Results 1 - 20 of 25
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Setonahill Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who were the elect | Not Specified | Setonahill | 224561 | ||
I find from the accounts found in the Gospels Jesus only used the word (ELECT) 4 times. From those 4 usages by Jesus how did anybody of the time know who He was referring to? When I look at it I can only think of 2 possible answers. 1) Jesus was referring to the Jews of that time as the Remnant who would gain their Salvation through Faith in their Messiah before the destruction of the Temple or as Jesus said Himself before that generation would pass away.(Mt.24:34) 2) Jesus was referring to everyone that would gain their Salvation both of the Jew and of the Gentile and this again would be before that generation would pass away. Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Luk 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? For clarification I have used only the verses from Mt. they are repeated in Mk. the verse from Lk. is not repeated in any of the other gospels. Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Setonahill |
||||||
2 | Who were the elect | Matt 24:22 | Setonahill | 224562 | ||
I find from the accounts found in the Gospels Jesus only used the word (ELECT) 4 times. From those 4 usages by Jesus how did anybody of the time know who He was referring to? When I look at it I can only think of 2 possible answers. 1) Jesus was referring to the Jews of that time as the Remnant who would gain their Salvation through Faith in their Messiah before the destruction of the Temple or as Jesus said Himself before that generation would pass away.(Mt.24:34) 2) Jesus was referring to everyone that would gain their Salvation both of the Jew and of the Gentile and this again would be before that generation would pass away. Mat 24:22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. Mat 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. Mat 24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Luk 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? For clarification I have used only the verses from Mt. they are repeated in Mk. the verse from Lk. is not repeated in any of the other gospels. Mat 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: Mat 10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Mat 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Setonahill |
||||||
3 | The true Gospel Jesus proclaimed | Matt 4:23 | Setonahill | 224560 | ||
00123 The main theme of your posts come across as a frustration with what you perceive to be a lack of the Church to do certain things that you feel should be done by the Church. Your desire is that everyone answering your questions would only use the 4 Gospels to clarify just what it was that Jesus taught about the Kingdom, so the Church could then do those things properly. In your reading of the 4 Gospels, just what have you seen, where the church is failing to accomplish Jesus teaching? You use these verses to make your point. Matthew 7:26. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. John 12:47. If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. With these two verses in mind, what do you feel the Church should be doing to fulfill the teaching to be found within these two verses? It sounds as though you are asking a question with a preconceived idea as to what the answer should be, and you aren't looking for an answer, as much as a conformation to what you have already seen should be done. I am not trying to be argumentative with you, or point a finger at you, I am only trying to get you to see that whenever someone gives you an answer, you have an answer to cover their answer, and ask another question. That means the answers you are receiving aren't the answers you want to hear. They are not the conformation you are looking for. This ultimately means, you have seen something that should be done, but at this time you do not see it being done. My question to you would then be. Do you feel there is something the Holy Spirit has shown you that you need to speak to your Church leaders, Pastor about? Has God given you a mission for your life to reveal these things to those that do not see them? Setonahill |
||||||
4 | does this refer to exodus or creation? | Ps 18:1 | Setonahill | 224527 | ||
vnct bizn Sometimes it just helps to read a different translation from time to time to get a different viewpoint and then again we just might find something that is not in the translation we are reading on a regular basis. Hope this will clear things up for you. I have checked 20 other translations and there are only 3 that do not have this as part of the text and guess what the NAS is one of them. If you don't have it try clicking on www.biblegateway.com It is a good way to check things like this for yourself as a reading and study help. KJV - - Psa 18:1 To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David, the servant of the LORD, who spake unto the LORD the words of this song in the day that the LORD delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul: And he said, I Setonahill |
||||||
5 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Setonahill | 224510 | ||
Beja As you have said "Its not an issue of Hebrew Grammar" although the Hebrew Grammar did clear up the issue of who actually was being spoken to in Hosea 1:9 allow me to expand on your statement if I may. It's also not an issue of "Theology, or even the Promises of God" the issue at hand is the question I originally asked no.224482 if you or anyone else would care to answer this question It would be much appreciated. I asked this question in an attempt to ascertain whether or not Peter was possibly writing to Jewish believers in Christ that might have been caught up in the Diaspora. In my study I have found that it is unclear as to where Peter wrote this letter and that the date of his writing is unsure as well. To quell any misconceptions that might have occurred. I fully agree and whole heartedly concur with your statement regarding Dispensationalism. "In my opinion this thinking is demonstratively in opposition to what scripture teaches." I am not interested in furthering the discussion on the correctness of Gills Exposition as it is not germane to my question. I thank everyone that has participated in this thread and the opinions they expressed. At this point reread my question and if anyone would like to make a comment I thank you. Setonahill |
||||||
6 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Setonahill | 224496 | ||
stjohn Even though Gill has not used any scripture to back up what he has promulgated in his commentary. You are willing to accept what he says based only on the fact of who he is even though he has clearly included the Gentiles when they are not even mentioned. This is prophesy to Israel only. Any inclusion of the Gentiles is false teaching. So in answer to your question "Who is doing the assuming?" - - GILL. Hos 1:9 And the LORD said, "Name him [b]Lo-ammi, for you are not My people and I am not your God." I really feel that this discussion has run it's course no need to answer. Setonahill |
||||||
7 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Setonahill | 224493 | ||
ariel levin I had to look this one up myself. Nwbvx Cheshbown Pelafalan:khesh-bone' Asal Mula:the same as 02808 Strong's Reference Jenis Kata:n pr loc (noun proper locative) Dalam Ibrani:Nwbsx 23, Nwbsxb 11, Nwbsxm 2, Nwbsxmw 1, Nwbsxw 1 Dalam TB:Hesybon 37, Hesbon 1 Dalam AV:Heshbon 38 Jumlah:38 Definisi:Heshbon - equals - "stronghold" 1) the capital city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, located on the western border of the high plain and on the border line between the tribes of Reuben and Gad the same as 2808; Cheshbon, a place East of the Jordan:-Heshbon. see HEBREW for 02808 Setonahill |
||||||
8 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Setonahill | 224492 | ||
stjohn In your saying "It says that they were not a people meaning not a people of God or His elect." isn't that an assumption? I can't take what Gill says in his commentary as far as them being "God's elect, whether among Jews or Gentiles," because in Ho.1 it only speaks of Israel, and Judah nowhere is there any mention of Gentiles. This sounds more like a furtherance of Gills belief in the doctrine of election. He has stretched the understanding of the word "Loammi" to encompass the Gentiles where scripture doesn't say that at all. Setonahill |
||||||
9 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Setonahill | 224487 | ||
stjohn as I have gone further in the reading of 1 Peter I have come to the point where he did indeed answer the question I had in regards to 1:1. As I began reading I had the question so I posed it to the forum. But now as I have come back to my reading I have come to 1 Pet.2:10 where Peter is clearly speaking to the Gentiles. Thanks for your time Setonahill |
||||||
10 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Setonahill | 224485 | ||
stjohn When you say "born again believers" I fully understand that he was writing to believers that is the reason for the question. Just so there isn't any mistake or misunderstanding that could get out of hand. I was not making assumptions, I was asking a question. I am aware their ministries were not exclusive and that when Paul started his ministry he did go to the Jews, but there came a point in his ministry when he did not any longer. Your reference to Paul in acts what chapter was that? Setonahill |
||||||
11 | Jewish believers or not | Not Specified | Setonahill | 224481 | ||
According to Gal. 2:9 it was agreed that Peter would have his ministry to the Jews, while Paul's ministry would be to the gentiles. With this in mind, when Peter writes in 1 Pet.1 "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," Can we assume that he was writing to Jewish believers? Setonahill |
||||||
12 | Jewish believers or not | 1 Pet 1:1 | Setonahill | 224482 | ||
According to Gal. 2:9 it was agreed that Peter would have his ministry to the Jews, while Paul's ministry would be to the gentiles. With this in mind, when Peter writes in 1 Pet.1 "to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," Can we assume that he was writing to Jewish believers? Setonahill |
||||||
13 | Actions to preach the kingdom of God | Luke 9:2 | Setonahill | 224455 | ||
00123 It seems as though Luke 9:1,2 will answer your question. But for conformation of this read Matt. 10:7,8 Mark 6:7 Mark 6:12,13 1 Cor.2:1-5 also. Setonahill |
||||||
14 | What end results come from Prov. 6:31? | Prov 6:31 | Setonahill | 224341 | ||
biblenovice If you would but take the time to read Pro 6:23-35 you would then see that the context of these verses are about ADULTRY. You need to understand the two verses you are trying to use for your argument are an allegory. The author is not talking about stealing food but your neighbors wife. Take notice that the first word in verse 32 is "BUT" which means it is nothing more than a continuation of the narrative from the above verses. I'm sorry to say you are grasping at straws with these verses. Your argument for retribution is pretty thin if all you can bring up are these two verses. I would say the only satisfaction you will get in this world is the knowledge that God will settle the debt for you on the day of judgement. That is unless that person gets saved and is forgiven his sins the same as you were forgiven yours. That means you are to forgive the wrong that has been done to you. Setonahill |
||||||
15 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Setonahill | 224338 | ||
Moran Thanks for asking. Yes the question was asked in my original post to dka (224291) then re-posted to Beja (224321). My question to dka was to ascertain who the requirement was affecting. "Has this taken place before only with other girls in the same position or is this a common practice where anyone in the congregation having committed any kind of sin had to do the same?" Answer from dka "This has taken place in this church with other girls in the same situation." My concern in asking this question was to find out if the church was discriminating by only requiring the young girls to adhere to this regulation for restoration or were their other people having sinned that had to do the same. If the latter had been the case then I would have agreed with the churches standard but the answer was in the negative so I therefore disagree with the churches position on the grounds it singles out one sin which cannot be kept secret for very long thereby making it the most obvious to combat. It then appears to me the church isn't so much concerned about sin in it's midst as much as it is in stamping out unwed pregnancy. My objective in relating all of the sins that people could and do commit was to demonstrate the fact they were secret sins where the people committing such sins could stay undiscovered and while never having to go through this ritual themselves they could sit piously in the church judging young girls all the while being just as guilty yet unknown. The supposed forgiveness from these people would be a sham. Thank you for the welcome Setonahill |
||||||
16 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Setonahill | 224330 | ||
Beja Any possible motive for this church to have instituted such a requirement at this point is irrelevant. Let me explain. If as you say "The motives for what is happening could be many or varied, or it could have began as such things and now simply become the adopted tradition of the church to expect such things for that particular sin." Does this mean because they might have had a motive in the past which caused them to create such a regulation that it should continue if it is now the wrong action to be taken or are we to follow tradition for tradition sake? My whole argument has been on the grounds that the church has the right to institute any laws it pleases upon it's parishioners. It then falls upon the parishioners to either accept or reject those laws. It comes down to the practical application of this law that should determine whether or not it is a just law. A just law as all of Gods' laws are would be applied to everyone within the congregation and not just on a very small minority of that congregation. If the law says that the sinner has to repent and receive forgiveness from the entire congregation that is fine. But if it is only being applied to those girls that get pregnant then the law has been instituted to stigmatize only one part of the congregation and not stop sin of all kinds within the congregation. My point being there are people in every congregation that would not like everyone in their congregation knowing the things they do in private on a regular basis. There are people that cheat on their taxes every year other people that have businesses that rob their customers others that lie about everything others that gossip some men lust after women with their eyes and others break all kinds of traffic laws. But as you have said it is hard to see or know about these sins which are committed or their repentance from them. That my brother is what makes this an unjust law it is being applied unjustly to only one segment of the congregation only on the grounds it is or will be in the future not be able to be hid any longer and everyone will know what has happened "SIN". But all of the other sinners in the congregation will continue on in their secret sins they then will sit in judgement of a girl that made a mistake and will pay for that mistake for the rest of her life even if she does get forgiveness from them. Matt.7:1-6 On these grounds I make my case against this churches regulation. If the regulation cannot be applied fairly against all sin then it should not single out one sin and condemn the guilty party. In your saying "Now unbelievers could point and say, "Look, christians really are no different." "By forcing them to apologize to the church it is a way of publicly stating for all to know that the church declares this is not how a christian is to act." While it is true that unbelievers could say those things the forcing of the offender to apologize to the church is by no means a public notification and the unbelieving public will never be informed that the apology has taken place. They will then continue to say what they say. I seem to not have been able to clearly state my position I hope this helps clear things up. Setonahill |
||||||
17 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Setonahill | 224321 | ||
Justme This church having a ruling that the sinner must come before the church to ask forgiveness otherwise suffer the consequence of being excommunicated seems to be discriminatory in their practicing of it. It appears as though this church requires this to be done only for young girls who get pregnant but not for everyone else with all types of sin. My contention is that the church having such a requirement must apply it evenly. If it cannot or is not applied in such a manner then it should not be applied at all. My question to dka was to ascertain who the requirement was affecting. "Has this taken place before only with other girls in the same position or is this a common practice where anyone in the congregation having committed any kind of sin had to do the same?" Answer from dka "This has taken place in this church with other girls in the same situation." Therefore it appears this is only a requirement for young girls that sin. The following should suffice as a mere sampling of the things God looks at as abomination Pro. 6:16-19 but in this church the same standard of adherence for sins committed does not seem to apply. I do not believe this is an age issue as much as it is a sin issue and the accountability of those to the church that commit sin but if the standard for this accountability is not the same for everyone then the standard is wrong. Rom 3:23 God looks at sin as sin regardless of the development of the brain. In closing if this is being applied as a deterrent to sin then we should look again at the death penalty. How is a girl to repent of a pregnancy? Setonahill |
||||||
18 | Is it bibical for a church to require? | John 8:7 | Setonahill | 224291 | ||
dka While there may be scripture about us being one body that could be misconstrued to bring about this type of practice. I cannot think of a place in the bible where this practice has taken place or even a teaching in order to be a guide for us. The question then arises. Has this taken place before only with other girls in the same position or is this a common practice where anyone in the congregation having committed any kind of sin had to do the same? Because Jesus did say Joh 8:7. Setonahill |
||||||
19 | women as song leaders | Hab 3:19 | Setonahill | 224249 | ||
Doc Mine has not necessarily been a Complementarianism point of view of this matter. It has more to do with the fact the church in some cases can take things to the extreme becoming more Pharisaic in their approach in adhering to the letter of the law rather than the spirit.Thus my comment about the point of worship. Setonahill |
||||||
20 | women as song leaders | Hab 3:19 | Setonahill | 224246 | ||
Mitch1029 While I whole heartedly believe 1Tim 2:12. I do not in the case of a woman song leader believe that this verse or any of the other verses forbidding women to talk in church would apply. There isn't any usurping of authority or the teaching of man. When it comes to the point of worshiping the Lord were all equal. Setonahill |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |