Results 161 - 180 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | stjones | 72843 | ||
Hi, Taleb; Thanks for the reminder. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
162 | Isn't Baptism neccessary for salvation?? | Rom 10:9 | stjones | 72690 | ||
Hello, disciplerami; Tim is much too much the Christian gentleman to give your note an appropriate reply. However, I'm in a grouchy mood tonight so I will. If you think you've scored any points against an established and well-respected forum member with such a juvenile post, you're wrong. There was certainly nothing illuminating or responsive to Tim's points. Those of us who have been around a while have seen dozens of shooting stars come and go. They show up here, try to make a name for themselves, post a few messages lacking in substance, and then, when they don't get the respect they've done nothing to earn, they disappear. Will you be one of them? I don't know. But if you could demonstrate one tenth the wisdom, discernment, knowledge, patience, and care that Tim has, I for one might be interested in what you have to say. I don't know who the sarcastic moderator is, but he or she must be as new as you are. I haven't seen a moderator in the fifteen months I've been hanging around here. Perhaps you've picked the wrong role model. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
163 | To learn the truth | OT general | stjones | 72426 | ||
Hi, Taleb; Thanks for the education - a fair exchange perhaps for a little encouragement. May God bless you as you continue to work in a very challenging vinyard. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
164 | Finding 'Act as though you have faith' | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72405 | ||
Hi, Debbie; Thanks for the reply. I can't disagree with anything you say. But I continue to engage people who seem to find some value in the Bible. After all, why would non-believers (and aften1 certainly appears to be one) appeal to the Bible as authoritative in some way? I know it could just be a clever ploy to try to turn our own "weapon" against us - but maybe they do have a sense that the Bible reveals something important. I believe that Christianity is "a reasonable faith". Part of my mission in life is to show people that the Bible only makes sense if you take it at its word and take it as a whole. If someone believes that some part of the Bible is truthful, perhaps they can be shown that the Bible as a whole is truthful. Then there's no way out. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
165 | To learn the truth | OT general | stjones | 72403 | ||
Hi, Taleb; Thanks for the interesting reply. I admit I'm not a student of the Qur'an although I have read parts of it, especially what it has to say about Jesus. Your Lebanese friend's father must have been accomplished exegete to prove Jesus' claims from what the Qur'an says. You said "Sorry to say, the end result has not been what I had prayed". But as you know, you don't know what God will do with a seed once planted. So you keep up the good work too. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
166 | To learn the truth | OT general | stjones | 72330 | ||
Thanks, Ray; It always astounds me when Christians go along with the fiction that we all "worship the same God". Our God is the Father of our Savior; the god of Islam isn't. And you're right about the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. A falsehood about Christians sometimes spread by Muslims is that we are polytheistic, having three gods. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
167 | Finding 'Act as though you have faith' | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72309 | ||
Hello, aften1; No offense, but I'm just wondering if you ever back up your assertions with real Biblical references. Do you find this "food chain" idea in the Bible or is it a synthesis of some passages here and there combined with your own philosophy? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
168 | Finding 'Act as though you have faith' | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72298 | ||
aften1; Jesus said "none come to the Father but through me." That is unambiguous and leaves no middle ground. You say there are many roads to God; Jesus says there is one. One of you is wrong. I think I'm within the Lockman Foundation's rules to say that you are welcome discuss your New Age philosophy here, but you have to have some Biblical authority for what you say. Unsupported personal opinions and appeals to man-made authorities are not really appropriate. This is, after all, a Bible study forum. As for "getting out and meeting a few", I'm a computer geek; I work with Muslims and Hindus every day. Many of them are indeed kind, generous, devout, and humble - and condemned by their refusal to accept Jesus on his terms. As, perhaps, are you. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
169 | No Joyce Meyer?????????????????? | Acts 17:11 | stjones | 72215 | ||
Hi, Jesified; At the risk of disturbing a truce, I will offer my opinion that you have not made a good case. Let me just say a couple of things about my courageous friend Job. First, you said that "Satan carried out what Job feared". The Bible says nothing about Job being fearful of having his flocks stolen or his servants murdered, yet Satan did those things too. Satan killed Job's children for the same reason that he had the flocks stolen and the servants killed - because Job valued them. And his reason for doing all of those things is clearly stated in the Bible. Job's alleged fearfulness is pure speculation with no Biblical foundation. In fact, Job himself denied your accusation: "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?". (Job 2:10) These are not the words of a fearful man. Second, you've said elsewhere in this thread that God looks at our hearts. If God had looked at Job's heart and seen "wrong reasons" (i.e. fear), he would not have pronounced Job righteous. What he saw when he looked at Job's heart was love and faith that could stand the severest test that Satan could devise. Come to think of it, you're right about one thing. The wisest man in the world said "here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man." (Ecclesiastes 12:13) If being a "worry-wart" means to fear God and being a "goody-two-shoes" means to keep his commandments, then Job was indeed doing his whole duty - courageously. Every Christian should strive for no less. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
170 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72139 | ||
Hi, EdB; Good illustration. I imagine Matthew going through a similar process, recalling a past event and saying "wow, that takes on an entirely new meaning in light of what we've seen." But I'm certainly willing to admit that the traditional understanding might be correct. I'm sure that when I get to Heaven, I'll be humbled to learn how many things I got wrong. I'll feel badly until I see all my brothers and sisters in Christ in the same pickle. How can anyone live without grace? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
171 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72126 | ||
Hi, EdB; Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'll see Dr. Soards again next week and will ask him how he responds to what I've posted and to the objections that have been raised. I do wish someone would address the very specific words of Isaiah and the context - which concerns judgment on Israel, not the future deliverance is Israel. To my eye, there is simply nothing in Isaiah's words to suggest that this event was anything but what he said it was - a sign to Ahaz. If Matthew had not referred to it, would anyone assume that this was a messianic prophecy? I don't know. Well, it's an interesting discussion. I would hate to think that taking Isaiah at his word would be a stumbling block to anyone. Jesus was born of a virgin; he's no less the Son of God even if it turns out that God did choose to re-use that particular sign. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
172 | Finding 'Act as though you have faith' | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72112 | ||
Hi, aften1; You said "All the great religions of the world say the same thing - it is better to be a good person than a bad one." But only one says being "a good person" will not get you to Heaven/Paradise/Nirvana/whatever. Only one says that the only way to get to Heaven is through a savior. Only one teaches that salvation is a free gift of God. Only one has it right. Does this make Christians narrow-minded bigots? If we made it up ourselves, it would. But as others have pointed out, it was Jesus himself who said so. There's no middle ground. Either Jesus is the exclusive way to God or he's a liar not worth listening to. If you make him out to be a liar, then he is not your savior and you'll have to stand on your own - as all the other "great religions" teach. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
173 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72058 | ||
Hi, EdB; Hmmm. I don't see how the Bible can be interpreted in any other way. As I said, there's nothing anbiguous in Isaiah's words. Matthew says that Jesus' birth "fulfills" Isaiah's prophecy. But "fulfill" is not limited to the idea of a prediction coming true; it also means to bring to completion or perfection. The basic idea of what Matthew meant by his reference to Isaiah came from Dr. Marion Soards, Professor of New Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary. Unlike many faculty there, Dr. Soards is solidly evangelical and committed to the authority, inspiration, and authenticity of Scripture. This topic came up in a short class he taught on the nativity narratives. Having gone over Isaiah's words and their context several times since that class, I don't understand how any other interpretation is possible. I would draw this analogy: The law was real, the tabernacle was real, the boy Immanuel was real. According to the writer of Hebrews, the law was "shadow of the good things that are coming" (10:1) and the tabernacle was a "shadow of what is in heaven." (8:5) With his reference to Isaiah's prophecy, Matthew implied that Immanuel and his extraordinary birth were a shadow of the Christ who had now come. Too bad this thread got bumped off the home page; I'd be interested in others' opinions. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
174 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72056 | ||
Hi, aften1; I have indeed read Matthew in addition to Isaiah. I don't believe that any book of the Bible is deliberately hidden, requiring a code. The Bible is the revelation of God, intended to educate and guide us and point us to Jesus. And I don't think I have ever presumed to say what Jesus is or isn't entitled to; it looks to me as though he's entitled to everything. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
175 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72025 | ||
Hi, EdB; "I simply can not/will not buy into this theory that there were two virgin births." It's not a theory; the Bible clearly states that there were two virgin births: Immanuel and Jesus. I simply reiterated what the Bible says, adding nothing of my own. The passages in Isaiah 7 are not ambiguous: "the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (v.14-16) Before the boy named Immanuel is old enough to know right from wrong, the kings opposing Ahaz will be defeated. This cannot possibly be Jesus. I'm not certain that Jesus ever had to reach an age where he could "reject the wrong and choose the right", but if he did, he did it long after the historical events that Isaiah said would precede it. The purpose of the sign is not ambiguous either: "Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son [Pekah] have plotted your ruin, saying, 'Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.' Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: '"It will not take place, it will not happen, for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all."' Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 'Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.'" (v.5-11) The purpose of the sign (the virgein birth) is to strengthen Ahaz to stand firm in his faith in that time and place. Finally, the context makes it clear that God is warning Judah about the invasion by Assyria that is soon to take place. The prophecies in these early chapters don't point to Jesus; they point to Assyria. Both the prophecy of the virgin birth and the stated purpose for it clearly indicate that the boy named Immanuel was born and lived during the reign of Ahaz. So why shouldn't we take Isaiah at his word? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
176 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71996 | ||
Hi, Debbie; I have a gift for sowing confusion - just ask my kids. The whole story is in Isaiah 7. Ahaz (king of Judah) was under attack from King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel. This made Ahaz nervous. Speaking through Isaiah, God told him to relax, that the attack would fail, but "If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all." (v.9). God then invited Ahaz to ask him for a sign. But Ahaz declined, saying "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." (v.12) "Then Isaiah said, 'Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign'". (v.13-14) The sign was the one Matthew referred to: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (v.14-16) For the boy Immanuel to be a sign to Ahaz that Judah would stand against Rezin and Pekah, he would have to be born and known to Ahaz before the two kings were defeated. So Immanuel was born, lived, and died long before Jesus was born. Mathew said, in effect, that while Isaiah's prophecy conerning Immanuel was fulfilled in the sense that a foretold event had already happened, Jesus' birth was a further fulfillment of it. The boy that Isaiah spoke of was named Immanuel because he was proof to Ahaz that God was with him in his fight. Jesus - also born of a virgin - was more entitled to the name Immanuel because he wasn't just a sign from God, he was God. You can't get any more "with us" than that. Hope this clears things up - or at least doesn't muddy them further. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
177 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71993 | ||
Hi, debbie; Not to speak for aften1, but this could possibly be a reference to Isaiah 7:10-16: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (v. 14). But this is not a reference to Jesus; this virgin birth was a sign intended for King Ahaz to see in his lifetime. The fact that Matthew refers to Isaiah's prophecy in 1:22-23 can be confusing: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel'--which means, 'God with us.'" A Professor of New Testament whom I respect has said that "fulfillment" of a prophecy has two possible meanings. We usually think of it as meaning that an event foretold by a prophet has taken place. But "fulfillment" can also mean the perfection or purest example of a prophecy. With this reference to Isaiah, Matthew is saying that there was a virgin birth before, but this one is the purest, most perfect example of a virgin birth. This child named Jesus can also be called Immanuel because he is more than just an illustration of "God with us" - a sign from God to Ahaz - he is the embodiment of "God with us"; he is God and he is with us. Hope this helpful, or interesting, or something. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
178 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71623 | ||
Hi, graceful; You didn't sound argumentative; I probably did. So I apologize as well. I agree with you completely; I have seen both attitudes too. As my post may have revealed, I am passionate about both sides - the Bible IS the revealed word of God, but it is NOT an idol or an object of faith in and of itself. I have conversed with Christians who seem a little confused about who or what is most important, the Bible or Jesus. Sad. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
179 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71402 | ||
Hi, graceful; Oh, well; at least you know what I meant. ;-) Indy |
||||||
180 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71313 | ||
Hi, graceful; God and the Bible are not the same. The Bible is a book - the most important book, a priceless book, a book whose authors were uniquely inspired by God, a book provided by God for our guidance and edification, a book that is the standard for spiritual truth, a book that is the only reliable witness to Jesus, but it's still a book. Neither is it God's truth; it is a representation of God's truth. God's truth is bigger than the Bible; it exists outside the Bible and existed before there was a Bible. The Bible is a book whose original manuscripts are long lost, a book that has been copied and translated countless times. Not one word in my NIV (or KJV, or NASB, or Latin Vulgate, or Textus Receptus, or any other existing version) was actually spoken by Moses, or David, or Jesus. The book that we have represents the work of legions of human scribes, scholars, and translators doing their best to preserve these words and more over a period of three or four thousand years. I don't believe that God would allow the preservation of his inspired words to drift very far astray during this long handing-down process. I believe that God has always provided the people and tools to keep the Bible close to what the original authors wrote. Indeed, I think that the Bible as we know it is an accurate representation of God's truth, even if it may not be a perfectly accurate representation of the original manuscripts. I think God would see to that. So I read and study the Bible with confidence that the Holy Spirit will take those imperfect patterns of ink on paper and transform them into the truth of God that my mind and spirit can absorb and feed on. But the Bible is still a book, a representation. Just as the tabernacle was but "a copy and shadow of what is in heaven" (Heb 8:5), so the Bible is but a copy and a shadow of God's truth. "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming – not the realities themselves." (Heb 10:1) I hope you don't find my views too shocking.... Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [25] >> |