Results 1521 - 1540 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1521 | The Rapture in Revelation | Revelation | Morant61 | 13857 | ||
Greetings Forum Friends! I posted this on the Rev. 4:1 thread, but since this is where the question originated, I wanted to include my post here as well. *********************************************** When I first asked this question, I wasn't try to trick anyone. I just wanted to see what range of thought there was about this issue. Personally, I believe that Rev. 14:14-20 is the best choice for the Rapture in Rev. I base this on several points. 1) I believe in the pre-Wrath or Mid-Trib view of the Rapture. The first 3 1/2 years being a the time of Jacob's Trouble and the last 3 1/2 years being a time of God's Wrath. 2) Rev. 14:14-20 takes place immediately following the sounding of the last of the Seven trumpets in Rev. 10:7. The events described in Rev. 10-13 all take place at the sounding of the trumpet, with the exception of Rev. 12, which appears to be an historical insert. 3) The description of Rev. 14:14-20 fits the description of the Rapture. The "good" are harvested, and the "bad" are thrown into God's winepress of wrath. Whichever view we take, it is wonderful to know that our God is going to take us home one day. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1522 | it is on forgiveness | Luke 6:37 | Morant61 | 13759 | ||
Greetings Love4Him! Brother, I don't know your background, so you may already know this, but my best suggestion would be this: Note the connection between v. 38 and v. 37. Many people have taken v. 38 and tried to use it to support the prosperity gospel. However, v. 38 is simply saying that the manner in which we treat others, by judging or not, by condmning or not, will be measured back to us many times over. If we treat people well, we will be treated well. If we judge, we will be judged. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1523 | Mercy Essential? | Rom 9:15 | Morant61 | 13588 | ||
Greetings Lionstrong! I would agree that God is under no external pressure to be merciful. I would also agree with Steve that we have to claim to God's mercy, other than the promises of Scripture. His mercy is based upon Himself and nothing else. The question though is whether or not God extends that mercy arbitrarily. In that light, how would you equate Rom. 9:15 and Rom. 11:32? I have dealt with Rom. 9-11 on another thread, but I'll give you my short summary here. Chapter 9: Israel is a people of faith, but birth. The Jews felt this was unfair, so Paul makes the case that God is allowed to work with people's destinies any way He sees fit. Look at the example of Jacob and Esau. He choose to extend His covenant through Jacob, but rejected Esau before they were even born. This choice was one of use, not salvation. That is His right. Now, those who are not Israel, can become Israel. Chapter 10: How do the Gentiles become part of Israel, while Israel failed to do so? They came in faith. And, whosoever calls upon the Lord will be saved. Chapter 11: What about the Jews then? Has God rejected them? No, they are His forknown people. Just as He grafted in Gentiles by faith, so also He can graft in Jews, if they do not continue in their unbelief. This has been God's plan all along. Key Verses of Romans: Romans 11:32 - "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." To me, this is the beauty of the Gospel. Paul lays out the case in the beginning of Romans that we are all sinners, Jew or Gentile. And, he ends Romans with the revelations that God's plan in Election is to have mercy on all, Jew and Gentile. But, all of this comes from God, not us. That's why it is grace and mercy. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1524 | WOULD I BE SINNING TO DIVOCE MY HUBBY AA | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 13567 | ||
Greetings! It sounds like you are in a difficult situation. However, divorce is not the answer. Scripture is very clear about God's attitude toward divorce. Mal. 2:16 says, " ‘‘I hate divorce,” says the LORD God of Israel, ‘‘and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the LORD Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith." I would recommend you go to your local pastor and tell him what is going on in your life. If you don't have a local pastor, find one. He will be able to advice you about your circumstances, pray with and for you, and point you to some groups who might be able to help you. Those on the forum will also be keeping you in prayer. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1525 | Question for you Both? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 13565 | ||
Greetings Bro. Tom! The reason people are upset with your posts is that you are denying an essential truth of Scripture, that Jesus is God incarnate. You said at the end of your last post, "Show me where in the scripture where it says Jesus was GOD and I'll stop speaking like this." Okay, here goes. Read Titus 2:13 "while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (NIV) Notice what the verse says! Jesus is both our God and Savior. If you need any more, re-read Nolan's post. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1526 | was wine fermented | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 13564 | ||
Greetings Bigdaddy! If you do a word search on "Wine" using the search tool, you will find a recent thread that deals with this issue in quite a bit of detail. Several different viewpoints are dealt with in and explained from Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1527 | can all churches worship together as one | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 13526 | ||
Greetings Vanaau! I don't believe this any such Scripture my friend! The Bible constantly commands us to be united in Christ, but I have never seen any Scripture that says we should not unite with other brothers and sisters in Christ. As long as they are Christians, we are united in the Blood of Christ, even if we don't share exactly the same view on every issue. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1528 | What is your understanding of this? | 1 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 13446 | ||
Greetings RWC! I am still working through this very difficult passage, but let me give you a brief summary of what I think this passage is saying. I haven't settled on this interpretation yet, but I am leaning toward it. There are a couple of givens that must be considered as we look at this passage. 1) God created man and woman equal. The word used to describe Eve is an "equal power." When Adam named the animals, he found no suitable partner, so God created a partner for him. 2) Scripture constantly affirms that women are equal to men spiritually. Contrary to their culture, Christians allowed and encouraged women to take part in minsitry. There are numerous examples of this. 3) The word "quiet" here refers to a settled or peaceful spirit, not a lack of talking. 4) The word "authority" refers a "taking of power." 5) The passage mentions children, so I think it is refering to husbands and wives. I can go into more detail on these points later, but with them in mind, here is my summary statement. Many at Ephesus seemed to have fallen under the influence of some false teachers. The women in particular seemed to have been guilty of this. In fact, they may have been among the leader in promoting the false teachings. The false teachings seemed to have revolved around the role of women in the church. It may have been that the women were being taught to abandon their traditional roles altogether in order to be saved. Thus Paul's basic argument could be understood in the following way. Women are to be submissive to their leaders and their husbands, not unruly. It is not right to attempt to wrest power away from those who are legitimately exercising it. In fact, they should learn quietly from these leaders. After all, look at what happened to Eve when she got out of bounds. So instead of abandoning your role in your family, you will find salvation, as you fulfill that role. Not meaning that they are saved through it, but they are saved, while living it. This is a very rough sketch. I certainly don't have all of the answers. This passage has been an extremely difficult one throughout the history of the church. Almost every commentator you check will have a different take on it. But this seems to make sense of the context of the passage and the balance of Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1529 | But what does it mean? | 1 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 13445 | ||
Greetings RWC! I am still working through this very difficult passage, but let me give you a brief summary of what I think this passage is saying. I haven't settled on this interpretation yet, but I am leaning toward it. There are a couple of givens that must be considered as we look at this passage. 1) God created man and woman equal. The word used to describe Eve is an "equal power." When Adam named the animals, he found no suitable partner, so God created a partner for him. 2) Scripture constantly affirms that women are equal to men spiritually. Contrary to their culture, Christians allowed and encouraged women to take part in minsitry. There are numerous examples of this. 3) The word "quiet" here refers to a settled or peaceful spirit, not a lack of talking. 4) The word "authority" refers a "taking of power." 5) The passage mentions children, so I think it is refering to husbands and wives. I can go into more detail on these points later, but with them in mind, here is my summary statement. Many at Ephesus seemed to have fallen under the influence of some false teachers. The women in particular seemed to have been guilty of this. In fact, they may have been among the leader in promoting the false teachings. The false teachings seemed to have revolved around the role of women in the church. It may have been that the women were being taught to abandon their traditional roles altogether in order to be saved. Thus Paul's basic argument could be understood in the following way. Women are to be submissive to their leaders and their husbands, not unruly. It is not right to attempt to wrest power away from those who are legitimately exercising it. In fact, they should learn quietly from these leaders. After all, look at what happened to Eve when she got out of bounds. So instead of abandoning your role in your family, you will find salvation, as you fulfill that role. Not meaning that they are saved through it, but they are saved, while living it. This is a very rough sketch. I certainly don't have all of the answers. This passage has been an extremely difficult one throughout the history of the church. Almost every commentator you check will have a different take on it. But this seems to make sense of the context of the passage and the balance of Scripture. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1530 | Why was Jehu punished for being obeying? | Hos 1:4 | Morant61 | 13406 | ||
Greetings Steve! This is a tough question! One possible answer I came across (I'm just throwing it out for consideration. I'm not sure if I accept it or not!) is that Jehu was being punished for coming beyond his orders. He was told to wipe out the house of Ahab, but he also killed Ahaziah, who was the King of Judah and a member of the house of David. God had not given any commands regrading the house of David. So, perhaps this is why the house of Jehu was being punished. On other possibility may be similar to what Johnny was saying. Perhaps they were being punished for their hypocrisy. They had executed others for worshipping idols, yet turned around and did the same thing themselves. Just some thoughts! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1531 | What is "the Law" and grace about? | Rom 7:12 | Morant61 | 13359 | ||
Greetings Steve! One of the best passages to explain the differences between Grace and Law is Gal. 2:15-21: "15 ‘‘We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ 16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17 ‘‘If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18 If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19 For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”" The best way (for me) to understand Law and Grace is to understand that both refer to methods of obtaining right standing before God. Law refers to a right standing before which is earned by keeping commands. Grace refers to a right standing before God which is given by God, not earned. The passage quoted above answers some of your questions. For instance: 1) The Purpose of the Law: According to v. 19, the Law is what allowed us to die to the Law. This seems to be refering to several aspects of our spiritual lives. a) The Law condemns us. b) The Law reveals us. c) The Law kills us. What I mean is simply that our failure to obey the Law of God brings condemnation upon us. Our failure to obey the Law of God causes us (hopefully) to recognize our sinfulness. And, finally, our failure to obey the Law of God can ultimately bring us the place where we participate in the death of Christ on the cross through salvation. So, the purpose of the Law is one of bringing us to the place where we can be saved, but it cannot save us. 2) Do we have to follow the Law? Yes and no! Since the Law is an expression of God's perfect nature; those who have been indwelt by the Holy Spirit should live in obedience to the Law. This seems to be what v. 19 is refering to when it talks about living for God. However, obedience or disobedience to the Law in no way effects our salvation. That is based solely upon Grace. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1532 | did judas eat at the last supper? | John | Morant61 | 13342 | ||
Greetings Sam! Welcome to the forum! Let me try to answer your questions as briefly as possible. 1) Did Judas eat with Jesus at other times? I would say yes. He was with Jesus for almost 3 1/2 years. The disciples are all mentioned as being at several feasts and banquets. 2) Did Jesus bless the food before or after? The answer to this question is both. The passover feast was composed of about 4 different courses. Each course had its own prayers and blessings. 3) Did Judas eat with Jesus at the Last Supper? The answer to this question is yes and no. The "sop" was part of the second course and composed the main supper. Apparently, Judas did not partake of this part of the meal. However, the first course of the meal was made up of bitter herps and other small dishes. He must have eaten this part, since he was still there for the second course. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1533 | What is so significant about Malta? | Acts 28:1 | Morant61 | 13312 | ||
Greetings Ron! This wasn't a very good translation by the NASB. The Greek text actually uses an indefinite pronoun to refer to the island in question. It can be translated as "a certain island," but the thought is not a particular island. Rather, the thought is simply of any old island as opposed to a specific island. The NIV translates it better: Acts 27:26 - "Nevertheless, we must run aground on some island." The point of the verse was simply that the wreck was necessary in God's plan. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1534 | Psalm 111:9 | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 13293 | ||
Greetings Johnny! As a pastor myself, I would love to be called "Most Awesome Pastor!" :-) Allow me to briefly address two of your points! 1) Calling Priests Father: I understand where you are coming from, but I just don't see this as a major issue. Many of these titles were meant to show respect and have different connotations now then when they were originated. I personally would avoid the use of "Father" for clergy, but I have no problem with my son or daughters calling me father. 2) The KJV Translation: The KJV was and is a beautiful translation. However, it was translated in the same way as every other translation. You said of the KJV that "this translation is translate word by word from the original scripture according to what is written and not according to the understanding of the translator of the Bible." This simply is not possible. Translation, by definition, is the process of changing a text from one language to another. In that process, it is not possible to go word for word. There are translations, like the KJV, which make a valiant effort to do so, but even they have to add words, change word orders, ect... to make the meaning understandable in English. For instance, a literal word for word translation of John 1:1 would be: "In beginning was the Word, and the Word was with the God, and God was the Word." Notice how the KJV translates this verse: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Notice that they have added a "the" before beginning. They have removed the "the" before the first occurance of "God." And, they have changed the word order of the last phrase. They were entirely justified in doing this. I am not saying they were wrong. I am simply trying to illustrate that there is no such thing as a exact word for word translation of the Bible. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1535 | The meaning of "Son of Man" | Mark | Morant61 | 13292 | ||
Greetings Tryggvi! By the way, welcome to the Forum! The phrase, "Son of Man" is an interesting phrase. It is a Messianic title, but it was not a popular one during the time of Christ. There were several other titles which were popular at the time, "Messiah" and "Son of David." However, both of these had been co-opted by those who believed that the Messiah would come and be a national leader for Israel and set them free from the Romans. Thus, for Jesus to use one of these would be sending a message that He did not want to send. However, "Son of Man" was not as common and did not send such a message. Even though it was clearly a Messanic title. It comes from Daniel 7:13-14: "13 ‘‘In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Throughout Mark, Jesus is leading His disciples through a progressive understanding of what it really means to be the Messiah (8:31; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33; 14:21). This process culminates with His statment to the Pharisees at His trial. Notice how they responded to His answer in Mark 14:60-65: "60 Then the high priest stood up before them and asked Jesus, ‘‘Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?” 61 But Jesus remained silent and gave no answer. Again the high priest asked him, ‘‘Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” 62 ‘‘I am,” said Jesus. ‘‘And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” 63 The high priest tore his clothes. ‘‘Why do we need any more witnesses?” he asked. 64 ‘‘You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as worthy of death. 65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, ‘‘Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him. " Notice that the High Priest specifically asked Christ if He were the Messiah. He replied in the affirmative and then refered to Dan. 7:13-14. The pharisees denounced it as blasphemey. Thus, "Son of Man" should be taken as an affirmation of both His Divinity and true nature of His mission as the Messiah. I hope this helps! Your brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1536 | How is the word "Magi " to be understood | Matt 2:1 | Morant61 | 13291 | ||
Greetings Tryggvi! Historically, Magi were astrologers from the royal court of the king of Persia. They are often thought to be either astrologers or Zoroastrians. However, there is an even more interesting possibility. Who taught or had influence over the Magi in the Old Testament? Daniel did! Thus, I believe that these were descendents of those who had served with or under Daniel. They may have even been beleivers in Yahweh. This would explain why they worshipped Christ when they found Him. Or, they may have just remembered bits and pieces of the lore passed down to them and came for the wrong reasons. This would explain why they had to inquire about the prophecies. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1537 | Do tongues indicate presence of Holy Spi | 1 Cor 14:19 | Morant61 | 13227 | ||
Greetings Bobbie! There are two important passages to consider in answer to your question. 1) Romans 8:9-11 says, "9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. 10 But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you." This passage makes it very clear that the Holy Spirit dwells in every believer. 2) 1 Cor. 12:30 says, "Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?" The context of this passage makes it clear that not all Christians will speak in tongues. So, in answer to your question, all Christians are filled with the Holy Spirit, but not all Christians speak in tongues. There is nothing wrong with speaking in tongues. If God gives you that gift, rejoice in it. But, do not think that you are a sub-par Christian because you don't have that particular gift. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1538 | What if? | Rom 7:17 | Morant61 | 13196 | ||
Greetings Wdc! Thanks for the response! There isn't any thing wrong with considering new ideas. However, I do think there are two major problems with this one. 1) The New Testament clearly teaches that there is a spiritual aspect to our nature. Mary speaks of her spirit rejoicing in Luke 1:47. 1 Cor. 2:11 speaks of a man's spirit being the only one who knows the thoughts of man. There are others, but there isn't anything in Scripture that speaks of us losing our spirit at the fall. 2) I also think you have misunderstood Rom. 8:3-4. This passage isn't saying that we don't have a spirit. It is simply contrasting two ways of life. Walking by the flesh and walking by the Spirit. In fact, if you look at v. 5, you will see that the Spirit being discussed here is the Holy Spirit, not man's spirit. It is those who do what the Holy Spirit desires who are able to keep the law. Let me know what you think! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1539 | Prerequisite-infallibility? | 1 Cor 12:27 | Morant61 | 12534 | ||
Greetings Charis! It is great to have you back on the forum! Let me know when you are in your office sometime and we can hook up on the video conference. It would be good to "meet" face to face. Your question deserves a much better answer, but allow me to address it briefly. My understanding is this: There are three key verses which indicate that the aposltes and prophets served a fundemental role in the start of the church. 1) Eph. 2:20: "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." 2) Eph. 3:4-5: "In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, 5 which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets." 3) 2 Peter 3:2: "I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles." Each of these verses seems to indicate that these two groups served in the unique capacity of revealing the Gospel to the world. With the completion of the canon, that function is no longer active. There will not ever be any "new" revelation. This doesn't mean that pastors, teachers, and evangelists are second class in Kingdom work. They also are gifts of God given to build up the body of Christ. The difference though is that they apply what has already been revealed. They do not reveal anything "new." Even the gift of prophecy doesn't reveal anything "new." It simply applies God's revelation to a particular situation. For instance, you cited the example of Luther and "grace." This is a good example of what I am saying. "Grace" isn't new. It was already in God's Word. Luther, as a Pastor/Teacher simply applied it. Concerning infallibility, Scripture doesn't say a lot about the Apostles, but it does say that Prophets had to be 100 percent correct in everything they prophesied. In summary, I would say that when Christ came and the canon was completed, the revelatory function or office of apostles and prophets ceased, in the sense that there will be nothing "new" from God. Salvation history was completed on the cross. The function of applying His Word to build up the church is still in effect. This is the essential and vital role I see for pastors, teachers, and evangelists. If we were only debating whether or not apostles still exist and what role they play if they do, I would see this as more a matter of opinion than anything else. However, if you read the writings of those who are promoting the "five-fold ministry" you will see that they are actually claiming the authority to present "new" revelation from God. Here is where the problem comes in, in my opinion. We do give a special status to the prophets and apostles. Paul wrote under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. His writtings are God's Word. My writtings, as good as they may be :-), are only my understanding of God's Word. These modern day "apostles" would elevate their writting above Paul's. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1540 | Is the structure of the church biblical? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 12463 | ||
Greetings Phillip! My answers to your questions would be: 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) No 4) Doesn't matter 5) Both 6) Yes and No Let me exand upon these short answers. 1) The Bible doesn't really give us a manual on how the church should be structured. However, the structure that we have definitely seems compatible with what the Bible does say. 2) Paul frequently appointed a "pastor" over each church that he founded. They called them "bishops or shepherds," but they seem to have served pretty much the same purpose as the modern pastor. 3) Tithing is never commanded in the New Testament, so I don't treat it as an obligation. However, giving is commanded. Since tithing is an excellent way to give, I encourage the practice. 4) Since we are the church, it doesn't matter if we meet in buildings, tents, or caves. As long as we meet. However, buildings are much easier to heat. 5) We are to both assemble together and be the church. They go hand in hand. 6) Most of the ancient creeds say that the "chief end of man is to glorify God." Worship of our God must be a high priority. However, one could also make the case that this is best accomplished by fulfilling the Great Commission and making disciples. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 ] Next > Last [83] >> |