Results 101 - 120 of 567
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: disciplerami Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | EIS_ retrospective or prospective? | Matt 12:41 | disciplerami | 78485 | ||
Greetings, Concerning the Matthew 12:41 statement that the people of Nineveh "repented at the preaching of Jonah." The proper understanding is that the people heard the message from Jonah and repented toward the direction of the message: hence, they repented at/unto the preaching of Jonah. This verse is often used to show that EIS in Acts 2:38 can be translated 'because'. They want to move forgiveness of sins ahead of baptism. But the preposition EIS does not permit it. EIS - is a preposition of the accusative case and points toward the direct object which receives the action of the nearest verb. True to form in both Matthew 12:41 and Acts 2:38 'EIS the preaching', accusative, direct object. 'EIS the forgiveness', accusative, direct object. The expected result of repentence was alignment with, or into, the message of Jonah. In Acts 2:38, the expected result of repentance and water baptism was forgiveness of sins. Disciplerami |
||||||
102 | EIS_ retrospective or prospective? | Matt 12:41 | disciplerami | 78544 | ||
Dear Search, I'm against camping. Your comments on this thread have been very good and much appreciated. But I would like to see others weigh in. Do you have anything else to add to this thread? If you've not read the original post, the preposition EIS is used in the accusative case, and 'the preaching' of Jonah is accusative singular. What is the significance of that? The accusative/direct object [i.e. THE PREACHING OF JONAH] receives the action of the nearest verb, which is 'REPENTED' (verb, 3rd plural, aorist, indicative, active). Therefore, the Ninevites repented INTO the preaching of Jonah. This is similar language Galatians 3:27, "into Christ are YE baptized." Your thoughts please. Mt.12:41 deserves a fair treatment, don't you? Mt.12:41 is bantered about as evidence against EIS being prospective in Acts 2:38 and I want to see that it is treated fairly. Again I invite you or others to add to the discussion here. I would appreciate it. Be not afraid. Disciplerami |
||||||
103 | EIS_ retrospective or prospective? | Matt 12:41 | disciplerami | 78545 | ||
Greetings, Just saw your post. I didn't want to see it pass without a fair hearing. :) Is there a problem with my jumpstarting the discussion? Disciplerami |
||||||
104 | EIS_ retrospective or prospective? | Matt 12:41 | disciplerami | 78743 | ||
Dear Sniper, This is my fault. I had a bad day and hit the 'send' button before softening the tone of me message. I think CDBJ is fair and really does want to know the truth. We'll keep plugging away. God bless you, Disciplerami |
||||||
105 | EIS_ retrospective or prospective? | Matt 12:41 | disciplerami | 78757 | ||
Good News, EIS is prospective, not retrospective! The following is a clip and paste. All sources are referenced. Enjoy. ___________________ "In 1996, Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, an associate professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, published his new book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). It is a scholarly volume of more than 800 pages. In his discussion of eis, Wallace lists five uses of the preposition, and among them “causal” is conspicuously missing! Prof. Wallace explains the absence. He says that an “interesting discussion over the force of eis took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38.” He references the position of J.R. Mantey, that ”eis could be used causally” in this passage. Wallace mentions that Mantey was taken to task by another scholar, Ralph Marcus (Marcus, Journal of Biblical Literature, 70 [1952] 129-30; 71 [1953] 44). These two men engaged in what Dr. Wallace called a “blow-by-blow” encounter. When the smoke had cleared, the Dallas professor concedes, “Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eis fell short of proof” (370)." ____________________ Wallace did not come to believe that baptism is essential for salvation, but he shows that EIS is clearly, always prospective. Disciplerami See: http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/surrenderingEis.htm |
||||||
106 | could Christians have been tares | Matt 13:25 | disciplerami | 79067 | ||
CDBJ How is a "true biblical born again Christian" different from a "Christian"? If I'm a "born again Christian", is that the same as being a "true biblical born again Christian." And what about that "so-called Christian"? I read of a "so-called brother" in 1 Corinthians 5. But he really was a brother, but one who was in danger of falling away. 2 Corinthians 2 indicates that he repented after being disciplined. You use "so-called Christian" as if it is a complete fraud, stealthily operating with sinister motives. Is that correct? If the so-called brother was the tare, then why would Paul 'deliver him over to Satan.' He didn't seem concerned with uprooting the wheat? No, I don't think the parable of the tares has to do with prodigal sons, but it does have to do with false religion: Satan's best effort to confuse those searching for the true church. Consider the merits of these points. Disciplerami |
||||||
107 | "Hand this man over to Satan" | Matt 18:17 | disciplerami | 73008 | ||
Greetings, The Apostle Paul is speaking of church discipline. He goes on to them to have nothing to do with this man or any 'so-called brother.' The second epistle to the Corinthians indicates that the church did disfellowsip the man [who had his father's wife] which caused the man to repent. "Sufficient for such a one is this punishment which was inflicted by the majority" (2 Cor. 2:6). Other passages that speak of the same thing: Matthew 18:15-18; 1 Timothy 1:19,20. My Bible's footnote says on this verse: "Paul had excluded these two men from the church, which was considered a sanctuary from Satan's power. Out in the world, away from the fellowship and care of the church, they would be 'taught' [the word means basically 'to discipline'] not to blaspheme." Titus says, "reject a factious man after a first and second warning, knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned" (3:10,11) Peter said to Simon who had just become a Christian, "you have no part or portion in this matter, for your heart is not right before God. Therefore repent of this wickedness of yours, and pray the Lord that, if possible, the intention of your heart may be forgiven you" (Acts 8:21,22). Good day. |
||||||
108 | church discipline | Matt 18:17 | disciplerami | 73010 | ||
Jesus says, 'tell it to the church.' There isn't much wiggle room there. Do you tell the church that the man/woman is in a sin [which shall go unnamed] and will not repent of it, or do you tell the church the exact sin being committed? The latter sounds extreme, but the exact sin may already be known. The sin will have to be told to someone, the 'two or three witnesses?' How else will the sinning brother 'listen to the church' that doesn't know about his sin? If the church doesn't know the man's sin, how would the church know if or when the sinning brother had repented? Maybe a few people know about the specific sin and the rest know that the brother is unrepentent of some unnamed sin. The upshot is that some people are going to know of the specific sin. "The persons reputation" is not harmed by the church, it is he who soiled his own reputation. It is up to him now to be humble, confess and repent. The church will welcome him back in open arms. "Wherefore I urge you to reaffirm your love for him" (2 Cor. 2:8). Paul publicly rebuked Peter in Galatians 2. He didn't hurt Peter's reputation, Peter hurt his own and 'stood condemend' unless he repented (which he obviously did). Paul didn't mind mentioning Hymenaeus and Alexander when they went astray, shipwrecking their faith (1 Timothy 1:19,20). Sometimes, confrontation can't be avoided. But it must be done with the right spirit (this is the hardest part for me). :) Good day. |
||||||
109 | church discipline | Matt 18:17 | disciplerami | 73011 | ||
"Matt 18:20 is about church discipline" Thanks for pointing this out. I've had people take this out of context making it a justification for skipping worship for a fishing outing. Good day. |
||||||
110 | church discipline | Matt 18:17 | disciplerami | 73086 | ||
You write: "No one came out of the situation without deep grief. My self included! There was no other way to resolve this, and it cost the church it's reputation, and growth was stopped for two years, friends were hurt and ministry was hampered. The man simply went 20 miles away to another SBC church and joined with no problems. As I look back some 22 years later the price the church paid was indeed very high emotionally and spiritually. The man never repented and died with sever mental illness. There were no winners," Although I don't know much about the situation you went through, I can say that if leaven is removed from the local church, the local church is better for it. The SBC that was 20 miles away accepted the leaven. For them to be so careless, they were probably already in spiritual trouble. The process is painful and it takes courage, but it is worth it if done right,in the right spirit. Good day. |
||||||
111 | 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 |
||||||
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 | Why did Jesus say "never again?" | Matt 24:21 | disciplerami | 78755 | ||
Greetings, How do you support the following statement? "...they didn't return until 1948, so there was no covenant made at that time and that is without a doubt obvious. In order for the Jews to make a covenant with the one we call the Antichrist they must occupy the Holy City; this didn’t happen until the seven-day war." What covenant is God going to make with the Jews? He already made one with them and they blew it. I understand that some people turn practically every 2nd coming passage into something fulfilled in 70 AD. I'm not of this camp, but I'm also not of the rapture group. Please respond. Disciplerami |
||||||
114 | Why did Jesus say "never again?" | Matt 24:21 | disciplerami | 78767 | ||
Thanks for the response. Paul writes, "and so all Israel will be saved." Has God elected to save ALL Israel, as in every single solitary individual of Abrahamic descent? Or, does this verse say, "and thus/in the same way all Israel will be saved"? Is Paul saying that Israel will miraculously start believing, everyone at the same time, and God will 'judiciously' regraft them into the olive tree? Or, is he saying, Thus/in the same way God is going to save all Israel? In the same way that God saves Gentiles who believed, God will save any Jew who believes? I doubt that any of you will buy it, but there is nothing judicious about saving people who don't believe, there is nothing judicious about God saving some who wouldn't believe in Him and damning all the rest because they couldn't believe? Call it whatever you will, but don't call it judicious. God bless, Disciplerami |
||||||
115 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Matt 28:18 | disciplerami | 77033 | ||
Hello, I see this is your first post so let me be among the first to give you an answer. Is Baptism necessary for salvation? What does the Scripture say? First let me state that salvation only comes through faith in the blood of Christ. But this is an active faith, one that hears the commands of Jesus and obeys them. What does the Scripture say about Baptism? The precursor to Christ' baptism was John's baptism. According to Matthew and Mark, John's was a 'baptism of repentance FOR the remission of sins.' In John 3, John baptized in the river Aenon because there was much water there. The baptism spoken of was water baptism. You see from this same chapter that Jesus' disciples were also baptizing. Now after the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, in Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus says to the disciples to 'go make disciples of all the nations, BAPTIZING THEM in the name of the Father, Son, and H.S. The command 'Baptizing them' is echoed by Mark in 16:16, "he who believes and is baptized shall be saved..." The baptism in both of these instances are also water baptism [immersion]. [This baptism is different in a few ways. It is the same in that 'forgiveness of sins is connected to it, but different in that it is 'in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit." Acts 19 shows that 20 years later, those who received John's baptism had to be rebaptized.] 10 days after Jesus' ascension, at Pentecost (Acts 2), Peter preaches the resurrected, triumphant Christ and commands, "Repent and let each of you be baptized, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). What follows repentance and baptism? Forgiveness of sins. Did the water save them? No. Were they saved by the blood of Christ? Yes. But only when they repented and were baptized. Acts 8:12 shows that men and women were being baptized. There is no case for baptizing infants. In Acts 22:16, Ananias says to Saul--who has been fasting, praying and blind for three days after seeing and hearing Jesus Christ--"now why do you delay, arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name" (Acts 22:16). Some people say they believe baptism is necessary, but they suggest that all of these verses refer to Holy Spirit baptism. That doesn't fit. Acts 8 and the Eunuch went down into the water. Water Baptism is the only baptism that is commanded of all disciples. Ananias didn't tell Saul to get up, so that he could get Holy Spirit baptism. Acts 9 also records that Paul was baptized (9:18). In Romans, a book that teaches justification by faith, also teaches where that faith first initially meets the grace of God: in baptism. Romans 6 says how the Romans were baptized into Christ, were baptized into His death. "Therefore we've been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." (Romans 6:3-5) The new life proceeds from the death and burial of the old sinful man. Every sinner must be baptized into Christ. And he does so with the understanding that he is lost because of his sin, and he will rise out of the watery grave because of Christ' holiness. Galatians 3:26,27 shows that 'we are all sons of God by faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ." What is the clothing to which he refers? His Righteousness, his holiness, the perfection that comes through His blood. In the Colossian letter, Paul says essentially the same thing he said in Romans 6 and Galatians 3, 'we are buried with Him in Baptism, in which you are also raised with Him through your faith in the working/operation/power of God who raised Him from the dead" (Col 2:12). The point is that God is powerful and eager to give the new life in Christ. The old self has to be buried in order to be raised into a new life. This is the regeneration that Paul speaks of to Titus. The Holy Spirit is working on the inside, when the sinner, in faith, gets in the water. Jesus commanded water baptism. His divine word assigns a particular reason for it: for remission of sin, to wash away thy sins. God saves at baptism. This too is what Peter preached on Pentecost and restated in 1 Peter 3:21. "Baptism now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the flesh, BUT AN APPEAL TO GOD FOR A CLEAN CONSCIENCE (compare this appeal with what is said in Acts 2:21 and 22:16), it saves you through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I hope this answer satisfies your need. Much more could be said, but this is enough if you are searching for the answer. Salvation is a gift, received at a specific time in the sinner's life: when he/she is baptized in faith. But salvation is by faith, first to last. Good day. |
||||||
116 | Holy Spirit OR Water Baptism, which? | Matt 28:19 | disciplerami | 77474 | ||
Is Jesus commanding His disciples to baptize other with the "Holy Spirit Baptism" in the name of the Father, Son, and in the name of the Holy Spirit? Or is He directing His disciples to go and administer 'water' baptism? | ||||||
117 | Holy Spirit OR Water Baptism, which? | Matt 28:19 | disciplerami | 77528 | ||
Hi Justme, May I challenge you with a thought? The 'gift of the Holy Spirit' promised after baptism in Acts 2:38 is the indwelling of God. But the Holy Spirit baptism [Acts 2:1-4; Acts 10:44]is more of a sign and not part of the personal sanctification of the individual. The Holy Spirit baptism cames with miraculous signs like having the ability to speak a foreign language without ever studying. The sign of the Holy Spirit baptism on the day of Pentecost brought thousands together at one time to hear the Gospel. The sign of the Holy Spirit baptism at the home of Cornelius helped the Jews to understand that God intended to save Gentiles. Cornelius and his household wasn't saved until they got baptized. God bless, Disciplerami |
||||||
118 | Why couldn't Herod have Herodias? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77471 | ||
Was the relationship between Herod and Herodias 'unlawful' because she was a blood relative or or because she was his sister-in-law? | ||||||
119 | Not incest, but adultery? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77521 | ||
It was because who was alive, Philip? So you are saying that Herod and Herodias were committing adultery because Herodias' first husband was still alive? You don't believe that the unlawful sin was incest? Looking for answers. Thanks |
||||||
120 | Why couldn't Herod have Herodias? | Mark 6:18 | disciplerami | 77530 | ||
Hi, Thanks for the response. I believe this is the correct answer, but some people say it was incest (wasn't she a half-neice?) so they don't have John telling a married couple they are committing adultery. Disciplerami |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [29] >> |