Results 201 - 220 of 332
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | Can women be preachers? 1Cor.11:4,5 | 1 Cor 14:34 | retxar | 26225 | ||
Maybe I said that wrong before. It would upset the male leadership in a church because it would require the women to exercise authority over the men. The meaning of "judge" in 1Cor 2:15 is to discern and scrutinize for one's self. The meaning of "judge" here is to decide what the church will allow, accept, and receive. Big difference. retxar |
||||||
202 | coals and antrax? | Rom 12:20 | retxar | 26138 | ||
See! I can't even spell "ignorance". retxar |
||||||
203 | coals and antrax? | Rom 12:20 | retxar | 26134 | ||
That's why I asked the question. I did not know. You are saying no connection, right? Is that what "so how is this positive" means? I show my igornance real fast when I start asking questions about Greek! Sorry, bro. Thanks, retxar |
||||||
204 | Can women be preachers? 1Cor.11:4,5 | 1 Cor 14:34 | retxar | 26128 | ||
Paul may have still been addressing judging of the prophets (1Cor 14:29-33), and stating that the women were to remain silent concerning this, as this would upset the male leadership role in the church. Just a thought. retxar |
||||||
205 | Why was Jesus named “Jesus”? | Is 7:14 | retxar | 25943 | ||
Or you can skip reading the italics in both and John 8:24 would read that Jesus simply said He was "I AM", which is what I think He meant and said. Jesus is the great I AM! retxar |
||||||
206 | Have you tried e-Sword? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 25844 | ||
I own Logos and Bible Explorer (epiphanysoftware.com) that I paid major bucks for. I would rate BE superior to Logos, but would trade neither for e-Sword, even tho it is free (donation suggested). I have used e-Sword since version 3 and now use it almost exclusively. It is undated about monthly and has many resources available. The feature I like best is being able to enter my own commentary (or any I find from any text source) and have it linked to the corresponding scripture. In addition to the available commentaries, I took 3 commentaries I liked in Bible Explorer and put them in e-Sword. They are all linked to the corresponding scripture and function like they are part of the program, and are actually more useful than they were in BE. I also have David Guzik’s commentaries (calvarychapel.com/simivalley) and even useful notes I have got from this forum, all linked to the corresponding scripture. Any recourse I find I want to use, I can put it into e-Sword and make it function as part of the program. Check it out (E-sword.net). 2Ti 2:15a Study to shew thyself approved unto God God Bless, retxar |
||||||
207 | Women speak in church? | 1 Cor 14:34 | retxar | 25776 | ||
God always convicts with specifics, satan always condemns with generalities. Do your accusations against Charis have any specifics or only generalities? retxar |
||||||
208 | Speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | retxar | 25762 | ||
Grace and Peace Bob Please understand what I was saying. I’m not saying tongues cannot be an earthly language, I’m just saying there is plenty of scriptural evidence that indicate it is not a known language, or at least not always (1Co 13:1. 1Co 14:2,1Co 14:14-19). If I go by the Strongs definition, as you have presented, I would agree that defines tongues as a known language, but I can’t see any scripture that supports that view. Also, how could the gift of interpretation be a Spiritual gift if the ones interpreting were interpreting a known language? That would seem to be a natural gift obtained from study, not a supernatural gift given by the Holy Spirit. The problem most people have with tongues is misunderstanding (on both sides). The gift of tongues is unlike other Spiritual gifts in the fact that it is a gift to strengthen the individual believer instead of edifying the church. Some try to make this out to be wrong. The opposition usually comes from other believers who try to discredit them, along with God’s gift. If the gift is used outside scriptural guidelines, it creates strife fueled by a have / have-not attitude. I won’t defend speaking in tongues as a requirement for evidence of being filled with the Holy Spirit. I will say that it does happen, and is supported by scriptural example (Acts 2:4, 10:46, 19:6), tho never presented as a requirement. I want all the gifts God wants for me to have! I praise Jesus He gave the gift of tongues! I would pray that all believers would seek all the Spiritual gifts God has for them, and not cull any, but whoever gets a “look what God gave me and not you” attitude, is sinning. 1Cor 12:11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually as He wills. Thanks bro, retxar |
||||||
209 | how can I eat flesh | Gen 9:4 | retxar | 25448 | ||
You are correct. This is in response to the Corinth’s liberty to eat meat sacrificed to idols, but the principle that food does not make us or break us applies to ALL food and ALL Christians. God’s approval of us has nothing to do with what we eat or don’t eat, which was what Tony was questioning. retxar |
||||||
210 | Speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | retxar | 25386 | ||
Actually there is no scripture evidence I know of that proves tongues are known earthly languages. Acts2 is the only place in scripture were tongues were actually interpreted, so that may have been a miracle of hearing as well as speaking, because not all understood. Used according to scriptural guidelines, tongues is a gift that would be a mistake for any believer to scoff at, consider useless, or try to discredit those that possessed. retxar |
||||||
211 | how can I eat flesh | Gen 9:4 | retxar | 25376 | ||
You are correct. The dietary laws the Gentiles were to keep were a safeguard to not offend their close Jewish brethren, not to protect the Gentiles from defilement. We as Christians should never exercise our "rights" if it will cause a brother to stumble. I guess I was a little off base before, as the Gen9:4 ref was before the law of Moses that I eluded to, but it was reiterated with the law (Lev17:10-14). This was a command to Noah in the new world after the flood. I think the idea here is don’t be cruel to the animal being eaten and, since life is in the blood, don’t treat it as a common thing. retxar |
||||||
212 | Is is right to call money a seed? | NT general Archive 1 | retxar | 23992 | ||
Thanks for the support Casiv. I had never thought about Jesus dividing the sheep from the goats in the light you shed on it. Good word,bro! Jesus saves! retxar |
||||||
213 | Study Bible Doctrine | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 22872 | ||
Thanks kalos, I appreciate your research. I love study Bibles and your recommendation of the NASB SB caught my eye as something I might want for Christmas or something! I have looked at the MacAther Study bible but did not know a lot the NASB SB. Thanks again! retxar |
||||||
214 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | retxar | 22727 | ||
Eph_4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism Eph 4 is speaking of unity in the Church. Verse 5 is talking about the ties that bind us together. "One baptism" can not mean that only one baptism in number exist, but rather is speaking of something believers have in common. We share in the same Lord. We share in the same faith. We share in the same baptism (spiritual, not water in my opinion) . Even if one views this passage as speaking of water baptism, I can't see one in number being a valid interpretation in either context or when we compare with other passages that clearly define more than one baptism. More than 1 baptism has and does exist. Act_1:5, Heb_6:2 (note: BAPTISMS, i.e. more than 1) retxar |
||||||
215 | Study Bible Doctrine | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 22721 | ||
Thanks bro! I appreciate you taking the time to help me out! God bless! retxar |
||||||
216 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | retxar | 22704 | ||
See Nolan's post Thu 11/15/01, 1:09am. He will explain. retxar |
||||||
217 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | retxar | 22565 | ||
You are right, discussing the Word does bring better understanding. If any of our pet beliefs cannot be substantiated with the Word, throw’em out! As far as what Jesus meant when He spoke these words to Nicodemus in John 3:5, we do not need to go too far to find the answer. Just read the next verse! John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Ye must be born again! retxar |
||||||
218 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | retxar | 22518 | ||
You wrote: “There is still no argument whatsoever against the simple command of Christ in Mark 16:16 "He who believes and is baptized will be saved". Actually Mar 16:16 offers strong scriptural evidence that water baptism is NOT a salvation requirement. Mar 16:16 does not say belief AND baptism are required for salvation. It simply says "He who believes and is baptized will be saved”. I believe, have been baptized, go to church, pray, read my bible.... To say anything saves me besides believing (grace thru faith Eph 2:8-9), is not taught in the Word. No one who lives, has ever lived, or will ever live, will be saved by anything other than the blood of Jesus applied by grace thru faith! Anything else that could be considered “good” is a result of, not a means of salvation. The second part of Mar 16:16 tells us what CANNOT be left out; “but he who does not believe will be condemned”. If water baptism were a salvation requirement, Mar 16:16b should say “he who is not baptized in water will be condemned”. I can’t find that in the Word. If anyone insist that Mar 16:16 is saying water baptism is required for salvation, surly they must also believe that ALL the signs spoken of in the next two verses are requirements that MUST follow ALL believers who are truly saved. How could they defend their interpretation of Mar 16:16 if they did not interpret Mar 16:17-18 in like manner? Is that your position, bro? If not, what allows anyone to add baptism without adding the other signs? We must balance scripture with scripture, not pick and choose. Please don’t assume that anyone who does not believe as you considers water baptism a “minor thing”. It is a clearly instructed for all believers to receive. However, to make water baptism out to be a means of salvation goes beyond what the Word teaches and substitutes the blood of Jesus with water of baptism. This debate is old and tired. Let’s move on. How about it, bro? In Christ Jesus, retxar |
||||||
219 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | retxar | 22447 | ||
You said: "Jesus had the power to forgive the sins of the thief while He was still on earth and so could promise the thief salvation. In addition though Jesus was dying the new testament had not yet been instated so rules that apply to salvation after the kingdom came with power at Pentecost do not apply before that date! We know that the blood of Christ extends back to cover the sins of those who died before the kingdom came but that does not mean that we can also be saved without baptism." 3 quick questions: 1. Why does Jesus not have the same power to forgive sins now as He had with the theif? 2. Where might one find these "new rules" that apply to salvation that were inacted after Pentacost? 3. If the blood of Christ extends back to cover sin, why is it limited in extending foward to cover sin? retxar |
||||||
220 | why is baptism important | 2 Cor 5:17 | retxar | 22442 | ||
Co 12:11 But one and the same Spirit works all these things, distributing to each one individually AS HE WILLS. Spiritual gifts are given as the Holy Spirit wills. He can do it with hands or with no hands! Jesus Saves! retxar |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [17] >> |