Results 121 - 140 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | is it a sin to masturbate? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227130 | ||
duplicate question | ||||||
122 | Where are they? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227404 | ||
steamboat, You are observing scripture's testiment to two truths. The first, the ressurection will happen and after the ressurrection then those who are still alive at that point will be raptured. This goes contrary to the popular dispensational teaching of the rapture, which they say happens 7 years prior to the ressurection day. The second thing you are observing is the fact that when we die we are present with Christ. Where are they? With Christ. Wherever Christ is, that is where the saints who died in Christ will be. So the question becomes, where is Christ? The answer: At the right hand of the Father. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
123 | Satan has permission to rule | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227457 | ||
arabian031, What passage of scripture makes you think that he will let satan rule after he comes back? In my opinion this is an unbiblical notion. 2 Thessalonians makes it clear that the coming of Christ will bring satan's rule to an end. 2Th 2:8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; In Christ, Beja |
||||||
124 | Satan has permission to rule | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227481 | ||
PaulusSecundus, True true. However the question becomes, When is the thousand years? Many Christians today believe the only real question in end times belief is when will Christ come back in relation to the tribulation? At the beggining? At the end? In the middle? However, they would be suprised to know that in historical Christianity this has not been the question that divided where people stood. In contrast, the question was when will Christ come back in relation to this 1,000 year reign. To that there were three main answers. (I'm discounting the preterist view.) The one we are most familiar with would be the pre-millenial view. This view holds that Christ returns prior to the 1,000 year reign on earth. The second two both hold that the 1,000 year reign willhappen prior to Christs return. The first is postmillenial. This holds that the advance of the gospel will usher in a golden age for Christianity that lasts 1,000 years prior to Christs return. The final position is called amillenialism. It holds that Christs thousand year reign is meant to reference his current reigning on his throne in heaven guiding all things to their proper climax in his return. At the end of this time, satan will be released. This actually has been the most widely held stance historically, though few hold it now. Now, the scripture you referenced only actually impacts the discussion if you assume a premillenial view. I do not here intend to argue for one or the other, but only explain the assumptions we are bringing to the text. I'll tell you that I do not hold a premillenial view. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
125 | Satan has permission to rule | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227489 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Do you really believe a view which has had more affirmation by historical christianity than any other position has not considered these verses? I have no intentions of trying to win an arguement. I don't think end times discussions ought to be debated on these forums. Discussing them for the sake of understanding other views, yes. Debating, no. Therefore I will not even defend the view in this post except to say that it would become us to not lightly dismiss such a well attested historical view before we even know what it teaches. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
126 | Are we Under Mosiac Law? or Jesus Law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 229001 | ||
Believer in Exile, I'd reccomend a book titled "The Marrow of Modern Divinity." It tackles this question and does an excellent job. You can even find it on the internet for free and download or print it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
127 | what day should the sabbath be? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 229003 | ||
Believer, in Exile, Christians were gathering on sunday's prior to what constantine did. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
128 | Are we Under Mosiac Law? or Jesus Law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 229005 | ||
Biblicalman, I find it interesting what some will say that we are under, while trying to deny that, in one sense, we are under the law. Let me qualify and say that with regards to a covenant determining our life and death and eternal destiny, those who are in Christ are NOT under the law. But with regards to what is right and wrong and what we still ought to do and not do, not for any reward, but because it is right and wrong, we are still under the law. Now I hear some say either one or two things. 1. We are to love God with all our heart soul and mind and our neighbor as ourselves. However, did Christ Himself not tell us that on these two commandments hinge all the law and the prophets? All other thins in scripture are fulfilled and simply situational applications of these two commands! How then can we say we are not to follow the law, but we are to follow these two commands? To suggest this is to create a false distinction between these and the rest of the law. We can not obey what you are calling the law of Christ, without obeying the entire law. Did transgress against any point of the Old Testament moral law, is to in some way transgress against loving God or loving our neighbor. 2. Some will say the only command we are under now is the command to love. Ironically they will often state these verses to defend their view. Rom 13:9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." Rom 13:10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. However, if we think through this verse we will see something we didn't expect. If all the law is summed up in the statement to love your neighbor, then what we MEAN when we command to love your neighbor must therefore implicitely include all the law. When we tell somebody to love their neighbor we mean by that: Do not steal from them, but rather seek their good; do not bear false witness against them but speak the truth; do not covet their belongings, but rejoice in their prosperity; etc. Because in the one statement, "love your neighbor" all the law is summed up and contained. We can not on one hand say that all the commands of the law are summed up in this one thing, then on the other say this one thing does not imply all the commands. Let me recap lest people missunderstand my position. We are not under the law in terms of a covenant. But the moral law remains the Christian definition of right and wrong, and we are to follow it. Not as if it is the means of our attaining eternal life, but because it is right. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
129 | Are we Under Mosiac Law? or Jesus Law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 229006 | ||
I beg patience with all the many typo errors in my last post! Our church is having VBS this week and I am behind on sleep! If I need to clarify any of it, please ask. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
130 | ... | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 229667 | ||
Kingdomproclaimer, Did you actually have a question? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
131 | Should the ANDs be included in Genesis 1 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 229942 | ||
Gup20, Are you dealing with the Hebrew text? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
132 | Does God hate the devil? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230052 | ||
Huldah, I'm not sure scripture agrees with you. Psa 5:5 The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
133 | Exegete this verse please. | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230148 | ||
The one God which eternally exists in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which in scripture is revealed by multiple titles but the personal name of Yahweh, or Jehovah. He is the one and only God and beside Him there is no other. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
134 | What? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230150 | ||
ewq1938, My sincere apologies. I think I see now the heart of your question. The reason I misread you is that usually when somebody new posts a question on a verse like this, it is a preface to them challenging the deity of Christ. My expectations that you might be doing such pressed my attention to the second half of the verse. So I apologize for my presuming something harsh like that. Now with regards to the other half of the verse, I presume the difficulty is that it sounds as if it is saying that the LORD the King has a redeemer as if our great Holy God could need to be redeemed. However, the word "his" would better be understood with Israel as its referant. In that light the text would be saying that the same LORD is both king and redeemer of Israel. Hope that helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
135 | What? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230160 | ||
I don't see how it is eliminating anything. Simply put, the "his" could refer to multiple words in the sentence grammatically speaking. Israel is one of the words in the sentence. I do not think that this is saying Christ is being redeemed by the Father. "King of Israel and his redeemer" is the phrase and I find it no twisting of the passage to suggest this is refering to the LORD as both king and redeemer of Israel. Lets substitute a sentence that is structurally identical. "Beja the instructor of Gaile, and her Father." We can see that such a structure is perfectly able to be utilized as I am suggesting, with both titles referring to the same person with two different relationships to the same person. A redeemer in everyday life was a near kin, but this was a type. Many times scripture refers to almighty God as a redeemer both of individuals and Israel. Psa 19:14 Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart Be acceptable in Your sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer. And it is specifically Isaiah that depicts God almighty as Israel's redeemer. Isa 41:14 "Do not fear, you worm Jacob, you men of Israel; I will help you," declares the LORD, "and your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel. Isa 43:14 Thus says the LORD your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "For your sake I have sent to Babylon, And will bring them all down as fugitives, Even the Chaldeans, into the ships in which they rejoice. Isa 48:17 Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, "I am the LORD your God, who teaches you to profit, Who leads you in the way you should go. Isa 54:5 "For your husband is your Maker, Whose name is the LORD of hosts; And your Redeemer is the Holy One of Israel, Who is called the God of all the earth. Isa 63:16 For You are our Father, though Abraham does not know us And Israel does not recognize us. You, O LORD, are our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Your name. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
136 | What? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230162 | ||
ewq, Four things. 1. It seems we will just have to disagree. 2. For you to claim that my interpretation is grammatically imposible, I think the burden is on you to provide some rule of grammer to prove such a strong statment. You have provided none. 3. While my Hebrew is poor, my Greek isn't too bad and in the septuagint it is very blatantly translated as the king and the redeemer are in fact one person being stated twice. I am happy to let the Hebrew grammer correct any mistake the septuagint might have made but the burden is on you to prove such. 4. Why have you bothered to ask this question on the forum when you are obviously already convinced of your own answer? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
137 | Is Belief in the Trinity Required? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230163 | ||
ewq, Part of the Terms of Use which all participants in this forum agree to is that their posts will be consistent with the following creeds. "Postings must be consistent with Biblical Christian doctrine (Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, Chalcedonian Creed, and Canons of the Council of Orange)" This is actually a cut and paste from the Terms of Use. Here is a relevant section of the Nicene Creed: And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. Now, you don't have to agree with this to participate on the forum, but by participating you are agreeing that your posts will not contradict such a confession. These are the terms of our hosts. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with these confessions (easily found online with a google search) because every time you log into this forum you are giving your consent to abide by these rules. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
138 | Is Belief in the Trinity Required? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230176 | ||
ewq, I would then ask you to explain these verses. You rightly quote that the Spirit is the Spirit of the Father, but scripture also affirms that the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. Rom 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 2Co 3:17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. And yet Christ himself says that the Spirit is somebody OTHER than himself! Joh 14:16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; Joh 14:17 that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you. So we have scripture affirming that the Spirit is both the spirit of Christ, and yet OTHER than Christ. How then can you say that the teaching that the Holy Spirit is seperate is "never taught by anyone in the bible nor the early church. It was inserted by others later and made official but it is not scriptural." It is scripture that affirms it! The Spirit is Christ's Spirit, it is the Father's Spirit, and yet He is distinct from both of them though no man can comprehend this glorious puzzle! Scripture affirms precisely and almost word for word what you deny and claim to be the invention of man! And what then? If it is in scripture what then of your objections? They evaporate. And you are left with the options of putting yourself under the word, or over it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
139 | What? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230177 | ||
ewq, So the rule of grammer that affirms your position is: because I say so. Noted and rejected. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
140 | Is Belief in the Trinity Required? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 230180 | ||
ewq, You seem to have overlooked the verses I gave you stating that the Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit is the Lord. I do not dispute that Christ received the Spirit from the Father. Other than this you have added no new point nor dealt with what I said in my post. I gave you scriptures stating clearly that the spirit is christ, and yet the spirit is OTHER than Christ. This is what you said scripture NEVER teaches. Any observant ready will notice: 1. Those points are fatal to your stance. 2. You are not responding/giving explination to the scriptures that make those points. Therefore, I leave this in the hands of the readers. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [40] >> |