Results 1 - 20 of 72
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: benjamite Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Christ died on a stake and not a cross? | John 19:17 | benjamite | 62642 | ||
I don't know what I did wrong, but it didn't come up that way for me. I didn't run across histemi, only stauros. |
||||||
2 | Christ died on a stake and not a cross? | John 19:17 | benjamite | 62347 | ||
In other words, Searcher, you are saying that Christ died on a cross, not just a stake. I tend to agree. 1) In Matthew 27:37 it says that the charge was put above His head - seeming to imply that his arms were sideways (and not above his head) - evidence for a cross-beam. (Or, if the other were true, why not say "above His arms"?) 2) Since "the cross" was carried to the site, this also serves as evidence for a cross beam, at least in my mind. For it seems implausible for an upright stake (capable of fully supporting an adult male "lifted up") to be carried to the site - since it would be somewhat longer than an arm-span. So, the cross-beam, alone, was carried to the site, and the cross-beam, by itself, at least by this point in history, was also refered to as the cross. Also, Searcher, where did you get the information on the root being the same as that of "histemi"? |
||||||
3 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | benjamite | 61694 | ||
A natural man seems to me to be one who does not have the spirit. A spiritual man seems to me to be one who is living by the Spirit. However, it seems like there is some sort of a "mix" - believers who still act like unbelievers. So with that admitted, I guess the question is, "Do 3:1ff and 2:14 refer to the same group?" I need to work on that. |
||||||
4 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | benjamite | 61280 | ||
Okay, so if that is all it takes, then Paul should have been able to talk to the Corinthians as Spiritual men. Yet Paul's context goes beyond the chapter divisions, for he says, "And (continuing the thought) I, brethren, could not speak to you (the believing, but still fleshly Corinthians) as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ." (3:1) (parenthetical thoughts are mine) The problem in Corinth was that the baby believers could not handle the solid food. Yes, they have the Spirit of God, but they were still fleshly. (3:2-3) The problem is that it is more than just whether one has the Spirit or not. |
||||||
5 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | benjamite | 60685 | ||
I do not know how old your grandchild is, but I bet he doesn't understand Calculus. Why not? Well, there are a lot of things that come between 1,2,3... and Dx(3xy) is 3y. Now, in several years, maybe, he will be ready for Calculus, but not yet. My point is that it is more than just the words you use to talk to your grandchild, but it is also the concepts. Calculus is foolish to those who are just learning how to count. If I mention the term "hypostatic union" to a new convert, I don't think he'll have any idea what I'm talking about. Now, on the other hand, a mature believer might understand that I mean that Christ was both fully God, as if he were not Man, and fully Man, as if he were not God - God and Man united in one person. In the same way that you cannot expect an unbeliever to understand the meatier doctrines, you cannot expect a new convert to understand the concepts that you and I have been working on for years. If it was just a matter of having the Spirit, the Corinthians should have been ready. Scratch that, they would have been ready. Not only that, but we would be ready to the extent that there would be no need for this forum. Yes, I would go as far as saying that the meatier doctrines are foolish to new believers. There are some Biblical truths that are foolish to believers who have been saved for years. Let's take Salvation for example. There is one view of Salvation that is correct. There are many believers who look at a certain set of verses and say salvation happens in this manner. However, there are other believers who look at a different set of verses and say salvation happens in a different manner, and that the first group cannot possibly be right. There is one truth, where all the verses pertaining to salvation fit together perfectly.However, until we reach glory, I can very easily see how we might view the Biblical truth as foolish. |
||||||
6 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | benjamite | 60659 | ||
I think I hear what you are saying. I was not always a spiritual man. At one point I was a natural man. However, if salvation is referred to in 1 Corinthians 2:14, and if a natural man never accepts the things of the Spirit of God, then no one could ever be saved. Is salvation the issue in 1 Corinthians 2:14? It seems like, from 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, that even babes in Christ won't accept the things of the Spirit of God that Paul is referring to. I think that 1 Corinthians 2 deals with the "meaty doctrines" as opposed to just "milk". |
||||||
7 | Was JESUS a king? | Matt 27:11 | benjamite | 49429 | ||
My understanding of the inscription above Jesus' head was that it was the charge against Him. Pilate didn't sentence Him to die because "He said he was the King of the Jews". Pilate sentenced Him to die because "He is (or I guess from Pilate's perspective, 'was') the King of the Jews". I'm not quite sure I follow you on the capitalization. My understanding of Ancient Greek manuscripts (at least from the 2 or 3 that I have seen) is that every letter is capitalized. The NASB has the inscription "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matt 27:37) in capitals because it is an inscription. I looked at the Foreword to my NASB, to see what it says about ALL CAPS used in the version. It doesn't say anything about how ALL CAPS are used. Remember, Pilate washed his hands of Christ. He said "I find no guilt in this man." (Luke 23:4,14) Pilate had Him crucified anyway. As you say, Pilate had much of which to be afraid. These verses do show Jesus as King (as does Matthew 2:2). In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
8 | Does this talk about enslavement? | Is 60:12 | benjamite | 46397 | ||
You're welcome. I'm not sure this is the most convincing line of argument, but perhaps the Lord will use it. God Bless, Benjamite |
||||||
9 | Where was satan when he first sinned? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 41399 | ||
Okay, let's deal with these three thoughts. 1. There is no other Eden (as far as location is concerned). Eden was, however a person's name (2 Kings 19:12; 2 Chron 29:12; 31:15; et. al.) 2. They DO NOT all refer to the same mountain. (Let there be no misunderstanding.) That was my point. Sinai (or Horeb), the Mountain of God, is in Arabia NOT ISRAEL. The Jews want to build their temple in ISRAEL (not on Sinai). Don't tell me that there is only one Mountain of God, to do so is to directly contradict the Word of God. Please see the references, in my previous post, to a) Sinai or Horeb, b) The mountain of Bashan, and c) Jerusalem. Jewish tradition not supported in Scripture is tradition and not the Word of God. Please don't equate the two. 3. "stones of fire" are mentioned only twice in Scripture Ezek 28:14 and Ezek 28:16 (not in Job 28:5-6). Apparently we'll find out what they are when we get to the Mountain of God (Heaven). To say that there is fire under the earth is apparently a reference to volcanoes. (Job 28:5). |
||||||
10 | Where was satan when he first sinned? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 41383 | ||
As I said before, I see the "Garden of God" as a euphemism, or another name, for Eden. "But if in all instances where Mount of God occurs in the Bible it refers to the one in Jerusalem, then why would be a different Mount in Ezek 28 and if one decides that it is a different one what right or basis does he have to conclude this?" Aren't you doing just that by equating it with Eden (and not Jerusalem)? In truth, there were a number of mountains called "the mountain of God", not just one. Ex. 3:1, Horeb Ex. 4:27, I assume the same (Horeb) Ex. 18:5, Sinai (might Sinai be the same as Horeb?) Ex. 24:13, Sinai Ps. 68:15, "the mountain of Bashan" 1 Kings 19:8, Horeb Daniel 9:20, I conceed is probably Jerusalem, one of the many "mountains of God". These must be considered as well. Note that in 1 Kings, Jerusalem was already in existence. See also Galatians 4:25 for the location of Sinai - Arabia, not in Israel. With this as evidence, why do you fault me for saying, "I see the mountain of God as being distinct and separate from the garden of God - the former being a euphemism for 'Heaven' the latter for 'Eden."? As to equating Jerusalem with Eden, there were Cherubim to guard the way back into Eden. There was a world-wide flood to destroy any remaining evidence of Eden (Gen 6-9). Jerusalem is not the same as Eden. Since Ezekiel uses figurative language for the description of Satan, why must the rest of it be absolutely literal? Remember, Satan is a spirit being (Eph 6:11-12). Again, I do see the Garden of God as being Eden. I don't see the mountain of God, in this instance, as being Jerusalem (and there is much Biblical precedence for it not having to be Jerusalem). I see it as being Heaven - the only other location we knew about during the days before the fall. Remember Ezekiel 28:16 says he was cast from the mountain of God, it does not say "garden of God". The text allows for this to be a separate event from the deception and curse in Genesis 3. |
||||||
11 | Where was satan when he first sinned? | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 41205 | ||
I'm having a hard time seeing it there, actually. I see the mountain of God as being distinct and separate from the garden of God - the former being a euphemism for "Heaven" the latter for "Eden". On the basis of Job 38:4-7, I believe that the angels were created before the creation of the earth, and that Satan's fall, likewise, was before the creation of the earth. |
||||||
12 | Submit to all authority | Rom 13:1 | benjamite | 38982 | ||
I must obey the laws of the land, whichever land I am in. If I am a visitor in a different nation, I also need to remember I represent my homeland - I am a citizen of the U.S.. Let's say I went to Iraq (as a U.S. Marine). Are you saying that I could not kill Hussein if given a direct order by President Bush? Killing Hussein is against the law in Iraq. Isn't it? The truth of the matter is, that when you are invading a country, you don't care what their laws are. If there was some sort of legal problem on foreign soil who do I turn to? If I'm not mistaken, I contact the local U.S. Embassy. In the military, would you contact your CO? Also, if two officers gave you opposing orders, who do you follow? The General takes precedence over a Colonel, the Colonel over a Major, and so on, right? I've never been in the military, but my understanding was that you served your country. (which may have taken many forms - Corporal, Sergeant,...) I would categorize "my representative, senator, governor, and president" as Caesar - one national earthly authority. We don't obey them directly, we obey the laws that they make/sign. I don't care what laws are passed in Parliament. I don't live in the United Kingdom. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "masters of our affections". The principle applies throughout. If I worked for Pepsi, I don't obey the Coke people. If I went to Duke, I wouldn't need to obey the Dean at UCLA. |
||||||
13 | where's it say innocent goes to heaven? | Rev 21:1 | benjamite | 37886 | ||
Oh, okay. How about Isaiah 7:15-16? Here we see that there is a time before someone knows to choose right and reject the wrong (and they are therefore innocent). Perhaps 2 Samuel 12:23 (or David might simply be referring to physical death when he says "I shall go to him..."). |
||||||
14 | visions and revelations | 1 Cor 12:7 | benjamite | 37650 | ||
"Romans 8:29....says god predestined and foreknew who he would call......how does he do it since man cannot see him....." People don't need to see the One who calls. People only needs to hear. (Take for example, a telephone.) Also, Ps. 19:1, "The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands." (NASB) The Bible is the Word of God (Matt. 15:6; Luke 5:1) It is breathed out, or inspired, by God (2 Tim 3:16) Being a prophet is a heavy burden to bear. Deut 18:22 “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him." (NASB) |
||||||
15 | visions and revelations | 1 Cor 12:7 | benjamite | 37610 | ||
If you mean "all believers" when you say "all who has had a revelation", I agree, (1 Cor 2:10). 1 Corinthians 12 addresses the building up of the church - the body. It addresses the individuals as parts of the one body. God, through His Holy Spirit, enables us to understand spiritual things 1 Cor 2:10-13. These things are hidden to unbelievers, 2:6-8, but we have the mind of Christ, 2:16. As you read through 1 Corinthians, you'll notice that there were divisions and quarrels in Corinth (1:10-11). When Paul addresses them, he does not speak towards their individuality (although there are many body parts). He stresses their unity - one body (12:20). The manifestations of the Spirit are for the common good of those who have the Spirit. He will give understanding to those who are His. |
||||||
16 | What does men in Eph. 4:8 mean? | Eph 4:8 | benjamite | 37031 | ||
It has everything to do with Eph 4:8. We are talking about the usage of spiritual gifts, aren't we? Why would 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 not apply? Proper usage of the gifts He gave to men will be in line with 1 Corinthians 14:26-40. Forgive me, but there are times where I feel like I'm reinventing the wheel at each step. This seems like something that would be better worked out one-on-one. I'm not sure of your background, but if you have a pastor or elder whom you trust and whose opinion you respect, why not talk to them about this? |
||||||
17 | What does men in Eph. 4:8 mean? | Eph 4:8 | benjamite | 36895 | ||
Let me answer your question with another question. What do you understand 1 Corinthians 14:26-40 to say? This is how the Bible defines order. "God is not a God of confusion but of peace" (1 Cor 14:33a, NASB) In summary: 1. If, and only if, an interpreter is present, are two or three "tongues" spoken, at most. Or else no tongues are spoken. (27-28) 2. Two or three prophets (one at a time).(29-32) 3. The women are to keep silent in the churches, and are to subject themselves and ask at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church. (34-35) |
||||||
18 | What does men in Eph. 4:8 mean? | Eph 4:8 | benjamite | 36883 | ||
It is true that the word "ekklesia" (usually translated "church") is used of Israel. It is used of secular gatherings, as well, (cf. Acts 19:32-41). In Acts 7:38, is the reference to a congregation of believers, unbelievers, or a mixed gathering? Anna was, however before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. We don't, like David, need to say, "Do not take your Holy Spirit from me." (Ps. 51:11) If we are saved, we have the Spirit (Romans 8:9). If we don't, we are not saved (Jude 19). Notice also that Anna was before the time when Jesus said, "I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18). In Matthew 16:18, by Jesus' own statement, we know that the church was not in existence, yet. By the time of Acts 2:47 (NKJV or 5:11 in the NASB) it had begun. If you don't mind my saying so, saying "God uses them to speak to His people" might be true, but it is not quite complete. God also uses donkeys and unbelievers (Numbers 22, John 11:49-53). Did they lose this privilege? In the church, there is (or should be) order.(1 Cor 14:40) |
||||||
19 | What does men in Eph. 4:8 mean? | Eph 4:8 | benjamite | 36790 | ||
Why don't we consider Priscilla (sometimes called "Prisca")? Acts 18:26 "and he (Apollos) began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately." We see Priscilla involved with "explaining the way of God". This was a private matter. Does this help? If you want to know more about Priscilla, do a search for "Prisc" (it will pick up both spellings that way). I hope you don't mind my giving a different example. There are some who would put Eunice and Lois (the mother and grandmother of Timothy) into the category of "Children, obey your parents", "Honor your father and mother", or "Train up a child". With Anna, she was before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, and because of that, some would see her as outside the church (Like Esther, Ruth, and Deborah, the judge.) In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
20 | What does men in Eph. 4:8 mean? | Eph 4:8 | benjamite | 36680 | ||
I have answered this question in my other post, dated Thu 02/28/02, 2:42pm, in response to, "'I hope you are not in any way implying t...' tuli Thu 02/28/02, 12:32pm." | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |