Results 21 - 40 of 144
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Dalcent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | should a catholic marraige be sanctified | Bible general Archive 2 | Dalcent | 131846 | ||
The Lord took me from sin and unbelief and translated me into the kingdom of his dear Son. Every waking hour I live and breathe Jesus Christ my Saviour and Lord. My life is consumed with the love of my God. I have been saved, redeemed, rescued from the darkness. God has given me a deep love for his chosen race the Jewish people. If I die and find out I built my life on Christ and he was not the truth then I will perish, but I believe he is Saviour, Lord, eternal Father and King of Kings. If anyone thinks because I am a Catholic, because I follow the faith of the first millenium, the faith of the undivided Church of East and West, that means I am not a Christian then you are utterly wrong. My years will pass in fleeting days and I will then see my God face to face and if God has called you in this Way then you'll spend eternity with me too. | ||||||
22 | Ministering as a priest... (Rom 15:16) | Ex 19:6 | Dalcent | 133675 | ||
In what way does the priesthood of all believers (Christians) differ from the priesthood held by all OT Jews? The Jews had a professional Levitical priesthood alongside this, as do the major historic Christian denominations. I read in an evangelical bookstore today that Ignatius of Antioch writing around 100 AD claimed only overseers / bishops could preside at the Lord's Supper and this was against the 'biblical model.' What direct verses could be offered to suggest that a Christian layman blessing the bread and the wine is a better 'biblical model.'? Regards Dalcent |
||||||
23 | 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. |
||||||
24 | inherit the sin of Adam | Ps 51:5 | Dalcent | 156096 | ||
Are infants condemned to hell as this teaching seems to suggest this. If original sin, and not actual sins committed from the age of reason, is the real problem, the answer would seem to be yes. This is why I believe in infant baptist: just as our first-father Adam condemned us all by his sin, our fathers, in their headship over us, incorporate us into the Christian covenant by their family decision. To suggest that original sin becomes culpable at the point when we reach the age of reason and commit an actual sin would be nonsense. (Scripture does not mention whether the many households who were "all" baptized included any infants.) |
||||||
25 | 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 |
||||||
26 | 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). |
||||||
27 | 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. |
||||||
28 | 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 |
||||||
29 | 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. |
||||||
30 | 'Spirit filled' Christian | Matt 3:11 | Dalcent | 134694 | ||
Hi there, I spent years in the Pentecostal movement and our pastor taught that Baptism of the Holy Spirit to be (usually) synonymous with receiving the gift of tongues, hence 'Spirit filled' Christian. I currently am undecided as to whether Baptism of the Holy Spirit is this "second blessing" (which at the time I thought was the clear teaching of Scripture) or is it the same as regeneration. Or is Baptism in the Spirit even something else: something like the Wesleyan / Church of Nazarene "entire sanctification." Related verses:Act 11:16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Rom 6:3 Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death? Rom 6:4 For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. I'm very interested in hearing all sides, and particularly like someone to refresh me as to why Pentecostals believe Baptism in the Holy Spirit is that which is usually evidenced by speaking in tongues / prophesying. Thanks Dalcent |
||||||
31 | NT tithing completely unbiblical? | Matt 23:23 | Dalcent | 133365 | ||
Hi there Reighnskye, Matthew 23:23 to some extent supports tithing which Jesus includes among 'things you should have done without neglecting the others.' It is also argued that the practice of tithing predates Moses' giving of the Law, viz. Abram paying tithes to Melchizedek (Gen 14:20). It can be argued that the Old Covenant is generally valid for Christians except where contraindicated by the New. For example, it would be a rare Christian who would say that the Ten Commandments do not apply to us because they are in the Old Covenant. O.T. Judaism is not a different religion to ours, but an incomplete stage of the unfolding revelation of the God of Israel to the human race. |
||||||
32 | Is the Word of Faith movement Biblical? | Matt 24:11 | Dalcent | 156050 | ||
Often Word of Faith teachers correctly utilize certain Scripture which evangelicals tend to ignore. Where in the Bible do we find Jesus or the Apostles praying for the sick. They address sickness and demons directly by commanding them with authority. Some of the WofF peculiars are certainly found in Scripture: Believing before receiving: Mar 11:24 "Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they will be granted you. And the we are gods claim... Joh 10:34-35 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'? "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), If Benny Hinn had said this he would have been shot! I'm not 'Word of Faith' but I believe in some respects they have had some genuine biblical insights. |
||||||
33 | Is the UPC a Christian Church? | Matt 24:11 | Dalcent | 156068 | ||
By my definition, the Jesus-only camp are outside the pale of Christianity because they deny the Trinity. A Christian is someone who holds to both the doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation. The errors of these modern-day Sabellians can easily be refuted by the same arguments the Church Fathers used against them in the past. The "Jesus Only" heresy is the result of placing your own interpretation of the Bible, re-inventing the wheel, over the conciliar definitions of the historic Catholic Church. |
||||||
34 | christ 2007 | Matt 24:36 | Dalcent | 131881 | ||
The Bible is fairly clear that we cannot know the date of Christ's return. Can I ask where the 2007 prediction comes from. |
||||||
35 | Mark 2:3 "which was borne of four" mean? | Mark 2:3 | Dalcent | 134739 | ||
This is just a archaicism of the King James Version. You need a Bible version written in contemporary not Elizabethan English. Mark 2:3 (ASV) And they come, bringing unto him a man sick of the palsy, borne of four. (DRB) And they came to him, bringing one sick of the palsy, who was carried by four. (ESV) And they came, bringing to him a paralytic carried by four men. Dalcent |
||||||
36 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156029 | ||
I have to correct you. The party of Nestorius held that Christ was two distinct persons - divine and human. He very much has two natures according to historic Christology (not confused, not confounded, etc.). Otherwise Doc, you stray into the Monophysite heresy when you suggest an amalgamation of divine and human natures into one. This really is the ABC's of classical Christian doctrine. It is alleged, with some validity, that those who do not accept that Mary is the Mother of God are reviving the Nestorian heresy. (It is generally accepted by scholars that 'Nestorianism' as commonly understood is an oversimplication, another story). Historic orthodoxy understands that Jesus is one person and it would be entirely inappropriate to say that Mary is the Mother of his humanity only. A person is a single unit. Catholics talk of the 'communication of idioms' when referring to Mary as the Mother of the Person of Jesus. He only had one mother. The title of Mary, Mother of God, sets important Christological boundaries, if you accept the title Theotokos you should not err in understanding who Jesus really is. Mary is of course, Mother of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, not the Father and this in no way should be understood, or misrepresented, as saying she existed before God. It is most incorrect to refer to Catholics as Roman Catholics as it is a perjorative coined by the English Reformers. It is not on the level of 'papist' 'Romish' and 'popery' but is a perjorative nevertheless. You of course are at liberty to address anyone by a perjorative to make a point but it is certainly not accepted by Catholics, nor do Muslims like being called Mohammedians as the old books say. On the otherhand, you can claim the moniker catholic , small 'c' for yourself, I am of course a baptist, a pentecostal, orthodox etc. in the non-denominational senses of the word. When you call a Catholic a Roman Catholic you are telling him in no uncertains terms "I do not accept the claims of your Church to be the Church Christ founded, the only Church which goes back to the Apostles, you are just one of many denominations." The Church Fathers referred to themselves as Catholic, not Roman Catholics and their writings shows they held distinctively Roman doctrine. Read the Ante-Nicene Fathers if you disagree, you can get them on e-sword for free. You probably would not do better then reading J.N.D. Kelly's Early Christian Doctrines, which everyone gives amazing reviews on Amazon. It is a masterpiece of erudition. Dalcent MA Catholic Theology |
||||||
37 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156034 | ||
Hi there, You wrote 'When you say that it is inappropriate to refer to Mary as the mother of Jesus' humanity only, are you then saying that Mary is the mother of the Deity of God the Son?' No I am not. Essentially, Mary is the mother of Jesus period. Natures don't have mothers, people do. Everything that is said about Jesus is said about him as a single unit. Mary is the mother of Jesus. The mother of the carpenter, the mother of the baby, the mother of everything that can be said about Jesus. Because he is one person. When you write 'We know that Jesus did not originate at His incarnation. Jesus pre-existed Mary,' I fully agree but when you say 'we use the word "mother" we refer to a person who pre-existed their offspring' then I would disagree for no other reason than the case is exceptional. A mother is the one who bears us, is the legal definition even if she is a surrogate carrying a fertilised egg that is not her own (this is the law in my country), usually they are human and their offspring are simply human without a pre-existent Lord of the Universe element. In this singular case something very peculiar is occuring, the entry of God into the world. You said 'And why would we ever want to?' If we can forget worrying about Mary being over-emphasised then it is easy to answer this. It is virtually impossible to hold most of the Christological errors that arose in the early Church (let us say Spirit Christology, a modern heresy too - that Jesus only became the Christ, when he was "adopted" at his baptism). Mary is properly Mother of God, this is virtually stated in Scripture in Luke 1, i.e. who am I that the Mother of my Lord should come to me... If you want to go into this deeply here you may wish to look over the documents of the Third Ecumenical Council where Nestorius was condemned. You can find it here, but I can't post the link properly as the forum doesn't alllow certain syllables. http://www.victorclaveau.com/ |
||||||
38 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156043 | ||
Hi Mark, If mothers hypothetically gave birth to attributes then you and I would agree Mary is not the mother of Christ's deity. However, mothers give birth to persons. If a white woman has a black man's child she is that person's mother. Not the mother of the whiteness but not of the blackness; this is a bit odd; I am not quite sure why Jesus is being chopped up here; he is a person he had a mother. We admit the relevant caveats regarding his pre-existence, godhood etc. I think have only capitalized Mother of God, the Christological title , not for she, her, etc. which is a proper title, like Doctor or Master of Ceremonies. As I'm sure you subscribe to the exact formula of the Trinity (defined at the 1st Ecumenical Council) and the dual natures of Christ (human and divine) presumably exactly as articulated at the 4th Ecumenical Council. It would be inconsistent if you don't seem to be going with the 3rd Ecumenical Council. The 4th was very much related to tying up questions raised by the 3rd. The Scripture does say "all generations" will call Mary "blessed". Furthermore, I believe Luke 1 deliberately compares Mary with the Ark of the Covenant: both were vessels which carried God! 2 Sam 6 Verse 2 David “arose and went†…to bring up from there the ark of God … Verse 9 So David …said, "How can the ark of the LORD come to me?" Verse 11 Thus the ark of the LORD remained… “three months†… in the Judean hill country. Verses 6:14, 16 David danced for JOY in the presence of the Ark, indeed he LEAPED Now, look how Luke undeniably parallels 2 Sam 6 Luke 1 Verse 39 Mary “arose and went†in a hurry to the hill country, to a city of Judah, “arose and went†occurs TWICE ONLY IN THE NT Verse 43 "And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me? verse 44 For behold, when the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby leaped in my womb for JOY. Verse 41 When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby LEAPED in her womb Verse 56 And Mary stayed with her about “three monthsâ€, and then returned to her home. I’m sure you can work out the statistical improbalities of this being no more than coincidence. Clearly Mary is no less than the New Testament’s Ark of God. And, the OT Ark was just a humble vessel of wood, etc, before God dwelt in it. You said that you disagree 'that Jesus is simply the Man who was born to Mary.' I am saying that Jesus is the God-Man who is born to Mary: her son. I'm fairly certain the Reformers and historic Baptists hold to the Marian title: Mother of God In His Name Dalcent |
||||||
39 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156045 | ||
Doc, You wrote 'back to the study of the Bible... whose sole authority you affirmed when becoming a member of the forum' I no more affirmed this than the Bible affirms this about itself when it says in 2Th 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. I will check the forum rules to see if this is so. I believe you err, this is not a forum rule surely. I affirm that salvation is in Christ and no one else, and that I follow what scripture says about scripture: follow the oral and written traditions, as opposed to any 16th century theories. |
||||||
40 | Theological Term: Theotokos | Luke 1:31 | Dalcent | 156051 | ||
I am not so sure the Reformation spelt out the [Roman] Catholic Church was not the Church Christ founded, the only Church which goes back to the Apostles. I believe if Luther's novel theory of justification had been accepted he for one would have been happy to stay. I think the Reformers believed the Catholic Church had become increasingly corrupt. Also, they still believed the Greek-speaking East was founded by Christ and went back to the Apostles. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |