Results 1 - 20 of 21
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Ronaldo Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | "Every rhema ?" | Matt 4:4 | Ronaldo | 64471 | ||
Man shall live by every "rhema" that comes (Greek continuos tense) from the mouth of God. For many years I thought that this text referred only to the written word. Jesus gave the good example by quoting the written word to Satan, which I seek to follow. However, the Greek seems to imply that there is "rhema" which is continually coming from God. Also, it is a quotation from Deut. which the Israelites were to keep when they did not have the full scriptures. What then is "every rhema" coming from the mouth of God? Or where am I going wrong in this interpretation? |
||||||
2 | "Every rhema ?" | Matt 4:4 | Ronaldo | 64588 | ||
Ray, Thank you but please think on theses points: In your reply you said "The word were coming from God" Then if Jesus is the Word, then what word was he receiving? Is the word still coming through Jesus or has God Spoken finally by His Son. See Hebrews 1.1 Thank you for your responses |
||||||
3 | "Every rhema ?" | Matt 4:4 | Ronaldo | 64612 | ||
Hi Ray, You said helpfully .“The words “were” still continuously coming from God because this Man was speaking the words given Him by His Father. “ My earlier response was a bit hasty. Please consider the following. We are to live today by the word that “is” continuously coming from the God. Notice “were” and “are”. The Israelites were to live by every word that was continuously coming from God. God is presented as speaking continuously throughout the ages. If so what or who is the rhema? How was God speaking before the incarnation.? How does He speak now? Was Jesus always the truth? I think so. Is He still the truth? Yes! John 1 tells us that the Word “was”. So God was speaking through the Word. Then the Word became flesh. The incarnation consisted in the “word became flesh”. Therefore, the Son is the eternal Word of God. The Israelites were to live their natural life by manna which they could eat with their mouths, but they were to live eternally by partaking of the promises of God (out of the mouth of God) which pointed to His Son and all revelation was by the Holy Spirit bringing truth about the promised Son, who is the Truth the Way and the Life. So, God was and is continually speaking (rhema) through His Son. John 6:49, "Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the Bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. (I) am the living Bread that came down out of heaven;..." I believe you are right in capitalizing “Bread” in John 6:49 . “Which comes “ is “active” continuous tense. Only a person can perform an action. He is the living bread who comes down out of heaven. But Jesus changes from using the continuous tense to the aorist tense in verse 51. Why? John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. “Came down “ is aorist tense which means that it happened once, referring to Jesus’ incarnation But the truth of the crucified Christ is always the living bread which comes from heaven. “Eat” is also aorist. If we eat this bread once we live forever. In other words the moment that we believe we receive eternal life. Maybe the solution is something like this. God was and still speaking by His Son. When the Bread came down from heaven in fleshly form it was a particular event in history. In all the progressive revelation of the Bible God was speaking through and about His Son. Therefore, even in the Old Testament, salvation was through the covenant in His Son who was slain from the foundation of the earth. The context in John 6 also points to his flesh which He would give on the cross. They did not understand it all in the Old Testament, but God knew what He had promised. So in Matthew 4:4 Jesus means that it was not for Him to concentrate on bread for the body as the Devil wanted him to do, but fulfill the purpose of His coming to bring the bread of eternal life which man needs. This is the bread that man lives by. In His reply to Satan, He implied that He should not misuse Scripture to produce bread for the body (to command that a stone be made into bread) and divert Him from His purpose to fulfill His commission to be the Bread of eternal life through the cross” So man must not live only physically by eating of physical bread but also what comes from the mouth of God which speaks of Christ and the Cross by the Holy Spirit What sayest thou? Please tell me something about your method of discerning and interpreting of numbers. |
||||||
4 | word of God or Word? | Luke 1:2 | Ronaldo | 64225 | ||
Hi Ray, I will be studying up on references to "word" and "truth". I have been feeling for some time that "The Word of God" is the same as the Second Person. Jesus said that when He was speaking the Father was speaking. He said "I am the truth". Then there is the topic of the "living word" which is like a living seed. When it is planted in the heart it grows. When the word, Jesus, is received into the heart the spiritual life grows. The the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth. But let me study this some more or I may be straying into some heresy. So let me get out my concordance. |
||||||
5 | the voice of god | John 10:27 | Ronaldo | 64818 | ||
My sheep hear my voice. "Hear" is active present continuous tense. I know them. "Know" is also active present continuous tense. They follow me. "Follow" is also active present continuous tense. The active voice means that we do something. We are hearing and we are following. Jesus is knowing us. So the voice must be coming to us today. How is it coming to us? How do we hear? What does it mean to follow? We cannot follow physically as did the disciples. |
||||||
6 | Difference between Rhema and Logos. | Acts 10:44 | Ronaldo | 63788 | ||
Difference between "Rhema" and "Logos". I am hearing from many preachers that "Rhema" is when God actually speaks to a person through a Scripture. "Logos" they say is simply the "Word of God". After an inductive study of the occurences of these words I find little to support this teaching. In Acts 10:44 both words are used and logos seems to more effective hearing than rhema. Peter was "rhemaing" and they heard the "logos" Thayers, Strongs etc don't seem to support this popular interpretation. Is there any factual support for it? Is it possibly someone reading something into the Bible to support a Charismatic type of revelation? If not, what is the true distinctive meanings of the words? |
||||||
7 | Rhema and Logos Acts 10:44 | Acts 10:44 | Ronaldo | 64018 | ||
Hi Ray, First let me correct my question. I should have said "Act 10:44 While Peter yet spake2980 (was laleoing) these5023 words,4487 (rhema) the3588 Holy40 Ghost4151 fell1968 on1909 all3956 them which heard191 the3588 word.3056 (logos)." The interpretation I that is being passed around is that rhema is when the Holy Spirit applies the logos internally and effectively to the heart. Here we have and action of speaking the rhema ( word) and the logos is heard (word). If anything it is the logos which is received internally in this text. I note, with appreciation, the ensuing discussion which I study and respond to in due course. |
||||||
8 | Acts 10:44 Efective? Creative word? | Acts 10:44 | Ronaldo | 64217 | ||
Hi Tim,Ray The verses and discussion were helpful. But let us continue the discussion. Part of the question that I am looking at is, “Are rhema or/and logos effective/ceative words.. Does repeating a text as in the Jabez prayer bring anything into reality.” Also is “rhema” God actually speaking into the soul as opposed to "logos" being merely the written word, as some say? I note with appreciation the verses helpfully quoted to show that logos and rhema are used interchangeably but let us look and discuss further Acts 10:44 44 While Peter yet spake these words(rhema), the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word (logos). In this passage logos seems to mean “the message”. “These rhema” seems to refer to the words that Peter had been speaking”. It would seem that only those who heard and believed the “logos” experienced a tranformation. Merely repeating logos without faith changes nothing. However first there was “logos”, then there was “hearing”, then there was “faith” then there was a change in reality. Now let us look at Romans 10:17-18 “ So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word (rhema) of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words (rhemata) 4487 unto the ends of the world. Here too, first there is "rhema" then “hearing” followed by “faith” Neither “logos” nor “rhema” change anything without “faith”. Looking at these two texts supports the view that rhema and logos are used interchangeably. Now let us look at John 5:24 “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word (logos), and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” The conditions are both hearing and faith . Faith comes only if the Father draws one to Christ. John 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. Wrapped up with this is the Fathers giving us to Jesus. John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. If all means “without exception” then there are no exceptions. “Everyone who is drawn will come in faith” The above consideration seem to defeat the viewpoint that “logos” is the written word and “rhema” is the word when God speaks into the soul and it is comprehended. There are those who hear but their hearts are hard and Satan comes and snatches the word away. Secondly “rhema” has no power of itself. All depends on faith and faith is given by God who gives the word. Man never becomes God so that he can created reality merely by repeating words. What do you folk say? |
||||||
9 | Acts 10:44 Efective? Creative word? | Acts 10:44 | Ronaldo | 64275 | ||
Acts 10:44 Thanks for the comments on the Jabez prayer. I too have not found a faith healer who specializes in curing baldness-perhaps it is more difficult than raising the dead. My hair is not restored and I am not even sure if it will be in the resurrection. I must rely on intellegence to impress my wife-so could you pass some along. However, I will be pleased if anyone can comment on faith making "rhema" or "logos" effective or discuss any of the other points I made in my comments. Good talking to you guys! |
||||||
10 | How is the tongues speaker edified? | 1 Cor 14:4 | Ronaldo | 61230 | ||
How do tongues edify. Does the tongues speaker communicate meaningfully to God? Is it gibberish or meaningful thanks? | ||||||
11 | Is the Prayer edified? | 1 Cor 14:4 | Ronaldo | 61390 | ||
Thanks. I also followed the line of God speaking to the Jews in many ways, line upon line and precept upon precept, here a little there a little. There were plenty of miracles but no repentance. Finally they were carried away to captivity. (Likewise the destruction of Jerusalem). Are we in the same danger today with the emphasis on signs and wonders but no righteousness. Is God impressed with us doing mighty works? I note the thoughts on cessation. There is much emphasis on using the understanding in 1 Corinthians 14, of conviction of sin. "In understanding be men". The one who prays with the spirit was giving thanks, which had meaning. I fail to see what edification there can be for the pray-er if their is no meaning to what is said. I understood from a modern tongues prayer that he did not understand what he said. If there is no understanding or meaning then what edification can take place? Paul's burden was preaching Christ crucified the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes. There is no power many words that no one can understand. |
||||||
12 | Women pastor | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ronaldo | 64875 | ||
Deaconesses? please comment! I am not able to find where women can be recoginized as deaconesses in an official capacity. In a general sense we are all to serve (diakonos), but the only passage dealing with "offices" is 1 Timothy 3. To my knowledge the word "deaconess" is not found in the Greek New Testament or in the Greek language. "Deaconess" is supplied by commentators and Bible dictionaries. The case for deaconesses is based on one verse, 1 Timothy 3:11, where the word is "yuvn" 1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow 2) a wife 2a) of a betrothed woman The word used for deacon in the New Testament is masculine gender which I understand does not refer to sex. The Greek genders are to do with the place and function of the nouns in sentences. Therefore, deacon would refer to the function of servant, which could be male or female. So if males and females can be included under the term "deacon" which appears in 1 Timothy 3, then it would not be necessary to have a separate category of "deaconesses" in 1 Timothy 3:11. In short, 1 Timothy 3 does not refer to an office called "deaconess" and this word is not found in the Bible. When 1 Timothy 3 does speak of "deacon" the context makes all the qualifications refer to men. Early church tradition is often cited in support of the office of "lady deacon" or "deaconess", but then tradition does not have the authority of Scripture. I think that maybe the women cited in 1 Timothy 3: 11 could be those who assist in ministering to young women and children as in Titus 2:3,4. Women should be used more in churches to study to be able to minister to other women and children. God bless |
||||||
13 | Women pastor | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ronaldo | 64876 | ||
Deaconesses? please comment! I am not able to find where women can be recoginized as deaconesses in an official capacity. In a general sense we are all to serve (diakonos), but the only passage dealing with "offices" is 1 Timothy 3. To my knowledge the word "deaconess" is not found in the Greek New Testament or in the Greek language. "Deaconess" is supplied by commentators and Bible dictionaries. The case for deaconesses is based on one verse, 1 Timothy 3:11, where the word is "yuvn" 1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow 2) a wife 2a) of a betrothed woman The word used for deacon in the New Testament is masculine gender which I understand does not refer to sex. The Greek genders are to do with the place and function of the nouns in sentences. Therefore, deacon would refer to the function of servant, which could be male or female. So if males and females can be included under the term "deacon" which appears in 1 Timothy 3, then it would not be necessary to have a separate category of "deaconesses" in 1 Timothy 3:11. In short, 1 Timothy 3 does not refer to an office called "deaconess" and this word is not found in the Bible. When 1 Timothy 3 does speak of "deacon" the context makes all the qualifications refer to men. Early church tradition is often cited in support of the office of "lady deacon" or "deaconess", but then tradition does not have the authority of Scripture. I think that maybe the women cited in 1 Timothy 3: 11 could be those who assist in ministering to young women and children as in Titus 2:3,4. Women should be used more in churches to study to be able to minister to other women and children. God bless |
||||||
14 | Women pastor | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ronaldo | 64877 | ||
Deaconesses? please comment! I am not able to find where women can be recoginized as deaconesses in an official capacity. In a general sense we are all to serve (diakonos), but the only passage dealing with "offices" is 1 Timothy 3. To my knowledge the word "deaconess" is not found in the Greek New Testament or in the Greek language. "Deaconess" is supplied by commentators and Bible dictionaries. The case for deaconesses is based on one verse, 1 Timothy 3:11, where the word is "yuvn" 1) a woman of any age, whether a virgin, or married, or a widow 2) a wife 2a) of a betrothed woman The word used for deacon in the New Testament is masculine gender which I understand does not refer to sex. The Greek genders are to do with the place and function of the nouns in sentences. Therefore, deacon would refer to the function of servant, which could be male or female. So if males and females can be included under the term "deacon" which appears in 1 Timothy 3, then it would not be necessary to have a separate category of "deaconesses" in 1 Timothy 3:11. In short, 1 Timothy 3 does not refer to an office called "deaconess" and this word is not found in the Bible. When 1 Timothy 3 does speak of "deacon" the context makes all the qualifications refer to men. Early church tradition is often cited in support of the office of "lady deacon" or "deaconess", but then tradition does not have the authority of Scripture. I think that maybe the women cited in 1 Timothy 3: 11 could be those who assist in ministering to young women and children as in Titus 2:3,4. Women should be used more in churches to study to be able to minister to other women and children. God bless |
||||||
15 | Women pastor | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ronaldo | 65291 | ||
Hi Tim, For Romans 16:1 the versions never translate "deaconess". They either say "servant" (see NASB)or "deacon" The Greek word is "diakonon" which is the masculine form of the word. In Greek the masculine gender does not refer to sex but, as in Latin, it is just an indication of the function of the word in a sentence. This is why the translations render "servant". Phoebe was thus a servant. She was indeed a female servant. However, she may not have held and office of deacon. Are we not all servants? Paul was an apostle but he was also a servant (diakonos). Deacon or servant is used in a general way indicating a servant. The only passages that speaks about office of deacon is 1 Timothy 3, and where it speaks of deacon it always gives male qualification. For instance, "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife' As you can see, the word "deacon" can include male or female, but the context of 1 Timothy 3 implies only males. Look at 1 Tim. 3:10 where NASB renders "Let these men also first be tested" There is no Greek word, to my knowledge, for "lady deacon" or "deaconess". God bless |
||||||
16 | "women keep silent in the churches" | 1 Cor 14:34 | Ronaldo | 65637 | ||
I understand Galatians 3:28 to mean that both male and female belong together in one church of Jesus Christ. To take it to mean that there is no longer any sexual difference is reading in what is not there. There would be no mother and father roles. If we had to take the "all one", as it is misapplied, it would lead to an extreme woman's lib position. It would also be saying that God made a mistake in giving the different sexes different gifts and personalities. It would be saying that the Gospel does away with the distinctives that God created. To quote this verse in the discussion of church order is to take it out of context. However, I think that some weight should be given to 1 Corinthians 11:5 which allows a woman to prophecy when she displays the sign of authority. Although some feel that the latter context is outside a church service, the matter of authority is definitely in view. Seeking fo balance. |
||||||
17 | Who, why baptized for the dead? | 1 Cor 15:29 | Ronaldo | 61089 | ||
who are those who are baptised for the dead and why? | ||||||
18 | Help on exergesis. Tense and Number | Eph 2:20 | Ronaldo | 62213 | ||
Exegesis-Please comment. Can someone comment on the significance of the Greek aorist tense for the verb "built" and the singular noun "foundation" "And are built on the foundation etc". My reading tells me that the subject, plural, are the Gentiles who are built (aorist) tense on the foundation (singular) of the apostles and prophets. Does the aorist not mean that the action "built" is complete? It does not say are "being built", continuous. Therefore this text does not seem support modern day apostles as foundations. Secondly, the one foundation is complete. We cannot read "foundations". There seems to be no way to fit a continuous stream of modern day apostles into the "foundation". The foundation of the apostles must mean "their foundation on which they rested -Jesus Christ" Also, if the foundation is a person it would seem illogical to add gifts as foudation stones. The context of Chapter 2 and 4 is about the unity of the church of Jews and Gentiles all resting on the one foundation. Check all the "one" and unity words recurring. If the foundation has not been completed because we have to await the addition of more modern apostles, there has been no complete foundation on which to base the unity of which Paul speaks. One needs to first read what the text meant to its first hearers and then develope a Biblical Theology. Systematic must only come at the end. The proponents of the five fold foundational gifts doctrine, as do many of us, seem to have looked for texts to support their viewpoint and forcefit this piece of the puzzle into a picture in their own mind. |
||||||
19 | Help on exergesis. Tense and Number | Eph 2:20 | Ronaldo | 62214 | ||
Exegesis-Please comment. Can someone comment on the significance of the Greek aorist tense for the verb "built" and the singular noun "foundation" "And are built on the foundation etc". My reading tells me that the subject, plural, are the Gentiles who are built (aorist) tense on the foundation (singular) of the apostles and prophets. Does the aorist not mean that the action "built" is complete? It does not say are "being built", continuous. Therefore this text does not seem support modern day apostles as foundations. Secondly, the one foundation is complete. We cannot read "foundations". There seems to be no way to fit a continuous stream of modern day apostles into the "foundation". The foundation of the apostles must mean "their foundation on which they rested -Jesus Christ" Also, if the foundation is a person it would seem illogical to add gifts as foudation stones. The context of Chapter 2 and 4 is about the unity of the church of Jews and Gentiles all resting on the one foundation. Check all the "one" and unity words recurring. If the foundation has not been completed because we have to await the addition of more modern apostles, there has been no complete foundation on which to base the unity of which Paul speaks. One needs to first read what the text meant to its first hearers and then develope a Biblical Theology. Systematic must only come at the end. The proponents of the five fold foundational gifts doctrine, as do many of us, seem to have looked for texts to support their viewpoint and forcefit this piece of the puzzle into a picture in their own mind. |
||||||
20 | Help on exergesis. Tense and Number | Eph 2:20 | Ronaldo | 62215 | ||
Exegesis-Please comment. Can someone comment on the significance of the Greek aorist tense for the verb "built" and the singular noun "foundation" "And are built on the foundation etc". My reading tells me that the subject, plural, are the Gentiles who are built (aorist) tense on the foundation (singular) of the apostles and prophets. Does the aorist not mean that the action "built" is complete? It does not say are "being built", continuous. Therefore this text does not seem support modern day apostles as foundations. Secondly, the one foundation is complete. We cannot read "foundations". There seems to be no way to fit a continuous stream of modern day apostles into the "foundation". The foundation of the apostles must mean "their foundation on which they rested -Jesus Christ" Also, if the foundation is a person it would seem illogical to add gifts as foudation stones. The context of Chapter 2 and 4 is about the unity of the church of Jews and Gentiles all resting on the one foundation. Check all the "one" and unity words recurring. If the foundation has not been completed because we have to await the addition of more modern apostles, there has been no complete foundation on which to base the unity of which Paul speaks. One needs to first read what the text meant to its first hearers and then develope a Biblical Theology. Systematic must only come at the end. The proponents of the five fold foundational gifts doctrine, as do many of us, seem to have looked for texts to support their viewpoint and forcefit this piece of the puzzle into a picture in their own mind. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |