Results 1 - 20 of 20
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonnyr1 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Can a true christian lose salvation? | Not Specified | jonnyr1 | 110969 | ||
I'll shift bases a little. I will ask the question of whether or not someone can lose their salvation. I have never heard a sermon on this, and I go to church three time a week. Please support your summaries and views with scripture. Thanks. Jon |
||||||
2 | Can a true christian lose salvation? | Bible general Archive 2 | jonnyr1 | 110971 | ||
I'll shift bases a little. I will ask the question of whether or not someone can lose their salvation. I have never heard a sermon on this, and I go to church three time a week. Please support your summaries and views with scripture. Thanks. Jon |
||||||
3 | Can a true christian lose salvation? | Bible general Archive 2 | jonnyr1 | 110970 | ||
I'll shift bases a little. I will ask the question of whether or not someone can lose their salvation. I have never heard a sermon on this, and I go to church three time a week. Please support your summaries and views with scripture. Thanks. Jon |
||||||
4 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110966 | ||
The purpose could be that maybe we translated it wrong. That Jesus was actually the sired son of maiden Mary. If Jesus was adopted and is Joseph's son by Jewish law, then it would mean something to the Jews! | ||||||
5 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110965 | ||
Hello Pastor Glenn, Of course I'm not disputing some or all of these scriptures. But there are some problems with your response. 1) Jesus had to be in the line of David according to the flesh. You fail to show anything scriptural that supports this. 2) Jesus has to be of David's Physical seed, but how is this possible? Some scholars argue that the hebrew or greek (it escapes me) word that is used as virgin should acually mean young maiden, and the same word is translated as young maiden earlier in the scriptures. Do you have more information on this? -He was contantly called his son. But you certainly aren't saying that he actually sired Jesus, are you? Simple adoption doesn't seem to fulfill that he is of david's sead through the flesh. Jon |
||||||
6 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110962 | ||
"Don't you think the earliest Christians had the same question you do? How do you think they resolved them? And who or what, in your opinion, is the final arbiter of the "TRUTH" of any interpretation of ambiguous passages of Scripture?" -Some of them that read scripture may have had this question. Of course God is always the Final and Absolute truth. When it comes to ambiguous passages, many similiar verses need to be brought together. If we can't understand it, what good did it do for God to put it there? The Bible is supposed to be 'a lamp unto our feet, and a light unto our path', not a question and trivia book for stimulating confusing brain activity. If the message can't be understand, it has no purpose and no meaning to those that hear or read it. 1Co 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. -I know of no book ever written that is more confusing than the Bible. "I know my answer to those questions, but I am from a minority camp on the foruma dni don't think you are in that particular camp, so what is your answer?" -Exactly what minority camp are you referring to good Emmaus. What is my answer? I don't have one and it is nagging me. Hence my question to you! Jon |
||||||
7 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110959 | ||
"You seem to have an extraordinary high standard for proofs. Mine may not satisfy you, but here is my reasoning from Scripture." -I have one standard for proof. TRUTH. "Many hold that the geneology of Luke is Mary's geneology. But even if that was not the case, under Jewsish law an adopted son has the same status as a natural son and so the geneology of Joseph would applied to Jesus, just as our status as adopted children of God (see Romans) grants us status in the family of God." -Yes, many hold that Luke is Mary's geneology. This is something that people make up in an attempt to fix the problem. Mary's name doesn't even appear in the entire geneology of Luke 3! It would be pretty suspicious to say that it is her geneology when her name isn't even in it! Not to mention Romans 1:3 says that "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh". Jewish law has nothing to do with 'the seed of David according to the flesh'. Also a note, no women is held of high enough importance in the Bible to have their geneology listed. Jon |
||||||
8 | Was Mary in David's Line | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110955 | ||
Good to hear from you again Emmaus, I have read Galatians but don't see how it pertains to David's seed. How does this verse show that Mary is adequate, and that Joseph is not required. Where in the Holy Bible can it be proved that Mary was in the line of David? Galatians 4:4 (KJV) But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, Jon |
||||||
9 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110954 | ||
But if Mary is not in the line of David, then what? Can you show me proof from the Bible that Mary is in the line of David? Jon |
||||||
10 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Not Specified | jonnyr1 | 110947 | ||
From the below verses it is very clear that Jesus had to be from the seed of David according to the flesh. But how?? Joh 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: In Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. We see that see was with child of the Holy Ghost. How could Jesus be the seed of David in anyway, let alone to the flesh as stated in Romans 1:3? My Questions Continue Jon |
||||||
11 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | jonnyr1 | 110950 | ||
From the below verses it is very clear that Jesus had to be from the seed of David according to the flesh. But how?? Joh 7:42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was? Ro 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; 2Ti 2:8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel: In Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. We see that see was with child of the Holy Ghost. How could Jesus be the seed of David in anyway, let alone to the flesh as stated in Romans 1:3? My Questions Continue Jon |
||||||
12 | devil name while in heaven? | Is 14:12 | jonnyr1 | 110946 | ||
His name was Lucifer. Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Hope this helps Jon |
||||||
13 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110944 | ||
"I am just wondering: Why did you ask this question if you already knew the answer?" -What are you talking about? I don't know the answer, nor does anyone else. "You ask the question, then reject every honest attempt to answer it. What, then, is your answer? If everyone else's answer is wrong, then tell us what you believe to be the correct answer." -It doesn't matter how honest the attempt is! I reject the answers that are unscriptural and stretches. I asked the question, just because I don't have an answer doesn't mean that the answers the others gave were correct. Are scriptue and reasoning your strong points? Very much dissapointed Jon |
||||||
14 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110929 | ||
Hello Emmaus, A possiblity, but a stretch nonethless. Acts 7:56 says nothing of Stephen seeing Jesus return in the clouds, it says nothing about angels coming with (see matthew), says nothing of judging or rewarding those according to their works, etc.. Jon |
||||||
15 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110927 | ||
Even though I'm closing this topic, I have some final remaks. "Your first premise is actually incorrect. You state that 'you shall see' is addressed directly to the High Priest. Yet, the Greek verb is 2nd person plural." The context shows: Mr 14:60 And the high priest stood up in the midst, and asked Jesus, saying, Answerest thou nothing? what is it which these witness against thee? Mr 14:61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? Mr 14:62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. -It certainly would appear from every version I have read that he is speaking to the priest. But even if he is speaking to everyone, the problem still isn't solved. I'll not argue with your greek. Although I haven't looked at it myself. "Therefore, Jesus was not specifically saying that the High Priest would see." If Jesus was addressing the whole group, even more people would have to see him if the interpretation was taking literally. "One could argue that Jesus was addressing all those present, but a much more convincing arguement would simply be that Jesus was taking several well known quotes from the Old Testament and using them to fully reveal His true identity to the Jewish leaders." Saying 'I AM', showing miracles and quoting scripture would be adequate. Making a statement that doesn't come to pass is hardly the thing to do. The priest would have torn his clothes even if Jesus just said 'I AM' and didn't promise that he would return. To assume that we should let it slip as him revealing himself is unscriptural. still closing Jon |
||||||
16 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110926 | ||
Thanks to everyone that responded. I ask this question and others similiar because I have been studying the Bible and seem to have come across things and questions that I would like answered. closing mark 16 for now Jon |
||||||
17 | Do you have any other explanations? | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110902 | ||
Hello Ray, I will respond to your post very similiar to that of Emmaus's. Your words are in quotes. "Hi jonnyr1, A comparison of the gospel may give you an answer to your question as well as the excellent answers you have already received." Nice greeting, but I wish I could agree with you on the excellent answers portion of the opening. "In Mark, as you have said, the chief priest is the person of which it says "and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power,..." It simply says "you shall see" with some time in the future being indicated." I address this in my critique of Emmaus's response. It clearly says that he would see Jesus coming back in the clouds. It would have to happen in the priest lifetime, because after he is dead, there would be no clouds for him to see Jesus come back in. Please read Emmaus's message for more. "In Matthew 26:64 it says, "nevertheless, I tell you, hereafter you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power,..." My Study Bible has a marginal alternate reading for "hereafter" as [Or, from now on]. I believe the Greek supports that idea that "from now on" we all will see that He is who He said He was, and He will be coming in power and glory. See last section." Looks like Mark left out an important detail. But how is the problem fixed in Matt 26? This is what my online bible greek lexicon returns. 737 arti arti artee from a derivative of 142 (cf 740) through the idea of suspension; TDNT-4:1106,658; adv AV-now 24, henceforth 575 2, hereafter 575 2, this present 2, hitherto 2193 2, misc 4; 36 1) just now, this moment 2) now at this time, at this very time, this moment For Synonyms see entry 5815 It has to be within the priest lifetime! "In Mark 13:26, it doesn't talk of the high priest but it has the same idea of His coming. "And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory." So you see that not only the high priest but all of us will see this." The best point I have read yet, but still the disciples have tasted of death and not seen Jesus come in his kingdom with his angels and reward. And if the priest is not alive and on earth, he won't be able to see Jesus coming in the clouds, the priest would have to be in some eternal bleachers enjoying the show. "Psalm 110:1, "The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at **My right hand, Until I make Thine enemies a footstool for Thy feet." Ok, what's the point. If I wanted I could search the phrase right hand and I would get back 174 result using SwordSearcher. So what? This has nothing to do with the main promise to the priest and disciples. "Mark 14:62, "...and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of **Power..." Same as above. Jon |
||||||
18 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110900 | ||
Hello Hank, Thanks for your response. I believe most of your remarks are answered in a similiar way in emmaus's response message. Jon |
||||||
19 | Can you answer this? | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110899 | ||
Hello Emmaus and thank you for responding so quickly. I'll try to go over your response while keeping it somewhat short. Your words will be in quotes. -"Jesus did not say when the High priest would see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven." Irrelevant. He says that the priest will see him returning. If he wasn't to see him coming back in his lifetime while he was on earth, then when? Jesus is clearly referring to his second coming to earth to judge and reward (matthew), and it would be impossible for him to see Jesus returning in the clouds if he wasn't alive and on earth. In Matthew 16:27-28 (KJV) Jesus says this to his disciples: 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Please don't try to say that this was fulfilled during the transfiguration. Problems with this defense: 1) Matt. 16:27 says the Son of man "shall come"; whereas, Jesus didn't come from somewhere to Peter, James, and John. He was with them all along and, in fact, took them up the mountain. 2) Jesus was supposed to come with angels and they aren't even mentioned in the Transfiguration account. 3) When did Jesus "reward every man according to his works" at the time of the Transfiguration? Nothing is said about rewarding anyone. 4) Jesus was to come "in his kingdom." Yet, his kingdom isn't mentioned in the Transfiguration account either. 5) According to the same narrative in Mark 9:1 the kingdom was to "come with power." Yet, the events surrounding the Transfiguration elicit no exceptional display of power. Read also: mark 9:1, luke 9:27 Use any translation or version you like, the message remains clear. -"He will certainly see Him at the last judgement and may have seen Him at the moment of death before his individual judgement." Yes, we will all see him at the last judgement. But the verses in Matthew and Mark don't refer to the last judgement. Your answer is evasive and unscriptural. His individual judgement right after death? Please bring out your Bible and enlighten me on this. Not to mention that it is still invalid, as is the last judgement. Neither have anything to do with him coming back to earth in the clouds. -"This statment of Jesus was mor a declaration by Jesus of His own identity as the divine "I am" and the Messiah." He says 'I AM'. The passage has more meaning than simply a declaration. Read the rest of the verse. Also read Matthew 16:27-28 again. The verse consists of more than two words! Let's be honest and keep the whole verse intact please. If it was just a declaration, Jesus wouldn't have made a promise that the priest would see him coming, and Jesus wouldn't have promised to his disciples (in Matthew 16) that they would see him coming in his kingdom. -"See Psalm 110:1,2, 5-7 and Daniel 7:9,13, 23-27. for the reference verse and how they also show thet the Son of Man will be vindicated over His enemies by God. Jesus was vindicated in the face of His enemies by His Resurrection and Acension into heaven." I have already read and studied these cross reference many times. Being vindicated is not the point I am getting at. You know very well that I am concerned with his prediction and promise to the priest and disciples. -"Also interesting is the response of the High Priest who tears his garment in violation of Leviticus 10:6 and 21:21:10. Mystically this has been interpreted as the rending and end of the priesthood of the Old Covenant. By comparison, the Linen garment of Jesus, the High Priest of the New Covenant (Hebrews 7:23-24)is not torn (John 19:23-24)." Interesting, but not the issue of discussion. Hope to hear from you again, Jon |
||||||
20 | Is Mark 16:42 a failed prophecy? Help me | Mark 14:62 | jonnyr1 | 110886 | ||
In Mark 14:62 Jesus is speaking directly to the high priest. Jesus says, "...you shall see the sone of man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven." In other words, Jesus told the high priest that he would see Jesus (the Son of Man) returning in the clouds of heaven. But did he? The priest has died and did not see Jesus returning in the clouds. Nor did anyone else. Is there any defense for this verse? Help Please! Jon |
||||||