Results 281 - 300 of 1275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: srbaegon Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | How do we see ourselves? | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 193261 | ||
Hi Cheri, We're really not very far apart, I think. As you say, I also choose to see myself as a new creation in Christ though I acknowledge (as Paul) that the vestiges of the sin nature remain as long as I'm in this body of death (Romans 7:24). Steve |
||||||
282 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 193505 | ||
Hello Talmid, It's true that Paul did not explicitly teach "all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses," but he certainly seemed to indicate the futility of adhering to the Law in his epistles. Steve |
||||||
283 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 193529 | ||
Hello Talmid, None of these demonstrates that Paul was a Torah-keeping Jew, nor do they promote any Gentile desiring to keep them. Some of them do not even mention Torah, so I have no idea why they are listed. You appear to have turned to Torah to complement your sanctification given by the grace of Christ through faith. Why? Isn't His work sufficient to accomplish all unto the end? Steve |
||||||
284 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 193572 | ||
Hello Talmid, I looked at the site. If you are getting your theology from wikipedia, I fear for your spiritual welfare. Peter asked the church leaders in Jerusalem, "Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?" (Acts 15:10 ESV). Peter loved the Lord Jesus, yet he called adherance to the Law unbearable. Jews could not do it, so why expect Gentiles to even try? PEter also lived like a Gentile while in Antioch until he forgot himself (Gal 2:11-14). Did he love Christ less while doing that? Did he step out of fellowship with the Lord and need to confess his transgression? You are romanticizing the law. You have no hope of keeping it. And if you fail in one part, you are guilty of all (James 2:10). Again, why try? In the book of Galatians that I mentioned previously, Paul condemns any reliance of the Law for justification or sanctification. Again, why try? This is not a matter of sincerity, but truth. Steve |
||||||
285 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 193600 | ||
Hello Amsel, Peter was not speaking of the oral tradition. This is plain by referring back to verse 1 where they were teaching, "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved." This is not oral tradition but a command given by God through Moses. And who said anything about faith and works being incompatible? Read James 2:14-26. Are you equating those works with works of the law? There is nothing to warrant such a position. You are using Hebrew words and names to communicate to English-speaking people and state that you want to keep the law. That is sufficient proof that you are overly enamored with Judaism. What was the law given for? To give the knowledge of sin (Rom 3:20) and act as a guardian until Christ (Gal 3:23-28). I have the same concern as Paul: Gal 4:9-11 (ESV) But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? [10] You observe days and months and seasons and years! [11] I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain. Steve |
||||||
286 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 193602 | ||
Hello Val, Yes, the outcome is stated in 15:19-20. The outcome was directed to Christians in Antioch and the surrounding area to abstain from those things because of the Jews in the area. It was not binding everywhere for all Christians. It is quite specific. As to James 2:10, you have the context correct, but in the paragraph, James is summarizing to show that the sin of partiality, and they stand guilty of the whole law by failing in one thing. Steve |
||||||
287 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 193666 | ||
Hello Val, In summarizing, James states that he is asking for these things to be done because of the Jews (15:21). While one could make a solid case that there were Jews in every part of the Roman empire, so that Christians would be asked to do these things, it also follows suit that if there are no Jews, nothing is required. Therefore, what James recommended could be nothing more than a good idea if Jews were living in a community. It is not binding because it is not binding on all Christians. Steve |
||||||
288 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 193668 | ||
Hello Val, As to James 2:10, I never said that James was writing about how to be saved. I said if you sin in area, you are guilty of the whole law. And they were guilty of partiality. Steve |
||||||
289 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 193748 | ||
