dear brother charis, I believe that we have already 'tread on this ground', addressing this very same question in the Luke 12:47 thread.. Have a blessed day! | ||||||
3575 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6881 | ||
Ray, I see no difference in either saying since Jesus was both fully God and fully man. I'm sure that when you are getting into the subject of capitalization and the Diety and humanity of Jesus, things get pretty complicated at times. But thats not to say that Jesus was ever 'not' the Son of God, I'm just saying that since we already know His nature, that He was both fully God and fully man, it isn't that much of a big deal to learn that He was capitalized when referred to here and not capitalized when referred to there.. You see what I mean? | ||||||
3576 | Is Jesus the 'Eternal Father'? | Is 9:6 | Makarios | 6880 | ||
Ray, I'm a bit confused about some of your writings.. If you would like more information on Trinity vs. Oneness, then please search for the other threads that directly address this question. True, Jesus is God manifest in the flesh. It is also true that God the Father is also God, to whom Jesus cried to on the cross saying, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?". And the Holy Spirit is also God. God is one in spirit and in love and in will. However, there are Three distinct Persons to this one God, and I believe that Isaiah 9:6 re-affirms that yet again. I'm not sure what your goal or intention is by focusing so much on capitalization, but I will atempt to make things clear as I go. | ||||||
3577 | Will there be degrees of judgment? | Matt 11:22 | Makarios | 6857 | ||
He may destroy cities AS A RESULT of the sinful acts of the people (Genesis 18:1-19:38) in those cities, but it is always because of those sinful acts that God is pronouncing His judgment on the cities, not because of anything inanimate. If you re-read the book of Jonah, you will see this to be true. But God does not always destroy cities along with the people who live in those cities. If you read in 2 Samuel 24:12-15, the Lord gives David the decision to how Israel will be punished, either by famine, enemy attack or 3 days pestilence. In each case, the city of Jerusalem would remain intact according to God's promise to David. Also, if you re-read the Book of Exodus, you can see where God exacted judgment using means other than destroying the whole city of Egypt. So God MAY chose to destroy cities, but not in every single case. My apologies to Hank since I have gotten way off the original topic here. | ||||||
3578 | What doctrines are essential | 2 Tim 3:16 | Makarios | 6854 | ||
Great job in presenting this to the Forum, JVHO212! I learned a lot by just reading through this.. Good stuff! :-) | ||||||
3579 | Will there be degrees of judgment? | Matt 11:22 | Makarios | 6842 | ||
Hello Steve. Tyre was situated on the coast of Palestine about half-way between Carmel and Beyrout. The narrow strip of land between the sea and the background of mountains was almost inaccessible owing to massive rocky promontories (the most famous being 'the Ladder of Tyre'), which barred the approach of invaders. The date of the foundation of Tyre is unknown. Herodotus suggests B.C. 2740 and Josephus about B.C. 1217.. Isaiah 23:7 calls her 'the joyous city whose antiquity is of ancient days'. But Tyre was not 'the most ancient.' Isaiah 23:2-12 calls her 'daughter of Sidon' (cf. Genesis 10:15). Homer mentions 'Sidonian wares', but ignores Tyre. Justin says Sidon suffered so severely at the hands of Ascalon that her trade passed to her daughter Tyre. The Tell el-Amarna letters (circa B.C. 1430) reveal Abi-milki, king of Tyre, sending appeals to his lord Amenhotep IV for assistance against the swarms of Khabiri, who were ravaging the land, while the citizens were dying of want on the islets off the coast. At the conquest of Canaan, Joshua assigned the Tyrian territory to Asher, though it was perhaps never occupied (Joshua 19:29, but compare to 2 Sam. 24:7). For the next 430 years, Tyre's history is a blank. It was Hiram, David's contemporary, who raised Tyre to fame. Old Tyre (Palaetyrus), on the mainland, he strongly fortified, its walls being 15 miles in circumference. They trafficked up the Nile as far as Memphis; worked copper mines in Cyprus and Crete (cf. Phenice, Acts 27:12); erected stations on the Bosporus, the Euxine, and the Crimea; becoming great explorers and looking for a special supply of shellfish that created a rare purple dye, used in trade. Hiram co-operated with David, sending cedars from Lebanon (1 Chr. 14:1). Under Solomon, Tyrian artizans built the Temple on Phoenician models (2 Chr. 2), and had joint maritime adventures (1 Kings 9:26,10:22).On the decline of Nineveh, Tyre again proclaimed her independence (B.C. 630), and after Nineveh fell (B.C. 606) she reached the zenith of her glory. Ezekiel 27-28 gives a marvelously vivid picture of the island city at this period, yet prophesies her fall on account of her colossal sins. Nebuchadnezzar II attacked Tyre and besieged it for 13 years. Old Tyre was destroyed (Ezek. 26:7-12), but the Babylonians wearied themselves in trying to subdue the island (Ezek. 29:18). Thus, Tyre was a poverty stricken town for 50 years. However, her humbled state did not change her people's temper. Their pride (Ezek. 28:2), their contempt for the right of man (Amos 1:9) and their slave trading (Joel 3:4-5) are all denounced by the Hebrew prophets. If you'd like to know more about the history of Tyre, just let me know. I have a special penchant for history. | ||||||
3580 | Using the "Roman's Road" to evangelize? | NT general Archive 1 | Makarios | 6835 | ||
Good observaion, Lionstrong! I agree that we should 'tailor' the gospel message to the hearer without compromising the gospel message. Acts 8:26-40 comes to mind here, where Philip used a passage out of Isaiah to introduce the Ethiopian eunuch to Christ. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 ] Next > Last [185] >> |