Results 121 - 140 of 1251
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: mark d seyler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | mark d seyler | 185027 | ||
Hi Steve, I was simply endeavoring to bring out the logic of the argument a little better without actually taking sides, as I do not believe that I possess the final answer on this question. Someone else on this thread has brought up the difference between a suggestion and a temptation. One seems to speak of entirely one-sided action, while the other seems to speak of a suggestion to do something which the one tempted wants, but is denying themself. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
122 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | mark d seyler | 184973 | ||
Hi Tim, I think that's a nice solid Scriptural position! Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
123 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | mark d seyler | 184967 | ||
Hi Steve, Great point re the "likeness" of sinful flesh. I think that is the heart of the matter. Regarding this "temptation implies the possibility of sin", I think the opposing view can be stated something like "being male, I cannot be tempted to have a baby." You can show me images of happy motherhood all day long, but I cannot be tempted to actually give birth. It is impossible for me to do, and therefore, poses no temptation. As Hebrew 2:18 states, "For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succor them that are tempted," this would seem to me to speak of Jesus' subjective experience of temptation, rather than simply the expectations or opinions of His temptor. Now, mind you, I am simply trying to more clearly articulate the other view. I'm not so sure myself that we even have the vocabulary or conceptualizations to properly address this issue. Temptation as fallen man understands temptation is a different thing than temptation was to Adam, and to Jesus. We want to sin. Adam did not have that predisposition, and neither did Jesus. While temptation in itself is not sin, I find that when I am tempted by sin, it gains strength as I find that I want to do that by which I am tempted, and that desire is of itself unrighteousness. Personally, I don't think that we can really get our minds around Christ's experience being tempted, and I certainly don't know the answer to the peccability of Christ. Jesus was low enough to reach us, and high enough to pull us out. I'm not sure how much I can add beyond that. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
124 | What was reason for the virgin birth? | Matt 4:1 | mark d seyler | 184963 | ||
Hi stj, I've been reading through this thread, and there is something I am curious about. Upon what do you base your statement: "so Jesus "Is" all God and all Man then He must have goten His "Human" DNA as you call it, from His mother." I was not aware that the Bible gave us this detail. As the "Second Adam", could not Jesus have been fully created as was Adam? Is there Scripture that specifically tells us that Jesus was a genetic descendant from Adam? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
125 | Will people be saved after the rapture? | Acts 2:39 | mark d seyler | 184893 | ||
I understand the Bible to teach that the Holy Spirit is God, sharing God's attributes, including omnipresence - He is everywhere. Therefore, I believe that the Holy Spirit will be "on the Earth" during the Great Tribulation. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
126 | Did Jesus clean the temple twice | NT general Archive 1 | mark d seyler | 184224 | ||
Hi JonP, Terrific answer! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
127 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | mark d seyler | 184080 | ||
Hi JonP, I think it can be fairly basic to show this. Deut. 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD: YHWH elohim YHWH echad. YHWH God(plural) YHWH one(united) Eph 4:4-6 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. If we believe the Holy Spirit to be God, well, there is only One God, YHWH. Colossians 1:16 (speaking of Jesus) For by him were all things created, Job 33:4 The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. Psalm 148:5 Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created. 1 Corinthians 6:14 And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power. John 2:19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit: There is much more to this, certainly, but the simple truth is that the Holy Spirit is God, and there is only one God, YHWH. Love in Christ, mark |
||||||
128 | Educational guarantee for life and godli | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183786 | ||
Cutting back from 2 cents to one and a half cent: On second thought, I think expressing the Proverbs as probabilities doesn't actually do justice to what is intended by God. Love in Christ, mark |
||||||
129 | Educational guarantee for life and godli | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183785 | ||
Hi Kalos, . . . finally getting to some of the other parts of this overly long thread! I think Dr. MacArthur put this very well! And for that matter, I agree with you, and I shouldn't have used that quote about "probabilities". I think I'll post a retraction on that one. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
130 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183784 | ||
Doc, I agree with you completely in the care that we need to take in how we articulate the truths of God's Word. As we discuss these things before a public arena, I believe we will incur the stricter judgment of a teacher. There is only one more thing I believe I can add to this thread. I do not consider anything in Scripture to be implicit in the sense that it is unexpressed. If something is not expressed in Scripture, then it is added by man. You may disagree with this, but that is my view. There is the sense of implicit that means "implied". Scripture implies a number of things, although we must take great care in fully establishing that a thing is truly implied by Scripture, and that it is God's intent to make that implication, lest we become guilty of adding to the text. I would say that by the time we have so established a matter, that it ceases to become implicit, since we will have shown that it actually is expressed in the text. But at the end of it all, again, I shall say, that our disagreement centers not on how to read and understand the Bible, but on the meanings and uses of a particular couple of words, and, I daresay, I think our readers have had adequate opportunity it understand what either of us mean as we say "promise". Thank you for what has been a most interesting discussion! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
131 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183780 | ||
Doc, In the interest that you would have a specific and exact understanding of my views, I will attempt once again to clarify my position. You wrote: Since you start with "Concerning your first question..." I may naturally infer that you are going to write about the withdrawal of your statement "If we read these as a book of promises, we have a bigger problem then just that one verse." (sic) I do not withdraw this statement. It is my opinion that the Proverbs are proverbs, and not promises (again, in the way that I have defined "promises" in my post 183749), and if someone reads them as promises, then they will not have a correct understanding of this particular book of the Bible. The same would hold true of one who reads the creation account as a parable, or the book of Chronicles as a vision. To the person who looks as the creation as a parable, and asks, what do the fish mean? Their difficulty is not simply a lack of understanding what the fish mean. It is a lack of understanding of how to view that portion of Scripture. But it appears to me that our difference of opinion is not in how we understand the Book of Proverbs, since you have seemingly expressed what appears to be the exact same understanding as I have. It seems that we simply disagree over how we use the word "promise", as you give a broader latitude towards what can be construed as a promise. But to try to wrap this up, lest it drag out longer, it's my opinion that an incorrect understanding of an entire book of Scripture represents a "bigger problem" then an incorrect understanding of just one verse. Does this help to clarify my view for you? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
132 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | mark d seyler | 183759 | ||
There's a lot here, so I won't try to address it all. But here are some points to consider. There are many timing words and phrases used in the Revelation, "and after this. . .", "After these things. . ." and such. I think it is a mistake to overlook the significance of those timing cues. "Stars" are used in the Bible of more than just the celestial lights in the sky. Rev. 1:20, and apparently 9:1 use star for angels, or messengers. Considering the earth is prophesied to remain forever, we need to be certain we can show from Scripture which meaning of "star" is being used here, the celestial burning ball of gas, angel/messenger, or something else. In the opening of the sixth seal, the sky is "parted", the mountains and islands are not "removed", they are "moved". I would like to suggest that we stick to what is provable from the text, when we take it literally - seriously - to determine what God intends to say through it. Should I allow for the sake of argument that none in the ancient world could count, would that mean that God couldn't count? What can be demonstrated from the Bible itself about how numbers are used in Scripture, and particularly concerning prophecy. What about the 70 years of captivity? Daniel seemed to think that they were 70 actual years, and he seemed to be able to know when they were close to ending. I do not believe that Rev. 20 simply repeats all the chapters that have preceded it. If that is your assertion, it is up to you to substantiate it. By "taking a passage literally", I do not mean that we are to think that "God is a bird", or that none of us should have hands. We simply need to demonstrate from the text what God intends us to know, and accept that as the actual meaning of the passage. As with most matters of prophecy, there are large groups of people who will all disagree with each other, but we know that truth is not proven by head count. But as I am looking over this thread, its already rather lengthy, and I don't see the benefit of adding to it our continuing dispute, so I will bow out at this point. Should you desire the last word on any of these things I will understand. God bless! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
133 | Proverbs 26:4-5 | Prov 26:4 | mark d seyler | 183758 | ||
As this proverb has been recently referrenced, with the comment that it is "seemingly contradictory", I took a look to see . . . "Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes." (Proverbs 26:4-5 ESV) An interesting thing about this Proverb, in verse 4, answer - ahah - is in the imperfect tense, while the same word in verse 5 is the imperative tense. The Greek translation in the Septuagint also shows a distinction here. For verse 3, they used "pros thn ekainou aphrosunhn" - "for the sake of that folly", in verse 4, "kata thn aphrosunhn" - "according to folly". JFB puts the difference this way, the first is with like folly, the second is addressing the folly itself. So this couplet, as I understand it, is telling us to not simply keep answering back a fool with his own sort of foolishness, you'll be just like him. Rather, answer back addressing his folly, lest he think himself right for not having been corrected. This is valuable instruction indeed! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
134 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | mark d seyler | 183754 | ||
Hi Jonp, One passage of clear teaching is perfectly adequate, in my opinion, to show a matter. I believe this is part of a progressive revelation that is also taught elsewhere in the Bible, though this is the most clear: Revelation 20:1-10 (1) And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. (2) And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, (3) And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. (4) And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (5) But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. (6) Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. (7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, (8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. (9) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. (10) And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. As chapter 19 prophesies the second coming, this seems rather specific to me. Certainly we may disagree, and I am aware that a great many believe as you do. "Such huge round numbers were rarely if ever used literally." What do you base this conclusion on? There are specific places where terminology is used of uncertain numbers (a multitude which no man could number - Rev 7, for instance.) There were the stock brokers, the military leaders, the census takers, the weavers, herders, and so on, all of these dealt with large but none-the-less specific numbers. "The 'thousand years, is the ideal period ahead for Christians before His coming." In the Book of the Revelation, it is presented as happening after Jesus' coming. Now, regardless of how you place the timing of this, if you read it literally, then it doesn't allow 1000 to become "a bunch, who knows how many", and it follows the second coming. If you want to show how it actually means "a large indeterminate number", you need to be able to show me From The Text how it means that. "But I do object (in friendly fashion) to your saying that I am not interpreting the Scripture literally." I appreciate that we can disagree in a friendly manner! But haven't you basically said that "1000 years" is not actually 1000 years, in terms of 1000 orbits of the earth around the sun? Would this not them by interpreting 1000 years symbolically and not literally? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
135 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183753 | ||
Hi Doc, Concerning your second question, "So you're saying that you are withdrawing... (2) Your examples of so-called "untrue" proverbs?" If you will recall what I said to Hank, to which I thought you were responding, I wrote: “I do not mean that these are not true proverbs.” I will stand completely behind this, and I have not presented what I consider to be a list of “untrue proverbs.” What I will do is modify a previous statement, to try to improve my clarity of expression: I had written, “There are many that are not exactly true in every instance,” which is what Hank had questioned me concerning. I had hoped that my explaination had been sufficient to show that I had intended to mean within the context and view of representing these sayings as promises. Since there still seems to be a lack of clarity concerning this, I will amend my statement to: “There are many that are not exactly true in every instance if they are to be understood as promises.” The examples I used were given to demonstrate the difference between a proverb and a promise. That is, as I have explained my understanding of what a promise is. Allow me to demonstrate more specifically with a single example: Proverbs 16:13 “Righteous lips are the delight of kings; and they love him that speaketh right.” This is a proverb of Soloman, wise beyond other men, accurately recorded and faithfully presented. Worthy of all consideration and acceptance. Suitable to guide us in life. As a king, you should delight in the lips of the righteous. When speaking to a king, speak righteousness, that the king may delight in you. If all is at it should be, with you, with the king, this is exactly what will happen. But does this constitute God’s unconditional commitment that every king will always, and without fail, delight in righteous lips? Or, if this is meant to portray God’s conditional commitment to do this provided certain conditions are met, what are those conditions? Where do we find them in Scripture? I do not find any conditional clauses associated with this referrenced verse. So then I move to the next issue. Is this, which you call a promise, performed in every instance, to the full measure, without exception? I would have to answer “no, it is not.” And this is where I would refer to the passage in 1 Kings: 1 Kings 22:8 “And the king of Israel said unto Jehoshaphat, There is yet one man, Micaiah the son of Imlah, by whom we may inquire of the LORD: but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil. And Jehoshaphat said, Let not the king say so.” This is a Scriptural example of an instance where a king did not delight in righteous lips. I dare say there may well be other examples. Can you show me the Scriptural conditions which were not met? Here’s my point. I cannot, and I do not believe that God makes a promise and then we find it not being kept. So if I find that if whatever I are reading that I may think is a promise, if I find that it is not being kept in every instance without exception, then the fault lies in me, and not with God’s Word. And that I must have simply misunderstood, and either that is was not a promise, or that there were conditions that I missed, that are nonetheless there. Now, since these are called by the Bible "proverbs", sayings (and by the context, "wise sayings"), and not "promises", and since I do not see that they portray unconditional commitment by the LORD matched with a perfect perfomance record as would be required of a "promise", either with or without associated conditional clauses, I do not see these as promises. Proverbs – sayings – parables – but not promises. But as Proverbs, make no mistake, I accept them as Divinely Inspired Scripture, useful in all areas of our lives. “I do not mean that these are not true proverbs. I do not mean that they are not divinely inspired Scripture.” I hope this serves to clarify the matter. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
136 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183749 | ||
Doc, Concerning your first question, and Proverbs as “Promises”: When I speak of a Biblical promise, this is something the LORD has committed Himself to perform. I see two kinds given in Scripture. Unconditional promise: something God has committed to do without restriction or qualification: Gen 12:7 Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your offspring I will give this land." No qualifications or restrictions appear, this is an unqualified promise from the LORD to Abram. Any unconditional promise from the LORD will always prove true in every instance, in every occasion, to the fullest extent promised, without fail, and without exception. Conditional promise, something God has committed to do if certain conditions or qualifications are met: Lev 26:3-5 If you walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments, and do them, then I will give you rains in their season, and the land shall give her produce . . . and you shall eat your bread to satisfaction, and live in your land securely. While God has committed Himself to give rains, and produce, and that they would dwell in their land securely, it is clearly dependant on their obedience to the LORD’s law. But notice, this does not ignore the uncondition promise of that the land was given to Israel, for here it says, “live in YOUR land.” Even if the conditions were not met that they would dwell securely in the land, it was not said that it would no longer BE their land, as that was unconditional. This is how I understand promises in the Bible. Something the LORD has committed Himself to perform, with conditions or qualifications plainly stated. Any conditional promise from the LORD will always prove true in every instance, in every occasion, to the fullest extent promised, without fail, and without exception, the only restriction being those conditions and qualifications that have been stated in the text. There are two words that are translated as “promise” in the Old Testament; neither of them appear in the Book of Proverbs. Now, lest you misunderstand me, I am not saying that only if a verses uses the word “promise” is it a promise. But I am saying is that since the Proverbs do not declare themselves promises, it’s for the reader to determine if they are in fact promises. The reason I have gone into all of this is that this is where, I think, we are coming to a misunderstanding. You have written, “Proverbs are, indeed, promises. But they are not unqualified promises, nor are they unconditional promises. They are general rules of thumb worthy of careful consideration and application.” If that is so, I would ask you, where do we find written the qualification, or conditions upon which these promises will be kept? Also, do you see how your second statement, that they are “general rules of thumb” would not meet the requirements for my definition of a “promise”? So this is how I have concluded that we are using this word, “promise,” in different ways. To me, a promise cannot simply be a “general rule of thumb.” Now, if I understand “promise” as it appears in your post, that a promise can have conditions that do not appear in the text, then I would agree with you to describe this as a book of promises, with that understanding. Although that is not how I think of a promise. Here is what Strongs has to say about the word for “Proverb”, that which this book actually uses to describe itself: Apparently from H4910 in some original sense of superiority in mental action; properly a pithy maxim, usually of a metaphorical nature; hence a simile (as an adage, poem, discourse): - byword, like, parable, proverb. (H4910: A primitive root; to rule: - (have, make to have) dominion, governor, X indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule (-ing, -r), have power.) Balaam used this word a lot to describe his discourses. It is variously translated saying, parable, proverb, and is several times used in association with “riddle”, or “byword.” Some interesting examples of its uses are: Job 27:1-2 And Job continued the uplifting of his discourse – proverb -, and said: As God lives, He has taken away my judgment; yea, the Almighty has made my soul bitter. Had God taken away judgment from Job? Job 29:1-2 “Moreover Job continued his parable – proverb -, and said, Oh that I were as in months past, as in the days when God preserved me;” Is this a promise? Had God ceased to preserve Job? This is simply what Job said, accurately recorded and presented. Ezekiel 12:22 “Son of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth” Not a promise, a commitment, but a saying to describe what they understood to be. Accurately recorded. But not a very wise saying, if you ask me. Soloman, on the other hand, had been given a great gift of wisdom, and his sayings were exceedingly wise. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
137 | Mark: Many Proverbs not true? | Prov 22:6 | mark d seyler | 183692 | ||
Doc, while you claim I am presenting logical fallacies, you seem to agree with my conclusions, "They are general rules of thumb worthy of careful consideration and application." This is my point exactly. Whether you wish to call them promises, then say that thay are not unqualified, even though they are not presented with any qualifications, or conditions, well, ok, I guess. I would say that if an "accidental circumstance" can render God's promise inapplicable, well, that just doesn't seem to do justice to the meaning of the word "promise". Anyway, like I said, its seems we agree at the end of it. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
138 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | mark d seyler | 183683 | ||
Hi Coper, Thank you for a good answer! I have to respond quickly, so this will be short. The "last days" referring to a 2000 period is relevant if the "first days" referred to a 4000 year period. There is the possiblitly that we re-defining the writers terms, but is it possible we are simply preferring our own definitions? We have to be sure we have defined the writers terms from within the text, and not just as we use these English translations today. But to the heart of the matter, if you believe that, for instance, the plagues of Revelation have happened (trumpets, bowls), then you need to show one of two things. Either that these events as described happened literally in the past, ---or--- how the text supports that these events as described do not refer to literal events, that they symbolize other events; you have to show, from the text, what they symbolize, and then be able to say where they happened in history. . . . without gaps, or leaving parts un-authenticated, or unfulfilled. Can you do either of these? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
139 | What do we focus on? | 1 Cor 12:13 | mark d seyler | 183537 | ||
Hi Justme, Would you take a look at my post 183536 and let me know if I'm clue-in or clueless? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
140 | What do we focus on? | 1 Cor 12:13 | mark d seyler | 183536 | ||
Hi Jeff, If I may be so bold, I would like to add a thought, and perhaps Justme might care to confirm or correct me on this. Justme had written: "I personally think the Baptism requirement is a sound and Biblical requirement. I know of no organization where you can hold any office without belonging to the origanization. Why would one who has not followed the Lord's instructions want to be a part of believers that have followed the Lord's instructions? I think it best to follow your churches requirements with confidence it is Biblical." My understanding is that he was saying that he thought this particular requirement of this congregation was Biblically sound. I did not understand him to be saying that any requirement given by any church was automatically to be followed simply on the basis that "your church required it". Justme, is this correct? Perhaps this is needless division? Please, I hope for a soft answer. . . Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [63] >> |