Hello Val, Respectfully declined. Everything you say up to the point of making 19-20 effective for all Gentiles everywhere is correct. Look. The burden of proof is yours to demonstrate that this is effective for all Gentiles against the tide of 2000 years of church history and doctrine. So far you have failed miserably. I recommend that you rethink your position. Steve |
||||||
290 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | srbaegon | 193823 | ||
Early Christian Doctrine by J.N.D. Kelly The Christian Tradition, 5 vols by Jaroslav Pelikan The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 10 vols edited by Alexander Roberts Steve |
||||||
291 | When we see God will talking change us? | NT general | srbaegon | 204054 | ||
Hi Tamara, Seeing Jesus in all his glory will not change us. We will be changed (this corruption will put on incorruption), which will allow us to see him as he is. Steve |
||||||
292 | Women are to be silent? | NT general | srbaegon | 218339 | ||
I am giving a non-answer to make a point about exegesis, because your question has multiple facets to it. Here are questions that must be answered: 1. Were women required to be silent or quiet? 2. Why were women to be silent/quiet? 3. When and where were women to be silent/quiet? 4. What was the benefit, if any, of being silent/quiet? 5. What was the consequence of not being silent/quiet? 6. Can a Scripture passage be applicable only to a particular culture? 7. If a passage is indeed cultural, what textual indicators tell me it is only cultural? Or what later commands were given so it is no longer applicable? 8. If I consider a passage cultural, do I undermine the teaching of the book where it is contained? For example, If I say woman's silence is cultural in 1 Cor 14:34, do I negate the whole passage (14:26-39) which teaches that there is to be order in the church? After all, if one verse is cultural, maybe that section is cultural; or the chapter is cultural; or even the whole book is cultural. How does one know where to stop? Those are some random ideas to help move things along. Steve |
||||||
293 | Adam, Eve, plants, animals - what order? | Genesis | srbaegon | 19866 | ||
Steve, My general principle is to resolve these issues as best as possible within the text itself. Sometimes it impossible, like in Gen 3 when God tells Eve, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth." Wait a minute! How would she have a reference to compare to? Did she have children before the fall? As for the timing of the last day, I reconcile it this way. God made Adam; God brought one of each beast of the field and bird of the air to be named (Notice it's not one of each animal. There are only two subgroups mentioned.); God made Eve. I think that could work within a 24-hour period. Steve |
||||||
294 | Was Bible time kept the same way as now | Genesis | srbaegon | 47474 | ||
Hello Parable I agree with you. As a final paper for Apologetics, I discussed the problem of viewing time in a linear fashion. I tried to view things as God looked at them and came up with a spiral or circular model of time, so that all things are before God at once. We miss the connections the past has to the present and future, because we don't try or don't want to make those connections and understand them. Steve |
||||||
295 | Adam and Eve make the total of six? | Genesis | srbaegon | 48197 | ||
Hello Hopefilled None of us are "pure." I would rather say that these had faith demonstrated by their obedience to God. Steve |
||||||
296 | Adam and Eve make the total of six? | Genesis | srbaegon | 48206 | ||
Hello Hopefilled That's exactly what I would say. Steve |
||||||
297 | The creation and the Gap | Genesis | srbaegon | 48468 | ||
Hello TKO That might explain the offspring of the union between the fallen men and innocent men, but not the original innocent men. They would have needed to sin in a manner similar to Adam for them to die. This other fall is never documented. Steve |
||||||
298 | The creation and the Gap | Genesis | srbaegon | 48491 | ||
Hello TKO Yes, it does. But in your scenario there would have to be another for the group of innocents created apart from Adam. Without that fall, God would have killed innocent people during the flood. Steve |
||||||
299 | The creation and the Gap | Genesis | srbaegon | 48495 | ||
Hello TKO But in reading Romans 5, you find Adam considered the head of the human race, not just the representative. All men die because all men sin because they are all born of Adam. This other hypothetical group has not blood relation to Adam until their offspring marry. Steve |
||||||
300 | The creation and the Gap | Genesis | srbaegon | 48502 | ||
Hello TKO Yes, I agree. But again the giants were the offspring. You still have to explain the death of the original innocent parents that were not part of Adam's fall. Steve Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Next > Last [64] >> |