Results 161 - 180 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232571 | ||
EdB, I would suggest that scripture addresses specificly that question in Romans chapter 1:18-32. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
162 | Does Is.66:23 mean sabbath still stands? | Is 66:23 | Beja | 232441 | ||
Elder, I don't think there is any way that Hebrews 4 is speaking of the weekly sabbath. The context of the passage makes that interpretation basically impossible due to statements such as: Heb 4:1 Therefore, let us fear if, while a promise remains of entering His rest, any one of you may seem to have come short of it. and Heb 4:4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: "AND GOD RESTED ON THE SEVENTH DAY FROM ALL HIS WORKS"; Heb 4:5 and again in this passage, "THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST." Heb 4:6 Therefore, since it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly had good news preached to them failed to enter because of disobedience, We could go on unpacking the context to show that referring to the weekly jewish sabbath makes absolutely no sense in the context. Rather what the writer was discussing is the eternal final rest of God's people which the weekly sabbath pointed to. However, this does not at all show that the sabbath is done away with. It merely is to say that Hebrews 4 does not at all address the question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
163 | Suicide Stop going to Heaven? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232391 | ||
Toylady, The way one answers this question is usually dependant on other theological convictions. I give a very brief explination of that in post 231575. It might or might not be helpful to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
164 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232353 | ||
loavesnfish, Wow, very old posts you have brought up. I will respond to this one but not the other. On the other passage my mind has both become resolved on in the three years since I asked the question and I have learned that it is a passage that causes much friction. With regards to this passage. 1. I never meant to suggest anything other than salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. 2. I think the basis of your point hinges on the word "rewarder." If I understand right you are suggesting that the notion of reward implies merit. We affirm that we in no way merit our salvation and therefore the passage can't be speaking of salvation. However, I think we must not import the notion of merit into this greek word in this particular passage. I'll show why in point three. 3.) The author is very much speaking of salvation by faith in this passage. Here is the evidence. ....in verse 3 abel by faith acts and receives the testimony (martureo) that he was righteous. So we see faith evidenced by works resulting in God declaring Abel righteous. ....verse 5 and 6 we see by faith that Enoch received the witness (Martureo) that he was pleasing to God. So again, faith receiving God's acceptance. ....verse 7 by faith Noah acts and builds the ark and is saved from the judgement upon the entire world. Specifically said to beecome an heir to the righteousness which is through faith. So again we see faith resulting in being saved and that faith is evidenced through works. ....verse 39 sums up the entire chapter saying that all these people gained approval (martureo) through faith. This word means testimony most literally. Testimony of what? The account of Abel sets our context. The testimony from God that they were righteous. So the entire chapter which illustrates verse six is all about individuals being declared righteous by God and receiving acceptance from God because of their faith which was evidenced by their works. 4.) This fits perfectly with the purpose of the book of Hebrews. The readers were being tempted to abandon faith in Christ so that they may avoid escalating persecution. Chapter 11 shows them those who because of sincere faith, held to their faith and endured hardship and received the ultimate reward. Likewise, the readers should through sincere faith endure the persecution thus evidencing the sincere faith and receiving salvation through faith as a result. Salvation through faith evidenced by obedience and enduring is what is being taught here. 5.) We must let the term "rewarder" be flexible here as we are guided by the entire chapter to understand that salvation is very much in the author's mind. We must believe that in God there is a great salvation which is valued above all this world and that it is worth enduring the many trials and tribulations through which we must pass in order to receive this salvation. Act 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." We must believe that God is a rewarder of those who seek him. There is no notion of merit here rather simply the declaration that not only must we believe that God exists, but despite all the current hardship and all the lying deceits of the lusts of this world, we must also firmly believe that in God alone is our good and hope in Him. That is faith. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
165 | Noah's flood ended curse on the land? | Gen 5:29 | Beja | 232339 | ||
Loavesnfish, Here is something John Gill wrote on it. I have no clue how much value to place in the answer but as this is the time of question that is likely to sit for a long time with no response, perhaps this extended quote will be of at least more benefit to you than nothing. Gill: "Gen 5:29 And he called his name Noah,.... Which signifies rest and comfort; for rest gives comfort, and comfort flows from rest, see 2Sa_14:17, where a word from the same root is rendered "comfortable", and agrees with the reason of the name, as follows: saying, this same shall comfort us, concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground, which the Lord hath cursed; this he spake by a spirit of prophecy, foreseeing what his son would be, and of what advantage to him and his family, and to the world, both in things temporal and spiritual. In things temporal: the earth was cursed for the sin of man immediately after the fall, and continued under it to this time, bringing forth thorns and thistles in great abundance of itself, which occasioned much trouble to root and pluck them up, and nothing else, without digging, and planting, and sowing; and being barren through the curse, it was with great difficulty men got a livelihood: now Noah eased them in a good measure of their toil and trouble, by inventing instruments of ploughing, as Jarchi suggests, which they had not before, but threw up the ground with their hands, and by the use of spades, or such like things, which was very laborious; but now, by the use of the plough, and beasts to draw it, their lives were made much more easy and comfortable; hence he is said to begin to be an "husbandman", or a "man of the earth", that brought agriculture to a greater perfection, having found out an easier and quicker manner of tilling the earth: and as he was the first that is said to plant a vineyard, if he was the inventor of wine, this was another way in which he was an instrument of giving refreshment and comfort to men, that being what cheers the heart of God and men, see Gen_9:20 and if the antediluvians were restrained from eating of flesh, and their diet was confined to the fruits of the earth; Noah, as Dr. Lightfoot (d) observes, would be a comfort in reference to this, because to him, and in him to all the world, God would give liberty to eat flesh; so that they were not obliged to get their whole livelihood with their hands out of the ground: and moreover, as Lamech might be apprised of the flood by the name of his father, and the prediction of his grandfather, he might foresee that he and his family would be saved, and be the restorer of the world, and repeople it, after the destruction of it by the flood. And he may have respect to comfort in spiritual things, either at first taking him to be the promised seed, the Messiah, in whom all comfort is; or however a type of him, and from whom he should spring, who would deliver them from the curse of the law, and from the bondage of it, and from toiling and seeking for a righteousness by the works of it; or he might foresee that he would be a good man, and a preacher of righteousness, and be a public good in his day and generation." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
166 | Baptized | Matthew | Beja | 232338 | ||
G. Preston, Your quotes from previous posts: "Baptism is the final cleansing of our soul after repenting" "I can share with you that baptism is necessary by Scripture for ..."completion of the cleansing process" "G-d can and will impute as He wishes...so He did on the cross. John 3;16 speaks of salvation. We must be reminded that when Christ presented himself to John for baptism...John said..."why must(not should; not may; not can!!) it be"?...Christ said ..."for completion"...of what...the cleansing process. The Bible is full of examples of what we are to do and how we are to prepare ourselves to receive eternal salvation." (which is the entirety of post 232309) "I don't believe you have accepted Christ, if you have not been baptised. The two go together, I submit. So why would anyone want to take the chance with their eternal salvation?" In answer, I would suggest that you have said so. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
167 | Baptized | Matthew | Beja | 232329 | ||
G. Preston, The problem is that you are not actually defending your view. This simple fact is that historical Christianity takes the stance that you are misreading the passages that you are simply listing in passing. Now you suggest that agreed upon historical interpretation of the church can and has been wrong. Fair enough. That is entirely possible. However, when the vast majority of Christianity throughout history says that you are wrong in how you are reading those passages, the burden of proof is on YOU to unpack those passages and show us how they do in fact support your thesis. Being dismissive and acting as if you ought not have to defend your notion in such detail gives the impression that you are both unable to defend your position from scripture and also that you are unaware of how historical Christianity has interpreted this issue. This is not to mention that you are coming across as a bit haughty and unwilling to take the time and explain things to those not gifted with the insight you are apparently privy to. Summary, when you go against the history of Christianity on a doctrine, its possible that you are right, but the burden is on you to give a very detailed exposition of passages to SHOW that you are right. You don't get to dismissively throw out some references and act like all interpretors of scripture through out history are stupid. Well...you can do that but it only makes people not take you seriously. I say all this hoping it will prompt us to discussion of particular passages as this forum was meant for. You are correct that scripture contrary to your opinion has not been strongly supplied yet, though some has. I would put forward two places in scripture for starters. Romans chapter four where Paul excessively stresses that Abraham was saved by faith at the moment of faith without any external ritual such as circumcision. Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; Rom 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, Rom 4:12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. Now, two remarkable things are here relevant to the question. First, Paul stresses that he was justified by faith at the moment of faith with no other ritual aid. Second, he asserts this was written as a pattern for all who would follow after him by faith. So it seems clear to me, that Paul is arguing that we are saved by and at the moment of faith and not after the aid of any ritual. The second passage is ofcourse the theif on the cross where Christ himself assures us that the theif would be in heaven with no baptism. A simple yet powerful display that baptism does not save us. Ofcourse the passages you listed need to be discussed but this post is already too long and I'd rather let you show a willingness to discuss passages prior to putting in the effort of tackling them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
168 | Is practicing homosexuality wrong? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232321 | ||
Diego, The truth of the matter is that somebody with this disposition will more than likely not listen no matter how well you answer him. This is even more true based on the answer to the question, which is quite easy to for scoffers to accuse us of merely picking and choosing what applies. However, because God is able to grant repentance and for the sake of giving you truth personally I will lay out for you the basis of the historical answer Christianity has given to this dilemma. I myself think this answer is biblically sound. The basis of the answer lies in the division of the law. The law was in three parts, though it is often given all mixed together. The three parts are moral, ceremonial, and civil. The civil law, which is what your friend brings up to mock you, was limited to how Israel was to govern their nation. These things can not be applied merely to individuals or the church. We argue that the civil laws no longer apply, simply because we are no longer a worldly nation. The civil law had to do with the priesthood, clensings, sabbaths, festivals, sacrifices and such. All these things were pictures of Christ and fulfilled by Christ. The ended upon the finished work of Christ in his death, ressurection, and ascension because what they pointed to had been fulfilled. See Colossians 2:16,17 for this. The moral law remains both now and forever as the standard of righteousness. See Matthew 5:17,18 for Jesus' claim that this aspect of the law shall never pass away. We know that is what part he was referring to by his exposition of the moral law that follows. Homosexuality and the laws regarding it fall within this abiding moral law. When scripture says we are no longer under the law if we are in Christ we must grasp two things. 1. It does not mean that we God defines as right and wrong has changed. The moral law remains. 2. It means that if we are in Christ, we are no longer accepted or condemned based upon our keeping of that law. For example. Just because I am no longer going to heaven or hell based upon whether or not I resist coveting, does not mean that I now have permission to covet. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
169 | Baptized | Matthew | Beja | 232314 | ||
Preston, You intend to prove your point by stressing that John said "must" rather than "should" yet I can not find in any gospel a verse that records him saying either. Did you just make this phrase up? Please help me out with a scripture reference. Where did John say, "Why must it be?" as you quote? I even checked the account in Matthew in the original greek to see if perhaps it could be translated as you are describing and yet none of it is there. How are you stressing the fine points of what was said to prove your point when the statements don't even exist? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
170 | marry for sake of child? | Matt 19:1 | Beja | 232220 | ||
TAG, This passage may be helpful to you. Mat 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." Mat 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." Mat 19:10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." Mat 19:11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. Mat 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
171 | Is cremation wrong? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232200 | ||
CarlaLeo, Since you received two contradictory answers let me just through in my voice with one to help tip the balance. There is nothing in scripture to my knowledge that indicates cremation is wrong. You will also notice no scripture was given to show it was wrong. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
172 | Is there a bible verse that means this? | Rom 8:28 | Beja | 232177 | ||
34224, First, let me say that I am resigned to the fact that not everybody has a high and biblical view of God. So I don't desire to debate this point with you. However, what you are suggesting has nothing to do with logic. Logic does not say "No" to this question. Your line of reasoning depends not on an impossible situation, but rather one which you will not accept. Your logic is as such... 1. If everything happened for a reason, then God would be responsible. 2. God is not responsible, therefore 1 is not true. That sir, is not logic. You have begun your entire train of thought having previously decided that God is not responsible. That is your "given" Why? Because you can not accept such a notion is the only reason. It most certainly has nothing to do with logic. Isa 45:7 I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
173 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232132 | ||
Preston, I will continue to preach salvation in Christ alone, through faith alone, by grace alone. Scripture does not render faith as "assumed" in its message and neither shall I. Gal 2:15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. Php 3:9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." I place my hope in nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. I dare not trust my sweetest frame but wholely lean on Jesus' name. Christ purchases obedience for us, our obedience does not purchase Christ for us. Psa 119:146 I call to you; save me, that I may observe your testimonies. Salvation causes obedience. Obedience does not cause salvation. The order you seek them in makes all the difference in the world. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
174 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232130 | ||
Preston, Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, I find this verse to differ somewhat with your list. And my church sadly does not have an altar. We are in serious trouble! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
175 | Question on Hymn of Invitation tradition | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232118 | ||
rustic1959, I also dissaprove of the invitations system as I have seen it done in my area. There are some ways of doing it which I might not object to. However, I think I'd boil down my objection to two points. 1. The act of lending musical accompanyment to us pressing people to "do something" is a good way to create false conversions. Also I do not think there is anyway that Paul, or Jesus Christ for that matter, would ask a lady to play a piano while he spoke in order to create more impact. 2. Pressing people to walk an isle or say a prayer is not what we are to call people to. We are to press for faith and repentance because that is what the gospel presses us to. Sinners in love with their sins will gladly walk down front if they think it is a substitute for repentance. That being said, there are bigger issues and currently I do attend a church which practices the invitation system. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
176 | KJ Version | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232102 | ||
Gadrifter58, At first I hesitated to answer your question. Reason being that this question has so much potential to turn into an arguement over superiority of translations. This would neither be edifying nor could I imagine it in line with the purposes of this forum. However, there is a real question there and with real answers. So I'll attempt to do so. Here are some thoughts. 1. There are a variety of Bibles because there are a variety of goals in translations. There is an ongoing question of how literal of translation is best. When the literal words fail to capture the actual idea in English what does one do? When a Hebrew writers says that he feels something in his kidneys, intestines or bowels do we translate that exactly and leave english readers wondering what on earth he means? Or shall we go ahead and translate the word as "heart" in english? Which is really more of what that would have meant to a Hebrew. This is just the tip of the ice berg in a huge amount of questions when it comes to translations. 2. Language changes. Words continual change their meaning. Words used in the KJV no longer mean what they use to in the common usage of today. Study the change in the word "gay" for example. The KJV itself has gone through numerous revisions even. For this reason we will always need repeated translations if we wish the scriptures to be in the common speech. And we do want that. 3. We have continually made progress in understanding Koine Greek, which is what the new testament is written in. This increase in knowledge allows for better translations. Certain places in the king james scripture are translated with a vagueness due simply to this reason. 4. The one thing universal among almost, if not all, translators of scriptures is the conviction that we are to keep growing in understanding the original texts. No translator has ever finished their work on translating scripture and then said, "There, now this translation buisness is resolved. We can all just read this." Just about the ONLY thing all translators of all versions have in common is a recognition that having lots of translations is a very good thing. The translators of the KJV in a preface to their original work affirmed that having multiple translations of scriptures was desirable for getting the sense of a text. 5. I must make a remark with regards to asserting that the KJV is on a 6th grade level. I won't speak to harshly to that idea because you are the second person that I have heard that some. So the two of you must be getting that idea from some place. I have no idea where though. I will just say this. I have a college degree, and a graduate degree, and I routinely read works of the puritans. Yet I very often find places in the KJV where I can not begin to understand what they are saying until I consult another translation or even the greek. I may not be the smartest man, but I feel quite confident in saying that an average sixth grader is not up to the task. The source I have read says that the KJV is grade 12 and higher. All this said, the KJV is a valuable asset to a study library. But I hope this helps people believe that multiple translations are a good thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
177 | Help me understand how do the parts fit? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232097 | ||
Loavesnfishes, I wouldn't reduce the vision to a picture of the attonement if that's what you mean. I think it is pointing to a future temple. I just believe that temple is fulfilled in Christ and His Church. Keep in mind, the key to understanding what I'm saying is to remember that the temple always has been centrally about the presence of God with His people. Therefore God in our midst as Christ, then as the Spirit in the Church, and ultimately the fulness of God in our midst unmediated is a very logical and greater fulfillment of what the temple was always about. As far as helping you understand the minor details of Ezekiel's temple, I can't do that. I don't believe they are all meant to be individual nuggets of truth. As I was saying, I don't believe in prophecies that every detail is meant to be analized. For example in Zechariah's scroll when we are told it measured 20 cubits (if I recall correctly) to ask what the 20 cubits meant would be to totally focus on the wrong point, missing what he is trying to say. What I centrally what to know is how did Jesus and his apostles handle the old testament text in question. In the New Testament, we have a divinely inspired and authoritative interpretation of the Old Testament. That's how I approach the issue. P.S. Its best to use "note" when replying. I will still be alerted via e-mail that you have responded. In Chrst, Beja |
||||||
178 | Ezekiel 40-44 measurements? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232094 | ||
Loavesnfishes, One further thought. Let me tell you what convinces me. I am not convinced of this interpretation because I can go and show how every little measurement represents some spiritual truth. I know a lot of end time preachers tend to see old testament prophecy this way and glory in their ability to make something of every little detail. What pursuades me is that I am thoroughly convinced that when Christ showed up claiming to be a greater temple with a unquenchable flow of living giving water coming from Himself, He did not do so in ignorance of what Ezekiel wrote concerning an eschatological temple. I simply can not help but to believe that Christ was in fact interpreting Ezekiel vision. Are we really to suggest that Christ was unfamiliar with Ezekiel's writings? And if He was familiar with it, are we really going to suggest that Christ was reaching back, grabbing hold of Ezekiel imagery on purpose, then applying those things directly to himself and yet suggest He was not claiming himself as the greater temple? Are we really to think that the apostles weren't following this train of thought? That they did not see the redifining of the meeting place between God in his people when they claimed the church was now the temple of God? Did John not intend to weigh in on the concept of where we are heading in terms of an eschatological temple when he affirmed that in eternity to come there was no physical building as a temple but rather the temple theme was specifically fulfilled by the unmediated presence of God? Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. In the end. I was not pursuaded simply by reading Ezekiel. I was pursuaded by what Christ and his apostles did with what Ezekiel said. I believe they got the right of it. Why would we read the new testament continually affirming these things yet continue to look for a mound of bricks to call a temple? I personally have more trouble getting past that issue than I do some unexplained details in Ezekial. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
179 | Ezekiel 40-44 measurements? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232093 | ||
Loavesnfish, I think you are pressing details too far. In every vision and prophecy we see a tendancy to provide details that are simply filling out the vision. Usually, not always but usually, prophecies tend to have one central point. However, here is what I think we should get from the measurements. First, the scope of the temple is huge. It is a "greater" temple than solomon's. Hence we are looking to something bigger and better than what had come before. Second, the entire thing is a square. The only other two places we see this in scripture is the most holy place, and the new Jerusalem. In both the later cases the square measurments are meant to draw on the significance of the first occurance. The "Holy of Holies" the very presence of God has filled the entire temple in Ezekiel's vision just as we now have direct access to the very presence of God through Christ. And ultimate in the new Jerusalem, John is not trying to tell us we are going to eternally dwell in a giant cube but rather it is meant to show that the direct presence of God has filled the entirity of the new Jerusalem. In the end, this is my view. I did not invent it, and it is well represented through the history of Christianity. But I leave it to your own prayerful consideration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
180 | Ezekiel's Temple vision-when, why, who? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232090 | ||
Update to last post, I forgot to add in point 3, that we should note that on the curtains entering the tabernacle we find a Cherubim. The only places we find these cherubim that I can think of in scripture is guarding the garden, and guarding the entrance to the tabernacle/temple. This should help solidify in our minds that a return to the presence of God is being imaged by the tabernacle/temple and that is central to what it is about. Somebody coming into the tabernacle would literal have to go past the guardian cherbum into God's presence and do so safely only upon the blood of a sacrifice. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [40] >> |