Results 121 - 140 of 154
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: userdoe220 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | water into wine | John 2:1 | userdoe220 | 11729 | ||
In referring to the passage in question: "Wine is wine is wine is wine" Jeffery Sief, Phd. You said it correclty, "it can refer to fermented and unfermented." In this passage I believe it was fermented. Please read Alfred Erdshiem (also a Jewish scholar like Jeffery Sief) who would very strongly disagree with your conclusion on this topic. Real wine (the kind with alcohol in it) is used today, as it has for 1,000's of years, in Jewish weddings. Only shallow, legalistic American Christainity has made it a "sin" to partake of wine(alcoholic kind.) I would agree that wine can make one stumble if taken in excess--hence the many warnings about abusing it in scripture--but nowhere is drinking alcohol forbidden. I really liked you study in the Hebrew word for wine (still not sure what relevance Hebrew is to the Greek language or the passage in question; nevertheless it was a nice study). |
||||||
122 | Is this promise for believers today? | Deut 8:18 | userdoe220 | 11694 | ||
Is this promise for believers today? | ||||||
123 | water into wine | John 2:1 | userdoe220 | 11688 | ||
"Wine is Wine is Wine is Wine." Jeffery Sief, Ph.d | ||||||
124 | water into wine | John 2:1 | userdoe220 | 11591 | ||
I wonder how many conservative Evangelicals would turn water into wine today? Assuming they could. | ||||||
125 | What is a generatonal curse? | Gal 1:9 | userdoe220 | 11516 | ||
I do see "learned patterns" of behavior passed from Grandfather, Father, and finally to son in every day life. Alcoholism is a classic example in American culture. Usually when I counsel a person who is an alcoholic I can almost guaruntee that his father had a drinking problem as well. This pattern does appear even in the lifes of the O.T. saints we read about: Look at Abram's lie contrasted with Jacob's lie (Abram told a 1/2 truth about sarah being his wife and jacob did the same thing)! The million dollar question is, "are these patterns of behavior 'generational curses' that plague families?" What do these people mean by "generational curses?" If they mean learned behavior patterns, put me in their camp...I believe in them. If they mean some satanic spirit follows a family around and makes sure they are addicted to alcohol/anger problems/lust (which by the way the Apostle Paul attributes to the flesh not to Satanic powers) and God's salvation provision is not enough to break the hold, I can't buy into it. Usually people who tout this belief say that those who do not believe in generational curses are un-sympathetic to Christians that struggle with sin. That is the furthest thing from the truth. What we do not do is give them a "devil made me do it" ticket to get out of the responsibility of their actions. In American society we love this free ticket of irresponsibility and we would love to blame our shortcomings on some external, uncontrollable force that prevents us from doing good--Hey that means, in the words of Rocket Man (funny movie), "I didn't do it!" That is all I have seen in the fruit of this type of counseling--Being a part of the charismaniac movement for well over 15 years, I speak as a somewhat authority on this subject. As far as a fad goes, I agree with glory777. This is nothing but another fad that floods the charismaniac/TBN airwaves. Give it another couple of years and another fad will come down the shoot--and if you don't fully embrace the upcoming fad, you will have another label placed on your head by those that do. Hope this post helps. |
||||||
126 | Jesus' early years? | Luke 2:52 | userdoe220 | 10572 | ||
One of my remarks (Jesus went to India) was actually directed towards a book titled, THe lost years of Jesus (I might have the book title a little crossed). This book was written recently, compared to the books I referenced, and is full of a ton of un-documented nonsense that people are taking for truth. Yes, I agree with you 100 percent: "The age of deception has not ended nor the capacity to deceive diminished." |
||||||
127 | Jesus' early years? | Luke 2:52 | userdoe220 | 10564 | ||
There are a number of accounts written about Jesus' early years; However, most of them were written 150 plus years after his birth and are very fairy-tellish in nature ex. one account has Jesus as a little boy making clay pigeons, touching them and turning them into real pigoens. Other than the fairy-tellish nature of these accounts, I have a few other problems with them: 1.) The accounts usually paint a dramitically different picture of Jesus than the gospels paint: Some paint him as very ascetic (legalistic)person, others make him out to be a phantom type ghost, and one account even says he went to India to learn the Budhist philosophy and bring it back to Israel. Where is the historical evidence to support that is the greatest mystery! 2.) The next problem I have with these documents is they were all (well most of them) claimed to be written by one of the original apostles. They bear names like the Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Barnabas when they were written way after the deaths of the apostles. If it starts out as a lie, why would I believe the rest of the accounts? If you are a strong believer in Jesus and not easily swayed, I encourage you to get a book on Gnosticism, read it and check out the references in the back of the book. They usually qoute their sources and provide a little background information. You can also purchase a book entitled the "lost books of Eden." I would never buy this from a bookstore because I would never give my hard-earned money to support such nonsense. I picked mine up at a used bookstore, 75 percent off books, for under 5.00. The stories make for some very amusing reading, but I wouldn't put a pennies worth of stock into its historical accuracy. I hope this helps |
||||||
128 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 9961 | ||
I would agree with most of what you posted, but for shock value would never teach a sunday school class on it in most church--I only feel called to crucify my flesh figuratively not literally. It is sad that many people take these instances (like how come in an O.T. battle scene exactly 20,000 or 5,000 men were killed not 20,001?) and say, "see, I told you the Bible was riddled with errors!" When most of the time the author just surveys the crowd and says, "Well, I don't feel like counting every dead person on the battle field, but it sure looks like 20k to me. And anyway, I don't care if they know exactly how many people died, I just want to record a military victory to show the blessing of being obedient to God." The hermenuetical Spiral covers many of these issues you have brought up and I think we are probably on the same page. Got to get back to work. |
||||||
129 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9877 | ||
Just read the passage in Acts 11. I rest my case. | ||||||
130 | Revelation in the Gospels? | NT general Archive 1 | userdoe220 | 9859 | ||
I think when you use literal, you have to look at the authors intent. Let me give you an example that you could apply to many of your examples above. Gospels (as a whole) were never meant to be a blow-by-blow, step-by-step chronology of Jesus' life. Does it mean he is not literal because, like in Matthew's case, he chose to re-arrange some of the events in Jesus' life to shape the perception of Jesus to his readers? Because he did re-arrange some of the historical events, does that mean they never happened? Or, what if Matthew leaves out a piece of informaiton, does that mean we have to discard his testimony or doubt that the event even happened? If all the above were true, we would have to throw out every single history text book ever written! I speak as a history major. Every author takes their own slant or focus when writing history. In fact, every history book on World War 2 contains details about events that will not be in most history books. Does that mean we should discard the book. Of Course not. I think we would go a long way in this dialogue by first determining the purpose of the authors. Was the purpose in Matt's geneology meant to be a complete accurate tree of Jesus? No. Neither do I beleive he made up Jesus' lineage to prove his Messiahship. So, your might be right on your first, point and way off base on your second. Just because someone is using parables does not mean they are not speaking a factual truth. Every day individuals use stories to illustrate truth and sometimes those stories are not even true! I could take a Stephen King Novel and use it to illustrate truth. Does that mean I am not factual? Of course not. The second issue I would address is Jesus' and the writers use of Hyperbole. My son hit a ball and ran very fast to first base. When he finally got back to the dug-out I said, "Son, you ran as fast as a rabbit." Am I lying or trying to make people believe my son could actually keep pace with a rabbit? Of course not. Lets allow Jesus to use the same tactis that we use on a day-to-day basis and not accuse him or the gospel writers of lying. Or accuse them of speaking falsehood. There is a really good book entitled the Hermenutical Spiral that would greatly help you tackle some of these issues. I see where you are going and agree with some of what you are said, but I do not believe that the Bible is full of errors. I guess what I am saying is the Bible is literature and shouldn't be judged by a different standard. It seems like the Bible is held to a very high, hypocritical standard and nitpicked more than any other book in existance. |
||||||
131 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9857 | ||
Do you know what synonomouse means? When two different words share the same or similar meaning. You can't always go to Vines, just like we can't always go to Webster, to get a meaning of a word. Luke used the term "filling" and "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" to refer to the same event--Cornelius's salvation. If they were not the same, Luke would not have used that term It is almost like the argument of spirit soul. Each word (In Vines) has a different meaning or definition. However, there are some in Christianity that feel these terms are synonomouos. No, Baptism in the Holy Spirit is not conversion. The book of Acts CLEARLY states that this expereince comes after salvation. |
||||||
132 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9856 | ||
I guess Luke the author of Acts was mistaken and you are right. Do you know what synonomous means? | ||||||
133 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9813 | ||
The reason I feel they are synonomous is the events that surround the five instances are unique and the same. Might want to start with John's statement about the one who is to come who will "Baptize you in the Holy Spirit and Fire." Acts 2:4-6; Acts 8:1-22 (Does not mention tongues, but something very micraculous took place when the apostles, after they were saved, layed hands on them to recieve the "gift" of the Holy Spirit. What happened? Maybe tongues, maybe some other manifestation. don't know. But I do know it was after their salvation expereince). Acts 9:11 (Saul's conversion accompanied his Infilling with the Holy Spirit. Does not record tongues, but from 1 Cor 12-14 we know Paul regularly exercised this gift in his personal life. Could he have received this gift at this time? Maybe. The Bible does not tell us.) Acts 10:44-50 (How did Peter know they received the Baptism in the Holy Ghost? "For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God" verse 46. Acts 11: 15-18. (How do I know that Cornelious' expereince was the Baptism in the Holy Ghost? Peter Qoutes John the Baptist in verse 16. He is the one that equates the expereince to Spirit Baptism. Notice in Acts 10 he does not use the Term "Baptism in the Holy Spirit", but "Filling!" This shows that in Luke's mind these two events were synonomous. Notice he also refers to this expereince as the "gift of the Holy Ghost". Now, we have three terms each used to describe an expereince that Pentecostals-charismatics-Peter refers to as the Baptism in the Holy Ghost.) Acts 19:1-10 (notice they were saved first and than Paul "layed his hands on them, the Holy Spirit Descended and they spoke in tongues and prophesied." Unless you believe that salvation must be given through the laying on of hands,this event must be post-conversion. I am not saying that every event (Paul's conversion for example) just nails down the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is subsequent to Salvation. But I hope you see that this is not some made-up idea with no support in scripture, but was the practice in the early N.T. church. |
||||||
134 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9811 | ||
The infilling and Baptized in the Holy Spirit are synonomous terms | ||||||
135 | What is Christianity? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9779 | ||
Good answer. I will only add one more statement: And the only accurate way we know who Jesus is and what he requires of us is through His teachings which are recorded in the Bible. | ||||||
136 | What is Christianity? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9778 | ||
Hate to tell you this, but the Westminister Confession of faith is not the Bible. | ||||||
137 | hoyy spirit bap. evidence tounges? | Acts | userdoe220 | 9775 | ||
In Acts 2 reference are you saying the diciples were not saved? The reason I ask is because you equate Spirit Baptism with salvation. There are 5 instances in the Book of Acts that mention the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Almost all--if not all-- occur after a believers conversion (In Acts 8 Phillip preached salvation to the Samaritans and the apostles came down later to administer the Baptisme in the Holy Spirit--Again, this was after their conversion expereince. In fact the scripture records that they believed and werer Baptized). This observation has led to two seperate but related theologies: 2nd work of Grace and Pentecostal/charismatic Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Can you show me in the Bible where the term Baptism in the Holy Spirit is directly connected to salvation? If is is there, I would love to see it. |
||||||
138 | curious about your response | Acts | userdoe220 | 9770 | ||
I consider myself part of the Pentecostal-charimatic movement and was wondering how you deal with their reasoning behind the "initial Physical evidence" belief? 1st argument: In the Book of Acts the accounts of people being "baptized (filled) in (with) the Holy Spirit" usually occur after a persons salvation. An example would be the day of Pentecost. So, the Baptism or infilling of the Holy Spirit must be a subsequent act follwing a believers Salvation. (Non-Pentecostals came up with a doctrine called the second-work of Grace after observing this pattern in the book of Acts. Salvation was the first work of Grace and Complete sanctification was the second work of Grace.) 2nd Argument: Every account recorded in the book of Acts except 2 follows with the Baptizee speaking in Tongeus. The 1st exception was the Apostle Paul who we know spoke in tongues because of his testimony in 1 Cor. and what better time to receive the gift of tongues than at his Baptism. The 2nd instance, Simon the Sorcerer saw something dramtic happen to the individuals who were baptized in the Holy Spirit and scripture records that he wanted to purchase the ability to administer the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Something spectacular must have happened to solicit this response--I read one commentary that stated that Simon saw the "changed lifes of the believers" and wanted to have this ability. That is kind of weak in my opinion. Something more dramatic had to have happened than that to solicit that kind of response. 3rd argument: The gift of tongues covered in 1 cor. refer to a special gift used in church and is different from the tongues that accompany the Baptism in the Holy Spirit (surprisingly RC Sproul believes this as well!) I talked to my Pastor about this and he said that a person can speak in tongues one time at his baptism and never again and be considered "baptized in the Holy Spirit." I am very curios to your, or anybody else who is part of the Pentecostal-charismatic movement, response to these two arguments. I personally agree with you on this issue, but I guess 10 plus years believing a certain teaching will take time to work through. |
||||||
139 | No one or no thing? | Luke 8:13 | userdoe220 | 9736 | ||
I am not moving from someone to something. Re-read my post. You have not even dealt with my content | ||||||
140 | Can a believer lose his salvation? | Luke 8:13 | userdoe220 | 9712 | ||
When I got saved in 1988 I did not grow up in church and for the first 6 months did not attend a church anywhere (I am not condoning this, just stating the facts). I read through the entire N.T. twice during this period and never once got the idea that once we were saved we were "always saved." I read the Bible without any pre-concieved ideas (No Charles Stanley this is how you should interpret verses that contradict how I believe manuals). In fact (show you how niave I was), I believe every Christian believed that you could walk away from your faith. I mean if Paul felt he could and the author of Hebrews I felt I was in good company. Well, finally I became gainfully employed at McDonalds (I was 16 at the time) and ran across my first "Once saved always saved" believer. He was married, cheating on his wife, smoked like a race horse and drank profusely. I began to share with him the salvation message with him and he told me he was saved! I said, "You must be crazy to think you are saved living like that!" after the, "Judge not lest you be judged" passage was quoted, he began to tell me that his pastor told him he was saved because he went down the isle when he was 12 (the age of accountability) and was baptized later that year. I told him that he needed to go to a Bible-Believing church and not get wrapped up in some cult (again, I don't believe you are a cult, this is the way I saw things back than.). I thought his church was completly false and his pastor was way off base. After all, how could someone read the Bible (the 1st year I was saved I read the entire Bible 2x and a number of books in the N.T. more than 3x) and come to that crazy conclusion. Since that expereince, I have ran into many people who believe that once you are saved you are always saved (and please spare me the "he did not truly understand the 5 points of calvanism and he was never truly saved to begin with...") I have read a number of books on this topic from the other perspective: So Great a Salvation, Ryrie Systematic Theology, Wayne Gruden. Systematic Theology, Hodge Chosen but Free, Geisler (at least he admits to a problem with calvanistic theology. His book tries to wed the two concepts.) Countless commentaries that mangle the plain meaning of a text to force a passage into thier belief system! and will admit that there are a couple(emphasis) passages of scripture I have to scratch my head on and leave it to the Lord: Jn 6 and Rom 8. The other worn out passages are easily explained by context. Over my studies I have ran across more than two scriptures with very little explanation offered by my opponants on this matter: Galatians 1:6-8 Heb 10:26-31 Heb 6:4-6 II Pet 2:20-22 Mt 10:22 Mt 13:21 Rom 11:20-23 II Pet 2:15 Jude 21 Heb 3:6 I Tim 4:1 And I could go on, and on and on. These are passages, unaided from some commentary trying to tell me what they should say, that I beleive firmly debunks once saved always saved. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |