Results 181 - 200 of 1659
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | During Rebuilding of the temple | Ezra 1:1 | Morant61 | 211478 | ||
Greetings Smalltinygirl! Here is a link to an article by John MacArthur which goes into quite a bit of detail about the dates of the various decrees. Hopefully this will answer some of your questions. http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/sg27-25.htm Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
182 | acts 16:30 | Acts 16:31 | Morant61 | 211476 | ||
Greetings Mamayama! Good question! Paul is not saying that the jailer can believe and then everyone in his house will be saved. He is saying that everyone who believes will be saved, including those who believe in the jailer's household. We see this evidenced by the fact that v. 32 specifically mentioned that Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to him and all of the others in his house. Further, v. 34 specifically mentions that both he and his whole family had come to believe in God, and were joyful. I hope this helps! Have a great Thanksgiving! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
183 | How to follow, walk in the Spirit? | Gal 5:16 | Morant61 | 211279 | ||
Greetings Newwine! Gal. 5:13-26 probably gives us the most detailed account of what it means to live or be led by the Spirit. The person led by the Spirit sees the fruit of the Spirit in his life rather than the works of the flesh. How is it done? He listens to the Spirit rather than the flesh. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
184 | I just started reading the Bible and.... | OT general | Morant61 | 211223 | ||
Greetings Pete! Your questions cover a wide range of topics, but allow me to make one observation that may help you begin to answer some of your questions. The Mosaic law was a covenant that God made between Him and the people of Israel during the time of Moses. Simply put, most of it's requirements do not apply to us because we are not Israel. While we can certainly draw instruction from His moral laws, the civil laws are no more binding on us (as no Jews) than the laws of Russia are binding me as an American. I have to run now, but see if this observation might help with some of your questions. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
185 | Are terms being used synonymously? | 1 Cor 12:1 | Morant61 | 211122 | ||
Greetings Hiskid! I can't speak for everyone, but I am not using them synonymously. Though, I am not sure there is a great difference between the two, since we have no Scripture which actually defines for us exactly what the 'gift of healing' is! There are only three verses that speak of 'gifts of healing'. 1 Cor. 12:9 - " to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit," 1 Cor. 12:28 - "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues." 1 Cor. 12:30 - "Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues? Do all interpret?" All that can be definitely said based upon these three verses is that: a) Gifts of healing come from the Holy Spirit. b) Those having gifts of healing are appointed in the church by God. c) Not everyone has gifts of healing. Anything beyond that would be speculation. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
186 | Where are the gifts in the church | 1 Cor 12:1 | Morant61 | 210963 | ||
Greetings Asis! I believe that there are a number of reasons why the gifts are not being used in churches today (as a whole). 1) We are quenching the Spirit. 2) We are afraid because of excesses. 3) We need more sound Bible study concerning the gifts since much of what is practiced today is not Biblical. 4) And, I think that some of it is a lack of faith. It is hard to step out in faith. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
187 | Should the gifts be ordinary | 1 Cor 12:1 | Morant61 | 210952 | ||
Greetings Asis! Yes, I believe that the gifts are for the church and that it is to our detriment that we tend to ignore them. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
188 | Am I ignorant | 1 Cor 12:1 | Morant61 | 210932 | ||
Greetings Asis! I see that Brad has already given you an excellent response. Let me add a couple of points! Any prophecy, word of knowledge, or any other revelatory gift must meet the following conditions. 1) As Brad pointed out, it must be in accordance with God's Word. Someone could never say that God has revealed to them that they should have an affair, because adultery is forbidden by Scripture. 2) It must come true! Scripture is quite clear that a prophet must be 100 percent accurate. This is the difference between true gifts and false gifts. Look at the prophecies of other faiths. One will see things like 'a savior will be born somewhere, sometime'. They read like horoscopes, so generic that anything could fulfill them. However, look at the prophecies of Scripture and one finds specific details given. For instance, Scripture tells us the exact town and lineage from which Christ would come. It tells us exactly how He would die. There are not generic, and they were 100 percent accurate. 3) It must be uplifting. God's Word edifies. 4) Finally, it must confirm something that God has already been dealing with that person about. For instance, God may be dealing with someone about becoming a missionary. A word of knowledge may be a confirmation to them that God is really speaking to them. But, God will never tell you first before telling them. :-) If the word of knowledge meets these conditions (the last one you will not know until it has been shared), then take a leap of faith and share it with the person. If not, then keep it to yourself. :-0 Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
189 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 210909 | ||
Greetings Robert! I'm glad the post was helpful my friend! In the future though, I will try to avoid abbreviations. :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
190 | SEARCHING FOR THE TRUTH | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 210894 | ||
Greetings Robert! I saw your question earlier, but the way it was worded kept me from responding. There is no specific mention in Scripture of when and why Hell was created. One could safely surmise that God created Hell since all things were created by Him. :) What is commonly thought of as Hell is really the lake of fire and we are told of it that it was prepared for the devil and his angels (Mt. 25:41). Here is a part of an old post of mine concerning hell. Hopefully it will be helpful. **************** Allow me to explain my point, but first let me emphasis that I do believe in an eternal punishment in Hell for the wicked. The only problem is that the KJV (along with several other translations) translates four different words as 'hell'. This leads to much confusion over who is in hell, when, why, ect... Here are the four different words: In Hebrew (Sheol) and in Greek (Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna). Allow me to briefly describe each term. 1) Sheol: Hebrew only uses one word to describe the state of the dead. This word can simply refer to death or the grave in general or it can refer to the spiritual status of all the dead. Prov. 9:18 says of Sheol - "But little do they know that the dead are there, that her guests are in the depths of the grave." Thus, Sheol is a place where all the dead go. Ps. 9:17 says that Sheol is a place where the wicked go - "The wicked return to the grave, all the nations that forget God." However, even godly Jacob expected to go to Sheol according to Gen. 44:29 - " If you take this one from me too and harm comes to him, you will bring my gray head down to the grave in misery.?" And, Ps. 89:48 affirms that all men will go to Sheol - "What man can live and not see death, or save himself from the power of the grave? Selah" Thus, this Old Testament word is best translated as 'Death' or the 'Grave' and simply refers to the state of all men at death. It does not refer to what we think of as 'Hell' in the sense of an eternal place of conscience punisment. 2) Hades: This is the New Testament equivalent of Sheol. It has much the same meaning as did Sheol with one exception. That exception being that the New Testament fills the meaning out with the passage to which you refered. Thus, we discover in Luke 16:20-31 that there are compartments in Sheol/Hades. There is a place of punishment where the wicked go to await final judgement and there is a paradise side, Abraham's bosom, where the righteous go to await salvation. This paradise side is now empty. After the death of Christ, complete atonement was made for sin and all those who died 'in Christ' went to be with Him in Heaven. Notice that Jesus did not tell the thief on the cross that he would be with Him in Heaven today, becase Heaven was not available until after the resurrection of Christ. The wicked dead still go to the punishment side of Sheol/Hades and will remain there until the Great White Throne of Judgement. 3) Tartarus: This word is only found once in the Bible. 2 Peter 2:4 desribes it as a place where certain Angels were placed until judgement. Some believe that it may be a lower part of Sheol/Hades. 4) Gehenna: This word describes what we commonly think of as Hell. It is used 12 times in the New Testament and describes a place of punishment, fire, and condemnation. I believe that Gehenna is also refered to in Rev. 20:11-15, where it is called a 'lake of fire'. However, note that this passage teaches that those in Sheol/Hades will be judged and then place into the 'lake of fire'. Thus, no one is actually in Hell right now! This is part of the reason why it is unBiblical to say that Jesus descended into Hell after His death. He went into Sheol/Hades (or the Grave), where Scripture foretold that God the Father would not leave Him. He went to paradise (possibly the prison of 1 Peter 3:9), but there is not any Scripture which says that He went to Hell. Nor, did He need to go to Hell to suffer and complete our salvation as many in the WOF camp teach. Our salvation was fully accomplished upon the cross and on the cross alone. I hope this answers your question and clarifies my point! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
191 | A difficult question | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 210517 | ||
Greetings COG88! I see that some others have recommended some good reading material concerning this issue. May I recommend another. "The Canon of Scripture" by F. F. Bruce is an excellent resource. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
192 | Am i a thistle? | NT general | Morant61 | 210485 | ||
Greetings Ranger! There is always hope as long as there is yet breath. :-) Scripture is quite clear that whoever calls on Him will be saved (Rom. 10:13). However, you need some face to face help my friend. E-mail me at Morant62@hotmail.com and I will try to put you into contact with a local pastor. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
193 | Words in Mat 28:19: Are they spurious? | Matt 28:19 | Morant61 | 210482 | ||
Greetings! Simply put,there is no textual evidence for a non-trinitarian version of Mt. 28:19. Some have tried to some early citations that did not contain the words as evidence that the earliest manuscripts did not contain a reference to the trinity. However, this is purely an argument from silence as all of the existing manuscripts include the words. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
194 | Is the "Promised Land" my heart/mind? | Gen 12:1 | Morant61 | 210331 | ||
Greetings BenSerna! One has to be careful about how historical narratives are applied, if at all. The specifics of Gen. 12:1 were addressed to Abraham, and Abraham alone. So, there is no direct application to us today. However, there are principles which can be drawn from this verse and other passages of Scripture which can be applied to us today. For instance: 1) That historically God provides direction and guidance to individuals. 2) That God keeps His promises. 3) That obedience to God is an important aspect of our spiritual walk with God. However, there is no direct application. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
195 | Explain Luke 15:31 It is a given. | Luke 15:31 | Morant61 | 210322 | ||
Greetings Bookrec! One has to be careful reading too much into the details of a parable, thus turning it into an allegory. Parables usually have only one or two points, often revolving around the main character or characters. In the case of this parable, there are three main characters. The father most likely represents God the Father. The eldest son most likely represents the Jews, while the younger son most likely represents the Gentiles. Thus, 'all I have is yours' would likely refer to the fact that the Kingdom was first proclaimed to the Jews. They are not being wronged simply because others are being included in the Kingdom, yet they are angry. (see 15:1-2) I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
196 | Is the Holy Spirit ever feminine gender? | 2 Tim 2:15 | Morant61 | 210277 | ||
Greetings SSC! Allow me to repost a section from an older post dealing with this topic. ************ The 'gender' of nouns is more a function of form than anything else. What do I mean by this? Nouns must have a form connected with them, thus some nouns are masculine, some nouns are feminine, while others are neuter. In some cases, the reason for the gender is obvious. For instance, 'man' is masculine, while 'woman' is feminine. :) In other cases, though, the reason is not apparent. 'Spirit' is neuter in form. Thus, grammatically, all of the articles and pronouns which have it as their antecedent must also be neuter in form. However, this does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit is not a person. It simply means that the form of the word is neuter. Interestingly, since the form of the word is neuter, grammatical rules require that all of the pronouns that refer to 'spirit' must also be neuter in form. However, in many instances, the pronouns are not neuter, but masculine. Two of the examples you used in your post incorrectly identified the pronoun as neuter when they were in fact masculine in form. The two examples are: John 14:26, and John 16:13-14. In both of these passages, 'ekeinos' is in the masculine form. Why would Scripture break the 'rule' in these cases? I believe it is because the Scripture writers were hesitant to use the neuter form for the Holy Spirit, Whom they certainly viewed as a person and not a thing! p.s. - I wanted to note that my other example (Eph. 1:14) has some textual variants involved, but John 16:13-14 do not. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran *************** There is a move among some to attempt to make the Holy Spirit the feminine part of God. The argument is mostly based on the fact that the Hebrew word for 'spirit' is feminine. However, as I noted in the above repost, gender is more a function of form than anything else. Just because a word is 'feminine' in Hebrew does not make the Holy Spirit a woman. :-) I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
197 | Fallen will? | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 209558 | ||
Sorry Doc! I hit 'question', instead of 'note'! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
198 | Church membership...a requirement? | Bible general Archive 4 | Morant61 | 209356 | ||
Greetings! First of all, welcome to the forum! Secondly, as a pastor, I would say that your pastor's remarks were out of line. Allow me to encourage you to approach him and let him know how you feel about his remarks. There are a lot of possibilities. He may have been having a bad day and spoke out of turn. He may not have said what he really meant. Or, he may have said what he meant, but was wrong to do so. :-) Either way, you clearly were upset by what he said, so go to him and let him know. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
199 | Can we live life without sinning? | Rom 6:12 | Morant61 | 209219 | ||
Greetings Fwiaskycap! One will get many different responses from a question like this, but here is a repost of mine that I believe does justice to the context of Romans 6: _________________ I agree with your point that it is POSSIBLE to live without sin, but I think the term "entire sanctification" brings up a lot of baggage when people read it. So, without appealing to the term, let's look at what Romans 6 actually says: In Romans 6, Paul makes the case that it is possible to be holy. He says there that: · We died to sin - Rom. 6:2. · Our old nature was crucified with Him - Rom. 6:6. · We are no longer slaves to sin - Rom. 6:6. · We are not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies - Rom. 6:12. · Sin shall not be our master - Rom. 6:14. · We have been set free from sin - Rom. 6:18. If Christians are incapable of holiness, then in what sense did we die to sin? In what sense, are we no longer it's slaves? If it is not possible to avoid sin, how can Paul command us not to yield to it? The point that Paul is making, and that most people seem to miss, is that we have changed in Christ. Apart from Him, we were slaves to sin. It's power over us was absolute. In Him, we are no longer sin's slaves. It's power is not irresistable. Thus, Paul is not saying that it is NEVER possible for a Chritian to sin! We all know that we do. There are times when we yield to sin and temptation and commit acts of sin. But, as Christians it is no longer impossible for us to resist sin. It's power has been broken in our lives. If we abide in Him, moment by moment, and refuse to yield to sin, we can live holy lives. Does this mean that we can be sinlessly perfect? No! We are still human. We will at times sin in ignorance. We will at times sin out of willfulness. But, sin's has been broken in Christ and we no longer HAVE to sin. We will sin when and only when we choose to sin! Thus, the problem is one of our will. Entire sanctification basically teaches that we can come to a moment in our Christian lives when we fully consecrate ourselves to God. As long as we remain fully consecrated, we won't will to sin. Therefore, we will not yield to it. But, we can still sin if we choose. Thus, it seems to me that there are two unBiblical extremes which must be avoided: 1) The belief that we cannot help but to sin. 2) The belief that it is impossible for us to sin. (Note: Even entire sanctification doesn't teach that it is impossible to sin!) I look forward to hearing some input on these issues! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
200 | Can we conciliate Gen.1:27 with 2:7 ? | Gen 1:27 | Morant61 | 208922 | ||
Greetings Timoteoarao! Welcome to the forum my friend. It is always nice to have another Tim. :-) It is my understanding that both Genesis 1 and 2 refer to the creation of Adam and Eve. However, chapter 1 simply gives us a broad overview. It gives us very little detail about Adam and Eve except to say that God created 'man'. Chapter 2, then goes on to focus on the creation of man in some detail, including the detail that 'man' included both Adam and Eve. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [83] >> |