Results 221 - 240 of 1275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: srbaegon Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | Why God did not accept Cain's offering | Gen 47:1 | srbaegon | 183879 | ||
Hello San Lukas, I have looked at the website and read the Statement of Faith. The material shows a disregard for good Bible study principles, and I would kindly recommend that you avoid it. Steve |
||||||
222 | Identifying Heresy | Hos 8:12 | srbaegon | 182020 | ||
Hello Doc, If I may add from Tertullian: From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, our rule is that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for "no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him." Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—-that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—-in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—-can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches-—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the said churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth. Steve |
||||||
223 | Inspiration and Authority of the Bible | Ps 119:105 | srbaegon | 181869 | ||
Hello Kevin, 1. I could have stated that better. Scripture is reliable when it refers to itself as God's very word. This is true whether the statements are direct quotations of God or the author's writing. 2. 2 Peter 3:15-16 Steve |
||||||
224 | How many children did Adam and Eve have? | Gen 3:20 | srbaegon | 181594 | ||
Hello shirlrogers, We know Eve had more than two children: Gen 4:25 (ESV) And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son and called his name Seth, for she said, "God has appointed for me another offspring instead of Abel, for Cain killed him." Also, Cain's wife must have been his sister since no other people were bearing children at the time. Steve |
||||||
225 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | srbaegon | 180594 | ||
Hello Parable, I'm sorry that I forgot about that reference. There certainly is spiritual adultery which Israel was guilty of. You are correct that there is an issue concerning the persons involved. In order to sin, one must be able to sin. God cannot because he is supremely holy (Is 6:1-3, et al). To say that God committed infidelity is to accuse him of the impossible. If God had committed an unlawful sexual act with Mary, he must be killed according to the Law. If God had the relationship with Mary that you are saying, then he is guilty of breaking his own eternal commandment, not once but twice: sexual impurity and defying the consequence. Steve |
||||||
226 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | srbaegon | 180587 | ||
Hello Parable, Under the Mosaic Law (applicable at the time that Mary became pregnant) adultery occurred when there was a sex act. There was none between God and Mary. You mentioned emotions, and that has some bearing since lusting after another woman was to be considered adultery. There was no lust of God for Mary. Conclusion: There was no adultery on any level. You speculate about impregnating a woman without intercourse. Since this was an impossibility, there is no point in mentioning it. And even if it was possible at the time, it is still not adultery since no intercourse nor the desire of it took place. You need to remember something of paramount importance here. God said that the two would become one flesh (Gen 2:24). That requires a physical act. It seals the emotional and spiritual bond between man and wife. Nothing like this happened between God and Mary. Steve |
||||||
227 | Should a member rebuke an elder? | 1 Chr 16:22 | srbaegon | 179933 | ||
Hello Bereaniam, Allow me to respond to one point of your inquiry--you questioned the practice of the elders. There are two issues: 1) Your profile states that you are married. If that is still the case, your husband is the spiritual leader of the home, and he should be taking this matter to the elders. You are not acting in submission to him. (Eph 5:22-24) 2) Questioning a practice and expecting a Scriptural answer are not incorrect, but it has appeared that you have done so repeatedly and have inadvertantly made yourself look like a nuisance. (At least that is how I have taken your posts. If I'm wrong, please correct me.) Steve |
||||||
228 | What did Jesus mean? | John 13:18 | srbaegon | 179765 | ||
Hello Brother Paul, True, we are alienated before reconciliation. That is our state as being sinners. Col 1:21-22 (ESV) 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him. However, you seem to be saying that we must become alienated. How do we become what we already are? Steve |
||||||
229 | Is there any scripture regarding whether | Gen 3:15 | srbaegon | 179029 | ||
Hello Edwin, God cannot sin. He is utterly holy. If the Lord Jesus could have sinned, then he could cease to be God. That is absurd. Also, consider Heb 4:15 (ESV)-- For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. The Greek construction of the phrase "without sin" is literally "sin apart" and constitutes a complete inability to take part in anything sinful. Steve |
||||||
230 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | srbaegon | 178781 | ||
Hello Edwin, Would Paul have naturally written in Aramaic? That is a non sequitur based on your presuppositions. The apostle was well-versed in Greek language and culture. We know this from his use of the Greek poet while preaching in Athens (Acts 17). If he knows Greek, there is nothing to prevent writing his epistles to the common-use language of the empire--Greek. I know there is a difference between Classical and Koine Greek. I acknowledge Hebrew idioms to be in the Greek text, but that is hardly conclusive. Nor are your examples which are given from the gospels and would deal almost exclusively with Jews. Again, we would expect Hebrew idioms in the Greek text because the setting would warrant it. You are making sweeping claims based on circumstantial evidence. I await your response to Tim Moran concerning the hard evidence. Steve |
||||||
231 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | srbaegon | 178771 | ||
Hello Edwin, The only manuscript I know of that has been disputed concerning original language is Matthew. Your position is well outside the norm. I cannot understand why you would consider Paul's epistles to be written in Aramaic. The receiving churches and individuals would have been Gentile or mixed. Greek would have been the normal method of communication in order to be easily understood. Steve |
||||||
232 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | srbaegon | 178668 | ||
Hello ebrain, The Greek word literally means "strong desire" as has been pointed out to you. It was translated into English as "lust" because that reflects a strong desire for a woman. If the Lord had been talking about food, the translators would probably have used the word "starved" or "famished". You say "If as you say the Greek NT, is inspired by the Holy Spirit...". The NT says it, we don't (2 Tim 3:26). And the reason for the different accounts? Or as you say "Has the Holy Spirt made a mistake, or is it human error?" It's neither. The writers recorded it as it was relayed to them through their investigation. Steve |
||||||
233 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | srbaegon | 178559 | ||
Hello ebrain, I already answered that post at 8:49am. Steve |
||||||
234 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | srbaegon | 178526 | ||
Hello ebrain, So you are giving the English definition of an English word. You need to get a Greek dictionary/lexicon to know the definition of a Greek word. Steve |
||||||
235 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | srbaegon | 178525 | ||
Hello ebrain, No, Mark was correct. Go through the NT, and look at how the word is used and what it means. The Lord Jesus used it properly in Matt 5:28 in order to say that a strong desire for a woman was the same as adultery. Steve |
||||||
236 | Women speak in church? | 1 Cor 14:34 | srbaegon | 178499 | ||
Hello souljourner, You said men were permitted to have concubines, but they no longer have concubines. It doesn't take much effort to see that was actually sin. Now you attempt to justify your case by basing on the fact that men call this sin (the concubine) something different today. I did not misunderstand your argument. I was pointing out the absurdity of it. And now you say that "nowhere in the bible did God command for women to be silent in the church." Haven't you read this? 1 Cor 14:37 (ESV) If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. Steve |
||||||
237 | Women speak in church? | 1 Cor 14:34 | srbaegon | 178462 | ||
Hello Souljourners, The Bible has authority over the pastor. If he says something is OK to do, but Scripture says it's wrong, then it's wrong. Steve |
||||||
238 | Women speak in church? | 1 Cor 14:34 | srbaegon | 178461 | ||
Hello Souljourners, So because men sinned by having concubines, then it is permissible for you to sin? In effect, that is what you are saying. Steve |
||||||
239 | should females pastor | 1 Corinthians | srbaegon | 178369 | ||
Hello DOC2, You need to be careful with this cultural view, because it logically leads to: Everything Paul wrote is culturally based and therefore not valid for today. Obviously, that is not true, but you need to determine how to make that distinction. I would not do this but rather see everything Paul wrote concerning women as appropriate to be practiced today. Steve |
||||||
240 | Shall we eat out tithe/offerings? | Deut 12:18 | srbaegon | 177065 | ||
Hello iktoose, Yes, it's interesting. Much of it I already knew or suspected to be true. But this tactic also allows you to avoid facing the simplicity of the Scriptures. Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [64] >> |