Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 81 - 100 of 132		Pages: << < [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] > Last [7] >>
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tim Sheasby Ordered by Date
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
81	Why don't women have long hair?	1 Cor 11:6	Tim Sheasby	22474
	Should women have long hair? And if so why? I grew us in an "anti" congregation of the church of Christ. This is an ultra conservative, legalistic, fundamentalist, splinter group of the church of Christ. In my late teens my whole family went through considerable trauma, both emotional and spiritual, which led us to re-evaluate some of our beliefs. One of the most sacred of these was the doctrine of the head covering. At our assembly hall we even had a rack at the entrance with several scarves or veils for visiting women to wear should they come without their own. We were almost offencive about it some times to the extent of pushing the covering into the hands of the offending women. That's background. What finally convinced me to change my mind? I attended Southern Africa Bible School, in Benoni, Gauteng, South Africa where students before me had done an in-depth exegesis of the passage in question. Without going into all the intricacies of that study it was interesting to note that the only place in the entire passage that an artificial covering was actually mentioned (in the original Greek this is) was in the very last verse -- 1 Cor 11:15 "but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering." NASB. The covering in this verse is a veil but in all the other verses it is a generic 'covering'. The word 'for' in this verse is the Greek word for 'instead of'. So what this says is that a womans hair is given to her instead of a veil. The rest of the passage shows a distinction between long and short hair so this leads to the final conclusion that a woman who has long hair is effectively veiled and covered. Women must have long hair, men must have short hair. How long long is and how short short is is a matter of discernment perhaps but that, in a nutshell is my view. In Christ Tim Sheasby
82	Women's hair length and 1 Corinthians 11	Amos 1:1	Tim Sheasby	22472
	Have had a couple of VERY quiet days at work and so have been browsing several postings on issues of interest to me. In fact I believe we have had some interaction already on some of those. Don't know how a question on 1 Cor 11 got into Amos 1:1 but I have some thoughts on this matter. I grew us in an "anti" congregation of the church of Christ. This is an ultra conservative, legalistic, fundamentalist, splinter group of the church of Christ. In my late teens my whole family went through considerable trauma, both emotional and spiritual, which led us to re-evaluate some of our beliefs. One of the most sacred of these was the doctrine of the head covering. At our assembly hall we even had a rack at the entrance with several scarves or veils for visiting women to wear should they come without their own. We were almost offencive about it some times to the extent of pushing the covering into the hands of the offending women. That's background. What finally convinced me to change my mind? I attended Southern Africa Bible School, in Benoni, Gauteng, South Africa where students before me had done an in-depth exegesis of the passage in question. Without going into all the intricacies of that study it was interesting to note that the only place in the entire passage that an artificial covering was actually mentioned (in the original Greek this is) was in the very last verse -- 1 Cor 11:15 "but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering." NASB. The covering in this verse is a veil but in all the other verses it is a generic 'covering'. The word 'for' in this verse is the Greek word for 'instead of'. So what this says is that a womans hair is given to her instead of a veil. The rest of the passage shows a distinction between long and short hair so this leads to the final conclusion that a woman who has long hair is effectively veiled and covered. Women must have long hair, men must have short hair. How long long is and how short short is is a matter of discernment perhaps but that, in a nutshell is my view. In Christ Tim Sheasby
83	Women speak in church?	1 Cor 14:34	Tim Sheasby	22470
	In another posting on this passage I proposed the idea that this proscription is against a woman speaking "in the church". This is not the sanctuary or building. Neither is it the "church universal" or they could never speak again! This, I believe, refers to a specific gathering of the church -- that gathering where we gather to partake of the Lord's Supper. Tim
84	MEN ARE THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN NOT THE EN	1 Cor 14:34	Tim Sheasby	22469
	A point of interest. The proscription against a woman speaking is "in the church". What does this mean? I believe this is not necessarily speaking about ANY and EVERY public gathering of the church but of gatherings specifically for the sharing of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week. There were certainly many women who preached in the early church -- but not at the weekly gathering to break bread. When Paul gives instructions to Timothy he says 1 Tim 2:12 "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." Some have said that this means a woman cannot teach a man but the Greek here shows that she cannot teach AT ALL! But the context of this passage is again "in the church". Why do I say this? Because in 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul tells Timothy what his preceding writings are about -- conduct in the church. Many of my brethren will probably take issue with me on this point but if we accept that "in the church" relates to the specific gathering to break bread then there are times when women can teach men publicly. If we do not accept this view of "in the church" then Paul says a woman can never teach - anyone, any time - and this is unacceptable for why would God make some women prophets if they could never prophesy? Still studying this for myself so these views are not final but a kind of reasoning in progress. In Jesus Christ who saves us Tim
85	Should homosexuals be ordained?	Rom 1:27	Tim Sheasby	22466
	Romans 6:1-2 "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?" 2 Cor 5:17 "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come." Tim
86	Is vegetarianism okay with God?	1 Cor 8:13	Tim Sheasby	22465
	I am new to this forum and I know this is an old discussion but here are my 2 cents worth. What does the Bible say? Rom 14:2-3 says "One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him." NASB I have vegetarian friends who become quite obnoxious about the eating of meat. This is wrong. At the same time there are those who are equally obnoxious to the vegetarians for being so strict about what they will or will not eat. Equally wrong. There are times we have to put our own liberty aside to help one who has less understanding or a different understanding. This is what Paul speaks of in this passage. Remember though that this context is not simply about meat but rather about meat that has been offered to idols. Paul is saying that he will never again eat meat offered to idols (in the context of this passage) rather than that he is becoming a vegetarian. Still, if you feel that a vegetarian diet is better for you personally then that is no problem. It only becomes a problem when you try to bind your life choice on others. Be true to your conscience! In Christ, Tim Sheasby
87	why is baptism important	2 Cor 5:17	Tim Sheasby	22446
	Yes, if you want to put it that way, Jesus ADDED a requirement for salvation. Mark 16:16 -- Believe and Be Baptized. Tim
88	Do you have to be baptized to be saved?	Rom 6:3	Tim Sheasby	22444
	Let me clarify and rephrase: There are two aspects to our salvation. God's part was to pay for our sins by offering His Son, the perfect Lamb of God, as a sacrifice for our sins. Our part is to repent and be baptized for the remission of our sins (Acts 2:38). Baptism saves us by bringing us into contact with the Cleansing blood of Christ. Baptism brings us to the place where God's sacrifice can do its work. In Christian Love Tim
89	why is baptism important	2 Cor 5:17	Tim Sheasby	22443
	Please forgive me for allowing my anger free reign, that was wrong of me. So, to set matters right, here are my arguments: 1. You said that we are saved by faith alone. -- James 2:24 "You see that a man is justified by works and not by FAITH ALONE." NASB (emphasis mine) -- Acts 15 does clearly show that we are saved by grace. No argument there. Romans 4 also emphasised the fact that we cannot do enough work to EARN salvation. Our good works are not, and never will be, enough to save us. However, the debate is about what you have to do to RECEIVE this grace in the first place, and that is where baptism comes into force. Baptism is the transition from death to life and is symbolic of the burial of Christ. The gospel is the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and in the same way we have to die (Repent) be burried (baptism) and then rise to walk in newness of life Romans 6:3. 2. Peter's Sermon in Acts 3 does not mention baptism. -- In Peter's sermon in Acts 2 you will notice that he only mentioned baptism when the people, with conciences pierced by their guilt, asked "What must we do?". In Acts 3 this question was not asked. In EVERY place in acts where people come to the point of conversion baptism takes place. The only place you could show where this is not mentioned is the first account of the conversion of Paul. But in Paul's own recounting of that same event (same instance of conversion) Paul relates the words of Ananias in Acts 22:16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.' 3. 1 Cor 15:1-4 does not mention baptism as part of the gospel. -- Neither does it mention faith, or grace. This is the gospel. As I pointed out in point 1 above, the problem is HOW to we take advantage of the gospel? What do we have to do to be saved? Our actions save us only in that they put us in the place where we can be saved by the blood of Christ. In 1 Peter 3:20-21 Peter tells how Noah was saved by obeying God's command. He was saved by the very water that destroyed everyone else! Peter also equates the water of baptism with the resurrection of Christ. 3a. Further you said 'Paul clearly understood baptism to be separate from the gospel, and hence in no way efficacious for salvation.' -- Remember that Paul was talking to people who were already saved here. If they had already been saved by repenting and being baptized there was no need for him to tell them this -- they all knew it already. This is the situation throughout the epistles -- written to those who had already been saved so the mechanisims of the new birth did not necessarily need to be re-itterated. 4. The accounts of salvation without baptism all precede the death of Christ on the cross (including the thief on the cross). While Christ was still on earth, and before his New Testament had been instituted, He had all authority to forgive sins. Today the only way you can get forgiveness of sins in the first place is through the waters of baptism -- That is why every example of conversion in Acts includes baptism. You cannot get any clearer than that. 4a. There is no account of the Apostles getting baptized. -- True, but there is certainly room for their baptism to have taken place in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost along with the rest of the 3000. Remember that Peter's sermon on that occasion was inspired and therefore the message applied equally to him and the other apostles as it did to the crowd. 5. You state that Cornelius was saved before he was baptized. -- The Bible does not say that he was saved, just that he received the Holy Spirit as had Peter and the other Apostles on the day of Pentecost. If baptism was such a minor thing as you seem to imply then why did Peter immediately call for them to BE baptized? At the end of the day we must indeed use scripture to interpred scripture and there are some vital issues with this regard. There is still no argument whatsoever against the simple command of Christ in Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptised will be saved". This alone should be sufficient but in Matt 28:19 Jesus says -- "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." The force of the word Baptizing here is that this is the mechanism for making disciples. And of cours 1 Peter 3:21 clearly equates baptism with salvation. Again, I apologise for my previous posting and hope this will answer clearly your objections. In Christ who redeems us Tim
90	why is baptism important	2 Cor 5:17	Tim Sheasby	22438
	Why was Cornelius a special case? The fact that Peter had to defend his action in baptizing Cornelius shows why. If Cornelius had not received the Holy Spirit then Peter and those Jewish brethren with him would have had great difficulty in accepting Cornelius in the first place and getting the rest of the churct to accept him in the second place. A simple sign from God. The Samaritans in Acts 8 were baptized and had to have the Apostles come down and lay their hands on them so that THEY could receive the Holy Spirit. -- Baptized first, Holy Spirit second. This does not mean that they did not have the seal of the Holy Spirit spoken of in Ephesians 1 or the gift of the Holy Spirit Peter spoke of in Acts 2. This is talking about miraculous gifts of the Spirit like was received by the Apostles in Acts 2:1 ff and Cornelius in Acts 10. The events of Acts 2 and Acts 10 are unique in Scripture. Except for those two occasions it is seen that miraculous gifts are given by the laying on of Apostles hands. Tim
91	big sins / litle sins	Rom 3:23	Tim Sheasby	22346
	So we ALL deserve to go to Hell. Thank God for his grace that offers us forgiveness of sins! Tim
92	When do we become sinners?	Ps 51:5	Tim Sheasby	22344
	I believe this is the ONLY place in scripture where the concept of original sin is even hinted at. Therefor we have to look elsewhere for clarity. Ezekiel 18:20 says "The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself". A child has to know what sin is before he can be accountable for it. He cannot be guilty for his father's, father's father's or Adam's sin. What does this verse refer to then. I believe it is talking about the human condition -- we ALL sin sooner or later and are therefore all condemned Romans 3:23 In Christian Love Tim
93	When do we become sinners?	Ps 51:5	Tim Sheasby	22341
	AMEN
94	Does Jesus' name satisfy Matt 28:19?	Acts 2:38	Tim Sheasby	22332
	OK. Have no problem with this final answer. Boyd has just expressed what I basically believe anyway. He is just a better writer than I. God bless you Tim
95	The man of lawlesness	2 Thess 2:3	Tim Sheasby	22330
	Thanks. I just posted some discussion we had recently at Bible study about the "antichrist" in 1 John 2. Those views are probably more controvercial but I would appreciate your input.
96	why is baptism important	2 Cor 5:17	Tim Sheasby	22329
	EVERY EXAMPLE OF CONVERSION IN ACTS INCLUDES BAPTISM!!!! TRUE OR FALSE? JESUS SAID "HE WHO BELIEVES AND IS BAPTISED WILL BE SAVED" TRUE OR FALSE? PETER SAID "BAPTISM NOW ALSO SAVES US" 1 Pet 3:21 -- TRUE OR FALSE? Aditionally Acts 8:16 shows a situation where people had been baptized but the Holy Spirit had not come on them. Scripture most emphatically DOES stress the importance of baptism in Gods plan of salvation.
97	why is baptism important	2 Cor 5:17	Tim Sheasby	22324
	Scripture clearly shows that new life/rebirth/remission of sins only takes place with baptism. Mark 16:16, Romans 6:5, Acts 2:38. The Holy Spirit gave Cornelius the ability to speak in tongues, not salvation. Nowhere in Acts 10 does it say Cornelius was saved by the coming of the Holy Spirit. I believe this to have happened as a sign to Peter and his friends -- Jews who would never have dealings with Gentiles under normal circumstances -- that Gentiles were now acceptable to God. It re-inforced the vision God had already given Peter and gave him the ability to argue for Cornelius and his family to be baptised. ALL examples of conversion in Acts are accompanied by baptism. This is the ONLY one where the one being converted received any special dispensation from the Holy Spirit. Tim
98	Does Jesus' name satisfy Matt 28:19?	Acts 2:38	Tim Sheasby	22323
	I think you have misunderstood me. I think we actually agree but I am possibly just expressing myself badly. Jesus said we were to baptise in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost. Peter said be baptised in the name of Jesus. Ultimately, as you point out, this is the same thing. Tim
99	Who is the antichrist?	1 John 2:18	Tim Sheasby	22320
	I was in a Bible class recently when this verse came up in discussion (along with related verses -- 1 John 2:22, 4:3; 2 John 1:7) and the question asked was "Is the antichrist a specific individual?" Discussion was quite animated with many opinions being thrown about including Hitler, Sadam Housein, Osama Bin Laden, George Bush and the Pope. The person who brought up this last name had an interesting argument based on his own linguistic studies. He said that the word antichrist is made up of the name Christ prefixed with the Greek preposition 'anti'. Anti, he said, does not mean 'against' in Greek but rather 'in the place of'. Since the Pope claims to be 'The Vicar of Christ' (or the one who stands in the place of Christ) he points out that it logically follows that the Pope is the antichrist. According to Catholic doctrine the Pope has the power to allow or disallow anyone from entry into heaven. They claim that salvation is only through them (the popes). Further to this he expressed the idea that the "beast" of Revelation is the Catholic Church. I do know that they no longer preach the gospel as it is written in the Bible and believe the Pope has authority to supercede the Bible. What do you think?
100	The man of lawlesness	2 Thess 2:3	Tim Sheasby	22317
	Who is the man of lawlesness?

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

Search for your Bible question and answer here: