Results 161 - 180 of 233
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: There Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Can A Christian disown Christ? | Matt 10:33 | There | 15691 | ||
No, I don't believe a born again, Spirit filled Christian can deny (reject) Christ. To confess Christ means more than just mouthing the words. It means making a commitment (covenant) with Him... and acknowledging Him as our Savior and Lord. I don't believe that once we become a Son of God (led by His Spirit) that we could reject Christ. Jesus was speaking to the twelve apostles in those verses, beginning in verse 5 (see also Luke 12:1-12). In Matthew Jesus said he would either "confess" or "deny" people "before MY (His) Father", and in Luke he said "before the angels of God". It makes sense that Jesus would call God "MY" Father since He was Jesus' Father. Is your question "why did He not call God OUR Father" when speaking to the apostles? He is the mediator between God and man... whether men choose to "confess" or "deny" Him, God is still His Father and that point is clearly stated in those two verses. Remember, the TWELVE apostles were there... including one named Judas, who was later referred to by Jesus as a "diabolos" devil (John 6:70; 13:27). Wouldn't it have been wrong for Jesus to give Judas a false view of his position with God -- KNOWING what would occur later? So... I believe Matt. 10:32 applies to believers, whereas 10:33 applies to unbelievers. |
||||||
162 | Can A Christian disown Christ? | Matt 10:33 | There | 15883 | ||
Hi Tim, "Hostis" means 'which some, i.e. any that, which same, they'. Since it is used in two separate verses/sentences, I'm not sure it needs justification. The actual Greek words used for "whosoever" in verse 32 are "pas hostis", and in verse 33 the words are "hostis an". "Pas" means all, any, every, whole, whosoever. "An" means possibility or supposition. Do you understand those pronouns to imply that both verses speak about believers? 32) Believers who confess Christ, and then 33) believers who deny (reject) Christ? I guess since I don't think anyone who rejects Christ is a believer, I would still contend that verse 33 is talking about unbelievers. After reading this, please let me know if I understood your question correctly? I can see where your question could come from two different perspectives. |
||||||
163 | Can A Christian disown Christ? | Matt 10:33 | There | 15888 | ||
This is where I thought Tim might be going with his earlier question to me. Jesus speaks of the sower and the seed. Some believe but throw it away for various reasons. And the last group believe, understand, and produce fruit. So I do believe that some believe and fall away. I further believe that once a believer is born-again -- Spirit filled, having received the Holy Spirit of promise, we will not fall away. Ephesians 1:13-14 "In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the "earnest" of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory. "Earnest" comes from the Greek word "arrhabon" meaning "pledge, i.e. part of the purchase-money or property given in advance as security for the rest: -- earnest". This same word is used in 2 Cor. 1:22 "who also has sealed us and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts". And again in 2Cor. 5:5 "Now he that has wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also has given us the earnest of the Spirit". Since God knows the final outcome before the fact, I don't believe He would give the earnest of the Holy Spirit knowing that someone would later fall away. So if one is born again of the Spirit, i.e. filled with the Spirit -- then I do not believe they would ever fall away. I sometimes think this is why some people refer to some Christians as having "head knowledge" rather than "heart knowledge" concerning following Christ. I'm not making a judgement, since I KNOW that I can't judge anyone's heart. I agree with you, obedience to the Lord and prayer can bring about miracles though, the greatest of which, in my opinion, is the salvation of a soul. |
||||||
164 | Can A Christian disown Christ? | Matt 10:33 | There | 15934 | ||
I can see your point, Tim. It could be a possible explanation. But I still think that Christ, as mediator between us and God, is saying that if anyone denies (rejects) Him, He will reject them before God (in judgment). To me, rejecting Christ is more than simply being an unfaithful witness. But again, you've made a good point here. |
||||||
165 | Who is Jesus? | Matt 24:28 | There | 23843 | ||
The Knights Templar was a front organization for the "Priory of Sion". In 1979 Mr. Pierre Plantard de Saint-Clair, who was (and may still be) the present Secretary General of the Priory of Sion, was interviewed in Paris, France by reporters from BBC. When asked the question, "Does the Priory of Sion possess the treasures of the ancient Jewish Temple?", he said, "Yes". He added, "They will be returned to Jerusalem when the time is right." (Holy Blood, p. 225) Hope you all had a blessed Thanksgiving! |
||||||
166 | WHY WAS JESUS | John 11:15 | There | 17757 | ||
So He could show them He truly did come from the Father by raising Lazarus from the dead. ("that you may believe" - same verse) | ||||||
167 | WHY WAS JESUS | John 11:15 | There | 17808 | ||
Hi Ray, This is what I said in the first post: "So He could show them He truly did come from the Father by raising Lazarus from the dead. ("that you may believe" - same verse)" I'm not sure how you interpreted the above as me saying that it was for Mary and Martha's sake, but I still believe Jesus was glad that He was not there to heal Lazarus because He knew He would use the "raising of Lazarus from the dead"... so that they (people) would believe that He truly did come from the Father. And "that you would believe - same verse" was my reference as to Jesus' reason for doing it the way He did it. And could you rephrase your question because I don't understand exactly what you were asking me when you said "A comparison... if you believe in the Man, Jesus. Do you believe this?" |
||||||
168 | WHY WAS JESUS | John 11:15 | There | 18306 | ||
Ray, just for the record I DON'T have a cold and I still had to read your post several times. Tonight I "finally" understood what you meant. :):) I DO have those days... And I agree. I think it is that revelation, that Jesus was not just man (small "m"), but also GOD Himself, that initially shocked me to the core of my being!! It still amazes me that HE could love ME enough to die on that cross. Since I see many lovable qualities in others, I could understand the cross for them. But for myself... well... I know exactly what the Lord saved me from. And I know I don't deserve it one bit. Tonight I read a verse that touched my heart in kind of a special way. It was 1John 5:13. The part that struck me was the last part "and that you may continue to believe in the NAME of the Son of God." The name. The name isn't just a word. When you say the name you are speaking a word that totally encompasses WHO God is. And the word "Jesus" means "JHWH-saves". "Emmanuel" means "JHWH with us". Not just God, but totally and completely GOD. He was with us in the form of the Christ, and He is the one who saves. His righteousness and His mercy are showing in every bit of His NAME. I suppose I'm off subject here, but for the past year He has been impressing on me that He will teach me something about His NAME... and I've been a rather slow learner. All this while it has seemed like what He wanted me to learn was just out of my reach. Like a child reaching for a cookie just out of their reach, the tip of the finger brushing the edge. Tonight I finally was able to lay the palm of my hand on the "cookie". How magnificent is the name of the Lord!! |
||||||
169 | How much submitting must a woman do? | 1 Corinthians | There | 11632 | ||
Norrie, If the man says he's a Christian, then he certainly doesn't understand the meaning of the word. God intended for a husband to love his wife in much the same way that Christ loves His church. He either has no understanding of Christ's love or is simply in rebellion against the truth. If her (or her children's?) lives are in danger she should leave. But depending on the severity of the abuse, perhaps this is something she could speak to her church elders about and they could counsel the husband. Many times that type of husband doesn't want the wife involved in a church or in any long-term (close) friendships because he fears she will eventually confide in someone about the abuse. Having the courage to tell someone is difficult. Taking responsiblity for her life (and her children's?) will not be easy if the abuse is extreme. She will fear the repercussions if he finds out, and of course he will if it is to be stopped. There is very little difference between physical and emotional abuse in the extreme, except that phyical abuse heals faster. Severe emotional abuse alone can many times demean a woman into believing she must stay, and then two things happen. 1)She begins to believe herself that she deserves this type of treatment and when physical abuse begins seems acceptable to her; and 2)Eventually through example she and the husband teach their children that women deserve to be treated badly. And if children are involved, the lessons can carry on through a child's life into adulthood, where it is usually repeated again and again. Most women, even Christian women, seem to carry on even in severe abusive relationships until the physical abuse peaks and they see death as imminent, or until they see the emotional abuse causing immense pain or extremely harmful behavioral changes in their children. Personally I've found that when children are raised under these conditions, it seems very hard for them to accept God's love, but rather expect Him to be a God of punishment. Someone waiting in the wings for them to mess up so He can hurt them for being bad. Hopefully the wife will seek godly counseling and bring it to light. Kept hidden, nothing will change except for the worse. |
||||||
170 | Women speak in church? | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 25851 | ||
Hi, I thought I'd share something I found, and my opinion at the end of course. :) In verses 34 and 35 the same Greek word (2980 "laleo") is translated "speak". It is also used in other verses, but it is not the only word that is translated "speak" in the New Testament. "laleo", preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. The other Greek word that is generally translated "speak" is "lego", which gives us a better understanding of "laleo" with a comparison included therein. "lego", a prim. verb; prop. to "lay" forth, i.e. (fig.) relate (in words [usually of systematic or set discourse; whereas 2036 and 5346 generally refer to an individual expression or speech respectively; while 2980("laleo") means an extended or random harangue]); by impl. to mean: -- ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say (-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter. Repeat: "laleo", preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. 2980("laleo") means an extended or random harangue Wouldn't that mean that Paul was saying that women were not to give long, huffy, off the point, preachy sermons"?? And since he seemed to need to make the point that women were to be "submissive, as the law" states... and then mentions the fact that the submission he is talking about is that which places her in "submission" to her husband, it seems that the speeches given by those women were possibly good old fashioned "tongue lashings" toward their husbands or men in general before the entire church. By the way, "harangue" means long, blustery or scolding speech; tirade. I certainly understand why Paul would tell women in all the churches of God not to do that. I would suppose he probably would have told men not to do that too if he had come across the same problem with men when he wrote ICorinthians. That type of behavior/talk coming from anyone does not show or promote "love". So I think Paul was telling women to behave themselves. And I don't think Paul was addressing the role of women as elders, deacons, pastors, nor any other role in the church in these verses. I don't think the Lord distinguishes between men and women in the church because we are all "one" in Jesus. Gal. 3:28 "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." I'd just like to add my opinion quickly about submission. Submission really is two-fold. Submission to husbands is for order within a marriage. "Submit yourselves one to another" is for order (oneness) within the church. That's just the way I look at it. |
||||||
171 | Can women be preachers? 1Cor.11:4,5 | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 25852 | ||
Hi Nolan, 1Corinthians is telling women not to: 2980 "laleo", preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. 2980("laleo") means an extended or random harangue. It really doesn't seem to be telling them not to preach so much as not to give "tongue lashings", especially towards their husbands or men in general I think. Please note that what Paul considers shameful is that women were using the church as a place to "rebuke others", when they preached. So it seems women were preaching, they were just not doing it properly. And since there were many "house" churches in Corinth quite probably, Paul is saying that the women who are behaving shamefully in those churches, should "be silent"... and learn something from their own husbands. I think he's probably telling them to learn something about submission from their husbands. But that's my guess. God bless. |
||||||
172 | Would you kindly explain this text. | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 25869 | ||
In verses 34 and 35 the same Greek word (2980 "laleo") is translated "speak". It is also used in other verses, but it is not the only word that is translated "speak" in the New Testament. "laleo", preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. The other Greek word that is generally translated "speak" is "lego", which gives us a better understanding of "laleo" with a comparison included therein. "lego", a prim. verb; prop. to "lay" forth, i.e. (fig.) relate (in words [usually of systematic or set discourse; whereas 2036 and 5346 generally refer to an individual expression or speech respectively; while 2980("laleo") means an extended or random harangue]); by impl. to mean: -- ask, bid, boast, call, describe, give out, name, put forth, say (-ing, on), shew, speak, tell, utter. Repeat: "laleo", preach, say, speak (after), talk, tell, utter. 2980("laleo") means an extended or random harangue [Harangue means a long, blustering or scolding speech, tirade.] So, in my opinion Paul was chastising the women at the "house" churches in Corinth for giving a "tongue lashing" to others in the church. Instead those women were to "keep silent" and learn from their husbands at home. In verse 35, Paul says "... for it is shameful for women to 'give an extended or random haranguing' in church". In doing so they were apparently not only disrupting the meeting, but were also quite high-minded since Paul also admonished by asking "Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?". God bless. |
||||||
173 | Would you kindly explain this text. | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 26084 | ||
At this point Tim, I disagree with you. I don't think Paul would have admonished them as harshly as he did if they were just talking. Especially since he goes on to ask them basically if they think they know more than anyone else about the Lord (v.36). It seems to me they must have been doing more than just "talking". God bless. |
||||||
174 | Would you kindly explain this text. | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 26085 | ||
As I told Tim, I disagree. I think it's fine if we agree to disagree. God bless. |
||||||
175 | Can women be preachers? 1Cor.11:4,5 | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 26086 | ||
Thanks Nolan, I don't think you appear rigid or legalistic for your view. Perhaps the reason is that I don't think women were to be elders of the church either. And the church was to be "led" if you will, by the elders. Not one man, but a group of men that had become wise in the faith. But I do think, while being under the authority of the elders, many women spoke in the churches -- whether the Lord gave them "words of wisdom", or "prophecies", or "interpretation of prophecy", or "teachings". I would suggest that it was probably those elders that brought the issue to Paul in the first place. Possibly because the women would not listen to them either... which could also take the issue back to "submission". But anyway, I think it was the misuse of the women's words that Paul was admonishing them for. Not for speaking, but for not doing it properly. And since they couldn't do it properly, then they should just be quiet. My opinion. God bless. |
||||||
176 | Can women be preachers? 1Cor.11:4,5 | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 26191 | ||
I wonder why a woman judging spiritual things would upset the male leadership in a church, since everyone is told to do that (1Cor. 2:15), if they truly are spiritual (1Cor. 3:1; 14:37)? So perhaps those women were not truly spiritual, but yet carnal in their opinions and that is why Paul told them to be silent. Something that comes to mind too is 1Cor. 14:39 where Paul sums up what he has been talking about earlier I think. "Therefore, brethren, desire earnestly to prophecy, and do not forbid to speak with tongues." Perhaps the women were objecting to those things... and Paul rebuked them for it? God bless. |
||||||
177 | Can women be preachers? 1Cor.11:4,5 | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 26298 | ||
There is a difference, but I don't understand the difference to mean one is singular while the other is for a group. In 1Cor. 14:29 the word translated "judge" is "diakrino" meaning to separate thoroughly, i.e. to withdraw from, or oppose, fig. to discriminate (by impl. decide), or hesitate: -- contend, make (to) differ (-ence), discern, doubt, judge, be partial, stagger, waver. So... how do you understand the difference in words to imply that it only speaks of the men? Or the elders? Or who? In your opinion, what is being judged in verse 29? The prophet or the prophecy? Just curious. I still apparently do not understand where you're coming from, huh? :) God bless. |
||||||
178 | Can women be preachers? 1Cor.11:4,5 | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 26299 | ||
Hi LisaMarie, They may be fantastic, but I'm not sure I'm correct. :) Discussion in this forum is both a sharing experience and a learning experience for me... for which I'm grateful. The only thing I'm pretty sure about is that the women Paul was rebuking were doing something wrong. lol And we may have to wait till heaven before we find out exactly what... and by then it won't matter anyway. God bless. |
||||||
179 | Can women be preachers? 1Cor.11:4,5 | 1 Cor 14:34 | There | 26332 | ||
Hi again, There are definitely places in scripture that are left "iffy" for us, but there are also many teachings that land right on the dime. And when they do, we have to stand fast on each of those issues. Pride in our own opinion is definitely wrong, but standing on God's word is not pride. It's necessary. He is the only Person that does not lie. An example of what I mean... I was in a discussion today with someone who thinks homosexuality is not sin because he believes it is an innate trait in some people. My response was pretty simple. God says homosexuality is an abomination [sin] (Lev. 18:22), and that we can choose to sin or not to sin (Gen. 4:7)... so therefore homosexuality is a choice. I suggested he simply believe God's word instead of taking the word of any man about it. There are many other issues like that too... where God's word is clear. And praise God, any and all sins can be forgiven us if we repent... (all but blasphemy of God's Spirit that is). God bless you, LisaMarie. |
||||||
180 | Can we be baptised on behalf of the dead | 1 Cor 15:29 | There | 12962 | ||
If you don't mind I'm going to throw a couple of things out here because I don't believe there are any relevant scriptures to explain just what Paul meant. I may be wrong, and if someone has some I will be grateful to read them. 1) To begin with I want to copy something from Halley's Bible Handbook, by Henry H. Halley, pp. 598-600, concerning chapter 15 in 1Corinthians. "The fact that some of the Corinthian Church Leaders were already denying the Resurrection (12), is an indication of the extent to which false teaching, of the very worst kind, had crept into the church." "Paul insists, in the strongest language of which he is capable, that except for the hope of Resurrection, there is no excuse for the existence of Christianity (13-19)." "The Resurrection of Jesus from the dead was the one unvarying refrain of the apostles. This 15th chapter of 1Corinthians is the fullest discussion of it in the New Testament. In the meaning it gives to human life it is the most significant and grandest single chapter in the Bible." (skipped some parts) "Baptized for the Dead (v.29). This seems to mean vicarious baptism, that is, baptism for a dead friend. But there is no other Bible reference to such a practice, and no evidence that it existed in the apostolic Church. Perhaps a better translation would be "Baptized in hope of the resurrection." 2) And I will give you another possibility since Paul sometimes went into "argument" mode. :) It disagrees with Mr. Halley's last statement. Possibly Paul was saying something like this, "Hey people, what do you mean they are saying that there is no resurrection?? Even those who are making these false claims get baptized for the dead. If they don't believe the dead rise at all, then why are they getting baptized for the dead?? They must believe in the resurrection if they're doing that!" And then in verse 34 Paul explains that "some do not have the knowledge of God". That "some" are those who do not believe in the resurrection, AND are getting "baptized for the dead". |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [12] >> |