Results 121 - 140 of 283
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: kalos Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Why did Jesus answer Satan with the Law? | Matt 4:4 | kalos | 153391 | ||
Why did Jesus quote the Law to Satan? Why not quote from other OT writings? When tempted by the devil in the wilderness, Jesus answered by quoting the Law that prohibited the things Satan tempted him to do. He could have quoted the Psalms, the prophets, or the historical books, but He didn't. Instead He quoted the Law. Why did He quote the Law and not other OT books? |
||||||
122 | When tempted why did Jesus quote the Law | Matt 4:4 | kalos | 153780 | ||
Why did Jesus quote the Law to Satan? Why not quote from other OT writings? When tempted by the devil in the wilderness, Jesus answered by quoting the Law that prohibited the things Satan tempted him to do. He could have quoted the Psalms, the prophets, or the historical books, but He didn't. Instead He quoted the Law. Why did He quote the Law and not other OT books? |
||||||
123 | Did Christ not fulfill the law? | Matt 5:17 | kalos | 22089 | ||
Searcher56: You have been doing some very good research lately and I wish to commend you for it. I have no wish to be argumentative here. I merely need some clarification of your previous post. You write: "This means both need to occur for the Law to have one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from it." I am not clear at all as to what this sentence means. Would you clarify, please? You write: "This verse does not say He fulfilled the Law. I see John MacArthur agreeing with me. He does not say 'the law was fulfilled in Christ.'" I know what John MacArthur means. I have his book right here in front of me. What I do not understand is this: In the above quote by you, are you saying that Christ did not fulfill the law? If that is your meaning, would you care to comment and expand upon that? Can you show us plain and clear verses of Scripture to support the idea that CHRIST DID NOT FULFILL THE LAW, if indeed that is your meaning here? If not, what do you mean when you write: "This verse does not say He fulfilled the Law. I see John MacArthur agreeing with me. He does not say 'the law was fulfilled in Christ.'?" Thank you for your reply. Again please note, I am not saying that you are wrong. I cannot even determine that until I clearly understand what it is you are saying. |
||||||
124 | Did Christ fulfill the law - yes or no? | Matt 5:17 | kalos | 22132 | ||
Searcher56: Just a reminder. Earlier I asked you a question. "Are you saying that Christ did not fulfill the law?" This is a direct question which can be answered with a simple Yes or No. Are you or are you not saying that Christ did not fulfill the law? I merely desire that you clarify your previous posting. Thank you. |
||||||
125 | Two different ways of being saved? | Matt 5:17 | kalos | 115295 | ||
Two different ways of being saved? The law was not given as a way to be saved in the first place. So why do people keep arguing that since in the NT era we are not saved by keeping the law, it must then be invalid or abolished? This argument is meaningless. I am not aware that I have ever said we are saved by keeping the law. No one was ever saved by keeping the law. "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (See Rom 4:3; Gal 3:6; James 2:23.) The just shall live by faith Habakkuk 2:4 (KJV) Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith. No man is justified by the law Galatians 3:11 (KJV) But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. Galations 3:11 (New Living Translation) Consequently, it is clear that no one can ever be right with God by trying to keep the law. For the Scriptures say, "It is through faith that a righteous person has life." Two different ways of being saved? Not according to the Bible. Since the law was never given as a way to be saved, why do people keep arguing that in the NT era we are not saved by keeping the law? No one was ever saved by keeping the law. Not in the OT. Not in the NT. Not today. And not in the future. It is true that in NT times the law does not save anyone. It is also true that in the OT era people were not saved by keeping the law. Some mistakenly conclude that since in the NT era we are not saved by keeping the law, the law is no longer valid. However, since the law never was given as a means of being saved, then it must have been given for some other purpose. It is not unreasonable to expect if that purpose is still valid, then the law itself must still be valid. It behooves us to move on in our understanding and find out WHY the law was given, since it was not to save people. matt517 |
||||||
126 | Is the Law altogether invalid? | Matt 5:19 | kalos | 113893 | ||
Is the Law altogether invalid? AMPLIFIED Matthew 5:19 Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. "...the law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability." [Tortoise: The following is an excerpt from the article "The Law". It is recommended that you go to the website given below and read the entire article. I present the following for your consideration. I would appreciate any feedback you wish to give. If you disagree with any of the following, could you quote at least some of the part(s) you disagree with and tell why you disagree. It is not my intention to challenge or debate you or put you on the defensive. I do respect your views and I just wondered what your reaction is to the following. --kalos] The Law under the New Covenant. 'The New Testament's statements about Old Testament law are difficult to harmonize. On the one hand, some New Testament statements indicate that under the new covenant the whole law is in some sense abrogated (Rom 6:14, "you are not under law" Rom 10:4, "Christ is the end of the law" ).' ["For sin will not have authority over you; because you are not under legalism but under grace." Romans 6:14 (Complete Jewish Bible, David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Publications, Inc., 1998) "For the goal at which the Torah (Law) aims is the Messiah, who offers righteousness to everyone who trusts." Romans 10:4 (CJB)] (...) 'On the other hand, the law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability. "All Scripture is … useful" (2 Tim 3:16-17), including Old Testament laws. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20). The law is the embodiment of truth that instructs (Rom 2:18-19). It is "holy" and "spiritual, " making sin known to us by defining it; therefore, Paul delights in it (Rom 7:7-14,22). The law is good if used properly (1 Tim 1:8), and is not opposed to the promises of God (Gal 3:21). Faith does not make the law void, but the Christian establishes the law (Rom 3:31), fulfilling its requirements by walking according to the Spirit (Rom 8:4) through love (Rom 13:10). 'When Paul states that women are to be in submission "as the Law says" (1 Cor 14:34) or quotes parts of the Decalogue (Rom 13:9), and when James quotes the law of love (2:8 from Lev 19:18) or condemns partiality, adultery, murder, and slander as contrary to the law (2:9, 11; 4:11), and when Peter quotes Leviticus, "Be holy, because I am holy" (1 Peter 1:16; from Lev 19:2), the implication is that the law, or at least part of it, remains authoritative. (...) 'The New Testament writers also apply the principles in the law. From Deuteronomy 25:4 ("Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out grain"), Paul derives a principle that workers ought to be rewarded for their labors and applies that principle in the case of Christian workers (1 Cor 9:9-14). In 1 Timothy 5:18, Paul again quotes Deuteronomy 25:4, this time in parallel with a saying of Jesus (Matt 10:10) as if both are equally authoritative. Likewise, the principle of establishing truth by two or three witnesses (Deut 19:15), originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference (2 Cor 13:1). The principle that believers are not to be unequally yoked together with unbelievers is derived from a law concerning the yoking animals (2 Cor 6:14; cf. Deut 22:10). 'In 1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 13, Paul affirms on the basis of Leviticus 18:29 that incest, a capital offense in the Old Testament, is immoral and deserves punishment. A person practicing incest in the church must be excommunicated to maintain the church's practical holiness. Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction.' ____________________ Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Edited by Walter A. Elwell, 1996 by Walter A. Elwell. Published by Baker Books. (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/ |
||||||
127 | Why will no one answer my question? | Matt 5:19 | kalos | 113992 | ||
Words of Wisdom from Morant61: "In a debate, it is useful if you respond to the points that the other side makes." Regarding my Note "The law cannot be altogether invalid...", I have repeatedly asked: "If you disagree with any of the following, could you quote at least some of the part(s) you disagree with and tell why you disagree"? In other words, please directly address the points I have made. Instead of repeating a general statement you previously made, tell me specifically what is wrong with the points I've made. This question continues to remain unanswered. I am disappointed. |
||||||
128 | What do Bible prayers teach us? | Matt 6:9 | kalos | 7521 | ||
Give an example of a prayer found in the Bible. What does your example teach us about God, the things of God, or our relationship with Him? | ||||||
129 | How can we discern false teachers? | Matt 7:15 | kalos | 109620 | ||
How can we discern false teachers? | ||||||
130 | Is Biblical literacy dead?Or is prophecy | Matt 11:13 | kalos | 1785 | ||
The following was posted on 03-24-2001. "Being especially wary of people who claim to be Apostle or Prophets. Jesus warns us to beware of people who say, "I am He". I agree. I would also like to add the following. The Word tells us to prove the spirits. 1 John 4:1 (ASV) "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but prove the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets are gone out into the world." What is the test of a true prophet? It is very simple. Deut 18:22 (RSV) "when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that is a word which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you need not be afraid of him." . . . On the other hand, the existence of false prophets does not preclude (rule out in advance) the existence of true prophets. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. |
||||||
131 | Tongues - do you realize... | Matt 11:13 | kalos | 1786 | ||
Do you realize the question of tongues is one subject about which there can be no pure objectivity? Everyone on earth has either spoken in tongues or they haven't. Either way, one's answer will be influenced by one's experience in this matter. | ||||||
132 | Sabbath-did you know? | Matt 12:1 | kalos | 7689 | ||
Did you know? As of 06-19-2001, 98 Questions, Answers and Notes regarding the sabbath have already been posted. Continuing to ask the same question that has been duly answered, is belligerence. |
||||||
133 | Who is gathered first - tares or wheat? | Matt 13:30 | kalos | 44666 | ||
In Matt. 13:30, who is gathered first -- the tares or the wheat? If the tares (the wicked) are gathered first, how does this affect your interpretation of eschatology (the doctrine of future things; prophecy)? NASB Matthew 13:30 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.""' |
||||||
134 | Who is gathered first ? | Matt 13:30 | kalos | 44981 | ||
Who is gathered first - tares or wheat? (Question re-worded) According to the text alone, in Matt. 13:30, who is gathered first -- the tares or the wheat? What does this text actually SAY? NASB Matthew 13:30 'Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "*FIRST* GATHER UP THE TARES and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn" ' (emphasis added). If the tares (the wicked) are gathered first, does this affect your interpretation of eschatology (the doctrine of future things; prophecy)? |
||||||
135 | Tradition Or The Bible? | Matt 15:3 | kalos | 137281 | ||
Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition "My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs." The Douay-Rheims Bible Matthew 15:3 But he answering, said to them: Why do you also transgress the commandment of God for your tradition? The Douay-Rheims Bible Mark 7:8-9 For leaving the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men, the washing of pots and of cups: and many other things you do like to these. And he said to them: Well do you make void the commandment of God, that you may keep your own tradition. The Douay-Rheims Bible Colossians 2:8 Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ. Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition 'One of the great differences between Protestant and Catholic doctrine is in the area of Tradition. The Protestant church maintains that the Bible alone is intended by God to be the source of doctrinal truth (2 Tim. 3:16). The Catholic Church, however, says, "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God . . ." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 97. Note, all citations in this article are from this Catechism). 'The Catholic Church reasons thus: '1. "The apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.'" (Paragraph 77) '2. "This living transmission, accomplished through the Holy Spirit, is called tradition..." (Par. 78) '3. "Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence." (Par. 82). 'Within the Catholic scope of Tradition, many doctrines have been "revealed" to the Church over the centuries. For example, there is the veneration of Mary, her immaculate conception and her bodily assumption into heaven. There is also the apocrypha, transubstantiation, praying to saints, the confessional, penance, purgatory, and more. Protestantism as a whole differs with Catholicism in these additions. 'Tradition in the Bible 'The Bible speaks about tradition. Some verses speak for tradition and others speak against it. Of course, the contexts are different and carry different meanings. ... 'In the discussions regarding Tradition between Protestants and Catholics both sets of scriptures are often quoted in order to establish their respective positions. The Protestants often quote Matt. 15:3-6 in opposition to Sacred Tradition. In an appeal to be biblical, many Catholic apologists cite 2 Thess. 2:15 to validate their position on Sacred Tradition. Unfortunately, this amounts to using the Word of God against itself. Clearly, God's word is not contradictory. Rather, it is our understanding that is in error. 'The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. 'Though the Catholic Church officially states that Sacred Tradition should not and does not contradict Scripture, Protestants see much of the teaching from this Sacred Tradition as doing just that. It isn't enough for the Catholic to say that their church is the true church, that they have the apostolic tradition, that they hold the keys to the truth, and that they have revealed doctrines consistent with biblical revelation. Likewise, it isn't enough for a Protestant to pass judgment upon Catholic doctrines simply because they are Catholic and are derived via Sacred Tradition.' ____________________ http://www.carm.org/catholic/tradition.htm |
||||||
136 | Scripture, Tradition - Are They Equal? | Matt 15:3 | kalos | 137282 | ||
Scripture, Tradition - Are They Equal? 'Are Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition Really Equal? ____________________ "Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite." ____________________ 'To me, it is not enough to simply say that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture based upon the decree of the Catholic Magesterium. Like any spiritual teaching, I must compare it to the Bible. Jesus own words in Matt. 15:3 lend support for myself and many non-Catholics to subject the fruit of Sacred Tradition to the pruning of God's word. In other words, do the teachings of the Catholic church that are derived through tradition transgress the commands of God? Of course, the Catholic will say that they do not. 'When Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees in Matt. 15:1-6, He reprimanded them for not understanding God's word. They were appealing to the tradition of the elders, those who had passed down oral and written tradition. Jesus, on the other hand, exposed their error by citing scripture. Please take note of what He said in Matt. 15:1-6. '"Then some Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem, saying, 2"Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread." 3And He answered and said to them, "And why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4"For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,' and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' 5"But you say, ‘Whoever shall say to his father or mother, "Anything of mine you might have been helped by has been given to God," 6he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And thus you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." 'Whatever might be said about this passage, at least one thing must be observed: The tradition of the religious leaders was subject to the Word of God. Are the religious leaders of the Catholic Church exempt from subjection to the Word of God? And likewise, is their Sacred Tradition also exempt? I think not. 'Where the Protestants would interpret Tradition in light of Scripture, it seems that the Catholic Church does the opposite. Consider the following, "The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it. 1. Be especially attentive ‘to the content and unity of the whole Scripture.'. . . 2. Read the Scripture within ‘the living Tradition of the whole Church.' . . . 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith." (Par. 111, 112, 13, 114). 'It is number 2 that is the main concern here. What does it mean to read Scripture "within the living Tradition of the whole Church?" If Scripture is "within the living Tradition," then Tradition encompasses Scripture. In other words, it is the tradition of the Church that interprets Scripture. This is in contradiction to the Word of God spoken by Jesus in Matt. 15:1-6. 'Some object and say that the Pharisees didn't have apostolic authority and succession that was ordained by the apostles as does the Catholic Church and, therefore, Matt. 15:1-6 cannot be used to nullify Sacred Tradition. 'But the issue in Matt. 15:1-6 is not succession of authority but the traditions of men being used in opposition to the truth of the Word of God. Essentially, the Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition. Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word. After all, no doctrinal teaching should contradict biblical revelation and the Sacred Word of God was and is the final authority in all things spiritual. The Catholic Church's position and teaching is based on Sacred Tradition are no different. They must be compared to Scripture. 'My desire in writing this is not to alienate Catholics nor belittle their beliefs. I believe that there are some Catholics who love the Lord and are saved. But I would like to add that I believe it is in spite of official Roman Catholic doctrine. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that the Catholic church has added teachings that are not consistent with biblical revelation. 'If you are a Catholic, I hope my words do not offend you. Rather, I hope and pray that you would consider what this site has to say and compare it with the Word of God.' ____________________ http://www.carm.org/catholic/tradition.htm |
||||||
137 | Is the Bible Alone Sufficient? | Matt 15:3 | kalos | 137309 | ||
Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth? 'According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical. Protestantism, however, rejects Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?" 'The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says both to listen to tradition as well as warning about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below. 'In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made: '1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority. Take, for example, the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4. The Devil tempts Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to scripture. Should we do any less having seen His example? 'The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examine God's word for the test of truth, not for the traditions of men. Therefore, we can see that the biblical means of determining spiritual truth is by appealing to scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.' (...) 'Finally, one of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false. The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater. 'Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn’t, then I will trust the Bible alone.' ____________________ To read more go to: www.carm.org/catholic/biblesufficient.htm |
||||||
138 | Forgive or confront - which to choose? | Matt 18:1 | kalos | 739 | ||
How can we know when it is better to forgive or to confront? (See 1 Cor 5:1-13 for a Biblical example of a situation where this question would apply. Note I am not asking for an explanation or exegesis of 1 Cor 5. I merely cite it as an example.) | ||||||
139 | Do you not know...? | Matt 18:6 | kalos | 126453 | ||
Do you not know...? Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, "The two will become one flesh." 1 Cor. 6:16 (ESV) The unbiblical notion that whenever a man and a woman have sex with each other they then become married in the eyes of God is a blasphemous distortion of 1 Corinthians 6:16. Think it through. If this notion were true, then no one would ever be guilty of having sex outside of marriage because as soon as the act is done, the couple would be married -- in the eyes of God, according to the faulty logic of this absurd theory. |
||||||
140 | Hank, have you been following this? | Matt 18:6 | kalos | 126458 | ||
Hank: Have you been following this thread? After today, in order to properly identify myself, I am tempted to change my username to: 'Torah believing, anti-antinomian, anti-idiocy believer' Grace to you, kalos (aka All Of The Above) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [15] >> |