Results 1 - 20 of 54
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Treadway Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Belive in "The Good News" or Jesus? | Not Specified | Treadway | 51250 | ||
When Mark 16:16 says: "Those who believe and are baptized will be saved...", to "what" exactly is Jesus referring to? In context, it appears to be "The Good News". However, many people I've heard state that it means to believe in Jesus as the Son. And another question: Mark 16:17 "And those who believe shall use my authority to cast out demons, and they shall speak in tongues. 18...They will be able even to handle snakes with safety , and if they drink anything poisonous, it won't hurt them; and they will be able to place their hands on the sick and heal them." Concerning to whom Jesus is speaking? Is he speaking to the disciples only, just those in his presense? Or, does he mean, as the text suggests, that ALL believers be able to do all of the things? How to understand all of this? It appears that if a person believes, then he should be able to drink poison and not be affected? Treadway |
||||||
2 | Where do I go from here? | Not Specified | Treadway | 51611 | ||
Where do I go from here? Born a Baptist, raised a Baptist, I dutifully went to church every Sunday, zippered Bible in tow, no questions, no worries. At home, the family Bible rested always on the living room coffee table, seldom read, never studied. Then an acquaintance asked me if I had ever read the 19th writer, Robert Ingersoll, his works on religion. I had not. He suggested I do so. I did. And I cannot describe how shocked and angry I felt. But in the midst of all the anger I read these words: Most Christians have not read their own Bibles. He had me there. I had not ‘really’ read much of the Bible and just knew generally the standard fare of the Sunday school teaching. So, now I have read Ingersoll AND the Bible. Since then, I have visited studybibleforum to see the thinking of others, and while here, learned about preterist. This was after I listed several verses in a post that seemed pristinely clear that “soon” and “near” was the common understanding of ALL in the NT as they applied to the 2nd Coming. Except for two responses, neither of which directly addressed the context of the verses, there was silence. After looking up preterist, I discovered that their view of the 2nd Coming ideas were similar to what I had discovered in my own independent Bible reading. But then, as I learned more about their views, I came to understand that, for their particular reasons, they were not willing to take the logic of it all to its inevitable conclusions: a) the 2nd Coming was expected in the 1st Century AD b) the 2nd Coming did not happen c) the disciples were mistaken d) Jesus was mistaken e) if Jesus was mistaken, then He is not God f) there will be no 2nd Coming, no Rapture g) the Book of Revelations is, indeed, the ravings of a madman, just as Ingersoll and Thomas Jefferson declared h) and the accepted notion of God is in serious jeopardy. So, I must bid adieu. Thanks for your tolerance from a great group of people. Treadway |
||||||
3 | Will the 2nd Coming Ever Occur? | Not Specified | Treadway | 55348 | ||
Is there any Biblical evidence for the 2nd Coming? For some unknown reason, Hank, I remembered that I had not responded to the message below. I had always meant to, but found it mildly disturbing, since I felt your earnest concerns. But then, perhaps, I overreacted. And because I consider the topic to be of the utmost importance—it is critical, in fact—I have returned to it, to the forum, to reconcile this omission. Always good thoughts… ---------------------------------- Note(Treadway) on the question you raise about our Lord's Second Coming and about the word 'soon.' As to His return, He said He would return. This constitutes a promise from the Son of God. Therefore, not to believe Him, not to take Him at His word, really does play havoc with our own personal trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord, doesn't it?---------------------------------------------------- Hank, when you say “not to believe Him”, that may not be the crux of the scenario. It’s not a question of believing, but a question of understanding. For sure, those surrounding Jesus did believe what he said; and what he said was that he was coming back within their lifetime. His words, the disciples’ words, Paul, Peter, and John’s words, and the author of Revelations, all testify to that reality. The only contest to this reality is the statement that’s cited concerning that a day is like a thousand years to God. Other than an appeasement for the followers who were trying to narrow down the day and time, this statement has little bearing upon the “soon” emphases. In fact, the statement is even said in offhanded, incidental fashions. Second, you said that if what I’ve proposed is true, then, it “really does play havoc with our personal trust in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, doesn’t it?” Well, that would be an individual matter. What it also would do is create an arena of understanding. Yes, it would certainly cause some reflection. And that reflection might start a domino effect, but at the end would be understanding and knowledge about a great many things.------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hank). But this we know: that 'soon' each of us is going to cross the unavoidable bar that separates temporal life on earth from eternity. It will be too late then to speculate about our Lord's return; thus, to my mind, while it is important to watch and wait in expectation of His return, it is of more vital importance to place our total faith and total trust in Him here .' There can be no nobler calling in all of heaven and earth than 'just in simple faith to trust Him, just to take Him at His word.' ----------------------------------------------------- Hank, I agree with much of what you say. But when it becomes clear to me that something is simply not true, then, I must accept that clarity. I have spent much, much time in tracking down this “soon” business, and the conclusion is that the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus will not be coming back. Now, that doesn’t mean it can’t be wrong, but I have bounced this off of a multitude of people of different stripes, and so far, not one of them has been able to present anything that comes close to contradicting my findings. And, bolstering these findings overall have been forays into the Messianic prophecies. Not one prophecy suggests that Jesus will come twice—not one. If you, or anyone else knows of any, I’d be most appreciative to hear it. (The same goes for anything in the NT that refutes that the people in association with Jesus did not believe that He would come back within their lifetime). The Messiah of the Jews was to come once, and once only. This is the inconvertible message that does not waver in the prophecies. This, in and of itself, should be pause enough for serious reflection; but then couple it with “soon”, and the reality is overwhelming. I once believed, once thought it was cut and dried; but once I put my efforts into the Bible I learned it is just that—cut and dried—but just the opposite of all that I had been taught, and believed for oh so many years,. Anyway, interested to be shown otherwise, in the OT, or the NT. Good thoughts, Treadway |
||||||
4 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Treadway | 51257 | ||
...twas said: "Eph. 2:8-9 rules out all works, not just certain kinds!" Clear, indeed. But even with this "clarity" a question begs: Since knowing how "to be saved" would seem critically important, why is there no mention of "just believing" in Mark or Matthew? (not sure about Luke). Is the only logical answer for the ommittance, is that Mark and Matthew, and maybe Luke, didn't know? | ||||||
5 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Treadway | 51263 | ||
Could be wrong about this, but the statement that Saul of Tarsus saw the "Risen Christ" on the road, or the "Risen Christ" appeared to Saul,may not be exactly true. According to my understanding, Paul "heard" the voice of Jesus but did not actually "see" Jesus. Unless "blinding light" is acceptable for "appearing"....? | ||||||
6 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | Treadway | 51275 | ||
Thank Tim, for your reply. You said: "There is not a requirement that every book in the NT must list it!" Okay, but my point was/is that if there was a definitive requirement, then it would seem, appropriately and commonsensically, that Mark would have listed it. To role play, if I had been the author of this Book, I certainly would have wanted to list it. And the same for Matthew. It is difficult for my thinking to believe that they knew and did not convey it. In trying to approach this absense in a reasonable and prudent manner, I am left with doubts as to whether or not they were privy to the information. I may, indeed, be incorrect, but feel it is a legitimate observation that something so central, so critical, would not be overlooked. Luke? Not sure what he does, but I'm sure, when the mood strikes, I'll try to find out. I hope he mentions something about it. Two not mentioning it is problem enough--hope it isn't three. :) Treadway |
||||||
7 | Saved with Baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Treadway | 51281 | ||
Hello, Raven: Just browsing through the posts and was interested in your statement: "That child is in a safe state, and if anything happens to that child, God will see to it that it will have a home in Heaven." Does this have a Bible reference? If you know it, I'd appreciate the Book and verse. It might take me forever to find it... thanks, Treadway |
||||||
8 | Saved with Baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Treadway | 51294 | ||
Hello again, Raven: Might be a "split of a hair", but seems to me that Jesus is speaking of a child (children) who believe, have faith, etc., the child who comes to Him in innocence. And is suggesting that is how the believing adult must approach, too. However, there is a lingering question for me, as to the child (or children) who has yet to have the faith of those Jesus speaks of. Or, those that have not had the opportunity, etc. For example, if an earthquake destroyed a city in Japan, and thousands of children were killed, would they be in a "safe state", too?.........Treadway |
||||||
9 | Saved with Baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Treadway | 51310 | ||
Dear Raven: You ask if I can "surely" understand that if a child (or retarded) died unexpectedly, that he or she would go to heaven. I can only say that it is what I would hope. But different scenarios do come to mind. What about those who died prior to Christ's time? I assume they would have gone to heaven? What comes to mind are those who were killed by the Israelites, the destruction of the populations of the cities and killing of the enemies, including the children; or maybe even the ones who perished in the Flood, or in Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding countryside. Would they, too, have gone to heaven? And then there were the children of the "detested" Samaritans, and other various Gentile groups. As for the retarded, I see your point. I just don't know what the Bible actually says on this topic. Plus, add to the mix, the people who died who never had any kind of opportunity to know about God, much less Jesus. Ancient India and China come to mind. Would those people, never mind the children or retarded, have gone to heaven? In other words, is ignorance an excuse? The more I think about this, the more confusing it seems. But I'll keep reading to see if I can find the proper Bible information. Treadway |
||||||
10 | Saved with Baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Treadway | 51327 | ||
Dear Raven: You say, "Ignorance is no excuse." But it may be a reason, a good reason why many have not heard about Christianity (or been preached to). In reality, most of the people in today's world have never heard of Jesus or Christianity. You may find that difficult to believe but a little investigation will bear this out. And that's just "today". Imagine all of the people in the past who had never heard the WORD. I don't think the answer is as simple as you imply. In the course of history, literally billions of people were not exposed to the teachings of Jesus Christ before the end of their lives. And just asking, "Why am I here, where did I come from, what happens when I die," would not be an adequate replacement. You suggest that all children and retarded people have an automatic place in heaven. That may be true, I don't know. But what's the difference between a child or retarded person, and someone who has never had the opportunity to make a salvation decision? ....Treadway |
||||||
11 | Saved with Baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Treadway | 51540 | ||
Hello Berean: Can all that you've said about sin, babies, children be summed up with: "They simply go to Hell"? If that's wrong, then I will stand corrected. Treadway |
||||||
12 | facts about genesis ? | Genesis | Treadway | 55838 | ||
..."It is commonly believed that Moses wrote the Book of Genesis. It is thought that Moses wrote Genesis during the 40 year time period..... -------------------------------------------- Seems to me that it is more commonly believed that Moses did not write Genesis but that it was attributed to him some 500 to 600 hundred years after he died. Not unusual that a well-known figure was given credits. And, there's always the two distinct creation stories. Would an author write two different versions, back to back? ........Treadway :) |
||||||
13 | facts about genesis ? | Genesis | Treadway | 55865 | ||
Hello Makarios: You asked: Would you kindly explain what you mean by "two distinct creation stories?" ------------------------------------------- A couple of things here and there: in chp 1, the animals are made first, before man is made; in chp 2, the animals are made after Adam is made. In chp 1, God seems to be creating in concert with others when He says: "Let us make man--someone like ourselves." Then They make man and woman, apparently at the same time, with no notions of a help-mate factor. Chp 2 describes man being made out of dust (not so in the first chp) and then Eve being made from Adam's side or rib. There's a couple of other differences easily discerned. Thought this was "old hat" stuff. Guess not. .........good thoughts, Treadway |
||||||
14 | facts about genesis ? | Genesis | Treadway | 55893 | ||
'Don't Gen. 1 and 2 present contradictory creation accounts? Hello Kalos: you wrote: - Day five - Sea life and birds are made. -------------------------------------------------------------------”Genesis 1:20…let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly….Genesis 1:24…”Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, etc… ”verses Genesis 2:19….”And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air…”------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Seems to me that in one version, birds are formed out of the “waters”; and the beasts are formed out of the ground. They don’t’ seem to have been created together. In the second version, birds and beasts are formed from the ground, created at the same time. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- you wrote: Day six - Land animals, creeping things, and man (male and female) are made. 'Genesis 2 Then the Lord formed man from dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Then God made Eve. 'There is no contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. Genesis 1 is a detailed explanation of the six days of creation, day by day ----------------------- Genesis 1: 26…”Let us make man in our image…..and let them have dominion over (all life)…..27…”…male and female created he them… ”verses Genesis 2: 20…”…but for Adam there was not found an help mate for him…22…”made he a woman, and brought her unto the man…”----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In the first version, male and female, in context, are made at the same time in the “image of “us”, a plural reference. In the second version, man is given a name, Adam, and created by a singular reference; the animals, in context, are made after Adam was created. In context, the female, Eve was not made at the same time as part of the overall plan of making male and female in the “image” of “us”. She came as a “help-mate”, made from a part of the man. These are clearly differences, clearly distinct.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Genesis 1: 29….God tells man and woman, together, that they may eat any herb, every fruit, etc, for their “meat”. There is nothing forbidden. In context, man and woman are both the recipients of this information. Genesis 2: 17 In the second version, God tells Adam—there is no Eve at this time—not to eat of the fruit from the tree of Knowledge. Another distinction between the two versions.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Too tired to continue on this….but there’s enough smoke created that a person would be remiss not to see if there’s a fire. If not two versions, then at the very least, it’s a rather awkward way to present one story. ……………….good thoughts, Treadway |
||||||
15 | facts about genesis ? | Genesis | Treadway | 55915 | ||
Hello Steve: You wrote: Gen 1:1 gives an opening summary statement followed by the detail of the statement (actually going through Gen 2:3). Gen 2:4 then circles back to give increasing detail of the sixth day. It takes a little adjustment, but it's not insurmountable. ---------------------------------------- I do understand that's the "intent". I guess I don't really like to have to "insert" or "bend" when I read Scripture. If read literally, and that's the way this should have been written, also, then I shouldn't have to wonder what is going on. It is a problem. As you say, maybe not insurmountable, but there might never be a consensus. It's disheartening that so much needs explaining, and then it can get into the gray area of "explaining away." And just the examples I gave, are not that easy to explain away. Many scholars have deduced that there must have been two versions at work. I'd sure like it more definite......but who wouldn't? :) Treadway |
||||||
16 | Where do very young kids go if pass on? | 2 Sam 12:23 | Treadway | 51416 | ||
Hello Mommaphs: "Where does the young child go..." was part of a discussion I had earlier, and, though I understand the credible assumption (and want to make it, for sure), I'm still wondering about an entire history's children, the children of the unbelievers like China, India, North and South American Indians, etc., who died. Would the assumption be that they, too, were taken to heaven? I realize there is no definitive answer to all this, but was wondering if you extend the credible assumption to these children, too? Treadway |
||||||
17 | Where do very young kids go if pass on? | 2 Sam 12:23 | Treadway | 51497 | ||
For Dr. Jack Van Impe: You stated, "...His gift to mankind is freely bestowed upon all until they know right from wrong..." Thinking about this, a few questions come to mind: what would be the criteria for judging the age or condition of knowing right from wrong? It could be argued that a three-year-old basically can know right from wrong, for example. On the other hand, if this just applies to ages that all can agree that would not know right from wrong, then, as I understand this, all of this type of child, be he Chinese, Indian, destroyed in the Flood, burned in Sodom and Gomarrah, ALL of the children in Man' history, would reside in Heaven, no exceptions? Treadway |
||||||
18 | Who "inherit the earth"? | Matt 5:5 | Treadway | 55921 | ||
You wrote, Steve: Rev 21:1) that it must be the new earth where the new Jerusalem will be. ---------------------------------------------- I just read this over in the NT. The New Jerusalem is to be 1500 miles high, and 1500 miles on all sides. Is that correct? Kinda of a cube effect? Also, this prophecy comes from a vision or dream of one man who wrote Revelations. And, I not sure about this, but I don't believe the real author has ever been pin-pointed. So, here's the question; Isn't this a lot riding on just the vision of one, maybe, unknown man? With no known track record? One is the considerations in any kind of revelation is that the only one who can vouch for it, is the one who says he had it. Is that reliable? Can we risk our lives on that? Another question: The last person that I'm aware of that had a "revelation" was Joseph Smith of the Mormons. He also envisioned the coming of a New Jerusalem but he said it would be somewhere on the New World continent, mainly, I think, somewhere in North America. I think he even suggested Missouri at one time. So there's another example of a revelation that can only be substantiated with the word of the person claiming it. Some people would suggest his revelation is just as valid as the previous one in the Book of Revelation. Now, the last question: Even if one is correct, is there a logistical problem fitting? Certainly Missouri won't hold it. And I don't believe the site of the old Jerusalem would accomodate it, either; although I'm not positive what the Middle East expanse is. ....good thoughts....Treadway |
||||||
19 | Will the 2nd Coming Ever Occur? | Matt 24:34 | Treadway | 55369 | ||
Is there any Biblical evidence for the 2nd Coming? For some unknown reason, Hank, I remembered that I had not responded to the message below. I had always meant to, but found it mildly disturbing, since I felt your earnest concerns. But then, perhaps, I overreacted. And because I consider the topic to be of the utmost importance—it is critical, in fact—I have returned to it, to the forum, to reconcile this omission. Always good thoughts… ---------------------------------- Note(Treadway) on the question you raise about our Lord's Second Coming and about the word 'soon.' As to His return, He said He would return. This constitutes a promise from the Son of God. Therefore, not to believe Him, not to take Him at His word, really does play havoc with our own personal trust in Jesus Christ as our Savior and Lord, doesn't it?---------------------------------------------------- Hank, when you say “not to believe Him”, that may not be the crux of the scenario. It’s not a question of believing, but a question of understanding. For sure, those surrounding Jesus did believe what he said; and what he said was that he was coming back within their lifetime. His words, the disciples’ words, Paul, Peter, and John’s words, and the author of Revelations, all testify to that reality. The only contest to this reality is the statement that’s cited concerning that a day is like a thousand years to God. Other than an appeasement for the followers who were trying to narrow down the day and time, this statement has little bearing upon the “soon” emphases. In fact, the statement is even said in offhanded, incidental fashions. Second, you said that if what I’ve proposed is true, then, it “really does play havoc with our personal trust in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, doesn’t it?” Well, that would be an individual matter. What it also would do is create an arena of understanding. Yes, it would certainly cause some reflection. And that reflection might start a domino effect, but at the end would be understanding and knowledge about a great many things.------------------------------------------------------------------ (Hank). But this we know: that 'soon' each of us is going to cross the unavoidable bar that separates temporal life on earth from eternity. It will be too late then to speculate about our Lord's return; thus, to my mind, while it is important to watch and wait in expectation of His return, it is of more vital importance to place our total faith and total trust in Him here .' There can be no nobler calling in all of heaven and earth than 'just in simple faith to trust Him, just to take Him at His word.' ----------------------------------------------------- Hank, I agree with much of what you say. But when it becomes clear to me that something is simply not true, then, I must accept that clarity. I have spent much, much time in tracking down this “soon” business, and the conclusion is that the evidence is overwhelming that Jesus will not be coming back. Now, that doesn’t mean it can’t be wrong, but I have bounced this off of a multitude of people of different stripes, and so far, not one of them has been able to present anything that comes close to contradicting my findings. And, bolstering these findings overall have been forays into the Messianic prophecies. Not one prophecy suggests that Jesus will come twice—not one. If you, or anyone else knows of any, I’d be most appreciative to hear it. (The same goes for anything in the NT that refutes that the people in association with Jesus did not believe that He would come back within their lifetime). The Messiah of the Jews was to come once, and once only. This is the inconvertible message that does not waver in the prophecies. This, in and of itself, should be pause enough for serious reflection; but then couple it with “soon”, and the reality is overwhelming. I once believed, once thought it was cut and dried; but once I put my efforts into the Bible I learned it is just that—cut and dried—but just the opposite of all that I had been taught, and believed for oh so many years,. Anyway, interested to be shown otherwise, in the OT, or the NT. Good thoughts, Treadway |
||||||
20 | Will the 2nd Coming Ever Occur? | Matt 24:34 | Treadway | 55431 | ||
To Joe and Tim: First, thank you, Joe, for the info. I haven't gotten to any stage where I'm declaring myself any kind of "preterist". Although what I've suggested may align with that view, in the final analysis the road forks. Again, I stress the "inconvertible" support that lies within Scripture. Although this evidences may fly in the face of long held beliefs, it cannot be hidden from discerning eyes. What it means, ultimately, for the 2nd Coming proponents, is up to them. It will be their perspectives, their hopes and faith, that are tested. They can choose to ignore, which is fine; or, they can adapt. Again, I appreciated your response that was well thought out, well written, and very informative. ----------------------------------- Greetings Tim: You wrote: "I am definitely saddened by the route you are taking my friend. You have progressed from abritraily deciding how long 'soon' is to deciding that 'soon' now means 'never'! :-( " Well Tim, I am saddened that you are saddened. But any kind of revelation should be cause for rejoicing. Truth can set one free. Epiphancy can lighten the heart strings. As for my deciding "arbitrarily", nothing could be farther from the reality. I didn't have to decide. It's there, black and white, no wiggle room. Two plus two adds up to four. Nothing arbitrary about piecing together the supplied evidence. "Soon" meant "then", in the 1st Century. Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, Revelations declared the coming to be "right around the corner". You wrote: Scripture is very clear - Christ is coming again! In all of your listed verses, Tim, who is Jesus talking to? Can you make a definitive declaration that He means an indefinite future of genertions? Also--and this is the most important aspect of your assertion--you fail to list all the verses from all the participants that state that Jesus is expected in their lifetime. Why would you want to ignore them? I certainly won't list all those utterances, since I have already done so in other posts, but to ignore them is nothing short of escapism. Then, you do not address the OT prophecies. Do you suggest that the OT prophecied that the Messiah would come twice? Who would know better than anyone else what the promised Messiah was supposed to do, than the Jews? According to their prophecies, Jesus did not qualify, and certainly would not be returning. That must be dealt with; it is part of the equation. This issue is far too important, too critical, for "arbitrariness". Good thoughts....(I'll check back in a couple of weeks :) Treadway |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |