Results 141 - 160 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | stjones | 79255 | ||
Greetings, Searcher; It just seems so terse without a signature. :-) In my view, those who say that God wishes to silence women are ignoring most of the Gospel, replacing grace with laws that have little basis when the whole of Scripture is taken into account. Two obscure passages in two intensely personal epistles do not a doctrine make, especially when they directly contradict principles that the same writer sprinkles throughout virtually everything he has written. I passed on the master/slave reference out of courtesy. I would contend that master and slave are roles that are displeasing to God and have absolutely no place in the body of Christ - see Philemon. The political and civil obligations that slaves have to masters are left at the door of the church. If you are were to suggest that Paul is endorsing those roles by acknowledging their existence, you would come perilously close to the justification used by the the slave traders of the 18th and 19th centuries. I assume you have no interest in doing that. I simply can't find a reason to believe that Paul meant to throw away freedom and unity in Christ and put women under laws that do not burden men. But that's my reading of the Bible. If you and your church (especially the women) believe that God really wants women to be silent, I have no reason to interfere. In the unlikely event you come to my church and promote the idea, I will oppose you - as soon as the women quiet down. :-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
142 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | stjones | 79232 | ||
Greetings, unsigned; Where Paul did write about roles specific to the body of Christ - preacher, teacher, evangelist, prophet, adminstrator, servant, encourager, etc. - he said nothing about gender. Paul wrote that our unity in Christ transcends the boundaries mentioned in Galatians 3, including gender. So do our roles and responsibilites as members of the body of Christ. Marriage is obviously a different matter because it pre-dated the body of Christ and was ordained by God for his own purposes. A marriage can consist only of one man and one woman - highly gender-specific. But nowhere does the Bible say that gifts of the Holy Spirit are gender-specific. Since Scripture does not contradict itself, I have no choice to but conclude that Paul was addressing idiosyncratic situations in difficult churches. Otherwise, his words about freedom and unity in Christ would apply everywhere but within the body of Christ. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
143 | I would like to learn more about this! | Acts 1:11 | stjones | 79212 | ||
Hi, Taleb; Hear, hear! Your diatribe brings to mind a related tragedy in the church - our collective obsession with fotrune-telling. I refer, of course, to the thriving prophecy industry which drains people, time, and money from the real work of the church. Instead of taking seriously Paul's question "And how can they preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:15), we squander millions trying to guess when Jesus will return and speculating on the sequence of events when he does. Instead of believing Jesus' simple declaration that "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36), we buy books, go to conferences, and support TV shows that purport to tell us when that day or hour will be. It troubles me to think of the missionaries not sent, the Bibles not printed, the translations not done, the voices stilled because of the church's fascination with trying to guess a future not given us to know. What difference could all of this possibly make to a lost sinner who simply needs to know the Good News? Where does this crystal-ball-gazing fit in with Jesus' instructions to his church? I do not mean to criticize dmvd or others for being interested is such things. If people on this forum want to speculate on matters akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, they'll hear no objection from me. Nor will they have to read my opinion because I have none. :-) The only thing I know about the future is that Jesus will return at an appointed day and hour unkonwn to me. But I hope that anyone who is fattening the wallet of a fortune-teller will consider diverting at least part of that money to a mission that is actually working to save souls. Thanks for listening. This cranky old curmudgeon will now crawl back into his hole. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
144 | Is Practicing homosexual Behavior a Sin? | Rom 1:24 | stjones | 75803 | ||
Greetings, footprints; Glad to help. If you have time, find a copy of "Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority and the Church Today" by Marion Soards. It's only 108 pages but it's a very good treatment. I stole the Romans 1 argument directly from him. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
145 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75297 | ||
Hi, sisterkath; Thanks for the reply. If you don't mind a little persistence, I still don't understand why someone would accept this teaching. There must have been some authority for it before the original 1950 NWT was published; do you know what it was? The following chain of events is very suggestive to me: 1) Jehovah's Witnesses proclaim a novel theology that they say is Biblical. 2) Theologians and Bible teachers show that the theology is inconsistent with translations of the Bible produced by hundreds of scholars whose names and credentials are made public. This includes Bibles that are not associated with any particular denomination. 3) The New World Translation is produced in secret by a group of unidentified Jehovah's Witnesses. This translation brings the Bible into conformance with their theology. If their theology could not be derived from Bibles extant before 1950, it could not have come from God's word. So the question remains. Why believe that this one recent translation - which proclamins a "truth" significantly different from all others - correctly reveals God's word? I just can't imagine that God would allow this "error" to persist for nearly 2000 years.... Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
146 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75286 | ||
Hi, sisterkath; Pardon my jumping in here, but I am curious about one thing. As far as I know, the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is unique. Why choose to accept the translation found in that lone version over all others? Put another way, why do you believe that the Word was "a god" (NWT) and not God (every other reputable translation)? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
147 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 75123 | ||
Greg; I just read this passage yesterday and thought of you. Your position is unfathomable to me. "So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:4-6) This is a fruitless discussion. You choose the law, I choose grace. You believe that all of Christendom is wrong and you are right. I don't. I have no idea what your faith is but it seems unrelated to mine. Consequently, I can't see that you have anything of value to say about mine. Indy |
||||||
148 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 75056 | ||
Greg; Please accept my apologies for hanging a label on you; I was wrong to do so. I was reading Romans 7 and 8 this morning and I simply cannot fathom why you believe as you do. As for the "Christian" label, it is defined in Acts and has nothing to do with diet or pagan rituals. It is a label I wear openly and with gratitude. Indy |
||||||
149 | Must we justify incest among Adam's kids | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 74623 | ||
Hi, Steph; As I said, I don't know that incest is necessarily the answer. So, no, I'm not asking you to believe that "God would pre-destine incest, or would He simply permit it" for the simple reason that I don't know if there was any incest for God to have either predestined or permitted. I don't see any theological conclusions that can be drawn from not knowing where Cain's wife came from. Sorry I'm not pushing one view or another. Unless my view is that there's none to be pushed. ;-) Job is one of my favorite books. You can peel it like an onion and find worthwhile answers and new questions in every layer. I believe it reveals God's love for us in ways no other book of the Bible does. Although I'm a layman, I preached on this subject a couple of months ago. And, yeah, I'd be lost without the email notification. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
150 | Must we justify incest among Adam's kids | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 74612 | ||
Hi, Steph; Allow me a belated welcome to the forum. I've read your profile and your posts and I think are a valuable addition to our little "club". I know that God will honor your desire to better understand his word and I am confident that you will help us to understand as well. I also "approve" (as if you needed my approval!) of your desire to know where people on this forum are coming from. If you have the time to spend here, you will come to recognize folks whose posts reveal wisdom and discernment and who seem to approach spiritual truths with "the mind of Christ". (1 Cor 2:16) But be a Berean (Acts 17:11). Sooner or later, you will disagree with every one of them. At least I have, but I may just be a curmudgeon. I am not convinced that incest is the only possible explanation. I try to be careful about assuming naturalistic explanations for supernatural events. Did Adam and Eve's children commit incest? The Bible is silent. Did God the Provider provide partners in some other way? The Bible is silent. As a part-time dabbler in theistic evolution, I could propose a quasi-naturalistic solution. But it would be pure speculation - and probably get me flamed. ;-) No one this side of Heaven knows who they married. I have come to the point where I don't spend too much time thinking about things God has chosen not to reveal (but I do spend some). And you noted in another post that it's not possible to derive a moral principle that permits incest. You have expressed an interest in Jesus' "testing" of Phillip. Perhaps God is testing your willingness to accept with certainty that his solution was right, holy, and completely consistent with his character and his truth as revealed throughout the Bible - despite possible evidence to the contrary. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
151 | Is the Sabbath on Saturday? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 74608 | ||
Hi, Brother Billy Joe; Although I personally think your definition of what it means to "keep the Sabbath" is a little legalistic, I have no interest in debating that with you. I do tend to question folks who come along and announce that most of Christendom is mired in sin and error. So I have a couple of questions about your insistence that the Sabbath must be Saturday. First, where does the Bible say that the Sabbath day is named "Saturday"? The OT definitely refers to the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. If we apply God's example in Genesis to the modern English-language calendar, it seems that Sunday is the Sabbath. By convention, we begin our work on Monday; the seventh day is Sunday. Keeping the Sabbath on Sunday does not violate the Fourth Commandment. It may contradict a point of the Mosaic Law, but that does not greatly concern me. Second, what do you do with Mark 2:23-27? "One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, 'Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?' He answered, 'Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions. Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.'" Apparently, Jesus found it acceptable to feed oneself and one's companions on the Sabbath, which sounds like work to me. In the similar account in Mark 12, he went on to heal a man with a shriveled hand - more work. Jesus made it clear that the focus of the Sabbath is not the Mosaic Law, the focus of the Sabbath is the Lord of the Sabbath himself. What's important is not that we condemn other believers over the day they set aside for the Lord, what's important is that believers set aside a day for worship and reflection. That's "keeping the Sabbath." Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
152 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 74216 | ||
Greg; If heretics didn't twist Scripture to suit their own ideas, it wouldn't be heresy, it would be philosophy. Paul admonishes us to "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Col 2:8). Wrapping "hollow and deceptive philosophy" in Scripture makes it a little more palatable to those who try to heed Paul's advice. Indy |
||||||
153 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 74110 | ||
Greg; Paul was inspired; he wrote the truth. That is why I read the Bible. And no, I have no need to label you a "Christian". That is, in fact, the last label I would try to hang on you. "Judaizer" seems much closer to the mark. Indy |
||||||
154 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 74059 | ||
Greg; "Rest assured, I always use scripture to validate my stand (can a heretic do that?)." All the time; it's the oldest trick in the book. Indy |
||||||
155 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 74030 | ||
Greg; Based on the answers you have received, it is obvious that it is not Hank who is promoting a "flawed and unorthodox" theology - no polls are needed. Most of the replies you have received have ignored your agressive and often insulting style and focused - as they should - on refuting the ancient heresy you advocate. But there is certainly no harm in reminding you that there are rules which you agree to abide by every time you post. Most of those who have responded to you identify themselves as Christians. The word is defined in Acts 11:26: "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Disciple. Simple. Yet it is a term that you are unable or unwilling to apply to yourself. Instead, you concoct an insulting and blasphemous definition of your own. One can only conclude that you are not a disciple of Christ. If this is indeed the case, then 1 Corinthians 2 leaves no doubt that you are not in a position to discern or discuss spiritual truths. Instead of treating Paul's letter to the Galatians as just so much fodder for your intellectual mill, you would be well served to read it carefully and let Paul speak directly to you as he spoke to your theological kinsmen nearly 2000 years ago. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
156 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 74008 | ||
Greg; I'm sorry you don't know what I meant by "Christian"; I thought my post made it fairly clear; let me repeat it for you. I said "To the world, the label is just a category. To the Christian, however, it is a seal given by God, it is an admission of sin and dependence on Jesus. It is a badge of honor given to the unworthy, to be worn with humility, in the knowledge that it [is] given only by the grace of God through the shed blood of Christ." But, since you explained what the label means to you - a category that describes a "pork-eating, Sabbath-breaking, replacement theologist who ignores the Biblical festivals in favor of man-made pagan rituals", we all have a very clear answer to Hank's question. Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
157 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 73963 | ||
Hi, Greg; Hank has asked a valid question. Christians may, as Paul did at Athens, engage non-Christians in theological discussions. But Christians are unlikely to take instruction about Jesus from anyone but another Christian. There are many reasons, but the simplest is this: If you confess Jesus as your sole lord and savior, you are at least implying that your thoughts and desires are captive to him. If you confess Jesus, you suggest that your studies are guided not just by intellect, history, and culture, but by the Holy Spirit himself. If your "different light" is not shed by the Holy Spirit, it is of no more than passing intellectual interest to Christians. A confessing Christian is indeed labeled. To the world, the label is just a category. To the Christian, however, it is a seal given by God, it is an admission of sin and dependence on Jesus. It is a badge of honor given to the unworthy, to be worn with humility, in the knowledge that it given only by the grace of God through the shed blood of Christ. But it is to be worn boldly. The label you gave yourself is "truth-seeker". Jesus said he was the truth (John 14:6). He is the origin of all truth and the pathway to all truth. Paul, referring to the ability to understand sprititual truths, said "we have the mind of Christ." (1 Cor 2:16) Without the mind of Christ, spiritual truths are nonsense; any who have the mind of Christ bear the label "Christian". So I echo Hank's question - are you a Christian? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
158 | What was the name of Lot´s wife? | Gen 19:26 | stjones | 73909 | ||
Hi, wordoer; Just a couple of points: First, the Bible does not indicate that the Book of Jashar (NIV) is inspired or authoritative - appropriate for what seems to viewed today as something like an early hymnal. Apparently the Israelites did not consider it worth preserving as part of the Hebrew canon. Second, at this late date, the burden of proof is on those who assert that their version is authentic. What is the provenance? If no known copy can be traced back more that 400 years (as Tim has suggested), I can see no reason to assume that it is authentic. Lacking any such persuasive evidence, I would have to approach it with a healthy dose of skepticism. Third, Taleb's observation about counterfeits is true for a very simple reason - there are only two authentic 20 dollar bills (American) but there can be an infinite number of counterfeits. There's no way to learn them all, so instead tellers learn to recognize the genuine articles. So it is with the Bible - there is no way to learn all the heresies, misleading interpretations and translations, and outright lies, so we must learn the authentic word of God in order to recognize the frauds. Having said all that, I can appreciate your interest in this book. Josephus is flawed, but we look with interest at his writings. You have clearly stated that Jashar is inferior to Scripture and that you are not defending it as authoritative. It's an intriguing rabbit trail. Others have chided you for spending time with Jashar that you could be spending with the Bible. This is true, but the same could be said for the time I spend in the workshop, so I'm not going to go there. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
159 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 73873 | ||
Greetings, Greg; Welcome to the forum. Just as a kindness to us American Protestants who study the entire Bible, please try to refrain from such sweeping generalizations as "Protestant America is walking in deception" and "Protestant apologists try and distance the true Hebraic roots of the faith that Yeshua preached because they are the 'lawless' ones". It's good of you to explain things to us and exhort us to "do our homework" so we will be compelled to see things your way. But if you actually believe that there is a monolithic "Protestant America" that does anything at all in concert, I will have to assume you may be similarly deceived in other areas as well. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
160 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | stjones | 72877 | ||
Greetings, disciplerami; If God requires baptism for salvation then it seems he has placed enormous practical obstacles before the new believer. Below are some statements that seem to follow from your position. If you could show that any of them are incorrect, it might help to understand your position. 1. One cannot baptize oneself. There are no examples or any mention of such a thing in the Bible. 2. If one cannot baptize oneself, then God has ordained that no one can or will be saved without the participation of another human being. Of course, God is sovereign and can save anyone he pleases, but that fact offers no guidance for those who are earnestly seeking him. 3. If the participation of another human being is required, it would be helpful to know whether or not that person is qualified for the job. For example, I wonder if a non-believer or an unsaved person can baptize. Can a Hindu who knows the right words or a huckster posing as an evangelist or an unsaved preacher who thought it an attractive line of work baptize? Jesus' commission was to his disciples, not to unbelievers. And there are no examples in the Bible of unbelievers baptizing. So it seems the baptizer must be a saved believer. 4. If the baptizer must be a saved believer, then the new believer must know what only God and the would-be baptizer know - whether or not the baptizer is saved. If we just assume that God will always provide a saved baptizer, then we have to assume that everyone who ever responded to a huckster's alter call is deluded and condemned (even though Paul said in Phillipians 1:15-18 that it's the message, not the messenger). Or, we could assume it is only necessary that the new believer earnestly seek a qualified baptizer, but the Bible gives no guidance. In Acts, the people who were told to be baptized were told in person by a qualified baptizer; so this problem never arose. 5. Unlike the examples in Acts, not everyone comes to faith in the presence of a qualified baptizer. So new believers who come to faith in Jesus in isolation are not saved. Persons who are given a Bible or hear a passing missionary or listen to a Christian radio station and believe are stuck in limbo if no qualified baptizer (whatever that may be) is nearby. They must wait for one to show up or go seek and hope to recognize one. There can be no battlefield or deathbed conversions; the thief on the cross was the last one. 6. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 was not very forthcoming. He quoted Joel - "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" - without qualification. But he should have added "and, oh, by the way, Joel's words aren't really applicable anymore. Not only do you have to call upon the name of the Lord, but now that you have killed Jesus, you also have to be baptized to be saved". To mention baptism as a requirement only after the main message was kind of a bait-and-switch tactic. We can't accept that Peter was guilty of shady dealings; Tim's explanation of Acts 2:38 solves that problem. Or, we could assume that Joel's message was only to his OT listeners and that it was no longer valid or sufficient by the time Peter quoted it. But then we're back in the same dilemma. Why would God inspire Peter to quote an invalid or insufficient prophecy? I don't expect you will change my mind (although forum members have changed my mind in the past, so is is possible). Nor do I expect to change yours. But since this a "place of ideas", I assume you might be willing to support yours by showing me my errors Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [25] >> |