Results 1 - 20 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: bowler Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why is the Christian Church so divided? | Bible general Archive 4 | bowler | 206345 | ||
Cody Mac I agree that if two do not agree they cannot walk together. When looking at church history there seems to be a lot of times where differing beliefs dived men into different camps just like you say. Men have been willing to kill for what they believe, even those who called themselves Christian in the halls of history. I would not equate divisions over theology as the same as racial divide though. Races historically clashed over land and human rights issues, while churches clashed over matters of spiritual belief about how to practice being a Christian, or what entails being a Christian. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
2 | Why is the Christian Church so divided? | Bible general Archive 4 | bowler | 206390 | ||
Immanuelsown I totaly agree with you that the only place this seems to be true is in the church that where two don't agree they don't walk together, but out there for money people disagree strongly about all kinds of things but come together on making the money. That is one very big reason why so many can't get past the church and what they see going on in the church to go ahead and take the offer of salvation, which is hypocritical actualy because they will do the same thing to get the money. The church is united in Christ and is not truly divided, saw that on another note and really liked that:), but that may be more a spiritual reality than a visible one in a lot of churches. As you mention, and I agree, the use of gifts has caused one type of division bewtween denominations. Another thing that has caused division between denominations is how to view Baptism and the Lord's Supper, whether as sacrament or as ordinance. I was very intrigued by your view of the forum here as a microcosm of the church. It made me think about the literal church being the whole spiritualy undivided body of Christ, as also being the virtual church as the church outside of the building inside this forum because as scripture states - Mathew 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst. Then according to that scripture this forum is where two or more than three have gathered. Where ever the members of Christ are, consitutes the church (which is never the building, but the members meeting), there is the church literaly. In that sense whatever divisions appear to be here in the forum, actualy in the life of the body of Christ do not exist, as there is no true divisions in the body of Christ. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
3 | Why is the Christian Church so divided? | Bible general Archive 4 | bowler | 206412 | ||
Cody Mac No problems, no harm no foul. Ephesians 4:3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
4 | What is considered work on the Sabbath? | Bible general Archive 4 | bowler | 206712 | ||
stJohn Thank you John, all glory to my Lord and savior Jesus Christ for if in anything I have edified you, or anyone else I give praise to God only, and count myself an unworthy son. God's blessings to you John for your most kind words and extention of brotherly unity. 2 Peter 1:2, 3 Blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
5 | Were the disciples saved, Born Again? | NT general | bowler | 206229 | ||
Steve I understand you. Why then, does Jesus say "born again" as it if it is for the second time? I am thinking of Nicodemus asking, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter into his mother's womb again, can he?" And then Jesus repplies right away about being born of water and the spirit in answer to Nicodemus asking about being birthed again. Which goes to Jesus saying before hand, "you must be born again", as if one has to be born a second time. Hence, water as first birth, spirit as "born again", the second birth. Just cruious on your thouhgts here. But I respect your point there. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
6 | Were the disciples saved, Born Again? | NT general | bowler | 206238 | ||
Steve More so than to hear more about my predeliction to my present stance. I think it would be far more profitable to hear what you think about what the water means? As I have no more on my own thoughts on this, and you know mine, I would be more interested on yours? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
7 | Were the disciples saved, Born Again? | NT general | bowler | 206243 | ||
CDBJ I like this particular analogy you make here because it fits within a theme of things being born and because one has to be washed with the word in order to receive the spirit. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
8 | Were the disciples saved, Born Again? | NT general | bowler | 206244 | ||
John I can agree with this on several levels - the water of life as the word, the water as a sanctifying work of the word, the speaking of spiritual and not temporal things. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
9 | why the one when not the other | Gen 2:9 | bowler | 206382 | ||
GBzones Apparently according to Genesis 3:22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat and live forever", it seems if one ate from that particular tree one would indeed live forever. I see your question here - Why put the tree of life in there, when clearly the other does give eternal life? What is most interesting to me about this is that God did say that Adam and Eve could have eaten of any tree of the garden, just not the tree of the knowledge of good and evil becuase they would surely die. What is implied here which is not so clearly seen is that they did have the right to eat of the tree of life and thereby live forever! But for some ungodyly reason it never occurred to Adam and Eve to go eat of the tree that would have made them live forever, they just mossied on through the garden eating fruit and vegetables and gave no thought to living forever, as if this was of no concern at the time for them. And indeed it was not as death did not enter in until they fell, so perhaps they had no need of the good gift of eternal life from the tree of life because they already had it. So, back to your question - Why a tree of life? No one can say for sure why God did that, only He knows. The only thing I could surmise is that God left them a choice of what to do, do what He said which included eating from the tree of life, which they could have done at any time, or to disobey and eat from the tree of good and evil that caused death. One thing that puzzles me is about Eve thinking that somehow disobeying would not result in what God said and that it would make her "like God", when the closest she was ever going to come to being like God would have been to continue living forever by either obeying, or eating of the other tree and living forever. The other interesting thing is that it did not occur to Adam and Eve to go eat of the tree of life after falling and being condemned to death, even though they now knew of good and evil, they did not seek to remedy death before God took that remedy away from them. About God's will there, I think that it is entirely possible that God wants all His creations to choose to worship and obey Him and always leaves the option open for them to excersize limited free will to do so, or to reject Him. No one can resist irresistable grace, that is not what I would say at all. But God knew before he made man that man would fall and planned accordingly from eternity past to rectify our mistake. Only God knows why, theologians have trying to figure out several unanswerable questions of this type without any sucess. I think you have hit on one of these things. I find your posts thus far most engaging and look forward to more studying with you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
10 | House Hold Idols in the OT? | Gen 31:19 | bowler | 207074 | ||
Doc Please forgive me. In my eagerness to ask this pariticular question I once a gain forgot to look everything up. While waiting for an answer I looked up the word and the roots for the words "house hold idols". Perhaps you would be interested in what I found. 8655 Teraphiym - family idol 7495 Raphah - heal, physician So perhaps this was an idol for the family, the house hold for some kind of healing ritual, or practice. Yes you are right superstition is alive and well today. I guess before Moses came along the law had not come in so God said nothing, but I got to wonder why He was silent when about the whole practice in David's time after the law came in? We see Solomon being warned against pagan worship. Just an unworthy son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
11 | What is Right Someone Has to Die? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208057 | ||
Tim Moran There are indeed cases where it is medically true that there is the option of seeing what will actually happen, and then there is what I posed, where it has been medically shown that a decision needs to be made, or both will die; therefore one must be choosen. There is no reason why "either or questions" are not valid questions, they are just "problematic" questions, which is exactly my point. The entire matter of Christians ethics is of great interest to me and was of course sparked by recent posts, but I am not posting to push my views on old posts in making new posts. I am truly interested in difficult situations and problematic scripture interpretations as that is part of valid Bible study. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
12 | Why Wrong For Us and Right For God? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208058 | ||
Tim Moran I can agree with all that you have said here in how you laid it all out with those scriptures there. Define murder and define killing please, using scriptures. Thank you. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
13 | Why Wrong For Us and Right For God? | Ex 20:13 | bowler | 208059 | ||
Doc You are completely ignoring that I said that God does not break the commandments! I gave Him the credit that He has the right to dispose of His creation right there as He chooses! Is it that I honestly did not see the difference Doc? Or is it that I wanted to hear what others think which is why we post questions? blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
14 | Biblical Function Of Elders? | Num 11:16 | bowler | 206410 | ||
Searcher Very interesting, thank you for those scriptures it brought light to the whole thing. As to rule of churches - By congregation? How does that work, do you know? Is that done by vote or some such, by the boards? Elder is a pretty broad term, overseer is another way of putting it. A pastor or a teacher could be said to be an elder, or overseer. A deacon could be said to be an elder, but perhaps not an overseer. We have deacons, and trustees, some of whom are on the elder board, and then the pastor who works more closely with the elder board than with the deacons per se. Not all of our deacons and trustees are male, but all of our elders are. We have a lady associate minister udner the headship of the pastor, but she does not interact very closely with the elder board, but does with the deacons. Our church is a little bit different than a lot of others. Our elders are responsible for matters of conduct and church governance and work together with the pastor on these matters, he consults with them and makes descisions in concert with their input a lot of the time, but not always. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
15 | Which Enemies Could Israel Marry? | Deut 21:10 | bowler | 207071 | ||
John Yes, I agree it is about sin, and marrying them was a sin. I am confused about something, not that you said, but about the text. Maybe you could help me out here. Moses is the one speaking in Deuteronomy 21:10, he has been speaking one continuous discourse since Deuteronomy 1:6. I may be wrong about this, but I kept reading and reading and saw no event breaks there, just one long discourse. But I could be wrong, it may be various discourses strung as one single piece. The reason I say this is because when Moses speaks about this same issue in Deuteronomy 7:2-4 he says to kill everyone and not to marry them, but in Deuteronomy 21:10 he says if you want to take a wife do so - he also says in 20:10 that peace terms can be offered instead of annilating them all, as oppossed to 7:2-4. In the NASB the caption on chapter 20 says Laws of Warfare, the caption on chapter says Warnings. I may be missing the whole context thing, or not. What do you think, if you feel like discussing it further? Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
16 | Which Enemies Could Israel Marry? | Deut 21:10 | bowler | 207079 | ||
John I am hearing clearly what you are saying, that it must be Iraelites Moses was speaking about them marrying because he already said not to. What that leaves me trying to understand about the text is who the enemies were? Israelites, to my knowledge had no enemies amongst themselves at this point that I can tell from reading Numbers through Deuteronomy. That only leaves the pagans? I could be really wrong here. The peace terms thing - Deuteronomy 20:10 When you approach a city to fight against it, you shall offer it terms of peace. Deuteronomy 7:2-4 and when the Lord God delivers them before you and you defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favor to them. Etc. Deuteronomy 7:16 - consume your enemies do not pity them, do not serve their gods, etc. Deuteronomy 7:14, 15 take the women and children as spoils as booty of your enemies - do this to all the cities that are very far which are not cities of these nations nearby. 20:16 Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. Perhaps the difference is of which type of enemy? The fist type of enemy being those who you could make a treaty with and marry because they are "far away" and not one of the nations being given as the "inheritance to Israel"? The second type of enemy being those who are in nations that are "the inhereitance to Israel" - and these utterly destroy? I just caught that, literaly, in going to quote for you about that peace treaty! Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
17 | Which Enemies Could Israel Marry? | Deut 21:10 | bowler | 207080 | ||
Cheri Thanks. Reason not to marry because they were greater? I could be really wrong, I thought that they were suppossed to utterly destroy them because they were greater than Israel. And that they were suppossed to not marry them because they would start pagan worshipping. I could be really wrong there, but I just looked again at the text in Deuteronomy 7:2-4 and tried to follow the order of what action seemed to be tied to what reason. I just saw something in posting John back about why maybe the Israelites could marry some and make peace treaties with them and why some were to be annihilated. Maybe there were two different types of enemies? Those who were nations of "the inheritance of Israel", and nations who were "far away" who were not? And the ones who were the "inheritance" had to be annihilated, and the ones who were "far" did not have to be? I looked at Deuteronomy 10 as you point out there is in vers 19 - So show your love to the alien, but you were aliens in the land of Egypt. Apparently some kind of foreigners who were not of Israel could be let live? Perhaps as long as they were from "far nations" not of the "nations of inheritance"? This goes to what you are saying "were not included in the allowances elsewhere"? Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
18 | Which Enemies Could Israel Marry? | Deut 21:10 | bowler | 207084 | ||
Cheri I see what you mean about the 7 nations were destroyed - that would be the "nations of inheritance" - "go into the land which I am giving you to possess it", "destroy all of your enemies in the LAND (nations) which I am giving you". As oppossed to "enemies from far off" coutries who come into the new land of inheritance on a conquest, not Israel going off to a Gentile country to get wives.:-) The battle would come by invasion from Gentile nations not "within those nations destroyed and land of the promised land from God, the inheritance", nations far away. I could be wrong. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
19 | Which Enemies Could Israel Marry? | Deut 21:10 | bowler | 207086 | ||
Cheri Your wording was fine. I think we just might have hit on something plausible there between the two of us!:-) Ephesians 4:3 being didlgent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Just a worthless son. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
20 | Questions of Interpretation? | Deut 30:13 | bowler | 206622 | ||
Steve I do appreciate your views. In Romans Paul says But the righteousness based o faith speaks as follows: "Do not say in your heart, 'Who will ascend into heaven (that is to bring Christ down), or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is to bring Christ up from the dead). This is Paul quoting Moses in Deuteronomy 30 as Paul indicates in verse 5 of Romans 10. What Paul does is quote Moses and then ascribe a meaning to what Moses said and interpretes Moses' scripture as meaning "do not say who will ascend into heaven, that is bring Christ down from heaven, and do not say who will descend into the abyss, that is to bring Christ up from the dead". According to Paul what Moses said has everything to do with Christ going to heaven and rising from the dead. The NASB lists Deuteronomy as the source scripture, Paul quotes it and extrapolates on the "meaning". Of course I agree that the verses are talking about "the word of faith is near and needs only to be believed", which was also Moses' point in saying "don't go asking for someone to go get it for you" in Deuteronomy. Besides Moses says the exact same thing Paul says in Deuteronomy 30:14 word for word. What went around in my mind with this is that Jesus did go up to heaven and get it and He did descend into to death to go get it for us, because on our own we did not "just believe it because it needs only to be believed". Jesus did indeed "strive and gain by a great work" the "testimony to be believed". Jesus did indeed go across the water and create part of that testimony of "who should be believed in in order to be saved" as a part of His testimony to men of who He was in order that we would believe in Him. What still is not clear is how Paul could take what Moses was saying and give it a different take as if Moses was talkig directly about Jesus, which Moses may not have been doing. The Bible is clear as you say that we should not need all that, those great feats, but we did not believe until He did them. Just a thought. blessings abound, bowler |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |