Results 1 - 20 of 173
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Stultis the Fool Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why is the thread associated with ID# .. | Not Specified | Stultis the Fool | 127343 | ||
Why is the thread associated with ID# 127074 restricted? | ||||||
2 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125900 | ||
The "Law" is a burden too great to bear, and as CHRISTIANS we are not responsible for keeping It. [see Acts chapter 15 for context] On the other hand, as Christians, we are absolutely responsible for keeping the commandments of Christ [John 14:15,21,24]. Christ's commandment is summed up nicely (by Christ) in John 15:12, though you will find it written in many places in the scriptures. Christ commandment is a burden "easy" to bear [Mathew 11:30], and also FULLFILLS ALL THE LAW [Galatians 5:14]. When Christ tells us to be more righteous than the Pharisees, he is chastising the Pharisees. He tells us that the appearant righteousness of the Pharisees is outward and not true. He tells us the Pharisees are like tombs... white outside and full of rot and stink within. He also tells us to "beware the leaven of the Pharisees". The Pharisees are a suitable example of how we, as Christians, are NOT to behave. |
||||||
3 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125901 | ||
Following Him Your refference to 1 John 1:8 and 1:9 is very ambiguous... If we are cleansed of all unrighteousness, do we still have sin? This same book (1 John) proclaims that a believer cannot sin... If this holds true, there is no ambiguity in verses 1:8 and 9. If not, verses 1:8 and 9 are blatantly contradictory. Are you certain that this portion of the letter is directed to a believer? Or is it written to someone who needs to confess and be "CLEANSED" from "ALL UNRIGHTEOUSNESS?" Either the one holds true or the other... we are either forever sinners and Liars or we are forever cleansed from all unrighteousness. Which of the two makes sense with the rest of the letter? It seems that in context we confess our sins, we are forgiven and cleansed from all unrighteousness, and we will not and cannot sin. |
||||||
4 | Which one are we not going to keep? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125902 | ||
Christ speaks a number of teachings from the cross, his last being "It is finished." [John 19:30]. He also tells us that he came to "fullfill the Law." Either he completed all his tasks as appointed, or he did not. His own words testify to his accomplishment of all that he was charged with. | ||||||
5 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125909 | ||
Where are these words [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] coming from in your dispensing of the text? I have looked to the Greek text, and they are neither there nor in any bible I have here with me. Also, you define "commits" as "practices." Is it not possible to commit a single act, or must "commit" pertain to a plurality of action? Furthermore, I have consulted the Greek text concerning verse 9, and the word "practicing" does not exist in the text, nor does it exist in my NASB. Additionally, the text clearly states that noone who sins has seen or known him... the word habitually makes no such appearance in the text (Greek or otherwise). I also understand that this thought begins with the author proclaiming that Christ "came to take away sin" and "in him there is no sin." If we abide in Christ, and there is no sin in Christ, and YET we sin, how can this thing be (that there would be sin in Christ)? Has Christ failed to take sin from those who "believe in him and confess him as Lord?" Or is there sin in Christ? The authors proclamation seems to be fairly straightforward, especially in context with the beginning of the Chapter and versus 8 and 9 of chapter 1. |
||||||
6 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125928 | ||
I am affraid you are confusing what I am saying with a false teaching. I in no way advocate a Christian should depart from the commands of our Lord... I do, however, advocate observing the commandment of Christ, [evidenced John 14:15,21,24 and others] and that commandment being that we are to love one another [John 15:12, others]. I believe "total depravity", if I follow your connotation, to be of little or no use against the flesh [Colossians 2:23]. As far as popular doctrine goes, popularity, in my opinion, neither makes sound doctrine nor debunks/rebukes plain scripture. The truth does not depend upon popular opinion. As to "In your opinion, stultis, when Christ said to do what the pharisees said to do, He didn't mean it?" I cannot descern wether you are in a quandry or mocking me. I am most definately saying that we are not to behave as hypocrites, and Christ declared the Pharisees "hypocrites" MANY times (20 or so KJV). I am arguing that we should not sin, as it is contrary to God. Christ stipulates to forgiven sinners that they are to "go forth and sin no more." I choose to abide in Christ, and as such, I reject sin. My master is righteousness, and I am no longer a slave to sin. We can serve only one master. Ought I to do what men say, or what God says? Please, expound more upon your question. | ||||||
7 | Background info? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125933 | ||
Moses background is written in Exodus, Solomon in 1Kings. I suggest you read them (as the story is too long to retype). In brief, Moses was an adopted prince, and Solomon was the wisest man in the world, as well as king. Authors of the Psalms include David, Hezekiah, and many others. Mathew was a tax-collector, Mark was a friend of Peter, Luke was a doctor/researcher and a friend of Paul, and John was another desciple (the "desciple whom jesus loved"). The short answere is: their backgrounds effected the content and emphasis of events in their respective gospels. The long answere is: find several sources of study and research each; it will be well worth your time! | ||||||
8 | A Command of Jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125944 | ||
Thank you for the clarification, though I see no need for personal interperatation. Christ poses this statement quite well... "the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat", [the pharisees] telling them [the people] to do the things God has ordained, but, He continues, "do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." Continuing in context, Christ expresses several examples of the Pharisees hypocracy, pointing out that what the Pharisees instruct is righteous, but the things they do are unrighteous. The people were to keep the Law of Moses (which is what the Pharisees were instructing), but the Pharisees deeds (which were deeds of Hypocracy, and pride, and the deeds of those wishing to be "recognized of men"), were unacceptable. Christ is pointing out to those gathered, rather sarcastically, that all the Pharisees do is wicked, so anything they say WHICH THEY DO NOT ALSO OBSERVE, is acceptable for imitation. It is interesting to note that this is followed by the Seven Woes, an assembly of curses directed at the Pharisees, in response to their hypocracy. Additionally, neither Christ, nor the Pharisees (by context of "Moses' seat") are advocating anything the Lord has not commanded, and thus what matter is the advocate in correlation to the commands of God. Again, ought we to do what man says, or what God says. It was not the Pharisees creating the Law of Moses for the people, but rather diseminating the information. Where the Law pertains, it was God (through Moses... or his seat, if you will) performing the instruction. Finally, I am glad to overlook all that you say regarding your inadequacy, as I find your entreatment this occasion to be more than adequate. Please, do not believe that you have offended me greatly, and know that I will gladly forgive anything I can forgive on your behalf, wether or not to me I find it to be sin. |
||||||
9 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125959 | ||
You are quite accurate in your perception. In 1 John 3:6, the "Persons" concerned are those abiding in God. "If we are born of the Spirit then we are children of God and we practice righteousness and we love our brother. I believe that is the point that "Got it" has made and that this 1 John passage is about." This is absolutely correct. Continue reading, particularly verse 4:7 through 4:17. You will see that God is Love, and thus, if the Spirit abides in us, the Spirit of Love abides in us. If we love, then we abide in God, and God abides in us, and his love is perfected in us [4:17]. If we abide in God, we are not sinning. Thus, those who love do not sin, but those who do not love are wicked. Just as it was the love of God that brought Christ to us [John 3:16], it is that same love that brings us to him [1John 4:12-13]. |
||||||
10 | Torah vs Mishna | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 125962 | ||
I make of that exactly as Christ condemns... these same traditions are a big part of what put him on the Cross. In many instances Christ is criticized for not keeping the traditions (washing hands, etc.), and he is equally critical of those traditions versus the Law (Corban, Seven Woes, etc.). I feel quite certain that he was not speaking of these traditions in the passage in question (don't call them Rabbi, honor their seat in the synagogue, etc.), else this directly contradicts his teachings. By the way, do you know why this thread has been removed from the home page? |
||||||
11 | Where are these words coming from? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126033 | ||
Ray, to clarify, Read 1 John 4:8... "The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love." That is probably as straight-forward as it gets. Also, 2 Timothy 1:7... "For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline." Additionaly, I capitolize here on this forum and also in correspondance as a matter of courtesy to the reader. |
||||||
12 | Where does the Bible SAY that? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126034 | ||
It is important to note, and this is posted elsewhere, that many things have passed from the Law (much more, anyway, than a jot or tittle). There are no more sacrifices, there is no more observance of the traditional holidays, there is no longer tithe paid to the Levites, there is no selection of a high priest, no more scapegoat, circumcision, burning of incense, offerings of grain, rituals of purification following childbirth, nocturnal emission, leprosy etc. The list goes on... Any reconciliation MUST incorporate the fact that more than a jot or tittle has passed from the Law. Additionaly, do not casually dismiss Ephesians 2:15; it clearly states that the Law of commandments as well as the ordanances against us were abolished. Also consider Hebrews 8:13 "When He said, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." I would like to point out here that the word appearing in Mathew 5:17 [abolish] is not the same word present in Ephesians 2:15 [abolish]. In fact, the word present in Mathew is KATALUO, which translated is Demolish, Destroy, Disintegrate. The word in Ephesians is KATARGEO, which translated is "to render useless," Abolish. I assure you that Christ did not Destroy the Law, as it is the guideline by which all who DO NOT know Christ are judged. However, for those that are Christian, the Law is of no value: it is abolished. Paul says "Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace" [Galatians 5:4], and again "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain" [Galatians 2:21], and again "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth" [Romans 10:4] and again "Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God" [Romans 7:4]. |
||||||
13 | WAS MY IMPORTANT DIVORCE A SIN | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126235 | ||
Jesus tells us that it is unrighteous to divorce our spouse for just any reason, but that it is permissable to divorce for immorality (adultery KJV). See Mathew Chapter 19, verses 3-9. God also tells us that He "hates divorce" [Malachi 2:16]. Read the whole of Malachi chapter 2 for context. Divorce is never a good thing (I am sure you know this), but it can become the only option. Even God divorces his wife. Read Jeremiah Chapter 3, verse 8 to see this in context. God is explaining that He was left with no option because of the repeated immorality of His wife. If you speak the truth, your transgression is neither sin nor impardonable. It seems as though you did the right thing. | ||||||
14 | Well done? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126633 | ||
Well done? | ||||||
15 | 7 days? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126677 | ||
Was the "world" created in seven twenty-four hour days, as described in Genesis chapter 1? | ||||||
16 | Allegorical? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126690 | ||
So, use of the word "day" is simply an allegorical measure for the simplicity of our understanding, yes? This should be especially true considering the words you quote were written by Peter 1500 years later than those written by Moses in Genesis. | ||||||
17 | why are discussions restricted | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126692 | ||
I still don't understand what is in debate here... | ||||||
18 | How do you explain? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126699 | ||
How then do you explain Paul's description of "Sabaths" or "Holy Days" in Colosians 2:16 and 17 when compared to the Author of Hebrews explanation of the creation of man and God's rest found in Hebrew's 3:5 through 4:11. Here (Hebrews) the author thoroughly explains that "God's rest", or the 7th day of creation, is something we strive to enter, and while it is "Today", which, by intent, we can surmise must refer to the 6th day, we should strive to enter "God's rest." Either the author is allegorizing the 7 days of creation, or else he is displaying quite literally that the 6th and 7th days of creation were no more 24 hour periods than the first 4 days. In either case, something is debunked here: 24 hour creaction period following day four OR allegory not being present in the creation. Again, I find Paul's refference to "shadows" lends great credance to this concept. |
||||||
19 | Allegory? | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126703 | ||
Yes, we will enter into "rest," as described by the author, but we will not enter "Today." Therefore, we must be "dilligent" to enter that rest [Hebrews 4:11]. This rest here refers to the Sabath Day, as spoken of in verses 9 and 10. At any rate, the use of the word "day" in Genesis is metaphoric, especially coupled with the concepts of "morning" and "evening." Additionaly, the author of Hebrew's tells us God completed his works from the "foundation of the world" [Hebrews 4:3], and we know the foundation of the world was created first of all things, along with the heavens. [Genesis 1:1] The passage explains that the world was "formless and void," thus the "foundation" upon which all else was built. Therefore, if all was finished from the "foundation" of the world, how is it that 6 more days of creation remain, unless there is allegory? We are all in agreement that God the Almighty can create the world in seven days, even 24 hour periods as defined in the modern sense. Is it also unreasonable to believe that all could be completed from the first day, in an instant, and the summation of his work bloomed over the next five days, in due course with his desire for creation? |
||||||
20 | Things people THINK in the BIBLE but not | Bible general Archive 2 | Stultis the Fool | 126704 | ||
You wrote: "there was no sin nature in him" This, if I understand your statement, is incorrect. I agree that the Christ did not sin, but I argue that he had every opportunity to sin. That is why he endured temptation. If he could not choose to sin, there would be no temptation following his forty days fast in the wilderness, nor a temptation to flee his course when Peter (Satan) told him never to go to Jerusalem. If I misunderstand your statement, then I appologize. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |