Results 201 - 220 of 233
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: There Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | computers... | Revelation | There | 12628 | ||
The old computers (pre Y2K compliance) were binary, and the Y2K compliant computers are now hexi-decimal. I find that interesting. | ||||||
202 | What is 666? | Revelation | There | 12625 | ||
It represents the man who will be empowered by Satan. The identity will be scrupulously concealed to the world until the middle of the seventieth week. Quite probably if he were to be revealed before this time, before he took over the 3-nation power base, before he made his covenant with Israel, before he assembled his massive military strength, before being supernaturally empowered by Satan -- he would likely be killed or imprisoned long before God's words were fulfilled. Other descriptions of Antichrist(666) by various names and titles: Antichrist (1John 2:18); the beast (Rev. 13:4); the man of lawlessness and the son of destruction (2Thess. 2:3); Gog (Ezek. 38:2); the little horn (Dan. 7:8); the destroyer and extortioner (Isa. 16:4); the head of the house of evil (Hab. 3:13); and even the personified abomination of desolation (Matt. 24:15). The only real clue to where he will come from is in the book of Ezekiel 38: "[from] the land of Magog"... "from the remote parts of the north" (vv.2,6) and will descend on Israel "like a storm... "like a cloud covering the land" with a vast army and massive weapons of war (vv.4,8,9). Antichrist is also described by John in Rev. 17:10,11. When Revelation was written by John at the end of the first century A.D. we see that 5 beast empires of Satan had come and gone ("five have fallen"), "one is" (i.e. the Roman Empire), one was yet to come in the future and would "remain for a little while" (i.e. the Nazi Empire of the Third Reich seems most probable). Also there will be an 8th leader who will lead the final ten-nation confederation -- namely the Antichrist, who "was and is not", and who is also "one of the seven" rulers of the preceding seven beast empires. This last reference clearly refers to a man, not an empire as seen in John's choice of words stating that "the beast (Antichrist)... is himself also the 8th (head or king), and is one of the seven (heads or kings)" (v.11). "Himself" is obviously a reference to Antichrist as a man. The other strange truth about this passage seems to be that this man (8th king) will be one of the previous 7 kings "who was and is not", i.e he has already died. So we are told that the man (Antichrist) will be one of the 7 leaders of the previous 7 beast empires and has since died. So he will be a dead man brought back to life to rule the final beast empire. Verse 13:3 "...and all the world marveled (was amazed) and followed the beast". It would seem that this is Satan's final attempt to appear to the world as their resurrected savior. |
||||||
203 | The Great Prostitue? | Revelation | There | 12623 | ||
The Great Prostitute, "harlotry" represents false religion (idolatry). Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots, depicts the supreme system(s) of false religion that focuses on the "Queen of Heaven", with it's mother/child worship, which in one form or another has dominated almost all the beast empires of Satan and has sought to destroy Israel and the church in general since their beginnings. The most visible manifestation of that false religion is seen today in Rome (Catholicism) and Constantinople/Istanbul (Byzantine/Eastern Othodox. So in Revelation, both terms are speaking of the same thing, a false religion( that will have authority over the masses, and deal harshly with anyone who disagrees with its teaching and worship. In essence it will lead it's followers to worship "Satan" during the latter days. Today, it is involved in an "ecumenical movement", attempting to bring about a sort of one world religion whereby all faiths (Christian, Islam, Budhist, etc.) would all be under one central authority. They claim that no matter who one worships it is the one and same God/god, so therefore we should be able to find some middle ground for world worship. |
||||||
204 | Question about the Bible! | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12475 | ||
Men before the birth of Christ were inspired by God to write the Old Testament, which includes a revelation from God concerning creation and His instruction for man on how to live a righteous life. The New Testament, also inspired by God, is actually 4 gospels (written accounts of Jesus' life, death and resuurection) plus letters written by Christ's disciples containing His teachings. The teachings have not changed from Old Testament to New Testament. The covenant (two-way agreement) is the only thing that has changed. God's covenants with man to save, always took faith in men. But under the old covenant men were to learn righteousness from the written law, whereas under the new covenant God would write those same laws on a man's heart. In biblical purity, the "church" is people. They are people who believe God (have faith). Since God's Holy Spirit dwells in the heart of those who are saved by Him through faith, God does dwell in the "church". If you are talking about church buildings, that is a different story. You are right, God's presence does not live in a building. But because men have built these structures to fellowship with others in faith, they are sometimes referred to as the "house" of God. |
||||||
205 | manhood | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12417 | ||
You are talking about the relationship between a husband and wife, correct? Not simply a relationship between a man and women (girlfriend)? Once married a man's main responsibility is towards his wife. The Bible says that a man should leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife. I believe it is his responsibility to provide for her and his children. These days that may be a very difficult thing to do though on one salary. It is also his reponsibility to "love" his wife. For an explanation of love please see 1Cor.13:4-7. A very important responsibility of the husband as head of the wife, is to make certain that they are both heading the same direction spiritually (Eph.25:11). He will encourage his wife in spiritual matters. I think this is one reason that God's word says that we should not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever (2Cor.6:14). A husband and wife have become "one", and if they are pulling against one another it causes strive. This becomes especially evident when children are involved. I also believe that it is his responsibility to "protect". I don't have scripture on this, but the physical attributes seem to obviously point to that for me. I would also like to add, that a man also retains a responsibility towards his mother when the father is no longer able to support or care for her. In fact I think he does towards both parents if and when they need. Anyone else? How much am I missing? |
||||||
206 | manhood | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12334 | ||
After leaving father and mother, reponsibility towards his wife should come first. (Gen.2:24; Matt.19:5; Mark 10:7) If I understand your question "when does a man become a man" in a relationship? .. a man should be a man before he marries. Are you asking what his responsibilities are in that relationship? |
||||||
207 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12333 | ||
Hi Norrie, I've been to "pentecostal" churches, and still belong to one. I have no problem with the manifestations of the Holy Spirit. I believe that tongues, prophecy, etc. are from the Holy Spirit except for the few times when people were "in the flesh" as EdB says. (And yes, when the Lord lets me know that a manifestation is "of the flesh", I do talk to the person about it, and it is generally received with gratitude.) I don't think the problem talking about slain in the spirit came up until I asked/suggested that slain in the spirit may be a manifestation of the "angel of light" mimicking God. I know quite a few people that have been "slain in the spirit" and at one time attended a church where that was a regular occurrence. And just as I've heard on this forum, some claimed it was genuine, and others were definitely pushed and/or had gotten into the habit of falling every Sunday yet were not effected in their every day life by a renewal of any sorts from God. Those last people mentioned that themselves, it isn't a "judgment" on my part. They basically said they were waiting for God to do something MORE, so kept falling in the hope that "the annointing" would eventually truly fall on them. As I've said before I too believe God COULD be the one doing this, because God can do anything He wants to do. But that does not mean that everything IS from God simply because it IS a spiritual manifestation. Many modern day prophecies coming from strong Christian men and women have fallen far short of truth. Because they are godly men and women, do we still, after the prophecy is proven to be a lie, do we still say it is OF GOD? I don't think so. That isn't to say that the gift of prophecy is not of God, because God tells us that is a gift from Him. But we are to test the spirits to be sure they are from God in this area. And I think we are to do the same, especially when a "manifestation" of any kind is NOT specifically mentioned in the Bible. Perhaps I wasn't saying this very well, and hopefully I don't put my foot in my mouth again here as well, but I believe that because Satan CAN appear as an angel of light, that biblically we have a responsibility to really check out whether spiritual manifestations ARE from God. I think we're warned to do that. Not to simply follow any or all simply because it IS SPIRITUAL. And it is that which prompted my question/comments in the first place. I thank you for your kind spirit. It is refreshing. |
||||||
208 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12332 | ||
JVH0212, I misunderstood EdB concerning his pentecostalism. Because he capitalized the word I made the wrong assumption that he was a member of the United Pentecostal Church. I was not referring to ALL denominations that are pentecostal (have the manifestations of the Holy Spirit). |
||||||
209 | Is telling a lie(all kinds) sin? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12302 | ||
Well said Nolan. | ||||||
210 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12300 | ||
Accepted. It isn't the subject I find upsetting, but yes, brother, let's quit. | ||||||
211 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12288 | ||
Hi EdB, You said: Don’t you see the dangers of calling something wrong that your not in the position to judge? Whether being “Slain in the Spirit” is of God, manifestation of the flesh, or deception by Satan is not yours to judge. EdB you said much of the time you see it as being acted out "in the flesh". Do you alone have the right to make judgments? You said: Again if it violated any Biblical teaching then yes we could. But in this case nothing is violated, no doctrine is modified, no commandment, precept, statue, teaching, or counsel is jeopardized so what makes it wrong? Since I have read the Articles of Faith of the Pentecostal Church, please show me scripture that says dancing, wearing make-up, theatres, TV, etc. are "evils". Perhaps the log should be taken out of your Pentecostal eye before you start calling names. You said: Other than the fact you don’t like and that my friend is being Pharisaical. Actually "Pharisaical" is being 1)like a Pharisee; 2)one who observes the letter but not the spirit of the religious law; 3)hypocritical. And that my friend, is NOT everyone who disagrees with you. |
||||||
212 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12217 | ||
Hi EdB, I'm glad to hear that you stand up when it counts. I say that sincerely. As to what you call my pharisetical tendencies, I'm not even sure that I said it WAS of the devil, but I do think it is possible. And apparently you do not think that could even be a possibility by your reaction. And I don't think I necessarily have to prove that the Word speaks against it to recognize that it is not biblical teaching or practice. |
||||||
213 | I guess I'm asking because... | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12214 | ||
Hi Nolan, I surely will. There are few things in life that are more enjoyable. |
||||||
214 | I guess I'm asking because... | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12212 | ||
Hi Steve, I'm an amateur historian, and I do mean "amateur" and became interested in church history many years ago. The Christian churches today are very unlike those established by the Apostles. Even the governmental structure is different than it was originally. From what I've read the church first had elders (or overseers), which included Peter, Paul and the like. Elders were "older" or "seniors" in the faith, not young men (or young women) trained in religion schools. They were not graded on a credit system, but were approved by their long-standing faith and the fruits of that faith. Something that I find interesting is that many today recognize that women are not to teach men, but it also states in the Bible that the young are to learn from their elders, not the other way around. Bishops in the early church were elder men that visited and inspected the churches (which were in individual homes) to make sure they remained "on track" doctrinally, and in behavior. Another name for this position was "overseer". (This gives new meaning to 1Peter 5:1-4) Deacons were servants or ministers, doing much menial work, such as waiting tables, running errands, having some mental duties also, and as teacher. This person could be either male or female (deacon/deaconess). This position was also called a pastor. These explanations thus far simply cite the meaning of the Greek words used in the Bible. But they give a little different picture of the simple structure within the early church. And at the individual gatherings of the early Christians, the person, who's home held the fellowship, was called the president. He or other elders would read from the memoirs of the Apostles and from the OT for as long as time permitted. The president would then give an admonition and exhortation to imitate those things. Then they would pray together. After the prayer was finished, bread and wine and thanks would be given. Then those two things were distributed to everyone there to eat/drink, and also carried by a deacon to the houses of those who hadn't been able to come to the meeting. Then contributions were taken from those who could afford it and were willing, according to their own freewill (no general tithe amount was set, nor was everyone expected to give). This was given to the president who supplied orphans, widows, prisoners, strangers and all the needy. This was the average way a meeting went. There wasn't a lot of hype, or an image of Christ hanging behind the president of the meeting, nor plush surroundings, nor collections for a building fund, nor people being encouraged to join commitees or to teach the children the next week. It was quite simple really. Probably something like a home Bible study these days without communion and a collection. As to doctrine (instruction (function or information)(the act or the matter), that remained very much unchanged for the first couple hundred years. Then small changes occurred, and later some major doctrinal changes, which caused divisions in the church, and more divisions, until we have the many different denominations that occur today. |
||||||
215 | What is the gospel? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12203 | ||
I tend to agree with you and JVH0212 in that all of those things are the gospel message, beginning with what Christ has done for all of us. I was asked that the other day and was hoping to find out what you all thought. Thank you. | ||||||
216 | What is the gospel? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12202 | ||
I wasn't asking for speculation. And if there is no need to write an essay on it, then why did Paul write so much? :) | ||||||
217 | I liked most of what... | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12131 | ||
Hi EdB, I too see the Bible as sort of an "instruction manual" from God on how He wants His creation to work. I'm not talking about "works (fruits)" but a general "how to book" in living His law of love toward Himself and man. One of the "how to's" mentioned in the Book concerns keeping the church pure. If a Christian sees another Christian in sin (works of the flesh in the case we were talking about) the bible says: 1Cor. 5:11-13 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone who named a brother, who is a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner -- not even to eat with such a person. For what have I do to with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person." Please note that all the sins Paul lists are sins of the flesh. They fulfill fleshly desires, so one cannot set "idolater" aside as something only God can see. We all recognize that money can be someone's idol. And most of us also realize that power, sex, things, prestige, and self also can become like gods to some of us. So if someone sees their brother in sin, Paul says they are to discontinue fellowship with that person. He is talking to the church, not to non-Christians. And in order to recognize if something is sin, we must make a judgment too. Not to judge their heart (condemn them), but a judgment as to right and wrong. Paul also says "Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." (1Tim.3:15). Paul does this for a reason. To keep immorality from defiling the church (1Cor 15), and to bring the sinning brother to repentance. Jesus is the one who gives us the order in which we are to deal with brothers who have sinned against us, and it is the proper way to deal with sin in the church also. The man who was committing sexual fornication was to be confronted BY members OF the church most probably using the steps Jesus set forth in Matthew 18. Even though he(the fornicator) was not commiting that sin AGAINST the members that Paul spoke to, they were to admonish that person for his sin. Jesus said in Matt. 18:15-17 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more, that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he refuses to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he refuses even to hear the church, let him be to you like a heathen and a tax collector." Along with Jesus's words, Paul, Peter, James and John exhort us to admonish one another in a loving manner if we see a brother or sister in sin. The reason is to keep a "little leaven from leavening the whole lump". God didn't intend for His church to follow any thing just because it makes us "feel" spiritual or to make us "look" religious or holy. And accordingly to scripture we are suppose to weed out anything not of God from our midst using the procedure that Jesus set forth. That isn't judging others. That is judging right from wrong. God didn't make us stupid that we could not know the difference between right and wrong. In fact Jesus said "judge righteous judgment" or judge rightly, which means there is definitely SOMETHING we are to judge. Not a person's heart, but whether something is a sin or not would definitely fit in the category of what we are to judge. He didn't want the church -- His church -- polluted with false teachings and practices. God who never changes, of the law which Christ was the fulfillment of, wrote on stone and now writes these things on His children's hearts, "I am the Lord your God... you shall have no other gods before Me... you shall not bow down to them nor serve them..." Worshipping God in the Spirit is one thing. Worshipping Him in the flesh and for the flesh is something entirely different. Paul again states in 1Tim. 5:1 "Do not rebuke an older man, but exhort him as a father, the younger men as brothers, the older women as mothers, the younger as sisters, with all purity." And again in 1Tim. 5:18-22. Paul strives for the purity of Christ's church. And I think James' words complete these sayings. James 5:19-20 "Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul from death and cover a multitude of sins." |
||||||
218 | musical instruments or not? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12118 | ||
Does your church have a ban on instruments? Have you asked them why they do not use instruments? The only "churches" that I know that do not use instruments of any kind in their worship services are those who cannot afford to, and the Mennonites, Amish and certain Brethren churches. I was told (by members of...) that they don't use them because they believe God wants to hear their voices raised to Him rather than instruments. I've never checked to see if that is doctrinal for those religions though. It may only be a preference. I have also "heard" that some don't use instruments or sing any "new" praise and worship songs for fear that the music would veer off from what they believe is the only godly music -- hymns. But I don't know if that is a fact either. Scripturally though, it would seem that God enjoys praise and worship to Him musically either way. David being one example of both singing and the use of instruments. |
||||||
219 | I guess I'm asking because... | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12117 | ||
Steve, I guess I'm still asking the question because the answer doesn't seem biblical. Can you give me concrete scripture that says anyone (man or woman) needs an elder's permission to study bible in their home (alone or with others) or to share the gospel with others? It seems to me that you have been indoctrinated into "man's religious structure" of the church rather than God's Word in this area. |
||||||
220 | Is there scripture that warns us not to | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 12114 | ||
There are no exact scriptures mentioning drugs persay, but alcohol yes. And in the case of alcohol God does not say that having a drink is wrong, but that overindulging is sin. Moderation in all things. Because God expects us to have self-control and to act in love toward Him and others, and to be of sound mind, it would seem that "drugs" of any kind that would prevent us from doing any of those things could/would cause us to sin, especially if used to excess. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [12] >> |