Results 101 - 120 of 275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204582 | ||
Dear Searcher, The threads don't say anything about the theme or themes of Luke whatsoever. Did you check them out before writing me? Is this a well intentioned joke or something? Humor me, just try typing in luke in the search engine up there and you will find a ton of things with the word Luke in them, but none about the theme of Luke. Humor me some more, try typing in the theme of Luke you will find nothing there about the theme of Luke. I tried doing this before I posted my question. Thank you anyway God Bless hat lady |
||||||
102 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204594 | ||
I am laughing really really hard... How in the world can you find out the theme of Luke from typing in a verse when you have absolutely no idea which verse in Luke should be used as the basis for a theme of Luke? Help a gal out here... Maybe you know something about finding themes by throwing a printing press at a wall and somehow ending up with a verse telling you about the theme. I dunno but I highly doubt it.... hat lady, God Bless you John |
||||||
103 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204598 | ||
Yep a doodle my good friend, like yourself the other day, was just looking for someone who might know.... By the way I still intend to try to find an answer to your question about the word making one rejoice amongst all my other questions tonite at Bible study I forgot to ask him that one, darn... No need to be sorry dear heart, you can address things any way you chose...:) Yep, I was being a bit lazy though... I am gonna have to google every single darn question I asked on Tuesday morning and be a better workman II Timothy 2:15... my bad.... God bless hat lady |
||||||
104 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204600 | ||
Dear John, thanks for your persistence in the matter there are about four theories on this thing running around, that I have collected through the years, thanks for adding another one; 1)Jesus compassion to the outcast groups religious or otherwise, the role of the Holy Spirit, the reaction of people to Christ. 2)The complete story of Christ, the compasion of Christ, the joy of salvation. 3)Salvation in the Messiah, the compassion of Christ, the role of the Holy Spirit. 4)The history of salvation in the first century, Jesus as the Son of God, the history of the apocalyptic meeting the eschatology of the glory of Jesus as the ascended God Man. I like yours though... ties everything together in one neat package, thanks that is why I will keep on posting my questions, to get new prospectives on old things and new things (to me). God Bless hat lady |
||||||
105 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204602 | ||
Hey John it's ok about which book you meant I put two out there for good measure just to confuse you OK?:) Now I have an even better view than the last one you sent. You ain't always gotta have a scripture as long as you are answering about one thasssssss cool. And I used to go by the name Aurora because every body made that joke no problem about the joke though you mean it in good fun. My name is pronounced Ta ma ra with all short A's I am startin to like hat lady better and better every day John...:):):) Is there a way to change my handle John, I think I asked this one before somewhere in there. God bles Ta ma ra ha ha ha ha |
||||||
106 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204680 | ||
Dear Searcher, I really appreciate your diligence in trying to help me find a thread about this subject. Using your threads I found the Genre, the audience and some questions about Luke, but to no avail. I am talking about the over all subject or subjects Luke is discussing or presenting to his audience. I do believe John actually did answer the questionn though, but thanks again. God bless hat lady |
||||||
107 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205207 | ||
Dear Tim, I did not say contradictory, as in 'Not A', 'Not B', here is what I said in light of the fact that Mark and Luke differed as to whether the spices were prepared before the Sabbath day, or on the Sabbath, which was the original question, and which is not a contradiction, but is a discrepancy a true undenialable discrepancy that cannot as a detail about the act occuring on two different days be reconciled, but can in substance be reconciled; The accounts cannot be reconciled in their particulars but can in their substance and that is how you reconcile an account like this one. The Bible is indeed the innerrant word of God and contains some discrepancies at points, but not at any major points and not doctrinally ever. Quote; Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 252, par. 2 - AVOIDING TWO EXTREMES Two extremes are to be avoided when describing the Bible: Either denying of diminishing its devine characteristics while affirming its human traits, or else affirming its divine properties while denying or diminishiing its human elements. Most liberals do the former (see DeWof, CTLP, 58-66) and many fundamentalists fall into the latter (Rice, OGBBB, 265-285-87). These two errors are the bibliological equivalents of arianism and docetism, respectively (see F.L. Cross, ODCC, 87, 413). Quote Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 257, par. 3-5); THE BIBLE IS WITHOUT ERROR There is one human characteristic of the Bible does not have: errors. Although a more extended discussion of the innerrancy of the Bible is found later (see chapter 27), the basic outline of its errorlessness will be stated here. The Original Text Is Without Error The logic of inerrancy is straight forward: 1)God cannot err. 2)The Bible is God's Word. 3)Therefore, the Bible cannot err. Since Scriptures are breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16-170, and since God cannot breathe out falsehood, if follows that the Bible cannot contain any falsehood. The Copies Are Not Without Error Christians only claim that God breathed out everythign in the original text, not everything in the copies. Divine inspiration and innerrancy, therefore, applies to the original text, not to every detail of every copy. The copies are without error only insofar as they are copied correctly, and they were copied with great care and a very high degree of accruracy. Christians believe that God in His providence preserved the copies from all substatial error; in fact, the degree of accuracy is greater than that of Quote, Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 258, par. 3-4); any other book from the ancient world, exceeding 99 percent (see Geisler and Nix, GIB, chapter 22). The reasons for this amazing accuracy are: (1) we have many more manuscripts of the Bible than any other books form the ancient world, (2) the manuscripts date more closely to the originals, and (3) they were copied accurately. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
108 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205209 | ||
continuation, Tamara There are, however, some minor copyist errors in the biblical manuscripts - two examples will suffice: Second Chronicles 22:2 says Ahaziah was forty-two, yet 2 Kings asserts that Ahaziah was twenty-two. He could not have been forty-two (a copyist error), or he would have been older than his father (see NIV and NKJV). Also 2 Chronicles 9:25 affirms that Solomon had four thousand horse stalls, but 1 Kings 4:26 says there were forty thousand horse stalls, which would have been far more than needed for the twelve thousand horsemen he had (see NIV and NKJV). It is important to note of these copyist errors that: 1)No original manuscript has ever been found with an error in it. 2)Errors are relatively rare in their copies. 3)In most cases we know which wording is wrong from the context or parallel passages. 4)In no case does an error effect any doctrine of scipture. 5)Errors vouch for the accuracy of the copying process, since the scribes who copied them knew there were errors in the manuscripts were duty-bound to copy what the text before them said. 6)Errors don't effect the central message of the Bible. Quote, Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg. 494, par.2); SOME IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS The terms inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy are all related. Inspired means, "breathed out by God", "what comes from God Himself" (see 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Infallibility means, "what has divine authority", "what cannot be broken" (John 10:34-35). Inerrancy means, "what is without error," "wholly true". What is inspired is infallible, since inspired means to be breathed out by God, and what is God-breathed cannot be in error. Likewise, what is infallible, since it has divine authority, must also be inerrant - a divinely authoritative error is a condtradiction in terms. However, not everything inerrant is divinely authoritative. A phone book could be without error, but it would not thereby have divine authority. Hence,inerrancy is implied in a proper understanding of infallibility, but infallibility does not follow from inerrancy. Quote, Systematic Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg.507, par.3,4; THE OBJECTION THAT INERRANCY IS CONTRARY TO FACT Finally, some insist that the doctrine of inerrancy is contrary to fact - that there are demonstrable errors in the Bible. This view, however, makes errors of its own. The fact is that no one has ever demonstrated that there is an error in the original text of the Bible; rather, those who allge errors in the Bible have been found in error. Here is a list of the errors of those who claimn to find errors in the Bible (Geisler and HOwe, WCA, chapter 1). Quote, Systematice Theology, Norman D. Geisler, pg.511, par.1; Mistake 15: Forgetting That Only the Original Text, Not Every Copy of Scripture, Is Without Error When critics do come upon a genuined error in a biblical manuscript copy, they make another mistake - they assume it was in the original inspired text of Scripture. They forget that God uttered only the original text of Scripture, not the imperfect copies. Inspiration does not guarantee that every copy of the original is without error, and therefore, we are to expect minor errors will be found in manuscript copies. When we run into a so-called "error" in the Bible, we must assume one of two things: either the manuscript was not copied correctly, or we have not understood it rightly. What we may not assume is that God made an error in inspiring the original text. Several things should be observed about these copyist errors. First, they are errors in copies, not the originals. No one has ever found an oringal manuscript with an error in it. Second, they are minor errors (often in names or numbers) that do not affect the doctrine of the Christian faith. Third, these copyist errors are relatively few in number. Fourth, usually by the context, or by another Scripture, we know which one is in error. In conclusion I never purported that the text were in contradiction to one another, but that there was an apparent and obvious discrepancy as to a difinitve time frame of an event as being recorded differenty from one author to another, which it undeniably was, as being the same in substance while having a discrepancy in time frame. We see according to the quotes I included that it is quite possible for there to be real copyist errors while maintaining without a shadow of a doubt that the Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant word of God. By His Grace, Tamara |
||||||
109 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205210 | ||
Dear Val, Please see my answer to Pastor Moran. God Bless you, Tam |
||||||
110 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205212 | ||
Dear Jeff, Please see my reply to Pastor Moran. God Bless you, Tam |
||||||
111 | Spices and the Sabbath | Luke 1:2 | Tamara Brewington | 205213 | ||
Dear Jim, Please see my reply to Pastor Moran. God Bless you, Tam |
||||||
112 | What is the theme or themes of John? | John | Tamara Brewington | 204580 | ||
My Dear Searcher, Help me out here there is no thread below you and the ones above me don't say anything.:) Humor me a bit, try typing in the word John in the search engine here and see where it takes you. Humor me some more, try typing in the words theme of John and you will find one referrence to the theme of one passage in John. I posted the question because I can't find it in any of the threads, tell me what to type and I will be glad to try again. God Bless hat lady |
||||||
113 | What is the theme or themes of John? | John | Tamara Brewington | 204732 | ||
Dear Searcher, As usual looking through every thread there was did not yeild anything about the whole book of John and what the whole subject matter is about, which is what I mean by theme. Some of these threads only speak about the theme, or what the subject matter is all about, for a small portion of John. That is not what I am looking for. God bless your heart, but my dear you keep on choosing to answer myself and others with will meaning advice that does not yeild an answer to the question once all the threads you are talking about have been exhausted. You are assuming that whoever has posted a question you think must already have been answered has not gone throught the threads and search engines to find what they are looking for. You are preventing my questions and other people's questions from being truly answered by anyone because you have posted advice or asked people to refine how much of a passage they would like to know about when they have made it crystal clear they want to know about the whole thing and not a little part. I went back through several questions that you did not really answer by posting a not and gave folks a real answer to their question. Now I cannot get anyone to try and answer all the questions you choose to post a reply to because folks see that it was apparently answered sufficiently simply because it now appears in Primary (?). I can't tell you how much I appreciate your attempts at help, but I also can't tell you how frustrating it is not to have a chance to have my questions actually ansewered. Please consider whether or not you could search through the threads and search engines first your self before directing others to do so as a post. Please consider that people know that they are asking about whole passages and whole books when they post a question with only one verse, because we all know the one verse is required, but it may not cover the whole scope of a question posted. Happy 4th of July to you, God Bless Tamara |
||||||
114 | Wisdom as Evangelism? | John 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 203875 | ||
Thanks for another link, was that you Doc? You seem to be the only one answering yesterday, don't mind a bit... I will check this out and get back to you on this. Thanks Tam | ||||||
115 | Is Jesus the same God as God, or a God? | John 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205313 | ||
Dear Colt45, Something is missing here in your understanding of all of what the word Logos means... It does mean what you say, but it also means something more important from the Strong's concordance; it means the Divine Expression, that is the Divine Expression of God Himself. This is why the other posts which were given to you from Colossians is important... You said in your second post; God, however you want to define him was born as a human being Jesus the Christ. The Creator/God the Father/YHWH put his mind his thoughts into a human being. This is the objection to your point up there; God did not put His mind His thoughts into Jesus Christ the human. Christ who is also fully God along with the Father, and who according to John 1:1,2 was there in the beginning with God and was also God, put His own God nature, Jesus put His own thoughts and mind into the body of a human by His own free choice as part of the Father's plan. Where it says in Colossians 1:16 that Jesus created all things, the universe, the authorities in heaven, and all things have been created by Him and for Him and through Him, that means He is equal with God the Father, they share the same powers the same abilities. But important to remember is that Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit are three distinct separate persons who each have their own thoughts, or mind, as in the Holy Spirit searches the mind of God to know what the will of God is, but all of them together are one being. Therefore it is not possible that God gave Jesus Christ the human God's thoughts, whether you are saying God the Father or Jesus the God, as God giving Jesus Christ the human His thoughts the concept is incorrect. God did not infuse a human with His thoughts, God incarnated Himself, put flesh on God as a covering. Hear this saying and understand; God put on humanity and humanity put on the divine. God did not infuse humanity with His thoughts, He put on human flesh on top of being God, that is why the Bible says that Jesus is God in the flesh among men. Jesus as God never stepped down from being God for even one moment of time, He never diminished His powers as God, He chose not to operate His powers fully as God in the flesh. This is called the Doctrine of the Impeccability of Christ. You may have meant something a little different from what you wrote when you said that the creator became a human being etc, and that His mind His thoughts became Christ. Christ means Messiah and Jesus as a member of the sovereign God head, the trinity, who has always existed from eternity past into eternity future was always going to become the Christ on earth. The Messiah was always going to be Jesus from eternity past to eternity future, there is no point in time, in eternity at which Jesus became the Christ, He has always been the Christ. Do you see now how Jesus who is the Logos, which also by the way meant to the Greeks all knowledge in the whole universe, and also which also means the cause, is the Divine Expression of God in the flesh? This is why John says in John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. This is what is meant by the Divine Expression, which is actually the first meaning given in the Strong's for the word Logos. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
116 | Normalization in theology? | John 1:5 | Tamara Brewington | 204344 | ||
Dear Searcher, Had to think about what you said for a while... What do you think about normalization being the reconciliation of parties, like God and man, the darkness of the world to the light of God? Or what do you think about normalization being hte reconciliation of concepts like the scriputres for salvation by water baptism with the scriptures for spirit baptism? God Bless, the hat lady |
||||||
117 | Jesus Powers Diminished As A Human? | John 1:14 | Tamara Brewington | 205335 | ||
Thanks Doc, I had got an answer that dove tails with this one today in school from my pastor... I wanted a second opinion from in here, glad you caught this one and gave me excellent posts, now I know what that faulty theory is called. Another very nice professor was teaching about the hyostatic nature of Christ and was saying that Jesus diminished His powers of being God to take on humanity and took on the Holy Spirit to do the works of God as the Christ. My pastor taught me today before class about the Doctrine of the Impecability of Christ and said that what I had been taught was incorrect because it is in direct contradiciton to this very important doctrine which would disallow for the posibility that Jesus as fully human could ever have the ability to choose to sin, while choosing not to, but indeed had the inability to sin, even though tempted to sin, and having the inability to sin, did not sin. The ability to choose to sin implies that there is a possibility that Jesus as fully God and fully human could have stopped being God, or could have diminished characteristicis of being God, and been able to actually sin as a choice. But Jesus as God was always incapable of sinning as He is God, even though he put on the flesh. Jesus may choose not to use His powers in full capacity, but He may never have the possbility of committing sin, or He is not God. This is what I was looking for Doc, the content of all three posts, fits the context of my questions on this subject. Thank you very much, good to hear from you after so long, Much Christian love to you my brother in Christ, Tam Tam |
||||||
118 | water to wine? | John 2:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205511 | ||
Dear Flinkywood, Quote; MacArthur Study Commentary, John MacArthur, pg.1353, par.3; 2:4 Woman. The term is not necessarily impolite, but it does have the effect of distancing Jesus from His mother and her request. Perhaps it was the equivalent of "ma'am" what does your conern have to do with Me? The expression, common in Semitic idiom (Jud.11:12. 2 Sam. 16:10), always distances the two parties, the speaker's tone conveying some degree of reproachapter Jesus tome was not rude, but abrupt. The phrase asks what is shared in common between parities. The thrust of Jesus' comment was that He had entered into a purpose for His mission onearth, so that He subordinated all activities to fulfillment of that mission. Mary had to recognize Him not so much as a son that she raised, but as the promised Messiah and Son of God. Hope this makes sense, God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
119 | water to wine? | John 2:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205518 | ||
Dear Val, I like your thinking there Val! You got me to thinking about what you are saying and asking here a bit. Jesus was fully God and fully man. Maybe every supernatural act He did from knowing what people thought to making wine was a miracle He was doing as fully God, while remaining fully human? Hope you don't mind I answered your note to John, it was just so profound what you said! God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
120 | water to wine? | John 2:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205526 | ||
Dear John, First of dear heart my brain is on bonk because I thought sure as sure I was repplying to Val!? oops my bad...:))))) Yup you are absolutely right about that John absolutely! Sometimes the simplest things become profound to those of us how divide a scripture until the whole thing is laying on the floor in pieces John! Oh I am laughing at myself again, I never take myself very seriously lest I actually think I have gotten somewheres..... Jesus whole existence is full of beginnings, isn't it? Genesis, pre Genesis, John 1, 2, 20, Acts 1, a whole lot more of em too I guess... Yeah I got to scratchin my head over MacArthur's use of a modern word and concept to describe a first century setting, kinda strange of him don't you think? I think you are dead on about that point there. Okay John so we won't call you profound, we will reserve that title for wonderful Val, okay? We will go back to calling you loquasious and eloquent in speech, how's that? By His Infinite Grace, Tamara |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [14] >> |