Results 1 - 20 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Not Specified | Beja | 213702 | ||
must believe that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. Do you think that this refers to something after salvation in the sense that after we are saved we must continue to believe that he is worth further pursuit. A believe without which we will never seek Him thus living in a way that pleases Him. Or do you think this is drawing out the fact that for salvation you must not only have faith that He exists but you must also have faith that He will carry out His promised reward of "salvation." Both are true I believe, the question is which do you think the author of Hebrews is trying to convey. In Love, Beja |
||||||
2 | Pharisee expectations on baptism | Not Specified | Beja | 220390 | ||
John 1:24,25 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. The asked him and said to him, "Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" Anybody know what the connection in their thinking was? Apparently they had some understanding of baptism in which any of these three figures were expected to be doing this but nobody else. Why did they see Baptism as some extremely authority oriented event? What in the old testament might have shaped this view? Or perhaps do you know any of the Jewish tradtion at that time that might explain it? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
3 | Clarifying "handing over the kingdom" | Not Specified | Beja | 222375 | ||
1 Corinthians 15:24 claims that a day will come when Christ will hand over the kingdom to the Father. I can't help but wondering in what sense the kingdom is handed over. It can not be a complete end to the rule of Christ, because we know from many passages such as Daneil 7:14 and Luke 1:32,33, Isaiah 9:6,7 that this isn't the case. Unless we should understand it to be teaching that the kingdom is the eternal thing but not the rule of Christ. I'm less inclined to believe that. But it must in someway be a handing over of the kingdom, for it certainly means something! Does anybody have a very helpful commentary on this? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
4 | The error addressed in 2 Peter | Not Specified | Beja | 224763 | ||
Am I wrong to think that the driving concern/error being addressed in 2 Peter is anitnomianism? To me it seems to absolutely be so yet I have not seen any commentators view it as such yet. Here are verses to notice throughout the book. Especially note 2Pet 3:17,18 where the final exhortation is not to be carried away by the error of lawless people. 2Peter 1:3,4,9,12 2:2,9,10,13,14,15,18,19,20-22 3:11,14,17 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
5 | Called from Idolatry | Not Specified | Beja | 225207 | ||
Where is the passage that states that Abraham came from a family of idol worshipers before God called him? | ||||||
6 | High handed sins | Not Specified | Beja | 226944 | ||
In the course of studying my attention was brought to Numbers 15:30 Num 15:30 'But the person who does anything defiantly, whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming the LORD; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. I have quite a few thoughts on how it is to be understood. However, when I began to do some research to see how other men of God have viewed this, I have found myself unable to even find a single instance of a commentator dealing with this verse. Not one! I even finally typed in the verse in google. It is as if this passage were the plague. So my question is not so much for this verse to be explained by those reading this question, but rather can you point me to some good commentary or discussion on this verse? I'm wanting to get a feel of how this verse has been dealt with by past Christians. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
7 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239708 | ||
Ed.O, This is a difficult question to answer while still remaining true to the intentions of this forum. The forum is very specifically meant to be a place where both catholic and protestant professions are free to come and study scripture together. Your question has another question imbedded within it. The imbedded question asks us to give a blanket verdict on the doctrine of Catholics and those who would join with them. While I would naturally and permissibly disagree with catholics while discussing particular texts on this forum, I think it crosses a line to simply discount their beliefs. It invites argument in the absence of working on particular passages. In respect to the intentions of this forum I will not answer that imbedded question but I will state this: Evangelicals still preach salvation through faith alone, and Catholics still argue some other merits are necessary in addition to Christ. In that sense, I do not understand what they could actually mean when they suggest the reformation to be over. We still disagree on the same things. Perhaps they mean to suggest that we no longer care about those things to the same extent as our spiritual forefathers? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
8 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239715 | ||
I do not think your rebuke was in line with the terms of use of this site. You might want to review the sections regarding denominational remarks. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
9 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239830 | ||
Jasper, I'm not sure what to make of your post. Either you: a) Wish to debate whether salvation is by Faith alone with me. Although I have not tried to assert a position. or b) You somehow think throwing your lot with one side of the reformation actually answers the question of whether the two sides still disagree, when it rather proves an ongoing disagreement instead. Since the second option is silly and therefore would be ungracious of me to assume of you, I am left to think that you are trying to persuade me of salvation through works? Help me out here. Am I misunderstanding you? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
10 | belief in hell? | Bible general | Beja | 240094 | ||
Maus, I personally debated for sometime on whether the ideas concerning hell in scripture were metaphorical or literal. I do not think we are being disrespectful to scripture by asking how to rightly understand what it is asserting. However, we must remember the goal is not to consider what we think about hell, but specifically is scripture "intending" these things to be metaphorical or literal. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that scripture intends it to be literal. All this is to say I am not offended with the question, that being said I have two statements with regards to your reasoning. 1. Tracing the origen of the word is not the samething as wrestling with what Christ and other New Testament writers say about the subject. We must consider what it is they are saying about "hell" regardless what word they have chosen to label it. What do they say and how do they mean it to be understood? And because we affirm the inspiration of the new testament, it does not matter how they mature or develop the Old Testament doctrine, we believe them to have done so rightly. 2. Too often when somebody decides that Hell is a metaphor for some other penalty, they decide it is some other penalty far more bearable than the metaphor of eternal fire. What must be accepted, is that if the New Testament authors truely intended to describe eternal judgment by a eternal burning of which there will be no relief. Then whatever hell is in reality, it must be something horrible beyond our comprehension. Because the inspired writers chose the most terrible metaphor they could possibly conceived of, it must mean hell is worse than we can conceive of. So I always tell people, if you wish to sincerely wrestle with this question, by no means use it to lighten the concept of hell. The question is valid, but to then assume hell is less terrible is intellectually flawed, and is only motivated by our desire to ignore this terrible reality. As stated, I believe hell is literal, but these are some guidelines if we want to restle with the question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
11 | Do the original books exist | Bible general | Beja | 240210 | ||
nugtweety, We do not have the original copies of any of the books of the bible. However, there is no ancient document in all of history for which we have more evidence and certainty that we have essentially the original words preserved for us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
12 | Anyone interested in Revalations 13:3? | Bible general | Beja | 240372 | ||
See MzVicki's profile. | ||||||
13 | The allegorical or metaphorical teaching | Bible general | Beja | 240393 | ||
duplicate | ||||||
14 | Is the allegorical or metaphorical metho | Bible general | Beja | 240395 | ||
Movingon, What was the question? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
15 | Why "only begotten GOD" as against "Son | Bible general | Beja | 240833 | ||
PeterH, The reason is because different ancient texts vary on this verse. Some of them read son and others read God. It is a matter of text criticism to try and determine which is more likely the original reading. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
16 | Yes but why did the NASB choose "God" | Bible general | Beja | 240836 | ||
PeterH, A person could list the evidence for one reading verses the other. But only those who actually made the decision can tell you what particular evidence they found the most compelling. I would point you to "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 2nd ed. by Bruce Metzger. On there you will find what persuaded that particular group concerning various textual differences of significance. They determined "God" to be most likely original in that passage and they briefly list why. From there you would need to look into what the NASB's policy was. Did they just accept the other committee's judgement or did they make up their own mind? This you might find in the foreword to you NASB. Best of luck. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
17 | what does it mean to pray amiss | Bible general | Beja | 241117 | ||
That would be the KJV version of James 4:3 Blessings, Beja |
||||||
18 | Will Israel be destroyed? | Bible general | Beja | 241124 | ||
Beviek9, Welcome to the forum. Scripture has a great amount of predictions concerning Israel's destruction. From its very founding in Deuteronomy God promised their destruction (and restoration) if they abandoned his covenant with them. The prophets repeatedly predicted their destruction. And God kept his promise through the Assyrians and Babylonians when they destroyed Israel and Judah respectively. Then they returned from exile. In Christ's day he prophesied again over the coming destruction of Israel and again this came about through a foreign army, the Romans. However, I suspect you might be asking with regards to the current nation state of Israel. If this is so your question will be necessarily tied up with ones view of end times. Therefore the answer you receive will vary dramatically. As for my view, I believe this verse is relevant though I suggest to you that it refers to the church who is the Israel of God. Rev 11:7 When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. I hope this is of some help. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
19 | Will Israel be destroyed? | Bible general | Beja | 241125 | ||
Beviek9, Forgive me. In my haste I copied the wrong verse, I meant to give you this one. Rev 13:7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
20 | Thithing loan | Bible general | Beja | 241155 | ||
Movingon, I'd like to understand your personal dispensational take on scripture a little more precisely. I definitely understand it in broad brush strokes, but I'd like to ask a few precise questions to help me test the edges of it. If you do not wish to answer them that is fine, but as you've seemed to always been happy to respond in the past I feel encouraged to ask you. However, should you choose to respond I do have one request. Please try to answer my questions as concisely as you possibly can. When two people are trying to understand one another one of the surest way to cause it to fail is to answer too much. A person says so many things and the listener has such a great number of objections, uncertainties, and needs for clarification that the conversation is effectively killed as their is no hope of untangling it all. This difficulty is magnified on the forum where we have a limited space to type and the conversation even has the chance of progressing on its own before I even read the response. So if you wish to answer, please try to answer the question as precisely as you possibly can, trusting that you need not re-explain the entire system and how you feel misunderstanding this has been that which has derailed the church. Nor do you need to spend time trying to persuade me. My question: You state that you do not believe the gospels apply to us, but do you believe the great commission of Matthew 28 was a commission to build the church or was it for the disciples to go out offering the kingdom? Perhaps said another way, when they went out making disciples and baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was this building the church or the kingdom of that previous dispensation? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [40] >> |