Results 1 - 18 of 18
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: chris a Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | chris a | 57926 | ||
Thanks again, Kalos! Right back at you! By the way, in the last post I should have put that we are commanded to recieve Mark. Opps!! GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
2 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | chris a | 57920 | ||
Kalos, I fear you're trying to 'proof-text' me to death!:-) Lets start at the beginning! Romans 3:31 needs to be expanded to 3:21-31: ASV But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and on all them that believe: for there is no difference: For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? No: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yes, we establish the law. How do we establish the Law? We recognize and agree with its purpose that we are sinners and hopelessly lost without the saving work of Christ. Notice v. 21 the righteousness of GOD is manifested WITHOUT the Law. There is no contradiction here, only a misunderstanding due to inadequate context. You well know that Paul gives the primary purpose of the Law as showing that all the world is guilty before GOD. So, we establish and confirm the true purpose of the Law, that we are guilty. Anti-Semitic theology is not relevant to me, as I’m a dispensationalist. We have the highest regard for Jews, as they will again be GOD’s chosen people, but to say that we are free from the Torah is incorrect doctrine you would have to throw the apostle Paul out of the New Testament. I’ve already discussed Mat. 5:17, so lets go to 19:17, again we need to see the context to properly interpret. Mat. 19:16 – 22 (ASV) And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. But when the young man heard the saying, he went away sorrowful; for he was one that had great possessions. Those who teach Law love 19:17, but only when they can proof-text. I have some questions for you: How can one get to heaven? Not by keeping the Ten C’s! Notice Jesus tells the young man to keep some of the Ten C’s and the man said he had, so why didn’t Jesus say, “GOD bless you brother, I’ll see you in heaven!”? He didn’t say it because the Law cannot get a person to heaven and Jesus was simply showing this young man that he was a sinner. He continues and shows the man that he is not pleasing to GOD although he kept, or claims to have kept, those commandments. The point, in my opinion, is to show the man that he cannot be justified by the Law, it in no sense suggests that the Law is required after you are justified! Finally, I don’t know what you’re trying to say with *entole*. Surely you don’t think that John was suggesting that we keep the Mosaic Law?! If so, then we have a new one to keep from Col. 4:10, “Aristarchus my fellow-prisoner saluteth you, and Mark, the cousin of Barnabas (touching whom ye received commandments; if he come unto you, receive him),” So, we can’t eat pork and we must sacrifice bulls and sheep and know we need to receive Aristarchus if he should come! Sorry, I couldn’t resist the sarcasm! : ) In my opinion entole is used in the New Testament for more than just the Mosaic Law or the Ten C’s, it is used to refer to commands from a particular person. I return the sentiment, I’m really enjoying hearing your views. Let’s keep challenging each other!! GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
3 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | chris a | 57907 | ||
Kalos, I never said Christ came to abolish the Law. But we are not 'under' the Law, Christ redeemed us from the Law and we fulfill the righteous requirement of the Law because He fulfilled it for us! For us to turn around and say, 'I need to fulfill it myself' is an insult to Christ! I must also mention that you are interpreting Mat. 5:17 quite differently than I would, but we don't need to go there now, and that 'fulfill' certainly can be translated 'accomplish' or 'complete'. You again quote one verse in James, but if you follow through, I believe it is clear what he is saying: James 2:8-12 (ASV) ¶ Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty. James continues that if you keep one command from the Law but break another you're guilty of all, why? Because God spoke ALL the commands and ordinances to Moses, so if you claim to keep one of the Laws you must keep them all, as they have a common source, ie Mosaic covenant or Law of Moses, and he doesn't mean just the Ten C's because the thought starts with the Royal law from Deut. which is not one of the Ten C's, but notice what he ends with in vs. 12! What is the Law of Liberty? I would argue that it is the same liberty that Paul speaks of in Galatians Ch. 4 and 5. I believe James is saying that if you obey the Law you do well(v.8), but if you live by the Law you will be judged based upon the whole Law(vs.9-11), so speak and act as one under the Law of Christ, ie liberty (v.12). I don't believe James is endorsing the Law in vs. 8, because of the warning in vs. 12. The question I have for you is, how do you interpret vs. 12, what is the Law of Liberty? GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
4 | 4th commandment has been done away? | Ps 111:7 | chris a | 57901 | ||
May-it, We keep running in to each other my friend! I would ask you to reconsider you reading of James 2:10 by continuing to read through v. 12. James 2:10-12 (ASV) For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou dost not commit adultery, but killest, thou art become a transgressor of the law. So speak ye, and so do, as men that are to be judged by a law of liberty. The key verse for this section is v. 12, for a reference of the Law of Liberty study the book of Galations Ch. 4 and 5, which makes it clear that Liberty is Christ freeing us from the Law (again, all of it). So, I believe James is saying that if we practice the Law we are under all of it, the entire Mosaic covenant, and if we break one ordinance or command we will be judged, so we should speak and act as one under the New covenant ie the Law of Liberty. I want to emphasize that James makes no suggestion that the whole law is the Ten C's, because his initial quote is the Royal law with is in Deut. and is NOT a part of the Ten, so to think he is only talking about the Ten would be incorrect, but rather he is talking about ALL the Law. And, all sides would agree that we are NOT under the whole Law. And, of course, I'm arguing that we are not under any of the Mosaic Law, not the Moral section or the Ten C's, but rather the Law of Christ. GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
5 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | chris a | 57899 | ||
May-it, I would discourage you from going to the Amazing Facts website, I have seen several of these broadcasts and they often misrepresent Scripture to make it sound like we are still under the Ten C's, but if you study the New Covenant Paul makes it clear that we are not under the Law and he also goes to some length, as does James, to show that you can't pick and choose parts of the Law, you are either under it (the Law, aka Mosaic covenant) or you are not (the New covenant, abiding in Christ, ie Law of Christ). There are other problems with AF that I won't go into here, but I would encourage you to take some of the references that you have recieved from AF, specifically from the New Testament and study the entire book that the references come from. I believe you will find that the verses are often taken out of context, just as the verses quoted by respectHim were. GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
6 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | chris a | 57897 | ||
Kalos, No, the Law is not without purpose, but Christians are not bound to keep the Law as such. For certain issues the apostles do gleen from the Law, but that is just relating truth from the Mosaic covenant to the New convenant; it doesn't make us bound by the Mosaic, rather it reveals some important truth about the New. The overriding theme in the New covenant is that we are NOT under the Law, not the Ten C's or the Moral portion, Paul and James emphasize that if you are under any of the Law you are under all of it, so we can't pull these portions out. We are to abide in Christ by the Law of Christ. I don't have time now to go through some of these Scriptures but I will try over the next week and I will get back to you. GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
7 | what's the name it claim it theory? | Gal 5:22 | chris a | 57893 | ||
Amen John!! I agree that the prosperity and right of healing preaching is indeed a perversion. What I don't understand is why more in the Body don't preach this truth! This false message is being propogated at an amazing rate and I think that men and women of GOD who rightly divide the Scriptures must stand up and stop ignorate carnal Christians from falling for this deception. I know the Bible says quite a bit about judging, but this would clearly be righteous indignation, wouldn't it? GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
8 | Still under 10 C's? | Ps 111:7 | chris a | 57786 | ||
respectHim, How about using II Cor. 3:7-9 to justify not practicing the 4th commandment, "But if the MINISTRY OF DEATH written and engraved on STONES was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory WAS PASSING AWAY, how will the Spirit not be more glorious? For if the MINISTRY OF CONDEMNATION had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory." NKJV (emphasis mine) When did Moses veil his face? What part of the Law was engraved on stones? What is this text referring to in the Old Testament? (hint: Ten Commandments) Clearly the ministry of the Spirit is different and distinct from the ministry of condemnation and death written and engraved on stones (i.e. the Law INCLUDING the Ten Commandments!) Your opinions on Col. 2:15,16 may have support but they are in no wise conclusive. I think you'll have more trouble dancing around the above Scripture which confirms that we are no longer under the Law (any of it)! I must also mention your misinterpretation of Scripture which borders on misrepresentation for a specific view point! Lets examine Rms 7:1-12 (ASV) '¶ Or are ye ignorant, brethren (for I speak to men who know the law), that the law hath dominion over a man for so long time as he liveth? For the woman that hath a husband is bound by law to the husband while he liveth; but if the husband die, she is discharged from the law of the husband. So then if, while the husband liveth, she be joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if the husband die, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she be joined to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ;' Paul gives a detailed example of how one is freed from law and then shows why Christians are free from the Law and married to Christ. 'that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were through the law, wrought in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that wherein we were held; so that we serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.' Again, Paul states that we are no longer under the Law, here we are discharged from the Law because sin was wrought through the Law. '¶ What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me.' Notice that SIN attacks US through the Law! Yes, the Law is holy and good, but we are corrupted by sin and as long as the Law lives in us sin still takes advantage of our weakness! Also, notice what section of the Law Paul uses to make his point, 'Thou shalt not covet' and this is of course one of the Ten Commandments which again makes clear that we are NOT under the Ten Commandments. 'So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good.' Clearly, your use of verse 12 out of context manipulates the meaning! Paul stresses through out ch. 7 that we are no longer under the Law, but you choose to quote only verse 12! Yes the Law is holy, but sin kills because of human weakness and sin exploits that weakness through the holy Law! For the record Rms 2:13 is also out of context, Paul is making an argument to Jews that having the Law doesn't make them doers of the Law. And that discussion leads to the consumation of this first argument in the great book of Romans, 3:20, 'Therefore by the deeds of the law NO FLESH WILL BE JUSTIFIED in His (GOD's) sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.'NKJV (emphasis mine). So, why don't we recognize the Sabbath, because we are no longer under the Law including the 4th commandment! As an additional aside, the Sabbath came before the Law and we do recognize it in a Spiritual sense, reference Hebrews for the Sabbath rest that we enter when we sacrifice our works toward salvation and enter the rest of GOD! But this recognition has nothing to do with Saturday. GOD bless, chris |
||||||
9 | How were ppl saved before Jesus came? | Heb 11:6 | chris a | 49222 | ||
Prayon, I have to strongly object to you answer! Heb 10:4 says, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." Jesus Christ's sacrifice is the source of ALL salvation, past, present and future. The blood sacrifces in the OT were only symbols of Christ's ultimate and true sacrifice! The book of Romans states that the sins in the past were 'passed over' until Christ came to clease from sin. (I don't have the reference now, but i'll find it and let you know ch and vs.) Hebrews 11:1-2 says, "For faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony" Not by animal sacrifices. GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
10 | How were ppl saved before Jesus came? | Heb 11:6 | chris a | 49219 | ||
Amrit, Prayon is way off on this one!! Read the book of Hebrews and these thing will be made clear! Faith in GOD is the only way of salvation, now we must have faith in Jesus, but then people needed to believe in their Creator and not the creation!! Mommapbs is right on, and again the reference is in Hebrews! See Hebrews 10:4 to counteract Prayons misunderstanding, "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." (NKJV) The context is clear that animal blood NEVER took away sin!! GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
11 | Key words: David, next generation, NT? | Acts 13:36 | chris a | 49007 | ||
Jessie, I realized that I had my online bible on my computer, so I got the correct reference for you! Acts 13:36-38, these are most likely the verses you're looking for, and they speak to the same intent that Peter spoke to in Acts 2:25-39. GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
12 | Key words: David, next generation, NT? | Acts 2:25 | chris a | 49004 | ||
Jennie, I believe you're thinking of Acts 2:25-39. The meaning is comparing the prophesies of david with the fact that the king did in fact die, so he could not be the Holy One who would not see decay. This prophecy was looking forward to our Lord Jesus Christ. This may not be what your looking for, but if you go to these verses and look at the references you may find it. Unfortunately, I don't have a reference Bible with me (I'm at the office). Hope this helps!! GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
13 | just my opinion | Gen 6:15 | chris a | 48996 | ||
Wang, I agree with you completely! True believers often waste there time trying to 'prove' certain Biblical truths. We would be better served to trust GOD and walk completely by faith! However, there are those, like AIG, that are called to defend the verasity of the Biblical text, so that the lost have the opportunity to see that the Bible is the truth! Remeber what Paul said, I become all things to all people that I might save some! Those who are called to do so, must make every effort to reach the lost in whatever environment they are called. I also believe it is important for Christians like you and me to be aware of these explanations, so we can direct those who are searching to the appropriate resources! I am interested in creation science, both young and old earth views, but I must be careful not to spend time GOD has provided for something else on affirming my faith! Walk by faith not by appearances! GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
14 | inmyheart, could Paul be sarcastic? | Acts | chris a | 48984 | ||
Searcher56, I think you may have made a typo. I Cor. 14, only has 40 verses. GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
15 | Per 2Thes 2:3 isn't the rapture postrib? | 2 Thess 2:3 | chris a | 48337 | ||
Glen, I don't believe the 'it' refers to the coming of the Lord and our gathering together with Him. The two (rapture and Day of the Lord) are not at the same time. Why did the believers lose their 'composure' when they heard that the Day of the Lord had started? The only logical answer I know is that they expected to be 'raptured' BEFORE the Day of the Lord. Also notice that the Day of the Lord is not until the lawless one is revealed, but in v7, Paul states that the lawless one will NOT be revealed until the Restrainer is removed. I believe the Restrainer is the Holy Spirit and I believe that the Holy Spirit will be removed when the rapture occurs; because if the Holy Spirit is removed but believers remain, they will be defenseless against the schemes of the devil. Therefore the rapture (removal of the Restrainer) must be before the Day of the Lord. Although it may sound otherwise, I am anything but dogmatic with regards to this interpretaiton, if you see problems with it, please let me know. I'm open on the issue!! GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
16 | anti-christ revealed before rapture? | 2 Thess 2:3 | chris a | 48334 | ||
Nolan, I'm not sure why you're concluding that the day of the Lord and the rapture will be at the same time. I must note first that I do not believe the Day of the Lord is a literal day but rather a period of time. As I read IIThessalonians 2:1-2, I see the composure of the readers about the coming of the Lord and our gathering together with him (rapture) being shaken because they were told that they were in the Day of the Lord. They felt this period had already started, again not a single day. Why was there composure shaken? The only reason the makes sense to me is that they were expecting to be 'gathered together' with the Lord BEFORE the Day of the Lord. Why else would they be shaken with regard to the coming of the Lord? I believe they expected to be raptured before that Day, but when they heard the Day had started and they were not raptured they lost their 'composure'. Also notice v3, "Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unles the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction," (NASB, '77). The 'it' refered to in v3 is the Day of the Lord not the rapture. Jump over to v7,8. The lawless one will NOT be revealed until the Holy Spirit is removed! This removal IS the rapture! There is no way that christians devoid of the Holy Spirit could withstand the evil one! With out the Holy Spirit there is no such thing as a Christian, because He seals us unto salvation! I believe that these versus strongly suggest a pretrib rapture. My list would be as follows: 1. Rapture (Removal of the Restrainer) 2. Revealing of the lawless one (he will begin in peace and prosperity, see Daniel) 3. The Great Tribulation/The Day of the Lord, beginning (Destruction of the Jews and any Christians saved after the rapture.) 4. The Lord slays the anti-christ/The Day of the Lord, ending (Revelation and Daniel have much more to say about this period of time.) I am also 'on the fence' with this discussion, so please let me know if my interpretation has holes. But I am quite certain that if the restrainer is the Holy Spirit, He cannot leave without taking all Christians with Him. Without the Holy Spirit we would be defenseless against evil! I would love to consider your comments on the pre-trib view, what was the post titled? GOD bless!! chris |
||||||
17 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | chris a | 47731 | ||
Jawz, I see your point about the imperfect tense. However, doesn't Mt. 2:9 have the exact same construction with the imperfect tense and then heos? And I believe that it does suggest a stopping of the action: Mt 2:9 And they, having heard the king, went their way; and lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before(imperfect) them, till(heos) it came and stood over where the young child was. The star stopped going 'before them' after it came to the child, right? GOD bless!! Thanks again! chris |
||||||
18 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | chris a | 47589 | ||
Jawz, I haven't been on the forum for a while, so if i'm rusty, please excuse. I'm not an expert in greek either, so please enlighten me to any mistakes in my interpretation. I have several greek references from my Online Bible software and all of them suggest that heos is a conjuction simpling joining statements. I cant find anything regarding the tense of this word. I'm also not sure why your referencing Old Testament Scripture as, i'm sure you know, it was written in Hebrew. You may be basing the info on the LXX or perhaps you believe that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (Aramaic). Whatever the case, Matthew uses heos prolifically and I have some examples I'd like you to explain, (all from Online Bible, ASV) Mt 1:17 So all the generations from Abraham unto(heos) David are fourteen generations; and from David unto(heos) the carrying away to Babylon fourteen generations; and from the carrying away to Babylon unto(heos) the Christ fourteen generations. I may be interpreting you comments incorrectly, but clearly the counting stops at (1)David, (2)the carrying away, and (3) the Christ. This is the same greek construction for heos as Mt. 1:25, but there is no eternal/perpetual idea to heos here. How is this to be correctly interpreted? Mt 2:13 ¶ Now when they were departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until(heos) I tell thee: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him. Clearly, Joseph was not to be in Eygpt after the angle told him, so again I don't see the eternal nature of heos. Please explain. Mt 2:15 and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son. Again, he was to leave after the death of Herod. How is this use of heos to be interpreted? I am not questioning your scholarship, but it does appear that the word heos is used in the sense of 'until' in these circumstances. If I'm not seeing you point, I appologize, please clarify. I see heos as a conjuction and the interpretation of time depends on what is being joined, is this wrong? Thanks! GOD bless!! chris |
||||||