Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | LisaMarie | 25145 | ||
No, I won't be responding to issues of dogma and doctrine. Everytime I respond to someone's query I get "But..." Which means folks are not so much interested in my answers as they are showing me how misguided they think I am. [True Listening: Listening with the intent to understand rather than the intent to form a response.] So I give up. Hope you don't mind too much. I'm really having a difficult time swallowing the fact that only Hank asked what I believe. It's your right to think I'm wrong and I won't have any problem with it. You don't know me. You don't know the church I attend. You don't know the clergy I adore. If you did, you would rejoice! Has the Holy Spirit washed over my whole life? YOU BET! I'll never tell you you're misguided or essential teachings have been left out of your Christian life. How can I know that unless I know you? God speaks to us individually. I sincerely believe that. Which is why we have so many differences in our Christianity. Have you ever read books by Patsy Clairmont? She is fantastic. She talked about a fear of flying once and her friend came up with this passage from Obadiah: "Who can bring me down to the ground?" So she was content knowing she was in the hands of the Lord. Then another flyer in her church group mentioned (upon de-planing) that her bible said "Who will plummet you to the ground?" Her quip being the Lord even knows what version of the bible you should be reading. Much Love, Lisa |
||||||
2 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25219 | ||
I think I understand Lisa. I (we) generally ask questions and then end up discussing the differences in our particular understanding of certain biblical verses. Most of the time it makes a person think about things they may not have considered. And as for me, I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, so anything that adamantly disagrees with the Word is incorrect. You are right about that. And I don't think saying "but" means that we (or me in particular) aren't listening. It simply means that your understanding is not the only understanding... and someone has other considerations to add to the discussion. If I've offended you by asking for scripture to back up certain of your beliefs, I truly am sorry. |
||||||
3 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | LisaMarie | 25351 | ||
Hi - There, I'm not offended. I just know I'm beating my head against the wall. You mention understanding of Scripture. We haven't even discussed Scripture. So far all we've discussed is misinformation. When I try to explain what is actually taught I get "But..." But that's not what he said, but that's not what she said. Who are they? I know who I am. Certain people aren't trying to understand, they're trying to correct. If I try to bring understanding, someone (else) calls that bad. I also believe our bible to be the inspired Word of God. And I've already told you I feel clergy over the last few hundred years got very carried away with the whole Loosed on Earth thing. I've also mentioned my irritation with catholics unwilling to give up their pretentious nature. So it would seem a few of you won't be satisfied until I give up my church - which will never happen! Sorry! If you open the fridge and something smells bad, do you throw out the whole fridge? You and two other folks here have mentioned the need to show me some greater truth. I thank you (all) for loving me so. Your fears are entirely unfounded I have the Holy Spirit! I have such joy in my heart! I could prattle on about it, but I think I'd bore everyone into a coma. So into the Neutral Zone for us, eh? Hugs, Lisa |
||||||
4 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | There | 25432 | ||
Can I still reply to you in the "neutral zone"? :) You said: When I try to explain what is actually taught I get "But..." But that's not what he said, but that's not what she said. Who are they? BUT ( joking here ) there are two things not taken into account in your statement. 1) "what is TAUGHT" by who? Isn't that why scripture has been provided to show that Jesus and the apostles "TAUGHT" something totally different at times? 2) And sometimes we (I) have mentioned something someone else has said, simply because it explains much better than just "giving my opinion" concerning things you have stated. Example: You say the Church teaches THIS, but the Church says it teaches THAT. If I make statements that are incorrect, I would certainly HOPE that someone would show me the difference. Are you trying to say that you prefer to believe what you believe, even if it disagrees with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles? ... and also believe that the Catholic Church Cathechism teaches things it does not teach? I hope you will clarify this for me. God bless. |
||||||
5 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | LisaMarie | 25502 | ||
Yes, of course! I've read your posts in other threads and do enjoy them! I think you're cool. I'm not certain what you want me to clarify. I follow the teachings of Jesus. If you think I do not then you are indeed incorrect. You believe the Catholic church contradicts the teachings of Jesus? You are incorrect. Again, I really think we should let this one go. How about a scriptural discussion? Last night my adorable little NASB pocket bible lost its luster for me. I can accept certain "books" being omitted, even if I disagree with the reasoning behind it. But last night, I was reading Daniel on the train. Chapter 3 ends at verse 30. Not to mention the chapter has been changed. My NAB version goes on to verse 100. What possible reason can you find to omit a song of praise to the Lord? The reference only states that Protestants found those verses "apochryphal" and changed them. A song of praise? How does one decide "well, this book is inspired by the Lord but obviously these verses are not so let's change some and omit others." ??? Views? Opinions? Inside track? Hugs, Lisa |
||||||
6 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 25505 | ||
Greetings Lisa! The section you refer to in Daniel is not included in protestant Bibles because it is not found in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. It is found in the later Greek versions and the Vulgate, but not the the Hebrew. Therefore, protestants have rejected this section as a later addition. If I recall correctly, it was not considered a part of the Hebrew canon either. It was only the Catholic church which decided that it belonged. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | LisaMarie | 25519 | ||
Ah HA, I see! I also read last night that the actual "Hebrew Canon" was put together after the Christian one. I found that kinda curious. Prior to our Bible, they were only interested in a scroll of The Law. Macabees (apochryphal) tells of the fella who gathered up all the writings he could find. Kings, laws, letters. Again written in Greek. The Hebrews rejected all Greek writings because they didn't see the Gentiles as people of God. No possible way he would send the Holy Spirit unto them! NIV Acts 10 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days. The entire New Testament is written in Greek. Of course the Hebrews, not believing in Jesus, reject all the New Testament as well. Hmmmmm. |
||||||
8 | "Once Saved Always Saved" | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 25532 | ||
Greetings Lisa! The point I was actually trying to make is that Daniel was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Since the section you refer to is only found in Greek copies, it appears to have been added later in a different language. The Hebrew copies are all dated earlier than the Greek. The New Testament is written in Greek because at that time the entire world had been conqured by Rome. So, the issue isn't whether or not Greek is as good as Hebrew. The issue is if the longer version of chapter 3 is original, why isn't it found in the earlier copies in the original language? It appears as though a Greek copist simply added that section to the Hebrew text. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||