Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 61 - 80 of 283		Pages: << < [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] > Last [15] >>
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: kalos Ordered by Date
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
61	More questions for the KJV-only cult (2)	1 Thess 5:21	kalos	124235
	More questions for the KJV-only cult (2) '(21) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?' '(22) Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "sin" [Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?' '(23) Who publishes the infallible "INERRANT KJV"?' '(24) Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611... or 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?' '(27) Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?' '(28) Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?' '(29) Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14:8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?' ____________________ www.kjvonly.org/gary/questkjv.htm 1th521
62	More questions for the KJV-only cult (1)	1 Thess 5:21	kalos	124231
	More questions for the KJV-only cult (1) '(11) Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed? '(12) Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from? '(13) Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611? '(14) Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"? '(15) What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist]. '(16) IF... the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604? '(17) Was Tyndale's [1525], or Coverdale's [1535], or Matthew's [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560]... English Bibles absolutely infallible? '(18) If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23] '(19) If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement? '(20) Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus — "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?' ____________________ www.kjvonly.org/gary/questkjv.htm 1th521
63	Alleged changes in the NKJV	Ps 4:1	kalos	123976
	Alleged changes in the NKJV I am curious about the alleged changes and deletions in the NKJV. Changes to what? Deletions from what? The Greek text? The KJV of 1611? The KJV of 1629? The KJV of 1638? The KJV of 1762? The KJV of 1769? If the NKJV makes changes to and deletions from the Greek text, I'd like to see the evidence. If not, then I wouldn't worry too much about these so called changes.
64	Where did the bride's family sit?	Bible general Archive 1	kalos	122060
	At Cain's wedding, on which side of the church did the bride's family sit?
65	Questions for the KJV-Only cult	1 Thess 5:21	kalos	121463
	'QUESTIONS FOR THE KJV-ONLY CULT 'by Gary R. Hudson '(1) Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America? '(2) Were the KJV translators "LIARS" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"? '(3) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"? '(4) Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English? '(5) Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated? '(6) Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"? '(7) Is the KJV "scripture"? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16] '(8) WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611... or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850? '(9) In what language did Jesus Christ...teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18? '(10) Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?' ____________________ www.kjvonly.org/gary/questkjv.htm 1th521
66	Doctrine Divides?	2 Tim 4:3	kalos	120290
	Doctrine Divides '"Doctrine divides" has been the hue and cry. Yes, doctrine does divide - that’s its very purpose. It divides us from the Jehovah’s Witnesses and from those . . . who promote a distorted view of Christ and His atonement.' -- Paul R. Belli and G. Richard Fisher ____________________ Here on StudyBibleForum.com it's not unusual for me and certain others 'to be in the role of looking closely at people's doctrine and seeing what's being taught and raising questions and asking whether things are sound or accurate or right and true and good, even among members of the Body of Christ, members that identify themselves with Christianity. Some people get very uncomfortable with that. They accuse us of dividing the Body and assaulting other Christians and say that we shouldn't correct each other in public...As a matter of fact, we're called heresy hunters by some in a disparaging fashion. I don't consider myself a heresy hunter at all. I consider myself a Christian who's concerned with the truth and my attempts are to try and clarify what the truth is and challenge those things that are mistaken. 'Incidentally, I am not at all placing myself above everybody else in so doing because I consider it my duty to simply use the best thinking and resources that I have to try and determine what the truth is and to promote it. But in so doing I expect that others will do the same with regard to me. My issues, my ideas, my conclusions are certainly open to scrutiny like anyone else's. I don't threaten you with the Holy Ghost machine gun if you should challenge my notions on something. I think it should be an open field here where everybody puts their cards on the table and may the best ideas win whether they're theological ideas or ethical ideas or value ideas. ____________________ "And by the way, what is wrong with being a heresy hunter? Only criminals are afraid of policemen." ____________________ 'And by the way, what is wrong with being a heresy hunter? Think about that. Would it be better if no one was willing ask the hard questions, if no one were poking around looking for theological distinctions? Is that the kind of church that you want to live in? Let's get rid of everybody who asks the hard questions or who raises the concern. Let's get rid of everyone who points the finger. Sometimes pointing fingers land on guilty subjects. And there's only one way to find out. It's to point the finger and then look at the evidence. 'Has God not commissioned us to protect His word? Has He not commissioned the church in general, and if He has then He's commissioned individual people to be more alert to that than some others. That's the illustration of the body in 1 Corinthians 12. That's why every part of the body has a particular job. We work together for the fullness of the Body. You've got everybody doing a different job. So it seems to me if God is concerned about truth then there are going to be some people placed in the body that are especially concerned about watching for the nastiness that creeps in. Didn't Paul himself say "Guard the flock"? Didn't he warn the Ephesian elders in chapter 20 of the book of Acts that this kind of thing was going to happen? Didn't he tell Titus to refute those in error? Didn't he tell Timothy that many are causing division and problems? Didn't Jesus Himself talk about this kind of thing? This is a very important part of the church.' The Bible teaches that 'it's vital that we guard the truth and watch out for it. It doesn't mean that the heresy hunters are always right. They're not. We're not. 'Can you imagine someone saying, "Oh him? He's a policeman. That jerk is always slinking around looking for someone committing a crime. What a creep." Can you imagine that? "I wish all of those policemen would just disappear." What kind of person would make a remark like that? A criminal. A criminal makes that kind of remark. Only criminals are afraid of policemen. 'I'm not a theological criminal and that's why I'm not afraid of heresy hunters. Let them come on with force and pick at me from one end to the other because if there's something wrong with my teaching it's got to go. That should be the attitude of every Christian who is working on behalf of the Body of Christ in my view. And the only ones who squawk about the heresy hunters are those that have something to fear from heresy hunters...' ____________________ Crouch's Magic Word by Gregory Koukl (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/crouch.htm)
67	Can God Bless America?	Prov 14:34	kalos	119653
	Can God Bless America? "If God were to bless America as everybody seems to want Him to do, it might look very different than we would expect. "Will God bless America? "Can God bless America? Should God bless America? "And if God did bless America, what would He be saying about His holiness? If God did bless America, what would He be saying about our morality? About our spiritual condition? "Could God bless America and protect His reputation as holy God" (John MacArthur)?
68	Individuals in Acts expecting tongues?	NT general Archive 1	kalos	118722
	WalkingTalkingBible: Is it anywhere in your nature to do me the courtesy of answering at least one of the six posts I have addressed to you in this thread? If Acts is a blueprint for all church history, where in the Book of Acts does one find INDIVIDUALS SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come? This is a SPECIFIC question that calls for a SPECIFIC answer. Cite the chapter and verse in Acts where one finds INDIVIDUALS SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come. If an answer to this question does not include chapter and verse, then the question has not been answered. This is a question that deserves an answer. The choices are: A) Nowhere in the Book of Acts does one find INDIVIDUALS SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come. B) In the Book of Acts one does find INDIVIDUALS SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come. This is found in Acts chapter _____ and verse ______. Choose one or the other. --kalos [DO077-1]
69	Can JWs support Caesar's wars?	Bible general Archive 2	kalos	118454
	Can Jehovah's Witnesses (the Watchtower Society) support Caesar's wars?
70	Who is "he who now restrains" (2Th 2:7)?	2 Thess 2:7	kalos	118172
	In 2 Th 2:7 (NASB), who is "he who now restrains" and "will do so until he is taken out of the way"? NASB 2 Thessalonians 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.
71	Two different ways of being saved?	Matt 5:17	kalos	115295
	Two different ways of being saved? The law was not given as a way to be saved in the first place. So why do people keep arguing that since in the NT era we are not saved by keeping the law, it must then be invalid or abolished? This argument is meaningless. I am not aware that I have ever said we are saved by keeping the law. No one was ever saved by keeping the law. "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (See Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; James 2:23.) The just shall live by faith Habakkuk 2:4 (KJV) Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. No man is justified by the law Galatians 3:11 (KJV) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Galations 3:11 (New Living Translation) Consequently, it is clear that no one can ever be right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, "It is through faith that a righteous person has life." Two different ways of being saved? Not according to the Bible. Since the law was never given as a way to be saved, why do people keep arguing that in the NT era we are not saved by keeping the law? No one was ever saved by keeping the law. Not in the OT. Not in the NT. Not today. And not in the future. It is true that in NT times the law does not save anyone. It is also true that in the OT era people were not saved by keeping the law. Some mistakenly conclude that since in the NT era we are not saved by keeping the law, the law is no longer valid. However, since the law never was given as a means of being saved, then it must have been given for some other purpose. It is not unreasonable to expect if that purpose is still valid, then the law itself must still be valid. It behooves us to move on in our understanding and find out WHY the law was given, since it was not to save people. matt517
72	Where in Acts do you find INDIVIDUALS...	Bible general Archive 2	kalos	114808
	If Acts is a blueprint for all church history, where in the Book of Acts does one find INDIVIDUALS SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come? This is a SPECIFIC question that calls for a SPECIFIC answer. Cite the chapter and verse in Acts where one finds INDIVIDUALS SEEKING for the Holy Spirit and EXPECTING TO RECEIVE TONGUES as the sign that He's come. If an answer to this question does not include chapter and verse, then the question has not been answered. [DO077-1]
73	Who took BIBLE out of StudyBibleForum?	Zephaniah	kalos	114595
	What happened and why? I just read 10 consecutive Notes and Anwers. I found only one reference to one verse of Scripture in these 10 posts. (This Question makes the eleventh such posting. :-)) What happened? I thought this was studyBIBLEforum. In the previous 10 posts, I noticed several assertions which, as far as I know, cannot be backed up with Scriputre. Ineresting.
74	Why will no one answer my question?	Matt 5:19	kalos	113992
	Words of Wisdom from Morant61: "In a debate, it is useful if you respond to the points that the other side makes." Regarding my Note "The law cannot be altogether invalid...", I have repeatedly asked: "If you disagree with any of the following, could you quote at least some of the part(s) you disagree with and tell why you disagree"? In other words, please directly address the points I have made. Instead of repeating a general statement you previously made, tell me specifically what is wrong with the points I've made. This question continues to remain unanswered. I am disappointed.
75	Is the Law altogether invalid?	Matt 5:19	kalos	113893
	Is the Law altogether invalid? AMPLIFIED Matthew 5:19 Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "...the law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability." [Tortoise: The following is an excerpt from the article "The Law". It is recommended that you go to the website given below and read the entire article. I present the following for your consideration. I would appreciate any feedback you wish to give. If you disagree with any of the following, could you quote at least some of the part(s) you disagree with and tell why you disagree. It is not my intention to challenge or debate you or put you on the defensive. I do respect your views and I just wondered what your reaction is to the following. --kalos] The Law under the New Covenant. 'The New Testament's statements about Old Testament law are difficult to harmonize. On the one hand, some New Testament statements indicate that under the new covenant the whole law is in some sense abrogated (Rom 6:14, "you are not under law" Rom 10:4, "Christ is the end of the law" ).' ["For sin will not have authority over you; because you are not under legalism but under grace." Romans 6:14 (Complete Jewish Bible, David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1998) "For the goal at which the Torah (Law) aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts." Romans 10:4 (CJB)] (...) 'On the other hand, the law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability. "All Scripture is … useful" (2 Tim 3:16-17), including Old Testament laws. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). 'When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative. (...) 'The New Testament writers also apply the principles in the law. From Deuteronomy 25:4 ("Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out grain"), Paul derives a principle that workers ought to be rewarded for their labors and applies that principle in the case of Christian workers (1 Cor 9:9-14). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul again quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, this time in parallel with a saying of Jesus (Matt 10:10) as if both are equally authoritative. Likewise, the principle of establishing truth by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15), originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference (2 Cor 13:1). The principle that believers are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers is derived from a law concerning the yoking animals (2 Cor 6:14; cf. Deut 22:10). 'In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 13, Paul affirms on the basis of Leviticus 18:29 that incest, a capital offense in the Old Testament, is immoral and deserves punishment. A person practicing incest in the church must be excommunicated to maintain the church's practical holiness. Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction.' ____________________ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1996 by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/
76	The Trinity in John	2 Cor 13:14	kalos	113153
	The Trinity in John John 1:33-34 (ESV) I myself did not know him, but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, 'He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.' [34] And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God." John 3:34-35 (ESV) For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the Spirit without measure. [35] The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. John 15:26 (ESV) "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. John 16:7-15 (ESV) Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. [8] And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: [9] concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; [10] concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; [11] concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. [12] "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. [13] When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. [14] He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. [15] All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. John 20:21-22 (ESV) Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." [22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 2cor1314
77	Will they ever get it right?	2 Cor 13:14	kalos	113098
	Will they ever get it right? 'Jesus' resurrection and ascension ' One of the problems with oneness theology is in dealing with the resurrection of Jesus. Oneness Pentecostal theology states that Jesus had two natures while he was walking the earth. That is, he was both God and man. This is correct theology in so far as it states that within the one person of the Son, there are two natures: God and man. But it also states that God is now in the "form" of the Holy Spirit. What happened to Jesus' body after the ascension? Where is it? Is it alive? Is it in a coma? Was it dissolved? Does it still exist? Is Jesus still a person? If so, how can Jesus, the person with flesh and bones, also be the Holy Spirit? ' In Trinitarian theology the second person of the Trinity became flesh (John 1:1, 14). In other words, according to Phil. 2:5-8, Jesus added to himself human nature. Likewise in Col. 2:9 it states, "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." 1 Tim. 2:5 says that "there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." We know that Jesus rose from the dead in the same body He died in since He prophesied He would raise His body (John 2:19-21); He retained the scars of His ordeal after the resurrection (John 20:27); and He was seen as a man after the resurrection (Luke 24:39). '"Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have" (Luke 24:39). '"Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing" (John 20:27). ' As you can see from the above verses, Jesus retained His physical nature after His resurrection -- along with His scars. This is why it says in Col. 2:9 that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Notice that the verb "dwells" is in the present tense. That is, right now Jesus has a body of flesh and bones. He is physical. He is in heaven. He is a man, the Godman. ' Nevertheless, some deny Jesus' resurrection by stating that the Bible says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God and therefore Jesus did not rise in the same body he died in. But, we need to realize that the Bible says, "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. 15:50), not flesh and bones as Jesus said He had (Luke 24:39). Is this important? Yes it is. Jesus’ blood was the sacrifice that cleanses us from sin (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22). I suspect that Jesus' resurrected body did not have any blood in it. It was shed from His body on the cross. 'Jesus' Ascension and Return ' The Bible tells us that Jesus ascended into the sky (Acts 1:9-11). When He did this He was still in physical form as I've demonstrated above. In addition, the Bible tells us that Jesus will return in the same manner. '"And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight. 10And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; 11Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven" (Acts 1:9-11). ' Since the Bible teaches us that Jesus is in bodily form now (Col. 2:9), then how does the Oneness Pentecostal person maintain that God is in the form of the Holy Spirit? Also, when Jesus returns, will He return in His body? Will God's form then revert to the form of the Son at His return according to Oneness? ' I do not think Oneness Pentecostal theology is correct for many reasons. But here, with this issue of Jesus' resurrection and ascension, I see their theology denying the incarnation of God in flesh right now. After all, it says in Col. 2:9 that Jesus is in bodily form now. Oneness denies that since God, according to its theology, is now supposed to be in the form of the Holy Spirit.' ____________________ www.carm.org 2cor1314
78	Is "Jesus Only" belief true or false?	2 Cor 13:14	kalos	113057
	"Jesus Only" and United Apostolic Church 'Trinity ' The word "trinity" is not found in the Bible. Nevertheless, it is a word used to describe one fact the Bible teaches about God: Our God is a Trinity. This means there are three persons in one God, not three Gods. The persons are known as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and they have all always existed as three separate persons. The person of the Father is not the same person as the Son. The person of the Son is not the same person as the Holy Spirit. The person of the Holy Spirit is not the same person as the Father. If you take away any one, there is no God. God has always been a trinity from all eternity: "From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God" (Psalm 90:2). ' God is not one person who took three forms, i.e., the Father who became the Son, who then became the Holy Spirit. This belief is known today as the "Jesus Only Movement". It is taught by the United Apostolic and United Pentecostal churches, and is an incorrect teaching. ' Nor is God only one person as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Way International, and the Christadelphians teach (These groups are classified as non-Christian cults). For proof that there is more than one person in the Godhead, see the Plurality Study [at www.carm.org]. ' The Bible says there is only one God. Yet, it says Jesus is God (John 1:1,14); it says the Father is God (Phil. 1:2); and it says the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). Since the Son speaks to the Father, they are separate persons. Since the Holy Spirit speaks also (Acts 13:2), He is a separate person. There is one God who exists in three persons.' ____________________ (www.carm.org/dictionary/dic_t.htm) 2cor13:14
79	Who did Jesus pray to?	2 Cor 13:14	kalos	112864
	Who did Jesus pray to? ' Oneness theology states that the Father was in the Son and that the person of Jesus was also the person of the Father. Of course, when we see instances in the Bible where Jesus prays to the Father, we naturally wonder how this can be if they are the same person. But, according to Oneness theology, Jesus was praying to the Father, the true divinity, though it was Jesus the man who was praying. But, how can this be? Was Jesus praying to Himself (since God is only one person) and making it appear that He was praying to someone else? ' Oneness theology correctly states that Jesus has two natures. He was both God and man while He walked this earth.1 But it states that the human part of Jesus was praying to the divine essence of God as the Father. What they do is divide Jesus into two parts and have the human nature address the divine nature. ' The problem with this is that it threatens the incarnation of the Word made flesh as a complete and single person. Jesus was both God and man in one person. He had a will. He ate. He slept, etc. He was a man. He needed to be a human in order to bear the sins of people. He needed to be God in order to offer a sacrifice to God the Father sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. No mere man could do this. But the fact is, Jesus was one person -- and still is.2 Jesus was both God and man at the same time in the form of a single person. ' The Oneness explanation risks the error of Nestorianism which stated that Jesus was two separate persons: a human person and a divine person in the form of one man. No where in the Bible does it state that Jesus was two persons. Rather, we find scriptures where Jesus refers to Himself as "I" and "Me" and "mine" not "us" or "our." The Oneness position is simply in error. ' Jesus was not praying to Himself. We see in Scripture Jesus praying to the Father (John 17). We see Him addressing another person who is called God. We see Jesus saying, "Not my will, but your will be done" (Luke 22:42) when He addressed God the Father. In other words, they had separate wills -- at the same time. He was not praying to Himself, or an extension of Himself, of a part of Himself. He was praying to the person of the Father. ' Furthermore, according to Oneness theology, Jesus would have had to exist at the same time as the Father if Jesus the man was praying to the Father. If this is so and Jesus was addressing the Father, then we have two simultaneous persons. But in Oneness theology, this is a problem since God is only one person who occupies consecutive modes. How then could the "mode" of the Father and the "mode" of the Son be in existence at the same time if Oneness theology is correct? They cannot, which is another reason why Oneness theology is wrong. ____________________ '1. Actually, Jesus is still God and man. Col. 2:9 states that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Note, the verse says "dwells", not dwelt. Dwells is in the present tense, not the past. Therefore, in Jesus, right now, dwells the fullness of the Godhead. '2. See my article Oneness and the word "person" that deals with the nature of personhood. '3. This heresy is attributed to Nestorius who was a preacher at Antioch and the Bishop of Constantinople around 428 A.D. However, Nestorius did not preach that Jesus was two persons in one body, but his name has become attached to this error.' (www.carm.org) 2cor1314
80	Two wills on same subject at same time?	2 Cor 13:14	kalos	112781
	Two wills on same subject at same time? Oneness position...a serious problem ____________________ "If it was the flesh side of Jesus speaking to the divine side of Jesus in heaven, then that denies the true incarnation of God in Christ and invalidates the atonement." "The problem with the oneness position is serious and the fact that Jesus' will was separate from the Father's demonstrates that the Father and the Son are different persons within the Godhead." ____________________ ' Oneness theology teaches that there is only one person in the Godhead whose name is Jesus. Jesus is the Father and the Holy Spirit. Regarding His incarnation, oneness people say that He was in heaven at the same time that He was on earth. Logically this would mean that even though Jesus was both in heaven and on earth, He was still one person, not three as the Trinity position holds. Unfortunately, the oneness position presents a serious problem. ' In the Garden of Gethsemane (Luke 22:42), Jesus prayed to the Father saying, "Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done." See also, ""And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt'" (Matt. 26:39). ' We have two wills, one of the son, one of the Father, at the same time. If this is so, then how can one person have two separate and opposing wills on the same subject at the same time? ' The response is generally that Jesus was fully a man and that in his humanity he was not the everlasting Father. But if this is so, then what was Jesus if not God incarnate? If He is not fully God incarnate, then the atonement is void since it isn't God making the sacrifice but a mere man. ' Sometimes oneness people say that Jesus had another existence outside His existence as a man because he also was existing as the Father. But this implies that there are two beings since each has its own existence different than the other. Furthermore, the Oneness position would have a will of the Father and the Son at the same time that are in opposition to each other -- yet they are one person! If the oneness people state that Jesus' flesh was at odds with His own presence as the Father in heaven, then again we have no true incarnation. ' The problem with the oneness position is serious and the fact that Jesus' will was separate from the Father's demonstrates that the Father and the Son are different persons within the Godhead. The oneness people are very wrong. 'Questions: '1. If it was the flesh side of Jesus speaking to the divine side of Jesus in heaven, then that denies the true incarnation of God in Christ and invalidates the atonement.' (www.carm.org) 2cor1314

Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [15] >>

Search for your Bible question and answer here: