Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: 10ECPreacher Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is Salvation only through Jesus Christ? | Acts 4:12 | 10ECPreacher | 36780 | ||
Can salvation be attained any other way than through Jesus Christ? In connection with the key verse (Acts 4:12), consider the following passage: "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter by the door into the fold of the sheep, but climbs up some other way, he is a thief and a robber." ... So Jesus said to them again, "Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them. I am the door; if anyone enters through Me, he will be saved, and will go in and out and find pasture. The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly." [John 10:1, 8-10 NASB] Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism... all religions that offer salvation any way than through our Lord Jesus Christ are false religions that steal, kill and destroy. The only way to reach the Crown is through the Cross. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
2 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | 10ECPreacher | 36012 | ||
Is God essentially "one" -- or is He essentially "three"? The KJV has: "You believe there is one God..." Apparently, we all agree on this point--at least superficially. But do we agree that "God is ONE"? A literal rendering of Deut. 6:4--"Hear O Israel, The LORD our God, the LORD He is ONE." At the risk of stirring up a veritable hornet's nest, I would like to initiate a reasonable and responsible discussion concerning the nature of Deity. I have read some of the previous threads on this forum where "Oneness" theology was disparaged as heretical. I haven't seen where some of my concerns on this issue have been discussed. I realize that my view on this topic will be in the minority, but I would nonetheless ask for a fair hearing. I am convinced that there are many level-headed, fair-minded, rational thinkers on this forum. I would plead that as long as I am consistent with the teachings and actions of the Apostles in the early church (as recorded in the New Testament) then it is unfair to label my beliefs as heterodoxy. I have personally discussed this topic with many trinitarians over the past 20 or more years, and invariably it seems like the division between us is largely one of semantics. I do not see a Biblical basis for the doctrine of the "trinity" -- one must appeal to historical documents to find the term. I do not see in the Bible a reason to believe there are three persons in the Godhead. Instead, I would use the term "personality" (personna). I have studied this topic for many years, and am familiar with all the strife and debate and acrimony that this kind of discussion can gender. It is my desire to studiously avoid any statements or implications that would cast aspersions on any other member of this forum, regardless of their view in regard to this matter. In my opinion, the only basis for our doctrine is the Bible. All other writings, such as creeds and dogma, are only viable insofar as they accurately reflect Holy Writ. I believe the Bible gives adequate definition of the nature of the Deity. In my humble opinion, much damage has been done to the credibility of trinitarian doctrines because of the efforts of some of the early church "fathers" to restate what was obvious enough to begin with. Let the Bible speak for itself. When adherence to a clearly stated principle in the Bible causes conflict with a dogma or creed written by men, why is the label of heresy given to those who follow the Bible? Is God in essence "ONE"? Or is He in essence "THREE"? What difference does it make to us if we believe one way or the other? (I do not intend for this discussion to become tangled up with a debate concerning the "unitarian" doctrine--or any other teaching that denies the absolute deity of Jesus Christ.) Thank you in advance for your kind and patient consideration of this topic. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
3 | Is LAST always FINAL | Bible general Archive 1 | 10ECPreacher | 34025 | ||
Greetings, Praisemaster. "Eschatos" does not invariably mean the *very* last; sometimes it applies in a limited sense to a restricted domain or set of items. For example, in John 7:37, the term "eschatos" is used in the phrase "the last day". 'Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink."' We can all agree that that was not the very LAST day that ever was; but it was the very LAST day of the Feast of Tabernacles that year. Another example of this is found in the very chapter you cited which contains the reference to the LAST trump. "and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also." [1 Cor. 15:8 NASB] It is clear in the Scripture that the Apostle Paul will definitely not be the very LAST person to ever see Jesus. "Beloved, now we are children of God, and it has not appeared as yet what we will be. We know that when He appears, we will be like Him, because we will see Him just as He is." [1 John 3:2 NASB] I think we all agree (at least I hope we do) that Paul was not confused, and he certainly was no liar. :) I have believed for some time now that the term 'LAST trump' meant that it was the last trump for a certain era; and I think I have shown scripture that proves it doesn't HAVE to be the absolute final trump that ever sounds. In fact, I am of the persuasion that it isn't--the seven judgment trumpets belong to another era than that to which the Apostle Paul was speaking. I realize we disagree about this, I just wanted to clarify the meaning of the word 'eschatos'. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
4 | Double portion is really only two-thirds | 2 Kin 2:9 | 10ECPreacher | 33789 | ||
Greetings in Christ Jesus, charis et al. Somewhere back down the line many years ago I came across the following definition of the "double portion". (If this has already been discussed in this thread I apologize for the redundancy of my post.) The "double portion" indeed was the inheritance of the first-born. But it was not twice the possessions of the father (this would be impossible--nobody can give away more than they actually possess); rather, it was two-thirds of the total inheritance. Now, if we take a "whole" and divide it into three parts, the one that gets two-thirds of the whole is considered to have received the "double portion", because in fact he has received twice the amount of the remainder of the inheritance. When I was a child I remember hearing men say that Elisha performed twice as many major miracles as Elijah because he received a "double portion" of his spirit. I think such reasoning is very superficial. I do not believe Elisha had "twice" the anointing of Elijah, nor do I believe he only had two-thirds of the anointing of Elijah. I believe Elisha asked for and received the inheritance of the first-born; i.e., even though he was not the literal son of Elijah, he became his spiritual successor--just as a literal first-born son would become the natural successor to his father. Oh well, this is just my 2 cents' worth--which is a double portion of one-third of three. :) Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
5 | Is Jesus the source? | John 7:38 | 10ECPreacher | 33601 | ||
Thanks to all who responded... The reason I ask this question is because I want to make sure that I understand what is really being said in this scripture. It helps to let "clear heads" think through the problem. Sometimes our understanding of a text is hindered because we receive a traditional interpretation that have may have been based on a flawed exegesis. My problem with the orthodox view of this verse is based on the statement Jesus made in the preceding verse [John 8:37]: 'Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, "If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink."' Here, Jesus invites anyone who thirsts to come to Him and drink. The strong implication of this statement is that Jesus is the source of the spiritual/living water that is needed to quench the spiritual thirst of the soul. Is it possible that the words "he who believes in me" could be referring to and qualifying (in a grammatical sense) those who, upon hearing Jesus and realizing their spiritual thirst, would indeed come to Him and "drink?" Is it further possible that the phrase "out of his innermost being will flow rivers of living water" could be referring to Jesus Himself? He had just invited those that thirst to come to Him and drink. This would seem to indicate that Jesus is strengthening his appeal to those who heard Him, by pointing out that He indeed is the source of that which can quench the thirsting of the soul. Consider verse 39: 'But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.' Those who believe in Christ (i.e., come to Him that He may quench their spiritual thirst) receive His Spirit, which is evidently the "rivers of living water that flowed from his innermost being." Thanks in advance for your patient and kind consideration. Kind regards, Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||
6 | Flow out of WHOSE innermost being? | John 7:38 | 10ECPreacher | 33485 | ||
In the Scripture quoted by Jesus in this verse, 'who' is the antecedent to the pronoun "his"? 'From HIS innermost being will flow rivers of living water.' To whom does 'HIS' refer? Based on the context (verses 37-39), I believe the primary reference here is to our Lord, Jesus Christ. I would like to hear the opinions of others on this matter. Thanks in advance. Tim D. Cormier Tennessee Preacher |
||||||