Results 1561 - 1580 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1561 | It's not that easy | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10799 | ||
Greetings Jmr! The answer to your first question is 'Yes'. It doesn't matter if you feel like it or not, that is what Scripture says. As Nolan has already ably pointed out, our salvation is not based upon what we do, it is based upon what Christ did for us. The answer to your next two questions is two-fold. a) We are not saved based upon what we do, neither are we unsaved based upon what we do. b) Anyone who is abiding in Christ would not do these thing anyway. If they did, they still could be forgiven (see 1 John 1:9), although they may pay an earthly price for what they did. I pointed out Scripture after Scripture which demonstrate conclusively that salvation is a free gift for everyone who calls on the name of God. Do you know of any Scriptures that say that we can't know for sure? I don't say this be provocative, but simply to call your attention to what the Bible says. We don't have to go around in doubt. We don't have to wonder if we are saved or not. We don't have to be 'good' enough. We simply have to accept the free gift that God holds out to us (Rom. 3:23). May God give you peace my Brother, Tim Moran |
||||||
1562 | and the word was God | John 1:14 | Morant61 | 10798 | ||
Greetings Isa! Again, I just read Nolan's post and he did and excellent job of pointing out other passages that demonstrate that Jesus is fully God. In one of my previous posts, I include others. However, allow me to deal with your specific question about John 1:1. John is a Gospel. This is stating the obvious, but it is useful to remember why he was writing this book. His reason for writing was given in his own words, "But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31) Therefore, John is trying to convince his audience, both Jews and Gentiles, that Jesus is God and that He alone is the source of salvation. With this in mind, John opens his Gospel with a prologue (1:1-18) which appeals to the current thoughts and ideas of both Jews and Gentiles. Jews at this time had personified the "Word" of God to a new level of meaning - it was God’s creative power. Greeks had a philosophical concept of the "Word" as the creative, rational force from which all things spring. Thus, John creatively says things about Jesus (notice that he doesn’t tell us that the ‘Word’ is Jesus until v. 14) that would appeal to the religious and philosophical views of both Jews and Gentiles. William Temple describes John 1:1-14 in this way. The Logos, he says, "alike for Jew and Gentile represents the ruling fact of the universe, and represents that fact as the self-expression of God. The Jew will remember that ‘by the Word of the Lord were the heavens made’; the Greek will think of the rational principle of which all natural laws are particular expressions. Both will agree that this Logos is the starting point of all thing." However, John’s purpose is to take them beyond this point and demonstrate that Jesus Himself is both the ‘Logos’ and God. Thus, throughout John escalates the statements made about the Word. Each one revealing more about the true identity and nature of Jesus. 1) In the beginning was the Word - v. 1: The Word was eternally existent. He did not come into being at any particular point in time. He has always been. 2) The Word was with God - v. 1: Not only is the Word pre-existent, but the Word is in an intimate face to face relationship with God. 3) The Word was God - v. 1: Not only is the Word pre-existent, not only is the Word in an intimate face to face relationship with God, the Word is God. 4) The Word is the Creator of all things - v. 3. 5) The Word is the source of life and light for all men - v. 4. 6) The Word was not recognized by the World - v. 10. 7) The Word was not received by His own creation - v. 11. 8) The Word makes those who do receive Him Sons of God - vv. 12-13. 9) The Word is Jesus, God incarnate - v. 14. Thus, there are two answers to your question about how the Word can be with God and God. a) The statements simply escalate our knowledge of Jesus. There is not necessarily any significance to be made to His being both with and being. John is simply bringing people along slowly to a higher understanding of who Jesus is. b) The statements make complete sense in the context of the Trinity. Most Christians believe that within the One Godhead, there are three distinct Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.) If this is the case (which I believe it is), then the Word can both be with and be God at the same time. Additional notes: I read one of the Muslim web sites which tries to deny that Jesus is God, and they made two arguments with which you might try to respond. So allow me to address them briefly. 1) ‘Theos’ is also used in Scripture to refer to Satan. Therefore, it must not be capitalized in John 1:1. The simple fact is that ‘theos’ is the Greek word for ‘god’. The context alone determines whether the passage is speaking of the true God or a false God. Depending on the context, it can be capitalized or not. John 1:1 should definitely be capitalized. John 1:1 is referring to the God who created all things, not a false god or idol. 2) The last phrase should be translated "The Word was divine." This is a very simple argument to counter for anyone who has any Greek training at all. The simple fact is that when a predicate nominative is used to rename an articular subject, the article is not used. So it is absolutely correct to say "The Word was God" without including an article before the word God. This should be translated "The Word was God" not "The Word was divine", nor "The Word was a god." So my friend, you will not be able to demonstrate from the Bible that Jesus is not God. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1563 | The name Jesus | John 1:1 | Morant61 | 10796 | ||
Greetings Isa! I just read Nolan's response, and he answered well. It's not that you are not welcome, or that we are not willing to discuss our faith with you. It is simply that this is a Christian Bible Study Forum, so the assumption is made that everyone who participates is also a Christian. If you are not, it should be known. Most of us include a personal profile so that others can understand our background. In Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1564 | But women will be preserved through the | 1 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 10707 | ||
Greetings Richilou! This is a passage that I am still doing a lot of research on, but my tentative conclusion is that Paul is dealing with a group of women in Ephesus, who have been mislead by false teachers. The false teaching seems to have had something to do with the relationship between husbands and wives. They may have been denigrating the traditional roles. Thus, Paul affirms the God ordained place that women have in the family. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1565 | What happens to Christians that die 2day | Matt 7:21 | Morant61 | 10647 | ||
Greetings Appleseed! Prior to the resurrection of Christ, those of faith who died were placed in a temporary holding place called 'Paradise.' This place is also referred to as 'Abraham's Bossom.' It was a part of Sheol/Hades. However, since the resurrection of Christ, Scripture is very clear that believers who die immediately go to be with the Lord. Consider the following two passages. 1) Phil. 2:21-23 says, "For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22 If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23 I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far;" 2) 2 Cor. 5:6-8 says, "Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight. 8 We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord." Since believers who die go to be with Christ, how does this relate to 1 Thess. 4:13-18? Simply put, 1 Thess. 4:14 says that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him. They come with Christ, then their bodies are raised in v. 16. One thing we must be careful about with the 1 Thess. 4:13-18 passage is not to make the mistake of thinking that the symbolism of sleep means that those who die in Christ are not aware. The term is a symbolic reference to death. The believers who have died in Him are actively aware and in the presence of Christ from the moment of their death. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1566 | Carbon-14 Dating Questioned? | Gen 1:2 | Morant61 | 10614 | ||
Greetings Jim! I not a scientist and I'm operating from memory here, but I believe the problem with all of the dating systems is the assumptions involved in them. For instance, we know the rate of decay for whatever substance is being tested for. If substance A has a half-life of 10,000,000 years, and we find 1/2 A in the test result, then the age would be 5,000,000 years. The assumption though is that we began with A and not 1/2 A, or 1/4 A. All of the dating systems are basically circular arguments. We assume that evolution took place, devise a test based upon those assumptions, and lo and behold, they prove our assumptions. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1567 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10315 | ||
Greetings Nolan! The two words used in Matthew and Mark are actually two different languages. Mark uses 'eloi', which is Aramaic for "My God". Matthew uses 'eli', which is Hebrew for "My God". Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. The Hebrew form, as Elio, Elio, etc., is the Syro-Chaldaic (the common language in use by the Jews in the time of Christ) of the first words of the twenty second Psalm; they mean “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1568 | How did Mary become the mother Jesus | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10297 | ||
Greetings 1162tracy! Luke 1:26-38 gives the following account of how Mary became pregnant with Jesus: Luke 1:26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, ‘‘Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” 29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, ‘‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” 34 ‘‘How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, ‘‘since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered, ‘‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37 For nothing is impossible with God.” 38 ‘‘I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. ‘‘May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her. We know from Scripture that Jesus is God. Therefore, He did not begin to exist at His conception within Mary. Rather, this passage tells us that the Holy Spirit placed the incarnate Christ into Mary's womb. The result was that Scripture was fulfilled in that a virgin conceived and gave birth. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1569 | Is Jesus really God? | John 14:7 | Morant61 | 10295 | ||
Greetings Fleedbd! There are several lines of evidence which demonstrate that Jesus is God. 1) The claims of Christ Himself. a) All of the "I am" passages, where He equates Himself with the "I am" of Exodus. b) Mt. 13:41, where He speaks of His angels and His Kingdom. The angels are referred to elsewhere as the "angels of God" (Lk. 12:8-9; 15:10.) The Kingdom is repeatedly referred to in the Gospels as the "Kingdom of God." c) Christ’s claim to be able to forgive sins in Mark 2:5 equates Him with God. The Jews understood this for in v. 7 they say it is blasphemy because only God can forgive sins. d) In Mt. 25:31-46, Christ speaks of judging the world. A function which properly belongs only to God. e) In Mark 2:27-28, Christ claims to be "the Lord of the Sabbath." The Sabbath was instituted by God. Therefore, only God could abrogate or modify this regulation. f) In John 10:30, Christ claims to be "one with the Father." g) In John 14:7-9, Christ says that to see and know Him is to see and know the Father. h) In John 8:58, Jesus claims to be God and pre-existent. i) Christ accepted the attribution of deity made to Him by Thomas, when Thomas cried "My Lord and my God (John 20:28). j) He claimed to have power over life and death in John 11:25. 2 The claims of others about Christ. a) John 1:1 clearly says that Christ was God. b) Heb. 1:3 says that Christ is the exact representation of God’s nature and the radiance of His glory. This could only be true of God. c) Paul writes in Col. 1:15-20 that Jesus is the image of the invisible God v. 15. That Jesus is the one in whom and through whom and for whom all things hold together in v. 17. In v. 19, he says that the "fullness" of God dwells in Christ. He states this again in Col. 2:9. d) Paul also writes in Phil. 2:5-11 of the divine nature and pre-existence of Christ. 3) The evidence of the Resurrection. The resurrection proves that He was God. Concerning your question about the Son of God. Consider the following: a) In John 5:2-18, Jesus defended His right to work miracles on the Sabbath. The crowd responded by wanting to kill him. The reason, v. 18 says, "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his Father; making himself equal with God." b) So, clearly the Jews considered the claim to be the "Son of God" a claim to be equal to God. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1570 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10288 | ||
Part II....Sorry, I accidently submitted Part I unsigned. The second quote is from Dr. William Pettingill, who wrote: "I do not pretend to know the nature of the wine furnished by our Lord at the wedding of Cana, but I am satisfied that there was little resemblance in it to the thing described in the Scriptures of God as biting like a serpent and stinging like an adder (Prov. 23:29-32). Doubtless rather it was like the heavenly fruit of the vine that He will drink new with His own in His Father's Kingdom (Mt. 26:29). No wonder the governor of the wedding feast at Cana pronounced it the best wine kept until last. Never before had he tasted such wine, and never did he taste it again." In additon to the Biblical evidence, I believe it is wrong to drink alcohol for the following practical reasons. 1) Every non-Christian that I know considers it wrong for a Christian to drink. What does drinking do to our testimony? 2) If indeed some people are pre-disposed to alcoholism, how can a Christian encourage anyone to drink? What is the person you are giving the green light to is an alcoholic? 3) We know beyond a doubt that "drunkeness" is a sin. When is a person drunk? Does God use Indiana State Law? As a pastor, how can I tell a person when to say when? Especially since the word 'intoxication' refers to the process of becoming poisoned, not a state. From the very first drink, someone is being 'intoxicated.' 4) Why as a Christian would I want to be associated with something that is connected with death, breaking up of homes, and loose morals? Drinking never made anyone more moral. Drinking never made anyone more Christlike. 5) Finally, as a Christian I am told in Scripture to be self-controlled. Alcohol causes people to loose control. In summary, I think there is a strong case to be made from Scripture that drinking any alcohol is a sin. However, even if one does not agree with that position, I believe that the reasons listed above would provide enough justification for a Christian not to drink simply because of the effect it would have on their testimony and witness for Christ. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1571 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10284 | ||
Greetings Laughlin! There are several misconceptions that modern readers tend to have concerning this issue. 1) The first is that the word "wine" in the Old and New Testaments always refers to an alcholic beverage. The fact is that in the Old Testament there are several words refering to a wide range of drinks, some of which contain no alcohol. In the New Testament, the primary word 'oinos' refers to a wide range of drinks as well. 2) The second is that the ancients had no way to keep fermentation from occuring. This is simply not true. The whole point of the parable of the wineskins is that putting new wine into a new wineskin will keep it from fermenting. Putting new wine into an old wineskin will cause it to ferment faster and ruin both the wine and the wineskin. 3) Thirdly, that wine was as strong as today's drinks. Naturally occuring wine, through fermentation only, is not very potent. Even the stong drinks of Scripture do not compare to our distilled drinks. Concerning the miracle of the wine, consider the following two quotes. In 1907, Dr. R.A. Torrey wrote: "The wine provided for the marriage festivities at Cana failed. A cloud was about to fall over the joy of what is properly a festive occasion. Jesus came to the rescue. He provided wine, but there is not a hint that the wine He made was intoxicating. It was a fewsh-made wine. New-made wine is never intoxicating. It is not intoxicating until sometime after the process of fermentation has set in. Fermentation is a process of decay. There is not a hint that our Lord produced alcohol, which is a product of decay and death. he produced a living wine uncontaminated by fermentation." |
||||||
1572 | Literal or Paraphrase Translation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10243 | ||
Greetings Hank! There are basically three approaches to translation: Literal, Dynamic Equivalent, and Free. I will list some of the translations which use each style, advantages to each, and problems with each. Literal: The attempt to translate by keeping as close as possible to the exact words and phrasing in the original language. Translations: KJV, NASB, RSV Advantages: Stays closest to the original text. Problems: Sometimes causes people to misunderstand a verse because it uses structures and/or wording that are not meaningful in the language of the person reading the text. Dynamic Equivalent: The attempt to translate words, idioms, and grammatical constructions of the original language into precise equivalents in the receptor language. Tranlations: NIV, NAB, GNB, JB, NEB Advantages: Allows the text to make the most sense in the language of the person reading the text. Problems: Allows some interpretation to creep into the text. Free: The attempt to translate the ideas from one language to another, with less concern about using the exant words of the original. Also called a paraphrase. Translations: Phillips, Living Bible. Advantages: Very east to understand and read. Problems: These are usually translated by only one person, rather than a large group. They become commentaries, rather than translations. My personal opinion is that Dynamic Equivalent is the best overall technique for the average reader. It is faithful to the text, but smooths out the language to make it more readable. The best option is to learn some about the original languages so that you can do your own translations. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1573 | Differences: higher, lower criticisms? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10239 | ||
Greetings Hank! I love technical questions! As you mentioned in your question, there are two types of biblical criticisms. The first is called "lower criticism." "Lower criticism" basically focuses upon textual questions. It takes the various manuscripts, and based upon the evidence, tries to determine the original text of the Bible. Thus, "lower criticism" is basically Textual criticism. "Higher criticism" differs quite a bit from "lower criticism." "Higher criticism" uses assumptions about the way in which information is transmitted, arranged, or used. It uses these assumptions to try and determine what the original form of the information may have been. Unlike "lower criticism," which uses the hard texts to form its conclusions, "higher criticism" uses assumptions only to determine what the original story might have been. Unfortunately, most higher critics tend to have a very low view of Scripture. So, they spend most of their time trying to explain why the text didn’t really mean what it says. Here are some of the disciples within "higher criticism." 1) Literary Criticism: This is the study of questions such as authorship, date, place of writing, recipients, style, sources, integrity, and purpose of any piece of literature. 2) Form Criticism: This is the attempt to analyze the Gospels in order to recover the process by which the original, purely historical tradition was transformed into the supernaturally colored tradition as it is embodied in the written Gospels which we have today. 3) Historical Criticism: This is the attempt to critically study ancient records in order to re-construct what really happened in the past. The main problem with all of these disciplines is that they all approach Scripture with an anti-supernatural bias. According to these disciplines: miracles could not have happened; Scripture is simply the product of someone’s religious agenda; we must get back the "historical Jesus." In conclusion, I have very little trust in "higher criticism." It is a realm of opinion, bias, and speculation. However, "lower criticism" deals with facts - the manuscripts as we have them. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1574 | Don't sweat the small stuff? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9957 | ||
Greetings Lionstrong! I have been following this thread with some frustration. The frustration is because no one seems to be listening to anyone else. I think I see what you were trying to say, but it is difficult. You phrased it poorly and should have quoted the post you were responding to! How about this for a suggestion? Rewrite what you were trying to say so that everyone can follow it. I don't believe that people are sure which parts were meant to be yours and which parts were meant to be a summary of the post you were responding to. If you rewrite your post, I think you can clear up a lot of misunderstanding. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1575 | Thank you... | John 9:3 | Morant61 | 9874 | ||
Greetings TerryM! I didn't get to read all of this thread yet, but I would concur with your testimony. My wife and I lost a son to congential heart defects. While I do not believe that God caused it to happen, I do believe that God used it to mold me and make me a better, more loving Christian. May God Bless your Minsitry! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1576 | God's wrath tribulational. | Revelation | Morant61 | 9872 | ||
Greetings RCScroll! Could your provide a Scripture reference and a clarification of your question? I'm not sure what you mean! Thanks, Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1577 | When was Revelation accepted? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9690 | ||
Greetings Wist Ye Not! The history of the acceptance of the Canoncity of Revelation is an interesting story. There was almost complete acceptance of it by the Early Church Fathers and the Western Church. However, in the Eastern Church, in the 3rd century there was a rising oposition to the belief in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ, so the Eastern Church was slow to accept Revelation as canonical. It was not included in the Peshitta Syriac Version. Caius of Rome attributed the book to Cerinthus the Gnositc. The Council of Laodicea (about 360 a.d.) omitted it from their canonical list. However, the third Council of Carthage (397 a.d.) included it. Consider the following quote: "Those accepting John the Apostle as the author universally recognize the divine inspiration of Revelation and its rightful place in the Bible. Because its style differs from that of other New Testament books, acceptance of Revelation by early Christians was delayed by a rising opposition to premillennialism. The doctrine of the literal 1,000-year reign of Christ was rejected by some church leaders in the third and fourth centuries. The evidence, however, shows that orthodox theologians readily accepted the book as genuinely inspired. Early fathers who recognized the book as Scripture include Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Eusebius, Apollonius, and Theophilus, the bishop of Antioch. By the beginning of the third century the book was widely quoted as Scripture. The fact that the Book of Revelation complements other inspired Scripture such as the Book of Daniel has confirmed its divine inspiration." - The Bible Knowledge Commentary. So, the answer to your question is that most accepted the canoncity of Revelation right from the beginning. However, it was not until 397 a.d. that the Eastern Church accepted it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1578 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Morant61 | 9443 | ||
Greetings EdB! I read both this question and your amended question! I can't really think of any doctrine that would necessarily be effected by the historical data. But, in your original question, you did not specify doctrine. I was simply replying to your open ended question about whether or not it was possible to fully understand Scripture without consulting circumstances or history. I do believe that we need to dig deeper into circumstances and history to fully understand some passages, especially those of an occasional nature. So, I'm not sure if I can simply answer "yes or no." p.s. - Don't worry about wars, I don't fight with brothers! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1579 | Some more questions? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9423 | ||
Greetings EdB! Excellent question and observations in this thread! I have long believed that one reason cults are able to motivate their people more effectively than churches is that they expect more of their people. People want to feel that they are important! So, when a cult demands "big" things of them, they feel like they are accomplishing something. Churches on the other hand, apologize for even expecting people to get up on Sunday morning. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1580 | Is God so shortsighted? | 1 Tim 2:11 | Morant61 | 9422 | ||
Greetings EdB! May I interject on this discussion? You are correct that the Bible is intended for all people at all times. However, it is also an occasional and historical document as well. By this I simply mean the following. a) Occasional: Many of the epistles are letters written to people going through certain circumstances. For instance, in Colossians, it is important to understand that Paul was dealing with an early form of Gnoticism that had invaded the Lycos Valley. Yes, you can understand Colossians without being aware of that, but I think you can understand it better when you know what occasioned the writting of the letter. b) Historical: It was written within history. There were events and customs that were unique to the time. Without an understanding of these customs and events, we might not fully understand the meaning of the text. For example, many people quote the illustration of the man who wanted to bury his father before he followed Christ (Mt. 8:21-22). Many have had a difficult time understanding why Jesus appeared so harsh when He said, "Let the dead bury their own dead!" However, a little knowledge of the customs of the time reveals that the man was using a common oriental excuse. He didn't intend to follow Jesus at all. Saying, "First let me bury my Father," was a polite way of getting out of doing something that you didn't really want to do. Therefore, Jesus responded harshly because he was not truly willing to follow Him. There are countless other examples where the customs, occasion, or history of the times makes Scripture come alive in a way that it couldn't without that information. So, I would agree with Prayon that we need to examine the customs and circumstances surrounding Scripture. Without doing so, we may be making some serious false assumptions. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ] Next > Last [83] >> |