Results 101 - 120 of 553
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205889 | ||
Thanks hopalong | ||||||
102 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205896 | ||
Dear BradK, Thank you Thank you Thank you! Yes! I want to learn more! I am thirsty! Thankyou This is what I needed to know about creeds and where it all fits in. Thanks for being patient... God bless, Tamara |
||||||
103 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205906 | ||
Dear BradK, Thanks again! God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
104 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205907 | ||
Dear BraK, Thanks yes it does... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
105 | Creeds and Confessions Needful? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205908 | ||
Dear quvmoh, Yes I have always agreed with this and still do... I was taught Sola Scriptura in church without ever knowing or hearing the term! I do believe that inconsistent theologies come about because the exegesis was never done properly - 1)the intent of the author to his audience and what he wrote as it had to have been understood has been tossed aside in favor or how modern society functions in order to make it "relevant to today". 2)the structure of the grammar and the meaning of the words and phrases are restricted to their English transliterations and the true thrust of all these is missed because the Greek and Hebrew were not looked at. 3)the type of Biblical literature being looked at is not read with for what it is; prose, narrative, history, epistle, etc., and then it has not been studied in light of what kind of features and literary devices that those types of literarture contains. 4)problem areas in the Bible which happen when what was being practiced as normal and known as common in the first century have no comparable equivalent in the twenty-first century because the things described in the Bible no longer occur and which appear to have no practical application for today (II Timothy 3:16 - all scripture is profitable) have not been examined properly to determine what the essence of the teaching is that should be applied today (made relevant to today) without changing, destroying, transforming or otherwise distorting the original intent and meaning of the text. 5)a pre-existent theology from today or through out the ages has been imprinted on one's understanding of the meaning of the Bible's theology from the first century changing how the author intended the text to be understood and used. I agree whole heartedly of Sola Scriptura, which is the literal intrepretation of the Bible, however, there is no such thing as just leaving the interpretation standing there - it has to be applied in order to be effective now, and in every time, and the application has to be from the literal interpretation of the Bible and be able to address what life is like today because the Bible is always relevant. What I have been saying all day long is that there has to be an effort made to take first century applications that could only have applied to first century settings and make them be applicable to today by taking their essence without losing the original intent and "making it relevant to today". But I am not talking about liberation theology or the Jesus movement as I despise these two things; the one is theolgoy from the bottem up - taking the problems of society and making a stunted theology out of finding a solution to today's problems by looking at and twisting only parts of the Bible, and the other is to distort the person of Christ and to "remake the Bible and make it relevant to today" by giving it an iterpretation the author never intended. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
106 | Confirmation of Humbledygraces Warning | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205957 | ||
Heads up you guys, Glen La Bella tagged me with a new twist; he asked if I was open minded... When I repplied that I was now identifying him as a well known JW and would he like to study with me, he sent me another email begging off dealing with my offer to study his Bible with him in the spirit of exegesis to see exactly what the Greek and Hebrew are saying about his texts, saying that he read my posts and notes and begged off that venture all of a sudden. Everyone keep giving a reason for the hope that is in you. Sola Scriptura... God's Day, Tamara |
||||||
107 | Confirmation of Humbledygraces Warning | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205958 | ||
... | ||||||
108 | This is a prophecy right?? | OT general | Tamara Brewington | 204896 | ||
Dear LightVskira, You are welcome to particiapte here as long as you follow the guidelines of this site, I say this in love with respect. One of the guidelines of this site is that you will adhere to Sola Scriptura. This means that you will stick to a literal intrepretation of the Bible and not symbolize things and intrepret things in the Bible as symbols of things they are not. Your verse Jeremiah 3:8,9 is talking about the Servant the Branch, which was a term used in the Old Testament to refer to the Messiah by the Jews. Then you have the stone, which the Lord said He would engrave an incription on it, which the Bible never tells us what that was and we do not know what it is from studying the Bible to this day. In your original question you state that you have a box with precious 7 stones in it that have eyes of light. I am going to ask you point blank; what is the significance of these precious stones to you? Are you speculating and drawing a parellel between these 7 precious stones with eyes of light to the 1 stone in Jeremiah with seven eyes on it? This is not in keeping with the agreement you signed in particapting here. The Bible does not teach that people are to have a box of 7 stones with eyes of light as a kind of precious reminder or as a relic or an icon because Jeremiah had 1 stone with 7 eyes of some kind that we are unable to discern what kind of eyes those were that God was going to inscribe something we don't know about on it. Which box where you referring to that has water to heal people? Which book, which verse? You believe you are from the tribe of Judah. No one today has proof which tribe of the Jews he is from if he claims to be a true Jew. The records of who was a true Jew and what tribe a true Jew was from perished in the fire that destroyed the temple at Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and there is no longer any record other than the Bible of who was a Jew and what tribe they were from. The last record in the Bible that we have of who belonged to what tribe is that of Paul who was of the tribe of Benjamin. That is the last record that exists to this day. No one can truthfully make the claim that they actually belong to the real tribe of Judah anymore. Why have you made this claim? Those who believe in Jesus who is of the tribe of Judah cannot now claim that they belong to the tribe of Judah, or what some like to say is the Lost Tribe of Judah. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
109 | This is a prophecy right?? | OT general | Tamara Brewington | 204897 | ||
continuation We here at the forum are very familiar with those who call themselves Black Hebrews and make claims not supported by the Bible that they are from the tribe of Judah. I am not saying this is who and what you are, I am not pointing a finger at you and saying this is why you make the claim that you do. I am new here, there are others here who have been here for a long time and they are watching and reading everything that comes through this forum and are very carefull about not tolerating any breaking of the guidelines for good reason. You have made a claim that is pure speculation on your part that is not in keeping with Sola Scriptura, the literal interpretation of the Bible. And you have talked about a practice of having a box with precious stones with eyes in them as if perhaps this somehow relates to Jeremiah 3:8,9.] You also made a comment about not wanting to associated with those who have lived sheltered lives. There is not such thing as anyone on earth who has not sinned, been harmed by sin, suffered pain and loss and death, no one is untouched no matter if they were in the Bible their whole lives, they are not sheltered from life. I myself am a poor uneducated woman who has suffered for various reason for 39 years. That is not a badge you wear because you are unsheltered, no one is sheltered. You talk about not wanting to talk to Bible thumpers. Anyone who believes that the Bible is without errors, see II Peter 1:19-21, belives that everything it says is true. Here is something for you; Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who probably had an olive complexion and he was from the tribe of Judah by genetics, not beliefs. He was crucified by Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin and the mob of Jews from various tribes and died and rose from the dead on the third day. He died for all men, He said to and Paul said so; John 12:32 And I, if I am lifted up will draw all men to Myself. Romans 5:18 So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. Jesus died for all men, not just the tribe of Judah, he told Paul to go preach to the Gentiles and offer them salvation. The Gentiles were not Jews of any tribe and Jesus said He was dying for them as well as for the Jews. I would suggest that you study the Bible closely to see what it says and attempt no to interpret it as symbols and instructions to live according to symbols and tribes and stones with eyes. Doing those things is treading into pagan idol worship. I have given you the gospel here, I think you should think about whether or not you have accepted the gospel that Jesus really preahced and taught and that the apostles really preached and taught. God's day to you, Tamara |
||||||
110 | kiv Grt Commission of JC, how we see it | OT general | Tamara Brewington | 205180 | ||
Dear chessshores, Your question was; q: can we assume from this passage that the "spirit/essence of Prophecy, the Testimony of Jesus" (New Testament)is poured out by our Active Living Jehovah since the invisible things are clearly discerned (apostolic epistle) to every unbeliever through the glory of creation, the tell-it-all? The passage you cited from Proverbs has nothing what so ever to do with the spirit and essence of prophecy, the testimony of Jesus Christ. Proverbs were words of wisdom written by Solomon to guide the wise mand and to rebuke the foolish. Proverbs is prose language, not prophcy of any kind about any one. The gospels descrbing the spirit essence of prophecy, the testimony of Jesus as you like to call it, what ever that means to you, I am not sure, are full of 350 fulfilled prophecy, but this is not one of them. I am looking closely at your passage and do not find the words, the invisible things are clearly discerned, any where in the two passages you cite. Do you have another passage in Proverbs in mind here? You have included here an allussion to invisible things being cleary discerned to every unbeliever through the glory of creation, the tell it all, this was a revelation of God given to men which they rejected, but you are linking it to another type of revelation, Jesus Christ... Do you mean that the revelation of Jesus Christ was poured out by God after every unbeliever rejected the revelation of the creation by God, and that this is a result of a prophecy from Proverbs coming true? The first part of that is true, but that it was a prophecy from Proverbs is not. Take your time, craft your questions in parts if need be, you can have one scripture and several questions at once, it is all right to do. Where you go to write a question it will be suggeted to you to pick a verse first. Up top there are two boxes and you type in there your verse or book in question. The page will flip to a new page where you will then write your question. God's day to you, Tamara |
||||||
111 | kiv Grt Commission of JC, how we see it | OT general | Tamara Brewington | 205196 | ||
Dear chessshores, Please note that the last question of yours that I sent you a note on has been removed from the forum for reasons unknown to me. You need to be aware that the forum will quickly shut you down if you belong to a cult, or if you do not adhere to a literal intreptretation of scriptures. You wrote; Eugene Peterson, a Presbyterian scholar-Pastor who wrote a paraphrase of the Bible coined the Message and the Message Remix (as a second revised edition) seems to agree with charismatic Benny Hinn in application of this passage that even kings and rulers can become prophets. Yes King David was a king a ruler and a prophet, what has that got to do with false prophet Benny Hinn? That Bible you are referring to, the remix Bible is a paraphrase, and just like the Amplified Bible is not a literal intrepretation of the Bible and adds words to the Greek and Hebrew fundamentally changing the meanings of the texts. Though EugeneP may not be Charismatic, his writing interests Charismatics who quote him to the masses. eg Planetshakers n Hillsong Church. That the masses like him is absolutely no indication of him being accurate in his translation of the Bible, only popular to those who are seeking added meanins to the what the Bible is saying because they feel they are having trouble understanding and applying the Bible as it was intended to be understood, literally. Are you going to keep on propping up Benny Hinn the false prophet? Planetshakers n Hillsong Church is not known to be an expository Bible believing and teaching church. What point are you actually trying to make with repeated posts about Benny Hinn the false prophets and the world wide Charismatic movement? Make your intentions more clear please... God's day to you, Tamara |
||||||
112 | you didnt see the harmony of the Whole | OT general | Tamara Brewington | 205197 | ||
Dear chessshores, Because not until now did you explain the harmony of the whole as you were seeing it, thank you for clarigying what you were seeing. After looking at what you had to say, I see what you were getting at in the first place and happend to agree with you. Try this, when replying to someone, chose note instead of question, then the person you are replying to will receive the email, I found your reply by looking in unaswered quesitons. Tamara |
||||||
113 | miracle in all 4 Gospels | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 203725 | ||
The feeding of the five thousand. | ||||||
114 | "living water"... | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 203726 | ||
The woman of Samaria at the well in John 4. | ||||||
115 | "Inner circle" - 3 disciples? | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 203727 | ||
Peter James and John, He took them to heal the daughter of Jairus and up the mountain for the transfiguration. | ||||||
116 | hai friends...... | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 203773 | ||
The act of confession to Priests in the Catholic Church stems from the doctrine of the Catholic church that the power to remit sins comes from Peter and the Apostles. The scripute they base this on is John 20:22,23 where Jesus has risen from the dead and breathed the Holy Spirit on the apostles and told them to go out and that if they forgave the sins of people they would be forgiven and that if the retained the sins of any they would not be forgiven. NO ONE ELSE in scripture was given permission to do this only the apostles. But the Catholic churh has decided based on that the aposltes layed hands on people in order to anoint them for offices in the church in all of Acts that the actual power Peter had as an apostle is being transferred down from hand to hand since the first century to forgive or retain sins, although God never said anyone else had, or would have the permission and power to do this. This is a Catholic doctrine based purely on churh beliefs and tradition and became a doctrine because it was practiced and not because the scriptures say to do it. James 5:16 says for believers to confess their sins to one another in order to be healed of afflictions, it does not say to confess to the apostles per say, but is referring to the elders who come to pray over the sick. But the Catholic church sees this verse as talking about priests anointing the sick instead of elders and therefore say it means that you should confess your sins to the priest. The first century church which should be our model had no priests but elders and deacons, pastor/ teachers and so on, but priests were an invention of the Catholic church traditions and do not come from scripture. There is only one high priest in the Bible and everyone who also believes is a priest according to the Bible. Here, look and see; I Peter 2:5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. So you see we are all priests offering spiritual sacrifices to God through Jesus Christ. See here in, I John 2:1 where it says that if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. We don't have to go to anyone else to be forgiven, just to Jesus. There is only one high priest in heaven and on earth; see Hebrews 3:1 where it says that Jesus is the Apostle and high priest of our confession. So there is one high priest and the rest of the saved are all priests to God through Jesus Christ. The problem becomes are you going to believe the Catholic church doctrines for salvation above the word and blood of Jesus? The Catholic church teaches that if you don't believe in the authority of the pope and the Catholic church and their traditions you won't be saved. The Bible teaches that all you need to do to be saved is to Believe in Jesus; Acts 13:31 Believe in the Lord Jesus and be saved... Romans 10:9,10 where it says to confess that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that he died and was raised on the third day and you will be saved. The Catholic church has added tradition and said you can only get saved through Jesus plus... The work of the apostles and the type of power they had is confined to the first century and was not transferred hand to hand, you don't see any priest performing miracles or introducing whole groups types of converts like Jews, Gentiles, Samaritans, those who only had the repentance of John, or founding new churches to entire communities who never heard of Jesus do you? Think long and hard about another thing that is not in the Bible; Jesus said not to perform repetitious prayers(like the rosary) because they will not be heard, God said do not make an image of anyting in heaven or on the earth and worship it (like the statues and icons), Jesus said the only way to the Father is through Him and the apostles said Jesus is the only advocate (not Mary), the original language of the Greek in which the Bible was written said that Mary after she gave birth to Jesus had children by Joseph, it says Jesus had brothers and sisters by Mary, the Bible does not teach that Mary ascened into heaven, that is not in there; these are things that the Catholic church teaches that are not in anyone's Bible no matter what version you use you won't be finding them, it is the tradition of men who believe things that aren't true based off their traditions... | ||||||
117 | When we see God will talking change us? | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 204007 | ||
Ok I got a lot of questions because of the kooky professor... He says when we see God we will become like him because we understand Him. I thought when we see God we will become like Him because His glory will transform us, but He said no, we are gonna have a little talk and get changed... Laughing again? I tried not to, this was in class... Opinions and scriptures please. God Bless, Tamara | ||||||
118 | When we see God will talking change us? | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 204022 | ||
Ok Steve I hear you, but you got me wondering from looking at your texts there about this part; but we know that when He appears we shall be like Him because we shall see Him a He is... And what does it mean to see Him as He is? Notice it does not say we will understand Him and be changed, it says we shall be like Him becaue we shall see Him as He is... What will we see then, is the question? Will we see Him in all His glory? Will that change us? This goes to another question I had about Moses seeing the glory of God and it changing him or was it a little talk(now I ask you, didn't Moses have a myriad other talks face to face with God without getting changed, what was the real difference between talking one time or another other than seeing the backside of God in all His glory?). The relationship with Jesus is already happening and we are already being changed from glory to glory, one day we will reach a final state of glory at the rapture. Yes we are going to put off the imperishable and put on immortality, but so will unbelievers get an immortal body capable of withstanding the awfull throes of eternal damnation instead of enjoying the eternal presence of God. We already understand Jesus to the extent that we are saved, as walk with Him we get closer and closer, but we won't actually finally be changed until we see Him with our eyes as He is. Maybe I got it wrong... God bless, Tamara | ||||||
119 | When we see God will talking change us? | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 204056 | ||
Thanks Steve! tam | ||||||
120 | Order of books into the canon and when? | NT general | Tamara Brewington | 204190 | ||
What was the order of the books of the NT as they got accepted into the canon and when did they get accepted, anybody know? This is a repost by way of rephrasing the question looking for more of an answer. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [28] >> |