Results 1 - 14 of 14
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 51174 | ||
"If baptism is not a 'work', then I guess we don't need to 'do' it"! :-) It's a command! From Jesus himself! In Luke 7:30 It says that the Pharisees and lawyers, rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being "not baptized of him. (John) If John's baptism was the counsel of God then what was Jesus baptism in Mark 16:16;Acts2:38; is it the counsel of God also, can we reject it or say it's not necessary for salvation if God commanded us to be baptized? |
||||||
2 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 51210 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! So, is it a 'work' or not. My point was simply that one cannot 'do' something which is not a 'work'. You have argued all along that baptism is a 'work of faith', but now you want to change your position and say that baptism is not a 'work'. Which is it? ;-) p.s. - You still haven't explained the conflict between your interpretation of Acts 2:38 and the historical account of Act 10! According to your interpretation, forgiveness of sins and the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit are both the result of following the commands to 'repent' and to 'be baptized'. How then did the individuals in Acts 10 receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit before they were baptized? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 51223 | ||
Tim, once upon a time before I knew everything worth knowing :-) my English teacher wrote in the margin of an essay in which I had not only misspelled a word but had used it in such a manner that it was obvious I had no idea what the word meant. Here's what he said, "Hank, as an absolute last resort, you might try using a dictionary. Dictionaries have remarkable ways of informing you both how to spell a word and what the word means." Well, after all these years I thought it might be a good idea to find out what the dictionary says about works and baptism. One of the definitions given for 'works' is _religious or moral acts_ and for 'baptism' is _a religious act_. Of course someone may object on the grounds that, after all, what does Webster know about words :-) --Hank | ||||||
4 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 51239 | ||
Greetings Hank! What is that old saying: Don't confuse me with the facts? This is the part of the whole discussion which I simply cannot comprehend - Eph. 2:8-9 rules out all works, not just certain kinds! :-) Yet, those who believe in baptismal regeneration simply bypass this very clear passage totally. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 51241 | ||
Tim, if only there was some way to cut and paste Ephesians 2:8,9 so that it appeared to be an integral part of either Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38! Perhaps you could sneak it in and catch the baptismal regenerators by surprise. No? Well, it was just a thought, the only remedy that we haven't tried to get their attention off Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. --Hank | ||||||
6 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 53953 | ||
"Tim, if only there was some way to cut and paste Ephesians 2:8,9 so that it appeared to be an integral part of either Mark 16:16 or Acts 2:38! Perhaps you could sneak it in and catch the baptismal regenerators by surprise. No? Well, it was just a thought, the only remedy that we haven't tried to get their attention off Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38". --Hank Here's one of your post in agreement with Tim! ID#51241 6/11/02 at 11:09pm. |
||||||
7 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 53958 | ||
FORUM MEMBERS: The post that I'm responding to is what Grace and Truth has produced to "prove" that I don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture. He has already made the accusation that I don't believe in the inspiration of Scripture, which is a lie, and now he is busy trying to cover up and "prove" his case with this pathetic bit of "evidence." What do you think, FORUM MEMBERS? In my more than 2,000 posts to this forum, have I ever as much as hinted that I do not believe in the inspiration of Scripture? I shall appreciate your notes and comment. --Hank | ||||||
8 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 54030 | ||
FORUM MEMBERS: My point about this issue is in reguards to Mark 16:9-20, Hank, tells me that he and members of this forum believe that this portion of scripture are not in the origional manuscrips, therefore (not inspired) He's in agreement with Tim Moran on this issue, therefore I stand on my word! | ||||||
9 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 54041 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! :-) If Mark 16:9-20 is not original, one cannot accuse someone of not believing in the inspiration of Scripture simply because they don't believe that Mark 16:9-20 was in the original autographs! Either Mark 16:9-20 is original - in which case it is Scripture - , or it is not - in which case is not Scripture. That is the question being debated. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
10 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 54048 | ||
Is Mark 16:9-20 in your bible? | ||||||
11 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 54054 | ||
Greetings Grace and Truth! I know that you are aware that there is no "Bible" in the sense that there is one standard text handed down in complete form throughout the centuries. What we have are thousands of copies of the originals. These copies, while they agree 99.99 percent of the time, differ at some points. Mark 16:9-20 is one of those points. Is Mark 16:9-20 in my published translation? Yes, with footnotes indicating that it was not in the original autograph of Mark! Is it in many Greek manuscripts? Yes, but many also include information about it being added and not being in the original copies. Is it in the earliest manuscripts? No, even many of the early church fathers testify that it was not in the early greek copies. So, why is it missing in the earliest manuscripts? Why do so many copies which do contain it include notes identify it as a spurious addition? Why are there four different endings in the various copies of Mark? These questions have to be addressed my friend. You can't simply ignore them! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
12 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 54057 | ||
Let's note this point also, the scholars are not inspired, so should we trust them? And sense this long ending has been found, does it hurt the gospel cause or promote the gospel cause? It's said to be the words of Jesus, that should be a great discovery and bring joy to our hearts. God want's us to have all things that pretain to life and godlyness. Or is this something Satan wanted in the place of God's word? We know what the ending says, is it a good thing, or a bad thing? But the real question should be why did they put it in the bible? Someone throught it should be in there, though it might be debated. And sense we have it let's treat it like all other scriptures. By the way how many scholars voted on placing it in the bibles? |
||||||
13 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 54375 | ||
Hi, GandT; No, the scholars are not inspired. Since it is scholars who do the translating, it follows that no version in any modern language (including 17th century English) is inspired. Furthermore, no original text of any book of the Bible remains, so there is no known copy of any book of the Bible that is inspired. So where does that leave us? It leaves us dependent upon scholars who sift through thousands of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts trying to reconstruct what the original writers - who WERE inspired - actually recorded. Mark's inspired original manuscript probably no longer exists. Scholars over a period of centuries have agreed on most of what we find in an English translation. But there are those troublesome four alternate endings. Which, if any, reflects Mark's original inspired writing? I certainly don't know, nor am I competent to decide. Since the pros don't know, I don't know. But you know what? It doesn't bother me at all. If you point out an idea in this section that confirms what can be found elsewhere in the Gospels, it hasn't added much to my knowledge. If you point out some unique, novel idea that can't be confirmed anywhere else in the Bible, then I'd question it anyway. God knows us; the really important stuff gets repeated over and over. So I'm just not too worried about this section and don't feel at all badly about not paying a lot of attention to it. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
14 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Grace and Truth | 54598 | ||
You mentioned how many times something is repeated, this happen to be the end of the gospel according to Mark, the question is, does this ending agree with the other three endings? I think it does agree with the others, and the day of Pentecost sermon that Peter preached. | ||||||