Results 1 - 20 of 20
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: reilly1041 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | will the real James please stand up! | Bible general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 81771 | ||
Now I am getting confused! As my Bible (Life Application Bible, NLT) explains it, there were two James's who were disciples: (1) James - brother of John, son of Zebedee. This James was killed by King Herod Agrippa, as described in Acts 12:2. This is the James that is often mentioned as part of a trio w/Peter and John. (2) James - son of Alphaeus. Mostly, he seems to be just in the list of the disciples (according to the "selected references" list in this bible's chart of the 12 disciples). Then, in Acts 15, there is an argument among the church leaders regarding circumcision, and it was settled by James giving his judgment that the Gentiles who turn to God should not be troubled w/circumcision. The notes in this Bible say that this James was Jesus' half-brother who became a leader of the church in Jerusalem and wrote the book of James. Thus giving us a third notable James in the NT. Mat 13:55 states "Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas? My Life Appl. Bible says that the third James, the writer of the book of James, is the James referred to in the above verse (Mt 13:55). To further confuse the mix, this Bible says that the book of Jude was written by the brother of James and Jesus, Jude (also mentioned in Mt 13:55). So, I would say that sah's original question was too vague to be answered succinctly! Does anyone/everyone agree with the notes in my Bible regarding James the writer of the book of James? |
||||||
2 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 81151 | ||
I am a relatively new Bible reader and one big question keeps hitting me -- I see a difference between Jesus' words on heaven and Paul's. Let me explain... Paul says "If you confess w/your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9, TLB) And also, "For it is by grace you have been saved thru faith, and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God, not of works..." (Eph 2:8, NKJV) But I don't see Jesus talking that way in the gospels. For example, in Mt 7:21, Jesus said that "Not all people who sound religious are really godly. they may refer to me as Lord, but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Fathers in heaven". And again, in Mt 5:22, He says "if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell". See also Luke 12:35-49, where He discusses being prepared about his coming. If the servant isn't behaving well, the master will tear the servant apart and banish him. These statements of Jesus seem to indicate that much more than simply announcing and believing in your heart that Jesus is the Son of God is required for the Kingdom of Heaven. He clearly states that the key issue is whether you obey his Father in heaven. Is this to be interpreted as living a good life, following the commandments, etc., as additional requirements for heaven? Does that jive w/Paul's statements? Note that it's not that I'm against trying to live a good, holy life, but this seems to lead down the road of salvation by faith-and-works. Please help me understand this better, because my life was changed by Eph 2:8-9, but this is confusing me. Thanks! |
||||||
3 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 81153 | ||
I am a relatively new Bible reader and one big question keeps hitting me -- I see a difference between Jesus' words on heaven and Paul's. Let me explain... Paul says "If you confess w/your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9, TLB) And also, "For it is by grace you have been saved thru faith, and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God, not of works..." (Eph 2:8, NKJV) But I don't see Jesus talking that way in the gospels. For example, in Mt 7:21, Jesus said that "Not all people who sound religious are really godly. they may refer to me as Lord, but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Fathers in heaven". And again, in Mt 5:22, He says "if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell". See also Luke 12:35-49, where He discusses being prepared about his coming. If the servant isn't behaving well, the master will tear the servant apart and banish him. These statements of Jesus seem to indicate that much more than simply announcing and believing in your heart that Jesus is the Son of God is required for the Kingdom of Heaven. He clearly states that the key issue is whether you obey his Father in heaven. Is this to be interpreted as living a good life, following the commandments, etc., as additional requirements for heaven? Does that jive w/Paul's statements? Note that it's not that I'm against trying to live a good, holy life, but this seems to lead down the road of salvation by faith-and-works. Please help me understand this better, because my life was changed by Eph 2:8-9, but this is confusing me. Thanks! |
||||||
4 | Do Jesus and Paul agree on salv by faith | NT general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 81149 | ||
I am a relatively new Bible reader and one big question keeps hitting me -- I see a difference between Jesus' words on heaven and Paul's. Let me explain... Paul says "If you confess w/your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. (Rom 10:9, TLB) And also, "For it is by grace you have been saved thru faith, and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God, not of works..." (Eph 2:8, NKJV) But I don't see Jesus talking that way in the gospels. For example, in Mt 7:21, Jesus said that "Not all people who sound religious are really godly. they may refer to me as Lord, but they still won't enter the Kingdom of Heaven. The decisive issue is whether they obey my Fathers in heaven". And again, in Mt 5:22, He says "if you curse someone, you are in danger of the fires of hell". See also Luke 12:35-49, where He discusses being prepared about his coming. If the servant isn't behaving well, the master will tear the servant apart and banish him. These statements of Jesus seem to indicate that much more than simply announcing and believing in your heart that Jesus is the Son of God is required for the Kingdom of Heaven. He clearly states that the key issue is whether you obey his Father in heaven. Is this to be interpreted as living a good life, following the commandments, etc., as additional requirements for heaven? Does that jive w/Paul's statements? Note that it's not that I'm against trying to live a good, holy life, but this seems to lead down the road of salvation by faith-and-works. Please help me understand this better, because my life was changed by Eph 2:8-9, but this is confusing me. Thanks! |
||||||
5 | salvation and Cath Church | NT general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 81217 | ||
I don't know if I can ask this question in this forum without upsetting people, but I will try. I keep trying to ask the Bible Answer Man on the radio, but keep getting busy signals. Anyway, having been raised Catholic and then starting to read the Bible at the ripe age of 35, it seems like many of the Catholic truths do not "jive" easily with the Bible. Can it really be that the Catholic Church's teachings are wrong? Can it be that so many Catholics (I think I heard the number 1 billion) could be believing the wrong concepts, and if so, does that call into question their salvation? I ask these questions not in an inflammatory way, not to induce any sort of anti-Catholic rhetoric, but it seems amazing to me that so many people for so many centuries could be so wrong. I am considering leaving the Cath Church for a more Bible-based church, but feel like I'm getting ready to jump off a cliff (perhaps this feeling is from 35 years of hearing how there is only one "true" Church). Striving to be Berean-like, Stephanie |
||||||
6 | presumption of individual responsibility | NT general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 81451 | ||
I find that the more I read the Bible, the more humble I become in my lack of knowledge. Every time I read it, I find new information I had somehow missed the last time. Honestly, I have always considered myself very smart, I think God is perfecting his humbling of me in this area! Thank you for your insight. I had an interesting "coming out" with my family and friends when I admitted that I was reading the Bible. I actually wrote an article for our church newsletter entitled "Have You Ever Tried to (gasp) Read the Bible?" that explained, among other things, how to know if you have a Catholic Bible. I found out that my mother-in-law was afraid to open a KJV bible because it wasn't Catholic. I told her to try it once and if it spontaneously ignited, douse it with holy water. (note the tongue in cheek please!). My husband couldn't understand why I would want to read it more than once. My very-Catholic aunt who attends mass daily told me that she just found her bible while cleaning out a room and was going to try to read some of the verses I suggested in my article. The responses I have gotten have been very interesting. I haven't really received any blatant hostile responses, but definitely some silences. I am self-named zealot, which is what I tell my friends if they ask why I do this. I have given my theological angst up to God and know that He will lead me in the right direction. I am not quite sure what you meant about presumptions of individual responsibility. Can you explain further ? Stephanie |
||||||
7 | merit for ourselves/others eternal life? | NT general Archive 1 | reilly1041 | 90433 | ||
Emmaus, I pulled out of the Catholic Catechism a section on merit, which I think includes the part that looks like salvation-by-works, which always is a contentious issue. To ensure enough context, I included the whole section on merit. Paragraph 2010 contains the following sentence: "we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.". I think that sentence really separates Catholicism from Protestantism, doesn't it? The Catechism goes to great pains to state that our works are only possible through Christ, but meriting for ourselves eternal life? Meriting for others eternal life!! What??!! How can we merit eternal life for someone else? I know that you can explain this in a reasonable way -- please help! Thanks, reilly III. Merit 2006 The term "merit" refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it. 2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator. 2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit. 2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God's gifts."62 2010 Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions. 2011 The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace. "After earth's exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own justice and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself."63 (63 - quote from St. Therese.) |
||||||
8 | Forbidden fruit represents sex? | Gen 3:1 | reilly1041 | 87883 | ||
My mother-in-law (Roman Catholic) believes that in the story of the fall, the forbidden fruit represents intercourse between Adam and Eve. She says that original sin and the fall of man wouldn't have occurred just by "eating some fruit". I told her man's fall occurred because they disobeyed God, by eating the fruit. I couldn't convince her, I told her that there was nothing in the text that would indicate that the fruit represented anything other than the fruit. She apparently learned this in Catholic grade school 50 years ago. Does anyone else hold to this view? Am I right to read this story literally? Emmaus - I tried to check the Catechism, but couldn't find anything in there (but I'm not that good at finding my way through that beast), do you know if this is Catholic doctrine? Thanks, reilly |
||||||
9 | OT Laws - still apply today? | Lev 20:9 | reilly1041 | 85658 | ||
I have read very little of the OT, I am relatively new to Bible reading, so my confusion will shine through! My question is -- what is the application, if any, of the OT laws listed in Leviticus, such as 20:9, to we Christians today. (I just chose this one as an example, could have chosen others.) Jesus came to "fulfill the OT Law" - does that mean that these rules do not apply to us? But the Ten Commandments do? Is it because we are Gentiles, and the Law was not given to Gentiles? If that is the answer, does the Law still apply to Messianic Jews (who I assume are Jews who believe in Christ's divinity, incarnation, resurrection)? I know that Paul said that no man can completely follow the Law, are we supposed to still be trying? Thanks for your help!! reilly |
||||||
10 | how were years started? | Is 61:2 | reilly1041 | 88134 | ||
When, how, and by whom was it decided how the years would be numbered? reilly |
||||||
11 | how/when was BC/AD initiated? | Is 61:2 | reilly1041 | 88215 | ||
My goodness, you're full of info on this topic! I am still a little confused, forgive me. My question is how was it decided to call the year that Jesus was born the year zero, i.e., to initiate the whole BC/AD concept? It must have been some time after Jesus died for the timing to be off by a couple of years. It couldn't have been with the Julian calendar, or Caesar would have been calling that year "minus-46" !! :) I always wonder how non-Christians feel about having to recognize Jesus every time they write the date. Are Jews thinking, "He was just a prophet, yet I am reminded of Him every time I write a check?!" Thanks, reilly |
||||||
12 | Do the will of the Father to enter heave | Matt 7:21 | reilly1041 | 87175 | ||
All right, sola fida experts.... This statement by Jesus seems to indicate that one needs more than faith in Jesus to enter heaven. Is this perhaps analogous to James 2:14, whereby saving faith is accompanied by works? Please help! Thanks, reilly |
||||||
13 | communion actually body/blood? | Matt 26:26 | reilly1041 | 96547 | ||
My question concerns transubstantiation -- the Catholic view that the bread and wine literally change into the body and blood of Christ. I know that this has been discussed before on this forum. My question specifically is, according to Catholic sources (catholic.org), the early Church Fathers believed that the communion elements were literally the body and blood. These men lived within several generations of Christ and were apparently leaders of the church and the learned men of their time. How is that they could be so wrong? Can it really be that the church was completely wrong from, say, the year 100 until the year 1500 when the Reformation occurred? Below are some quotes from these Church Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch (year: 110 AD) "I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]). Justin Martyr (year: 151 AD) "We call this food Eucharist....For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]). Origen (year: 248 AD) "Formerly there was baptism in an obscure way . . . now, however, in full view, there is regeneration in water and in the Holy Spirit. Formerly, in an obscure way, there was manna for food; now, however, in full view, there is the true food, the flesh of the Word of God, as he himself says: ‘My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink’ [John 6:56]" (Homilies on Numbers 7:2 [A.D. 248]). Cyril of Jerusalem (year: 350 AD) "The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ" (Catechetical Lectures 19:7 [A.D. 350]). "Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ. . . . [Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, . . . partake of that bread as something spiritual, and put a cheerful face on your soul" (ibid., 22:6, 9). I find it hard to dismiss these quotes as mere Catholic rhetoric, given that some of these writings are from the 2nd century, only 80 years after the death and resurrection! They had the same Scriptures we have. How we can say they were all completely wrong. Please help! Thanks, reilly |
||||||
14 | what did "why have U forsaken me" mean? | Matt 27:46 | reilly1041 | 93941 | ||
Radioman2, Do you interpret Jesus' question of "why have you forsaken me" to mean that He was being abandoned by God? I have read other members of this forum state that they believe Jesus was calling attention to Psalm 22 as a last-ditch attempt to reach the on-lookers and teach them what was happening. What do you think? Thanks, reilly |
||||||
15 | Why did John TB question | Luke 7:20 | reilly1041 | 84302 | ||
When John the Baptist sent the question to Jesus if He was the One, or if they should continue to look for another, did John the Baptist really not know that Jesus was the Messiah, or was he just not pleased with the kind of ministry that Jesus was leading? It seems like he (John TB) would definitely know that Jesus was the Messiah, since when he baptized Him, the Holy Spirit settled upon Him (John 1:32). Thanks, reilly |
||||||
16 | Arminianism came from what/who? | John 3:16 | reilly1041 | 88132 | ||
Thanks Tim for the overview, I had the same question as gracefull. One more question -- Calvinism obviously came from Calvin. Where did "Arminianism" come from? Thanks, reilly |
||||||
17 | Why didn't Jesus perform baptisms? | John 4:2 | reilly1041 | 84401 | ||
Why didn't Jesus perform any baptisms? Why was that significant, in that it was specifically pointed out by John? Thanks, reilly |
||||||
18 | whole household rejoiced? even kids? | Acts 2:38 | reilly1041 | 81676 | ||
I know this is dredging up an old posting, but I have a question about using the "whole household" argument of infant baptism. In Acts 16, the jailer and his whole household were baptized. But, then in vs. 34, it states that the whole household rejoiced because they believed in the God (NLT). Doesn't that indicate that infants and small children were excluded because an infant couldn't rejoice in his believing? stephanie |
||||||
19 | pray to God or Jesus or same?? | Rom 1:8 | reilly1041 | 93815 | ||
This question is probably very basic, I am just confused. In Romans 1:8, Paul thanks "God through Jesus Christ" for the Roman believers. What does "through" Jesus Christ mean? That Paul prays his thanksgiving to Jesus, using Jesus as the mediator between himself and God (as in 1 Tim 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus...")? But then I read John 16:26-27, "In that day you will ask in My name, and I do not say to you that I will request of the Father on your behalf; for the Father Himself loves you, because you have loved Me and have believed that I came forth from the Father. " which makes it clear that Jesus is saying that we petition directly to God. So my question is --- do we pray to God or to Jesus or does it not matter because of John 10:38, "but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." As you can see, I am confused. Thanks for your help, reilly |
||||||
20 | how to convince one of Bible's truth | 1 Timothy | reilly1041 | 85134 | ||
I need help and I am sure you guys can provide it! I am in a debate with a cousin about the Bible and how one reads it. Here are his words: "The question is whether every line of all books in the Bible must be taken as the truth or whether one is permitted to take into account lots of other factors in making that decision. Afterall, who wrote down Genesis? Even after it was written down and passed along, who decided it was true? There is a Gospel of Thomas that can be dated back to within about 100 years of The Gospel of John (some argue that it's far earlier), yet it is not included in the Bible. A group of church leaders decided centuries ago that it shouldn't be. Is it appropriate to ask if they were correct? To restate the point, I don't believe that all of the hundreds, maybe even thousands of people who were directly or indirectly responsible for passing along, writing, and choosing the books of the Bible were being directed by God in such a way that they were infallibly writing the words of God just as if God was writing them himself. Instead, I think the Bible was created by inspired believers who did the best they could. It doesn't mean that their opinions regarding the stories, their meaning, and their own experiences didn't have an effect in what they did." For example, he believes that John's gospel has more of John's theology in it, in addition the history he was describing. He thus believes one should investigate what was John's theology and what was Jesus, to ensure that he is following Jesus, and not following Jesus' followers. My opinion is that we should accept the Bible as God's inspired Word. If that level of investigation is required for each verse, no layperson could possibly read the Bible, and I can't believe that the Bible is only intended for professional theologians. Now, I know that this forum gets pretty deep sometimes, but don't you all agree that level of knowledge is not required to read the Bible, but that a layperson (meaning not one steeped in theology) can get huge benefit out of it? I'm sure I can never convince him of this, but any advice for our debate? Thanks, reilly |
||||||