Results 2381 - 2400 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2381 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5712 | ||
The problem here is that you are taking it as axiomatic that unregenerate man in any way has the ability to "choose God," that he is morally free to do so. Please show us in Scripture where it declares that man's will is free in this regard. Therefore, you seem to be interpreting Scripture in any way possible to protect this idea that man is free to choose, which I hold to be refuted soundly by Romans 3:10-18 and John 6 and Romans 9. Christ died not to OFFER payment of sins to all men, but to become sin for us (2 Corinthians 5:21), to die in our place (Galatians 2:20). Nowhere in the Bible do we see that he is a "hypothetical redeemer" or a "propitiation in theory." Your entire re-hashing of Norman Geisler does nothing but say that Jesus' death on the cross was incomplete in some fashion. Either Christ atoned for MY sin on the cross, undergoing the just wrath of God for MY sin, or he did not. It is not up to me to decide 2,000 years later whose sin Christ paid for. That is so undermining to the very biblical notion of God's freedom and sovereignty, and only exists to support the very unbiblical notion of man's unlimited moral freedom and sovereignty concerning salvation. Try to look at these Scriptures without the assumption that humans are morally capable of choosing to follow Christ (whether unaided or merely "wooed" by the Holy Spirit), and see if the freedom of man's will can be exegeted from the Bible. It is God who chooses, the Son who dies for those who are chosen, and the Holy Spirit who regenerates the chosen and causes them to believe in the Son who died in their place. The unsaved are completely left out of the salvation scenario. The unsaved are not chosen by God, and therefore they will justly suffer for all eternity for their own sins, since Christ did not pay for them on the cross. Any other scenario breaks down when carried to its logical conclusion. We end up with either universalism, an impotent God, or the penalty for sin being paid for by Christ AND the unbeliever. --Joe! |
||||||
2382 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5704 | ||
"Predestined" means that one's destiny is decided beforehand, in this case "before the creation of the world." (Ephesians 1:4) Who did the electing? See Ephesians 1:11 for the answer to that one. Saying that we are all predestined to be saved is universalism, the idea that all are going to heaven, which I think we will both agree is unbiblical. The key is understanding the meaning of the word "foreknew." If we follow Romans 8:29 on down by assuming that by God "foreknew" everyone in the sense that he simply "knew of their existence," we have some serious problems. Why? Because those he foreknew he predestined. These same people he called. No problem so far for the "free-will" camp. But then we see that those he called he JUSTIFIED? Are all men justified before God? No. Then we see that this same group is also GLORIFIED. I know of no one who would suggest that those going to hell are glorified! The foreknowing has a more intimate connotation than simply being aware of their existence. In the Bible we see many places where knowing has the idea of familiarity and personal initimacy. If we are to reject the idea that all are saved, then we have to adopt this understanding of the verb. --Joe! |
||||||
2383 | Christ dying only for elect? | Rom 5:6 | Reformer Joe | 5703 | ||
Well, if you hold to election as I do, one has a real problem if he doesn't hold to limited atonement. If Christ paid for the sins of everyone, why isn't everyone going to Heaven? What I mean is that if my next door neighbor never makes a decision for Christ, how could he be punished for his sin if Christ already paid the price 2000 years ago? As others have said in this thread, the argument for limited atonement is indeed married to the doctrine of unconditional election, which finds its biggest support in Jesus' statements in John 6:35-65, Paul's analogy of the potter in Romans 9, and Paul's very clear presentation of divine choice in Ephesians 1. This is by no means the only scriptural support for election; but as it has already been made clear, there are already at least a dozen threads on that one. The doctrine of limited atonement is inseparable from unconditional election, though, for the reason stated above. In addition, why would he cause his Son to suffer for those who are going to die in their sins? Either Christ was the propitiation for the sins of only those who will believe in Him, or else both Christ AND the unbeliever will face God's wrath for exactly the same sins! Doesn't seem terribly just, does it? A final argument for limited atonement stems from the idea of God's sovereignty. If we say that Christ died for ALL the ungodly (i.e. all humanity), then the fact that there will be people in Hell demonstrates that Christ was unable to save all. He died for their sins, and yet he didn't save them? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Nowhere in Scripture do we find this idea that Jesus was a "potential" savior for some, but an "actual" savior for others. Anyhow, that's the way I see it! Now let me know your thoughts. --Joe! |
||||||
2384 | A silly question? | Josh 10:12 | Reformer Joe | 5630 | ||
What do you mean by "obligated" to believe something? Whether you choose to believe it or not has nothing to do with its objective reality. True, no one can obligate you to believe anything that is not explicitly stated in Scripture, but I contend that in your everyday life you do just that. Otherwise, you might be facing some very disastrous consequences. A few examples. The Bible does not tell us that throwing a chunk of sodium into water will produce a violent explosion. According to your logic, you are not obligated to believe it. I would doubt that you would go combining the two, however. The Bible does not say that pollution is bad on our health. You can deny that, but sucking on a car's tailpipe for several minutes will most likely convince you of the reality of it. The Bible also says nothing about the law of gravity being universal, but no matter how much you deny it, I would not recommend that you take a walk off a high ledge. I am a Calvinist myself, and I respectfully think that you have a misunderstanding of the Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This sola has to do with spiritual truth, that tradition or public opinion or science or technology or human philosophy cannot add nor subtract from the message of Scripture regarding the nature and character of God, how we are saved, how we are to follow Christ, our own spiritual condition, etc. Sola Scriptura was NEVER a doctrine that was meant to encompass our own perception of the physical universe, its operation, or its composition. Because Scripture is valid, it will never contradict empirical discovery about our universe; however, the Bible was not intended by God to be the compendium of all things that can be known about the natural universe. By the way, the Institute for Creation Research is known for notoriously bad methodology itself, and jumping to conclusions on a regular basis that don't even come close to fitting the data. In other words, they take the scientific revelation that agrees with a particular point of view (which in most cases is not essentially Biblical) and throws out anything that doesn't fit their preconceived conclusions. This is the very SAME error that the neo-Darwinist's make in their pathetic attempt to keep afloat the concepts of abiogenesis and common descent. Some better sites for showing the harmony between science and the word of God are the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (www.discovery.org/crsc) or the Access Research Network (www.arn.org). Both of these institutes are at the forefront of showing how unbiased scientific inquiry is deflating scientific naturalism on all fronts. --Joe! |
||||||
2385 | What obligates to believe earth spinds? | Josh 10:12 | Reformer Joe | 5628 | ||
I think you are confusing science with revelation. I don't think that anyone has ever claimed that science itself is revelation. Rather, science classifies what is revealed and also provides a methodology for revealing more of God's general revelation. I guess I am confused by the posts you have submitted the last several days. Are you denying that the earth revolves around the sun? That is not "science" itself, but an observable truth. I think that the last forty years of space exploration has revealed to us that either our perceptions are wrong (that the earth "seems" to go around the sun), or that the solar system is indeed heliocentric. I do not see how this "general revelation" contradicts Scripture in the slightest. In fact, it can be quite reassuring to us as believers that the Bible is a book that describes and doesn't contradict observable reality. That is much more than we can say for these man-made "holy books" (e.g. the Book of Mormon) which have been rightfully discredited by most when we discover and delve deeper into the wonders of God's creation and discover that the words on the page cannot be reconciled to what we have observed. Science is not the enemy of Christianity, if by "science" one means the exploration and documentation of God's creation. What is opposed to Christianity, however, is "scientific naturalism," the ruling out of any supernatural explanations before the exploration and inquiry even starts. This is not a scientific conclusion, though; it is a philosophical presupposition which science cannot prove nor disprove. There is no question that atheistic naturalism governs the study and research of most scientists, but it is not science itself. It is very crucial to make the distinction here, because once we start questioning whether anything we observe can be trusted, we lose the whole ball of wax on both general and special revelation. --Joe! |
||||||
2386 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 5231 | ||
I think MacArthur's view does mirror your own (which is also the view I have). One thing you pointed out which a great number of people seem to miss is that we were not merely saved for our sakes. Yes, we do have eternal life, but almost every passage which talks about God's free gift of salvation also mentions our PURPOSE (glorification of God), such as Eph. 2:10 or 1 Peter 2:9,10 or 2 Corinthians 2:17-20. So many people are fond of quoting the "we are saved by grace through faith" without showing that we are indeed saved unto good works. I think that the crux of the problem has to do with two aspects of God's salvation. As you mentioned, both parties have the JUSTIFICATION part down, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account. What Ryrie and company downplay, in my opinion, is God's REGENERATION, the new birth. It just seems almost impossible to miss that we are not only declared righteous when we are saved, but that we indeed become "new creations." By focusing on justification, many of the Dallas Theological Seminary camp overlook (at least in practice) the supernatural change that is not just a legal declaration, but a true spiritual transformation. Thanks again for your comments! --Joe! |
||||||
2387 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 5216 | ||
Thanks for your encouragement, Hank. Of course, the trouble is "shutting off the valve" before I bore everyone to death! By the way, Hank, a personal question for you. You say in your profile that you use both the Ryrie and the MacArthur study Bibles as references. As you undoubtedly know, they have a very big difference of opinion when it comes to the so-called "Free Grace"/"Lordship Salvation" debate. Which one do you side with? --Joe! |
||||||
2388 | Why is God jealous? | Ex 34:14 | Reformer Joe | 5187 | ||
Because all glory, honor and praise DO truly belong to God. Our jealousy is seeing things that other people have or exhibit that we merely want for ourselves. God's jealously comes from the fact that everything in creation is indeed his. It is more like how I jealously guard my wife against advances from others. We belong to each other, and no one else has a right to her. This is the same way Christ loves his church and the way God is possessive of all His creation and the praises of His people. --Joe! |
||||||
2389 | Is a rich man doomed? | Matt 19:24 | Reformer Joe | 5186 | ||
The answer is two verses down: And looking at them Jesus said to them, "With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." (Matthew 19:26) Of course, the rich man's problem was not that he had wealth, but that he loved his wealth and the things of this world, and therefore rejected Christ. --Joe! |
||||||
2390 | Covenants and Dispensation? | Eph 1:10 | Reformer Joe | 5180 | ||
Two very informative books to read in order to understand Dispensationalism are by Charles Ryrie, entitled _Dispensationalism Today_ and _So Great Salvation_. Likewise, John Waalvoord and Zane Hodges are also a well-respected authors among Dispensationalists. As far as understanding and getting a grip of Covenant/Reformed theology, there is no modern writer who has done more to expound clearly on this theology than R.C. Sproul. One of the best works in recent years which introduces the principal tenets of Reformed theology is Sproul's _Grace Unknown_. Also, works by the late James Montgomery Boice, J.I. Packer, Jeames R. White, and John Piper will give you a lot of insight into the distinctives of Reformed theology. Just this week, I finished reading Boice's final book, _Whatever Happened to the Gospel of Grace?_. It sums up very well the reasons why I adhere to a Calvinist/Reformed theology today, despite the fact that I have attended churches with a Dispensationalist outlook all my life (and in fact still do). Dispensationalists and Covenental types would agree on these five points: 1. Scripture alone as our source of authority 2. God's grace alone as the reason for our salvation, rather than any merit on our part 3. Faith in Christ's sinless life, substitutionary death, and resurrection as the only means of our justification; works in no way form the basis of our imputed "right standing" with God. 4. Christ's sacrifice alone is the sole mechanism by which God provides forgiveness of sins; there is "no other way" (John 14:6) 5. The glory for all of this goes completely and totally to God alone. So where is the problem? In my view, it is the emphasis or understanding that the two camps give these 5 "solas" ("sola" means "alone"). For example, most Dispensationalists stress defend the Biblical revelation of "faith alone" to the extent that most will contend that it is entirely possible to place one's faith in Christ and never be outwardly changed in the slightest as a result of the new birth. I always had a problem with the fact that Dispensationalist preachers always seemed to be uncomfortable with James 2, and especially the Gospels, where Jesus constantly tell his followers that following Christ entails obedience to him. Most Dispensationalists feel much more comfortable with John than Matthew, because John stresses that belief is the ground of our faith, but Matthew talks so much about being a disciple of Christ and eternal suffering awaiting even those who claim to be of Christ but whose deeds do not point that out. Therefore, while works are not the BASIS of salvation, true saving faith always RESULTS in works -- a concept that many Dispensationalists deny. In addition, here are other reasons why I have come to adhere to covenental theology: 1. Its strong intellectual and historical tradition, which places an emphasis not only on the "end times," but also a great emphasis on glorifying God here on earth, taking seriously the mandates God has for his church. 2. Its undeniable clinging to the sovereignty and the holiness of God, and consequently the spiritual deadness and depravity of the unregenerate. God micromanages the universe in a Reformed view, and even man's will is subjected to his control, which I think is the most clearly Biblical position. The Bible is a book primarily about God, not a book about us. 3. Dispensationalism has only come into vogue in the last 150 years or so, which doesn't make it wrong in itself; but one has to question a view that basically says that almost everyone from the earliest church Fathers through the Reformers up until the small groups in mid-1800's never adopted a pre-tribulational, Dispensationalist view. 4. I cannot be convinced that "carnal Christianity" is in the slightest a permanent condition to which God calls individuals. How does that bring glory to God? If someone asks me if James is telling us that a "dead faith" can save us, I think the context pretty clearly says "no." Therefore, the Reformer's view of faith goes beyond mere intellectual agreement with Christ's death and resurrection, but carries with it the idea of new birth (regeneration) from above, which leads to not only justification but also the bearing of fruit. But enough of me for now. Let's let someone else talk. Hope this helps start us off! --Joe! |
||||||
2391 | Will you join me? | Acts 2:33 | Reformer Joe | 5145 | ||
RevC: Whether the teachings you adhere "work" for you and your family do not make them true. I have met Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, adherents of the Baha'i faith, Christian Scientists, and New Agers of various stripes who insist how their lives have been changed and how their particular faith has turned them around. Many of them claim that the beliefs they now hold got them off drugs, changed their whole outlook on life, etc., etc. Would you say that they are correct to hold their beliefs? I know you are no relativist, RevC. Discernment of the truth is not "dangerous"; in fact, it is commanded by God in the Scriptures. God is not glorified if we speak falsely about him, and whether you have said so or not, if you are a Oneness believer, then we most likely differ on a great number of other areas. Case in point: tell me in a couple of sentences how we are saved and if we can know that we are going to heaven. Then we can discuss how being wrong on the nature of God most often leads to all sorts of other major rifts between what you and Trinitarians believe. It is not a minor point of disagreement, such as how often to have communion. This is an issue having to do with the very nature of the One in whom we live and move and have our being. Saying that lack of doctrine is beneficial is absolutely absurd! --Joe! |
||||||
2392 | miracles 3 millenia old | Josh 10:12 | Reformer Joe | 5144 | ||
And? Lack of a way to verify this occurence 3200 years later means that no miracle took place? --Joe! |
||||||
2393 | Christ rose bodily, didn't he? | 1 Cor 15:21 | Reformer Joe | 5082 | ||
"Read the Bible and you'll find it." Does this mean that you made it up, or that someone told you it was there, or that you don't know where it is? The spirit does exist apart from the body. Paul expresses in Philippians 1 that he "desires to depart and BE WITH Christ" but that he knows it is better for the Philippians that he stays. He obvviously is not talking about the final resurrection, since all will be resurrected at the same time. In Luke 16, Jesus tells the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, who were definitely conscious after death. Yes, the two characters could be fictional ones; but Jesus ALWAYS used parables that described theological truths using situations which resemble reality. It is nothing but a cop-out to say that Jesus was not only making up the two individuals, but also leading people to believe falsehoods about the nature of the afterlife. Therefore, any reasonable person listening to this story would conclude that Jesus is describing an aspect of life after death. Second Corinthians 5 indicates that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. In any case, whether we are spirit and body is not the important issue. The most crucial issue on which the Christian faith hinges is the BODILY resurrection of Christ. Does Elijah believe in that? --Joe! |
||||||
2394 | Jesus God/God God still unclear | Matt 1:23 | Reformer Joe | 4978 | ||
Well, if you are going to build your theology incorporating one verse, without examining the rest of Scripture, have fun while it lasts! Any Christian theology MUST incorporate the entire text of the Old and New Testaments and be internally consistent (i.e. no contradictions). Only a Trinitarian theology does that without having to do some really heavy duty explaining away of very lengthy passages of Scripture that for the last two millenia have convinced men that God is one, and yet three separate subsistences are identified as God. I think it is the height of human pride to claim to have some relatively new revelation about the Bible that contradicts 2,000 years of sound Biblical scholarship. This, of course, is not proof that everyone who has come before couldn't be wrong, but it makes that scholarship worth a great deal of examination before rushing to such a sober (and possibly damning) conclusion. I am not going to re-hash another argument for the Trinity in this thread. Feel free to look at 80 percent of the answers I have given in the last week and jump in there. --Joe! |
||||||
2395 | Jesus God/God God still unclear | Matt 1:23 | Reformer Joe | 4977 | ||
Thanks for the compliment on the explanation. We all must be careful, I contend, to present the truth without taking shortcuts that could lead to error. You spelled Arian right. :) The reason I do not use the analogies you gave is that like all anaologies, they fall short. Yes, the Bible does illustrate diversity in unity. The reason I think they do not apply to God is becuase while the church is indeed "one body with many members," The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are not "members" of God. They are each fully God. Same with marriage. My wife and I comprise a marriage, but I myself am not the marriage, nor is she. We may also be members of the same race, but the fullness of the human race does not dwell in me bodily. Therefore, that is why I am careful when using analogies to describe God. They will always break down when we consider His uniqueness. Thanks again for your comments! --Joe! |
||||||
2396 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4976 | ||
What we do never see in Scripture, RevC, is Jesus saying "I am the Father." He says that the Father and he are one (one God, no problem here--I agree that it doesn't mean simply unity of purpose). Jesus also says that the Father is in Him and he is in the Father. If one takes that to mean that the Jesus is the Father, then we have additional problems to deal with things like John 14:20, where Jesus says He is in his Father and that followers of Jesus are in him and that Jesus is in them. If we are in Jesus and Jesus is in us in the same way that Jesus is in his Father, by your interpretation we are Jesus also, and therefore God! I know you don't believe in the deity of mankind, so how can you interpret Jesus being in the Father one way, and us being in Jesus in a different way within the very same verse? To address your 4 points: 1. Who is this Comforter? The Holy Spirit. So is Jesus sending himself? Is the Father sending himself? If the Holy Spirit is Jesus, what is the point of Him ascending and coming back ten days later? Couldn't he have just "changed offices" here? It seems that if I adopt a Oneness view, Jesus is involved in some big-time slight of hand when a plain reading of the text would indicate a distinction between the three. Why would he be so confusing if you are right? 2. It doesn't say in John 6:44 that the Father alone draws men, but rather no man is drawn unless the Father draws him. Trinitarians have no problem in stating that both the Father and the Son draw men. 3. The Father and the Son raising us together is not a problem for Trinitarians. Incidentally, 1 Cor 6:14 talks about God (the Father) raising the Lord (Jesus). Again we have the subject-object ditinction we see throughout the entire New Testament when it comes to different persons of the Trinity. 4. Again, all three persons have their part in sanctification. That does not mean that they are the same person, only that all three persons are one God. What also concerns me is your last paragraph. You say he "is both Spirit and flesh, God and man, Father and Son." While I certainly agree that God the Son took on a second nature, are you saying that Jesus' Sonship is only his human nature? Please clarify. --Joe! |
||||||
2397 | Jesus God/God God still unclear | Matt 1:23 | Reformer Joe | 4951 | ||
I welcome you to the faith, JRM! The answer to your question has to with what is called the Trinity. The historic Christian faith has been Trinitarian, despite the fact that throughout the history of the churhc there have been cults, sects, and other aberrant groups which have distorted this central teaching of Scripture in one way or another. Since, as you say, you are a new believer, I assume that you did not spend years and years studying the Bible before trusting in Christ's sinless life and his death in our place as the payment for our sins. The word "Trinity," although not found in the Bible, is an accurate way to describe the nature of God as he is revealed to us in the pages of the New Testament. Basically, when reading the Scriptures, we come across the following things said about God: 1. There is only ONE God (you probably don't need much convincing of this one, but try reading the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament; starting at about chapter 40, he mentions this fact dozens of times). 2. God is also known as the Father (the book of John is one place to start studying the message of Jesus Christ, and he constantly refers to "the Father"). 3. However, Jesus is also referred to numerous times as God and/or the creator (John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16, 17; Hebrews 1:8, and many other places). 4. The Holy Spirit (also called the Spirit of God in the Old Testament) is described as having personality and also God. So here is our "problem": ONE God, but the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are also called "God." There cannot be three Gods, but three different "persons" are identified as God. Some groups today hold that this is just a way to describe God working in three different "modes" (i.e. sometimes he is acting as Father, sometimes as the Son, sometimes as the Holy Spirit). The problem with this, however, is that one can clearly see from the New Testament that all trhee exist together at the same time, and that they even interact with one another, one praying to another, one sending another, the three persons speaking to each other, etc., etc. Therefore, it is clear that while the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all fully one God; the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. So the plot thickens... So what is the solution? The early leaders of the church, in trying to grasp all of this teaching about the nature of God, could conclude only one thing: that while there is only one God, he has always existed in three distinct "persons." Each of these persons is fully God (i.e. Jesus is not 1/3 of God), and each displays the personality, power, and characteristics of God. All three, being the one God, are worthy of our praise, worship, and obedience. A bit complicated? I would assume as a new Christian that that would be an understatement. A good starting point to undertsanding this teaching that the church labelled the "trinity" almost 1700 years ago is a very fine book by James R. White entitled _The Forgotten Trinity._ He is the president of Alpha and Omega Ministries, which you can access on the Web at (www.aomin.org). To answer your question about "calling God God," most of the writers of the Old and New Testaments, unless there was some need to make a distinction between these three persons, usually used the term God to refer to God the Father. The fact that God is a being who has revealed himself to be one Being in three Persons is hard to comprehend, since we experience nothing in creation that bears resemblence to this unique quality of God. The important thing is not whether we can draw a picture of it or put the nature of God into some comfortable category for ourselves. What is important is that we take the time to understand what the Bible does say about God's nature and accept it. I certainly hope this answer helps. It was quite a bit longer than you expected, I am sure; but it is important for all of us to know who God is and what he is like. Despite many corruptions of all sorts that we have seen in the church over the centuries, the church has at least held onto the truth of the Trinity throughout its history. --Joe! |
||||||
2398 | unlimited atonement? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 4928 | ||
Actually, limited atonement is tied to the Calvinist proposistion that God didn't merely respond to his foreseeing who would be saved and who would not, but rather God actively chose (predestined) some of humanity to be saved (Epehesians 1:11, for example) and left some to justly be punished for their sins. It is an interesting question you bring up if one is an Arminian. It would seem that Christ dying for only the sins of those he knew would accept him would in effect be "closing the door" from a temporal perspective, no? --Joe! |
||||||
2399 | How can Jesus be tempted if He is God? | Heb 4:15 | Reformer Joe | 4895 | ||
Paragraphs, man! Why do you still fail to address the fact that the three persons of the Trinity constantly communicated with each other, did things with and to each other? If they are all Jesus, we have a real problem in logic, or at least an apparent deception on God's part. Why would Jesus try so hard to make everyone think that he was talking to the Father and that the Father would give the Spirit and that the Father sent the Son into the world, and that the Son obeyed the Father, and on and on? (John 14:16,17 would be a great couple of verses to unravel. I *AM* listening for any explanation, but you have yet to provide one). I agree with the deity of Jesus, as do you. I agree that the Father is God, as do you. I agree that the Holy Spirit is God, as do you. I believe there is one God, as do you. Oneness stands or falls on the ability to explain the problem stated in the previous paragraph.. Why do you keep dodging that central problem with modalism? --Joe! |
||||||
2400 | 3 commands from one person | Matt 28:19 | Reformer Joe | 4893 | ||
All variations of the Great Commission, despite the fact that the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have the last twelve verses of Mark's gospel, indicating that most likely it was a much later addition and not penned by Mark nor inspired by the Holy Spirit. By the way, Acts 1:8 should fall in this list as well. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 ] Next > Last [123] >> |