Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Ronaldo Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | "Every rhema ?" | Matt 4:4 | Ronaldo | 64471 | ||
Man shall live by every "rhema" that comes (Greek continuos tense) from the mouth of God. For many years I thought that this text referred only to the written word. Jesus gave the good example by quoting the written word to Satan, which I seek to follow. However, the Greek seems to imply that there is "rhema" which is continually coming from God. Also, it is a quotation from Deut. which the Israelites were to keep when they did not have the full scriptures. What then is "every rhema" coming from the mouth of God? Or where am I going wrong in this interpretation? |
||||||
2 | Difference between Rhema and Logos. | Acts 10:44 | Ronaldo | 63788 | ||
Difference between "Rhema" and "Logos". I am hearing from many preachers that "Rhema" is when God actually speaks to a person through a Scripture. "Logos" they say is simply the "Word of God". After an inductive study of the occurences of these words I find little to support this teaching. In Acts 10:44 both words are used and logos seems to more effective hearing than rhema. Peter was "rhemaing" and they heard the "logos" Thayers, Strongs etc don't seem to support this popular interpretation. Is there any factual support for it? Is it possibly someone reading something into the Bible to support a Charismatic type of revelation? If not, what is the true distinctive meanings of the words? |
||||||
3 | Rhema and Logos Acts 10:44 | Acts 10:44 | Ronaldo | 64018 | ||
Hi Ray, First let me correct my question. I should have said "Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake2980 (was laleoing) these5023 words,4487 (rhema) the3588 Holy40 Ghost4151 fell1968 on1909 all3956 them which heard191 the3588 word.3056 (logos)." The interpretation I that is being passed around is that rhema is when the Holy Spirit applies the logos internally and effectively to the heart. Here we have and action of speaking the rhema ( word) and the logos is heard (word). If anything it is the logos which is received internally in this text. I note, with appreciation, the ensuing discussion which I study and respond to in due course. |
||||||
4 | Acts 10:44 Efective? Creative word? | Acts 10:44 | Ronaldo | 64217 | ||
Hi Tim,Ray The verses and discussion were helpful. But let us continue the discussion. Part of the question that I am looking at is, “Are rhema or/and logos effective/ceative words.. Does repeating a text as in the Jabez prayer bring anything into reality.” Also is “rhema” God actually speaking into the soul as opposed to "logos" being merely the written word, as some say? I note with appreciation the verses helpfully quoted to show that logos and rhema are used interchangeably but let us look and discuss further Acts 10:44 44 While Peter yet spake these words(rhema), the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word (logos). In this passage logos seems to mean “the message”. “These rhema” seems to refer to the words that Peter had been speaking”. It would seem that only those who heard and believed the “logos” experienced a tranformation. Merely repeating logos without faith changes nothing. However first there was “logos”, then there was “hearing”, then there was “faith” then there was a change in reality. Now let us look at Romans 10:17-18 “ So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word (rhema) of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words (rhemata) 4487 unto the ends of the world. Here too, first there is "rhema" then “hearing” followed by “faith” Neither “logos” nor “rhema” change anything without “faith”. Looking at these two texts supports the view that rhema and logos are used interchangeably. Now let us look at John 5:24 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word (logos), and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” The conditions are both hearing and faith . Faith comes only if the Father draws one to Christ. John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Wrapped up with this is the Fathers giving us to Jesus. John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. If all means “without exception” then there are no exceptions. “Everyone who is drawn will come in faith” The above consideration seem to defeat the viewpoint that “logos” is the written word and “rhema” is the word when God speaks into the soul and it is comprehended. There are those who hear but their hearts are hard and Satan comes and snatches the word away. Secondly “rhema” has no power of itself. All depends on faith and faith is given by God who gives the word. Man never becomes God so that he can created reality merely by repeating words. What do you folk say? |
||||||
5 | How is the tongues speaker edified? | 1 Cor 14:4 | Ronaldo | 61230 | ||
How do tongues edify. Does the tongues speaker communicate meaningfully to God? Is it gibberish or meaningful thanks? | ||||||
6 | Is the Prayer edified? | 1 Cor 14:4 | Ronaldo | 61390 | ||
Thanks. I also followed the line of God speaking to the Jews in many ways, line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little there a little. There were plenty of miracles but no repentance. Finally they were carried away to captivity. (Likewise the destruction of Jerusalem). Are we in the same danger today with the emphasis on signs and wonders but no righteousness. Is God impressed with us doing mighty works? I note the thoughts on cessation. There is much emphasis on using the understanding in 1 Corinthians 14, of conviction of sin. "In understanding be men". The one who prays with the spirit was giving thanks, which had meaning. I fail to see what edification there can be for the pray-er if their is no meaning to what is said. I understood from a modern tongues prayer that he did not understand what he said. If there is no understanding or meaning then what edification can take place? Paul's burden was preaching Christ crucified the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. There is no power many words that no one can understand. |
||||||
7 | Who, why baptized for the dead? | 1 Cor 15:29 | Ronaldo | 61089 | ||
who are those who are baptised for the dead and why? | ||||||
8 | Help on exergesis. Tense and Number | Eph 2:20 | Ronaldo | 62213 | ||
Exegesis-Please comment. Can someone comment on the significance of the Greek aorist tense for the verb "built" and the singular noun "foundation" "And are built on the foundation etc". My reading tells me that the subject, plural, are the Gentiles who are built (aorist) tense on the foundation (singular) of the apostles and prophets. Does the aorist not mean that the action "built" is complete? It does not say are "being built", continuous. Therefore this text does not seem support modern day apostles as foundations. Secondly, the one foundation is complete. We cannot read "foundations". There seems to be no way to fit a continuous stream of modern day apostles into the "foundation". The foundation of the apostles must mean "their foundation on which they rested -Jesus Christ" Also, if the foundation is a person it would seem illogical to add gifts as foudation stones. The context of Chapter 2 and 4 is about the unity of the church of Jews and Gentiles all resting on the one foundation. Check all the "one" and unity words recurring. If the foundation has not been completed because we have to await the addition of more modern apostles, there has been no complete foundation on which to base the unity of which Paul speaks. One needs to first read what the text meant to its first hearers and then develope a Biblical Theology. Systematic must only come at the end. The proponents of the five fold foundational gifts doctrine, as do many of us, seem to have looked for texts to support their viewpoint and forcefit this piece of the puzzle into a picture in their own mind. |
||||||
9 | Help on exergesis. Tense and Number | Eph 2:20 | Ronaldo | 62214 | ||
Exegesis-Please comment. Can someone comment on the significance of the Greek aorist tense for the verb "built" and the singular noun "foundation" "And are built on the foundation etc". My reading tells me that the subject, plural, are the Gentiles who are built (aorist) tense on the foundation (singular) of the apostles and prophets. Does the aorist not mean that the action "built" is complete? It does not say are "being built", continuous. Therefore this text does not seem support modern day apostles as foundations. Secondly, the one foundation is complete. We cannot read "foundations". There seems to be no way to fit a continuous stream of modern day apostles into the "foundation". The foundation of the apostles must mean "their foundation on which they rested -Jesus Christ" Also, if the foundation is a person it would seem illogical to add gifts as foudation stones. The context of Chapter 2 and 4 is about the unity of the church of Jews and Gentiles all resting on the one foundation. Check all the "one" and unity words recurring. If the foundation has not been completed because we have to await the addition of more modern apostles, there has been no complete foundation on which to base the unity of which Paul speaks. One needs to first read what the text meant to its first hearers and then develope a Biblical Theology. Systematic must only come at the end. The proponents of the five fold foundational gifts doctrine, as do many of us, seem to have looked for texts to support their viewpoint and forcefit this piece of the puzzle into a picture in their own mind. |
||||||
10 | Help on exergesis. Tense and Number | Eph 2:20 | Ronaldo | 62215 | ||
Exegesis-Please comment. Can someone comment on the significance of the Greek aorist tense for the verb "built" and the singular noun "foundation" "And are built on the foundation etc". My reading tells me that the subject, plural, are the Gentiles who are built (aorist) tense on the foundation (singular) of the apostles and prophets. Does the aorist not mean that the action "built" is complete? It does not say are "being built", continuous. Therefore this text does not seem support modern day apostles as foundations. Secondly, the one foundation is complete. We cannot read "foundations". There seems to be no way to fit a continuous stream of modern day apostles into the "foundation". The foundation of the apostles must mean "their foundation on which they rested -Jesus Christ" Also, if the foundation is a person it would seem illogical to add gifts as foudation stones. The context of Chapter 2 and 4 is about the unity of the church of Jews and Gentiles all resting on the one foundation. Check all the "one" and unity words recurring. If the foundation has not been completed because we have to await the addition of more modern apostles, there has been no complete foundation on which to base the unity of which Paul speaks. One needs to first read what the text meant to its first hearers and then develope a Biblical Theology. Systematic must only come at the end. The proponents of the five fold foundational gifts doctrine, as do many of us, seem to have looked for texts to support their viewpoint and forcefit this piece of the puzzle into a picture in their own mind. |
||||||