Results 1 - 20 of 53
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Hiskid84 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Are terms being used synonymously? | 1 Cor 12:1 | Hiskid84 | 211111 | ||
I'm going to tiptoe in behind John here, to ask a question. Are the words "gift of healing" and "healing" being used synonymously in some posts? It seems a lot of discussion in favor of the gift of healing (regarding its validity today) is being based upon whether people are healed today. I thought John distinguished between the two when he wrote, "...no one has said that God cannot or does not perform miracles. But He does not give the gift of performing those miracles to individuals today as He did in the early Church." (Unfortunately, it seemed to get lost in the text that followed) So the question of whether the gift of healing is still bestowed upon those the Holy Spirit so chooses is not answered through proof that God still heals today. Which isn't to say proof should exist that God still heals "through certain idividuals" (the "gift" of healing) to prove its validity today. :) By His grace, hiskid |
||||||
2 | cremation or burial of the body | Bible general Archive 2 | Hiskid84 | 130711 | ||
Reminds me of how the Moslems had heard about the story of Messiah, so when they were in control of Jerusalem, they studied the prophecy carefully. Knowing that Jews avoid cemetaries, they carefully built one right in front of the gate that Messiah would have to enter on the foal of a donkey. They went to great pains, and that cemetary is still there. However, they built it around the 1300's. :-) Doc (on my far-better-half's computer) |
||||||
3 | isan't moses and elijah dead | Luke 9:30 | Hiskid84 | 130710 | ||
Two answers: In the case of Moses, because the resurection of the dead has not yet occured. In the case of Elijah, because he never died. | ||||||
4 | Does God judge nations directly? | Obad 1:2 | Hiskid84 | 130709 | ||
This is easy to answer: we take the literal stuff as listeral and the symbolic stuff as symbolic. The only trick is when the text does not lend itself to clear identification. I've never been a big fan of eschatology. Probably because I see so many people all wrapped up in it instead of pursuing holiness. I have a solid confidence in seeing my Lord. How He chooses to manifest Himself will, no doubt, be different than I am able to conceieve. That said, I find that Revelation is a powerfully symbolic book. There are dragons and beasts etc. etc. Some is or must necessarily be symbolic. The millinial reign possibly falls into the catagory. One reason is that there is mention of sacrifices being made. Since Christ is our sacrifice, fully fulfilling our every need for sacrifice, what can this mean? If you really pin me down, I tend to fall on the more literal view of the millenial reign. I'd be considered pre-mill post-trib. But there are a lot of dead theologians out there, who are a whole lot smarter than I am, who don't see a millenial reign at all. in the face of such opposition, I just can't seem to get onto the Hal Lindsey band wagon. If that makes me foolish, then its your fault for dragging it out of me! :-) If you'd left it well enough alone, maybe my foolishness would have been in question! :-) Doc (On my far-better-half's computer) |
||||||
5 | why evangalise if God has already chosen | Rom 10:14 | Hiskid84 | 130708 | ||
We evangelize because because we are commanded to do so. Charles hadon Spurgeon used to say something to the effect that if God had painted a yellow stripe down the back of the elect, he would have run around London lifting up shirt tails. Since God hadn't done that, Spurgeon had to preach to all men. Doc (On the far-better-half's computer) |
||||||
6 | One God, One Jesus Christ | 1 Cor 8:5 | Hiskid84 | 130359 | ||
Psssst...ROGER459...actually it's vs. 3 and 4 of Acts 5. (You offered vs. 4 and 5 as proof text that the Holy Spirit and God are One) Also, a tip if I might; it would be easier to email you if you would post your email address in your personal profile. I would like to see your web site. My email address is str8narroway@yahoo(dot)com. Would you please email me the link? Thank you. Or should I say Thank You! :-) Karen |
||||||
7 | We should quit competing with the Top 40 | 1 Cor 14:40 | Hiskid84 | 130311 | ||
Hank, Your comments are (as) equally scary as they are true. I know this has been discussed on the forum before but I haven't had a chance to go through all of the posts. I was wondering if you are aware of any posts (or threads) that give a basic outline of what the true function of the church (as a gathering place) is from a biblical standpoint. If there aren't any, it might make for a good topic. That seems to be where most of the confusion comes in. Here are some things to consider: Is the primary purpose of the church building a place for the saints of God to gather or a place to bring the lost so that they might be saved? Is God's Word taught for the growth and edification of the saints (discipleship) or so that the lost might be saved? Is God worshipped in song as a means to glorify and exalt Him in unity or so that the lost can feel something emotional and as a result, might be saved? Do we offer up prayers to give thanks to an awesome and holy God because, for His purposes alone, He has made a way for us to become children of God, in spite of our utter unworthiness, or so that we might present God as One who is standing by eagerly waiting to fulfill our every need (physically, emotionally, financially, relationally and ummm...oh, yeah, spiritually) in the hopes that the lost might be saved? Does the church building exist so that saints of God might come together with reverence for a holy God as they worship Him through the reading of and attentiveness to His Word, in song, in giving, in prayers, and in fellowship with one another and thereby building up the body of Christ as a living temple of God or is it so that the view of Christianity being projected to the world is one of a people who are "in step with the times", who will "go the extra mile" to make them feel at home (even providing a continental breakfast), whose music mirrors the world's in the hopes that they will find the worship of God an enjoyable experience, whose preaching and teaching consists of taking one or two verses and building a sermon filled with pop psychology and "instant gratification" phrases in an attempt to persuade them that, if they will just untie God's hands and allow Him to, He can fix their every problem and in such a presentation hope that the lost might be saved? We cannot save anyone. Only God saves. He saves through His Word (the gospel of Christ) and through the work of His Holy Spirit. We are commanded to preach the gospel. We are commanded to love. Do we do these things because we love Him who saved us? Or do we do them in a way that says we think God needs our help (our slogans, our ideas, our wisdom in knowing how to get them into the Kingdom and entertain them sufficiently to keep them there)? I humbly suggest that God does not need our help. He has given us His commands. He works in our obedience to them to bring others to the cross, where He alone saves them. Yes, we invite others to attend church services with us. It is here that they (hopefully) witness the community that exists between God's people, our love for one another and for God. It may be here that God chooses to bring His Word to life in a heart. But let's leave the world outside the door. If we bring the world inside, what do we offer that the world doesn't already offer (i.e., a quick fix)? God meets the lost at the core of their need; forgiveness of sin. If recognition of our sin and hopelessness as well as our desperate need for a Savior brings pain and suffering to our heart and causes us to cry out for relief from the only One who can supply it, why are we trying so hard to make the lost feel comfortable in our pews?? May we show forth God's truth; we are a set apart people called to a life of holiness, not worldliness. Halfway up the driveway leading to our church there are identical signs, one on each side. As you arrive at the church, the signs welcome you there. As you leave, this is what the (backside of the) signs read: YOU ARE NOW ENTERING THE MISSION FIELD Because of Him, Karen |
||||||
8 | Do we receive *holy *spirit as a gift? | Luke 11:13 | Hiskid84 | 130188 | ||
Hi, Ray. Thank you very much for explaining your thoughts to me in such a way that I think I understand what it is you are wanting to convey. I must admit though, it didn't come easy! I only have a few moments to write this reply but hopefully I will be able to cover everything I want to point out. You say that you are "...merely suggesting that there is a holy spirit in Scripture as well." We know there is a spirit. Romans 8:16 speaks of "the Spirit" and "our spirit" in the same sentence. I guess my response to your statement would have to be; do you believe our spirit (obviously after conversion) is holy? If we are to walk "according to the spirit" it would seem, by necessity, it would have to be holy. The same is true of verse 9. If we are "in the spirit" because the Spirit of God dwells in us" and being "in the spirit" means we are not walking in the flesh, our spirit would have to be holy. So this is why you are wondering if the "gift of the Holy Spirit" is really the "gift of the holy spirit" or God giving us the gift of making our spirit holy. Yes? No? You wrote: "2) Verse 6, NKJ, "For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace." Verse 6, NASB, "For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace." We have to decide whether the Scripture is talking about being spiritually minded or be thinking of the Spirit. Is it speaking of spirit or Spirit?" I believe that verse is saying (in both forms) that we are to have our minds set on the things of the Spirit. Wouldn't being carnally minded mean our minds are focused on the things of the flesh? Why we would want our minds focused on the things of the spirit? To use spirit in this way we would have to say our minds are focused on the things of OUR spirit, wouldn't it? Even if our spirit was holy, why would we be told to focus on the things of our spirit rather than God's? Because our spirit now looks like His? What would it mean for our spirit to be holy? What would it "look like"? Isn't holiness the absence of sin? If you could define "holy" that would help. Because to say our spirit is without sin is to say that part of our being has already attained a form of perfection. (I can't wait to hear the "Be ye holy as I am holy" quotes!) Unfortunately, my brain functions at an even slower pace at this time of night so I have to quit for now. The more I try to reason this out the more I get tangled in my circles. I just want to add one last thing. In verse 6 of the NKJ it speaks of being "spiritually minded". I don't think it's in error to equate this with setting our minds on the things of the Spirit. To be godly (lower case) minded still means to have our mind toward the things of God. In the same way, to be spiritually minded would mean to have our mind toward the things of the Spirit. Your turn. :-) In Him, Karen |
||||||
9 | SHOULD WOMAN BE PRECHING | Bible general Archive 2 | Hiskid84 | 130133 | ||
Hi, Searcher. Thank you for your contribution to this thread. I often wonder if the people that have been on the forum for a long time ever get tired of answering the same questions over and over. (Perhaps it is evidence of the fruit of the Spirit; love, patience, kindess, etc) The person that posted this question (jehova4130) seemed to be having difficulty getting the question just right. First was posted this question, "what does it mean in chpt2 11,12?". I responded by asking, "What book??". (Though I had a feeling the question was refering to 1 Tim, I opted to use 2 Tim for the verse I had to post in order to even respond to this person) Then the person posted a second question (which was the same as the first) and which started this thread. After starting this thread, the person then went back to the original question they posted (what does it mean...) and responded to my question of "which book??" with the reply, "1 Tim. 2:11-12". So the person has clarified which book, which verse and what the question is. Unfortunately, all of this is done in bits and pieces as part of two different threads. And if I have you totally confused, my work here is done. :-) In Him, Karen |
||||||
10 | A SIN TO FILE BANKRUPTCY | 1 Pet 4:10 | Hiskid84 | 130110 | ||
Hank, If you discover a way to be used in the capacity of teacher regarding credit card companies and prudence (and thereby sparing many innocent lives "death by junk") without it being either a sinister thought or deed, please email my husband immediately. Many thanks, Karen |
||||||
11 | what does it mean in chpt2 11,12? | 2 Tim 2:11 | Hiskid84 | 130108 | ||
Well, personally I take these verses pretty much at face value. 1 Timothy 2 11: Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. 12: And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. 13: For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14: And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. (NKJ) Verses 13-14 explain why women are not to usurp man's authority. Who was it that fell for Satan's lies? Eve. It was the woman that was deceived. (Adam just ate what his wife served him, see vs. 6 below) Look at these verses: Gen. 3 1: Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God indeed said, 'You shall not eat of every tree of the garden'?" 2: And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3: "but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die." 4: Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5: "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6: So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. In the first place, she chose to totally disregard God's command. In the second place, she fell hook, line and sinker for the lies of the enemy. She reasoned with her mind that the fruit was "good for food" (lust of the flesh?), "pleasant to the eyes" (lust of the eyes?), and "desirable to make one wise" (pride of life?). And when she'd totally messed things up in the worst way possible, she turned to Adam and said, "Here, honey, try this." (My paraphrase) Now many people try to reason that everything changed when Christ came. However, that's not what the verses in 1 Tim. say and after all, they were written after Christ fulfilled His work on earth and ascended back to heaven. So after Christ had come and gone (I say that loosely), we see that God is still telling us that men are to be the leaders, not under the authority of the woman. So what does all of that have to do with a woman preaching? Well, it would take far too long to address all the Scriptures that support what I am about to say so I am just going to condense it down to this: Men and women are not made the same. We may have equal value but we are not made the same. God made us different to compliment one another. He gave man the role of authority (both in the church and in the home). It is to him that God gives the great responsibility of discerning the truth and then leading his flock in that truth. Women's Lib is not in God's plan. In Him, Karen |
||||||
12 | what does it mean in chpt2 11,12? | 2 Tim 2:11 | Hiskid84 | 130099 | ||
Ummm...chpt2 11,12 of what book??? (Personally, I like 2 Tim. 2:11) :-) Karen |
||||||
13 | Do we receive *holy *spirit as a gift? | Luke 11:13 | Hiskid84 | 130094 | ||
Ray, I don't know how welcome my comments will be but, since you asked, I'm going to share them. Frankly, I'm puzzled by your use of the lower case letters when refering to the 3rd member of the Trinity. Romans 8:9-10 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. (NKJ) These verses plainly state that if the Holy Spirit is in you, Christ is in you. Do you use lower case letters to refer to Christ? Was Christ not a gift as well? I guess what I really want to know is, why do you feel it necessary to change the spelling? What is it you are accomplishing through it? Why does this awesome Gift from God need to be reduced to our level? Hoping for more insight from you. In Him, Karen |
||||||
14 | Rule or Ideal? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Hiskid84 | 130078 | ||
Hi, GB. Thank you for replying to my post. I understand very well what you mean when you say, "assuming that others are aware of what it is that I am stating." The longer I am on this forum the more I believe that this (making this same false assumption) happens more often than we may realize. In regards to your statement that I was responding to, your comments did seem a little overly zealous in the context of Doc's entire post. Of course, it's obvious that your response to his initial post was one of those things I just commented on above (i.e., Doc falsely assumed that people would see, after reading his entire post, that his true perspective is that we use the ideal, God's best, for a standard). Your words, "reeks" and "stench" seemed pretty strong but there's nothing wrong in being passionate about defending truth. Since you prefaced your statement with, "I doubt you mean it this way, but" and followed it up with, "I know what you appear to be saying, but..." you did give the general impression that you really understood what he meant. However, your statement in the middle is still difficult to understand, even in light of your explanation. Soooooo... ...if time permits would you please tell me how you concluded that a woman and a man living together but not married, which I understand certainly could be considered as "anti marriage", would lead you to say that it "reeks with the stench of the same arguments that grew to advocate same sex marriage."? What argument would that be? The only conclusion I can come to is this: In a downward spiral, men and women who have no regard for marriage whatsoever do away with marriage entirely and live openly in sin. This leads to gay partners who have lived openly in sin to claim they have the right to exchange wedding vows and be considered married in the eyes of the world. This would be taking something that God instituted and corrupting it in every way (both in the exclusion of marriage by a man and a woman and by the inclusion of marriage by two people of the same gender). You know, that thing that Satan does so well. Am I even close? You know, your answer to my question (as to how you came to the conclusion that led to your statement above) doesn't really matter as far as biblical truths go (the main purpose of the forum). But it might give me insight as to your line of reasoning and help me to better understand your statements, possibly eliminating the need to write as many posts asking for explanations. :-) You certainly didn't offend me and I hope I haven't offended you. In Him, Karen (Mrs. Doc) |
||||||
15 | Fruit vs. Works: the same or different? | Gal 5:22 | Hiskid84 | 129986 | ||
Hi, AO. I'm sorry I didn't reply to your questions today. I hope to do so tomorrow. I'm sure you must know what my answers will be if you are a regular reader of this forum. I do not hide the fact that I believe any/all of our (Christ-like) works are EVIDENCE of our salvation, not the MEANS of (keeping) salvation. However, I want to give your questions appropriate consideration when answering and appreciate the chance to exercise my ability in defending what I believe to be true. In Christ, Karen |
||||||
16 | Fruit vs. Works: the same or different? | Gal 5:22 | Hiskid84 | 129985 | ||
Hi, Country Girl. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. They gave me some new things to think about. I'm not sure if it was intentional on your part but you refered to us as the vine and Jesus as the Branch. I believe it is always the other way around in Scripture (He is the vine, we are the branches). I would also address the point where you and I differ in every post. I understand that you are compelled to say that we may be surprised with a one-way ticket to hell on Judgment Day if we aren't careful in accumulating enough "good works" to gain us entry into heaven. I know you say this in sincerity of heart, believing it to be both true and also to be beneficial to the readers of this forum. In the same way I am compelled to disagree. Though I do appreciate your thoughts on fruit and works, I believe that both are born out of our relationship with God, not the other way around. You wrote: "Some of these fruits are also inter-related but we should strive to add them all to our spiritual person and upon adding them, strive to improve them and grow in our spiritual relationship with our Lord." According to your order we must first gain fruit, then work (with diligence) to improve them, and lastly, grow in the Lord. Even if I agreed that we could do these things on our own (and I don't), I would beg to differ with the order. As I stated in my previous post, in my understanding of Scripture our fruit and/or works come out of our relationship with God, not the other way around. Just as you feel it is imperative to continually tell people they should constantly work at gaining access into heaven (just in case all that work is needed), lest they miss it, I feel it is just as imperative to refute your statement and suggest that people should rely on the finished work of Christ for their eternal heavenly home. You see, for me it is not a matter of "covering all the bases." It is a matter of helping people to see God for who He truly is. The Sovereign Creator of everything and Ruler over all His creation. To make salvation dependant upon our works is to make God impotent rather than Omnipotent. Thus man's view of God becomes smaller and smaller. Okay. That's all. May you be blessed, Karen |
||||||
17 | Rule or Ideal? | 1 Tim 3:2 | Hiskid84 | 129984 | ||
Hi, GB. The following statement that you wrote is very puzzling to me: "In such a day as this, your phrase "one woman man" reeks with the stench of the same arguments that grew to advocate same sex marriage. Your thought could very well be interpreted as anti marriage." Would you please share how you came to that conclusion? I honestly can't see it, though I've tried. (However, occasionally I have been known to be slow on the uptake). I don't see how the term "one woman man" would imply anything other than Doc's definition of "a man who has never in his life loved more than one single woman." As in, no fooling around for him. No previous marriages, either by death or divorce. Only one wife. Period. Unless you took it to mean "loving only one woman at a time" but this is not the definition Doc used. Or does your "anti marriage" statement mean you think this "one woman man" and his woman are only living together? Or is this another instance where I realize I live a sheltered life? Is this some kind of new slang (since you wrote "in such a day as this") meant to be used in a derogatory or homosexual way? Does the "woman" in "one woman man" mean a man impersonating a woman? I hope you can clarify your answer. Now I'm really curious as to your meaning. I do like your phrase, "I wouldn't know whether to debate your thought or light a fire under it." Cute. :) Karen |
||||||
18 | Does asking in His name ever work? | John 14:13 | Hiskid84 | 129980 | ||
Hi, Emmaus. You did a very good job of answering. In fact, you said everything I was going to! :) I just want to add one thought. I know many times I have prayed for something and it seemed God did not answer. However, later I realized that He had indeed answered but in an unexpected way. To give a very basic example: I pray a prayer for God to change me and make me more like Him. I'm expecting to see an obvious answer. After all, I'm certain that my prayer isn't being asked amiss. So I'm looking for an opportunity to help someone, or maybe gain some new insight into the Bible or understanding of God. Some "confirmation" that God has answered my prayer. In the meantime, something comes along in my life that I don't handle very well and find myself asking God, "Why has this happened?" Far too often I realize, after the fact, that in this "event" I had opportunity to change and be more like Him. Did I? No. I took my eyes off of Him and fixed them on the problem. If I had kept my eyes on Him I might have learned to trust Him more. I could have meditated upon Philippians 4:13 and relied upon His strength and not my own. I could have put 1 Thess. 5:16-18 into practice, knowing I was fulfilling His will for me. Would these things have produced growth and change in me? It's very likely. Would that have been a direct answer to my prayer. Most definitely! Did God cause something bad to happen in order to bring about His answer? No way. However, He has this wonderfully unique way of taking unexpected things and using them for our good (growth) and His glory. So sometimes He uses circumstances to answer prayer. We just have to be open to whatever way He may choose to reply. Just my 0.02 worth. Karen |
||||||
19 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Hiskid84 | 129969 | ||
Greetings, Brother Hank. Thank you for a very insightful reply. I appreciate your truthfulness, clarity and humility. (Just don't let it go to your head) :) You ended your post with the question, "How would you answer your question?" Why, I would borrow your answer, of course! "Your question is tough. It makes me think, and I don't like that." (Is this beginning to feel like a game of "gotcha last"?) Seriously, you did a wonderful job. There's not really anything I can think of to add. Your guidelines in the quest for truth were right on. Your comment, "Man loves to gussy up the plain gospel message with "user-friendly" dross; to dilute its power to convict sinners and feed the saints by sprinkling in a big dose of I'm-O.K.-you're -O.K. humanism" reminded me of something my pastor said in his sermon last week. In preaching on Ephesians 3:7-12, and specifically on grace as it was exhibited in Paul's life, he was showing some of the ways that God's grace has become less than amazing in today's modern world. We must have an accurate understanding of our fallen state. God gives grace to the humble--humility comes through comparison of our true selves to the holiness of God. (Sorry my sermon notes are a little choppy) Then he made this statement, "We need to stop trying to get people saved and get people lost." Hopefully you'll make the connection. Thanks again for putting thought and effort into your reply. Your sis, Karen |
||||||
20 | why was the thief saved without baptism? | Luke 23:43 | Hiskid84 | 129923 | ||
Hi, Hank. You asked, "Do we seek in Scripture ways to justify our preconceptions and misconceptions, or do we found our faith and practice solely on Scripture?" As is the way of the forum I would like to ask a question (or 4 1/2) in response to your question. How can we tell the difference? How can we know if what we believe to be biblical truth is, in fact, erroneous? Would anyone admit to using Scripture to justify their incorrect beliefs? Wouldn't (most) everyone claim that THEIR faith and practice is founded solely on Scripture (regardless of reality)? Solely on Scripture. Isn't that known as...never mind. :) Inquiring minds would like to know. Karen |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |