Results 141 - 160 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | 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 |
||||||
142 | 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 |
||||||
143 | 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 |
||||||
144 | 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 |
||||||
145 | 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 |
||||||
146 | 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 |
||||||
147 | Do we accept? | John 1:1 | Beja | 229989 | ||
Wings, This is what scripture tells us and we must not pit the new and old testaments against each other. Col 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. And Jesus tells us Joh 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
148 | Forgiving Blaspemies! | Mark | Beja | 229912 | ||
JohnRyals, There is no need for you to excuse yourself. You have not offended me in the least. Its hard to be overly offended about an issue of grammer. And that is what I am objecting to. I have no interest in any view point on such an argued thing as the unforgivable sin. However, you can't rightly drop off Jesus' own qualification to his statement and then suggest it to somebody else that he is adding to the word of God by simply saying what the text actually says. That's just not how you read whether it be a fiction novel or scripture. But as I said, I'm not sitting here angry over a grammatical point so there is no reason to worry on that account. Stay and discuss with us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
149 | Forgiving Blaspemies! | Mark | Beja | 229910 | ||
JohnRyals, Since you are clearly against taking away from a text, I'm supposing it is accidental that you left out when Jesus said "but..." and stated a clear exception. Mar 3:28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; Mar 3:29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"-- In Christ, Beja |
||||||
150 | Unpardoned sin in New Testament? | Mark | Beja | 229894 | ||
To no one poster but to the thread, How terribly this thread condemns me! For I confess to you all today that many times I rejected Christ, and many times I refused to believe, and many times I ignored the promting of the Holy Spirit prior to humbling myself before God and pleading the blood of Christ. Job 38:2 might help our study in this subject a great deal. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
151 | Bible Referencing Divine Knowledge | Is 14:1 | Beja | 229837 | ||
Themerv, I have had some further thoughts that might help your paper, two passages and a suggestion that might lend a layer of power and purpose to your paper. Here is passage that would be a wonderful example of what you are trying to show. 2 Corinthians 12:1-10 gives instance of Paul receiving a vision of things that he describes as not lawful to utter. Further, he is given a "thorn in the flesh" to humble him in light of having seen such things. Now as far as the thesis of your paper, I have had quite a bit of practice in what makes for a strong paper and I have had too much practice in writing weak papers. A weak paper will only observe something. A strong paper will make an assertion. An outstanding paper will make an assertion that matters. Here is how I would advise you to focus the paper. Use this verse to drive it... Deu 29:29 "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law." I reccomend that you continue the corse of showing the restricted nature of certain divine knowledge, but go beyond that. Study and show not just half the equation, but show where scripture actually takes that. Show not just what scripture says not to do, how scripture teaches us not to pry into the hidden, but show how we ARE to diligently persue the revealed will of God. If you go that course now your paper has gone from just showing something and then saying "well...hope this was relevant in some way" to having your paper show "here is what scripture strongly pushes us away from, but here is what knowledge we are commanded to persue." Your paper will go to being something that is relevant for life, edifying for the church, compelling in nature and yet you still get to pursue your intended subject. In addition to all this you will be able to find many good scholarly references both recent and ancient if you search the subjects of "God's hidden and revealed will." Many great minds have discussed this topic, and interacting with and quoting great thinkers strengthens a paper. May God bless you as you persue these things. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
152 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 229615 | ||
Justme, you asked, "We disagree. So why do you keep this going?" I only responded again in order to make clear that my objection with your post was not concerning a disagreement over the role of women (though I do disagree). For me to prolong a debate over such an issue is, I think, against the spirit of, and possibly even the letter of, the TOU. My objection and reason for posting was over your mishandling scripture. That is infact exactly the purpose of the forum. To discuss rightly exegeting passages. My objection to you is not: Women must not teach in churches. My objection to you is: When a statment is followed by a "For" plus a grounds of explination, we do not divorce the two when we teach or exegete the passage. On that issue, I hope we can find agreement. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
153 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 229608 | ||
justme, I agree that it has been debated more than enough. I also have no desire to debate the issue. However, when a person 1.) discuses 1 Tim 2:12 while intentionally leaving of verses 13 and 14 which explicitely give the foundation of it, and 2.) goes on to discuss other possible foundations for Paul's command, which coincidentally lay the foundation for ignoring the command, 3.) and all to what appears to be a younger and perhaps unaware questioner who would not know that something crucial is being carefully left off... That I suppose will always prompt a response from myself. I have no thoughts of changing your mind. But I can't bring myself to remain silent in the face of that knowing that the continuation of Paul's thought is being edited out in order to make a speculation of what Paul would "think about women today." I would have to be removed from the forum first. I agree and am satisfied for you and I to disagree. However, you have made your decision in light of verses 14 and 15. I ask that you grant inquirers the same courtesy as to let them make up their mind in light of that crucial bit of scripture. That being said, I hope for a peaceful forum. But as in the church, peace bought at any price is wrong. But, having alerted the young lady to the remainder of Paul's statement, I am happy to drop the subject. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
154 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 229602 | ||
"Some like myself, would say, scrutinise and thoroughly investigate, examine each and every instance that the culture of the time of Paul writtings might be limited to that epoc." Of course, before you do that investigation, you must first ignore that Paul clearly says exactly why he forbids it in the very same passage, where he reveals that it has nothing to do with current cultural phenomenon but rather he forbid it based on creation and the fall. 1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 1Ti 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
155 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229457 | ||
JSPH, Forgive me, I think perhaps it would be better to say at the end of my last post that you are making sanctification the MEANS of justification rather than cause. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
156 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229456 | ||
JSPH, So you are saying that the process of sanctifying us is in fact the process of justifying us. Correct? Assuming I have you right (and please dont' skip telling me yes or no on that) doesn't that mean you are saying justification comes from sanctification? I dont mean that one finishes and then the other begins. I mean purely from a logical standpoint. If we are being justified through the process of sanctification, then aren't you at least logically if not temporally making justification the cause of sanctification? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
157 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229453 | ||
Jsph, Thank you for your response. I hope it doesn't offend that I ask some follow up questions to clarify in my own mind what you are saying. With regards to the process. I honestly believe there is a process of salvation that is often poorly understood. The scriptures clearly teachthat the path of salvation is a path of sanctification. However, order here is important and I'm trying to understand your take on ordering in all of this. So here is my question. With regards to justification, and sanctification, what is the ordering. Let me define my terms. Justification, for the purpose of my question, is the state of God having pardoned all of our sins and now views us as if we are sinless with Christ's righteousness for purposes of determining eternal judgement or eternal reward. (I'll defend that definition if needed, but for the moment will let it stand.) Sanctification, for the purpose of my question, is the ongoing and progressive conforming to to the image of Christ, which involves an ongoing and progressive repentence from sin, and a maturing in obedience to God. Now my question is, do you believe justification comes from the fact that we are doing the sanctification part, or do you teach that God causes and accomplishes the sanctification part because we are already justified by faith? Which comes first in this process. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
158 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Exodus | Beja | 229445 | ||
Jsph, Welcome to the forum. I was looking at the bio you provided. You seem to make an emphasis of "make" verses "set" in the verse you provide. I was wondering what you saw as the significance of that distinction for understanding the verse. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
159 | 3 levels of christianity | 2 Tim 2:15 | Beja | 229054 | ||
Bnabirye, Here in about twenty minutes I am on my way to continue a class with the ladies in my church over the book of Ephesians. And I believe whole heartedly that one of the major points of the book is that there is only one level of Christianity. Eph 4:4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
160 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [26] >> |