Results 1 - 20 of 59
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jamison Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208571 | ||
Peace, First, as far as my salvation, I have done everything in your list of requirements. So please tell me, how is it clear that I do not take Jesus as my savior? I have not denied any of the beliefs that go against the rules of the Forum. If so, please show me which one. However, you added baptism to the list of things necessary to be saved. In your own response, you question whether I "believe in the basic tenets of Christianity regarding the means of salvation as by faith alone, by grace alone?". You don't believe that, so don't point your finger. I have accused you of nothing ... until now. I merely challenged each of you to think outside of Christian tradition. You however have stated that baptism is needed to be saved. This is not faith alone. This is faith plus... jamison |
||||||
2 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208562 | ||
The original response was meant to get you to think John, not to define my beliefs. In fact, Jesus seemed to do the same thing with the guy. He didn't actually answer the guy's question but made him look deeper (which Jeff pointed out). Like to argue? maybe. Probably right on that. But that is not the motivation. The motivation is to get you to think as well as think outside what you already believe. jamison |
||||||
3 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208559 | ||
Peace, I have had this discussion with others here before, that is why I know that many of them are unwilling to test it. Many will not consider anything that does not already line up with what they believe. Obviously that will vary with each individual. As far as the theologian vs Pharisee. You state, "Pharisees who built their teachings on their misunderstanding of the purpose of the law. Theologians have for centuries built their teachings on what Christ directly taught about everything he addresses, as well as what the apostles taught about what they addressed. There is a real difference between the Pharisees teaching and Christian orothodox theology." The Pharisees based their teaching on the Scriptures. We base our teaching on the Scriptures. However, their understanding was much more straight forward (in their language and culture). We have it in a different culture and have to translate it as well. Which do you think is more likely to be accurate? I am not saying they were right, but if they could be so far off, what makes us think our theologians are dead on the money? I have plenty of objections with mainstream theology, but that is not the point. I am not trying to get you to believe like me. I have not asked anyone to explain their theology in this thread either. Lastly, not one verse you stated said to accept Jesus as your Savior. I looked them up when I first read the post. Many had believe or follow Jesus. Some didn't seem to relate at all (in my opinion, but I will rethink those outside my box if you would like). There is a big difference between accepting Christ as Saviour (popularly taught in mainstream) and believing in Jesus. But I didn't feel like going in to it so I let is ride. So am I willing to put forth what I believe for everyone to see. I don't have a problem with that. The host will though and it will not be up for long and then it will be censored, so no, there is no reason to go into what I believe. In fact, this thread is already restricted and I haven't even said anything. I am not trying to get you to believe it anyway, but to think outside the confines of your own theology. Even if they call you a heretic (thank God for the heretic Martin Luther!). If we were alive when Jesus walked the earth would we stick to our theology or follow Him? Do you think the religious leaders of Jesus' day thought He was a heretic? jamison |
||||||
4 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208556 | ||
Hello peace, No, that is not the question I was referring to, but I appreciate you helping. I am referring to post 208536. Thank you, jamison |
||||||
5 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208555 | ||
Hello Steve, Point 1: I agree. I agree totally. It is the box of the Pharisees that I am talking about. Didn't you read what I wrote about today's Pharisees? Point 2 What was considered orthodoxy in Jesus' time had been built up for about the same amount of time and was also passed along to others. Which causes me to ask the same question again. Why do we think that the religious leaders of today are any different than those of Jesus' day? jamison |
||||||
6 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208544 | ||
Doc, Again the question has went unanswered. I don't really expect an answer. I have asked it enough times to realize that no one wants to answer it. "You'll test everything, as long as it has nothing to do with theology". Not quite sure what that means. However, I am not against theology. We all have one, even I. But I am against our theology being more important than learning about God. When we make statements like...what Jesus says contradicts the doctrine of salvation by faith alone, so He must have meant something else...then we have put our doctrines and theology above learning about God. And that is exactly what the Pharisees did to Jesus time and time again. We defend our doctrines to the end. jamison |
||||||
7 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208536 | ||
Peace, Jeff, Hank, and anyone else, What type of theology I believe is not important. I am not trying to persuade you to think inside my box, but to think outside yours. Brad asked earlier if my theology was pure and without outside influence. No, of course not. But I am willing to test everything I believe. Just because mainstream Christianity or my current theology teaches something does not make it true. Even with Scripture to support it, because as I showed earlier with this, Scripture can easily be used to support inheriting eternal life by selling and giving to the poor. We just shoot that down because it doesn't agree with salvation by faith alone which is our current and mainstream theology. Well challenge that. Maybe the theology is wrong. You can't just say it doesn't agree with this theology so it must be wrong. Jeff did well in his explanation. Very well indeed. By the way, I don't think keeping the commandments or selling and giving to poor are ways to heaven. Which theology did Jesus have that was outside the box? Plenty... Eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth - mainstream and inside the box (just ask the Pharisees) Jesus says to turn the other cheek - goes against teaching of religious leaders and mainstream theology. (Matt 5:38-39 compare Ex 21:24) It is unlawful to work on Sabbath - inside the box, exactly what mainstream theology taught. Jesus said Sabbath was made for man, not man for Sabbath - outside the box, against mainstream theology. (Mark 2:27). I think two will suffice, but can give more if you need them. The pharisees were the religious leaders of their day. They had the Scriptures in their language and basically in their culture (it had changed some over the years of course) and some books only 500 years old. We have the Scriptures in translated form nowhere close to our culture and 2000 and more years later. If they could not see the truth, why do we think that mainstream theology today can? I ask this question often but have yet to receive an answer. The Pharisees wouldn't know God if He walked beside them (oh yeah, He did). And yet our theologians do the exact same thing. They read the Scriptures for exactly what they SAY and not what they MEAN. They miss the heart of God. Please reply to my one question in here. Why do we think theologians of today are more accurate than theologians of Jesus' day? Good evening to all. I mean you no ill will, but challenge you to think "outside the box (your individual theology and mainstream theology)". By the way, sorry I didn't respond earlier. I gotta go to work too you know:) jamison |
||||||
8 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208500 | ||
I say to step outside the box, because if we don't we just read our theology into the Scriptures. Our theology defines the Bible instead of the Scriptures defining our theology. Do I live outside the box of standard theology, yes. Did Jesus, yes. Did the Pharisees, no. | ||||||
9 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208499 | ||
Let's see... Inside the box: the Pharisees Outside the box: Jesus |
||||||
10 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208487 | ||
Hello Azure, Come on now, you will have to do better than that to refute these verses:). First - the man asked how to inherit eternal life. It stands to reason that Jesus answered his question. However, if you don't think that he did, then telling him that he would have treasure in heaven seems to say the same thing, right? Do the unsaved have treasure in heaven? Can anyone have treasure in heaven and not have eternal life? Second, do you know the apostles didn't sell all they had? I don't see the Scriptures say that anywhere which means that it is speculation and that is not allowed here:). Come on now, you have been here a long time. Step outside the box of standard theology and tell me why this is not a requirement. The jailer asked Paul what he had to do to be saved and Paul answered "Believe" and we go with it. A man asks Jesus what he must do to be saved (am I correct in assuming that inheriting eternal life and being saved are the same?) and He answers and we don't go with it. Tell you what, let's put away the commandments for now and just go with sell all you have. Jesus said there was only one thing he lacked. What was that one thing? Was it selling all he had or was it following Jesus or was it something else? jamison |
||||||
11 | What do we need to know about God | John 17:3 | jamison | 208485 | ||
Let's not forget to keep all the commandments as well as sell all we have and give to the poor!!! (Matt 19:16-26 and Mark 10:17-27 and Luke 18:18-27). We have to do this to inherit eternal life. Also you have to accept Jesus as your Saviour. I can't find verses for that one, sorry. jamison |
||||||
12 | GOD cast an angel out of heaven/satan | Is 14:12 | jamison | 208378 | ||
Hello John, Compare the Isaiah passage to Matt 11:23 and Luke 10:15. It is the same idea expressed here. Capernaum wasn't actually IN heaven and then thrust down to hades. Neither is Isaiah speaking of a being that was IN heaven and thrust out. It is metaphorical. The idea is that they think they are so great, but God is going to cut them back down. They have puffed themselves up, but they will be brought back down. Again, just my opinion. I think we Christians just have a knack for reading our theology into a verse and this seems certain here. Even assuming that Satan was cast from heaven, this passage does not mention him at all. In fact, the verse right before it (11) talks of him being buried in the ground (worms cover him, etc) and then verse 16 calls him a man. So all around this it appears to be talking about the king of Babylon. Why would it change right in the middle? jamison |
||||||
13 | GOD cast an angel out of heaven/satan | Is 14:12 | jamison | 208373 | ||
I could be wrong on this, but I don't think this is talking about Satan at all. In verse 4, Isaiah says this proverb is concerning the king of Babylon. If this is about Satan, it seems odd that Isaiah switches mid-stream to write 3 verses about Satan and then switches back to king of Babylon again in verse 15. I think this line of reasoning came about because of the mistranslation in the KJV where "O star of the morning" was translated as "O Lucifer". Notice that Lucifer is not the name of Satan. It is used only once (here) and even this instance is a mistranslation which is why NASB, NIV, etc have corrected this and put O star of the morning. I am kind of rambling at this point, but other than the fact that we have always been taught that this is about Satan, is there any reason to believe that this is about Satan and not the king of Babylon as stated in verse 4? Just my opinion, Jamison |
||||||
14 | God's Regard for Cain's Offering? | Gen 4:5 | jamison | 205977 | ||
Hello Tamara, I would venture to say it was the heart attitude. Our God is more interested in the heart than rituals. See Isa 1:10-17, Hos 6:6, Matt 9:13, 12:7, 23:23, God isn't concerned with the rituals (sacrifice). Also notice Romans 2:28-29, it is the heart that is more important, not the practices. That being said, our practices are usually a direct result of our heart. There is nothing given (that I am aware of) that says that God told them to sacrifice a lamb and not vegetables, but we do assume that He told them this at this time. However, if Cain had no lamb or any animal of any type, would God not accept his offering of vegetables if it was all he had and he sacrificed it with a proper heart? I would say that a God that desires mercy would indeed show mercy to one with the proper heart attitude. However, we see very shortly exactly the heart attitude Cain had when he killed his brother. Remember, even the right sacrifice (ritual) with the wrong heart is meaningless. God is after the heart, not the sacrifice. The sacrifice is merely an outward action demonstrating what is in the heart. jamison |
||||||
15 | Divorced Do Christians Get Remarried? | 1 Cor 6:9 | jamison | 205378 | ||
That's a big fat 10-4!!! jamison |
||||||
16 | Divorced Do Christians Get Remarried? | 1 Cor 6:9 | jamison | 205375 | ||
Hello John, I have seen you put IMHO in a number of posts. What does this stand for? jamison |
||||||
17 | is caron 14 completly accurate? | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 205374 | ||
10-4 Doc! | ||||||
18 | is caron 14 completly accurate? | Bible general Archive 4 | jamison | 205361 | ||
Hello Neil, I would assume that the paper you read was by a Christian scientist and he was referring to the Flood when he said something changed. I don't know that for sure, but it is what many of them say. Their reasoning is fairly accurate too. Carbon14 dating is accurate to some degree. It does work only on organic material (including bones, sorry Doc). It measures the amount of Carbon 14 (which is an unstable form of Carbon) to determine how much is there. Carbon 14 decays at a specific rate, so if you know how much is there now and how much was there initially (when the animal first died) you can date when the animal died. In today's world we know without a doubt how much carbon 14 is present when an animal dies. It is a specific formula that works. However, the problem with the Carbon 14 dating process is that the formula may/may not be accurate at all times in the history of the world. The most likely event that would have changed the initial amount of carbon 14 would have been the flood, due to the changes it would have caused in the environment. A lot of things are assumed and there is little actual fact to any of them, but the point is that if you do not know how much carbon 14 was present when the animal first died, then you CANNOT date it with carbon 14. This amount of carbon 14 present is considered (by myself and other scientific Christians) to have likely changed at the flood, and dating animals that died in or before the flood would be way off. Anyway, that is probably the idea of the article and if not, then there is another possibility for you. jamison |
||||||
19 | Just out of curiosity. | Phil 1:23 | jamison | 205158 | ||
Hello Steven, I did not get to see your response before it was removed. I would appreciate it if you would email it to me. jamison2u@gmail.com. jamison |
||||||
20 | An interesting discussion/question | Romans | jamison | 205096 | ||
Hello Steven, Thank you for the encouragement. Many people are unwilling to consider anything outside of what they already believe. I will actually look into and see if there is any merit to it. May have merit, may not. Thank you again. jamison |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |