Results 1 - 20 of 24
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Dalcent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Where can I learn about Ash Wednesday? | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 112065 | ||
Celebrating Ash Wednesday really belongs to Catholic / high church Christianity and is not generally celebrated in evangelical circles. Check out this article for information: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01775b.htm Apparently Mel Gibson has chosen Ash Wednesday (the first day of Lent) to launch his film "The Passion." |
||||||
2 | They were not born again at time of marr | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131568 | ||
Moey, Where does the New Testament tell us to say a prayer to get born-again. Please give me the scriptural reference for this prayer. What do you make of Matthew 16:18? Jesus spoke in Aramaic and Peter and Rock are the same word in Aramaic: namely Kepha (compare Galatians 2:9). You have cleary read too many anti-Catholic books and comics. |
||||||
3 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131846 | ||
The Lord took me from sin and unbelief and translated me into the kingdom of his dear Son. Every waking hour I live and breathe Jesus Christ my Saviour and Lord. My life is consumed with the love of my God. I have been saved, redeemed, rescued from the darkness. God has given me a deep love for his chosen race the Jewish people. If I die and find out I built my life on Christ and he was not the truth then I will perish, but I believe he is Saviour, Lord, eternal Father and King of Kings. If anyone thinks because I am a Catholic, because I follow the faith of the first millenium, the faith of the undivided Church of East and West, that means I am not a Christian then you are utterly wrong. My years will pass in fleeting days and I will then see my God face to face and if God has called you in this Way then you'll spend eternity with me too. | ||||||
4 | WHY IS A TEA LEAVE READER SO BAD | Lev 19:26 | Dalcent | 154666 | ||
All forms of magick and divination (and reading tea leaves is certainly divination) are gravely contrary to the Christian faith. Divination involves communing with fallen beings from the spirit world. When you fellowship with these evil spirits about what the patterns in the tea leaves means you are in the presence of demons. However nicely the ‘spirits’ treat you initially you are giving them entrance into your life. You may well be embarking on a lifetime of torment and fear. The LORD will be angry with you for scorning Him in this way, especially if you do not act in ignorance, and he is unlikely to prevent them harming you and taking over your life. It would be an entirely different matter if you were to turn to Him and repent. God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future: Jeremiah 29:8 "For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, 'Do not let your prophets who are in your midst and your diviners deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams which they dream. Deut 18:10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, Not only is reading tea leaves forbidden but also consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums. All conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. |
||||||
5 | I need to know the direct translation | Jer 2:22 | Dalcent | 154695 | ||
I believe the answer to your query can be obtained by looking at the earliest non-canonical Christian literature: the Didache, circa. 60 A.D. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html This first century historical text makes it clear that Christian Baptism (as opposed to John's baptism) was: i) by water ii) normally be immersion, but infusion was also practiced. Extract: Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. More resources can be found here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html |
||||||
6 | NT tithing completely unbiblical? | Matt 23:23 | Dalcent | 133365 | ||
Hi there Reighnskye, Matthew 23:23 to some extent supports tithing which Jesus includes among 'things you should have done without neglecting the others.' It is also argued that the practice of tithing predates Moses' giving of the Law, viz. Abram paying tithes to Melchizedek (Gen 14:20). It can be argued that the Old Covenant is generally valid for Christians except where contraindicated by the New. For example, it would be a rare Christian who would say that the Ten Commandments do not apply to us because they are in the Old Covenant. O.T. Judaism is not a different religion to ours, but an incomplete stage of the unfolding revelation of the God of Israel to the human race. |
||||||
7 | christ 2007 | Matt 24:36 | Dalcent | 131881 | ||
The Bible is fairly clear that we cannot know the date of Christ's return. Can I ask where the 2007 prediction comes from. |
||||||
8 | Mark 2:3 "which was borne of four" mean? | Mark 2:3 | Dalcent | 134739 | ||
This is just a archaicism of the King James Version. You need a Bible version written in contemporary not Elizabethan English. Mark 2:3 (ASV) And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy, borne of four. (DRB) And they came to him, bringing one sick of the palsy, who was carried by four. (ESV) And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. Dalcent |
||||||
9 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154768 | ||
Dear Mr Joe, We don't 'know' that baptism doesn't save a person. This is the view held only by the Presbyterian / Reformed branch of Protestantism - the predominant evangelical outlook at present. This view is not held by either the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, Wesleyan, Lutherans or the Anglicans. Therefore, the vast majority of Christians do not 'know' baptism doesn't save you. Act 22:16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, AND wash away your sins, calling on His name.' (AS IN THE NICENE CREED: ...WE ACKNOWLEDGE ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS...) I have many volumes of the earliest Christian writings (stretching over centuries) and not one of them 'knows' baptism doesn't save you. All of the early Church fathers in the golden age of saints and martyrs believed in baptismal regeneration. To be a little more precise 'It is by faith in the Gospel AND by Baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation, that is, the forgiveness of all sins and the gift of new life.' THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE SAYS: 1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now SAVES YOU Mar 16:16 "He who has believed AND has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. Tit 3:5 He SAVED us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing (actually the 'bath' (loutron) of regeneration, loutron is a noun, this is translated accurately in the NAB) of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through BAPTISM into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. Gal 3:27 For all of you who were BAPTIZED into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Does your exegesis need to deny the plain sense of these last two verses. From the very beginning, the earliest Christians understood baptism in this way. One example of myriads would be the Epistle of Barnabas (II,II) 'This meaneth, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. ' To go against the plain sense of scripture, volumes and volumes of Christian literature from the same centuries that were defining the Trinity, Jesus's divinity and humanity, the biblical canon, the same writers who were being martyred by the Roman Empire, and to go against Martin Luther, John Wesley the Thirty Nine-Articles of the Church of England is just bizarre. You don't KNOW baptism doesn't save you. And you never got that belief reading the Bible. |
||||||
10 | How decides between HS-led Christians? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154846 | ||
sorry double posting | ||||||
11 | How decides between HS-led Christians? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154857 | ||
Barring this question is ridiculous. You know I kept asking it and no one could answer it. The only arbtitar of scripture is a) the subject: each and every Christian unto himself b) or Scripture's answer: the Church. 1 Tim 3:15 ...the household of God, which is the church of the living God, THE PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF THE TRUTH. |
||||||
12 | Photo of King James | John | Dalcent | 133372 | ||
Hi there, King James I of England and VI of Scotland (1566-1625), has many of his portraits on display in England's National Portrait Gallery. This link will give you these in jpeg form: http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/a-z/sitJ.asp Hope this helps! Dalcent London, England |
||||||
13 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134513 | ||
YES, Act 10:47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid WATER, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we? Forbidding 'Water' is clarified as baptism in this verse. Dalcent |
||||||
14 | Verses where water alone means baptism? | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134566 | ||
The expression 'forbid water' means 'forbid baptism'. So by itself WATER here means baptism. The clause (a complete grammatical unit) contains a complete reference to baptism, not reliant on the remainder of the verse, which thankfully defines WATER as baptism. I'll glad the verse contains proof that 'forbid water' means 'forbid baptism.' Otherwise, some hack might say that it was referring to forbidding a glass of water to a man whose throat was too dry to say the 'sinners prayer.' Dalcent |
||||||
15 | Do you literally eat His flesh? | John 3:5 | Dalcent | 134685 | ||
Hi there Searcher, I'll try to answer: Do we literally eat His flesh? Well, my dictonary defines 'literally' as 'in exact accordance with the limited meaning of the text' or 'dull, factually, prosaic' so I guess there's more to it than merely literally. Yes, Jesus is mysteriously REALLY present in the Eucharist, even more so than when 2 or 3 are gathered together in his name, or as he inhabits the praises of his peoples, or as he is present with us always unto the end of the age! Do you believe that all Christians are literally, spiritually or mysteriously the body of Christ. Probably 'mysteriously' best describes all these things and is certainly a word used in Scripture. Does it change form? No it does NOT change form, shape, colour, texture. Neither did you when you became the Temple of the Holy Spirit. Also you are REALLY the Temple of the Holy Spirit. (I don't like the expression 'spiritually' for any of the above because it can be easily distorted into allergorically, metaphorically, etc.) If so how? When it is blessed and the God who created the universe by his mere word changes it, following Mat 26:26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." If so where is it kept until you eat it? Usually the communion species is distributed and consumed immediately and usually at every service, following Act 2:42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. However, Catholic and Orthodox churches normally retain the bread and/or wine containing the real presence of Christ in a tabernacle at the back of the church (this could be given to the dying in a hurry) but the main reason is that the presence of God dwell in the Church in a particularly powerful way. This is following Mat 23:21 'And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and by him who dwells in it,': verse that shows the Jews had an understanding that the Lord dwelt with them in the Temple; I think this was in the Ark or similar. You may care to research exactly what the 'Bread of the Presence' in the OT was or meant, as it is related to our topic of the real presence of Christ in the bread of the eucharist. (Hebrews 9:2 Bread of the Presence ) Obviously God ALSO dwells in heaven then as now. I hope this helps you understand Catholic understanding of the Eucharist, held by all Christians everywhere for 1500 years. If you want to read a more detailed account by an expert then I would recommend the following link: http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp Your brother in Christ, Dalcent http://www.catholic.com/library/Christ_in_the_Eucharist.asp |
||||||
16 | What's John 14:6 in original language? | John 14:6 | Dalcent | 132527 | ||
Your friend seems to think the Bible gets translated from each preceding translation. Some think that one of these intermediary Bibles was the King James Version. This is entirely false all respectable translations are made from the oldest manuscripts available. John 14:6 is just the same in the Greek as translated above in the NASB. At my local museum in London, viz, the British Museum, there is one of the oldest bibles in the world on display. The Codex Sinaiticus which is from the fourth century. Dalcent |
||||||
17 | Did Jesus, have sisters and brothers | John 19:25 | Dalcent | 135259 | ||
Hi there, (Steve, I'm responding to one of your questions here as someone else is asking the same thing) No he did not have brothers and sisters. And here’s proof. First, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters in the normal sense. Even if Protestants were right about Mary’s ‘other children’ they would have been half-brothers. Same mother, different father. Brother certainly doesn’t mean brother in the way most common to the English speaker. God was Jesus’ Father and Joseph would have been the father of any others. However they are not right! Mary had NO other children! The counter-argument usually starts with: Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? Mat 13:56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" The uninformed or unlearned say this means Mary had at least 7 children, i.e. Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, at least two sisters. Oh for a closer look! 1) brothers is a common Semitism for many different forms of relationship. Practically no one would even bother to argue with this contention. (Rev 22:9 your brothers the prophets Rev 19:10 you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus Gen 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their COMPARE Gen 13:11 And Lot chose to himself the country about the Jordan, and he departed from the east: and they were separated one brother from the other.) 2) v.55 does not say James and Joseph and Simon and Judas are Mary’s sons (which would prove they were). It says they were the brothers of Jesus. Scripture shows these ‘brothers’ are the children of Mary’s sister, Mary. John 19:25 his MOTHER'S SISTER, MARY OF CLEOPHAS,… (This means wife of Cleophas and is often translated as such) These brothers are Jesus’ relatives, Jesus’ kin, people who I’m sure were part of Jesus’ family; maybe they lived in the same house or certainly nearby. His extended family. Scripture proves them to be Mary’s sister’s children and names them too! Again,: Joh 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and HIS MOTHER'S SISTER, MARY OF CLEOPHAS, and Mary Magdalen. All these children of this Mary sister of Mary are named below, SCRIPTURALLY PROVEN SHE is the mother of Jesus ‘brothers’ mentioned in Mark 6:3 and above in Matt 13. Mar 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of JAMES and SALOME bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus. Mar 15:47 And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of JOSEPH, beheld where he was laid. Luk 24:10 Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of JAMES and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, Mar 15:40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of JAMES THE LESS and of JOSEPH and SALOME, Compare the names again: Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of JAMES, and JOSEPH, and JUDE, and SIMON? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him. Is anyone here arguing ‘coincidence’ that the names of the children of Mary’s sister Mary are the same as those mentioned in Mark 6 and Matt 13. Or that Scripture is referring to Mary Mother of the Lord, as Mary the mother of JAMES and SALOME. Do you expect me to believe that? The usual expression is Act 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. (note, it doesn’t say her sons!) Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the OTHER MARY went to see the tomb. There is another good argument that Mary Mother of the Lord had no one else to look after her when Jesus was crucified. Joh 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. If my biblical evidence does not prove Mary had no children; it certainly allows it. We Catholics are not biblical ignoramus' you know. Because this is belief is held by all the Church fathers and a billion Catholics and the Orthodox Church too. Right back over two millennia. I require proof to the contrary. There is none. Sorry you have to ‘search the scriptures’ and think before this one falls into place. It is a little complicated but then that might be why you missed it. In Summary, Jesus had 'brothers' in the semitic understanding 'close relatives.' They are named in scripture. Their mother is Mary, mother of Mary. Their father was Cleophas. Your brother in Christ Dalcent |
||||||
18 | Acts 2:38, why people delay baptism | Acts 2:38 | Dalcent | 113361 | ||
Evangelical churches generally delay baptism because as you correctly observe they pray Jesus into their heart. Baptism apparently does not save and is only an ordinance. Many historic Protestant denominations as well as Roman Catholics and Orthodox contend that baptism together with a profession of faith is what saves and is the beginning of the Christian life. It is called "baptismal regeneration" and is a key area of disagreement between the two main branches of Christianity: those who emphasize the historic creeds (catholics) and those calling themselves evangelicals. For Baptismal Regeneration http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a25.htm Against Baptismal Regeneration (Baptist) http://www.fundamentalbiblechurch.org/Tracts/fbcbaptr.htm I always recommend investigating both sides rather than entrenching myself in one position. Furthermore it is always a problem reading the Bible objectively once you have a fixed intepretive system in place. |
||||||
19 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Dalcent | 135069 | ||
Dear Reighnskye, I would respectably submit that it is biblical for you to take advice on this from the pastors or elders that God has given your church to shepherd you. I have my opinions on this but I really think this is one directly for those who have pastoral responsibility for you and to go it alone would be wrong. May you be blessed 'by the God of your father who will help you, by the Almighty who will bless you with blessings of heaven above, blessings of the deep that crouches beneath, blessings of the breasts and of the womb.' Your brother in Christ, Dalcent |
||||||
20 | The deference | Gal 3:9 | Dalcent | 154612 | ||
We find the expression believer/s 11 times in the NASB all in the New Testament. I've pasted them here: (Act 5:14) And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number, (Act 10:45) All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. (Act 16:1) Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, (2Co 6:15) Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? (Gal 3:9) So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. (1Th 1:7) so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. (1Th 2:10) You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; (1Ti 4:10) For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. (1Ti 5:16) If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed. (1Ti 6:2) Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles. (1Pe 1:21) who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. It would appear that because Abraham is called a believer in Gal 3:9 that the term has to include faithful Old Testament Jews; those who died in friendship with God having fully accepted the partial revelation of pre-Christian Judaism. My opinion is that the terms Christian and believers mean exactly the same thing concerning those people alive today. What else are you getting at? There are the God-fearer types such as Cornelius: Act 10:22 ...a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man...' And there are the demons who believe: Jam 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. Indeed all men believe in their deepest places that there is a God Rom 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who SUPPRESS THE TRUTH in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Neither of these 3 latter groups can rightfully be called believers in a biblical sense. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |