Results 141 - 160 of 1251
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: mark d seyler Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | what is the perfect or divine Will of Go | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 183185 | ||
No worries. . . I think we've all probibly done it! God bless!! |
||||||
142 | Eternal in the Heavens | 2 Cor 5:2 | mark d seyler | 183149 | ||
Doc, I have simply quoted Scripture, and made brief comments showing my understanding of those texts. The presupposition that exists in my post is that Scripture is at once correct and harmonious. I presuppose that the correct hermeneutic is the “grammatico-historical” style (as I believe it is referred to), and that Scripture is intended by God to declare a certain and specific truth, that is knowable in the customary ways that we understand language in its variety of forms. While you appear to disagree with the doctrine I have described, I want to be perfectly clear that I am simply showing what the Bible says to the best of my understanding, based on the texts as I have presented. I am hoping that you will be able to separate my statements from statements made by others, and respond to mine, should you wish to, on their own merit, according to the text of Scripture. I will agree with you to stipulate that neither you nor I speak for “all Christianity”, and that we are both simply representing our own views, unless we are actually stating that we are presenting the views of another whom we may or may not agree with. Let’s be sure it’s on the record: Some people have different views on many and varied matters. Were you thinking that each of us should append this to each of our posts? Let’s say, for the sake of argument that I came to Scripture with a presupposition concerning its interpretation. My presupposition would not change what Scripture actually said, now would it? Therefore, we should be able to determine the truthfulness of a doctrine by seeing if it matches what Scripture actually says. The presupposition, should it exist, is to be judged according to Scripture. If it is found to agree with Scripture, then there is no issue with it. If it does not agree with Scripture, then it is shown to be flawed, and is discarded. The point is, though, that this is an unnecessary introduction to the discussion. Whether there are or not presuppositions does not affect whether the stated doctrine agrees with what Scripture says. The only instance that I can think of in which that is not true is if you hold the presupposition that Scripture is to interpreted according to standards or views that are not found in Scripture, and I do not believe that you think that, or are suggesting that. Whether a doctrine is sound or not should be determined exegetically from the Biblical text, not according to how many or few teach it, whether or not it is taught by someone whom you happen to personally disagree with on other points (or, in this case, appears similar to statements attributed to another), whether or not another person has poorly argued for it, or whether or not the conclusion agrees with previously held conclusions or even prejudice, should it exist. All of these are irrelevant to the discussion, and simply sidetrack from it. Each of these are considered logical fallacies, as I am certain that you understand. Concerning alternate interpretations, my actual request was, “. . . if you disagree with my interpretation of Scripture, perhaps you might demonstrate how those Scriptures actually mean something else, other than what I am saying, using arguments that come from the text . . . “ While you have restated other’s conclusions on this matter, without actual exegesis, well, I was already aware that people hold various views on this, as on pretty much all matters, though not all that you posted seem to disagree. As I review what you have quoted from these other men, I do not see a substantial difference, at least in what I wrote. But please, make no mistake: I believe in the resurrection of the body. Please, let’s end this where it began, as I stated in my initial post: “While we will be resurrected in our own bodies, Job 19 25 "As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth. 26 "Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God; 27 Whom I myself shall behold, And whom my eyes will see and not another. My heart faints within me! There is nonetheless a great qualitative difference.” I personally believe that everyone who has a Bible has exactly what they need to weigh my words. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
143 | Eternal in the Heavens | 2 Cor 5:2 | mark d seyler | 183143 | ||
I’m not certain this would be accurate or fair. Even it it were accurate, and I do not believe that it is, as that does not match my experience, truth is not proven by counting heads of how many teach it. While I am not actually certain what you mean by a “replacement body”, since I did not use those words, but actually said things like, “While we will be resurrected in our own bodies,” and “They will be re-made for life in the eternal realm,” the Scripture says our bodies will be "changed. Its like Paul's example of the seed that grows into a plant. The plant that grows is not the seed that was put into the ground, although it came from that seed. Concerning having put of the earthly body, certainly you are not suggesting that those that have died in Christ are lying there in their corpses. That’s not a question, I know that is not what you mean. But equally so, the resurrection hasn’t happened yet. Are you suggesting that this is not something that I see for myself in Scripture, and that I am simply parroting what I have heard in church? I find that the research that needs to be done is to find what the Scripture says. I would simply counter that this teaching comes straight from Scripture, of which I referrence in my post. But if you disagree with my interpretation of Scripture, perhaps you might demonstrate how those Scriptures actually mean something else, other than what I am saying, using arguments that come from the text, instead of simply speaking against the source. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
144 | Eternal in the Heavens | 2 Cor 5:2 | mark d seyler | 183135 | ||
Amen, brother! Ooooh, I can hardly wait!!! |
||||||
145 | Eternal in the Heavens | 2 Cor 5:2 | mark d seyler | 183132 | ||
Correction to previous post: While I wrote: "Those who sleep in Christ have put off their earthly body, and await being clothed with their eternal body. Those in Christ who are raptured will put on their eternal body without having put off their heavenly body." I meant to say: "Those who sleep in Christ have put off their earthly body, and await being clothed with their eternal body. Those in Christ who are raptured will put on their eternal body without having put off their EARTHLY body." My apologies! Mark |
||||||
146 | First rain and first rainbow | Gen 9:13 | mark d seyler | 183127 | ||
Shalom, Azure, I really don't know enough about pre-flood earth to make any really educated guesses about the hydrological cycle of the time. Some things I've read seem to show that the geology of the earth was substantially different before the flood. Systems that function now may not have existed, and there may have been systems that no one has thought of. But if I'm right about one guess of mine, we will have the opportunity to see for ourselves how it all worked! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
147 | Eternal in the Heavens | 2 Cor 5:2 | mark d seyler | 183126 | ||
2 Cor 5 1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. 2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven, 3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked. 4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life. While we will be resurrected in our own bodies, Job 19 25 "As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives, And at the last He will take His stand on the earth. 26 "Even after my skin is destroyed, Yet from my flesh I shall see God; 27 Whom I myself shall behold, And whom my eyes will see and not another. My heart faints within me! There is nonetheless a great qualitative difference. 1 Cor 15:50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. These bodies were made for life on earth. 1 Cor 15:53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. They will be re-made for life in the eternal realm. 1 Cor 15:54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory. This "building from God", these are not the "mansions" as some suppose. As Paul speaks of the tent, he speaks of our earthly body, and as Paul speaks of this building not made with hands, he speaks of our eternal body. Those who sleep in Christ have put off their earthly body, and await being clothed with their eternal body. Those in Christ who are raptured will put on their eternal body without having put off their heavenly body. While Job says that he will see God in his own flesh, and with his own eyes, yet there is a qualitative difference in that flesh, and those eyes, to the extend that they are said by Paul to be "not made with hands", i.e., a work of man, as the body we were born with, but made by God. Yes, it will be my body, but not this body. This body is made for earth, a tent, temporary and transient. I have a new body coming, a permanent home, eternal in the heavens. "For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." |
||||||
148 | The Language that Jesus Spoke | Acts 26:14 | mark d seyler | 183125 | ||
Hi Doc, While the website I linked to acknowledges the possibility that Jesus may well have known Greek and/or Aramaic, it's intent is to demonstrate the Biblical, historical, and linguistic evidence that Jesus' primary language was Hebrew, not Aramaic. This is a quote from Mr. Hamp's introduction: "Though the prevalent theory of Aramaic as the mother tongue of Jesus is overwhelming, the view is in need of a revision that more accurately represents the language situation in Jesus’ day. Once we begin investigating, we discover that there is a great deal of evidence from the New Testament, as well as a plethora of external evidence showing that Jesus spoke Hebrew (not Aramaic) as his mother tongue and in his daily life and ministry. This is not to say that Aramaic was not spoken. The amount of evidence is irrefutable that Aramaic was one of the languages of His day. However, the historical and biblical evidence attests to the fact that He was speaking Hebrew. Again, this is important since to say otherwise does not accurately represent Jesus. Also, recognizing His language as Hebrew demonstrates the reliability of the Bible as the Word of God, and provides a continuum of teaching from the Old Testament up to and through the life and ministry of the Messiah." If you click on the "Presentations" link, then scroll to the bottom, there is a little link that will take you to a PPT style presentation showing much of the evidence that Jesus' primary language was Hebrew, not Aramaic. I hope this serves to clarify the matter. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
149 | The Language that Jesus Spoke | Acts 26:14 | mark d seyler | 183110 | ||
Here is some information on the language of the Jews during the time of Christ: http://www.ccsom.org/languageofjesus/ for whomever should be interested. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
150 | scripture that say all will taste death | Heb 9:27 | mark d seyler | 183107 | ||
Hi Kalos, I was just curious, does your MacArthur Study Bible give any additional info on why John MacArthur teaches that those raised at Jesus' death were not raised in eternal bodies? I was not aware that the Scripture specified whether they were or not. Just wondering . . . Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
151 | who are the sons of God | Gen 6:2 | mark d seyler | 183083 | ||
Hi lionheart! I couldn't agree with you more than I do! I do more study beginning with word searches than in any other way. If a key word in a Scripture appears 400 times in the Bible, I will look at 400 verses to see how it is used. It takes time, but the results are worth it. And I truly thank the LORD for computers and Bible software, else it would take a lot longer! Love in Christ, mark |
||||||
152 | It shall come to pass in the last days | Rev 1:1 | mark d seyler | 183073 | ||
Referring to Revelateion 1:1 ". . . the things which must soon take place. . . " Quote: "'This Greek clause is often used by pretribulationists to support their argument of imminency," This statement was recently made in an answer to a question concerning the Greek "en tachei", "in quickness". As an avid student of prophecy, I am not aware of any Pre-Tribulation Rapture teacher who uses this verse to support the idea that the Bible teaches us that the rapture could happen at any time, and that there are no visible signs or events that will precede it. If there are any that use this verse in this way, even so, it is certainly not the prevalent position. This is a statement from John Walvoord in commentary of this verse: "That which Daniel declared would occur "in the latter days" is here described as "shortly" (Gr., en tachei), that is, "quickly or suddenly coming to pass," indicating rapidity of execution after the beginning takes place. The idea is not that the event may occur soon, but that when it does, it will be sudden (cf. Luke 18:8; Acts 12:7; 22:18; 25:4; Rom. 16:20). A similar word, tachys, is translated "quickly" seven times in Revelation (2:5, 16; 3:11; 11:14; 22:7, 12, 20)." Thomas Ice referrences this quote as well in hes writings, showing his agreement with that understanding. These two gentlemen are unquestionable two of the strongest and most widely known proponents of the Pre-Trib rapture among those serious students of this view. Tim LaHaye and J. Dwight Pentacost are also in agreement with this understanding, that Rev. 1:1 is not to be understood as showing the timing of these events, but rather the nature in which they happen. So while Van Kampen claims that his interpretation of "en tachei" is in disagreement with pre-trib rapture teaching, in fact it is not, and as such, this is a "straw man" argument. It is irrelevant to the discussion, and presents a false view of the opposing side. At best, he is taking a minority view and persenting it as mainstream, although, personally, I am not aware of any generally recognized pre-trib rapture teacher who teaches this verse as Van Kampen claims. If you would like more information regarding errors contained on the www.revelationcommentary website, or www.solagroup, please email me at markdseyler@yahoo.com. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
153 | Adam first man or first man in Eden? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 182157 | ||
I'm looking at "the man" in reference to "man" in the previous verse. This is saying, "God formed man from the dust. God put the man He formed into the garden." The first reference appears indefinate and inclusive. Not "a man", or "the man", simply "man", as if to say all men who had been formed. The next verse clarifies to say "the man", letting us know it was only one. Think of something we might make, say a clay pot. "I made pottery. I put the pot I made in a window box." How many pots did I make? Anyway, that's how I understand this. And it seems to be in harmony with the rest of Scripture, which, as you also noticed, the Corinthians passage seems explicit. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
154 | if God knew how can it be valid? | Matt 19:5 | mark d seyler | 182030 | ||
Oh my! Sorry for my terrible grammer! What I meant to say was: "There is no such thing in Scripture as a vow that is not considered binding, no matter the motivation." - Mark |
||||||
155 | How do you come to your conclusion of pe | Rev 17:10 | mark d seyler | 182024 | ||
Hi Brian, I do not have a copy of Seiss, although I am familiar with the teaching of empires. I would be interested in knowing what Bible passages he cites to support this teaching that these are kingdoms and not kings themselves. I do not know who these kings or kingdoms, if that is correct, are. I have read a number of commentators, and heard many teachers on the subject, although there isn't one who stands out in my mind as having a special insight on this. For me, there just doesn't seem to be any additional information in the Bible that directs us to read "kings" as "kingdoms", therefore, I think John wrote of specific rulers, and I only have my guess of who they were. The final one should be clear for those who will be here to see him. Sorry I couldn't help more than this. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
156 | The Bible KJV | Matt 28:19 | mark d seyler | 181880 | ||
(reposted from mark d seyler) Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The triune nature of God was first hinted at in the very first verse of the Bible, as it says, "In the beginning, Elohim created the heavens and the earth", Elohim being the plural form of El, or God. Elohim literally means "three or more Gods". Another significant Scripture is Deut. 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD". This can also be written as "Hear, O Isreal, YHWH Elohim, YHWH is One." This verse makes the strange declaration that while YHWH is Elohim (plural), YHWH is One (echad - can be a compound unity). This early revelation of God as a triune Being is continued throughout the Bible. God identifies Himself as YHWH, but also is called the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these are separate and distinct persons, each are God, and yet we know the “LORD is One.” Perhaps the clearest picture of our Triune God is at the baptism of Jesus. Matthew 3:16 “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: 17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” Each are called God: Jude 1:1 Jude, the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Acts 5:3-4 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. Each acts in the same capacities as God: Creating: Malachi 2:10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? 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. John 1:3 (of Jesus) All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. Gives to us eternal life: Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. Galatians 6:8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. Raised Jesus from the dead: 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: Everywhere at once (omnipresent): Jereriah 23:24 Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the LORD. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the LORD. Ephesians 1:23 (speaking of Jesus) Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. Psalm 139:7-8 Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there. Saves us: 2 Thessalonians 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth: Titus 3:4-6 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; 1 Peter 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. So we find in the scripture that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each individuals, each are God, and that there is only One God. There are many ways people use to try to describe or understand this doctrine (teaching) of the Trinity, all fall short. I hope this helps! Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
157 | Hallelujah Bold In NASB? | Bible general Archive 3 | mark d seyler | 181877 | ||
Hi mitelt, I think you did provide a solution to the original question! We are just now adding to it. :-) Since paragraph breaks are not a part of the original text, its up to the publisher of each new edition to determine whether and where to place paragraph break. Paragraph breaks should always be considered to be a matter of interpretation rather than translation, and care should be taken to examine the text to see if separate paragraphs, and chapters and verses too, for that matter, should actually be read together as a unit. One peculiarity of the Koine Greek of the New Testament is that is was written without paragraphs, punctuation, or spaces, and used all capital letters. THISISHOWITWOULDLOOKWRITINGTHISWAYINENGLISHTRANSLATORS MUSTDISTINGUISHTHEWORDSSENTENCESANDPUCTUATIONSTRICTLYFROMTHEWRITINGITSELF Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
158 | The Name /One Lord | Matt 28:19 | mark d seyler | 181863 | ||
Hi Mark, John 1:1 is solid textual evidence that Jesus is in fact God. Compare what your Watchtower claims about that verse to the Greek construction of John 1:18. The Watchtower claims that since "theos" appears without the direct article in John 1:1, it is indefinate, thus declaring that Jesus is "a god". Not only does this render the Watchtower polytheistic, but if you apply the same interpretive reasoning to verse 18, you have a serious conflict. Because while verse 18 says that no one has seen God at any time, this is another instance of "theos" without the direct article. So according to how the Watchtower would have you to understand Greek grammer, vs. 1 is saying that Jesus is "a god", while verse 18 would be saying that no one has seen "a god" at any time. John also describes Jesus as "that which we have seen. . ." "kai theos en ho logos" "and God was the Word" While you could say in English "and the God was the Word", this does not work in Greek. "ho" logos, the word, is in the nominative case, while theos, God, is also in the nominative case. These terms are botn naming someone. "Ho", the, is the direct article, which must appear in the same case as the noun it refers to. But "ho" also indicates the subject of the sentence, or in this case, the clause. If we were to write this sentence with the direct article appearing with theos, God, then it would be: kai ho theos en ho logos and the God was the Word The problem with this is that it renders the clause as having two subjects, and that is just bad grammer. So when the Watchtower claims that there would have to be a direct article before theos in order for it to be truly saying that Jesus is "the" God, it is in reality demanding that John write with bad grammer that would actually render his sentence meaningless and circular. The reality is that John names the subject, ho logos, the Word, and tells us something about this subject, the Word was God. Now, whether this is "a god" or "the God", the context gives us all we need. In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with the God, and God was the word. Now, immediately you'll notice that there is an article in the first use of "God" - the Word was with "the God". This is because this is in the "Accusative" case, that is, the direct object. The Word was with - what? The God. But as "God" next appears in the Nominative, there is no direct article. But one must ignore the immediate context to argue that the second appearance of "theos" is any less definate than the first. Not to mention that they don't apply their own rule just a few verses later. Not to mention that many times the Bible declares the diety of Jesus. I hope this clears things up a bit. Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
159 | Mark 8:33 and John 13:2,27 | Is 53:10 | mark d seyler | 181824 | ||
Hi Apollos, Was Satan's offer of the kingdoms of the world and their glory in return for worship actually an attempt to thwart Jesus from going to the cross? Did that figure in at all? Or is that something that is commonly taught, but that doesn't have actual Scriptural foundation? Certainly Satan was trying to get Jesus to act independantly, but I don't see where the devil actually suggests that this is to try to get Jesus to avoid the cross. What do you think? Love in Christ, Mark |
||||||
160 | Did Jesus speak Greek in this verse? | Matt 16:18 | mark d seyler | 181819 | ||
Hi MJH, The word play may simply have been picked up in the Greek, if in fact Jesus didn't speak it in Greek. Consider if He spoke this today in English, "you are a rock, and upon this bedrock I will build My church", when translated into Greek, it could well be rendered as we read in the text. So what we see as a wordplay may only be a byproduct of translation. I hope this helps! Love in Christ, Mark PS for anyone interested, I recommend "The Language that Jesus Spoke", by Doug Hamp. This slim book gives a compelling Scriptural presentation, as well as historical and linguistic, demonstrating Hebrew as the language of the Jews until the dispersion in 132 AD. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [63] >> |