Results 1 - 20 of 22
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: romans Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What does a godfather do? | Bible general Archive 1 | romans | 71336 | ||
Good day! In a very simple statement, godfather or godparents stand as a second parents of the child. In time the child would need a guardian or parent(s) you should act as one. The biblical examples or verses I know that would support this practice. I hope this helps. In Christ, Romans |
||||||
2 | Elijah and John the Bapt. Mat. 17:11-13 | Matt 17:12 | romans | 71279 | ||
Happy New Year, Kim! Sorry I wasn't able to answer you back last Tuesday (31 Dec). I was busy with some other things. Anyway, I saw some postings from our brothers and just what they wrote John has the anointing like of Elijah; that is the fulfillment of Mal. 4:5-6 (I mentioned this verse in my first letter). I hope it answers your question. One thing to add though, Christians do not believe in re-incarnation we only believe in resurrection. A dead man can not be born again (born in flesh again) on earth having another life or body. We only have one life. Heb.9:27 "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" After we die, we will be judged at once "to hell or to heaven." Then, those souls will wait for the final judgement as describe in Revelation (Rev. 20:12-15). In Christ, Romans |
||||||
3 | Elijah and John the Bapt. Mat. 17:11-13 | Matt 17:12 | romans | 71278 | ||
Happy New Year, Kim! Sorry I wasn't able to answer you back last Tuesday (31 Dec). I was busy with some other things. Anyway, I saw some postings from our brothers and just what they wrote John has the anointing like of Elijah; that is the fulfillment of Mal. 4:5-6 (I mentioned this verse in my first letter). I hope it answers your question. One thing to add though, Christians do not believe in re-incarnation we only believe in resurrection. A dead man can not be born again (born in flesh again) on earth having another life or body. We only have one life. Heb.9:27 "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment" After we die, we will be judged at once "to hell or to heaven." Then, those souls will wait for the final judgement as describe in Revelation (Rev. 20:12-15). In Christ, Romans |
||||||
4 | Matt. 17:11-13 Elijah to John the Bapt.? | Matt 17:12 | romans | 71142 | ||
Hi Kim, Malachi 4:5-6 "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers" God promised to send Elijah that is why the Pharisses/Jews are waiting for his return. 2Kings 1:8 'They replied, "He was a man with a garment of hair and with a leather belt around his waist." The king said, "That was Elijah the Tishbite"' That is how they described Elijah. Now take a look at the following text Mat. 3:4 "John's clothes were made of camel's hair, and he had a leather belt around his waist." Can you see the similarities of Elijah and John the Baptist? Luke 1:17 "And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS TO THEIR CHILDREN and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous–to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (capital letters added by me) Malachi 4:5-6 "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS TO THEIR CHILDREN, and the hearts of the children to their fathers" (capital letters added by me) Therefore, the promised return of Elijah by God in Malachi had been fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist. But the Pharisees did not recognise him. I pray this would be a help. In Christ, Romans |
||||||
5 | Must a woman have long hair | 1 Corinthians | romans | 71138 | ||
Good day! There are several issues in the Bible that I believe should be taken as a 'cultural issue'. One of them is the wearing of long hair of women. In the time of Paul, women have long hair; in 1Cor 11:1-16, you will read the argument of having long hair for women. Take note of 'verse 16' it says "If anyone wants to be contentious about this, WE HAVE NO OTHER PRACTICE --nor do the churches of God." (capital letters was added by me). Since it was the culture then for women to have long hair, it became the church practice too. Look at the Victorian times as to how women dress themselves. Long and well covered. Try to wear the same dress in this era, will you be accepted? NO, because it is neither normal nor a practice at this time. FYI : In the old times, reading is not done silently; the words you are reading should be spoken audibly. Now, you may read silently. You will be considered possessed when you read silently in old times. God has chosen to reveal His Words . . . to reveal Himself in a specific time, people and culture. These three things should be considered in understanding the issues in the Bible. If God will chose to reveal Himself in this era, for sure it will not be an issue for women to wear pants and short hair. Rom. 16:16 "Greet one another with a holy kiss" Why are Christians not greeting each other with a kiss? We greet each other by handshake or a hug. Greeting each other with a kiss was a practice in their times but not in this era. Except for the Arabs, they still greet each other with a kiss in the cheek. WHY? It is their culture. In India, there are churches that practice the covering of hair for women; and men and women are separated. For Catholics, women covers their hair before when they hear mass (service) but not anymore. See, culture and time dictates some of the issues in the Bible. If I may put it, there are what we can call temporal (dictated by culture and time) and permanent (should be practised universally) practices. Permanent : Holy communion, baptism, praying for one another, etc. Temporal : greet w/ a holy kiss, separation of men and women in the church, wearing of veil, etc. Just a view to share. In Christ, Romans |
||||||
6 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | romans | 71133 | ||
Hi Steve I am sorry, I don't fully understand you when you said "taking Mary out of context." The things I wrote previously was not taken just anywhere. I was a Catholic (for 29 years) so I know. The things I shared are being practiced by the Catholics particularly in the Philippines. I am not accusing anyone of anything, I am just stating a fact and a reality that is occuring. We are neither talking about salvation nor did discuss about salvation. It is about the issue of "Why pray to Mary?" Just like the question I raised, "Why pray to Mary to pray to Jesus for you when you can pray straight to Jesus?" So, Mary becomes a mediator between the person and God. As I have also written, the Bibles teaches us there is only one mediator. Don't you think it's proper to share your views on something you think is not biblical? I don't see anything wrong with it unless you force to the person to accept and believe in it. I tackle issues objectively not subjectively. In Christ, Romans |
||||||
7 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | romans | 71123 | ||
Praying to Mary? Q: Why do you pray to Mary and to the saints? A: From my understanding, you are asking Mary and the saints to pray to Jesus for you. In this way, you are using Mary and the saints as a mediator between you and Jesus. In this case you must agree with me in this statement "Mary and the saints mediates between you and Jesus" because there is no one capable of answering our prayer except God. The problem with this is that the Bible teaches us that there is only one mediator (1Tim 2:5). Furthermore, why can't you pray straight to Jesus? Q: Asking for your brothers and sisters in faith to pray for you is the same as asking Mary and the saints to pray for you? A: I don't think so. My brothers and sisters in Christ are still alive and I know they can pray for me. Brethren praying for each other is biblical (you can read in Paul's epistles that he was continually praying for the brethrens and asking the brethrens to pray for him; James 5:14-16). How would you know that Mary and the saints can hear your prayers? What if there are 5000 people in different countries praying to Mary/saints at the same time, will she/they hear and understand all of them? If YES, then she/they must be omnipresent and omniscient. But the problem with this is that only God is omnipresent and omniscient. If NO, then why pray to them? Q: Does praying to Mary and to the saints give twist/mislead the believers? A: Forgive me if I'll be more specific. When Catholics pray to Mary and to the saints and their prayers were granted they will go back to Mary or to that particular saint to whom they pray to give thanks. They will thank them for granting their prayers. I don't recall Catholics saying thanks to God. See the twist? One clear example, in the Philippines after the first People Power (toppling the Marcos gov't to place ex-President Corazon Aquino, 1996) they built a huge image of Mary and chapel (quite big too for a chapel)in honor of Mary. They said that Mary answered their prayer of having a non-violent revolution. Now, to whom the glory was given? I noticed that everytime their petitions are answered the name of God or Jesus is not mentioned; if ever mentioned it would be just a mere mentioning of His name but the full honor/thanksgiving are still to Mary. I am sure there is a problem with this practice. It twist the faith and eventually misleads the people. To whom should the honor and thanksgiving be given? Should it not be to God alone and to no one else? Q: Christians pray the "Apostle's Creed?" A: Catholics have their own Apostle's Creed. Christians don't pray the Apostle's Creed. We just recite them as a reminder of our core belief. Apostle's Creed was written by the early church fathers as a way to inform the church of the core belief of the church because of the alarming growth of false doctrine/teaching. But it is not in anyway address to God or Mary or saints therefore it is not a prayer. In Christ, Romans |
||||||
8 | AM I MARRIED IN GODS EYES ? | 1 Cor 7:20 | romans | 70683 | ||
Jonzsaved, Bro, from what you wrote I would say that you are legally married in God's eyes. Now that your wife#2 is pregnant to another man and you have your own family, then it is not proper for you to leave your present family (wife and children; leave them miserable) to be with ex-wife who is already living with another man (I assume). 1Cor 7: 15 "... God has called us to live in peace ..." 1Cor 7:20 "Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him." By the time you became born-again, you are already separated from her. Now that you are a Christian, you should remain in your status as married to your present wife. But we should not excuse ourselves from any mistakes that we committed before we became Christian. Now that we are Christians, the more we should take reponsibility of our mistakes. So settle whatever things needed to be settled with God's leading and direction. God is a God of many chances. He is not legalist. He is a God who lives in reality not in fantasy. There are things that God will not approve but will certainly understand. One thing though, we should be aware of the corresponding effects of our action. I am a strong believer of "NO DIVORCE" but I also need to consider the reality that is happening. Like what I said "I believe God is a realistic God." Read the 1Cor. 7:1-24, then talk to God. Meditate on this verse Exodus 34:6-7 I pray this will be a help to you. GOD LOVES YOU SO MUCH, HE WANTS US TO HAVE AN ABUNDANT LIFE. In Christ, Romans |
||||||
9 | Two aspects of the will of God | Matt 23:37 | romans | 70674 | ||
As always, I was following this issue and came across your writing. First, I assume that Peter has only one given name that is "Peter" and not "Peter Paul." Just kidding my friend ... because you kept on referring to the writer of 2Peter as Paul? Unless I'm wrong that actually it was Paul who wrote it. Well, I have a question for you in this verse: 2 Pet 3:9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward YOU, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance As you have said "YOU" refers to the beloved (in 2Pt. 3:8). I assume that these beloved are all Christians. My question is "Who are to perish if all the 'beloved' are Christians?" I assume these 'beloved' belongs to the 'chosen' ones. If none of the 'beloved' will perish, then who is God waiting for repentance? I assume those people who need repentance are not saved yet. Romans |
||||||
10 | Why Didn't Paul and Jesus Baptize? | 1 Cor 1:17 | romans | 70487 | ||
Raven, What if a dying man repented of his sins and accepted Jesus as his Lord and Saviour BUT because he is already dying, baptism is not possible. Would he be saved or not? Romans |
||||||
11 | To whom Christ died? | Not Specified | romans | 70300 | ||
To whom Jesus died? In this forum, some people believe that Jesus died for ALL MAN. Some people believe Jesus died NOT for ALL MAN. Some people believe Jesus died for ALL SINS. Some people believe Jesus died NOT for ALL SINS. I am not into debate here. I was just surprised that Christians has different view as to whom Jesus died for. If I may, could you share your view in this issue and why you believe such. This is just for a better perspective of the issue nothing hidden just plain sharing. Perhaps some word studies from our brothers in the forum would be a help to have a better perspective of the issue. I believe that Jesus died for ALL SINS. But though He died for all sins not all will be saved because they did not accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour (Rom. 10:9). Thus, did not ask for His forgiveness. If I will take the view of Jesus died only for the sins of the Christians, the question will be “What did God do to save these people?” With this thought in mind, God did nothing at all. WHY? We are save because Jesus died for us and thus paid for our sins. The salvation of man is only through Jesus (Jn 3:16, 14:6). So, if Jesus did not die for a particular person, then that person will never be saved; God did nothing at all to save the soul of that particular person. I can not reconcile in my mind of having such kind of GOD. Not all of us are His children (Jn 1:12) but all of us are His creation. So, God created this pathetic being and left him all alone to work for his salvation (contradicts Eph. 2:8-9)? God created this being and yet He does not care? This very statement of caring is in contrast to this verse: Jonah 4:11 “But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" - This verse speaks of God’s care not only to human being but to the animals as well. Right from the start, these people has no choice but to go to eternal damnation. For the only way to eternal life is through Jesus (Jn. 14:6). But Jesus did not die neither for them nor for their sins. Then, God has no right to condemn this people because He has done nothing to save these pathetic creation of His. Furthermore, God has no right to condemn these people for rejecting Jesus for the reason Jesus did not die for them. They have nothing to accept because there is nothing offered to them. In my belief that Jesus died for all sins, EVERYONE is being offered an eternal life. A gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) but it is up to individual to accept and keep that gift. With this, God can judge all MAN according to what Jesus had done (Rom. 10:9). Rom. 5:18 “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” The death of Jesus does not save all man. The death of Jesus does not forgive all sins. The death of Jesus does not justify all man. BUT ALL THESE THINGS (SALVATION, FORGIVENESS and JUSTIFICATION) ARE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE (ALL MAN) WHO WOULD ASK FOR IT. THEREFORE, THOUGH HE DIED FOR ALL SINS NOT ALL WILL BE SAVED ONLY THOSE WHO COME (the MANY, the CHOSEN) AND RECEIVE HIM. With this I rest my case. In Christ, Romans |
||||||
12 | To whom Christ died? | Eph 5:25 | romans | 70303 | ||
To whom Jesus died? In this forum, some people believe that Jesus died for ALL MAN. Some people believe Jesus died NOT for ALL MAN. Some people believe Jesus died for ALL SINS. Some people believe Jesus died NOT for ALL SINS. I am not into debate here. I was just surprised that Christians has different view as to whom Jesus died for. If I may, could you share your view in this issue and why you believe such. This is just for a better perspective of the issue nothing hidden just plain sharing. Perhaps some word studies from our brothers in the forum would be a help to have a better perspective of the issue. I believe that Jesus died for ALL SINS. But though He died for all sins not all will be saved because they did not accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour (Rom. 10:9). Thus, did not ask for His forgiveness. If I will take the view of Jesus died only for the sins of the Christians, the question will be “What did God do to save these people?” With this thought in mind, God did nothing at all. WHY? We are save because Jesus died for us and thus paid for our sins. The salvation of man is only through Jesus (Jn 3:16, 14:6). So, if Jesus did not die for a particular person, then that person will never be saved; God did nothing at all to save the soul of that particular person. I can not reconcile in my mind of having such kind of GOD. Not all of us are His children (Jn 1:12) but all of us are His creation. So, God created this pathetic being and left him all alone to work for his salvation (contradicts Eph. 2:8-9)? God created this being and yet He does not care? This very statement of caring is in contrast to this verse: Jonah 4:11 “But Nineveh has more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left, and many cattle as well. Should I not be concerned about that great city?" - This verse speaks of God’s care not only to human being but to the animals as well. Right from the start, these people has no choice but to go to eternal damnation. For the only way to eternal life is through Jesus (Jn. 14:6). But Jesus did not die neither for them nor for their sins. Then, God has no right to condemn this people because He has done nothing to save these pathetic creation of His. Furthermore, God has no right to condemn these people for rejecting Jesus for the reason Jesus did not die for them. They have nothing to accept because there is nothing offered to them. In my belief that Jesus died for all sins, EVERYONE is being offered an eternal life. A gift of salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) but it is up to individual to accept and keep that gift. With this, God can judge all MAN according to what Jesus had done (Rom. 10:9). Rom. 5:18 “Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.” The death of Jesus does not save all man. The death of Jesus does not forgive all sins. The death of Jesus does not justify all man. BUT ALL THESE THINGS (SALVATION, FORGIVENESS and JUSTIFICATION) ARE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE (ALL MAN) WHO WOULD ASK FOR IT. THEREFORE, THOUGH HE DIED FOR ALL SINS NOT ALL WILL BE SAVED ONLY THOSE WHO COME (the MANY, the CHOSEN) AND RECEIVE HIM. With this I rest my case. In Christ, Romans |
||||||
13 | Is God somehow responsible? | Rom 1:20 | romans | 70163 | ||
Dear John Reformed, I was following the discussion on the question "Is God somehow repsonsible" until I read your reply. If I may say "I was so stunned" by your statement that God loves only the Christians. All along I thought God loves all as in ALL (all people universaly as you put it). In a layman's point of view, I strongly disagree with that view in regards to the following verses that I believe prove otherwise. 1) John 3:16 say "For God so love the world ...whoever believes in HIM..." The question here is who is the "WORLD?" I believe the world refers to the righteous and unrighteous; believers and unbelievers; Christians and Gentiles. Furthermore, it says 'WHOEVER' that I am quite sure means "anyone whether Christians or Gentiles." 2) If God only loves the Christians, what is His feeling towards the unbelievers, moreso to the soul who are already in hell? I can't say HE neither love nor hate them because there ie no neutral ground when it comes to God (you are either hot or cold; Rev.3:15). Then, God must hate the unbelievers. But with this view, the following verses will prove otherwise. The following verses will prove that God loves the unbelievers too. 2Pt. 3:9 says "...not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." Ezekiel. 18:23 says " Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD . Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? Ezekiel 18:32 says "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD . Repent and live!" In fact, the preceeding verses tell us that God is wanting the unbelievers to repent and be save. Would God takes time and effort, not mentioning giving His Son to die on the cross, to the unbelievers if He does not love them? Just look at the story of Nineveh in the of Jonah. Though the people of Nineveh were wicked but because God loves them, He sent Jonah that they may repent and so they did. You might want to read Jonah 4:10-11. Later in history, we learned that Nineveh was still detroyed because they went back to their wickedness. But God loved them. Jesus died for all sins (sins of the Christians and unbelievers) that is why everyone is invinted to come and have feast with the Lord (Jn. 3:16 - 'whoever believes shall not perish but have everlasting life.'). Since He died for all sins, He must have loved/loves all people. Though Jesus died for all and loves all people, it does not mean all/everyone will be saved. It is up to individual if he/she will accept the gift of eternal life from God. The gift of God to all is eternal life BUT THAT GIFT WILL NEVER BE YOURS OR MINE UNLESS WE TAKE THAT GIFT FROM HIM. MEANING THE GIFT, THOUGH IT IS FREE AND FOR US, WILL REMAIN IN GOD'S POSSESSION UNLESS WE ACCEPT AND TAKE IT. In Christ, Romans |
||||||
14 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | romans | 69682 | ||
Emmaus, I'm sorry but I am not aware of Nestorian doctrine. My views are from my own analysis of the issue. One more thing,if Mary is that important and being a mother of God then she must be at least at par with God. Thus she must have throne of her own together with God the Father and God the Son. But as far the "throne" is concerned, there are only two thrones mentioned. The throne of the Father and in His right hand Jesus' throne where Jesus is said to be sitting (Psalms 110:1; Mat 22:4, 26:64; Acts 7:55-56; Heb 1:3,8:1). Please don't get me wrong. I have due respect to Mary. As you can see, of all women she was chosen to be the vessel of the Messiah to be born and walk on earth in flesh. As the Bible had said, she was highly favored by God. If God hihgly favors her, why would any man dislike her. I don't dislike her, I just disagree with the name that is being addressed to her. If you will adress her as mother of God, several questions will be raised: 1)As a mother of God, she must be God. For a human only can give birth to a human. An animal can only give birth to an animal. 2)She must know the whole plan of God to man. Read Luke 2:41-50. Mary was disappointed to Jesus for staying behind and teaching in the temple. 3)In regard to Luke 2:41-50, Jesus should have at least informed Mary of His intention to stay behind and teach in the temple. Why? Because she is His mother in His nature as God. God Himself said to respect our parents (Commandment #5). 4) Putting Commandment #5 and Mary as the mother of God, In my opinion Jesus projected a poor/weak family relationship moreover not a model family (Mary - the mother; God - the Father; Jesus - the Son). Jesus always mentions His Father but never His mother. . . "doing His Father's will, do what He sees His Father is doing, etc.; John 14-15 has a lot of reference of the Father-Son relationship). Isn't it a shame to put the mother in the background and it's all Father-Son agenda? The mother has no "say" at all. 5) James (the author of 'Epistle of James) and Jude (the author of 'Epistle of Jude) are Jesus' brothers. They are Mary's sons. But in their respective epistles, they did not write as "the brother of Jesus." Writing as such will connotes "the brother of God." And they (James and Jude) knew that God could never have a brother as in "brother of God." Furthermore, in due and utmost respect to God, in their human form they could not claim to be the brother of God. All the things I presented are products of my analysis of the issue involved. I am not asserting it to anyone for I am not in the authority to do so and moreover, I am not God impose any thoughts of mine to anyone. Everthing I presented is not intended to offend or criticise anyone of their views but just merely for discussion purposes of the said issue. It's my pleasure reading and exchanging views with you all. May the Lord continue to reveal His face to us as we study His word. Amen Romans |
||||||
15 | Why do catholic call Mary mother of God. | Amos 1:1 | romans | 69531 | ||
Emmaus had presented interesting references as to why Catholics call Mary the mother of God. And another thing, as Johnny had said, that is how their church presents Mary, "the mother of God." With all these references and church teachings, I strongly disagree that Mary is the mother of God. Mary is the mother of Jesus in the flesh (the human nature of Jesus) but not the mother of God. Interestingly, though Jesus was formed in her womb, Jesus was not conceived through sexual intercourse but by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:29-37). There was no participation in Mary's part to conceive Jesus. She was chosen to be the vessel of the coming Messiah (Luke 1:28-33). Jesus has two natures: God and Man. As God, He does not have a begining and end (I am the Alpha and Omega, Rev. 1:8). If Mary is the mother of God then, God has a beginning. The two natures of Jesus has to be separated in this particular issue. Another thing, If Mary is the mother of God then, she does not need a Saviour. But she herself was a human being needing a Saviour to save her from eternal damnation. I pray this view would be a help. God bless us all. Romans |
||||||
16 | Do you own a TNIV? | Bible general Archive 1 | romans | 69045 | ||
What's TNIV? This is my first time to hear it. I assume it's the latest vervsion of NIV. Am I right? I am very sure that you are very much aware that there are three kinds of Bible 'so to speak': Literal translation, Dynamic Equivalence and Paraphrase. Obviously, comparing the three translation to each other would give a big difference. In regard to a paricular translation, for what I know the translators had set a certain "standards" in traslating the Bible. For example, the NRSV 'considered the gender issue in the traslation' (ie, instead of 'sons' it uses 'sons and daughters'). For us to say what is to be published and not is inappropriate. In a court case, the judge/jury must hear the whole story (background of the people involved, the incident itselfand what lead to it, opinion of experts., etc.) before they could come up with the verdict. I am sure the translators have their own reasons how they arrived into such translation. And I am very much sure also that the same GOD and HOLY SPIRIT will work in us as we study His word no matter what translation you are using. I am not disregarding the fact that we can have our choice of translation where we are comfortable, that's perfectly OK. We all have only one set of parents, ADAM and EVE. But at this present age, we have different skin color, different culture, different language, etc. With all these backgrounds to be considered surely not EVERYBODY will like only ONE AND THE SAME THING. As for me, I am using NIV and NRSV. I do also like to refer to NKJV ones in awhile. With due respect to everyone, Romans |
||||||
17 | What is "spiritual pride"? | Prov 16:18 | romans | 69044 | ||
Hi Bro! Just a thought to share, from a layman's point of view, I would define spiritual pride as taking oneself's spiritual status above the others which could be as follows: 1) Against an unbeliever - pride of being born again and saved and he is not. THE FACT IS WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE NOT BY OUR OWN EFFORT (Eph. 2:8-9), SO NOTHING TO TAKE PRIDE. 2) Against a fellow believer - putting yourself above them for you know more about God and the Bible. THE FACT IS EVERYTHING THAT WE KNOW ABOUT GOD AND HIS WORD ARE REVELATIONS FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT (John 14:16). Anything that puts oneself above the others are unrighteous act before God. There is a "spiritual pride" that is acceptable in my point of view and that is "spiritual pride" in sense that I am grateful and much delighted that I am His child (no comparison to others, just between me and my God). Same thing goes to what our brother (mommapbs) had said "that knowing who we are in Christ is the only thing we can 'be proud of' and at that, we are proud of HIM who gave Himself for us." As we search and study His word, may He reveal more of Himself but making us more humble as we ought to be that His name be magnified and glorified. AMEN Brother in Christ, Romans |
||||||
18 | word for wine in the original text? | Bible general Archive 1 | romans | 68798 | ||
Dear Tim Moran, Thanks. Yes, I'm very new to this forum, I just joined yesterday. I am interested to the "word study" you posted as you had mentioned. I noticed in the Q and A site that there had a been a lot of things discussed. For me to look for your previous post would take sometime. If it's possible and not a bother to you, could I have a copy of it; could you post it again in the forum or would you like a personal email of mine? If not possible, I will try to locate in the forum site. Thanks much again. Brother in Christ, Roman |
||||||
19 | word for wine in the original text? | Bible general Archive 1 | romans | 68795 | ||
Dear Tim Moran, Thanks for that explicit explanation on the issue involved. It is very helpful and well founded. But one thing though, I was surprised by your opening statement "I was amazed ..." I think there are people (just like me) who is not as knowledgeable as you in the Bible. I think we (Christians) should be gracious to people like me who ask questions (no matter how silly it seems to be to your/our views but for sure not to the one asking a question) and search for truth. Moreover, we should be thankful that Christians are keen in studying and knowing the truth; Christians should have an attitude of researching things not just agree and believe easily. KNOW WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Know why you agree or disagree - not just because somebody said it. Nothing personal, this is just a side comment on the issue of extending grace and understanding to Christians who are in searching of the truth. Personally, your note in this particular issue enlightens me. Thanks so much again. Brother in Christ, Romans |
||||||
20 | word for wine in the original text? | Bible general Archive 1 | romans | 68670 | ||
Dear Retxar, This is an interesting note/view. But just a follow-up question on your view. In the original text (on my knowledge, Hebrew for OT; Greek for NT), did it use different word for WINE "to refer to grape juice" and "to refer to alcoholic drink?" Anyone can answer my query, please don't hesitate. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |