Results 121 - 140 of 174
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Apostle or not? | Matt 19:28 | Morant61 | 16477 | ||
Greetings CDBJ! Are you saying then that Matthias was not a legitimate Apostle? If so, then why: 1) Is there never anything said in Scripture about his not being a "real" apostle? 2) Is he recongnized by Luke as being part of the 12 (Acts 2:14 and Acts 6:2)? This is not meant to denigrate Paul in anyway, he is my favorite Apostle! However, neither should we deinigrate Matthias. Acts makes it clear that they gathered together to pray, that they were led to choose another to replace Judas, and that they prayed for God's will to be done. There is nothing in the text to indicate that God's will was not done. We are not comfortable with the casting of lots, but they had a long tradition within Judaism. The two stones attached to the High Priest's breastplate were used as lots to determine God's will in situations. This is exactly what the apostles did. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
122 | Was God morally wrong? | Lev 26:6 | Morant61 | 16072 | ||
Greetings Sir! I asked you some questions later in the thread, but I did want to deal with your last statement. You said: "I understand where EdB and many others are comming from on this issue, but I believe that no matter how "right" our motivation is, it is still "wrong" to kill another human being whom God has created." As I understand your position, you believe that the God did command the death penalty in the OT, but that system has changed. If this is the case, how could it be "wrong" to kill another human being if God did at one time command it? Was it wrong then? Is it just wrong now? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
123 | Eternal Security? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 15416 | ||
Greetings Forum! There was a thread recently which dealt with Eternal Security. The position of most on the forum seemed to be that the relationship between a believer and Christ can never be severed. If that is the case, how do we explain these three passages in particular? 1) 1 Cor. 15:1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 2) Col. 1:21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation— 23 if you continue in your faith, established and firm, not moved from the hope held out in the gospel. This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant. 3) 2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall, 11 and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. I realize that many of us will approach these passage from different theological perspectives. My point here is not to argue the passages. I would simply like to hear how some from different perspectives deal with these passages. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
124 | Prosperity and Deut. 28? | Matthew | Morant61 | 14747 | ||
Greetings Kimberly! I noticed that you mentioned Deut. 28 in your post. Let me ask you a couple of questions. 1) To whom was Moses speaking in this chapter? 2) What were the conditions for prosperity? 3) Does it apply to us today? As you ponder these questions, let me make a couple of points clear. a) I firmly believe that God can and does bless. However, He is under no obligation to do so. b) There is nothing wrong with giving to ministries who are leading people to Christ. There is everything wrong with giving to "ministires" who are simply trying to build theme parks and big houses. c) Much of the Seed/Harvest and Word of Faith teaching is simply not Biblical. It takes passages out of context. With this in mind, my only concern in this post is that Deut. 28 has been taken out of context and misapplied. If you wish to respond to my questions, I would be happy to discuss my reasons for saying this with you. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
125 | Is there a v. that mandates prostration? | Ps 63:4 | Morant61 | 14336 | ||
Greetings Steve! I understand that "proskuneo" refers to prostrating oneself before someone or something. However, where is there any Scripture that commands this to be the only position for worship? I don't recall any, but I could be wrong! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
126 | Is Christ the Firstborn among many? | Rom 8:29 | Morant61 | 14314 | ||
Greetings Forum! I have a question about this verse. Don't worry, it is not about Arminianism and Calvinism! :-) I was just reading this verse and I noticed that the 'He' in the phrase "...so that He would be..." is an accusative pronoun. In Greek, the pronoun usually has the same case as the noun to which it refers back. As I was reading, I noticed that "Son" is in the genitive case. The only word in the accusative case in this verse is "those" in "those whom He foreknew." My question is this: Has anyone ever read that the last phrase might not be refering to Christ? This is not a trick question. I could find to mention of even the possibility in any of my reference works. I was just curious if anyone else had ever come across any such possibility. Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
127 | The Rapture in Revelation | Revelation | Morant61 | 13717 | ||
Greetings! I noticed that there were not many questions today, so how about this one for discussion? Is there any particular verse or passage in Revelation which can be identified with the Rapture? In your response, you might note whether you are Pre, Mid, Post, or No Rapture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
128 | Who Does God Draw? | 1 Tim 3:1 | Morant61 | 13482 | ||
Greetings Bjanko! I am an Arminian! From that perspective, I have a question for you. You seem to be saying that only those whom God "makes believe" are counted among the "whosoever believes" passages. If God irresistibly calls people to salvation, how do you explain John 6:44 and John 12:32? John 6:44 says, "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day." John 12:32 says, "32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself." The same word is used in both verses for the drawing of men to salvation. John 6:44 affirms that no one can come to Christ unless God draws him. While, John 12:32 says that Christ will draw all men. I look forward to your response! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
129 | The Writings of the Apostles? | 1 Cor 12:27 | Morant61 | 13126 | ||
Greetings Charis! The Apostles did have special status. It was through them that God wrote His revelation to us. From you response I wasn't sure, but do you believe that God choose some of their writtings, or do you believe that God wrote through them? Concering the "office" and "gift" distinction, I don't believe that Eph. 4 refers to spiritual gifts (like 1 Cor. 12-14), rather it refers to the offices given to the church to strengthen it. Gifts are given to every believer, but every believer may not be called to one of these five offices. Notice that the text uses plural nouns. God gave pastors, not the gift of pastoring. This is where I get the idea of an office. Some believers are called to a particular office, like you and I were called to be pastors. But, not every believer is called to an office. I've got to run! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
130 | Was Peter the Leader? | Rom 3:28 | Morant61 | 12464 | ||
Greetings Brian! I was doing some research to find out why the Catholic Church believes that Peter was supreme among the other apostles. I found this quote: "For this position he had already been designated (Matt., xvi, 15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: at Cæsarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church, thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter. To him, moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven -- an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22). The promise thus made was fulfilled after the Resurrection, on the occasion narrated in John, xxi. Here Christ employs a simile used on more than one occasion by Himself to denote His own relation to the members of His Church -- that of the shepherd and his flock. His solemn charge, "Feed my sheep", constituted Peter the common shepherd of the whole collective flock. (For a further consideration of the Petrine texts see article PRIMACY.) To the twelve Christ committed the charge of spreading the kingdom among all nations, appointing the rite of baptism as the one means of admission to a participation in its privileges (Matt., xxviii, 19)." (Full article can be accessed at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) I have two main problems with this presentation. 1) We do not see anywhere in the New Testament that Peter functions as the chief of the apostles. In fact, a stronger case could be made for James than for Peter. Peter is shown in Acts as presenting his case before the other apostles and waiting for their decision. Peter is opposed by Paul. Even the historical references to the early church structure (I think the article did a good job of summarizing these) affirm that structure existed, but none of them name Peter as head of anything. 2) I also have problem with the interpretation presented of Mt. 16:18. The text says, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." The problem here is that there are two different words used in the Greek text. Jesus said to Peter, "You are 'Petros'." However, He said that it would be upon the 'petra' that He would build His church. I am not trying to force you to defend an entire faith. I am simply curious as to how you would address these concerns. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
131 | Personal or Church Study? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 12171 | ||
Greetings Steve! When you say that we need the church's permission to conduct a Bible study, are you talking about any Bible study or only Bible studies done in the name of the church? I have pastored for over ten years and I currently work with our church's small group ministry. I would never say that someone needed my permission to invite some neighbors over and have a Bible study. However, if they are doing it as an official ministry of the church, then they must go through training, report regularly, ect.... Personally, I would be concerned about any church that tried to exercise so much control over it's members that they couldn't hold a Bible study on their own, unless it was being done in the name of the church. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
132 | Who translated the NWT? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 12096 | ||
Greetings Elijah! I too have done some research on the so called "New World Translation." It is a fraud. However, since you seem to put some stock in it, let me ask you a couple of questions! 1) Who translated it? 2) What are their qualifications? If you can't answer these two simple questions, then you shouldn't be using the translation. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
133 | How can it be a revelation yet err? | John 10:29 | Morant61 | 11398 | ||
Greetings Isa! Christians do not believe that the Old Testament was replaced by the New Testament. The New Testament is simply the continuation of God's saving acts. Both testaments are fully in accord with one another and equally God's Word. I understand that Muslims believe that Islam has superceded Christianity. However, what I don't understand is the attempts to tear down the Bible. If, under your system of belief, it was a revelation of Allah, then surely it cannot be full of errors in the way that you describe it. This seems to be a contradiction in your faith. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
134 | Which branch of Islam? | Revelation | Morant61 | 11041 | ||
Greetings Isa! Just out of curiosity, which branch of Islam do you belong to: Sunnis, Shias, or one of the other smaller groups? How long? Moving from Africa to Canada must have been quite an experience! In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
135 | Can we change eternity after death? | Ex 20:13 | Morant61 | 11037 | ||
Greetings Good Samaritan! Thanks for the response! I still do not believe that Scripture teaches that people can accept or reject Christ after death. This seems to be what you are saying! If I have misunderstood you please let me know! The evidence from Scripture seems very strong that a persons "fate" is set at death. Consider the following evidence. 1) Heb. 9:27 says, "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment," 2) The thief on the cross was told by Jesus "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43). 3) Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord - Phil. 1:23 and 2 Cor. 5:8. 4) Finally, in the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31), the rich man desperately wanted relief from his suffering but was told, "And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’" This would definitely indicate that upon death, a person's eternal destiny is sealed. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
136 | The Sermon on the Mount? | Matt 5:1 | Morant61 | 10525 | ||
Greetings Forum! There has been a lot of discussion over the years concerning the Sermon on the Mount in general and the Beatitudes in particular. Let me ask these questions: What is the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount? What is the meaning of the Beatitudes? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
137 | Our forgiving others / God forgiving us? | Matt 6:14 | Morant61 | 10523 | ||
Greetings Forum! I spent some time awhile back memorizing the Sermon on the Mount. During that time, Mt. 6:14-15 struck me as two very powerful verses. So, let me throw this question out to the Forum for discussion: What exactly is the relationship between our ability to forgive others and our reception of forgiveness from God? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
138 | Who is the Source of Inspiration? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9866 | ||
Greetings Jim! I haven't been involved in this thread as of yet! (I don't think!) But, I did want to respond to your post. There seems to be two theological problems with your position. 1) The Source of Inspiration: As you pointed out, 2 Tim. 3:16 does not say specifically that Scripture is without error. However, it does say that Scripture is God-breathed. So, the source of Scripture is God. If this is true, then how could a God, who knows all things and who cannot lie, be the source of error? 2) The Meaning of Literal: The second problem concerns your use of the word literal. Some use a different definition than I do, but I think most of us simply use the term literal in the following sense. "Scripture means what the author intended for it to mean." Therefore, if an author uses hyperbole, we should interpret his statement as hyperbole. If an author uses an estimate, we should interpet his statement as an estimate. However, this is a far cry from saying that these statements are errors. None of your examples illustrate a single error, but do illustrate quite a bit of opinion. a) and b) are both assumptions, we simply do not know exactly how many generations were involved. However, if Matthew or Luke used an established practice of listing a geneology, how does this equate with a error? c) What definition of literal do you use here? If it was written as an allegory, isn't reading it as an allegory taking it literally? d) Another assumption! The only historical record we have of Job says that he had 7 sons and 3 daughters. Is there another source that shows this one to be in error? e) Here is a good example of what is means to be literal. Mt. lists all of the areas from which people were coming to John (a city-wide crusade so to speak). Nothing in the passage says that every indivdual was present, only the regions. f) Again, we take the Psalms literally when we interpret them according to how they were written. They are songs of praise and prayers. Many of them may be based upon actual events, but they are not intended to be read as history, but as prayer or praise. Concerning David, if the text says he wrote a Psalm, what evidence is there that he didn't. g) Again, we take Revelation literally, when we interpret it according to how it was written. It was apocolyptic literature. However, that doesn't make it false. Jim, I havent' read all of this thread yet. Maybe you have explained your definition before, but would you mind explaining to me what you mean by 'Literal?' It would help to make sure that all of your responders are debating your actual position. Thanks! In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
139 | Rapture and Day of the Lord the Same? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9389 | ||
Greetings Elijah! Thanks for the clarification! I consider myself a pre-wrath rapture person. So, I have no particular attachment to a pre-tribulation rapture. However, there is enough uncertainty that I am willing to allow lots of wiggle room. For instance, in your exegesis of 2 Thes. 2:1-3, it could be that the "Day of the Lord" is different from the events described in verse one. It seems that the Thessalonians were being exposed to some false teaching that basically said (v. 2) that the "Day of the Lord" had already come. This caused concern among the new Christians because if the "Day of the Lord" had already come then that would mean that they had missed the rapture (v.1). Therefore, Paul argues in verses 2 and 3 that the "Day of the Lord" cannot come until certain things happen, as you pointed out it your post. The problem though is does "Day of the Lord" refer to the rapture or does it refer to the Day of Judgement which takes place after the tribulation and the millenium? I will try to do a word study on that phrase a little later! The best advice I have ever heard concerning the rapture is: Pray for Pre, but be prepared for Post! The important thing is that we live for Him everyday and in everyway, until He comes. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
140 | Key a Mason? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9058 | ||
Greetings Brandi! I just had one quick question: Are you sure Francis Scott Key was a Mason? I'm a member of the United Brethren in Christ, as was Francis Scott Key, and they have always had a prohbition against membership in the Mason's. Just curious! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |