Results 941 - 960 of 1275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: srbaegon Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
941 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | srbaegon | 55645 | ||
Hello Stokey Just to address a few quick things. I'm too busy for an indepth response. 1) You mix apples with oranges. "Firstborn" in Rev 3:14 is "arche". From Strong's: 1) beginning, origin 2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader 3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause 4) the extremity of a thing 4a) of the corners of a sail 5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy 5a) of angels and demons You can see that it has the idea of preeminence, rather than the first in a sequence. 2) The word "godhead" in Strong's actually means: 1) deity 1a) the state of being God, Godhead 5) "He says all the oldest manuscripts of this verse contain a period after 'flesh.'" The oldest manuscripts don't even have punctuation. Better throw away the book. Steve |
||||||
942 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | srbaegon | 55539 | ||
Hello Stokey 1) You've done a nice job of proving the deity of the pre-incarnate Christ, except for verse 6. You ignore that the verse says Jesus existed in the form of God. A good definition of humility is found in Romans 12:3 (ESV) For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. Jesus, being very God, could not think more highly of himself because he had all glory, and as God, all glory was due to him. He emptied himself of that glory to be born and put on flesh. 2) Or consider Romans 9:5 (ESV) To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen. This translation expressly states that Jesus is the one, true God. But rather than debate translations, let's look at content. Paul is simply stating that the Christ was born of Israel and that God should be praised for it. It does not infer that God is above Jesus. 3) No, Jesus has the preeminence because he was, is, and always will be the one, true God. 4) Well, you've just ruined your previous argument. By your reasoning then, Jesus was merely appointed the Son of God, and then according to Rom 1:4 only at his resurrection. But earlier you said he was a son before his incarnation. 5) Grasping at straws, are we? 6) Let me help with a different translation of Proverbs 8:22 (ESV) "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old." It's true that LXX has "created" for "possessed," but one cannot build a theology via a single manuscript. The idea of "possessed" is "fathered," thus demonstrating the eternal sonship of Jesus. And you are correct that Jesus is unique. He was God who willing put on humanity for us. Steve |
||||||
943 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | srbaegon | 55146 | ||
Hello Ray "Why do we have to think of Christ as a man like Adam...?" To help the offspring of Abraham, he became like man in all things, sin apart. Hebrews 2:14,17-18 (ESV) Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil,...[17] Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. [18] For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted. Steve |
||||||
944 | Second Adam? | 1 Cor 15:45 | srbaegon | 55111 | ||
Hi Joe You aren't the first, though. I was just curious. Steve |
||||||
945 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | srbaegon | 55099 | ||
Hello Ray Jesus Christ is most certainly a man. It is that man who is our mediator today. 1 Tim. 2:5 (ESV) For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Steve |
||||||
946 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | srbaegon | 55098 | ||
Hello Stokey And Hebrews 1:8-12 shows that the Son is, has been, and always will be the one true God. Also, John 12:37-41 clearly identifies Jesus as the glorified one who was sitting on a throne in Isaiah 6:1-3. Steve |
||||||
947 | Do you yet say that Jesus was just a man | John 9:24 | srbaegon | 55081 | ||
Hello Stokeyhk So I must conclude that you believe Jesus is a created spirit-being who took on the appearance of man and has now attained to some type of functional godhood because of his close relation and obedience to God. Does that about sum it up? Steve |
||||||
948 | A prayer for protection | Psalm | srbaegon | 54957 | ||
Hello JuliaMoliere Welcome! I would recommend going to http://www.bibleoutlines.com/ and checking out their devotional commentary. As for changing your user id, try sending an e-mail to studybibleforum@lockman.org. Steve |
||||||
949 | confused | Rom 4:5 | srbaegon | 54870 | ||
Hello BradK "I'll enter into the discussion here..." Yes! Jump in. The water's fine. I've read some of Bullinger's work. I think he went too far by over-analyzing typology. I've tried to read Darby, but he's difficult. I agree concerning the dispensational framework. It seems to fit well. Steve |
||||||
950 | confused | Rom 4:5 | srbaegon | 54842 | ||
Hi Joe, I never studied the history of dispensationalism. For years all I knew about it was from a Southern Baptist preacher. I never heard any names until I started meeting with PBs. Even then, it was mostly Ryrie and Chafer. It wasn't until I studied some history of the Brethren movement that I knew about Darby. Steve |
||||||
951 | confused | Rom 4:5 | srbaegon | 54806 | ||
Hello Joe Dispensationalism would see five periods from Adam to Christ, not six, and I've never heard the term "Original Hebraic Chronology." So I'm not sure if you gave the correct answer. And dispensationalism is not opposed to your 2nd paragraph. BTW, though I'm in the Plymouth Brethren, Darby is not one of my heroes. To quote the vernacular, "He had issues." And thanks for the link to Pink. Steve |
||||||
952 | ..Do not keep moving from house to house | Luke 10:7 | srbaegon | 54620 | ||
Hello Makarios Glad things went well. I'll have to drop in. I'm only 8 hours away. ;-) Steve |
||||||
953 | Once saved, aways saved doctrine refuted | Matt 10:1 | srbaegon | 54215 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth No idea. I've never met him. Steve |
||||||
954 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | srbaegon | 54193 | ||
Hello Bub We are on the same page concerning "scripture." I believe Steve Jones was the person with whom you were discussing Heb 10. Steve |
||||||
955 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | srbaegon | 54188 | ||
Hello Bub Just because the same word is used for "writing" and "scripture" (at least in Greek; I'm assuming for Hebrew) does not mean all writing is scripture. "Scripture" carries the implied qualifier of "Holy." It's something different than just words on a page. Steve |
||||||
956 | Once saved, aways saved doctrine refuted | Matt 10:1 | srbaegon | 54184 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth "Either this person is in or out, there is no middle ground. If in, Jesus said this person is now lost forever. true or false?" True. He was never a believer. See the summary of my last posting. "Is this true from your experience?" I only know one such case. I know the father of the man, and he has related the story to me. He believes his son was never saved. Steve |
||||||
957 | Once saved, aways saved doctrine refuted | Matt 10:1 | srbaegon | 54097 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth Let's look at the parable--one sower, one type of seed, four soils. 1. Hard soil--the person just doesn't understand what is being said. 2. Rocky soil--understands and receives the seed but it never takes root. 3. Thorny soil--understands and receives the seed but it never bears fruit. 4. Good soil--understands and receives the seed and bears fruit. What are their conditions? 1. Never got it. Can't be a believer. 2. Never took root. Can't be a believer. 3. Grew and was unfruitful. Possibly a believer. 4. Grew and was fruitful. Definitely a believer. I say "possibly" for #3, but from an agricultural viewpoint, the only one that matters is #4. That one is the only soil that produced anything. That being the case, the other three conditions never could have had life (i.e. were never believers). Steve |
||||||
958 | Is baptism necessary for salvation? | Acts 10:48 | srbaegon | 54049 | ||
Hello Grace and Truth "Now with all this in view, do you want to tell us that Jesus commanded us to "do" something that has no salvicit value?" Yes. For example: John 13:34 (ESV) A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another: just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Absolutely no salvific value, but important and necessary. Steve |
||||||
959 | Are you refering to the thief ? | Matt 10:1 | srbaegon | 54012 | ||
Hello McGracer I've been enjoying your input on the torum. Welcome. Your comment: "The thief on the cross WAS under the Old Covenant for Hebrews makes it clear that the New Covenant did not go into effect UNTIL Christ shed His blood - Heb 9:17." Wouldn't that mean the thief was under the new covenant? The Lord died first. The legs of the others had to be broken to speed their deaths. John 19:32-33 (ESV) So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. [33] But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Steve |
||||||
960 | self control / spirit control | 1 Cor 9:25 | srbaegon | 53937 | ||
Hello Bub I got it very well. You said the Pharisees obscured/obstructed/amended/amplified the basic Torah. Paul was a Pharisee. His teaching must be corrupted because the body of knowledge he received was corrupted. Paul's teaching is then no longer objective and cannot be used for any proof. You attempted to use Rom 2--that there is a righteousness through the Law. What law? We have no basis of comparison. Was Paul speaking of Torah? Was he speaking of the Mosaic Covenant? Was he speaking of the Pharisaic additions? Was he speaking of a commonly used body of teaching that included all of the above? We have nothing to say which is correct. And if those are incorrect, we might as well cut them out of our Bibles, because they are useless. Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 ] Next > Last [64] >> |