Results 1581 - 1600 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1581 | Where did you get this info? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9350 | ||
Greetings Ed! Sorry about that! I did a search using Google and found the following two links: http://www.bartleby.com/81/5044.html http://dencity.com/holy/bible.html The second link is not a Christian site and has some objectionable language on it, which is why I didn't list it originally. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1582 | Could it be the Torah? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9286 | ||
Greetings EllisYM! When you said that it was a trivia question, that gave me the clue that I needed. The "Discharge Bible" is one of many bibles editions that were given special names because of certain mistakes made in their printing. This particular one was an 1806 version in which 1 Timothy 5:21 says, "I discharge theee... that thou observe these things", instead of "I charge thee" I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1583 | Is active grace really faith | Gen 6:8 | Morant61 | 9253 | ||
Greetings Jim! Good guestion! I just had one question for you though! Where did Heb. 11:7 say that Noah didn't believe? I checked, but I never saw it. Are you maybe refering to another verse? Thanks! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1584 | Why do we call preachers reverend? | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9252 | ||
Greetings BobMann! It did a little research on the word 'Reverend." It seems to have developed very late in history. It was at first used for only certain levels in the Church structure. But, later it came to refer to all clergy. There is some debate about whether or not the use of the title for clergy is a good idea. My personal opinion is that no matter how it first started to be used, in our culture is simply is a prefix like 'Mr.' or 'Dr.' used to represent someone who is a memeber of the clergy. One pastor responded in the following way on a discussion board: "On the discussion board there was a response that said to use the word "Reverend" was blasphamous and that it was in the Bible that it was blasphemus. I would like to share with you the origin of the word Reverend as taken from the encyclopedia Britanica. Reverend is the prefix of written address to the names of ministers of most Christian denominations. In the 15th century it was used as a general term of respectful address, but it has been habitually used as a title prefixed to the names of ordained clergy since the 17th century. In the Church of England and in most other denominations in english speaking countries, deans, provosts, cathedral canons, rectors of seminaries and colleges are addressed as "very reverand and archbishops are addressed as "most reverend." Joy in Christ, Rev. Denise." -- Rev. Denise Rogers (mzone@usa.net), December 29, 2000 Personally, I don't use the title much. In official correspondance, I sign with Rev. Timothy S. Moran. However, in church, I prefer to be addressed as Pastor. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1585 | Heart, Mind, Soul and Strength | Mark 12:30 | Morant61 | 9248 | ||
Greetings Vijay Joseph! While no one is sure exactly what each word means, there is a reasonable clarity to the meaning of the verse. The first thing to note is that the Greek text says that we are love God out of the whole, and then lists four words from which this love is too spring. 1) Heart: This word in the New Testament ususally refers to two concepts. a) The seat of our passions or desires (cf. Acts 2:26; Jn. 16:6; 2 Cor. 7:3; Rom. 10:1; 1:24). b) The seat of reason or thought (cf. Mt. 7:21; Jn. 12:40; Acts 8:22; Mk. 11:23; Rev. 18:7; Rom. 1:21.) 2) Soul: This word seems to focus primarily on the life force of a person (Acts 20:10, 27:22, 27:10, and Mt. 6:25.) 3) Mind: seems to refer to understanding or thought (cf. Mk. 12:30; Heb. 8:10; 10:16; an arrogant disposition in Lk. 1:51.) 4) Strength: Seems to refer to personal ability. To sum up, one source that I counsulted said that these should not necessarily been taken as four seperate aspects of human nature, but rather as a description of the totality of our human nature or personality. Thus, the command to the love the Lord would be qualified with the thought that this love should spring from and include every bit of who and what we are. This is wonderful advice for many Christians for whom their Christian walk includes only Sunday. The kind of love that we all should have is comprehensive and total. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1586 | What was the discharge Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9243 | ||
Greetings EllisYM! Can you provide some more detail for your question? I'm not sure what the "discharge" bible is refering to. Thanks, Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1587 | aprayer for knowing and doing Gods will | NT general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9206 | ||
Greetings Fee! I did a word search out of the NIV. The only two that I came across were Ephesians 1:17-18 and Colossians 2:2. They are both prayers for knowledge of God and a deeper relationship with Him. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1588 | Whose idea to send out the spies? | Num 13:2 | Morant61 | 9195 | ||
Greetings Nolan! The most likely solution seems to be that the people initated the idea (Deut. 1:22) and that God okayed it through Moses (Num. 13:2). Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1589 | Did Paul write the Laodiceans? | Col 4:16 | Morant61 | 9192 | ||
Greetings Nolan! This is a very interesting question. There is some evidence that Ephesians may have actually been the letter to the Laodiceans. The evidence is as follows. 1) External Evidence: Several very important and early manuscripts to do include the words "in Ephesus" in Eph. 1:1. These words were also omitted in some old codices known to Basil. And Marcion attributed Ephesians as being the Letter to the Laodiceans. 2) Internal Evidence: We know that during Paul’s third missionary journey, he spent 3 years in Ephesus (Acts 20:31). Yet, there are no personal references to anyone in the letter at all. 3) Historical Evidence: We know that Philemon, Colossians, and Ephesians were all sent out at the same time. Philemon was being sent to Philemon, along with his slave Onesimus, in Colosse. We know that Colossians was motivated by the appearance of Epaphras, who was apparently the pastor at Colosse (Col. 1:7) and maybe at Laodicea as well. Therefore, if the above is all true. It appears that at the very least Ephesians may have been a circular letter intended for several churches. It may also have been the Letter to the Laodiceans. Col. 4:16 mentioned reading the letter from the church at Laodicea, the route Paul’s courier would have taken would have been: Ephesus, Laodicea, then Colosse. This is not a great matter of importance, but it would explain several interesting characteristics of Ephesians. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1590 | Homosexuality and Christianity? | Leviticus | Morant61 | 9123 | ||
Greetings Friend! There are two extremes that must be avoided when dealing with the issue of homosexuality. 1) The first extreme is to make homosexuality the unpardonable sin. Homosexuality is a sin like any other sin, no more no less. 2) The second exteme is to allow political correctness to redefine homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle, instead of the sin that Scripture says it is. Having said this, let me attempt to address each of your questions. a) Why aren't homosexuals accepted?Homosexuality is not singled out in Scripture. Lev. 20:13 says, "‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." This verse, among many others, makes it clear that homosexuality is a sin. However, it is sin in general that God does not accept. He doesn't want any of us to remain in or continue in sin. Read 1 John sometime. All sin is unacceptable to God! b) Is it ture that their sexuality is a result of their genes? The answer to this question is unimportant. Our bodies are fallen and depraved. None of our bodies are the way God intented them to be, because of sin. So, even if someone has a genetic predispositon to something that God says it is a sin, it is that person's responsiblity to stop sinning. c) Does God accept homosexuals? Yes! If they repent of their sins and make Christ the Lord of their lives. d) Can homosexuals be Christians? No! If you continue to life in a particular sin, then you haven't really repented. This doesn't mean that a believer who has struggled with homosexuality might not occasionally stumble. 1 John 1:9 makes it very clear that we all fail. If we do, we can confess our sin and God will forgive and cleanse. However, to continually practice homosexuality, or any other sin, means that person hasn't really been saved. Consider 1 John 3:9-10: "9 No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother." I hope this answers your questions. If not, I can go into more detail where needed. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1591 | Key a Mason? | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 9104 | ||
I just wanted to clear this off of the new questions! Tim Moran |
||||||
1592 | Tim, Who did Paul call on (Acts 22:16)? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 9056 | ||
Greetings Steve! Great observation! I checked the Greek, but I didn't find any conclusive evidence concerning which phrase "His name" refered back to. The phrase "His name" is in the accusative case as is the phrase "Righteous One", so there may be a better cse for it than the "God of our fathers." However, since there is a two verse seperation between the two, this is not definite by any means. Concerning your second point, I too would place greater weight on the command of Christ in Mt 28:19, but like Nolan (refer to his two posts) I think many have taken the phrase "in the name of" in an entirely different fashion than it was orignally intended. Nolan makes an excellent observation concerning "in the name of" meaning "in the authority of" or one could even say "in identification with". The main point of baptism is simply to give a testimony to the world that Christ has given us new life. We need not get hung up over the exact wording used. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1593 | Why? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 9026 | ||
Greetings Ezekiel! I hope you didn't mind if I butt in! The issue of baptismal formulas has been debated several times on this forum. I just wanted to ask one question. Since Mt. 28:29 clearly says in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and, since in Acts they clearly baptized in the name of Jesus, what is the big deal either way? I never have understood this debate. If I baptize in the name of all three members of the Trinty, or if I baptize in the name of Jesus, the person is still simply testify outwardly to an inward work of the Spirit. I honestly don't see the big deal. I happen to follow the Mt. 28:19 formula simply because it is the only one given to the church in a command form, but if someone wanted me to baptize them in the name of Jesus only, I wouldn't have a problem with that either. Just Curious! Your Brother in Christ (and the Father and the Holy Spirit) :) Tim Moran |
||||||
1594 | Newcomer's response sabbath questions | Col 2:16 | Morant61 | 9020 | ||
Greetings Zyph! Welcome to the forum! I just checked out your profile, we are becoming quite an international group! The verse you were refering to in your post is found in Mt. 15:9 and Mk. 7:7. I don't want to repeat all of JHVO212's post, so I would refer you back to the points he made. However, I will respond to your post by saying that there are two primary reasons why the Church no longer keeps the Sabbath. First, there is no specific command anywhere in the New Testament that Christians must keep the Sabbath. While there are plenty that say it is not necessary. Second, from the time of the foundation of the early Church, the Lord's Day has been our day of worship, not the Sabbath. This isn't a new belief. The early church fathers even wrote that the Sabbath had been abolished in Christ. p.s. - I have always wanted to visit Australia. From what I have seen in pictures, it is a beautiful country. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1595 | A proper approach to studying scripture? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 9019 | ||
Greetings Zyph! I think you have hit the nail right on the head! In my exprience, the biggest problem facing people when they try to interpret a verse is a lack of context. We live in a society of instant everything, so we don't want to take the time to dig into the passage and find what the author was saying. So, when we examine a verse, we should first start with the context of the book or letter. Read the entire book - in one sitting if possible (I recommend a total of at least three readings to my students)! Outline the flow of thought! Then examine how the passage in question fits into the larger context of the book or letter. Once that is done, compare the passage with the even larger context of the entire Bible. This doesn't necessarily mean that no one will ever again disagree on how a verse or passage should be interpreted, but at least we will have made an attempt "to rightly divide the Word of Truth!" Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1596 | Mark, Couldn't of been God.... | Gen 18:2 | Morant61 | 8938 | ||
Greetings Prayon! Another possibility in Exodus 24:9-11 is that they saw a vision of God's glory, similar to when God allowed Moses to see His glory passing by - Ex. 33:18-23. Concerning the pre-incarnate appearances of Christ (Christophanies), there are a total of 66 references in the NIV to the "Angel of the Lord." Many scholars feel that He is a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ Himself, similar t the appearance before Abraham. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1597 | in John 21:15-17 What 3 words for love | John 21:15 | Morant61 | 8937 | ||
Greetings LJW! The words translated ‘love’ in John 21:15-17 are all verbs, but their meaning is similar to the noun forms. I have included the text of John 21:12-17 along with the transliteration of the verb form used in each instance (in parenthesis.) John 21:15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘‘Simon son of John, do you truly love (agapao - Strong’s # 25) me more than these?" ‘‘Yes, Lord," he said, ‘‘you know that I love (phileo - Strong’s # 5368) you." Jesus said, ‘‘Feed my lambs." 16 Again Jesus said, ‘‘Simon son of John, do you truly love (agapao - Strong’s # 25) me?" He answered, ‘‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love (phileo - Strong’s # 5368) you." Jesus said, ‘‘Take care of my sheep." 17 The third time he said to him, ‘‘Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, ‘‘Do you love (phileo - Strong’s # 5368) me?" He said, ‘‘Lord, you know all things; you know that I love (phileo - Strong’s # 5368) you." Jesus said, ‘‘Feed my sheep. It is unclear whether or not there is any great distinction to be made in the various verbs used. It is possible that Jesus was challenging the depth of Peter’s love and that Peter was unwilling to say that he ‘agapao’ed Jesus. He would only say that he ‘phileo’ed Him. Thus, in the third question, Jesus is challenging even that level of commitment in Peter. However, there is no clear distinction between the two verbs in Scripture, so most scholars simply see a stylistic difference here. Whatever the case may be, there is a clear allusion to Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ. Just as Peter thrice denied Christ, in this passage he thrice affirms his love for Christ. Many see here an affirmation of Peter by Christ. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1598 | Jesus speaks as the archangel? | 1 Thess 4:16 | Morant61 | 8883 | ||
Greetings Joseph! I would recommend the following approach to this verse when dealing with Jehovah Witnesses. They are trying to say that coming with a voice of an archangel means that Jesus is an archangel. The easiest refutation of this view (though I doubt they will listen) is simply this: There are three things said to accompany the coming of the Lord: a shout, a voice, and a trumpet. It is not said anywhere in this verse that it is Jesus doing the shouting, or giving voice, or sounding the trumpet. The verse simply lists three things that will accompany His coming. In addition, take them to Hebrews where Jesus is proclaimed to be higher than the angels. So how could He be an angel? I hope this helps! Logic doesn't always work when dealing with cults. Your best bet is prayer and love. People are always more willing to consider what you have to say when they know that you love them. Ultimately, you must rely on the convicting power of the Holy Spirit to expose the lie that they have bought into. Our prayers will be with you! Your Brother in Christ! Tim Moran |
||||||
1599 | Who was he? | Gen 37:15 | Morant61 | 8791 | ||
Greetings Prayon! Scripture never names the man, nor gives any details about him. My personal opinion would be that he has no special significance other than as an example of the level of historical detail included in the narratives of Scriptue. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
1600 | Why did he bury them? | Gen 35:4 | Morant61 | 8790 | ||
Greetings Prayon! I think that Gen. 35:5 may be a clue as to why Jacob buried the idols. It states that God caused terror to fall on all the cities around them so that no one pursued him. It may be that they had to leave in haste and that burying the idols was quicker than any other option. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 ] Next > Last [83] >> |