Results 121 - 140 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228584 | ||
seektruth (but unable to find it) says: Look at John 1:1... You can't interpret that to me without changing the definition of God each time He comes up. You'd say that the Word was with God (the Father), and was God (the Son), right? Answer: No you are not right. The Word was with God (in interaction with God), does not refer to His interaction with the Father but His interaction with the Godhead. And the fact that He was God emphasises His participation in the Godhead. So there is no change of use. |
||||||
122 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228585 | ||
seektruth (but unable to find it) says: Because the Son not only has complete divine nature, but also complete human nature, not only did He speak as being God, but He also spoke as being man. That meant He spoke of God as we all should - referring to God as "God", as well as with those male-pronouns "He", "His" and "Him". Answer: This is perfectly true. seektruth but unable to find it) says: This is where we largely see differently. I say this is Jesus speaking as a man, whereas you say this is the second person speaking to the first person Answer: This is were you go astray. You are making Jesus two persons. But two 'natures' does NOT indicate two persons. It is the divine Spirit of Christ which is manifest through both natures. Thus when Jesus speaks to the Father it IS God speaking to God. Jesus could never speak 'just as a man', for He was God manifest in the flesh. Even when He spoke as a man He spoke as God. |
||||||
123 | Apostles activities | 1 Tim 1:12 | biblicalman | 229743 | ||
Searcher, I'm sorry but your question baffles me. I don't know what you are talking about. As I said Acts chapter 1 to Acts chapter 15 and referred to the ministry of all the Apostles your question appears rather strange. Perhaps you should think about it and reword it |
||||||
124 | Apostles activities | 1 Tim 1:12 | biblicalman | 229749 | ||
Further to my statement in respect of the ministry of the Apostles mentioned in chs 1-15 I provide a list of some of them: They stood with Peter on the day of Pentecost (2.14). They taught the early believers (2.41). Through them wonders and signs were done (2.43). They were God’s servants through whom it was prayed that God would cause His word to be spoken boldly, accompanied by signs and wonders in the name of God’s holy Servant, Jesus (4.29-30). They stood and preached in Solomon’s porch when none dared join with them, and were held in high honour by the people (5.12). They were arrested and imprisoned, were released from prison by an angel during the night (5.18-19), and went back at daybreak to the Temple, boldly to continue their ministry (5.21). They were set before the council and questioned (5.27), and when they were reminded that they had been charged not to preach in the name of Jesus, they replied that they had no alternative (5.28-32). They were beaten, and charged not to speak in the name of Jesus and let go, and subsequently rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the Name, and continued preaching and teaching (5.40-42). They stressed that no hindrance should be put on their teaching ministry (6.2) They remained in Jerusalem when persecution caused the believers to be scattered (8.1). It may well be that the persecution was at this time mainly aimed at the Hellenists. They were still in Jerusalem when they determined to send Peter and John to oversee the ministry among the Samaritans (8.14). (Note there how Peter is subject to the authority of all the Apostles). In chapter 15 they would almost be a part of the general assembly that made the decision to accept Gentiles without circumcision and not put on them the whole burden of the ceremonial Law. It is apparent then that they were kept very busy and played their full part in the Apostolic ministry, even though we lose touch with them after chapter 15. |
||||||
125 | Apostles activities | 1 Tim 1:12 | biblicalman | 229758 | ||
The questioner was asking about information concerning the activities of the Apostles. In my view what was wanted was information about the lesser known Apostles. I hardly think Paul was in mind. We all know a great deal about Paul. I answer what I think the questioner wants to know, not so as to show off my knowledge. chapter 15 is where we obtain the last information about the majority of the Apostles, including Barnabas. The questioner would waste their time looking beyond that unless their interest was in Paul best wishes |
||||||
126 | women preachers | 1 Tim 2:12 | biblicalman | 228037 | ||
1 Corinthians 14 is irrelevant to the question as it has nothing to do with teaching. It is blurring the issue. Furthermore we cannot reasonably apply the situation at Corinth to every church. 1 Timothy 2.11 says nothing about it referring to church meetings. Ephesians 5 is also not referring to teaching but the meaning is quite clear that the woman is to be subject to her husband because he stands as representative of the Lord. To cite 'greek scholars' is irrelevant. There is wide disagreement among them. With regard to prophesying, no one would deny that women prophesied. The question is whether they did it before men, and there is no Scriptural evidence that they did so. Huldah was very much an exception. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. We can read into their ministry what we will. But our ideas are not Scripture. The question was, what does Scripturee say. And my point was that Scripture is quite clear. I personally have no problem with some women preachers and teachers, although I am very much aware that many of them introduce ideas which distort Scripture in an unusual way. But that was not the question. I recognise that I cannot justify my position from Scripture. In my view Scripture clearly restricts teaching to the church to men. | ||||||
127 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | biblicalman | 229539 | ||
Hi Ismaila, It is a controversial question partly because women don't like the Scriptural emphasis. I will give you three pointers: 1). Jesus only appointed male Apostles, even though women disciples were travelling around with Him (Luke 8.2). 2). Paul stated that no woman should teach authoritatively or have overall authority in the church (1 Tim 2.12). 3). Paul said 'the head of the woman is the man' confirming 2). (1 Cor 11.3). Best wishes |
||||||
128 | What does begotten mean on this verse? | Heb 1:5 | biblicalman | 229077 | ||
You asked the question, 'how is begotten used in the Bible?' It is used of fathers begetting their sons. This is a direct begetting (as in Heb 1.5). It is used of ancestors 'begetting' descendants (e.g. Matt 1.8 where Uzziah was a descendant of Joram, not hs son). It is probably used in Matt 1.16 of the adoption of a relative as heir (that is how Joseph could have two fathers, and how Jesus could be heir to the throne of Israel). It is also probably use in Psalm 2.7 of the adoption by God of Israel's king as His 'son' (compare 2 Sam 7.14). This as a type of the coming Messiah. No one in the Psalmist's time would have seen it as indicating what it did come to mean. No one was expecting God's own Son to come into the world. But as Seth has pointed out its meaning in Heb 1.5 is determined by the context. It is speaking of One 'begotten' as an only trueborn Son of God. |
||||||
129 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228622 | ||
Just to add a few thoughts on Romans 7.7-8.2 (the section where Paul speaks in the singular). A perusal of the passage divides it into three parts, that expressed in the past tense (7.7-13), that expressed in the present tense (7.14-25), and a final summary in 8.1-2. It appears to me that unless we ignore what Scripture says in order to support our own positions this makes quite clear that in 7.7-13 Paul is speaking of past experience, and in 7.14-25 he is speaking of present experience. How we then interpret what he says is another question. But we must not avoid what Scripture makes clear. But it is noticeable that he concludes the section by declaring that, in spite of what is carnal within him, the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made him free from the law of sin and death. He then goes on to explain why. |
||||||
130 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228627 | ||
When Paul says that man has been 'made free from the law of sin and death' (Rom 8.2) he does not mean that sin and death no longer affect him. For we will all die (assuming that Christ does not come first). What we are delivered from is the final effect of death, because Christ will give us life. In the same way it does not mean that sin will not affect us, it means that finally we will have victory over sin. Sin is vey much a determining factor in our lives. It is constantly at work within us seeking to bring us down ('it is not I but sin which dwells in me' - Rom 7.20). But thsnks be to God we can obtain victory over known sin through our Lord Jesus Christ Rom 7.25). Our sins do not count against us before God because Christ has been made our righteousness (Rom 3.24-25; 1 Cor 1.30). But they certainly count in daily living. To sin is to shame Christ. 'How shall you who are dead to sin, live any longer in it?' (Rom 6.2). But they did. Paul says we are dead to sin, not that sin is dead. Sin is very much alive. But we have to reckon ourselves as dead to sin and alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 6.11). Thus we are to see ourselves as dead to sin. This 'death' is something thst we have to work out in the power of the risen Christ. We should recognise thst we are dead and should therefore allow Christ to live through us. In this way we will overcome known sin. But the principle of sin is deep underneath. it is constantly seeking to make itself felt. In some it tempts to adultery. In others it tempts to be careless in prayer. In others it persuades them away from the study of God's word. All are sin. In others it tempts to complacency. This too is sin. There is no perfect man who does not sin, only in context of the discussion, one who conquers known sin. But we will never be free from sin because our carnal nature prevents us achieving perfection. It prevents us from loving God with heart, soul, mind and strength. It prevents us from always doing what is positively right. As we grow nearer to God we recognise as sin what others see simply as problems of life. None of us will ever live in the perfection in which Jesus Christ lived with His full awareness of the Father and of the Father's will. We are slowly growing into that awareness. Paul's consciousness of his sinful nature expressing itself was not with what we would call sins. It was with his recognition that He was not yet fully like Christ in every aspect of His life. And it grieved him. He recognised that he came short and constantly strove to be more like Christ. But he 'strove' by submission to Christ as the One Who was living through him. We are believers in experiencing salvation. And salvation is not just a once for all forgiveness through the righteousness of Christ (although it is that), it is also a process of being daily transformed by the Spirit from one degree of glory to another (2 Corinthians 3.18). The final aim is to bring us up to the glory of God. But while we live in this life we will always fall short of that glory (Rom 3.23). To Paul sin within was very much alive. What he dealt with was our response to that sin which was by dying with Christ, and experiencing His risen life through our own lives |
||||||
131 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228646 | ||
Hi Tim, YOU SAY : There is in Greek an historical present, were the present tense can be used to describe past events or actions. Not everyone agrees that Romans 7:14-25 is an historical present, but it is possible. Thus, tense alone will not answer this question. :-) MY REPLY IS: It is true that sometimes the present can be viewed historically, but not when it is specifically contrasted with the past in the same context. Then the contrast emphasises the true nature of the present tense. Thus in this passage I consider it incontrovertible that in using the present Paul is speaking of the present. We cannot just switch tenses around at will. We can equally say that the past tense can mean the present. What then is the value of tenses? The answer is that they must be interpreted in context. Paul was writing knowing that his letter would be read out to the Roman churches. He would expect them to be able to follow his meaning as they went along. And when he therefore in the same context switched from the past to the present he would expect them to see it accordingly. The historic present cannot then come into account, unless language is to be meaningless. Why do people not like the present tense here? It is because what Paul says does not fit in with their preconceptions. We would do better to ask, given that he is spsaking of the present, what does he mean? Best wishes |
||||||
132 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228662 | ||
Well Beja, you can obviously see it as you like. But if that was all Paul was doing he did not need to change the tense. Normally I would not comment on another teacher's post but as you have addressed this one directly to me I feel it necessary to do so. The impression given by the passage is that what he had said in verses 7-13 leads on to his then describing his current position. Quite frankly I have no hesitation in saying that if he changed to an historic present he was not very wise. He could only confuse everyone. And as I believe God was behind his words I know that God is very wise. In this passage confusion arises simply because, not being willing to accept it at face value, people try to find ways of getting round it. Thus I cannot accept in this context that he used a deceptive historic present. And this is especially so as the actual present makes good sense, except to those who want to see Paul as perfect. Paul lived so near to God that he was deeply conscious of sin. He saw as sin what we simply pass by. And he was thus aware more than we are of its power within him. He knew that day by day he could only overcome it in the power of Christ. And he knew that that was true for all his listeners. He was not of course talking about what most people see as sins. He did not lead a defeated life. That is where we go astray. He was talking of his awareness that he fell short of Christlikeness. His testimony here is an essential part of Romans 6-8. Having made clear how he saw doctrine affecting the Christian's approach to living in chapter 6 he wanted to make clear that that did not provide an easy ride. Being dead to sin did not mean that sin was dead. It led indeed to facing up to sin within and responding to it in the power of Christ, and he therefore demonstrates this from his own life, explaining as he did so the workings of the Christian mind and heart. The mistake most people make is in ending his words at 7.25. But as the use of 'I, me' demonstrates it ends at 8.2 (or 8.4). It ended in triumph. That Paul did have this sense of the battle within comes out in such verses as 1 Corinthians 9.26-27; Philippians 3.11-13. Or are these historic presents as well? You may think so, I couldn't possibly say so. Best wishes |
||||||
133 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228664 | ||
Beja In my post I said nothing about your views whatsoever. May I suggest that you are a little over-senstive? You have simply taken to heart a general comment which cannot be denied. Read it again and see if you can deny it. It says nothing about you. Now you are giving the casual viewer the impression that I accused you of something when it is not true. Well in my view Scripture teaches us to be a respecter of persons, 'honour to whom honour is due'. I am not on the forum to argue, or even to seek to win my case as against other teachers. I present what I see to be the truth and allow the reader to judge. Of course if you proclaimed heresy I would certainly citicise your posts. But I do not think it helpful to nitpick at someone else's posts simply because they present a different point of view (I am not suggesting you do so please don't take that personally). Each person's presentation should stand on its own. The reader can then judge for himself what to make of it. Some will be helped by one way of presenting it, others will be helped by another way. Each person is different. I will take into account what has been said, and if necessary point out what my view is, but not by making it personal. The only reason that I addressed you personally was because you wrote to me personally. But i presented a general argument, not an attack on your views. Best wishes |
||||||
134 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228677 | ||
Hi Tim As with anyone who seeks to establish rules concerning a language I do it on the basis of usage. No language has a list of rules. Any grammar is simply an attempt to explain usage. Later study may change those 'rules', not because the rules have changed but because new examples of usage have been discovered. The 'rules' of ancient languages are thus discovered by comparison of different contexts. Greek does not have an 'historic present' per se. It is something that is surmised on the basis of usage in certain unusual contexts (like the so-called 'prophetic perfect') In this case the context is not unusual. It is not a prophecy where God is speaking with an eternal present, but a man writing about his own experience to his fellow brethren who are not theologians but normal everyday folk. And he wants them to understand him on first reading. If you can provide me with a case of usage in koine Greek in an ordinary context where an historical present occurs completing a passage which is in the first person all the way through and which has begun with the past tense and I will accept that there ia another 'rule'. But the normal rule is that past means past and present means present, if language is to mean anything. I await your attempt with bated breath.(Even Moo could not find one which is why he postulated his own extraordinary theory). The general rule is that past means past and present means present when presented in a contrast. We need very sure evidence before we change it, not simply the desire to support a theory. Perhaps you can supply that evidence? I am using the tenses in the normal way. The proof for any alternative lies with the person putting forward that alternative. It is simply not enough to talk about 'an historic present' as though it could be used anywhere. I do not wish to start citing qualifications but be assured that I use the Greek text, and daily use it for purposes of explaining the meaning of passages, and that I studied koine Greek to a reasonably high level, not just out of interest. Best wishes |
||||||
135 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228701 | ||
No Tim you interpret me totally incorrectly. The rule in Greek is very simple. Past tense refers to the past. Present tense refers to the present. There is no rule that says that we can interpret the present tense historically. There are simply instances where it has been done in UNUSUAL contexts. The fact that a Greek grammar speaks of this as a historic present DOES NOT mean that we can translate the present as a past tense wherever it suits us. It is simply giving a warning that it has been done for specific reasons. And it NEVER occurs in a passage where the past tense is then followed by the present tense, which makes it quite clear that the normal rules of grammar are intended to apply. Thus people may disagree about what Paul actually means in Romans 7. What they CANNOT do if they take Scripture seriously is ignore the basic rule of grammar when interpreting it. For there are no grounds for doing so apart from the fact that it does not agree with your position. |
||||||
136 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228702 | ||
There is no man living who is literally dead to sin. All men sin. Indeed until they are able to achieve 'the glory of God' (compare 2 Cor 3.18 which demonstrates that Paul had not), and are able to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength unceasingly, they will continue continually to be sinners. That will never be achieved by anyone in this life. It is an impossible aim. Only Jesus was able to fulfil it. There is no man who does good, and sins not.(Ecclesiastes 7.20). That is why John said, 'if we say that we have no sin (the sin within) we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1.8). That is why Jesus made asking for forgiveness a central plank in the Lord's prayer. That is why Paul in Romans 7 made it quite clear that as a Christian he continually fell short of Christlikeness, not 'now and then', but all the time. He continually strove towards the goal. And all the clever arguments in the world will not change that. And when in Romans 6 Paul spoke of having 'died with Christ' He was making clear that having 'died with Christ' did not mean that in our essential natures we have died. It was a positional description resulting from our being united with Christ which we are then to 'reckon on' (6.11). May i also make an appeal. This is a forum for communal discussion. It is not a place for people to engage in conversations. That should be done by email. Best wishes. |
||||||
137 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228708 | ||
The posters' words Allow me to response to the two Scriptures you cite: 1) Gal. 5:16-17: Are these verses really describing a conflict? My reply. YES There is a tug of war going on. The poster's words: Verse 16 makes a very clear statement of fact. If you live by the Spirit, you WILL NOT gratify the desires of the sinful nature. My reply. Notice the IF The poster's words: Now, how does v. 17 fit into the picture? Are we to understand that the flesh sometimes wins out over the Spirit of God? Or, is the verse saying that the Spirit wins out over the flesh? My reply: Sadly the flesh often wins out over the Spirit, not because the Spirit fails but because we are not being led by the Spirit. The poster's words. I believe the latter. God is sovereign and all-powerful. I can't believe for a minute that my sinful nature could win out in a conflict against the third Person of the Godhead. My reply: That is not the point at issue. Certainly if the person was wholly yielded to the Spirit the Spirit would win every time. But Paul's very fear is that Christians are not always yielded to the Spirit aand being led by the Spirit. The poster's words: 2) Eph. 4:20-24: This is an excellent passage, but neither does this passage indicate a struggle. The verbs 'put off' and 'put on' are Aorist infinitives, which indicate a one time action, not an ongoing one. My reply: Come on, Tim. What about your rules of grammar which you can bring in at wiil? Suppose this is a second aorist which can be used like a present or future continual tense? You can't play fast and loose with tenses in one Scripture and then cite them rigidly in another. That is exegetical cheating. Besides in verse 22 the putting off is in the past, but in verse 25 the present and future is in mind. Or are you going to make it an historic present? |
||||||
138 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228709 | ||
Tim Moran said: "Thus people may disagree about what Paul actually means in Romans 7. What they CANNOT do if they take Scripture seriously is ignore the basic rule of grammar when interpreting it. For there are no grounds for doing so apart from the fact that it does not agree with your position." But, in your previous post, you wrote: "As with anyone who seeks to establish rules concerning a language I do it on the basis of usage. No language has a list of rules." So, I am confused. How can I violate a rule that doesn't exist. :-) My reply: I would hate you to go through life confused (even if I think you are).:-)) I said a list of rules, not basic rules. Usage provides a basic rule for tenses, past is past, present is present, future is future. This is what all students learn when they are learning most languages (not Hebrew because Hebrew has no past or future tense). I will accept that as a rule as it is so well attested from usage. But any variations from this occur because of unusual usage. Thus the so-called historic present is only used in exceptional situations. It can only be called in when it is demonstrated that the basic rule does not apply. But where in the same passage there is a change from past to present that decides the issue. The present cannot be an historic present. If we do not observe that fact language is meaningless. I notice by the way how quick you are to be dogmatic about tenses when it suits you. Do you really think that you can play it both ways? |
||||||
139 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228716 | ||
You say: I did not play fast or loose with the rules of grammar concerning the possibility of an historical present in Rom. 7:14-24. If you don't accept that interpretation, fine! But, don't pretend that I have violated some rule of grammar if I hold to that position. My reply: You have used your limited knowledge of Greek to give a false impression. I could exonerate you first time, but not with continuing that position once it has been pointed out to you. It simply is not true that your so-called rule justifies saying, whenever a present tense is used I can say 'this is an historic present' even when it is contrasted with a past tense. It is only true in limited contexts. And Romans 7 is not one of them. So yes I do think you are playing fast and loose with Greek tenses. This is a fact. It has to be said. I realise that you do it out of 'ignorance'. But I suggest that until you are far more knowledgeable about Greek you stop citing the meaning of tenses to support your case. You are simply not sufficiently knowledgeable (as at one stage you admitted yourself). It has nothing to do with whether I agree with your points. It is that i see your knowledge of Greek as sadly lacking and therefore misused in your arguments. No language is more misused by commentators, who are trying to support a viewpoint, than Greek. With regard to Ephesians 4.25 ff which is a mixture of aorists and pesents nothing can be more clear than that it describes a continuing situation. And using your methods why should we not see the present tenses as historic presents and the aorists as second aorists? By the time we have finished Greek tenses tell us nothing at all Yes, that is what I am doing, asking that you stick to the facts you are capable of making a judgment on. Aorist does not always indicate point of time action. That is a concept which has long since been disproved. I'm sorry but these things have to be said. Stick to using English in your arguments. Then I will respect you. |
||||||
140 | Is sinless perfection possible on earth? | 1 John 1:8 | biblicalman | 228717 | ||
You say: It has been my experience that when one is unable to deal with the facts, then the discussion turns personal. My reply. If you will look back you will discover that I have tried more than anyone to prevent personal discussion. That must necessarily be personal. I consider that our postings should be addressed to the forum. Then it prevents them getting personal You have constantly challenged my knowledge of Greek on a personal basis. That is to accuse me of false use of Greek in exegesis whether you like it or not. So why are you so upset if I return the favour and state my view of your Greek? There is no animosity in it. Getting upset in discussions is foolish. It is concern for the truth. I consider that you are, probably innocently, misleading those who read your posts about your knowledge of Greek. Have you never heard of a timeless aorist? Have you fully looked into the significance of the second aorist? Both these demonstrate that what you say about the aorist is not always true. Are you aware of that? I have said nothing personal about you. Only about your methods. Let us cease the necessity for this. Stick to English and do not try to prove your points from Greek. There are very few who are so up to date on and knowledgeable about koine Greek that they can make authoritative statements on the basis of it. And they are least likely to do it. Best wishes. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |