Results 201 - 220 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | stjones | 79255 | ||
Greetings, Searcher; It just seems so terse without a signature. :-) In my view, those who say that God wishes to silence women are ignoring most of the Gospel, replacing grace with laws that have little basis when the whole of Scripture is taken into account. Two obscure passages in two intensely personal epistles do not a doctrine make, especially when they directly contradict principles that the same writer sprinkles throughout virtually everything he has written. I passed on the master/slave reference out of courtesy. I would contend that master and slave are roles that are displeasing to God and have absolutely no place in the body of Christ - see Philemon. The political and civil obligations that slaves have to masters are left at the door of the church. If you are were to suggest that Paul is endorsing those roles by acknowledging their existence, you would come perilously close to the justification used by the the slave traders of the 18th and 19th centuries. I assume you have no interest in doing that. I simply can't find a reason to believe that Paul meant to throw away freedom and unity in Christ and put women under laws that do not burden men. But that's my reading of the Bible. If you and your church (especially the women) believe that God really wants women to be silent, I have no reason to interfere. In the unlikely event you come to my church and promote the idea, I will oppose you - as soon as the women quiet down. :-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
202 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | stjones | 79232 | ||
Greetings, unsigned; Where Paul did write about roles specific to the body of Christ - preacher, teacher, evangelist, prophet, adminstrator, servant, encourager, etc. - he said nothing about gender. Paul wrote that our unity in Christ transcends the boundaries mentioned in Galatians 3, including gender. So do our roles and responsibilites as members of the body of Christ. Marriage is obviously a different matter because it pre-dated the body of Christ and was ordained by God for his own purposes. A marriage can consist only of one man and one woman - highly gender-specific. But nowhere does the Bible say that gifts of the Holy Spirit are gender-specific. Since Scripture does not contradict itself, I have no choice to but conclude that Paul was addressing idiosyncratic situations in difficult churches. Otherwise, his words about freedom and unity in Christ would apply everywhere but within the body of Christ. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
203 | Women and hair | 1 Cor 11:5 | stjones | 79217 | ||
Greetings, jesustheanswer; I don't know if these passages are cultural, peculiar to the situations in Corinth and Crete, or what. I do know that nowhere is his writings about gifts, the body of Christ, or the preaching of the Gospel does Paul say anything that differentiates between men and women. The passage you cited clearly states that with respect to Christ, gender is irrelevant: "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Galatians 3:26-27) According to Paul, female believers are "sons of God". Those who wish to silence half of the sons of God in church must find some way to reconcile Paul's comments about women which seem rather limited in scope with his overall theology which is centered on Christ, not gender. And no, I'm not a women's libber, a feminist, or anything of the kind. I'm not thowing out parts of the Bible I don't agree with. I don't know why Paul wrote what he did about women. I only know that it contradicts most of what he wrote about the work and roles of all Christians. Until someone can explain away Galatians 3, I'll cheerfully accept women as elders, teachers, and preachers. Until someone explains why Paul never mentioned maleness as a prerequisite for preaching, teaching, evangelizing, administration, or anything else we are called and gifted by the Holy Spirit to do, I'll not seek to silence women. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
204 | I would like to learn more about this! | Acts 1:11 | stjones | 79212 | ||
Hi, Taleb; Hear, hear! Your diatribe brings to mind a related tragedy in the church - our collective obsession with fotrune-telling. I refer, of course, to the thriving prophecy industry which drains people, time, and money from the real work of the church. Instead of taking seriously Paul's question "And how can they preach unless they are sent?" (Romans 10:15), we squander millions trying to guess when Jesus will return and speculating on the sequence of events when he does. Instead of believing Jesus' simple declaration that "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." (Matthew 24:36), we buy books, go to conferences, and support TV shows that purport to tell us when that day or hour will be. It troubles me to think of the missionaries not sent, the Bibles not printed, the translations not done, the voices stilled because of the church's fascination with trying to guess a future not given us to know. What difference could all of this possibly make to a lost sinner who simply needs to know the Good News? Where does this crystal-ball-gazing fit in with Jesus' instructions to his church? I do not mean to criticize dmvd or others for being interested is such things. If people on this forum want to speculate on matters akin to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, they'll hear no objection from me. Nor will they have to read my opinion because I have none. :-) The only thing I know about the future is that Jesus will return at an appointed day and hour unkonwn to me. But I hope that anyone who is fattening the wallet of a fortune-teller will consider diverting at least part of that money to a mission that is actually working to save souls. Thanks for listening. This cranky old curmudgeon will now crawl back into his hole. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
205 | Is Practicing homosexual Behavior a Sin? | Rom 1:24 | stjones | 75803 | ||
Greetings, footprints; Glad to help. If you have time, find a copy of "Scripture and Homosexuality: Biblical Authority and the Church Today" by Marion Soards. It's only 108 pages but it's a very good treatment. I stole the Romans 1 argument directly from him. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
206 | God not around sin how satan go to him | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75300 | ||
Greetings, glazedoughnut; God probably does not enjoy being in the preseence of sin, but he is strong enough to tolerate it. Job 1 and 2 say that Satan appeared before God and that God spoke with him in a rather congenial way. That is sufficient evidence that God can be in the presence of sin. The rest of the Bible provides sufficient evidence that he doesn't like it much. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
207 | what is spiritual bondage | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75299 | ||
Greetings, mellow; Let me offer a different perspective. We are all in bondage to someone or something - Satan, the Law, or Christ. Jesus just gave us a better alternative than the first two. Jesus said "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:29-30) Paul referred to himself as "Paul, a prisoner of [not "for"] Christ Jesus" (Philemon 1:1) This title is consistent with Romans 6:17-19: "But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness." I have heard prisoners (both believers and non-believers) talk about prison as a liberating experience. Prison is only prison if it deprives you of things that matter. The message from these men was that prison freed them from trivial daily concerns - where to sleep, what to eat, when to exercise, and so on. They were then completely free to focus their minds on things that mattered, typically prayer, meditation, study, or writing. So it is with the Christian. Freedom in Christ is not license; it is freedom from the grasp of sin, feedom that allows us to focus on what matters - Jesus. A life of perfect bondage to Christ would be a life of perfect freedom. Alas, I speak only from flawed experience; my own life falls somewhat short. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
208 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75297 | ||
Hi, sisterkath; Thanks for the reply. If you don't mind a little persistence, I still don't understand why someone would accept this teaching. There must have been some authority for it before the original 1950 NWT was published; do you know what it was? The following chain of events is very suggestive to me: 1) Jehovah's Witnesses proclaim a novel theology that they say is Biblical. 2) Theologians and Bible teachers show that the theology is inconsistent with translations of the Bible produced by hundreds of scholars whose names and credentials are made public. This includes Bibles that are not associated with any particular denomination. 3) The New World Translation is produced in secret by a group of unidentified Jehovah's Witnesses. This translation brings the Bible into conformance with their theology. If their theology could not be derived from Bibles extant before 1950, it could not have come from God's word. So the question remains. Why believe that this one recent translation - which proclamins a "truth" significantly different from all others - correctly reveals God's word? I just can't imagine that God would allow this "error" to persist for nearly 2000 years.... Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
209 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75286 | ||
Hi, sisterkath; Pardon my jumping in here, but I am curious about one thing. As far as I know, the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is unique. Why choose to accept the translation found in that lone version over all others? Put another way, why do you believe that the Word was "a god" (NWT) and not God (every other reputable translation)? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
210 | Is Practicing homosexual Behavior a Sin? | Rom 1:24 | stjones | 75285 | ||
Greetings, footprints; My denomination has the same problem - clergy teaching that homosexual behavior is not a sin. Their argument hangs on three hooks: 1) Sexual preference was unknown to the writers of Scripture, so none of the Bible's prohibitions against homosexual behavior take this into account. Answer: The writers didn't have to know; God knew. Paul knew (and wrote) that we are subject to all kinds of sinful urges; the Bible need not (and does not) spell out every one of them. 2) We are no longer subject to the Old Testament prohibtions of homosexuality. The language of the New Testament wasn't properly translated, so we didn't really know what it meant. It really just means that heterosexuals should not engage in homosexual behavior. Answer: The Bible says what it says; it has been well understood for 2000 years. New and novel interpretations and translations must rely on something other than popular culture for their validation. 3) God made homosexuals to be homosexual and he loves them the way they are. Answer: Man is fallen; God no more made homosexuals than he made pyromaniacs or pedophiles. He does indeed love them, just as he loves all sinners. But he doesn't excuse anybody's sin. Look at Romans 1:18-32. Paul describes God's wrath and says that men are without excuse because God's nature and will can be seen in what he created. Paul goes on to give the most blatant and disobedient example he can - same-gender sex. When it comes to sex, God's intent is obvious just by looking at the way that men and women are constructed. And it is willful defiance of the designer's intent to engage in behavior contrary to that obvious intent. I don't know what the ELCA will do. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has prohibited the ordination of practicing, unrepentant homosexuals and also prohibits same-sex "marriages". But the liberals keep trying. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
211 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 75123 | ||
Greg; I just read this passage yesterday and thought of you. Your position is unfathomable to me. "So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code." (Romans 7:4-6) This is a fruitless discussion. You choose the law, I choose grace. You believe that all of Christendom is wrong and you are right. I don't. I have no idea what your faith is but it seems unrelated to mine. Consequently, I can't see that you have anything of value to say about mine. Indy |
||||||
212 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 75056 | ||
Greg; Please accept my apologies for hanging a label on you; I was wrong to do so. I was reading Romans 7 and 8 this morning and I simply cannot fathom why you believe as you do. As for the "Christian" label, it is defined in Acts and has nothing to do with diet or pagan rituals. It is a label I wear openly and with gratitude. Indy |
||||||
213 | Must we justify incest among Adam's kids | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 74623 | ||
Hi, Steph; As I said, I don't know that incest is necessarily the answer. So, no, I'm not asking you to believe that "God would pre-destine incest, or would He simply permit it" for the simple reason that I don't know if there was any incest for God to have either predestined or permitted. I don't see any theological conclusions that can be drawn from not knowing where Cain's wife came from. Sorry I'm not pushing one view or another. Unless my view is that there's none to be pushed. ;-) Job is one of my favorite books. You can peel it like an onion and find worthwhile answers and new questions in every layer. I believe it reveals God's love for us in ways no other book of the Bible does. Although I'm a layman, I preached on this subject a couple of months ago. And, yeah, I'd be lost without the email notification. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
214 | Governmental Authority? | Rom 13:1 | stjones | 74616 | ||
Hi, Montag; My reply won't be entirely scriptural because I think we need to have a clear understanding of the events in question. Like most human endeavors, the American Revolution was not motivated by a single idea or principle. There were strong financial and political forces at work that might have been sufficient to start the War for Independence (in strictest political science terminology, it was a rebellion, not a revolution). But there was a strong intellectual and moral force at work too. Note the language of the Declaration of Independence - a statement that Christians, Deists, and admirers of British philosopher John Locke could all subscribe to: "We hold these truths to be self-evident [not revealed in the Bible], that all men are created equal [Paul says that equality is in Christ], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [John Locke], that among these are Life, Liberty [freedom in Christ] and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men [Romans 13, John Locke]". The growth of the Colonies always had a strong religious component - from evangelizing the heathens to fleeing religious oppression. It is easy to see how a thoughtful Christian of the time, balancing Romans 13 against Acts 4:19-20, could conclude that independence was justified. Hope this useful. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
215 | Must we justify incest among Adam's kids | Gen 1:1 | stjones | 74612 | ||
Hi, Steph; Allow me a belated welcome to the forum. I've read your profile and your posts and I think are a valuable addition to our little "club". I know that God will honor your desire to better understand his word and I am confident that you will help us to understand as well. I also "approve" (as if you needed my approval!) of your desire to know where people on this forum are coming from. If you have the time to spend here, you will come to recognize folks whose posts reveal wisdom and discernment and who seem to approach spiritual truths with "the mind of Christ". (1 Cor 2:16) But be a Berean (Acts 17:11). Sooner or later, you will disagree with every one of them. At least I have, but I may just be a curmudgeon. I am not convinced that incest is the only possible explanation. I try to be careful about assuming naturalistic explanations for supernatural events. Did Adam and Eve's children commit incest? The Bible is silent. Did God the Provider provide partners in some other way? The Bible is silent. As a part-time dabbler in theistic evolution, I could propose a quasi-naturalistic solution. But it would be pure speculation - and probably get me flamed. ;-) No one this side of Heaven knows who they married. I have come to the point where I don't spend too much time thinking about things God has chosen not to reveal (but I do spend some). And you noted in another post that it's not possible to derive a moral principle that permits incest. You have expressed an interest in Jesus' "testing" of Phillip. Perhaps God is testing your willingness to accept with certainty that his solution was right, holy, and completely consistent with his character and his truth as revealed throughout the Bible - despite possible evidence to the contrary. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
216 | Is the Sabbath on Saturday? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 74608 | ||
Hi, Brother Billy Joe; Although I personally think your definition of what it means to "keep the Sabbath" is a little legalistic, I have no interest in debating that with you. I do tend to question folks who come along and announce that most of Christendom is mired in sin and error. So I have a couple of questions about your insistence that the Sabbath must be Saturday. First, where does the Bible say that the Sabbath day is named "Saturday"? The OT definitely refers to the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. If we apply God's example in Genesis to the modern English-language calendar, it seems that Sunday is the Sabbath. By convention, we begin our work on Monday; the seventh day is Sunday. Keeping the Sabbath on Sunday does not violate the Fourth Commandment. It may contradict a point of the Mosaic Law, but that does not greatly concern me. Second, what do you do with Mark 2:23-27? "One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, 'Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?' He answered, 'Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions. Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.'" Apparently, Jesus found it acceptable to feed oneself and one's companions on the Sabbath, which sounds like work to me. In the similar account in Mark 12, he went on to heal a man with a shriveled hand - more work. Jesus made it clear that the focus of the Sabbath is not the Mosaic Law, the focus of the Sabbath is the Lord of the Sabbath himself. What's important is not that we condemn other believers over the day they set aside for the Lord, what's important is that believers set aside a day for worship and reflection. That's "keeping the Sabbath." Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
217 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 74216 | ||
Greg; If heretics didn't twist Scripture to suit their own ideas, it wouldn't be heresy, it would be philosophy. Paul admonishes us to "See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ." (Col 2:8). Wrapping "hollow and deceptive philosophy" in Scripture makes it a little more palatable to those who try to heed Paul's advice. Indy |
||||||
218 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 74110 | ||
Greg; Paul was inspired; he wrote the truth. That is why I read the Bible. And no, I have no need to label you a "Christian". That is, in fact, the last label I would try to hang on you. "Judaizer" seems much closer to the mark. Indy |
||||||
219 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 74059 | ||
Greg; "Rest assured, I always use scripture to validate my stand (can a heretic do that?)." All the time; it's the oldest trick in the book. Indy |
||||||
220 | What is iniquity in Matthew 7:23? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 74030 | ||
Greg; Based on the answers you have received, it is obvious that it is not Hank who is promoting a "flawed and unorthodox" theology - no polls are needed. Most of the replies you have received have ignored your agressive and often insulting style and focused - as they should - on refuting the ancient heresy you advocate. But there is certainly no harm in reminding you that there are rules which you agree to abide by every time you post. Most of those who have responded to you identify themselves as Christians. The word is defined in Acts 11:26: "The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch." Disciple. Simple. Yet it is a term that you are unable or unwilling to apply to yourself. Instead, you concoct an insulting and blasphemous definition of your own. One can only conclude that you are not a disciple of Christ. If this is indeed the case, then 1 Corinthians 2 leaves no doubt that you are not in a position to discern or discuss spiritual truths. Instead of treating Paul's letter to the Galatians as just so much fodder for your intellectual mill, you would be well served to read it carefully and let Paul speak directly to you as he spoke to your theological kinsmen nearly 2000 years ago. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [33] >> |