Results 101 - 120 of 174
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Son or son? Holy Spirit or holy spirit? | Gen 1:26 | Morant61 | 65389 | ||
Greetings Zerotheory! Did you intentially write 'son' and 'holy spirit'? Do you believe that Jesus is God? Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is God? Your answer to these questions would help us to understand where you are coming from with your questions. The fact that the other members of the Godhead have not yet been mentioned does not mean that they did not exist. Much of God's revelation to man is progressive in nature. For example, those in the Old Testament did not fully understand the sacrifical system. They did not know that ultimately, the 2nd Person of the Trinity would be the perfect sacrifice. God revealed this to mankind over thousands of years. In the same way, the nature of the Godhead has never been fully understood. God revealed Himself first as Father. Later, He reveals Himself in the 2nd Person as the Son. Finally, He reveals Himself in the 3rd Person as the indwelling Holy Spirit. We still don't fully understand, and probably never will :-), the nature of the Godhead. Yet, Moses, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit about events for which he was not present, uses a plural pronoun in reference to God. Is this a full revelation of the Trinity? Of course it is not, but it is a first hint. In combination with the rest of the teachings of Scripture, we discover that Jesus was also present at creation. In fact, John 1:3 and Col. 1:16, that Christ was the active agent in creation. So, if you can clarify your position and/or understanding, it would help us to understand how to answer your questions. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
102 | Short List of Dubious Theology? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 60070 | ||
Greetings John! I haven't been following this thread, so could you give me a concise list of the Theology in the Left Behind Series which is considered dubious? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
103 | Why Didn't Paul and Jesus Baptize? | 1 Cor 1:17 | Morant61 | 50405 | ||
Greetings Forum! I have noticed a proliferation of questions concerning baptismal regeneration lately. I have a question which no one from the baptismal regeneration camp has answered as of yet. Rather than posting my question to a particular person's post, I thought I would ask it as an open question so that anyone can reply. My question is simply this: If baptism is essential to salvation why: a) Did Paul say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." - 1 Cor. 1:17. And, b) Didn't Jesus baptize anyone - "although in fact it was not Jesus who baptized, but his disciples." - (Joh 4:2) It seems to me that if baptism were essential to one's salvation that Paul would not have been able to say that Christ did not send Him to baptize. Further, it does not seem likely that Jesus would never baptize if baptism were essential to salation. Just curious! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
104 | Aren't the elect commanded to repent? | Hebrews | Morant61 | 45030 | ||
Greetings John! Let me respond to your brain twister by twisting it back to you. If number 2 is correct, then why does the Bible command the elect to repent? Haven't their sins already been paid for? Or, why are we commanded in 1 John 1:9 to confess our sins? Aren't they already forgiven? My answer is simply this: 1 John 2:2! However, Scripture makes it clear that reception of this gift is conditioned upon faith and repentance. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
105 | Is the New Testamen a man made book? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 39839 | ||
Greetings Jmscott2! So, is the entire New Testament simply a man made book? The men who wrote the New Testament wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, as God moved them. If your concern was as important as you seem to think, God would have had them quote the OT passages by simply transliterating each occurance of YHWH. However, He didn't. He inspired them to translate the word YHWH as 'Kurios' or 'Lord'. So, it wasn't just men! It was God who did it! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
106 | Did God write the NT as well as the OT? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 39838 | ||
Greetings Jmscott2! In a later post, you said that you beleve that all Scripture is inspired by God. So, was God wrong when He translated YHWH as 'kurios' in the New Testament 50 times? For instance, in Luke 4:18-19, Christ Himself translates YHWH as 'kurios' or 'Lord'. Is Christ wrong? Is Christ hiding the Divine name? Is Christ part of some human attempt to mislead people? You can't have it both ways my friend. If all Scripture is inspired by God, then even those passages which translate YHWH as Lord are inspired as well. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
107 | Where is the phrase defined? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 38700 | ||
Greetings Love Fountain! You said: "The son of perdition means the son sentenced to perish eternally." Where exactly in the Bible does it say that this is what "son of perdition" means? The phrase is literally, "son of destruction". However, I don't recall any verse which specifies what this means! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
108 | Is there a command to use wine? | Matt 26:29 | Morant61 | 34805 | ||
Greetings Tim! I was thinking about this after we posted to one another the other day and I question came into my mind. Where does the Bible command anyone to use wine during the Lord's Supper? There are passages which talk about a cup, or the fruit of the vine, but there aren't any passage relating to the Lord's Supper which use any word for "wine". Further, even if we are to use it for the Lord's Supper, where is there a Scripture verse which either commands or allows us to use wine for other occasions - like at home? Just a thought! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
109 | How far would you go in a translation? | Gen 1:1 | Morant61 | 32782 | ||
Greetings Forum Friends! In light of the recent discussion about the new TNIV, I thought it would be interesting to get everyone's feedback on this question. Is it best to be woodenly literal when traslating or is it best to attempt to put the original language into it's English equivalent? There are many passage where even very literal translations will disagree, simply because the original language leaves out words, implies words, or uses constructions which are extremely difficult to understand. These are not the issue of my question. I am simply curious as to where we draw the line. For example: Example 1: Matt. 1:18 literally says of Mary, "...she was found in belly having of the Holy Spirit". Most translations say that "she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit". Would it be better or worse to simply say: "...It was discovered that she was pregnant." Example 2: John 6:47 literally says, "Amen Amen, I say to you, 'He who believes has life eternal'". The "he who" is the literal translation of the masculine pronoun associated with the participle "believing". Clearly this is a universal passage, which does not refer to only those of a masculine gender. So, would it be better to translate this passage as: "Everyone who believes" or "All who believe" rather than "He who"? My reason for questioning is simply to get your thoughts on how far we should go in our attempts to make a translation understandable. I am not defending or condemning the TNIV at this point, since I haven't read any of it yet - and may not! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
110 | How far would you go in a translation? | Matt 1:18 | Morant61 | 32784 | ||
Greetings Forum Friends! In light of the recent discussion about the new TNIV, I thought it would be interesting to get everyone's feedback on this question. Is it best to be woodenly literal when traslating or is it best to attempt to put the original language into it's English equivalent? There are many passage where even very literal translations will disagree, simply because the original language leaves out words, implies words, or uses constructions which are extremely difficult to understand. These are not the issue of my question. I am simply curious as to where we draw the line. For example: Example 1: Matt. 1:18 literally says of Mary, "...she was found in belly having of the Holy Spirit". Most translations say that "she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit". Would it be better or worse to simply say: "...It was discovered that she was pregnant." Example 2: John 6:47 literally says, "Amen Amen, I say to you, 'He who believes has life eternal'". The "he who" is the literal translation of the masculine pronoun associated with the participle "believing". Clearly this is a universal passage, which does not refer to only those of a masculine gender. So, would it be better to translate this passage as: "Everyone who believes" or "All who believe" rather than "He who"? My reason for questioning is simply to get your thoughts on how far we should go in our attempts to make a translation understandable. I am not defending or condemning the TNIV at this point, since I haven't read any of it yet - and may not! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
111 | Interesting Forum Feature! | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 24150 | ||
Greetings Forum Friends! I happened upon an interesting feature by accident! If you have a wheel mouse, press and hold the ctrl key and then move your mouse wheel up or down. Up will increase the size of the text on the forum, while down will decrease the size. I don't know if this works with all mice, but it does with my Logitech mouse. I posted this as a question so that everyone could see it. I will clear this question in a day or two, after everyone has had a chance to see this post. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
112 | Who is Jesus? | Matt 24:28 | Morant61 | 23652 | ||
Greetings Ross! The point I made was simply that the word "cult" depends upon your perspective. Here is the ultimate test of a cult: Who do you say Jesus is? Is He God? Is He eternal? Is He the only way to salvation? Is He just one among many prophets or imans? Your answer to these questions will make it perfectly clear if Baha'i is a cult or not! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
113 | Isn't Prophecy a Spiritual Gift? | Isaiah | Morant61 | 20742 | ||
Question....................................... Greetings Casiv! You said in your posts that there are no more prophets! How do you justify that statement in the light of 1 Cor. 14:1-6 (and other Scriptures)? 1 Cor. 14:1-6 says, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy. 2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit. 3 But everyone who prophesies speaks to men for their strengthening, encouragement and comfort. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. He who prophesies is greater than one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may be edified. 6 Now, brothers, if I come to you and speak in tongues, what good will I be to you, unless I bring you some revelation or knowledge or prophecy or word of instruction?" In this passage, Paul command that we eagerly desire the gift of prophecy, prophecy is listed as one of the spiritual gifts (in chap. 12), and Paul details how the gift of prophecy should be used within a church service. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
114 | How does this relate to the context? | John 4:16 | Morant61 | 20118 | ||
Counter View! Greetings Casiv! If Gal. 6:8 means this, then what does it have to do with the context? Where does the word 'understanding' come from since it is not found in Gal. 6:8? Further, what possible connection is there between John 4:18 and 1 Cor. 11:2? The word is 'husband'? If that is the case, then is every verse where the word 'husband' is used also connected to John 4:18? This is the problem with this kind of interpretational scheme! It ignores the context and creates fantasy connections that can mean whatever you want! In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
115 | Is there any practical difference? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 20104 | ||
Greetings Forum! Sir Pent raised an interesting question (and suggested a seperate thread for it): Are there any practical differences between Calvinism and Arminianism? By this question, I am not refering to the theological differences. Rather, I am refering to differences in life application. Does either view make any difference in the way we live our Christian lives? Please do not respond with theological arguments for or against. Please be polite and understanding. I realize that this type of thread has the possibilty of raising up a bunch of strawmen. With that said, have at it! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
116 | Col. 2:16 and Sabbath Keeping | Acts | Morant61 | 18876 | ||
Greetings Yoshua! You said in your post that there was no verse in the Bible that validates Sunday as the Day of the Lord, but there is a verse in the Bible that invalidates Sabbath keeping - Col. 2:16. Col. 2:13-17 says, "When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross. 16 Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. 17 These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ." The clear teaching of this passage is that the Law is fulfilled in Christ (Rom. 8:2) and no longer has authority over Christians (Gal. 3:25 and Heb. 7:12). As such, we can no longer be judged about Sabbath keeping. From past experience, I know that you will probably reply that the Sabbath in Col. 2:16 is plural and therefore does not apply to the weekly Sabbath. However, there are two reasons why this argument will not work: 1) The Greek word for Sabbath ('Sabbaton') is used interchangebly in both the singular and the plural. The word is used 68 times in the New Testament, and only once does it refer to more than one Sabbath (Acts 17:2). There we know it refers to more than one Sabbath because there is a numeral in the text telling us that it does. There are even several verses where the plural Sabbath is used with the singular day (Luke 4:16, Acts 13:14, and 16:13) This is conclusive proof that the Sabbath referred to in Col. 2:16 is the weekly Sabbath. 2) The second proof that the weekly Sabbath is referred to in Col. 2:16 is the fact that this list is taken from Num. 28 and 29. In these two chapters, we find the exact same issues dealt with as Paul deals with in Col. 2 - Yearly festivals, monthly feasts, and weekly Sabbaths. So, here we have one clear Bible passage that specifically says that we can no longer be judged based upon Sabbath keeping. It doesn't say that someone can't worship on the Sabbath if they choose to do so. It just says that no one can be judged for not doing it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
117 | Ez. 13:20 and the Rapture? | 1 Cor 15:51 | Morant61 | 18624 | ||
Greetings Casiv! May I ask what the prophecy against false prophets in Ez. 13:20 has to do with the doctrine of the rapture? Also, Margaret McDonald supposedly had a vision about the rapture, but the doctrine was around long before her vision. Check out this web site for more details: http://www.apostasynow.com/topics/trib/pretrib08.html This site, and others, demonstrate that belief in the rapture has been around much longer than 1830. The understanding of the timing has changed a lot over the years, but the doctrine itself has been around quite some time. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
118 | Question of Context? | 2 Chr 7:14 | Morant61 | 17527 | ||
Greetings John! I just came across your discussion with Steve a few minutes ago. May I interject at this point (funny question since I will already done so by the time you read this)? :-) I agree with you (see my response to Steve and Lionstrong higher up on this thread) that the Old Testament is inspired and relevant. However, I would question your second point in your post to Steve. You wrote: "Context is determinative of word meaning. But I submit that you do not use the "rules" of language in everyday conversation in the way you are trying to apply it to your Bible. For example, when you talk about "praying" you do not attempt to distinguish between its meaning today and prayer 3 millennia ago." Let me give you an example. Suppose I overheard you telling Steve that you would give him a million dollars! (By the way, if you have that kind of money, I could use some!) Would it be appropriate for me to believe that your statement also applied to me? As I pointed out to Steve and Lionstrong, I think they both have valid points which can be carried too far. Steve is correct that context is vital. This promise was addressed to Solomon about Israel in a specific time and circumstance. Thus, we cannot take it as a direct promise for anyone else under any circumstances. The danger though is to take this position to the extreme that the Old Testament means nothing to us today. However, I think you and Lionstrong are correct in that there is a principle here. Nations that seek God will be blessed. But, the danger here is that we take every promise in the Old Testament as being directly applicable to us today. There is a distinction between the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament points forward to the cross. The New Testament points back to the cross. The Law has been fulfilled and we are no longer bound by it. But, there is a host of witnesses in the Old Testament who have much to say to us. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
119 | The Restrainer - Revisited! | 2 Thess 2:7 | Morant61 | 17492 | ||
Greetings CDBJ! Here is my promised attempt to work through 2 Thess. 2:1-12. Context: The context of the passage is clear. Some had apparently heard from someone that the promised future events (the coming of Christ and our being gathered together with Him) had already occurred (2 Thess. 2:1-2). This church appears to have been undergoing intense persecution and the hope of the coming of the Lord was a precious and important promise to them (see 1 Thess. 4-5). However, Paul did not want them to be mentally or emotionally unstable because of a false prophecy, rumor, or even a false letter (2 Thess. 2:2). The fact was that these two events could not take place until two things had occurred: 1) The rebellion occurs, and 2) The man of lawlessness is revealed (2 Thess. 2:3). Unfortunately for us, Paul only alludes to some things which he had already shared with the Thessalonicans (2 Thess. 2:5). So, there will be questions about this text that we will never be able to answer. The Man of Lawlessness Much of this text describes this man of lawlessness who must be revealed before the coming of the Lord and the gathering of the Saints. It is said of him that: 1) He will be a man, but a man characterized as being lawless - v. 3. 2) He will be destined for destruction (cf. Rev. 17:8,11) - v. 3. 3) He will oppose God - v. 4. 4) He will exalt himself over God - v. 4. 5) He will even declare himself to be god in the temple - v. 4. 6) He will be revealed (passive, so someone else reveals or exposes him for who he is) - v. 8. 7) He will be overthrown and destroyed by Christ at His coming - v. 8. 8) His appearance will be with signs, wonders, and evil - vv. 9-10. 9) His appearance will be Satanic in nature - v. 9. The Restrainer All of this is pretty basic to the text. The real questions come when we turn our attention to the meaning of verses 6 and 7. It is clear that the Thessalonicans knew who or what was restraining the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2:6), but unfortunately for us, Paul never identifies the restrainer. What do we know for sure? 1) Paul and his audience both knew who or what the restrainer was - v. 6. 2) The purpose of the restraint was to prevent the man of lawlessness from being revealed at an improper time - v. 6. 3) The restraint is presently active - v. 7. 4) The restraint will be removed at some point in the future - v. 7. 5) At that point, the man of lawlessness will be revealed - v. 8. Conclusions The simple fact is that no one can state with any certainty the identity of the restrainer. Scripture is silent on this issue. Thus, any attempts on our part to name the restrainer can only be considered guesses. Here are several assumptions which I believe can be made about the restrainer. 1) The nature of the restraint must be supernatural. 2) The activity of the restrainer has last almost 2,000 years now. Both of these facts indicate that the restrainer could not be a human being. This leads us to the conclusions which some have advanced concerning the identity. a) The Roman Empire. b) Government in general. c) The Church. d) The Holy Spirit. e) And (new to me), Michael the Archangel. I think a) is an impossible position since the Roman empire no longer exists and therefore could not be currently restraining the man of lawlessness. I think b) is questionable. In what sense could a government restrain supernatural evil? I think c), d), and e) are all possible answers. The only problem I have with e) is that there is nothing else in Scripture that indicates this. Dan. 12:1 does not (in my opinion) support this view. Even if it did, Dan. 12:1 identifies Michael as the protector of Israel, not the world. In my view, either c) or d) would be the most likely answers. The Church could be seen as a restraining force until it’s removal from the scene. The Holy Spirit would definitely be able to restrain the man of lawlessness. Ultimately, the real importance of this passage is not in the identify of the restrainer, but in the fact that even the man of lawlessness is subject to God’s sovereign plan. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
120 | More on Mt. 6:14 -15? | Matt 6:14 | Morant61 | 16481 | ||
Greetings Bill! You said: "In conclusion, if you are a believer, your forgiveness of sins IS NOT based upon whether or not you have forgiven the terrorists. And the inverse is also true. If you are not a believer, forgiving the terrorist WILL NOT secure forgiveness of sins from God on your behalf. Christ alone has done this." I understand that you believe that there are some parts of the New Testament that no longer apply to us, but based on this quoted statement, Mt. 6:14-15 has no meaning whatsoever to anyone. I'm not totally sure how this verse should be applied, but it must mean something or Christ would not have said it. There seems to be two possible approaches. 1) We can take it as a command to all. 2) We can take it as a command to only those who lived before Christ. Neither view is without problems. You seem to take it to refer only those before the resurrection of Christ. If this is the case, does Mt. 6:14-15 mean that everyone who forgave others was forgiven by God? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |