Results 121 - 140 of 221
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36712 | ||
Let me see if I got this correct. Those, whose names were found in the Book of Life, were thrown into Hell. So, it doesn't matter if your saved or not? Saved or un-saved, all go to hell, no matter what? Is that Biblical? In the words of my generation, "NOT!" Those who were found in the Book of Life were granted eternal life in heaven as according to God's promise. It was those who were not found in the Book of Life who were cast into hell. Jesusman |
||||||
122 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36713 | ||
Let me see if I got this correct. Those, whose names were found in the Book of Life, were thrown into Hell. So, it doesn't matter if your saved or not? Saved or un-saved, all go to hell, no matter what? Is that Biblical? In the words of my generation, "NOT!" Those who were found in the Book of Life were granted eternal life in heaven as according to God's promise. It was those who were not found in the Book of Life who were cast into hell. Jesusman |
||||||
123 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36236 | ||
Where do they go? That should be obvious. Jesusman |
||||||
124 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 36233 | ||
Hello, So, then your point is that God is like some cosmic Nero, laughing at the torment and pain he is putting others through when he has every chance and ability to stop it? God has the ability to do as he wills to do. In fact, the Bible states that it is God's will that all men be saved. Why doesn't he just come right out and do it? Jesusman |
||||||
125 | Is God ONE or is God THREE? | James 2:19 | Jesusman | 36232 | ||
Hello, Just because someone didn't sit down and put pen to paper, and wrote down the concise doctrine of the trinity until after the New Testament period was done, does not mean that the Doctrine did not exist. For example, the scientific comunity didn't really formulate the laws surrounding many of the basic fuctions of nature until well into the 1800's. However, these same laws were seen and commented upon in the Bible. Most of these biblical comments are found in the later chapters of Job, which dates back to the time of Abraham. Now, since these scientific laws weren't written down until the 1800's, does that mean that these functions of nature did not happen before then? No, it means that no one took the time to write it down in a concise manner until then. Now, as with the Trinity Doctrine, it is seen all through out the Bible: Old and New Testament both. You asked about my comments about Denying the trinity is to deny Jesus as God in the Flesh. Simply this. The Doctrine of Jesus Christ as God in the flesh is universal within the christian community. This doctrine implies that Jesus was God in his earthly form. Now, when we read the gospels involving Jesus talking about or to God, he speaks of another person altogether. Jesus refers to himself as another person from The Father. He refers to the Holy Spirit as being different from himself and the Father. So, from Jesus' talks about The Father, we find that there are three aspects, essences, people, or whatever term you choose within the God-head. So, now we change gears to God being one God. Again, this doctrine cannot be denied because many verses come right out and declare it. So, when you put this all together, you have the doctrine of the Trinity. So, you see that the doctrine that Jesus is God in the flesh, a universal doctrine, is undeniably linked to the Doctrine of the trinity. Now, for the point about at hand, because of this link, you cannot pick one and deny another. When you reject the trinity doctrine, yet believe the Doctrine that Jesus was God in the flesh, you get a contradiction in theology. How can God be in heaven, as Jesus clearly says, while he is on the earth as Jesus? Does God have some cosmic form of Multiple personalities? The only way to smooth out this contradiction is the doctrine of the Trinity. That God, being one God, manifests himself as three (insert term here). Jesusman |
||||||
126 | why was this epistle written? | 1 John | Jesusman | 36230 | ||
Hello, I did demonstrate how to use history and culture to study Biblical Doctrines. I just did it with a different subject. I used the subject of Eternal Security as opposed to particular redemption. Why? I have studied the history and culture behind Adoption in relation to Security more than I have the topic of Redemption and election. I am more familiar with that area. I don't know enough about Election and Redemption in the New Testament culture to comment fully. So, I chose a different subject. As for your other concerns, I never said that we should ignore the Scripture's applications to the Church of today. I am saying that we should use the meanings of then to amplify how the text means to us today. After all, terms change over the years. While a word in the Greek may say this in english, the implied meaning and history behind it has a different meaning and application all together. Take "Logos" for example. IN english, this word means "word". However, when you study the history, cultural, and implied meaings inherant within "Logos", the more accurate translation and meanings would be " the Logic or understanding behind the spoken word, the thought, and so on." Now, this doesn't change the meaning of Jesus being refered to as the "Logos" as used in John 1. The same meaning still applies. Jesus is not only the Word from God, but he is the thought, logic, and understanding behind that word as well. Do you see my point? Jesusman |
||||||
127 | Jesus/Joseph/Jacob?or Jesus/Joseph/Heli? | Bible general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 36022 | ||
Hello, What is so hard to accept? Matthew traces Jesus' lineage through Joseph, while Luke traces the lineage through Mary. BGG is correct as to why they both use Joseph's name. Women didn't have any authority in society. In fact, Women were viewed as little more than property. That's why in legal matters, such as lineage, the Husband was the focus. This was true for both Jews and Gentiles alike. As for Matthew addressing the Jews, this is quite true. His Gospel is directly geared for the Jew to read. He sites many prophecies, customs, and places that only a Jew would understand. However, when you read Dr. Luke's account, he begins with an address to the gentile reader who hired him. As a result, Dr. Luke wrote his gospel for the Gentile. He uses events and people from gentile and secular history to corroborate his gospel. When he does refer to a Jewish custom, he usually refers to those that every person familiar with Israel would know, such as passover, or he gives a brief explaination. The purpose for Jesus' lineage being shown to us is extremely important. Why? Because one of the Main prophetic aspects of the Messiah was that he was to be from the line of David, and hier to the throne. Matthew points out the Legal line to the throne from Joseph, Jesus' adopted father, to Solomon the Son of David. However, the line was taken away from the Line of Solomon due to the actions of Solomon's decendant Jeconiah or Jehoachin as he was also known. So, we turn to Dr. Luke's account. Here the line goes through Nathan, Solomon's Brother. Dr. Luke uses Joseph as the Connection instead of Mary, but the line is Mary's. That's why Dr. Luke says "son of" instead of "was born" like Matthew. After all, Joseph was the son of Heli, through marriage. It was a common practice in those days. There's nothing to be confused about. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
128 | why was this epistle written? | 1 John | Jesusman | 36020 | ||
Hello John, From your post, I gathered that you wanted a critique of sorts. I have viewed many of your posts. One thing that I have noticed is that you have a strong background into Doctrine and Scriptural interpretation. This is good. We should all be well versed in the Doctrines and the Scripture. However, there are other areas which would provide helpful insight into the meaning of the Scriptural texts. It is good that you are able to interpret the Sriptural truths into modern thinking through the benefit of the great theologins. However, a good understanding of biblical history is important as well. Remember, the original authors of the Bible weren't writing to the future Church. They were writing to a specified group in a specified time in a specified culture. The main thrust of Hermaneutics is to gain insight into that culture, audience, and time. For example, Let's look at the final point in Calvinism: Preservance of the Saints. From an interpretive view, the proofs for this point are found throughout the New Testament. Take 1 Peter 1:3-7 for instance. In this Passage, Peter clearly say that our inheritance is reserved for us in heaven. He says that it is undefiled, imperishable, and won't fade away. It is clear that while we may back slide into sinful actions, our eternal life inheritance will remain in heaven. Now, from the hermaneutical view, the proofs for this point can be found in the history behind the terms used in the New Testament. Take Romans 8:12-17 for instance. In this passage, Paul says that all who have been saved have also been given a "spirit of adoption". He says here that we have the full right to call God, "Abba, Father", or "Daddy" as it would be more accurate. Now, a look into the Roman and Jewish culture of the first century reveals some interesting views behind "adoption". First, every "legit" child was adopted. Second, an "adopted" child, no matter what the circumstances, could NOT be denied his/her inheritance. Third, The adoption contract was so strong and binding, that not even the courts could nullify or desolve it. The adoption was permanent, even through death. So, with that historical insight, the proofs for the preservance of the Saints is clearly seen. So, you can see that the history and culture pertaining to the Bible is extremely important when interpreting Scripture. As for Limited Atonement, from one perspective, I agree, yet from a different perspective, I disagree. Atonement is for all of those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. Any who believes will achieve atonement. Now, From that perspective, I agree that atonement is limited to those who believe and call upon the Lord Jesus Christ. However, there are many Calvinists, especially the more dogmattic ones, who take this a step further and say that Christ died for the elect alone for it is only they who will achieve atonement. I have argued with many of them over the past few years. This perspective I disagree with. I believe that Christ died for the Sins of all mankind, not just those who will be saved. As I said in another thread all together, there are many things in which I agree with Calvinistic Theology. However, there are many places where I disagree as well. So, overall, I would suggest that you do some research into the history and culture of the Bible. As for the Biblical language aspect, which I didn't cover, most commentaries will decifer through most of it for you. A couple good references to look into are: Vincent's word studies of the New Testament, and The Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible by Zodhiotes(sp). Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
129 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36019 | ||
Hello, Sorry, but based on the Context, All of the Dead, saved and non-saved alike, will be at the Great White Throne. The Great White Throne is the time when the wheat will be separated from the Tares, the Sheep from the Goats, and the Good Fish from the Bad fish. All of mankind will be there, not just the non-saved. Jesusman |
||||||
130 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 36018 | ||
Hello, My reason why I asked about whether or not the Double Jeapardy law is int the Bible is because I didn't remember seeing it in the Bible. I thought that it was an American political law that was developed. That's all. Look at Revelation 20:11-15 again. John clearly says that "the dead" appeared before the throne. Now, if this was only the non-saved, then why go through and separate them by looking in the Book of Life. They would all be non-saved people. Looking into the Book of Life would be a waste of time. However, we have the parables that reflect this time from Jesus. As I listed in my previous post, Jesus says that all of mankind will be gathered together, then separated. Just as Revelation 20 points out. Now, we, the saved, still pass on into Life after the judgement due to our names being in the Book of Life. It is our actions that are judged, as the passage reveals. It is the non-saved who will be judged twice. Once for their actions and a second for their souls. As a result, the non-saved will be thrown into the Lake of Fire as a punishment. As for the Judgement seat of Christ, this is also the Great White Throne, or Final Judgement. Both the Judgement Seat and the Great White Throne are wrapped up into one single event, the Final Judgement. As for your comment about Jesus' sacrifice being a judgement call from God upon the Human race, I must disagree slightly. It wasn't just a judgement against Man, but a payment for Sin. The price of Sin must have been paid. Sin was already judged as a violation, and man was already judged as being a criminal long before Jesus died on the Cross. God's speach to Adam and Eve just after they sinned is a clear sign that Mankind and sin was already judged as a whole. The final judgement is a one on one basis, if you will. Why would God have sent the Law if he already didn't have a judgement against Mankind? Noah's Ark and the Great Flood is a Judgement against Man. The Plagues in Egypt is a judgement call from God. The Exile in Babylon and Persia was a judgement call from God. God's cursing of David shortly after the affair with Bathsheba was a judgement by God. The Bible is filled with times where God has judged mankind whether it be as a whole, as a nation, or individually. The Great white throne is the last judgement that God will ever make against mankind. The Final Judgement is not a payment for Sin. That was done with Chist on the Cross. The Final Judgement is against man alone. A judgement against his actions during his life when all of his deeds will be made public, both private deeds and obvious deeds. Jesusman |
||||||
131 | Study the Word, Calvin, or Aminian??? | John 6:65 | Jesusman | 35925 | ||
Hello, I realize that. However, I must ask the question, "Is the Synod's Canon's in accordance completely with the Word of God?" The point I was making is that the Five points of Calvinism as we know them today were developed in order to combat that which was viewed as Heresy. Also, as I pointed out with in my post, the emotions surrounding this topic for centuries has been one of anger. The Synod did not develope these Five points out of compassion or concern to teach the Word of God, but out of anger to refute what was declared as Heresy. That leads me to question the five points of Calvinism. Jesusman |
||||||
132 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 35918 | ||
Hello, Ok? First off, you are correct that Jesus was not judged. However, he did pay the price for Sin. The price of sin is death, which Paul reveals in Romans 3. Jesus paid that price for us, for all of mankind in fact. Now, as a result, Salvation is not entirely the cleansing of our sins, rather it is our acceptance of the Payment made by Jesus. The Final Judgement, which every person shall go through, concerns this. Involved with in the final judgement is the separation. Jesus three time refers to this. In one parable, He talks of separating sheep and goats. IN another parable, he talks of separating wheat and tares. In a third parable, he speaks of a dragnet which contianed all types of fish, which were sorted through between the good and bad fish. So, it is clear from Jesus alone that there will be a time of separation. As we turn back to the passage in Revelation 20:11-15, the first thing that happens after they are all gathered is that they are all judged according to their deeds. Just following, they are separated. Now, The key factor is found in verse 15. Notice, that those who were not listed in the Book of Life were cast into the Lake of Fire. It wasn't those who were judged according to their actions, it was those who accepted the payment by christ. A former pastor of mine explained it this way. The court is gathered, and the defendants are placed, one by one, before God. The accuser reads off the actions that this person committed during his/her lifetime. Just before the gavel hits, the defendant's attorney arrives and states that the defendant's punishment has already been paid and accepted. The judge confirms this in the Book of Life, and the defendant is set free. However, this is not the same for every defendant. For there are those who refused to accept the Attorney's counsel. As for the difference between the Judgement seat and the Great White Throne, I see them both as the same event, namely the Final Judgement. Both Romans 14 and 2 Corinthians 5 speaks of giving an account on that day of our deeds, and that all must endure this. Just as Revelation 20:11-15 describes. Besides, you never hear in Scripture of two final judgements. Only one, the one before God. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
133 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 35902 | ||
Hello, To place the context as the Bible was not what I was asking. That's like asking, "Out of all the foods across the Globe, which tastes the best?" While we may have a favorite food, we cannot objectively say that this particular food tastes the best until we have sampled every single dish from across the Globe. As for the context, I was asking for a particular passage in the Bible to examine. As I said before, the meaning of a phrase is directly dependant upon it's usage and context. Let me clarify with an example from the english language. Let's take the phrase, "I love you!" Now, if I were speaking to my girlfriend, that phrase would have a different meaning than if I were to say it to my dog, parent, or whoever. Do you see my point? From one perspective, Yes, Jesus is the Creator of all things. From the perspective that Jesus is also God in human form. However, we must also remember that the God-head consists of more than Jesus alone. There is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Now, when examining the areas in which creation is being discussed, it is God the Father that is being focused upon, not Jesus Christ. So, from that Perspective, No, Jesus is not the creator of all things. So, the answer to your question, until you narrow it down, is "Yes and No". Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
134 | Are all at the white throne judg. lost? | Revelation | Jesusman | 35901 | ||
Hello, First off, is the "law of double jeopardy" in the Bible? Secondly, The question must be asked, "Was Jesus judged, or did he die in order to pay the debt of Sin that all of Mankind owes?" Thirdly, The Bible never says that the saved are exempt from being at the final Judgement. It says that the final judgement is where the separation is to take place: ie: the separation of the Saved from the Non-saved. That is what Revelation 21 reveals. Finally, God is on throne. He can judge whoever he feels like judging. Do you honestly believe that you are exempt of being held accountable for your actions, and that you have no need to Fear God? Jesusman |
||||||
135 | Study the Word, Calvin, or Aminian??? | John 6:65 | Jesusman | 35301 | ||
Hello bgg, Welcome to the forum! Before I start, I must admit that I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian. I am Christian. Paul explained it best in 1 Corinthians 1:10-17;3:1-9. Basically, Paul teaches that we are all to claim to be disciples of Christ alone, and not to any other person. Paul makes the point that all of God's servants have played a part in God's plan. So, due to these two passages, I call myself a Christian, or a man of Jesus as it were. I don't hold to titles such as Calvinist, arminian, or what have you. With that out of the way, let's continue. As far as to which group I adhere closer to, I must admit that I don't really follow either. I agree with Calvinism on a few things, yet disagree with them also. The same is true for Arminianism. Here are a few reasons why. First, when I began my education in religion, I focused in two specific areas: exegesis and hermaneutics. Exegesis is the "bringing out" of the text. Basically, it is the study of the original languages of the Bible. Hermaneutics is slightly broader than exegesis. It is the basic study of a passage. While it includes "exegesis", it goes into the history and culture of the writer and the events being written. When I began to examine Calvinism and Arminianism, the first place I looked into was the history. The argument between Arminianism and Calvinism really goes back further to Augustine and Pelageous in around 200-300 AD. Calvinism is the "updated" version of Augustine's views. There is little change between them. Augustine disagreed with Pelageous, and vise versa. Pelageous taught that Mankind basically saved himself. There was a bitter debate over the two drastically different views, and they began calling each other "heretics". To settle the debate, "Semi-pelageanism" was developed, which eventually lead to Arminianism. Now, forward to the students of Arminius. His students developed what became the foundation of Arminianism, called "The Remanstrance (sp)". When the followers of Calvin's teaching got ahold of it, they got mad, to say the least. They formed a "committee" and developed the five points of Calvinism. They, too, labled the Arminians as "Heretics". The Committee became known as "The Synod of Dort". Now, for a few things I have questions on. First off this debate has been going on for nearly 2000 years, or better. Included with that, has been some hot tempered arguments. I don't know about anyone else, but I have only called one person a "heretic". When I did, I was not concerned with what the Bible "truly" said, but what I wanted to prove. Upon speaking and researching this with other pastors and biblical circumstances, I have found that the term "heretic" has almost always been used during times of extreme emotions, namely: anger. I have yet to find a recorded time when the term was used in a calm and delicate manner. I can only imagine what the Synod of Dort was feeling when they first came across Arminianism. Secondly, I wonder about the resources availiable at the time of the forming of Calvinism and Arminianism. The Alexandrian texts weren't found until the 1800's, and the Dead Sea Scrolls until the early 1900's. The Textus Receptus was barely developed, if it was even finished at all. Even then, it would've been under scrutiny. The primary available texts would've been the Byzintine Texts or Majority text form, the Latin Vulgate, the Septuagint, the Messoritic Text, Luthor's German translation, and various english translations. The Oldest text available for New Testament studies would've been dated some 400 - 500 years after the New Testament Closed. Then you need to address the issue of how readily availiable these texts were, and especially to those who were declared "protestant" by the Catholic Church, which controlled a majority of the texts listed. My personal thinking is that Calvin's teaching may have been different if he had access to today's texts, and availiability. The Third issue concerning these two groups is focused around the points themselves. If you examine closely, the five points of Calvinism is exactly opposite of the Five points of Arminianism, almost to the extreme. This ties into what I said earlier about the term "heretic". I believe that the Five Points of Calvinism was not developed to give the church a concise outline of Biblical Doctrine. Rather, it was developed to combat Arminianism. To "show them up", so to speak. There are other points that I could make, but it would take too much time and space. I believe this starts things pretty well. Before I close, I must point out that I am not refuting Calvin's, Arminius', Augustine's, Pelageous', or any other Biblical Scholar's brilliance and knowledge. I have a high respect for these men, and use their insights on a regular basis. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
136 | how can we loose our salvation. | NT general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 35277 | ||
Hello, Great point, S. I've done some studies into adoption during the first century AD, and I agree with your point. During the New Testament period, an adoption was such a contract that could not be undone, or broken by any legal means. Not even the government could nullify the adoption contract. It was permanent. Also, an adopted child could not be denied his/her inheritance under any circumstances. This was largely to do with the practice of concubines and mistresses and the children born through them. In order to declare who was legitamate and who was not, the head of the house would adopt the legit children. Place that historical meaning with Romans 8:12-17, and you get eternal security. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
137 | Bad Arguments Against Calvinism | John 15:16 | Jesusman | 34994 | ||
Hello Tim, You make a good point about Calvinsim. How can a sovreign God, with the power to create the universe, raise the dead, and be able to "elect" who he wills to be saved, not be able to "elect" all of mankind? This is a question I have asked to Calvinists many many times. So, for the most part, I agree with you. There is one area which I disagree, slightly. That man freely chooses to accept God's gift. Here is where I differ in belief from both Calvinism and Arminianism. Calvinism makes one good, strong point, that man does not seek after God, and that God goes to mankind to save them. However, I disagree with the Calvinistic thought that when God reveals his grace to the elect, then the person "automatically chooses the grace of God"; to quote a calvinist friend of mine. I also disagree with the Calvinist thought that God saves only the elect and approaches only the elect for Salvation. I have come to view Salvation as a relationship between God and Man. For a relationship to be successful, both members of the relationship must be active in forming the relationship. I believe that God approaches each sinner with the opportunity to have a relationship with him. It is then up to the Sinner and God together to choose whether or not to continue with this relationship. Why do I believe that God goes to every sinner with this opportunity and not just to the elect? Well, primarily, it would be a violation of His own Law. The Law clearly teaches that each slave is given at least one chance in his/her life to be freed, at least one chance to clear the slate, as it were. For God to approach only the elect in salvation, then the remaining people who are enslaved to sin are being ignored, and left in bondage. Also, the Bible teaches that God cannot lie, or go against his revealed will, which is taught in the Law. I also believe that Mankind is not only dead in sin, but is in slavery to sin as well. Man, as is taught in both the Old and New Testaments, is comprised of three "parts or aspects": The Body, Spirit, and Soul. These three together are supposed to form one person. However, The Spirit is dead, as Jesus teaches in John 3, and needs to be made alive through Salvation. The Soul is in slavery, as Paul speaks of in Romans 6-8. The Body, or Flesh, merely follows the will of the Soul and Spirit, and is corrupted as a result. Salvation consists of the Spirit being born, the Soul set free, and the Body being cleansed. This is the only way in which I have been able to reconcile the Omniscience and Will of God in Salvation. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
138 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 34274 | ||
Hello, I did answer your question. The meaning is dependant upon the context. Present the context passage, and I'll present the meaning used in that passage. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
139 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 33913 | ||
Hello, Support? No! Something to look into? Yes! On a side note concerning Enoch's prophecy, it is clear that the Cain and his decendants were sinful. Couldn't his prophecy be concerning them? Jesusman |
||||||
140 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 33912 | ||
Hello, As for "banah adam", sorry don't see much there other than stating that the line starts with adam, but then again, Cain's line started with Adam as well. As for the NT references and their meanings being used in Genesis, true, I did use the New testament to prove a point. Then again, the point that I made is one that is used all throughout the Bible, not just in the New testament. What I did was to apply a meaning that is consistant throughout the Bible. As for obedience verses "totally depraved", a person can be a sinner, and still be obedient to God. Take Abraham for example. Abraham was human, a sinner, and totally Depraved by default. He started out being totally depraved, yet he still obeyed God when God told him to go. True, Abraham slipped up a time or two, but he was still obedient. Now, I'm not saying that the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 were as perfect and obedient as Jesus. I'm saying that they were as obedient to God as a human could be, especially in comparrison to the "Daughters of Men". Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [12] >> |