Results 21 - 33 of 33
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Mandy33319 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | What's the "real" purpose of "tongues"? | 1 Cor 14:22 | Mandy33319 | 49647 | ||
What is the "real" purpose of speaking in tongues? In Acts 2: 4 thru 11, tongues are described as known languages. Paul, in Cor 14, isn't exactly a fan of this practice. The way I read what Paul is saying is that he actually discourages it. For instance,...in verse 27: "...someone must be ready to interpret what they are saying. 28: "...but if no one is present who can interpret, they must not speak out loud. They must speak silently to themselves and to God but not publicly.." And perhaps this is even more of an example that Paul is not a fan: Cor 14: 23 "...Therefore, if an unbeliever, or someone who doesn't have these abilities, comes to church and hears you speaking in tongues, he is likely to think you are crazy. 24..."But if you are prophesying when such a person comes in, what you say will convince him that he is a sinner, and his conscience will be judged by everything he hears..." |
||||||
22 | Holy Spirit, holy spirit, or both? | 1 Corinthians | Mandy33319 | 49547 | ||
Huh????? | ||||||
23 | Holy Spirit, holy spirit, or both? | 1 Corinthians | Mandy33319 | 49541 | ||
Does anyone find it interesting that most, if not all, of the "I Am's", are from the Book of John? That bears some thinking about, perhaps. But here's some more from John, other than those cited by "Pastor Paul": John 14:2, In my Father's house, there are many mansions.... John 14: 10...I am in the Father and the Father is in me. The words I say are not my own but are from my Father who lives in me. And he does his work through me. (Very difficult to get "I Am" from the above..) John 14: 15-16: If you love me, obey me; and I will ask the Father and he will give you another Comforter John 14: 23 ...The Father will love them too, and (we) will come to them and live with them... John 14: 24... I am not making up this answer to your question! It is the answer given by the Father who sent me... John 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name...' John 14: 28 ...for now I can go the Father... John 15: 9 ...I have loved you even as the Father has loved me... John 15: 26 ...But I will send you the Comforter--the Holy Ghost, the source of all truth. He will come to you from the Father and will tell you all about me... -------------------- If Jesus's intent is to tell the disciples that they're standing before GOD, then it is an awfully awkward way to do it. And of course, there is more, tons, in fact. All of this might cause a person to think about "I AM" a heap more. Is Jesus, by saying "I AM", merely emphasizing his relationship? "I AM" of the Godly, part of the family, perhaps, is all he's conveying. I guess it depends upon just exactly what a person wants it all to mean, or what someone else has told him it means. It really shouldn't be this difficult, should it? :) |
||||||
24 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Mandy33319 | 49528 | ||
"Fate, Predestination, and Deism": It was said: "...since he (Jefferson) believed that God created the universe and left it to run on its own..." Actually, Jefferson would not have been so specific as to say "God", but more like "Something" did the creating. And probably would not have gone too much further. Certainly not a "revealed religionist". But along with Jefferson, the other Founding Fathers such as Thomas Paine, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, Ethan Allen were not exactly Christians but more in line with deism or the unitarian view. I wonder why? Some sterling minds, there, wouldn't you say? And I have no problems with the statement: "...that nonsense can never be explained." After reading the posts here, the myriad questions and ideas, I am convinced he was on to something. At a minimum, a "revealed religion" should provide an ANSWER instead of questions, each of which seem to have unlimited answers, and most often, those answers simply spawning more and more questions, with more and more answers, and on it goes, and goes, and goes.... Oh well, time to surf! One thing for certain: "gobbledegook" is always a waste....(no mas for me) Mandy :) |
||||||
25 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Mandy33319 | 49525 | ||
Concerning "Fate and Predestination": One last observance. After reading, then rereading the posts on this subject, it is fair to say that nothing is very clear. Was it just me, I kept wondering? Why couldn't I "get it", why couldn't I see the "sense" of it. Then I came across this quotation from Thomas Jefferson: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and preeminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." Finally! Something that made sense.... |
||||||
26 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Mandy33319 | 49512 | ||
"...those not predestined for salvation will never want what it takes to be justified before a holy and just God..." (What someone on the forum said) Is there something directly in the Bible that states or agrees with this? Is this saying that God has made a list of those who will not/cannot come to him? Pardon the naivety but unless this is supported clearly somewhere in the Bible, then it is clearly just one of those utterances that seem to abound, concerning the plans and thinking of God. I'd certainly like to read this IN the Bible. |
||||||
27 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Mandy33319 | 49501 | ||
"Fate and Predestination": so, it is possible that a person could be fated (doomed) to be predestined for hell, and not be able to do a thing about it? If God has a person predestined for hell, then he's going to hell, no matter what? | ||||||
28 | How did the Trinity concept come to be? | Not Specified | Mandy33319 | 49454 | ||
Just a thought or two about the Trinity, even though some suggest it's "old" stuff on the forum: correct this if it's wrong, but wasn't the concept of Trinity "voted" upon by the Church in the 3rd or 4th Century AD? And there was a lot of controversy, some people may have died, some were imprisoned, some exiled? | ||||||
29 | How did the Trinity concept come to be? | Acts | Mandy33319 | 49458 | ||
Just a thought or two about the Trinity, even though some suggest it's "old" stuff on the forum: correct this if it's wrong, but wasn't the concept of Trinity "voted" upon by the Church in the 3rd or 4th Century AD? And there was a lot of controversy, some people may have died, some were imprisoned, some exiled? | ||||||
30 | Meat eating after the flood? | Genesis | Mandy33319 | 49112 | ||
Maybe my two teenagers will get on another topic soon. The "ark" seems to generate many more questions than answers, and answers supplied seem woefully inadequate. I hadn't thought much about any of it before, but these rascals are sticking my nose in it. The surprising thing is that their questions make sense, the answers don't. Where did I go wrong? :) ...just kidding... | ||||||
31 | Meat eating after the flood? | Genesis | Mandy33319 | 49103 | ||
Thank you very much for the website. However, the short "audio" didn't seem to address our questions at all. But thanks, anyway... :) | ||||||
32 | Meat eating after the flood? | Not Specified | Mandy33319 | 49084 | ||
If this has been asked before, forgive me (tried to look for it in "Search"), but here's the gist: Concerning the status of the ark animals--before the flood, no animal or human ate meat. Correct? But after the flood, meat eating was introduced. But a couple of problems: a) it takes a special kind of intestines and stomach for meat b) and if meat-eaters were eating meat, what would that do to the "eatees", who wouldn't have had too much time to reproduce, it would seem... In other words, a biological problem, along with a logistical problem. Going around and around with this in our family, so finally resorting to a little extra opinions. Hope some of you can help...thanks. | ||||||
33 | Meat eating after the flood? | Genesis | Mandy33319 | 49085 | ||
If this has been asked before, forgive me (tried to look for it in "Search"), but here's the gist: Concerning the status of the ark animals--before the flood, no animal or human ate meat. Correct? But after the flood, meat eating was introduced. But a couple of problems: a) it takes a special kind of intestines and stomach for meat b) and if meat-eaters were eating meat, what would that do to the "eatees", who wouldn't have had too much time to reproduce, it would seem... In other words, a biological problem, along with a logistical problem. Going around and around with this in our family, so finally resorting to a little extra opinions. Hope some of you can help...thanks. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |