Results 1 - 20 of 60
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: reilly1041 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 98779 | ||
I think comparing the "Prayer of Jabez" to the "Prayer of Jesus" says a lot about our society. "Jabez" (not that I've read it) sounds like a program by which one can try to manipulate God -- say this prayer and your prayers will be answered. "Prayer of Jesus" says the secret to prayer is secret prayer, in other words, you have to have a prayer life, you have to do it, not just read about, not just repeat some brief prayer from a book, but you have to pray to God. And which book is on the best seller list??? So sad!! |
||||||
2 | IS there any answers out there? | NT general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 98653 | ||
Hank-- I have to second your wife's reading recommendation on The Purpose-Driven Life. I'm about halfway through it, my whole church is reading it and discussing it in small groups. I started this whole process VERY skeptical - it sounded awfully gimmicky. I was wrong - it really is a powerful book, each chapter an eye-opener. Within my group are new and old Christians and both camps are finding their eyes being opened and their lives changing. (I know, I'm sounding like an ad for Rick Warren, but it really is good.) Put it at the top of your pile. On the Prayer of Jabez, suggest to your wife that she switch QUICKLY to the PRAYER of JESUS by Hank Hannegraaf!! Reilly |
||||||
3 | communion actually body/blood? | Matt 26:26 | reilly1041 | 96547 | ||
My question concerns transubstantiation -- the Catholic view that the bread and wine literally change into the body and blood of Christ. I know that this has been discussed before on this forum. My question specifically is, according to Catholic sources (catholic.org), the early Church Fathers believed that the communion elements were literally the body and blood. These men lived within several generations of Christ and were apparently leaders of the church and the learned men of their time. How is that they could be so wrong? Can it really be that the church was completely wrong from, say, the year 100 until the year 1500 when the Reformation occurred? Below are some quotes from these Church Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch (year: 110 AD) "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr (year: 151 AD) "We call this food Eucharist....For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Origen (year: 248 AD) "Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]). Cyril of Jerusalem (year: 350 AD) "The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9). I find it hard to dismiss these quotes as mere Catholic rhetoric, given that some of these writings are from the 2nd century, only 80 years after the death and resurrection! They had the same Scriptures we have. How we can say they were all completely wrong. Please help! Thanks, reilly |
||||||
4 | pray to God or Jesus or same?? | Rom 1:8 | reilly1041 | 94248 | ||
Radioman2, Thanks so much for that article, as a lifelong Catholic, the phrase "in Jesus' name" doesn't roll off my tongue. This article definitely explained a few things! Thanks, reilly |
||||||
5 | what did "why have U forsaken me" mean? | Matt 27:46 | reilly1041 | 93941 | ||
Radioman2, Do you interpret Jesus' question of "why have you forsaken me" to mean that He was being abandoned by God? I have read other members of this forum state that they believe Jesus was calling attention to Psalm 22 as a last-ditch attempt to reach the on-lookers and teach them what was happening. What do you think? Thanks, reilly |
||||||
6 | pray to God or Jesus or same?? | Rom 1:8 | reilly1041 | 93815 | ||
This question is probably very basic, I am just confused. In Romans 1:8, Paul thanks "God through Jesus Christ" for the Roman believers. What does "through" Jesus Christ mean? That Paul prays his thanksgiving to Jesus, using Jesus as the mediator between himself and God (as in 1 Tim 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...")? But then I read John 16:26-27, "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf; for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father. " which makes it clear that Jesus is saying that we petition directly to God. So my question is --- do we pray to God or to Jesus or does it not matter because of John 10:38, "but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." As you can see, I am confused. Thanks for your help, reilly |
||||||
7 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 92743 | ||
Emmaus, I totally agree with TheLordsChurch's comments. May you never tire of being the Catholic voice on this forum, I'm sure at times it seems lonely! Are there others like you in your Church? reilly |
||||||
8 | Denominations is shameful? | 1 Cor 3:4 | reilly1041 | 92554 | ||
Joyce, Please don't let your fire for God be subdued! I feel for your situation with your husband, perhaps consider this a test or a strengthening of your faith. Do you have children? My husband and I were both raised Catholic, but I wanted to switch to an evangelical Protestant church. I showed him how wonderful the children and teenage programs were at this church, and stressed how much better this church would be for the kids and their spiritual upbringing. He has agreed with me and we now all attend this new church, even though he still fully considers himself Catholic. Keep praying for your husband, I know others on this forum will as well. My husband is a hard nut to crack, but I keep praying that God keeps his heart soft and his mind open. Good luck, reilly |
||||||
9 | merit for ourselves/others eternal life? | NT general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 90433 | ||
Emmaus, I pulled out of the Catholic Catechism a section on merit, which I think includes the part that looks like salvation-by-works, which always is a contentious issue. To ensure enough context, I included the whole section on merit. Paragraph 2010 contains the following sentence: "we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.". I think that sentence really separates Catholicism from Protestantism, doesn't it? The Catechism goes to great pains to state that our works are only possible through Christ, but meriting for ourselves eternal life? Meriting for others eternal life!! What??!! How can we merit eternal life for someone else? I know that you can explain this in a reasonable way -- please help! Thanks, reilly III. Merit 2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it. 2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator. 2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. 2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."62 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions. 2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace. "After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself."63 (63 - quote from St. Therese.) |
||||||
10 | What does this mean? | Ezek 8:17 | reilly1041 | 89687 | ||
mommapbs, Having been raised Catholic, I totally agree with you about the consuming devotion to Mary. My own mother says that she always prays to Mary, figuring "it's better to ask the mother for something rather than the father" (her quote). My mother-in-law says that "Mary conquered sin when she gave birth to Jesus". I believe that this will only continue to grow, as the current Pope is very devoted to Mary. The latest I have read from Catholic web sites is that he may name her "co-redemtrix" because she suffered so while watching her son being crucified. I know that Catholic doctrine does not include praying "to Mary" as if she were God, but include her in the communion of saints to whom we can all pray, asking her to pray for us. This is a fine line in the sand that is easy to pass over. I believe that Mary is a very "approachable" figure to Catholics - she is honored often throughout the year with Holy Days, the Hail Mary prayer is taught to every Catholic preschooler, the statues of her in church are of a lovely, loving mother-figure. In other words, she looks like us. Much easier to chat to somebody like yourself, than the Creator of all heaven and earth. This is my own personal opinion of why the Marian devotion can grow to overshadow devotion to Jesus. reilly |
||||||
11 | how/when was BC/AD initiated? | Is 61:2 | reilly1041 | 88216 | ||
All right, let me withdraw this question. Emmaus pointed me to a link that answered it perfectly. A Roman monk in the 8th century counted back the years to Christ's birth and voila, we had BC/AD! Thanks, Emmaus! STephanie |
||||||
12 | how/when was BC/AD initiated? | Is 61:2 | reilly1041 | 88215 | ||
My goodness, you're full of info on this topic! I am still a little confused, forgive me. My question is how was it decided to call the year that Jesus was born the year zero, i.e., to initiate the whole BC/AD concept? It must have been some time after Jesus died for the timing to be off by a couple of years. It couldn't have been with the Julian calendar, or Caesar would have been calling that year "minus-46" !! :) I always wonder how non-Christians feel about having to recognize Jesus every time they write the date. Are Jews thinking, "He was just a prophet, yet I am reminded of Him every time I write a check?!" Thanks, reilly |
||||||
13 | how were years started? | Is 61:2 | reilly1041 | 88134 | ||
When, how, and by whom was it decided how the years would be numbered? reilly |
||||||
14 | Arminianism came from what/who? | John 3:16 | reilly1041 | 88132 | ||
Thanks Tim for the overview, I had the same question as gracefull. One more question -- Calvinism obviously came from Calvin. Where did "Arminianism" come from? Thanks, reilly |
||||||
15 | Forbidden fruit represents sex? | Gen 3:1 | reilly1041 | 87937 | ||
Thanks for the answer. Her cousin is a priest and she's going to check w/him. I avoided a discussion about it because I was honestly so shocked to hear that interpretation, I had never heard that before. I had the same thought as you, there never was a couple more ordained by God to be a couple, He made her for him!! It made me chuckle though, my mother-in-law probably thought eating fruit was "just" a venial sin..... Thanks again, reilly |
||||||
16 | Forbidden fruit represents sex? | Gen 3:1 | reilly1041 | 87883 | ||
My mother-in-law (Roman Catholic) believes that in the story of the fall, the forbidden fruit represents intercourse between Adam and Eve. She says that original sin and the fall of man wouldn't have occurred just by "eating some fruit". I told her man's fall occurred because they disobeyed God, by eating the fruit. I couldn't convince her, I told her that there was nothing in the text that would indicate that the fruit represented anything other than the fruit. She apparently learned this in Catholic grade school 50 years ago. Does anyone else hold to this view? Am I right to read this story literally? Emmaus - I tried to check the Catechism, but couldn't find anything in there (but I'm not that good at finding my way through that beast), do you know if this is Catholic doctrine? Thanks, reilly |
||||||
17 | Lutheran/non denominational communion | Matt 26:26 | reilly1041 | 87504 | ||
James, Excellent questions, I can't wait to see what other forum members think. It sounds like you and I have similar backgrounds. I was raised Catholic but only started to seriously work on my relationship with God about 18 months ago, starting with studying the NT. What struck me in reading the NT for the first time was how much Jesus talked about how we should live as opposed to how we should follow a "religion" (for example, the Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5). As far as I have found, He didn't prescibe any complex religious ceremonies, but the Catholic Church is full of them. Even the Last Supper sounds so simple: Take and eat this bread (mt 26:26), do this in memory of me. How did it get turned around so much that a priest has to silently recite sacred words over the bread and there are rules upon rules concerning how the communion is distributed and maintained? (I do not say these words as Catholic-bashing, more like sadness that I didn't know Jesus even though I was a "good Catholic".) I totally agree with you that the key is believing in Jesus - that He died for our sins. We need to learn all that we can about Him so we can be closer to Him, we need to worship Him, we need fellowship with other Christians. These are things that I am looking for in a church (I have been trying out many different non-Catholic churches for the past couple of months). I will pray for you in your journey. Keep asking your questions! reilly |
||||||
18 | Communion | Matt 26:26 | reilly1041 | 87478 | ||
I assume that you are referring to the Roman Catholic Church's Communion, or Holy Eucharist (I believe Protestant churches refer to communion as the Lord's Supper.). According to Catholic Church, an ordained priest is authorized to give communion. The Church has recently also had "lay ministers" which are lay people who can administer communion (bread and wine). Note however that only the priest can "consecrate" the host, and then the lay minister can administer it (distribute it to the congregation). The Cath Church's position is that only Catholics who are not in state of mortal sin (meaning that they have not committed a mortal sin which they have not yet confessed to a priest) can participate in the Holy Eucharist. The reason is that allowing all Christians to participate in Communion would imply a unity of churches which unfortunately does not exist today. The very different interpretations of the Last Supper and how we are to celebrate it (i.e., is it the Cath Church's view of the Holy Eucharist in which the bread/wine is changed into Christ's body/blood or is it a remembrance of the last supper or it is somewhere in between) would also lead to the Cath Church's position that only Catholics can participate in Communion. In terms of substantiating the Cath position w/Scripture, the seemingly simple description of Jesus sharing his Last Supper with his disciples and telling them "Take it and eat, this is my body" (Mt 25:26-29) has been interpreted in widely different ways among Christians. The Catholic position, as I mentioned above, is transubstantiation, in which it is believed that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ (the "Real Presence" of Christ). I'm sure you can find more posts on this subject by searching (upper right corner) for transubstantiation or real presence. |
||||||
19 | What are Mortal and Venial sinis | Matthew | reilly1041 | 87432 | ||
Yet another opinion by a Catholic on mortal/venial sins. In my opinion, the problem with this classification is that one can conclude that they really aren't that much of a sinner, just some venial sins. Venial sins don't even have to be enumerated in confession, just say a few and then follow up with "for these and other venial sins, I am heartily sorry". (Not that that is Catholic doctrine, but certainly it's Catholic practice, IMO.) In my personal experience, mortal sins weren't a risk (except maybe missing Mass, especially on Holy Days that popped up out of nowhere), so I could conclude I was doing pretty well. What a horribly dangerous thought to entertain!! I know that many family members of mine feel the same way to this day. It is only through reading the Bible and other Christian reading that I came to realize that my sins were real sins that were separating me from God, and I finally became repentent. It is at that point that I was saved. As for scriptural reference, Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount, equated lust with adultery (Mt 5:27), thus equating a venial sin with a mortal sin. My study bible (Life Appl Bible, NLT), has the 1st John verse as follows: 1John 5:16 .. But there is a sin that leads to death, and I am not saying you should pray for those who commit it." With a note that commentators differ widely on what this sin that leads to death is, such as blasphemy against the H. Spirit, partaking in communion in an unworthy manner, people who left Christian fellowship and rejected their salvation, etc. |
||||||
20 | Do the will of the Father to enter heave | Matt 7:21 | reilly1041 | 87175 | ||
All right, sola fida experts.... This statement by Jesus seems to indicate that one needs more than faith in Jesus to enter heaven. Is this perhaps analogous to James 2:14, whereby saving faith is accompanied by works? Please help! Thanks, reilly |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |