Results 101 - 120 of 567
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: disciplerami Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Disciperlami, Did Noah's 8 get wet? NO | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78389 | ||
You are right. I detect from your words that when you obey, you obey from faith. Without the works, faith would be dead. But your faith is made perfect/mature/complete by the obedience to God's commands. God bless, Disciplerami |
||||||
102 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78387 | ||
"Did Abraham's faith exist before he offered Isaac up?" Obviously it did, he left his homeland when God told him to. God commanded, Abraham obeyed, God credited his faith as righteousness. "Jesus, seeing their faith...take up your pallet and walk" Disciplerami |
||||||
103 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78386 | ||
I appreciate that you've weighed in on the subject and hopefully advanced the discussion. Good day to you, Disciplerami |
||||||
104 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78385 | ||
Greetings Colin, Mind if I comment briefly? The Bible gives a specific time when the sinner is transferred into the kingdom, just as their is a specific moment in time when you are married. You may, in your example, already be married in your mind, but you are not married to God until you follow the requirement of God (includes following the laws of the land). Likewise, you aren't born again and united with Christ until baptized. May God bless you, Disciplerami |
||||||
105 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78380 | ||
Dear Tim, Your example doesn't compare to Acts 2:38 The singular verb and the singular subject and the plural pronoun of "let be baptized individually each of YE" is set appositively next to a plural verb. The appositive phrases match, even though the verb and subject in the second is in the singular. Your example has a singular subject 'team'. Your example does not set HEKASTOS appositively with plural nouns, pronouns, or verbs. Yes, you are right in your example: any proceeding pronouns must be singular because they point back to a singular subject 'team'. However, your use of the HEKASTOS 'each of the many' doesn't fit here because Thayer says the rules has to do with appositive phrases, that it is used alongside plural nouns, pronouns, and verbs. Your appositive phrase about the "Colt's football team" is not plural. Because 'team' is singular, in your sample sentence, the pronouns that relate to it will have to be singular. Your example also doesn't fit because HEKASTOS, each of many FOOTBALL TEAMS [plural] doesn't refer back to the appositive 'Colt's football team.' In Acts 2:38, The first phrase begins with the plural verb "repent YE", and the appositive sentence speaks individually to each of YE--not another group as your example does. Tim: "The same thing is true in Acts 2:38." Nope, unlike your example of the subject being the singular 'team', our example in Acts 2:38 points back to the YE, that were commanded to repent and be baptized. In Acts 2:38, all of the proceeding pronouns must be plural because they point back to the plural, "Repent YE" and back to the appositive phrase "let be baptized each of YE (plural)." But because of the construction of your sample, the pronouns must be singular: apples to oranges :) I understand what you are saying, but you are not being consistent. Your sample sentence is not comparative to the Acts 2:38 passage. The rule that you state only applies to your example. Thanks, Disciplerami p.s. what are your thoughts on the discussion Searcher56 and I are having over the pronoun/water vs. ark debate in 1 Peter 3:20,21? Good day to you. |
||||||
106 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78377 | ||
Dear Searcher, I'm not going to spend my time chasing rabbits because you don't want to deal with 1 Peter 3:20,21. What kind of work did you do to find these verses? Because John 1:15 doesn't make your case at all. You offer two, but there are three pronouns in that verse which refer to Jesus. All 3 are Masculine Singular! As an aside, I'm a curious type and wonder about things like how people came to choose their forum name. Yours is an interesting one, is there any particular reason you chose it? I like it because it suggest you have an active desire to find the truth. Anyway, back to the issue at hand. __________________ You say: "John 1:15 John bore witness of Him, and cried out, saying, " This (hos) was He of whom I said, 'He who (hos) comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.'" Let's see what JOHN 1:15 has for us: "John bore witness of HIM" AUTOU, personal pronoun 'Him' is Masculine, Singular "THIS [man]" HOUTOS, demonstrative pronoun 'This' is Masculine, Singular "was he WHOM" HON, relative pronoun 'whom' is Masculine, Singular ________________ See Searcher, on this passage, you are wrong. On the others I can't say. As Gingrich and Danker says, the pronoun usually follows the gender and number of the antecedent. I'll let you do your own work on the others passages you cite. Back to 1 Peter 3:20,21. You have proven nothing. I've shown how the grammar directly connects 'baptism' that saves you with the 'water' 8 souls were brought safely through. You have NO proof, no evidence, no reason to deny this; it is only your theological bias which keeps you from accepting the clear evidence. Searcher, all you have to do is read the verse. You don't have to be a scholar to understand it. Baptism saves you...through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The salvation is not through works of merit, it is through faith in the grace of God. Wishing you well, Disciplerami |
||||||
107 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78350 | ||
Repost, What does a relative pronoun do? It links one clause or phrase to another (as in 1 Peter 3:21). Examples include: WHO, WHOM, THAT, WHICH, WHAT. My Gingrich and Danker says of HOS, the base of HO, "relative pron. who, which, what, that..." Interestingly, they also say, "as a general rule, the relative pron. agrees in gender and number with the noun or pron. to which it refers (its antecedent)." p.583 Following this general rule of relative pronouns, what do we find is the antecedent noun to which it refers? HO, 1PT3:21, 'which', singular neuter Does the antecedent, water, match in number and gender, as Arndt and Gringrich said? Yes! HUDATOS, water, 1Pt3:20 is singular neuter. THEY MATCH. Just in case you are right, let's see if 'ark' matches the relative pronoun in gender and number? KIBOTOU, ark, 1Pt3:20 is singular FEMININE! "Ark" doesn't match the relative pronoun 'which' and therefore isn't the noun to which Peter refers back to. The antecedent of the relative pronoun HOS--the first word in 1 Peter 3:21 Greek text--is WATER, which happens to the last word of 1 Peter 3:20 in the Greek text. The 'ark' is not what CORRESPONDS to Baptism of vs 3:21. The water is! That means that the water that flooded the earth was the TYPE and Baptism is the ANTITYPE (translated 'corresponding to' in NASB). Therefore baptism was foreshadowed in the waters that Noah was brought safely through. Isn't that a kick in the pants, especially for those who say they don't see water in this verse? I know that some people deny that the Baptism passages have anything to do with water, but this one definitely does. We shall keep searching! Good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
108 | How did baptism heal naaman of leprosy? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78349 | ||
Greetings, I think we probably have a lot in common, but I wonder if see any difference between a child being "baptized" and an adult being baptized? As I have tried to emphasize, baptism is effectual because God is pleased with the faith of the individual. What about infants? Is infant baptism effectual when the child has no faith? Disciplerami |
||||||
109 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78348 | ||
Dear SRP, 'Filth of the flesh' is contrasted 'a good conscience.' He is pointing out that a cleansed conscience comes from baptism does. Baptism saves because--when it is done right, in faith, Col 2:12--God cleanses the conscience through the death of Christ. 'Filth of the flesh' is simply pointing out that it's not for cleansing dirt and grime from the body. Baptism isn't the Savior, Jesus is :) But Peter says 'Baptism Saves You.' Disciplerami |
||||||
110 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78347 | ||
Greetings, Only one problem I see with your post. You insist that salvation came before the waters of baptism. However, there is a type/antitype statment being made here. Flood is the type/Baptism is the Antitype Noah saved through water/Baptism saves you Noah wasn't saved before he went through the water, he was brought safely through the water. AND CORRESPONDING TO THAT [AND THE ANTITYPE OF THAT WATER] IS BAPTISM WHICH NOW SAVES YOU...THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. We are not saved before baptism. We are saved by God's grace at baptism. Good day. |
||||||
111 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78346 | ||
Greetings, Thanks for responding. What does a relative pronoun do? It links one clause or phrase to another (as in 1 Peter 3:21). Examples include: WHO, WHOM, THAT, WHICH, WHAT. My Gingrich and Danker says of HOS, the base of HO, "relative pron. who, which, what, that..." Interestingly, they also say, "as a general rule, the relative pron. agrees in gender and number with the noun or pron. to which it refers (its antecedent)." p.583 Following this general rule of relative pronouns, what do we find is the antecedent noun to which it refers? HO, 1PT3:21, 'which', singular neuter Does the antecedent, water, match in number and gender, as Arndt and Gringrich said? Yes! HUDATOS, water, 1Pt3:20 is singular neuter. THEY MATCH. Just in case you are right, let's see if 'ark' matches the relative pronoun in gender and number? KIBOTOU, ark, 1Pt3:20 is singular FEMININE! "Ark" doesn't match the relative pronoun 'which' and therefore isn't the noun to which Peter refers back to. The antecedent of the relative pronoun HOS--the first word in 1 Peter 3:21 Greek text--is WATER, which happens to the last word of 1 Peter 3:20 in the Greek text. The 'ark' is not what CORRESPONDS to Baptism of vs 3:21. The water is! That means that the water that flooded the earth was the TYPE and Baptism is the ANTITYPE (translated 'corresponding to' in NASB). Therefore baptism was foreshadowed in the waters that Noah was brought safely through. Isn't that a kick in the pants, especially for those who say they don't see water in this verse? I know that some people deny that the Baptism passages have anything to do with water, but this one definitely does. We shall keep searching! Good day. Disciplerami |
||||||
112 | Matt 24 Is it all in the future? | Matt 24:1 | disciplerami | 78324 | ||
Searcher56, I'm not going to tell you that this isn't a difficult text, but the destruction of Jerusalem was cataclysmic to the Jewish world and it represented a visition of God in Judgment. These passages you refer to all correlate with Luke's statement in 22:1-33. Luke 22:20, "but when you see Jerusalem surround by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand." Don't get me wrong, there are other places in the Bible that speak of Jesus' coming and they obviously relate to his literal return. I believe that the second part of Matthew 24 is speaking of the second coming of Christ. Disciplerami Because I believe that the verses |
||||||
113 | How Does Baptism Save? | 1 Pet 3:21 | disciplerami | 78318 | ||
Dear Searcher56, You should do at least a little checking before you correct someone. The Lexicon says HO, base form HOS, is a relative pronoun, nominative, singular, neuter. And the antecedent of this relative pronoun is water. THEY WERE BROUGHT SAFELY THROUGH THE WATER. Water is the type of baptism, the ANTITYPE. I suggest you keep Searchering harder. Disciplerami |
||||||
114 | Paul is commanded to wash away sins? | Acts 22:16 | disciplerami | 78299 | ||
Searcher56, Again, you are wrong. The antecedent to pronoun "which/that" is the "water" Noah was brought safely through. Water may have been the destruction of the world, but Peter says 8 souls "were brought safely through the water" (3:20). Just ask Tim. He knows about the Greek. Today, those who have the faith of Noah, get baptized and are brought safely through the water into salvation. That's why Peter says, the antitype of the water in Noah's day is baptism,... Disciplerami |
||||||
115 | Matt 24 Is it all in the future? | Matt 24:1 | disciplerami | 78298 | ||
Greetings, I believe verse 34 shows that everything said up to that point would happen in the first century: "in their lifetime." Specifically, Jesus was talking about the destruction of Jerusalem. Verses 36ff refer to the 2nd coming. Disciplerami |
||||||
116 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78296 | ||
Repost, 2nd paragraph made no sense. Sorry. Tim, Let me try again.:) Let me see if I understand what you are saying, You write, "To grammatically match the subject (if indeed 'each' were the subject of this clause, which is what I have been denying) the pronoun 'of you' would have to be singular." If I understand your point, you are saying that the pronoun, humon, which follows hekastos, has to be singular if it is 'defining' the subject of the clause 'let EACH be baptized'? Is that what you are saying? If I understand your point, then you are wrong. Thayer says, and I quote him again, "when it[HEKASTOS] denotes, 'individually, every one of many,' is often added appositively to nouns and pronouns and verbs in the plural number,' Commenting on 1 Cor 16:2, you say, "Same thing again, 'each' is the subject and all of the pronouns which have 'each' as their antecedent are singular, not plural." Wrong, the very next word following 'each' is a plural pronoun: HUMON. I don't know what you might come back with now, but I know you can't say "each" is not the antecedent of pronoun directly following it. That's just not allowable. I know you aren't going to tell how the rules of grammar don't allow the singular subject and plural pronoun to be connected because they don't agree. You aren't going to say that, are you? You can't because Thayer says it is used appositively with PLURAL nouns, PRONOUNS and verbs. In the Acts 2:38, to follow what you've suggested here would be to splice and splinter that second clause so as to make it unreadable: "baptisthetw hekastos humon." How does anyone follow Greek grammar by saying that the subject 'each/hekastos' is not the antecedent of the plural pronoun 'of YE/humon'? But you say it can't be because it isn't singular. In Acts 2:38 and 1 Cor.16:2, you cannot disassociate that plural pronoun from the antecedent subject "each." It really does seem to me that your theology is guiding your grammar. I have every reason to believe that you are a honest man, but you simply aren't being consistent. You deny the rule that Thayer lays out: singular subject 'each' is used along side plural pronouns (of YE/humon). Saved by Grace, 100 percent Disciplerami p.s. Iron sharpens iron, I'm grateful we could talk. |
||||||
117 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78285 | ||
Very well said. Disciplerami | ||||||
118 | Those who call shall be saved | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78262 | ||
Greetings, 1Peter 3:21 tells us that baptism saves because through this act of faith we APPEAL TO GOD FOR A CLEAN CONSCIENCE. This is very similar to what Ananias said to Saul in Acts 22:16, "arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins, CALLING ON HIS NAME.' Romans 10:14 also cites the infamous Joel passage, "Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." As Sniper points out, Acts 2:37 says that the people were pierced to the heart and asked for a remedy. Peter didn't say, "I already answered you, weren't you hearing? Just 'call on the name of the Lord.'" No, instead, Peter replied to them, "Repent all of you, and let each and every one of you submit to an immersion in the name of Jesus Christ with a view to remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 2:38; 22;16; 1 Peter 3:21 all talk about Baptism, and they all tell us how to CALL on God for salvation. Good day to you, Disciplerami |
||||||
119 | Rejection of the work of God? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78261 | ||
Greetings, Yes, I would say that if someone doesn't 'accept' the work of God, that person is spiritually dead. No one is going to heaven accept through the righteousness of Christ, credited to him through faith. Faith that pleases God, does not merely hear, does not merely acknowledge, but it does the will of God. Because this DOING is by faith, not by merit, God credits it as righteousness. "But to the one who does not work [does not work to merit eternal life, ME], but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness." - Rom. 4:5 Without faith, works that would be pleasing to God, would be rubbish. Out of faith, I try to let my "light shine before men in such a way THAT THEY MAY SEE [MY] GOOD WORKS and glorify God who is in heaven." - Matthew 5 Thanks and nice communicating with you, Disciplerami |
||||||
120 | To be saved must we be baptised? | Acts 2:38 | disciplerami | 78260 | ||
Tim, Let me see if I understand what you are saying, You write, "To grammatically match the subject (if indeed 'each' were the subject of this clause, which is what I have been denying) the pronoun 'of you' would have to be singular." If I understand your point, you are denying is that the pronoun, humon, which follows the adjective, hekastos, has to be singular if it is the subject of the clause 'let each be baptized'? Is that what you are saying? If I understand your point, then you are wrong. Thayer says, and I quote him again, "when it[HEKASTOS] denotes, 'individually, every one of many,' is often added appositively to nouns and pronouns and verbs in the plural number,' Commenting on 1 Cor 16:2, you say, "Same thing again, 'each' is the subject and all of the pronouns which have 'each' as their antecedent are singular, not plural." Wrong, the very next word following 'each' is a plural pronoun: HUMON. I don't know what you might come back with now, but I know you can't say "each" is not the antecedent of pronoun directly following it. That's just not allowable. I know you aren't going to tell how the rules of grammar don't allow the singular subject and plural pronoun to be connected because they don't agree. You aren't going to say that, are you? You can't because Thayer says it is used appositively with PLURAL nouns, PRONOUNS and verbs. In the Acts 2:38, to follow what you've suggested here would be to splice and splinter that second clause so as to make it unreadable: "baptisthetw hekastos humon." How does anyone follow Greek grammar by saying that the subject 'each/hekastos' is not the antecedent of the plural pronoun 'of YE/humon'? But you say it can't be because it isn't singular. In Acts 2:38 and 1 Cor.16:2, you cannot disassociate that plural pronoun from the antecedent subject "each." It really does seem to me that your theology is guiding your grammar. I have every reason to believe that you are a honest man, but you simply aren't being consistent. You deny the rule that Thayer lays out: singular subject 'each' is used along side plural pronouns (of YE/humon). Saved by Grace, 100 percent Disciplerami p.s. Iron sharpens iron, I'm grateful we could talk. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [29] >> |