Results 121 - 140 of 275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | study questions for john chapter5 | John 5:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205459 | ||
Dear John, Good point John, good point! Tam |
||||||
122 | What do we learn about prayer here? | John 17:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204579 | ||
Dear Steve, Please forgive me, I am interested in knowing what others think on things that I may have learned about but didn't agree with what I learned or wanted a different take on it. And some of my questions had nothing to do with anything other than studying about something and wanting to know what someone else thinks about it. I went through the threads before asking this question... Brain teaser about nouns anyone? Bare bones outlines? An exploration into verse 1-5? I was looking for a bit more than that... Thanks anyway hat lady |
||||||
123 | Is war biblical? | John 18:36 | Tamara Brewington | 203881 | ||
Say Doc, I already had a grasp of the criteria from the Reformed position on the "just war" concept. I wanted to see some scriptures other than that of Hebrews which might suppport their position. And the reason is these men of faith in Hebrews were engaging on war at God's command. I can see the concept of there being "just wars" in the OT because God commanded it. But I am trying to find out what is the scriptural basis for a "just war", or whether these theologians just extrapolated the idea based on their observations of the unjustness of tryanical rule... Help me out Doc! Thanks Tamara | ||||||
124 | Is war biblical? | John 18:36 | Tamara Brewington | 203913 | ||
Yeah Doc, I agree that the questions posed are tough. The Romans passage was written to Christians who were going to be put to death by the Roman government. Paul knew he was proscribing obedience to an evil government, the context is clear to obey it anyway. There are other passages that tell the Christians they are called to suffering in general and specifically for Christ. Paul even said to the Romans, if he had done anything worthy of death, he would be willing to die in another passage. This Romans passage seems to be talking about internal government inside the rulership of an empire, not external government response to an opposing government. The OT is ripe with God commanding war for His own holy purposes and they were all commended for their faith in war acts. There is the concept of caring for the oppressed and standing up for the causes of the oppressed in the OT, which I have heard applied to this theory on "just war", but which the scriptures used said nothing of war. Then to complicate things one has to consider how much suffering under and unjust government is enough? Should we suffer extensively only if it is for the gospel, but not for other reasons as Christians and when do we stop turning the other cheek and for what reasons? A big problem with no "just war" would be Hitler and his program of utter world domination and destruction in which, contrary to popular belief as many or more Christians than Jews(if you believe the like of the historical forays of R.C.Sproul and one other theologian whose name I can't remember) were killed and the rest of the world's inferior were to follow. Scripture does give us a clear answer to suffer under an evil regime localy, but does not give us a clue what to do outside our borders. I am gratefull for what you presented as an answer though. Agape, Tamara | ||||||
125 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204552 | ||
Dear Val, I am trying to see your point here... That the if a person believes and unites with Christ in hearing the word and are forgiven, having recieved the Holy Spirit the apostles perhaps agree with them in Christ? And that if a person does not receive the word then the apostles retain their sins because they have rejected Christ? This rather makes a lot of sense to me... I had in mind perhaps if someone went and said Jesus did His works by the power of the devil don't forgive them. Here is what was niggling around in my brain; we know that only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. So how is that He breathes the Holy Spirit on them and gives them the power to forgive or retain the sins of any? He did do it, but then that means He gave them power He has given to no one since. Catholics believe that the laying on of hands confers the power and the authority of the apostles, starting with Peter, upon whom I will build My church, and that these powers include the forgiveness or retaining of sins. And this is why they confess to the priests and not to Jesus. I believe the apostles may actually have been given the authority to decide as you point out if someone is saved and forgiven, or that Jesus actually gave them the power under His authority to forgive or retains sins, but only to them and not to any successors. I don't know what you think about this and realize that I should be doing some foot work on this in terms of demonstrating that the Bible states that only Jesus has the power to forgive sins. But why would Jesus give them the power to do something only He could do? It is not really necessary for anyone to see if anyone forgives them other than Jesus. But the fact remains Jesus told them to go do something very specific. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
126 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204701 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, I have to agree to a point with your interpretation here as to the reason for why Jesus was saying for the disciples to go and forgive the sins of any and to go retain the sins of any. The reason is that you provided compelling evidence of how it would be possible for Jesus to say what He did. You put it in context with the rest of what scripture teaches about what it means to preach a message of reconciliation as being brougth by ambassadors of Christ who have the power to assure people that they have salvation, or to know that they don't and tell them their sins are not forgiven. Val hit on the same thing in different words and that struck me as a rather compelling representation of the function of preaching about salvation as being to present a means for the sinner to be forgiven. And in that sense the preaching would present the opportunity for sins to be forgiven by Jesus. Now that interpretation that you have given makes me wonder why Jesus would be breathing on them the Holy Spirit to make them witnesses when in fact He comes to them in Acts 1:4-8 to tell them to wait for the Holy Spirit to come to them with power so that they can to be His witnesses to do the very same thing you are telling me He was implying for them to do in John 20:22. That does not make sense... If what He was doing in John was breathing the Holy Spirit on them to anoint them and then telling them to go preach the message of recociliation in order to know for the sake of the sinner that they were saved or unsaved, why then does He tell them to wait for the Holy Spirit to come again in order to go preach that same message of reconciliation? I have asked someone before if John MaCarthur's take on John 20:22 is correct, that they did not receive the Holy Spirit, but just a pledge... The answer I received was that the Greek is saying that He blew on or blew in the Holy Spirit on or in them and that this was not a mere pledge. So now, while I can agree with your explanation of using passages which can explain the concept of how sins get forgiven I am left with a question of why Jesus wanted them to wait for something He had already done? God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
127 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204702 | ||
Dear Val, I can see how the apostles would be preaching a message resulting in forgiveness of sin and that the apostles would be merely assenting to what they observed. What I can't see is why Jesus would breathe the Holy Spirit on them to preach the message and then tell them in Acts 1 to wait for the Holy Spirit to come with power before they were to go preach the same message you are saying He was indicating for them to do in John 20:22. I agree whole heartedly with you about it being Peter's confession about Christ, but there is also that there is a play on words here with Christ saying Peter and petra and petra means foundation boulder. Peter says elsewhere that the church is built of living stones that all confess Christ. And in Ephesians it says that the church was built on the foundation of Christ and the prophets and the apostles, Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone and the rest being a building fitted together (that is composed of stones in a building). God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
128 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204727 | ||
Val I truly appreciate your insight, I believe you are very correct in your intrepretation of how the Holy Spirit was working as a seal; we get a seal of promise from the Holy Spirit upon belief, we get a seal of the Holy Spirit to work for God, we see that OT saints received seals and also lost them, we see that Christ gave the power of the Holy Spirit in a huge out pouring as prophesied in Daniel as a final sealing to do God's work. I still have to go back and study something different about how the Holy Spirit was working in Luke. I like your picture of little stones and a bigs stone. God Bless happy 4th of July to you Tamara |
||||||
129 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204728 | ||
Dear Flinky, I think that only Jesus had the power to forgive sins as a man because the Bible elsewhere says that the Pharisees were disgruntled becuase Jesus was saying He had the power to forgive sins and the author of the passages notes that only God could forgive sins. This is why they put Him to death, He kept making claims to deity. I think the concept of the message of reconciliation is the key here, that an apostle would know who was saved based on if they accepted the message, and then declaring who was saved and who was not based on that. That passage you mention where the power was given to men to forgive sins could only be applying to Jesus because other men are not God. Yeah I got a lot of inquisitiveness, but I gotta watch it doesn't make me lose my way too. Happy 4th of July to you. Tamara |
||||||
130 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204731 | ||
Dear Tim, I understand we can't answer this dogamtically as to what exactly is meant by Jesus, not by us, that He was breathing, blowing in or on the Holy Spirit on them in terms of the scope of the what the results of that was for them. What, though do you think about the fact that Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on them, or blew in the Holy Spirit on them? I highly doubt that John meant that as a figurative language denoting a pledge or else he would have used different language to describe what Jesus did. John says Jesus blew in or out, or on, the Holy Spirit on them. As a literal interpretation Jesus did not command them in that passage to receive the Holy Spirit at all, He breathed Him on or in them, He didn't command them that. What He commnaded was to retain or forgive sins. Or are you saying He didn't blow on, or in, or out, the Holy Spirit on them as the text indicates as a literal interpretation? Happy 4th of July to you and your whole family. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
131 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204769 | ||
Dear Flinky, In Mathew 9:6-8 there is definitely a literary device in which Mathew speaks of how the divinty of God has been conferred to men in the person of the Son of Man, Jesus the man, not to all men in the form of other men. We all know it was not a good thing for the Pharisees to say that Jesus was a blasphemer and that it was a positve testimony of Jesus ability to forgive sin, I did not say otherwise. I said the Pharisees were disgruntled which they were and that the reason they ended up putting Jesus to death, becuase of His repeated claims to deity, like the forgiveness of sins. Which we see, according to the Bible, only Jesus had the power to do;Luke 5:20-24 Jesus forgives the sins of the same paralyzed man and the Pharisees say, only God has the power to forgive sins. Then Jesus says so that you may now that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, etc. Jesus never tells them they are wrong, He says to them see I have the authority to forgive sins, meaning He was God. You said; thus any man given authority to forgive sin would be doing so in the Person of Christ. Men are not a substitute for Christ forgiving other men in His name, there is only one sacrificial subsititute for sins and He is Jesus. The only thing men have the power to do as mere men and not God, is to be witnesses of whether or not God has forgiven the sins of men. That is why I got shook up about John 20:22,23, men, nowhere in the Bible have the divine power of God to forgiven sins because they have not completed the holy sacrifice that Jesus did complete by shedding His blood for sins. There is only one advocate with the Father, and He is Jesus Christ, I John 2:2, no other person from earth is the advocate, only Jesus. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
132 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204770 | ||
Continuation to Flinky; In James where you have what you like to call the presbyters, which we like to call the elders, there is that the elders pray and Jesus effects the healing and forgiveness of sins, not the elders, they don't effect anything, they don't have the power. I have read church history on this thing and what I found out is that this idea of the presbyters being priests was a leap taken by a certain church or churches that has no basis in scripture. In I Timothy we have the word Bishop or overseer, and then we have the word Deacon or minister. The qualifications are crystal clear each is to the husband of one wife, not given to wine, etc. Where Paul says elsewhere that he wishes other men would live even as he does, that it celibate, he also says let each man be called to that which God has disposed his calling to be and that not every man has been called as he has. He never said that you had to be celibate to be a presbyter, a Bishop, or a Deacon. Peter and the some of other apostles had wives, Paul said, is it that only Peter and the others may take along with them wives, and not we? There is no evidence that you have to be celibate to be a presbyter. But the history of certain churches shows that celibacy has been imposed. The title of presbyter, or elder being changed to priest is the invention of a church or churches and may be the Latin for presbyter, but it is not the Greek for presbyter. The apostles, the deacons, the overseers and elders, the ministers, the pastor teachers; these are all words that can be found in the Greek to be referring to those who were said by Paul to be over the flock, but the word priest is never used to refer to those over the flock. It is used of the Sanhedrin and the of those from Solomon's temple, but not the church. When Paul addresses those at Ephesus in farewell, he mentions the elders and the bishops as being overseeing the flock as shepherds, but no priests. The church at that time had no such heirarchy as is seen to day in the churches. Paul never says the elders were under the bishops because that is not how the church functioned. There was a mulitipicity of leadership in the churches with a bunch of elders and a buch of bishops who as a group oversaw the whole flock they were all together in charge of. There were no arch-bishops, there was no reason for there to be on as a group of men ran the churches together. There were no priests because Jesus is the only high priest of our confession as Hebrews teaches. There was no pope, that is an invention of certain churches. Peter was never a pope; he was an apostle a founding father of the church. The power of the apostles is not transferable by the laying on of hands. You are either called to be an apostle by Jesus while you walked with Him while He was alive, or you saw Him on the Damascus road as the risen Lord and you were called by Him to be an apsotle, or you are not on the same level with the same office as the apostles. It is not transferable. There was a laying on of hands by the apostles to pray over the servants of tables men of faith, it was not a transference of power to do the works of an apostle. Jesus said He would build the church on the rock, Peter, but the Bible teaches and Jesus elsewhere teaches the only Jesus is the chief corner stone on which the church is built, everybody else is a smaller rock in that building. He meant that He would build the church on the confession of Peter, which Peter had just done, the church. And like Peter the church is built on all of our confessions of Christ. The church history is rife with additions to the original model of church governance as the traditions of men. No man has more authority than scripture to do anything, or to decide anything, the scripture is the final authority on earth given to men by which to practice Christianity. Following the traditions of addition of some of the churches does not confer any state of grace, or forgiveness of sins, or the body and blood of Christ, or the Holy Spirit. All of these things are conferred soley by the triune sovereign God head. Yeah I have read lots of church history and the church is not the primary element of Christianity either, the Bible is, and Jesus is, but the church was never given the power by Jesus to be the basis for faith, and being in a church does not have the power to forgive your sins or tell you that you have been saved. Believing in Jesus is the only way to be saved and asking Him and Him alone to forgive sins is the only way to be forgiven of sins, men do not have the power to do either of these things. They can only assent that Jesus has done them. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
133 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204771 | ||
Continuation to Flinky; In James where you have what you like to call the presbyters, which we like to call the elders, there is that the elders pray and Jesus effects the healing and forgiveness of sins, not the elders, they don't effect anything, they don't have the power. I have read church history on this thing and what I found out is that this idea of the presbyters being priests was a leap taken by a certain church or churches that has no basis in scripture. In I Timothy we have the word Bishop or overseer, and then we have the word Deacon or minister. The qualifications are crystal clear each is to the husband of one wife, not given to wine, etc. Where Paul says elsewhere that he wishes other men would live even as he does, that it celibate, he also says let each man be called to that which God has disposed his calling to be and that not every man has been called as he has. He never said that you had to be celibate to be a presbyter, a Bishop, or a Deacon. Peter and the some of other apostles had wives, Paul said, is it that only Peter and the others may take along with them wives, and not we? There is no evidence that you have to be celibate to be a presbyter. But the history of certain churches shows that celibacy has been imposed. The title of presbyter, or elder being changed to priest is the invention of a church or churches and may be the Latin for presbyter, but it is not the Greek for presbyter. The apostles, the deacons, the overseers and elders, the ministers, the pastor teachers; these are all words that can be found in the Greek to be referring to those who were said by Paul to be over the flock, but the word priest is never used to refer to those over the flock. It is used of the Sanhedrin and the of those from Solomon's temple, but not the church. When Paul addresses those at Ephesus in farewell, he mentions the elders and the bishops as being overseeing the flock as shepherds, but no priests. The church at that time had no such heirarchy as is seen to day in the churches. Paul never says the elders were under the bishops because that is not how the church functioned. There was a mulitipicity of leadership in the churches with a bunch of elders and a buch of bishops who as a group oversaw the whole flock they were all together in charge of. There were no arch-bishops, there was no reason for there to be on as a group of men ran the churches together. There were no priests because Jesus is the only high priest of our confession as Hebrews teaches. There was no pope, that is an invention of certain churches. Peter was never a pope; he was an apostle a founding father of the church. The power of the apostles is not transferable by the laying on of hands. You are either called to be an apostle by Jesus while you walked with Him while He was alive, or you saw Him on the Damascus road as the risen Lord and you were called by Him to be an apsotle, or you are not on the same level with the same office as the apostles. It is not transferable. There was a laying on of hands by the apostles to pray over the servants of tables men of faith, it was not a transference of power to do the works of an apostle. Jesus said He would build the church on the rock, Peter, but the Bible teaches and Jesus elsewhere teaches the only Jesus is the chief corner stone on which the church is built, everybody else is a smaller rock in that building. He meant that He would build the church on the confession of Peter, which Peter had just done, the church. And like Peter the church is built on all of our confessions of Christ. The church history is rife with additions to the original model of church governance as the traditions of men. No man has more authority than scripture to do anything, or to decide anything, the scripture is the final authority on earth given to men by which to practice Christianity. Following the traditions of addition of some of the churches does not confer any state of grace, or forgiveness of sins, or the body and blood of Christ, or the Holy Spirit. All of these things are conferred soley by the triune sovereign God head. Yeah I have read lots of church history and the church is not the primary element of Christianity either, the Bible is, and Jesus is, but the church was never given the power by Jesus to be the basis for faith, and being in a church does not have the power to forgive your sins or tell you that you have been saved. Believing in Jesus is the only way to be saved and asking Him and Him alone to forgive sins is the only way to be forgiven of sins, men do not have the power to do either of these things. They can only assent that Jesus has done them. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
134 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204772 | ||
Point taken Val, I should have said commission. God bless, thanks Tamara |
||||||
135 | Why can't I speak in tongues yet ? | Acts | Tamara Brewington | 204274 | ||
Oh my dear Azure, it was a little while of asking before anyone stepped up to the plate and I had stumble around a bit at first. Didn't mean to belittle your help or Lionheart's help either. And didn't I say hardly anyone, which of course means someone did! I have had a realy hard row to hoe in here Azure, I think you know this, my first help from you though I remember well, an admonition on how to post a note, if I remember correctly... If you will remember no one answered me so soon that I did not continue to stumble a bit which is what I meant. Have I ruffled feathers again Azure? I am trying so hard prayfuly not to do that anymore... To every old timer who sees this post, forgive me if I have offended you by saying that hardly anyone was willing to school me, but it took a while before anyone did and that is the truth. God bless Azure and the other old timers. |
||||||
136 | Why can't I speak in tongues yet ? | Acts | Tamara Brewington | 204290 | ||
Thanks Hank! Lionheart told me to guard my heart! I will be praying aout that... I had to laugh for a while after learning how to follow a thread... I saw that sometimes the old timers hunker down into a serious back and forth study and sometimes digress into heartfelt obvious chatter! I was laughing so hard after being told that my posts were like unto chatter with the fact that at that time I kept including exploration into the scriptures that folks sent in reply to questions... Go figure I later gave up trying to believe that some would be addressing the scriptures in my questions and did not include scriptures or contexts at all. And in those cases did not even bother to try to answer folks back on their notes because I was discouraged. I think I need to guard my heart in more ways than one... I will endeavor to reach out to others in continued sincerity and also go back to including contexts and scriptures without too much brevity as this makes it hard for others to understand what exactly is the context of the questions, which is what we are supposed to be doing here as part of following guidlines... As I pointed out to Azure, I said hardly received help, not didn't receive any. I will continue to ask for help. God, bless, have a good Sunday, gotta go, late for first Sunday, Tamara |
||||||
137 | Why can't I speak in tongues yet ? | Acts | Tamara Brewington | 204301 | ||
Oh My John, so very patient with me, forgive me as I chatter a bit here. LOL. I just thought of the scripture that keeps floating back to me in here I Corinthians 13... I was laughing at hats (oops there is that nasty word again) flying through the air at the rapture myself though (so much for so called unwarranted humor...). I take myself and others way too seriously sometimes, oops here comes another scripture in the middle of my chatter;Romans 12:3 For through the peace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; but to think so as to have sound judgment, as God has allotted to each a measure of faith. The hatchet was buried between me and everybody as soon as I got on my knees the other day to ask forgiveness in my part of all of it before forgiving everyone else. You know what? Let me tell you something about the dreaded issue of hats and the issue of being a computer twit to wit, they ain't half as important as the love of Christ bewtween us all. I am a novice a new jack whose life got ruined worse than it was the day I woke up from a comma and decided, since He commanded me to live and go back out and bring Him fruit, to go do just that. On fire for the Lord, scriptures are my life, without them I have no anchor, through the blurr of a ruined mind they were there, they proved themselves to be absolutely solid. John as soon as you were answering me back again, I was sooo relieved that you were willing to teach me some more. I have a great pastor/teacher and a good church family, but there are plenty good teachers around in the body of Christ and when you find some gems that have been polished for a while you just want to soak up every word... You weren't harping John, you are being more than patient with me, so are Val and Lionheart and Azure and Hank and Searcher and Cheri and the others. I get impatient about the word, I need to chillax as my son likes to say, Mom chillax. There is time in God, I am saved, let God work things out, we are all one giant organism spread from China to the USA and beyond. I notice you end your posts with Shalom, not judging. There are so many denominations with different doctrines and I try not to judge others if they actually believe in the blood of Jesus for forgiveness of sin, I believe they are saved. Some might not agree because of the Jesus plus theory, you know, Jesus plus baptism, Jesus plus a priest, Jesus plus works, Jesus plus the law, Jesus plus add nauseum. But I had the priveledge of having a Cathholic doctor who asked me if I believed in the blood of Jesus to forgive sins after waking up out of that comma. And he was asking because I was dying and I told him I was a child of the most high God and what Jesus told me while I was under. He said then ask Him for a miracle or you will die soon, I don't care what denomination you are go pray on the blood. 40 days and 40 nights later I was miraculously healed and out of there after praying something the Holy Spirit spoke into my heart. I have a high and healthy respect for the blood of Jesus to save from sin and His stripes to heal from deathly illness. I don't care that the doctor was Catholic and I believe since he believes first and foremost in the blood of Jesus that he is going to heaven. I got to be a Baptist quite by accident and after learning a bit more than I knew decided I agreed with the basic tenents of that denomination and stayed. But I have fellowshipped with my brother's church, Church of Christ and had a very good time (both types of that denomination, with and without music, my brother switched around a bit). I am saying all this by way of leaning on the blood above tradition (there goes that aspect of the dreaded subject again) or denomination. I think that each denomination has a lot right and a few things all wrong including mine because we ain't God and we can't get it right in our present state. What is graceful about you, (whoops I have been chatting!) John, is the love of Christ in you towards me and the ability to put up with my crap and teach me at the same time. That's grace. Thanks for everything and your prayers too, God Bless, the hat lady |
||||||
138 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | Tamara Brewington | 205577 | ||
Dear Colt 045, I do believe there is a simple very simple answer to your question once one is willing to set aside the issue of whether or not it was in the origanal text... And then I will tell you about the places in your Bible where a text was not found in all manuscripts that make up your Bilble and try to exlain to you how it is that things get put in the Bible in the frist place so that you can see that men don't add or take away a part of a text, but that some manuscripts contain some things and some don't. But that is not the problem here with the verse you are interested in. You have to consider that when Jesus was speaking when Peter was near, He never said the words, "(Thus He declared all foods clean.)", or else they would be in red! What is going on here is that the writer, Mark added in words later to illustrate the meaning of what Jesus actually was saying to Mark's readers. This is an excersize in grammar- taking the parts of the grammar of the text and breaking it down into its harmonious parts and then putting it back together to make better sense of what the text means. So, Mark quoted Jesus, the red part, and then Mark made a comment to his readers summing up what Jesus just said; that food going in cannot defile a man, and then Mark takes what he learned their and states that because of what Jesus was saying before Jesus meant that all foods were clean. How many times did the disciples hear what Jesus said and not understand it? More than once! More than twice? Yup! They understood most of it later, when the they were teaching it and writing it! We can't assume Peter understood it when it was spoken based on his actions later can we? No, in fact we can conclude that he did not understand it at all... By the time we get to Acts 10, Peter is still practicing Judaism at the same time as all the Jewish Christians; they went to temple, they went to synagogue, they ate kosher food, they stayed away from the Gentiles, they considered themselvs Jews who believed in Jesus. The word Christian and the concept of being separate from Jews are two different things. They were first called Christians at Antioch by folks in that city and it was not a compliment. There was great division between Jews who were Christians and Gentiles who were Christians over food for a while, they did not eat together, they did not eat the same thing. When Peter got to that vision he did not go out and start eating any old thing, he understood all people can be made clean by God even Gentiles. Peter took a long time before he went and ate anything unclean and then when the Judean Jews came to Galatia, he backed right up and stopped eating Gentile food, and he and Paul fought about it. Now to the question of texts and what are in orginal texts and what are in copies, which make up our Bible. This is an area called textual criticisim; There are two sets of manuscripts used for the construction of the New Testament. The Latter Texts and The Earlier Texts. The Latter Texts were used to write the King James Bible, the very first one. These manuscripts were copies of the original texts written by the original authors and those are called the original autographs. These orginal autographs are gone now, they were around in the first century when they were written and then copied many, many, many times. Altogether there are upwards of 5,300 Greek manuscript fragaments which are portions of the New Testament used to construct the New Testament into one whole canon. The Latter texts were all discovered first, but they were not the oldest copies, they were the youngest copies - and from this we get the King James Bible. The Earlier Texts, the earlier manuscripts are more in number and contain less differences in textual content per passage and contain less copyist errors. From these Earlier Texts which are more reliable manuscripts and higher in number and which are older manuscripts we get the NASB, NIV, ESV, TNIV, NRSV, NASU, NAB, NJB, GNB, REB, which were all written in the last century or so. Our dear translators have a wonderful guide at the beginning of the NASB describing Explanation of General Format, but they left out one very important thing, the use of brackets in the all Bibles written in the last century or so. They talk about notes, cross referrences, paragraphs, quotation marks, and so on, even asterisks. Here is why everyone has brackets all over their Bible and it is the only reason. Where ever you see brakets, like in Mark 16:9-20 and the after note, it is because a set of manuscripts referrenced by the body of translators of your particular Bible came accross a situation where one set of manuscripts leave out that part of the verse, but the other manuscripts contain that part of the verse. Make sure to understand this only refers to brackets and not to parenthesis. Hope this clears it all up for you, God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
139 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | Tamara Brewington | 205578 | ||
Dear Steve, I believe if you want to be removed to the Forum you could try the link provided to make a complaint about a user and tell them you want to be unregistered. I tried once to ask a question using another link that supposedly was there to contact them, I had a question, they wrote me back that that link could not be used to communicate with them about concerns and to use the other link, it was not about anyone else, but about myself. But this part of your post is a head scratcher! You want to be removed, but didn't stop posting! ARgh? There is a feature in here you can use per post after you press preview follow up on the preview page you have the option of choosing to not receive an email back to your post, this works per note, per answer! Does this help any? God Bless, Tamar |
||||||
140 | Mathias a real apostle qualifications? | Acts 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204169 | ||
Dear Kemmy, 1)By those qualifications then people can be apostles today. 2)Is that what you mean for me to understand? God bless, Tamara |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [14] >> |