Results 141 - 160 of 275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Amazement functioned in Mark? | Mark 1:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204800 | ||
Reminder, I am not in college at all, just a Bible school. and yes I went checking although I didn't say that for each question and didn't find an answer so I posted the questions. These are not class questions per say, some of them did not stem from hearing things I did not agree or disagree with in class, but came from looking at some passages. But some of them did come from taking class and being left wondering more about the subject, or just plain frustrated with what I have been taught. But I never, ask something because I need an answer for class and look for the answer here. I often ask forum members what they think about a take on a subject that I already have researched and don't agree with what a professor taught, but not to be able to take that to go pass a class. These are professors who decided to devote their time to a Bible School for lay people. Does it really matter what my motive is in asking a question other than a real desire to study everything about the Bible? As long as I am not tryint to get a grade by doing it what is the harm to anyone? God bless Tamara |
||||||
142 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204772 | ||
Point taken Val, I should have said commission. God bless, thanks Tamara |
||||||
143 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204771 | ||
Continuation to Flinky; In James where you have what you like to call the presbyters, which we like to call the elders, there is that the elders pray and Jesus effects the healing and forgiveness of sins, not the elders, they don't effect anything, they don't have the power. I have read church history on this thing and what I found out is that this idea of the presbyters being priests was a leap taken by a certain church or churches that has no basis in scripture. In I Timothy we have the word Bishop or overseer, and then we have the word Deacon or minister. The qualifications are crystal clear each is to the husband of one wife, not given to wine, etc. Where Paul says elsewhere that he wishes other men would live even as he does, that it celibate, he also says let each man be called to that which God has disposed his calling to be and that not every man has been called as he has. He never said that you had to be celibate to be a presbyter, a Bishop, or a Deacon. Peter and the some of other apostles had wives, Paul said, is it that only Peter and the others may take along with them wives, and not we? There is no evidence that you have to be celibate to be a presbyter. But the history of certain churches shows that celibacy has been imposed. The title of presbyter, or elder being changed to priest is the invention of a church or churches and may be the Latin for presbyter, but it is not the Greek for presbyter. The apostles, the deacons, the overseers and elders, the ministers, the pastor teachers; these are all words that can be found in the Greek to be referring to those who were said by Paul to be over the flock, but the word priest is never used to refer to those over the flock. It is used of the Sanhedrin and the of those from Solomon's temple, but not the church. When Paul addresses those at Ephesus in farewell, he mentions the elders and the bishops as being overseeing the flock as shepherds, but no priests. The church at that time had no such heirarchy as is seen to day in the churches. Paul never says the elders were under the bishops because that is not how the church functioned. There was a mulitipicity of leadership in the churches with a bunch of elders and a buch of bishops who as a group oversaw the whole flock they were all together in charge of. There were no arch-bishops, there was no reason for there to be on as a group of men ran the churches together. There were no priests because Jesus is the only high priest of our confession as Hebrews teaches. There was no pope, that is an invention of certain churches. Peter was never a pope; he was an apostle a founding father of the church. The power of the apostles is not transferable by the laying on of hands. You are either called to be an apostle by Jesus while you walked with Him while He was alive, or you saw Him on the Damascus road as the risen Lord and you were called by Him to be an apsotle, or you are not on the same level with the same office as the apostles. It is not transferable. There was a laying on of hands by the apostles to pray over the servants of tables men of faith, it was not a transference of power to do the works of an apostle. Jesus said He would build the church on the rock, Peter, but the Bible teaches and Jesus elsewhere teaches the only Jesus is the chief corner stone on which the church is built, everybody else is a smaller rock in that building. He meant that He would build the church on the confession of Peter, which Peter had just done, the church. And like Peter the church is built on all of our confessions of Christ. The church history is rife with additions to the original model of church governance as the traditions of men. No man has more authority than scripture to do anything, or to decide anything, the scripture is the final authority on earth given to men by which to practice Christianity. Following the traditions of addition of some of the churches does not confer any state of grace, or forgiveness of sins, or the body and blood of Christ, or the Holy Spirit. All of these things are conferred soley by the triune sovereign God head. Yeah I have read lots of church history and the church is not the primary element of Christianity either, the Bible is, and Jesus is, but the church was never given the power by Jesus to be the basis for faith, and being in a church does not have the power to forgive your sins or tell you that you have been saved. Believing in Jesus is the only way to be saved and asking Him and Him alone to forgive sins is the only way to be forgiven of sins, men do not have the power to do either of these things. They can only assent that Jesus has done them. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
144 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204770 | ||
Continuation to Flinky; In James where you have what you like to call the presbyters, which we like to call the elders, there is that the elders pray and Jesus effects the healing and forgiveness of sins, not the elders, they don't effect anything, they don't have the power. I have read church history on this thing and what I found out is that this idea of the presbyters being priests was a leap taken by a certain church or churches that has no basis in scripture. In I Timothy we have the word Bishop or overseer, and then we have the word Deacon or minister. The qualifications are crystal clear each is to the husband of one wife, not given to wine, etc. Where Paul says elsewhere that he wishes other men would live even as he does, that it celibate, he also says let each man be called to that which God has disposed his calling to be and that not every man has been called as he has. He never said that you had to be celibate to be a presbyter, a Bishop, or a Deacon. Peter and the some of other apostles had wives, Paul said, is it that only Peter and the others may take along with them wives, and not we? There is no evidence that you have to be celibate to be a presbyter. But the history of certain churches shows that celibacy has been imposed. The title of presbyter, or elder being changed to priest is the invention of a church or churches and may be the Latin for presbyter, but it is not the Greek for presbyter. The apostles, the deacons, the overseers and elders, the ministers, the pastor teachers; these are all words that can be found in the Greek to be referring to those who were said by Paul to be over the flock, but the word priest is never used to refer to those over the flock. It is used of the Sanhedrin and the of those from Solomon's temple, but not the church. When Paul addresses those at Ephesus in farewell, he mentions the elders and the bishops as being overseeing the flock as shepherds, but no priests. The church at that time had no such heirarchy as is seen to day in the churches. Paul never says the elders were under the bishops because that is not how the church functioned. There was a mulitipicity of leadership in the churches with a bunch of elders and a buch of bishops who as a group oversaw the whole flock they were all together in charge of. There were no arch-bishops, there was no reason for there to be on as a group of men ran the churches together. There were no priests because Jesus is the only high priest of our confession as Hebrews teaches. There was no pope, that is an invention of certain churches. Peter was never a pope; he was an apostle a founding father of the church. The power of the apostles is not transferable by the laying on of hands. You are either called to be an apostle by Jesus while you walked with Him while He was alive, or you saw Him on the Damascus road as the risen Lord and you were called by Him to be an apsotle, or you are not on the same level with the same office as the apostles. It is not transferable. There was a laying on of hands by the apostles to pray over the servants of tables men of faith, it was not a transference of power to do the works of an apostle. Jesus said He would build the church on the rock, Peter, but the Bible teaches and Jesus elsewhere teaches the only Jesus is the chief corner stone on which the church is built, everybody else is a smaller rock in that building. He meant that He would build the church on the confession of Peter, which Peter had just done, the church. And like Peter the church is built on all of our confessions of Christ. The church history is rife with additions to the original model of church governance as the traditions of men. No man has more authority than scripture to do anything, or to decide anything, the scripture is the final authority on earth given to men by which to practice Christianity. Following the traditions of addition of some of the churches does not confer any state of grace, or forgiveness of sins, or the body and blood of Christ, or the Holy Spirit. All of these things are conferred soley by the triune sovereign God head. Yeah I have read lots of church history and the church is not the primary element of Christianity either, the Bible is, and Jesus is, but the church was never given the power by Jesus to be the basis for faith, and being in a church does not have the power to forgive your sins or tell you that you have been saved. Believing in Jesus is the only way to be saved and asking Him and Him alone to forgive sins is the only way to be forgiven of sins, men do not have the power to do either of these things. They can only assent that Jesus has done them. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
145 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204769 | ||
Dear Flinky, In Mathew 9:6-8 there is definitely a literary device in which Mathew speaks of how the divinty of God has been conferred to men in the person of the Son of Man, Jesus the man, not to all men in the form of other men. We all know it was not a good thing for the Pharisees to say that Jesus was a blasphemer and that it was a positve testimony of Jesus ability to forgive sin, I did not say otherwise. I said the Pharisees were disgruntled which they were and that the reason they ended up putting Jesus to death, becuase of His repeated claims to deity, like the forgiveness of sins. Which we see, according to the Bible, only Jesus had the power to do;Luke 5:20-24 Jesus forgives the sins of the same paralyzed man and the Pharisees say, only God has the power to forgive sins. Then Jesus says so that you may now that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, etc. Jesus never tells them they are wrong, He says to them see I have the authority to forgive sins, meaning He was God. You said; thus any man given authority to forgive sin would be doing so in the Person of Christ. Men are not a substitute for Christ forgiving other men in His name, there is only one sacrificial subsititute for sins and He is Jesus. The only thing men have the power to do as mere men and not God, is to be witnesses of whether or not God has forgiven the sins of men. That is why I got shook up about John 20:22,23, men, nowhere in the Bible have the divine power of God to forgiven sins because they have not completed the holy sacrifice that Jesus did complete by shedding His blood for sins. There is only one advocate with the Father, and He is Jesus Christ, I John 2:2, no other person from earth is the advocate, only Jesus. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
146 | What is the theme or themes of John? | John | Tamara Brewington | 204732 | ||
Dear Searcher, As usual looking through every thread there was did not yeild anything about the whole book of John and what the whole subject matter is about, which is what I mean by theme. Some of these threads only speak about the theme, or what the subject matter is all about, for a small portion of John. That is not what I am looking for. God bless your heart, but my dear you keep on choosing to answer myself and others with will meaning advice that does not yeild an answer to the question once all the threads you are talking about have been exhausted. You are assuming that whoever has posted a question you think must already have been answered has not gone throught the threads and search engines to find what they are looking for. You are preventing my questions and other people's questions from being truly answered by anyone because you have posted advice or asked people to refine how much of a passage they would like to know about when they have made it crystal clear they want to know about the whole thing and not a little part. I went back through several questions that you did not really answer by posting a not and gave folks a real answer to their question. Now I cannot get anyone to try and answer all the questions you choose to post a reply to because folks see that it was apparently answered sufficiently simply because it now appears in Primary (?). I can't tell you how much I appreciate your attempts at help, but I also can't tell you how frustrating it is not to have a chance to have my questions actually ansewered. Please consider whether or not you could search through the threads and search engines first your self before directing others to do so as a post. Please consider that people know that they are asking about whole passages and whole books when they post a question with only one verse, because we all know the one verse is required, but it may not cover the whole scope of a question posted. Happy 4th of July to you, God Bless Tamara |
||||||
147 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204731 | ||
Dear Tim, I understand we can't answer this dogamtically as to what exactly is meant by Jesus, not by us, that He was breathing, blowing in or on the Holy Spirit on them in terms of the scope of the what the results of that was for them. What, though do you think about the fact that Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on them, or blew in the Holy Spirit on them? I highly doubt that John meant that as a figurative language denoting a pledge or else he would have used different language to describe what Jesus did. John says Jesus blew in or out, or on, the Holy Spirit on them. As a literal interpretation Jesus did not command them in that passage to receive the Holy Spirit at all, He breathed Him on or in them, He didn't command them that. What He commnaded was to retain or forgive sins. Or are you saying He didn't blow on, or in, or out, the Holy Spirit on them as the text indicates as a literal interpretation? Happy 4th of July to you and your whole family. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
148 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204728 | ||
Dear Flinky, I think that only Jesus had the power to forgive sins as a man because the Bible elsewhere says that the Pharisees were disgruntled becuase Jesus was saying He had the power to forgive sins and the author of the passages notes that only God could forgive sins. This is why they put Him to death, He kept making claims to deity. I think the concept of the message of reconciliation is the key here, that an apostle would know who was saved based on if they accepted the message, and then declaring who was saved and who was not based on that. That passage you mention where the power was given to men to forgive sins could only be applying to Jesus because other men are not God. Yeah I got a lot of inquisitiveness, but I gotta watch it doesn't make me lose my way too. Happy 4th of July to you. Tamara |
||||||
149 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204727 | ||
Val I truly appreciate your insight, I believe you are very correct in your intrepretation of how the Holy Spirit was working as a seal; we get a seal of promise from the Holy Spirit upon belief, we get a seal of the Holy Spirit to work for God, we see that OT saints received seals and also lost them, we see that Christ gave the power of the Holy Spirit in a huge out pouring as prophesied in Daniel as a final sealing to do God's work. I still have to go back and study something different about how the Holy Spirit was working in Luke. I like your picture of little stones and a bigs stone. God Bless happy 4th of July to you Tamara |
||||||
150 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204702 | ||
Dear Val, I can see how the apostles would be preaching a message resulting in forgiveness of sin and that the apostles would be merely assenting to what they observed. What I can't see is why Jesus would breathe the Holy Spirit on them to preach the message and then tell them in Acts 1 to wait for the Holy Spirit to come with power before they were to go preach the same message you are saying He was indicating for them to do in John 20:22. I agree whole heartedly with you about it being Peter's confession about Christ, but there is also that there is a play on words here with Christ saying Peter and petra and petra means foundation boulder. Peter says elsewhere that the church is built of living stones that all confess Christ. And in Ephesians it says that the church was built on the foundation of Christ and the prophets and the apostles, Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone and the rest being a building fitted together (that is composed of stones in a building). God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
151 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204701 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, I have to agree to a point with your interpretation here as to the reason for why Jesus was saying for the disciples to go and forgive the sins of any and to go retain the sins of any. The reason is that you provided compelling evidence of how it would be possible for Jesus to say what He did. You put it in context with the rest of what scripture teaches about what it means to preach a message of reconciliation as being brougth by ambassadors of Christ who have the power to assure people that they have salvation, or to know that they don't and tell them their sins are not forgiven. Val hit on the same thing in different words and that struck me as a rather compelling representation of the function of preaching about salvation as being to present a means for the sinner to be forgiven. And in that sense the preaching would present the opportunity for sins to be forgiven by Jesus. Now that interpretation that you have given makes me wonder why Jesus would be breathing on them the Holy Spirit to make them witnesses when in fact He comes to them in Acts 1:4-8 to tell them to wait for the Holy Spirit to come to them with power so that they can to be His witnesses to do the very same thing you are telling me He was implying for them to do in John 20:22. That does not make sense... If what He was doing in John was breathing the Holy Spirit on them to anoint them and then telling them to go preach the message of recociliation in order to know for the sake of the sinner that they were saved or unsaved, why then does He tell them to wait for the Holy Spirit to come again in order to go preach that same message of reconciliation? I have asked someone before if John MaCarthur's take on John 20:22 is correct, that they did not receive the Holy Spirit, but just a pledge... The answer I received was that the Greek is saying that He blew on or blew in the Holy Spirit on or in them and that this was not a mere pledge. So now, while I can agree with your explanation of using passages which can explain the concept of how sins get forgiven I am left with a question of why Jesus wanted them to wait for something He had already done? God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
152 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204680 | ||
Dear Searcher, I really appreciate your diligence in trying to help me find a thread about this subject. Using your threads I found the Genre, the audience and some questions about Luke, but to no avail. I am talking about the over all subject or subjects Luke is discussing or presenting to his audience. I do believe John actually did answer the questionn though, but thanks again. God bless hat lady |
||||||
153 | Carpenter or rabbi? | Matthew | Tamara Brewington | 204637 | ||
Dear Mike, No need to repent to anyone, a question is always legitimate as long as we are truly seeking an answer, doesn't matter if you already have one answer, there is wisdom in wise counsel and it is good to always get a second opinion on what you already know. I do that in here all the time... And remember the only one you ever have to repent to is JC, see I John 1:2... It may seem like the right thing to do when your conscience is bothering you, but it is not a requirement to repent to others about something you have done. Your character must be pretty good Mike if you are concerned about how you are doing on the minors! Keep on asking what ever questions you have for what ever reaon you have, we will all endeavor to answer you with sincerity of heart and remember seeking confirmation is not a sin, or wanting to be right, it may be wanting to make sure you don't teach the wrong thing! Watch out Mike for those who condemn you by commending themselves... Check out that verse sometime. The Bible doesn't say many things about one passage, there is always only one correct interpretation and you are not wrong to be correcting erroneous beliefs about what the Bible says, but those who are perishing will refuse to listen and will begin to argue becasue the message is foolishness to them! God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
154 | Amazement functioned in Mark? | Mark 1:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204609 | ||
Dear RC, No problem I will be wanting to write you back of course don't worry I always write back, character flaw I think. You got me wondering already what it realy matters how old the theology is, that smacks of holding to the traditions of the church fathers and the chruch above the higher authority of the Bible. I could care very little how old it is, only if is correct, but we will be getting into that after you finish teaching me what you know if that is ok with you. email me HAT LADY GOD BLESS |
||||||
155 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204602 | ||
Hey John it's ok about which book you meant I put two out there for good measure just to confuse you OK?:) Now I have an even better view than the last one you sent. You ain't always gotta have a scripture as long as you are answering about one thasssssss cool. And I used to go by the name Aurora because every body made that joke no problem about the joke though you mean it in good fun. My name is pronounced Ta ma ra with all short A's I am startin to like hat lady better and better every day John...:):):) Is there a way to change my handle John, I think I asked this one before somewhere in there. God bles Ta ma ra ha ha ha ha |
||||||
156 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204600 | ||
Dear John, thanks for your persistence in the matter there are about four theories on this thing running around, that I have collected through the years, thanks for adding another one; 1)Jesus compassion to the outcast groups religious or otherwise, the role of the Holy Spirit, the reaction of people to Christ. 2)The complete story of Christ, the compasion of Christ, the joy of salvation. 3)Salvation in the Messiah, the compassion of Christ, the role of the Holy Spirit. 4)The history of salvation in the first century, Jesus as the Son of God, the history of the apocalyptic meeting the eschatology of the glory of Jesus as the ascended God Man. I like yours though... ties everything together in one neat package, thanks that is why I will keep on posting my questions, to get new prospectives on old things and new things (to me). God Bless hat lady |
||||||
157 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204598 | ||
Yep a doodle my good friend, like yourself the other day, was just looking for someone who might know.... By the way I still intend to try to find an answer to your question about the word making one rejoice amongst all my other questions tonite at Bible study I forgot to ask him that one, darn... No need to be sorry dear heart, you can address things any way you chose...:) Yep, I was being a bit lazy though... I am gonna have to google every single darn question I asked on Tuesday morning and be a better workman II Timothy 2:15... my bad.... God bless hat lady |
||||||
158 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204594 | ||
I am laughing really really hard... How in the world can you find out the theme of Luke from typing in a verse when you have absolutely no idea which verse in Luke should be used as the basis for a theme of Luke? Help a gal out here... Maybe you know something about finding themes by throwing a printing press at a wall and somehow ending up with a verse telling you about the theme. I dunno but I highly doubt it.... hat lady, God Bless you John |
||||||
159 | REV 11 The Temple stands yet destroyed | Rev 1:11 | Tamara Brewington | 204593 | ||
John I meant Daniel 7,8,9,11 sorry...... | ||||||
160 | REV 11 The Temple stands yet destroyed | Rev 1:11 | Tamara Brewington | 204592 | ||
Dear John, Tell me my dear good man, which part of Daniel's prophecy? Chapter 7,8,9,13 or other? Mathew 24:1-2 is indeed talking about the destruction of the temple and then the disciples ask when will it happend and when will Jesus come. So we know that Mathew 24:1-2 has already happened. Jesus addresses their concerns about His coming back in verses 4-31. Jesus addresses their concerns about His coming in verses 36-44. I don't agree that He addresses both parts of the question. He never addresses one of their concerns because the disciples have mistakenly placed together His coming with the fall of Jerusalem. Verse 34 has often been used to denote that the whole discourse was about their present generation, but it may well be referring to the generation of those who will, in the future near His coming be undergoing the great tribulation. According to verse 14 the gospel has to be preached to all the world before any of what He is saying can take place in the discourse as being the end. The gospel has not yet been finished being preached to all the earth yet, so the end has not yet come in order for all the various elements of the discourse to be applied to the first century. I don't think there is a break there, just my opinion. Like many other times Jesus does not answer the whole question, only the part He is interested in them knownig about. I am going to keep thinking about this. Say I wanted to say to you that you were the only one to answer any question I posted from Tuesday morning beyond a short reply and I appreciate the time you took to answer.:) Ain't tryin to complain, just grateful. God Bless hat lady Yeah John I don't want to be slippin and slidin with that inquisitive mind there. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [14] >> |