Results 21 - 40 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243778 | ||
Justme, Btw, I'm not as certain as you that possession of a believer is categorically impossible. I wonder what passage persuades you of it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
22 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243777 | ||
Justme, Its an interesting question you put forth. I personally have never had to face it. As I imagine it though, I certainly hope they'd choose to come to me. In which case I can only say my response would be a mixture of prayer, evangelism, and trying to command the demon in the name of Jesus. Emphasis being on prayer. But let me twist this towards a question of my own. I don't think it will settle the issue, but might illustrate my own concern. So the question is this, if I were to prepare people for this instance, if I were to tell them "here is what to do in that moment", what passage specifically ought I teach them? What I am getting at is the question of whether scripture ever actually gives us this detail plan for dealing with possessions. And per chance if we were to conclude that it doesn't, what am I suppose to give them in light of scripture's silence? Should I make it up? Should buy some other book rather than scripture? So the question boils down to this in my mind, whatever the Bible means to teach us, that I ought to teach. If scripture means to train us for handling possessions, then I ought to teach my people precisely what it teaches us. If it does not, then I have no obligation there in my teaching ministry. By the way, we do need to answer that question, perhaps the bible does in fact teach us how to handle it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
23 | Do demons exist today? | Bible general | Beja | 243769 | ||
Justme, I completely believe that demons are real and that possessions can happen in our current time. However, of all my sermons I have never preached a sermon on the topics of demons. The reason is simple. I believe a preacher ought to strive to preach the point of the text he is preaching. Whatever is the texts main point ought to be my main point. So since I have not yet come across a passage that has as its point to teach about demons, it has never been the thesis of my sermon. Now does scripture contain passages where demons are on display? Yes. But consider it. Even in the gospels the point of the passages containing demons is not to teach us something about them, but usually seek to show Christ as sovereign over all, even them. In other words, even there Christ is the point rather than them. So I think it is well that we don't see many sermons on them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
24 | Am I Biblically free to marry? | Bible general | Beja | 243735 | ||
Brr101373, Greetings. As a Pastor, I find the most difficult questions to answer usually are about marriage. This is not from any short coming from scriptural guidance, but rather it is because of the remarkably implausible situations that people find themselves in by not following the Lord's instructions from the beginning. People come to a pastor and basically ask, "given that I've not followed the plan" what now would the Lord have me do? If you would permit me to make a parable out of thin air, most questions are like a man standing by the lake. A letter from the Lord is brought to him and the courier states, "I have instruction from the Lord that you are to get in this raft and cross this lake." As time passes the man one day decides he ought to obey but he is confused how to do so. He asks the courier, "Sir, I want to know what the Lord would have me do." The courier replies,"I told you." "Yes, but I have sunk the boat, covered the lake with oil and set it afire, and waited until I was too old and infirm to walk around the lake. Now please tell me what my Lord would have me do." The bewildered courier replies, "I just have this letter saying to get in the boat and cross the lake." This is what it is like answering most marriage questions. People have gotten themselves so far from what the word of God said, we no longer have specific instruction from God on what to do. God did not tell us, "Here is plan B and C assuming you reject every command I have first given you." He expects us to follow commands. I do not say any of this to scorn you, but to get you to understand why it will be next to impossible to get clear biblical advice. With that being said, here is my word of counsel in order of importance. First, your chief concern in life right now is to love the Lord with all your heart, soul, and strength. That should so be your focus that a question of marriage should seem a small thing. This we know for certain is your duty. Second, you need to get yourself in a scriptural church where their chief conviction is preaching, understanding, and obeying scripture. This forum simply can not give the measure of council you need despite how we long to help you. Third, my advice is to not pursue marriage again for two reasons. One reason is that I think one of the principles taught, is that remarrying is only permitted after a divorce that was scripturally allowed. I think your second divorce probably disqualifies you because you abandoned your wife for reasons other than her sexual betrayal. Yes she cheated on you, and that would have given you biblical permission to divorce. But that is not a "get out of marriage free" card you can keep in your pocket for a decade. The other reason is because you are not certain if you would be sinning by marrying, but you are certain that you will not be sinning by remaining single. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
25 | What is the translation for 1 John 5:7 | 1 John | Beja | 243729 | ||
Peaceful6, This is actually not an issue of translation. The modern translations leave it out because it is deemed to be not authentic. This is probably one of the more famous omissions, and it is also very clearly not part of the original 1 John. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest it is not original. More than is convenient to type here. However, ANY commentary on 1 John that is worth its salt will discuss this at length. Anther helpful tool is Bruce M. Metzger's "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament." This book goes through the whole new testament giving their reasoning for every textual decision made by their committee for the UBS greek New Testament. This book does need a little knowledge of Greek though (but not a lot). Normally I am happy to quote it on here for those who can't work with it, but in this case there is just too much evidence to quote. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
26 | Titus 1:8 the word "holy"? | Titus 1:8 | Beja | 243696 | ||
Justme, Hey. Good question. This isn't the normal greek word for holy. And it isn't the normal word Paul uses for holiness. So given that all words have a certain range of meaning, it can validly be translated into a few different english words. So I strongly suspect their motive in not using "holy," was to make it evident in english that this was a different word. Also, I have a set that compares greek words that convey similiar ideas side by side so that one can see what the distinct emphasis is in each word. If you are interested let me know and I'll see what the difference is between this word and the normal word for holiness, which is "hagios." Sorry, I don't know how to swap to greek font in this. Blessings, In Christ, Beja |
||||||
27 | David's sons' priestly status | 2 Sam 8:18 | Beja | 243691 | ||
Azure, Very astute observation. Yes, there is a passage that might hint, but nowhere is this really answered for us. Yet I am persuaded the answer is evident in the larger story line of scripture. The answer: we see minor glimpses of God's anointed blurring the lines between the role of king and priest. In Matthew 12 Jesus is challenged concerning activity on the Sabbath. One of his line of reasonings involves David having a very strange right to eat the bread of the presence. This was something only priests could do. Then Jesus explains that somebody greater than David is present. Now unfortunately Jesus does nothing to explain why David has that authority, or even precisely what that authority is. But the line of logic DEPENDS upon David having that authority. So here, as well in a rare few other instances we see glimpses of a blurring between king and priest. In Zechariah 6 we see one of high priestly descent given a crown. In Genesis we see Adam portrayed as both a royal and priestly figure. Meaning we see the original role that God intended for his king was also a priestly role. And on it goes. Neither in Matthew, nor in regards to Davids sons does scripture ever explain this to us, nor does it explain why blurring these roles is routinely rejected and yet in a few instances God annoints somebody in such a way that the roles get blurred, regardless of how we might long for it to do so. It is one of several riddles that the Old Testament leaves us with. What we can be sure of is that this is pointing towards the same person all the Old testament was pointing to. We are seeing small glimpses that God's purpose for his messianic king will also involve a priestly role. This puzzling thread in scripture, for which we have no explanation, is pointing onward to the true messianic king whom is also our high priest as well, Jesus. I wish there were much more scripture to point to, but I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
28 | What is predetermination all about | John 3:16 | Beja | 241893 | ||
EdB, I agree with you that that is the spectrum. But to be fair, I have never met a person who would say that "what we do does not effect our eternal destiny." I just don't want the original poster to think that those who disagree with your position would then necessarily think our actions don't matter. Those who believe in God electing individuals to salvation do historically hold that our actions matter and have impact on our eternal destiny. Specifically that we must repent and have faith in Christ to be saved, but more than this as well. Only an extremely small percentage of calvinists have ever held that our actions do not matter. And these are what we call hypercalvinists, there is a huge difference between the two. You may find this position to be inconsistent, I do not find it inconsistent, but even if you deem it to be inconsistent then we must be careful to portray those we disagree with accurately. Then we can proceed to say they are inconsistent. It would be dishonest to smooth out their theology into what we think the implications ought to be and then accuse them of holding teachings which they deny. Specifically, if we think the implications of their theology imply that our actions do not matter, and yet they hold that our actions do matter, we must not accuse them of holding to our imagined implications. That being said, you did not err in your statements. I just want to make sure readers understood that 99 percent of those who hold to election are not on that far end of your spectrum. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
29 | Why do we have ""Free-Will"? | Bible general | Beja | 241578 | ||
jeremiah1five, You state, "by virtue of creation angel and man was created sinful" and also that the reason man sinned was because he was created sinful." I think this doesn't square up with scripture. One example is Romans 5:12 where he states, "sin came into the world through one man." Paul portrays Adam as transgressing and bringing sin into the world for the first time. How could this be if sin was present by virtue of creations? How could sin have entered into the world through Adam's transgression if the already existing angels were sinful before he was created? But your position holds far reaching consequences. It is the clear testimony of scripture, and our blessed hope that Christ will one day remove sinfulness from his people. Revelations testifies that we are hoping for a city where sin will not enter. In many places, 1 john 3 and Romans 8:29, scripture promises that we will be conformed to the image of Christ. Certainly if we are conformed to the image of Christ we will not be sinful. Yet if what you say is true, and it is impossible for anybody but God himself to ever be righteous and without sin, then you declare null and void these most precious promises of the saints. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
30 | God never changes then how come Sunday | Bible general | Beja | 241473 | ||
Enjoyinglife59, Thank you for the question. I think the very best way to answer would be to direct you to the search bar to the right of the screen. This has been often discussed on the forums and you will likely find there any comment you could possibly get. Beja |
||||||
31 | Timothy of age 50 treated as a child | 2 Tim 2:22 | Beja | 241339 | ||
00123, Normally I would not answer a question unless I felt I had something worth contributing to its answer. But since your question has remained there for some time, I will instead point out the problems with the question. You assume 3 different things in the question which you have a burden of proving. 1. 2 Timothy was written in year 67 2. Timothy was born in year 17 3. Paul treats Timothy as an adolescent. You are asserting far more than most of your readers are likely willing to grant. It is hard to answer a question where you disagree with its presuppositions. I do not intend for this to come across as any kind of rebuke. I only mean to explain to you why I think no answer is forthcoming. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
32 | Is accepting gratitude right or wrong? | Phil 2:3 | Beja | 241315 | ||
ria, Here you are taking a theological principle, "all praise ultimately belongs to God," and extrapolating a behavior from it which scripture doesn't expressly command. This is something you should be careful about, which you evidently are since you are asking here. But the main thing you want to do is to let your mind browse through scripture to see how it stands up. For example, in this case I consider the rewards we are promised. Such as how if we give a cup of cold water to somebody on account of Christ we will not loose our reward for it. I consider how revelations says the bride is granted to be clothed in white attire which are the righteous deeds of the saints. So even though our works are granted to us, and ultimately God is the architect of our works Eph 2:8-10, yet we are going to be rewarded for them and adorned by them. They are granted by God to the bride, the church, for our beauty and glory. So as I let my mind browse through scripture, while I do see God as the source of all good, and I do see that our good works are Him accomplishing good things through us, I also see God rewarding and adorning us through these good works. They are God's gifts to us, before they are our gifts to God. If I do something good, by God's grace, and if God intends to eternally reward me and adorn me through this, do you suppose he begrudges a man to tell me thank you? I would think not, so I would suggest the behavior your are speculating from this principle doesn't stand up to scripture. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
33 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241214 | ||
allisraelsaved, I think you are mistaken about it meaning until the end of the age. The greek behind "forever and ever" assuming we are referring to Rev 20:10 says literally unto the age of ages. It was the way the new testament says what you and I would mean by forever. Contrast that with the end of Matthew where Jesus literally says until the close of the age. So they could very specifically state until the end of the age with biblical greek, the phrase unto the age of ages is something quite different meaning extending throughout them all. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
34 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241209 | ||
EdB, You said: "To do it you need a way to explain extra-Bibically why the beast and false prophet were mentioned in a present after being thrown in the lake of fire." I took the "in a present" part to be referring to a present tense, and in the context of your post it sounded to me like you were trying to refer to Rev 20:10. I'm not sure where else you would be referring to. If I misread you I apologize. I'm not suggesting in any way that Rev 20:10 teaches anihilation. I personally believe scripture teaches eternal torment. As for my motive it was as I said, "just to be fair." I thought you were saying he needed to explain a present tense verb there, when there isn't actually one to be explained. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
35 | torment in hell annihilation in the lake | Rev 19:20 | Beja | 241207 | ||
EdB, I'm not an anhilationist but just to be fair, if you are referring to Rev 20:10 there is not actually a present tense verb there in the greek. The verb is left implied. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
36 | is the bible really came from GOD? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Beja | 241199 | ||
Patipati, This is meant to go together with the answer Ed gave you. Your answer ultimately lies in what previous people have called the "self attesting" nature of scripture. What they mean by that is that Scripture's divine authorship just sort of shines through it. As we read it, we become persuaded that it is indeed from God and not man. One good scripture depicting this is Jeremiah 23:25-29. Here God declares his own word to be self evidently different from the "dreams" of the prophets. Now we still rely upon God to give us the eyes to see the divine nature of scripture. Many read scripture and are left blind to its self evidence of being divinely inspired. So we completely depend upon God to graciously grant it, but at the same time, once it has been granted we declare the evidence to be the scripture itself, not something else. I hope this was helpful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
37 | buying something u know u will refund? | OT general | Beja | 241167 | ||
timley1959, I think the best way to answer that is by the New Testament Standard of love. Would you wish somebody to treat you this way if you owned the merchandise? Second, do you think the behavior brings honor to Christ? I appeal to these questions because I do not think the proverb itself is trying to directly make a statement about the validity or wickedness of this practice, but rather trying to make one wise/aware to the reality of the practice. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
38 | Thithing loan | Bible general | Beja | 241155 | ||
Movingon, I'd like to understand your personal dispensational take on scripture a little more precisely. I definitely understand it in broad brush strokes, but I'd like to ask a few precise questions to help me test the edges of it. If you do not wish to answer them that is fine, but as you've seemed to always been happy to respond in the past I feel encouraged to ask you. However, should you choose to respond I do have one request. Please try to answer my questions as concisely as you possibly can. When two people are trying to understand one another one of the surest way to cause it to fail is to answer too much. A person says so many things and the listener has such a great number of objections, uncertainties, and needs for clarification that the conversation is effectively killed as their is no hope of untangling it all. This difficulty is magnified on the forum where we have a limited space to type and the conversation even has the chance of progressing on its own before I even read the response. So if you wish to answer, please try to answer the question as precisely as you possibly can, trusting that you need not re-explain the entire system and how you feel misunderstanding this has been that which has derailed the church. Nor do you need to spend time trying to persuade me. My question: You state that you do not believe the gospels apply to us, but do you believe the great commission of Matthew 28 was a commission to build the church or was it for the disciples to go out offering the kingdom? Perhaps said another way, when they went out making disciples and baptizing in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, was this building the church or the kingdom of that previous dispensation? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
39 | Will Israel be destroyed? | Bible general | Beja | 241125 | ||
Beviek9, Forgive me. In my haste I copied the wrong verse, I meant to give you this one. Rev 13:7 It was also given to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them, and authority over every tribe and people and tongue and nation was given to him. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
40 | Will Israel be destroyed? | Bible general | Beja | 241124 | ||
Beviek9, Welcome to the forum. Scripture has a great amount of predictions concerning Israel's destruction. From its very founding in Deuteronomy God promised their destruction (and restoration) if they abandoned his covenant with them. The prophets repeatedly predicted their destruction. And God kept his promise through the Assyrians and Babylonians when they destroyed Israel and Judah respectively. Then they returned from exile. In Christ's day he prophesied again over the coming destruction of Israel and again this came about through a foreign army, the Romans. However, I suspect you might be asking with regards to the current nation state of Israel. If this is so your question will be necessarily tied up with ones view of end times. Therefore the answer you receive will vary dramatically. As for my view, I believe this verse is relevant though I suggest to you that it refers to the church who is the Israel of God. Rev 11:7 When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up out of the abyss will make war with them, and overcome them and kill them. I hope this is of some help. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [40] >> |