Results 21 - 40 of 144
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Dalcent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | How decides between HS-led Christians? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154846 | ||
sorry double posting | ||||||
22 | How decides between HS-led Christians? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154845 | ||
Are you asking me to clarify my question? My friend I will paste your para.10 first: 10.____The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. ( Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23) Christians hold that Scripture is understood with the help of the Holy Spirit. Christians holding this view do not have unanimous agreement on what Scripture is saying, despite being helped by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, some arbitrator is required to decide between said Christians. Christian AofG believes his interpretation was given him by the Holy Spirit' and Christian Bapt who believes his interpretion was given him by the Holy Spirit and both men hold different views. Who arbitrates as to which Christian holds the authentic interpretation of the Holy Spirit. Why does one Christian feel his Holy Spirit led interpretation is correct and the other man's not. ITS QUITE A SIMPLE QUESTION, THE ANSWER I AGREE IS A DIFFERENT MATTER, BUT PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER IT. |
||||||
23 | Who decides between HS-led Christians? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154844 | ||
Are you asking me to clarify my question? Look, I will paste your para.10 first: 10.____The supreme judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Scripture delivered by the Spirit, into which Scripture so delivered, our faith is finally resolved. ( Matthew 22:29, 31, 32; Ephesians 2:20; Acts 28:23) Christians hold that Scripture is understood with the help of the Holy Spirit. Christians holding this view do not have unanimous agreement on what Scripture is saying, despite being helped by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, some arbitrator is required to decide between said Christians. Christian AofG believes his interpretation was given him by the Holy Spirit' and Christian Bapt who believes his interpretion was given him by the Holy Spirit and both men hold different views. Who arbitrates as to which Christian holds the authentic interpretation of the Holy Spirit. Why does one Christian feel his Holy Spirit led interpretation is correct and the other man's not. ITS QUITE A SIMPLE QUESTION, THE ANSWER I AGREE IS A DIFFERENT MATTER, BUT PLEASE TRY TO ANSWER IT. |
||||||
24 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154843 | ||
Dear Doc, You wrongly posted that James White is a Doctor, and I pointed out he is Mr James White. I would not be happy with you calling someone Apostle Brown or Prophet Jones. A false title needs addressing. Besides Mr White obviously uses "Doctor" to lend authority to his views: at least its not as bad as a phoney doctor working in a hospital. |
||||||
25 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154830 | ||
Sorry Doc, I have nothing to do with Boston Church of Christ. Never have. The only Churches you'll find me in are Catholic, Orthodox, or conservative Episcopalian. Mine is the voice of the bi-millenial Church. The voice of the historic Christian Church, of the creeds, of the Councils, of the Fathers of the Church. My Masters degree education in Theology is from the great universities of Europe older than your country. Talking of universities, I have to inform you that "Dr" James White is DUPING YOU calling himself a Doctor of Theology. His "degree" is bogus, it is from Columbia Evangelical Seminary which is a little room above a shop, it is unaccredited, it's students set their own syllabus. I'm perfectly happy to hear Mr. White's opinions but please don't call the pseud a Doctor, he isn't. http://www.columbiaseminary.org/ http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_09_12_socrates58_archive.html Photo of the Columbia evangelical seminary; no one is sure if the park bench outside the shop is part of the campus. Note to the moderator: if any of this is untrue I will gladly post an apology. But check. |
||||||
26 | Who is the arbitrator? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154822 | ||
Thanks Tim, I will study this further. However my most important question remains unanswered: Who is the 'supreme judge' where there is disagreement over the meaning of scripture as in the baptismal regeneration disagreement here with Martin Luther et al's interpretation of Scripture? |
||||||
27 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154813 | ||
The PLAIN SENSE of scripture teaches faith alone does it? So I take it James 2:24 reads in the plain sense we are saved by faith alone. The one and only place in the Bible where we find the expression 'faith alone' is where Scripture denies we are saved by faith alone. I think your understanding of the plain sense and mine are a little different. Sorry, who are you saying is the 'supreme judge' where there is disagreement over the meaning of scripture as in your disagreement here with Martin Luther et al's interpretation of Scripture? |
||||||
28 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154772 | ||
With due respect what constitutes evidence? You can't say you've proven anything other than say you've present your best argument if the point remains disputed. Personally I'm going with the plain sense of scripture, the voluminous body of writings by the Church fathers, the Nicene Creed, the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, Martin Luther, John Wesley, Article 27 of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, etc. etc. etc. If truth were decided by the majority vote of all Christians then you most certainly have been proven wrong. Please note that Scripture is a whole; I believe your exegesis is based on an either/or approach to Scripture, rather than an and/with methodology. Herein lies your error. As the majority of Christians believe BAPTISM AND/WITH FAITH saves, I agree entirely with you when you present verses which only mention faith/belief, you simply present one half of the historic orthodox Christian doctrine, you don't contradict it... |
||||||
29 | Purpose of John's baptism? | Luke 3:3 | Dalcent | 154768 | ||
Dear Mr Joe, We don't 'know' that baptism doesn't save a person. This is the view held only by the Presbyterian / Reformed branch of Protestantism - the predominant evangelical outlook at present. This view is not held by either the Catholic Church, the Orthodox Churches, Wesleyan, Lutherans or the Anglicans. Therefore, the vast majority of Christians do not 'know' baptism doesn't save you. Act 22:16 'Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, AND wash away your sins, calling on His name.' (AS IN THE NICENE CREED: ...WE ACKNOWLEDGE ONE BAPTISM FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS...) I have many volumes of the earliest Christian writings (stretching over centuries) and not one of them 'knows' baptism doesn't save you. All of the early Church fathers in the golden age of saints and martyrs believed in baptismal regeneration. To be a little more precise 'It is by faith in the Gospel AND by Baptism that one renounces evil and gains salvation, that is, the forgiveness of all sins and the gift of new life.' THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE SAYS: 1Pe 3:21 Corresponding to that, baptism now SAVES YOU Mar 16:16 "He who has believed AND has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned. Tit 3:5 He SAVED us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing (actually the 'bath' (loutron) of regeneration, loutron is a noun, this is translated accurately in the NAB) of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, Act 2:38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ FOR the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Rom 6:4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through BAPTISM into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. Gal 3:27 For all of you who were BAPTIZED into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. Does your exegesis need to deny the plain sense of these last two verses. From the very beginning, the earliest Christians understood baptism in this way. One example of myriads would be the Epistle of Barnabas (II,II) 'This meaneth, that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit. ' To go against the plain sense of scripture, volumes and volumes of Christian literature from the same centuries that were defining the Trinity, Jesus's divinity and humanity, the biblical canon, the same writers who were being martyred by the Roman Empire, and to go against Martin Luther, John Wesley the Thirty Nine-Articles of the Church of England is just bizarre. You don't KNOW baptism doesn't save you. And you never got that belief reading the Bible. |
||||||
30 | I need to know the direct translation | Jer 2:22 | Dalcent | 154696 | ||
The meaning of baptize according to Strongs and NASEC is as follows STRONG G907 baptizo bap-tid-zo From a derivative of G911; to make whelmed (that is, fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash. NASEC G907 baptizo; from G911; to dip, sink: - Baptist (3), baptize (9), baptized (51), baptizes (1), baptizing (10), ceremonially washed (1), undergo (1). |
||||||
31 | I need to know the direct translation | Jer 2:22 | Dalcent | 154695 | ||
I believe the answer to your query can be obtained by looking at the earliest non-canonical Christian literature: the Didache, circa. 60 A.D. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html This first century historical text makes it clear that Christian Baptism (as opposed to John's baptism) was: i) by water ii) normally be immersion, but infusion was also practiced. Extract: Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. More resources can be found here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html |
||||||
32 | WHY IS A TEA LEAVE READER SO BAD | Lev 19:26 | Dalcent | 154666 | ||
All forms of magick and divination (and reading tea leaves is certainly divination) are gravely contrary to the Christian faith. Divination involves communing with fallen beings from the spirit world. When you fellowship with these evil spirits about what the patterns in the tea leaves means you are in the presence of demons. However nicely the ‘spirits’ treat you initially you are giving them entrance into your life. You may well be embarking on a lifetime of torment and fear. The LORD will be angry with you for scorning Him in this way, especially if you do not act in ignorance, and he is unlikely to prevent them harming you and taking over your life. It would be an entirely different matter if you were to turn to Him and repent. God can reveal the future to his prophets or to other saints. Still, a sound Christian attitude consists in putting oneself confidently into the hands of Providence for whatever concerns the future, and giving up all unhealthy curiosity about it. All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practices falsely supposed to "unveil" the future: Jeremiah 29:8 "For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, 'Do not let your prophets who are in your midst and your diviners deceive you, and do not listen to the dreams which they dream. Deut 18:10 "There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, Not only is reading tea leaves forbidden but also consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums. All conceal a desire for power over time, history, and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to conciliate hidden powers. They contradict the honor, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone. All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. |
||||||
33 | The deference | Gal 3:9 | Dalcent | 154612 | ||
We find the expression believer/s 11 times in the NASB all in the New Testament. I've pasted them here: (Act 5:14) And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number, (Act 10:45) All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. (Act 16:1) Paul came also to Derbe and to Lystra. And a disciple was there, named Timothy, the son of a Jewish woman who was a believer, but his father was a Greek, (2Co 6:15) Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? (Gal 3:9) So then those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer. (1Th 1:7) so that you became an example to all the believers in Macedonia and in Achaia. (1Th 2:10) You are witnesses, and so is God, how devoutly and uprightly and blamelessly we behaved toward you believers; (1Ti 4:10) For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers. (1Ti 5:16) If any woman who is a believer has dependent widows, she must assist them and the church must not be burdened, so that it may assist those who are widows indeed. (1Ti 6:2) Those who have believers as their masters must not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but must serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles. (1Pe 1:21) who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God. It would appear that because Abraham is called a believer in Gal 3:9 that the term has to include faithful Old Testament Jews; those who died in friendship with God having fully accepted the partial revelation of pre-Christian Judaism. My opinion is that the terms Christian and believers mean exactly the same thing concerning those people alive today. What else are you getting at? There are the God-fearer types such as Cornelius: Act 10:22 ...a centurion, a righteous and God-fearing man...' And there are the demons who believe: Jam 2:19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. Indeed all men believe in their deepest places that there is a God Rom 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who SUPPRESS THE TRUTH in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. Neither of these 3 latter groups can rightfully be called believers in a biblical sense. |
||||||
34 | Until | Matt 1:25 | Dalcent | 135355 | ||
If you didn't dismiss the Church fathers as "Old, dead guys" you wouldn't be so full of error. Jerome is the "greatest Doctor"; Doc, the only doctoring you do is to twist scripture to conform to your latterday sect. |
||||||
35 | It's never effort-free with God! | 1 Thess 5:23 | Dalcent | 135353 | ||
Wow, you know more than Jerome. Goodbye Studybibleforum. | ||||||
36 | It's never effort-free with God! | 1 Thess 5:23 | Dalcent | 135278 | ||
New Creature, I can't reconcile co-operate with the Holy Spirit. and we have a passive role in our progressive sanctification. We are co-workers (synergos); working together. We are not passive. Regards Dalcent |
||||||
37 | Until | Matt 1:25 | Dalcent | 135277 | ||
Some scriptural support would be nice rather than 'one might suppose...' Its abnormal to: 1) not to consummate a marriage on your wedding night 2) your wife to have had another's child, viz. God's 3) to have the Son of God in your family In the light of Jerome's comments do you still hold 'until' proves Mary lost her virginity later? Dalcent |
||||||
38 | Until | Matt 1:25 | Dalcent | 135261 | ||
Why do you think he kept her a virgin 'until' or 'till' the birth of Christ proves that Mary lost her virginity after Jesus' birth? Mat 1:25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her first born son: and he called his name Jesus. Normal English usage (which is what the translators work toward) is why you misunderstand this verse. Translations are not infallible. The phase is first-century Greek. If translators ‘transliterate’ idioms and something is lost they’re wrong. Jerome’s argument, you know: “it was usual among the Hebrews to denote by the word UNTIL only what is done, without any regard to the future.” What you don’t know is that he proves it conclusively by scripture, that this usage is REPEATEDLY seen elsewhere in the Bible: Gen 8:6-7 At the end of forty days Noah opened the window of the ark that he had made and sent forth a raven. It went to and fro UNTIL the waters were dried up from the earth. Did it come back when the waters were dried up from the earth? The OT words I give in BOLD each time is the Hebrew word ‘ad’ H5704 Isaiah 46:4 EVEN to your old age I am he, and to gray hairs I will carry you. I have made, and I will bear; I will carry and will save. Does God then cease to be? 1Maccabees 5:54 And they went up to mount Sion with joy and gladness, and offered holocausts, because not one of them was slain, TILL they had returned in peace. Where they slain after returning in peace? Luk 20:42-43 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, till(heos) I make thy enemies thy footstool. Does Jesus no longer sit at the Father’s right hand at this point? Mat 1:25 again, but knew her not until(heos) she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. Nothing is implied about 'afterwards' in Jewish usage in ALL of the examples. They are all fair examples too. Words in foreign language are simply not always exactly translatable to exact equivalents in other languages. Dalcent. |
||||||
39 | Did Jesus, have sisters and brothers | John 19:25 | Dalcent | 135260 | ||
typo: sister of Mary | ||||||
40 | Did Jesus, have sisters and brothers | John 19:25 | Dalcent | 135259 | ||
Hi there, (Steve, I'm responding to one of your questions here as someone else is asking the same thing) No he did not have brothers and sisters. And here’s proof. First, Jesus did not have brothers and sisters in the normal sense. Even if Protestants were right about Mary’s ‘other children’ they would have been half-brothers. Same mother, different father. Brother certainly doesn’t mean brother in the way most common to the English speaker. God was Jesus’ Father and Joseph would have been the father of any others. However they are not right! Mary had NO other children! The counter-argument usually starts with: Mat 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And are not his brothers James and Joseph and Simon and Judas? Mat 13:56 And are not all his sisters with us? Where then did this man get all these things?" The uninformed or unlearned say this means Mary had at least 7 children, i.e. Jesus, James, Joseph, Simon, Judas, at least two sisters. Oh for a closer look! 1) brothers is a common Semitism for many different forms of relationship. Practically no one would even bother to argue with this contention. (Rev 22:9 your brothers the prophets Rev 19:10 you and your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus Gen 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their COMPARE Gen 13:11 And Lot chose to himself the country about the Jordan, and he departed from the east: and they were separated one brother from the other.) 2) v.55 does not say James and Joseph and Simon and Judas are Mary’s sons (which would prove they were). It says they were the brothers of Jesus. Scripture shows these ‘brothers’ are the children of Mary’s sister, Mary. John 19:25 his MOTHER'S SISTER, MARY OF CLEOPHAS,… (This means wife of Cleophas and is often translated as such) These brothers are Jesus’ relatives, Jesus’ kin, people who I’m sure were part of Jesus’ family; maybe they lived in the same house or certainly nearby. His extended family. Scripture proves them to be Mary’s sister’s children and names them too! Again,: Joh 19:25 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus, his mother and HIS MOTHER'S SISTER, MARY OF CLEOPHAS, and Mary Magdalen. All these children of this Mary sister of Mary are named below, SCRIPTURALLY PROVEN SHE is the mother of Jesus ‘brothers’ mentioned in Mark 6:3 and above in Matt 13. Mar 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of JAMES and SALOME bought sweet spices, that coming, they might anoint Jesus. Mar 15:47 And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of JOSEPH, beheld where he was laid. Luk 24:10 Now it was Mary Magdalene and Joanna and Mary the mother of JAMES and the other women with them who told these things to the apostles, Mar 15:40 And there were also women looking on afar off: among whom was Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of JAMES THE LESS and of JOSEPH and SALOME, Compare the names again: Mar 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of JAMES, and JOSEPH, and JUDE, and SIMON? are not also his sisters here with us? And they were scandalized in regard of him. Is anyone here arguing ‘coincidence’ that the names of the children of Mary’s sister Mary are the same as those mentioned in Mark 6 and Matt 13. Or that Scripture is referring to Mary Mother of the Lord, as Mary the mother of JAMES and SALOME. Do you expect me to believe that? The usual expression is Act 1:14 All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers. (note, it doesn’t say her sons!) Mat 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the OTHER MARY went to see the tomb. There is another good argument that Mary Mother of the Lord had no one else to look after her when Jesus was crucified. Joh 19:26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son. If my biblical evidence does not prove Mary had no children; it certainly allows it. We Catholics are not biblical ignoramus' you know. Because this is belief is held by all the Church fathers and a billion Catholics and the Orthodox Church too. Right back over two millennia. I require proof to the contrary. There is none. Sorry you have to ‘search the scriptures’ and think before this one falls into place. It is a little complicated but then that might be why you missed it. In Summary, Jesus had 'brothers' in the semitic understanding 'close relatives.' They are named in scripture. Their mother is Mary, mother of Mary. Their father was Cleophas. Your brother in Christ Dalcent |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |