Results 241 - 260 of 553
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | Jewish Calendar ? | Leviticus | Tamara Brewington | 204796 | ||
Dear Lookinforacity, The Christian Calendar The Christian calendar is the term traditionally used to designate the calendar commonly in use, although it originated in pre-Christian Rome. The Christian calendar has years of 365 or 366 days. It is divided into 12 months that have no relationship to the motion of the moon. In parallel with this system, the concept of weeks groups the days in sets of 7. Two main versions of the Christian calendar have existed in recent times: The Julian calendar and the Gregorian calendar. The difference between them lies in the way they approximate the length of the tropical year and their rules for calculating Easter. What is the Julian calendar? The Julian calendar was introduced by Julius Caesar in 45 BC. It was in common use until the late 1500s, when countries started changing to the Gregorian calendar (section 2.2). However, some countries (for example, Greece and Russia) used it into the early 1900s, and the Orthodox church in Russia still uses it, as do some other Orthodox churches. In the Julian calendar, the tropical year is approximated as 365 1 to 4 days is 365.25 days. This gives an error of 1 day in approximately 128 years. The approximation 365 1to4 is achieved by having 1 leap year every 4 years. 2.1.1 What years are leap years? The Julian calendar has 1 leap year every 4 years: Every year divisible by 4 is a leap year. However, the 4-year rule was not followed in the first years after the introduction of the Julian calendar in 45 BC. Due to a counting error, every 3rd year was a leap year in the first years of this calendar's existence. The leap years were: 45 BC, 42 BC, 39 BC, 36 BC, 33 BC, 30 BC, 27 BC, 24 BC, 21 BC, 18 BC, 15 BC, 12 BC, 9 BC, AD 8, AD 12, and every 4th year from then on. Authorities disagree about whether 45 BC was a leap year or not. There were no leap years between 9 BC and AD 8 (or, according to some authorities, between 12 BC and AD 4). This period without leap years was decreed by It is a curious fact that although the method of reckoning years after the (official) birthyear History of the Gregorian Calendar The Gregorian calendar resulted from a perceived need to reform the method of calculating dates of Easter. Under the Julian calendar the dating of Easter had become standardized, using March 21 as the date of the equinox and the Metonic cycle as the basis for calculating lunar phases. By the thirteenth century it was realized that the true equinox had regressed from March 21 its supposed date at the time of the Council of Nicea,325 to a date earlier in the month. As a result, Easter was drifting away from its springtime position and was losing its relation with the Jewish Passover. Over the next four centuries, scholars debated the correct time for celebrating Easter and the means of regulating this time calendrically. The Church made intermittent attempts to solve the Easter question, without reaching a consensus. By the sixteenth century the equinox had shifted by ten days, and astronomical New Moons were occurring four days before ecclesiastical New Moons. At the behest of the Council of Trent, Pope Pius V introduced a new Breviary in 1568 and Missal in 1570, both of which included adjustments to the lunar tables and the leap-year system. Pope Gregory XIII, who succeeded Pope Pius in 1572, soon convened a commission to consider reform of the calendar, since he considered his predecessor's measures inadequate. The recommendations of Pope Gregory's calendar commission were instituted by the papal bull Inter Gravissimus, signed on 1582 February 24. Ten days were deleted from the calendar, so that 1582 October 4 was followed by 1582 October 15, thereby causing the vernal equinox of 1583 and subsequent years to occur about March 21. And a new table of New Moons and Full Moons was introduced for determining the date of Easter. Subject to the logistical problems of communication and governance in the sixteenth century, the new calendar was promulgated through the Roman-Catholic world. Protestant states initially rejected the calendar, but gradually accepted it over the coming centuries. The Eastern Orthodox churches rejected the new calendar and continued to use the Julian calendar with traditional lunar tables for calculating Easter. Because the purpose of the Gregorian calendar was to regulate the cycle of Christian holidays, its acceptance in the non-Christian world was initially not at issue. But as international communications developed, the civil rules of the Gregorian calendar were gradually adopted around the world. Anyone seriously interested in the Gregorian calendar should study the collection of papers resulting from a conference sponsored by the Vatican to commemorate the four-hundredth anniversary of the Gregorian Reform. |
||||||
242 | understanding idolatory | Jer 17:5 | Tamara Brewington | 204793 | ||
Dear Susanna, Welcome to the forum! When you want to talk to Doc in reply, make sure to choose note my dear... I was thinking about what you are saying in your original post and see a coulpe of things I would like to share. There is Exodus 20:4 which says not to make an idol, but what I was seeing was the things God was saying not to worship by way of making an idol; what is in heaven, what is in the water, what is on the earth. what is in the heaven would inlude the universe as well as the angels, in the water would be all the creatures there, on earth though got me to thinking. How about all things that you could find on the earth, not just creatures and people, but social and intellectual things and the arts. While I am sure God meant created things it got to thinking, then I went to Romans. Romans 1:21,22 ; it says that they knew God but did not honor Him as God or give thanks- translation they exalated something anything above above God, that could be intellecuality, art, music, philosophy anything, career, car, house, whatever objects of affection people may have. Then there is that as a result they became futile in their speculations - they began to become fools and their heart became dark without the light of God in it. In their quest to worship whatever is not God they think they are being very wise and they become fools. I tried googleing idolatry but didn't get much. God Bless Tamara |
||||||
243 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204772 | ||
Point taken Val, I should have said commission. God bless, thanks Tamara |
||||||
244 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204771 | ||
Continuation to Flinky; In James where you have what you like to call the presbyters, which we like to call the elders, there is that the elders pray and Jesus effects the healing and forgiveness of sins, not the elders, they don't effect anything, they don't have the power. I have read church history on this thing and what I found out is that this idea of the presbyters being priests was a leap taken by a certain church or churches that has no basis in scripture. In I Timothy we have the word Bishop or overseer, and then we have the word Deacon or minister. The qualifications are crystal clear each is to the husband of one wife, not given to wine, etc. Where Paul says elsewhere that he wishes other men would live even as he does, that it celibate, he also says let each man be called to that which God has disposed his calling to be and that not every man has been called as he has. He never said that you had to be celibate to be a presbyter, a Bishop, or a Deacon. Peter and the some of other apostles had wives, Paul said, is it that only Peter and the others may take along with them wives, and not we? There is no evidence that you have to be celibate to be a presbyter. But the history of certain churches shows that celibacy has been imposed. The title of presbyter, or elder being changed to priest is the invention of a church or churches and may be the Latin for presbyter, but it is not the Greek for presbyter. The apostles, the deacons, the overseers and elders, the ministers, the pastor teachers; these are all words that can be found in the Greek to be referring to those who were said by Paul to be over the flock, but the word priest is never used to refer to those over the flock. It is used of the Sanhedrin and the of those from Solomon's temple, but not the church. When Paul addresses those at Ephesus in farewell, he mentions the elders and the bishops as being overseeing the flock as shepherds, but no priests. The church at that time had no such heirarchy as is seen to day in the churches. Paul never says the elders were under the bishops because that is not how the church functioned. There was a mulitipicity of leadership in the churches with a bunch of elders and a buch of bishops who as a group oversaw the whole flock they were all together in charge of. There were no arch-bishops, there was no reason for there to be on as a group of men ran the churches together. There were no priests because Jesus is the only high priest of our confession as Hebrews teaches. There was no pope, that is an invention of certain churches. Peter was never a pope; he was an apostle a founding father of the church. The power of the apostles is not transferable by the laying on of hands. You are either called to be an apostle by Jesus while you walked with Him while He was alive, or you saw Him on the Damascus road as the risen Lord and you were called by Him to be an apsotle, or you are not on the same level with the same office as the apostles. It is not transferable. There was a laying on of hands by the apostles to pray over the servants of tables men of faith, it was not a transference of power to do the works of an apostle. Jesus said He would build the church on the rock, Peter, but the Bible teaches and Jesus elsewhere teaches the only Jesus is the chief corner stone on which the church is built, everybody else is a smaller rock in that building. He meant that He would build the church on the confession of Peter, which Peter had just done, the church. And like Peter the church is built on all of our confessions of Christ. The church history is rife with additions to the original model of church governance as the traditions of men. No man has more authority than scripture to do anything, or to decide anything, the scripture is the final authority on earth given to men by which to practice Christianity. Following the traditions of addition of some of the churches does not confer any state of grace, or forgiveness of sins, or the body and blood of Christ, or the Holy Spirit. All of these things are conferred soley by the triune sovereign God head. Yeah I have read lots of church history and the church is not the primary element of Christianity either, the Bible is, and Jesus is, but the church was never given the power by Jesus to be the basis for faith, and being in a church does not have the power to forgive your sins or tell you that you have been saved. Believing in Jesus is the only way to be saved and asking Him and Him alone to forgive sins is the only way to be forgiven of sins, men do not have the power to do either of these things. They can only assent that Jesus has done them. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
245 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204770 | ||
Continuation to Flinky; In James where you have what you like to call the presbyters, which we like to call the elders, there is that the elders pray and Jesus effects the healing and forgiveness of sins, not the elders, they don't effect anything, they don't have the power. I have read church history on this thing and what I found out is that this idea of the presbyters being priests was a leap taken by a certain church or churches that has no basis in scripture. In I Timothy we have the word Bishop or overseer, and then we have the word Deacon or minister. The qualifications are crystal clear each is to the husband of one wife, not given to wine, etc. Where Paul says elsewhere that he wishes other men would live even as he does, that it celibate, he also says let each man be called to that which God has disposed his calling to be and that not every man has been called as he has. He never said that you had to be celibate to be a presbyter, a Bishop, or a Deacon. Peter and the some of other apostles had wives, Paul said, is it that only Peter and the others may take along with them wives, and not we? There is no evidence that you have to be celibate to be a presbyter. But the history of certain churches shows that celibacy has been imposed. The title of presbyter, or elder being changed to priest is the invention of a church or churches and may be the Latin for presbyter, but it is not the Greek for presbyter. The apostles, the deacons, the overseers and elders, the ministers, the pastor teachers; these are all words that can be found in the Greek to be referring to those who were said by Paul to be over the flock, but the word priest is never used to refer to those over the flock. It is used of the Sanhedrin and the of those from Solomon's temple, but not the church. When Paul addresses those at Ephesus in farewell, he mentions the elders and the bishops as being overseeing the flock as shepherds, but no priests. The church at that time had no such heirarchy as is seen to day in the churches. Paul never says the elders were under the bishops because that is not how the church functioned. There was a mulitipicity of leadership in the churches with a bunch of elders and a buch of bishops who as a group oversaw the whole flock they were all together in charge of. There were no arch-bishops, there was no reason for there to be on as a group of men ran the churches together. There were no priests because Jesus is the only high priest of our confession as Hebrews teaches. There was no pope, that is an invention of certain churches. Peter was never a pope; he was an apostle a founding father of the church. The power of the apostles is not transferable by the laying on of hands. You are either called to be an apostle by Jesus while you walked with Him while He was alive, or you saw Him on the Damascus road as the risen Lord and you were called by Him to be an apsotle, or you are not on the same level with the same office as the apostles. It is not transferable. There was a laying on of hands by the apostles to pray over the servants of tables men of faith, it was not a transference of power to do the works of an apostle. Jesus said He would build the church on the rock, Peter, but the Bible teaches and Jesus elsewhere teaches the only Jesus is the chief corner stone on which the church is built, everybody else is a smaller rock in that building. He meant that He would build the church on the confession of Peter, which Peter had just done, the church. And like Peter the church is built on all of our confessions of Christ. The church history is rife with additions to the original model of church governance as the traditions of men. No man has more authority than scripture to do anything, or to decide anything, the scripture is the final authority on earth given to men by which to practice Christianity. Following the traditions of addition of some of the churches does not confer any state of grace, or forgiveness of sins, or the body and blood of Christ, or the Holy Spirit. All of these things are conferred soley by the triune sovereign God head. Yeah I have read lots of church history and the church is not the primary element of Christianity either, the Bible is, and Jesus is, but the church was never given the power by Jesus to be the basis for faith, and being in a church does not have the power to forgive your sins or tell you that you have been saved. Believing in Jesus is the only way to be saved and asking Him and Him alone to forgive sins is the only way to be forgiven of sins, men do not have the power to do either of these things. They can only assent that Jesus has done them. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
246 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204769 | ||
Dear Flinky, In Mathew 9:6-8 there is definitely a literary device in which Mathew speaks of how the divinty of God has been conferred to men in the person of the Son of Man, Jesus the man, not to all men in the form of other men. We all know it was not a good thing for the Pharisees to say that Jesus was a blasphemer and that it was a positve testimony of Jesus ability to forgive sin, I did not say otherwise. I said the Pharisees were disgruntled which they were and that the reason they ended up putting Jesus to death, becuase of His repeated claims to deity, like the forgiveness of sins. Which we see, according to the Bible, only Jesus had the power to do;Luke 5:20-24 Jesus forgives the sins of the same paralyzed man and the Pharisees say, only God has the power to forgive sins. Then Jesus says so that you may now that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins, etc. Jesus never tells them they are wrong, He says to them see I have the authority to forgive sins, meaning He was God. You said; thus any man given authority to forgive sin would be doing so in the Person of Christ. Men are not a substitute for Christ forgiving other men in His name, there is only one sacrificial subsititute for sins and He is Jesus. The only thing men have the power to do as mere men and not God, is to be witnesses of whether or not God has forgiven the sins of men. That is why I got shook up about John 20:22,23, men, nowhere in the Bible have the divine power of God to forgiven sins because they have not completed the holy sacrifice that Jesus did complete by shedding His blood for sins. There is only one advocate with the Father, and He is Jesus Christ, I John 2:2, no other person from earth is the advocate, only Jesus. more to come, Tamara |
||||||
247 | What is the job of the false prophet? | Rev 13:11 | Tamara Brewington | 204746 | ||
Jilly welcome to the Forum! Tamara |
||||||
248 | What is the job of the false prophet? | Rev 13:11 | Tamara Brewington | 204745 | ||
Dear Jilly, See Revelation 13:1-18 first, the first beast is the Anti-Christ, the second beast is the False Prophet. But first must come the beginning of the Great Tribulation and the seventh seal of the judgments of the six of the seven trumpets; hail an fire burning up a third of the earth, a third of the sea turning into blood, a third of the sun moon and stars being struck making the earth dark for a third of the day and a third of the night, a literal eagle preachig woe woe over the earth, Satan falling from heaven and opening up a bottomless pit and loosing demons to torture but not kill for five months, four fallen angels released to bring three plagues to kill a third of mankind, and then the two witnesses who get killed and the raised from the dead after three days. All this happens in chapters 8 through 11 in Revelation. The job of the False Prophet is to deceive mankind with the power of the Anti-Christ and Satan to perform real miracles in order to make men worship the Anti-Christ. See Revelation 13:11-17, see Revelation 19:20,21, See II Thessalonians 2:3-4 where it talks about the Anti-Christ. The False Prophet makes people worship him and together the False Prophet, the Anti-Christ, and Satan form the unholy trinity in a mockery of the triune God, that is the other purpose of the False Prophet. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
249 | What is the theme or themes of John? | John | Tamara Brewington | 204732 | ||
Dear Searcher, As usual looking through every thread there was did not yeild anything about the whole book of John and what the whole subject matter is about, which is what I mean by theme. Some of these threads only speak about the theme, or what the subject matter is all about, for a small portion of John. That is not what I am looking for. God bless your heart, but my dear you keep on choosing to answer myself and others with will meaning advice that does not yeild an answer to the question once all the threads you are talking about have been exhausted. You are assuming that whoever has posted a question you think must already have been answered has not gone throught the threads and search engines to find what they are looking for. You are preventing my questions and other people's questions from being truly answered by anyone because you have posted advice or asked people to refine how much of a passage they would like to know about when they have made it crystal clear they want to know about the whole thing and not a little part. I went back through several questions that you did not really answer by posting a not and gave folks a real answer to their question. Now I cannot get anyone to try and answer all the questions you choose to post a reply to because folks see that it was apparently answered sufficiently simply because it now appears in Primary (?). I can't tell you how much I appreciate your attempts at help, but I also can't tell you how frustrating it is not to have a chance to have my questions actually ansewered. Please consider whether or not you could search through the threads and search engines first your self before directing others to do so as a post. Please consider that people know that they are asking about whole passages and whole books when they post a question with only one verse, because we all know the one verse is required, but it may not cover the whole scope of a question posted. Happy 4th of July to you, God Bless Tamara |
||||||
250 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204731 | ||
Dear Tim, I understand we can't answer this dogamtically as to what exactly is meant by Jesus, not by us, that He was breathing, blowing in or on the Holy Spirit on them in terms of the scope of the what the results of that was for them. What, though do you think about the fact that Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on them, or blew in the Holy Spirit on them? I highly doubt that John meant that as a figurative language denoting a pledge or else he would have used different language to describe what Jesus did. John says Jesus blew in or out, or on, the Holy Spirit on them. As a literal interpretation Jesus did not command them in that passage to receive the Holy Spirit at all, He breathed Him on or in them, He didn't command them that. What He commnaded was to retain or forgive sins. Or are you saying He didn't blow on, or in, or out, the Holy Spirit on them as the text indicates as a literal interpretation? Happy 4th of July to you and your whole family. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
251 | What do you think of Acts 5th chapter | Acts 5:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204730 | ||
HI happy 4th of July to you, Here you go; Acts 5:1-11 Ananias and Saphira were disobedient to the Holy Spirit and with held the full price of the land they sold to give to the apostles for distribution. A good view of how the church was functioning can be found in Acts 4:32-37 and Acts 2:43-47 where everyone was sharing all that they had and holding nothing back for those that needed land, houses, food, clothing, every material thing you could think of. The situation was that when a Jew became a Christian if they did not own their own businesses they were being cast out of their family and the family businesses as a result. Many Christians were poor and those who had were being directed to give those who had nothing. Barnabas is a good example of one who had enough to spare for someone who did not have enough to live on. The proceeds of sales of land and homes was also being distributed. The language in Acts 4:32-37 actually breaks down in Greek to pretty much this; :42 Every man diligently withdrew constantly devoting themselves to the Apostles for doctrine, for distribution with fellowship, for breaking of bread and worship. :43 Every soul by the Spirit of Life fear coming upon them by every means of awesome miraculous disposition and stupendous works of mighty miracles and powers kept on taking place throughout by the Apostles. :44 Every one that believed having faith present had needs the occasion of destitution requiring that all commonly share the distribution from employment as the occasion arose. :45 Every man whose possession was sold goods was required to part with them to every man through occasion of destitution. :46 Every man continuing earnestly persevering daily as one altogether with one accord in the sanctuary breaking bread from sanctuary to sanctuary did partake every man eating meat and nourishment with gladness and simplicity of heart. Because Ananias and Saphira lied to Peter and grieved the Holy Spirit, Peter confronts them and as soon as he does, God kills them dead at Peter's feet. Most commentators agree that they grieved the Holy Spirit and died an early death becuase of it but did end up going to heaven. Paul describes in I Corinthians 11 that those who do not judge themselves rightly bring judgment on themsleves and become weak or die (a number sleep). Acts 5:12-16 The apostles, by the power of the Holy Spirit, were working mighty miraculous wonders a the temple of Solomon, but the unbelievers who were of rank in the temple rendering their regular priestly duties dared not to associate with them, but the regular people held them in high esteem. And believers were being added daily to the ranks of the believers, so many so that the sick lay out in the streets on the street where Peter would pass on his way to the temple to preach and teach and his shadow was healing them all. Acts 5:17-32 The high Priest of the Sanhedrin and his associates, not the priests of the temple of Solomon, got jealous. They came and grabbed the apostles by force and tool them to jail. An angel came to them and released them telling them to go back and preach. The Sanhedrin council sent to the jail for them, but they were not found there. The Sanhedrin guards went and got the disciples peacably for fear of being stoned by the mobs of people gathered to hear the preaching and brought them to the Sanhedrin council. The Sanhedrin repeated their orders that the preaching cease and desist, but Peter says we must obey God rather than men and begins to preach again about the crucifixion and resurrection as witnesses of these things. Acts 5:33-42 The Sanhedrin were angered by this, but Gamaliel (Paul's teacher) gave orders to release them in case they were truly of God and not like the two insurrectionists that had come before claiming that God had told them to wage war on Rome leading the Jews astray. So then the Sandhedrin took Gamaliel's advice and had the disciples whipped, ordering them not to preach this message of Christ anymore. The disciples went away rejoicing that they had been persecuted for Christ and kept on going from house to temple preaching and teaching the Christ. Hope that answers the question. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
252 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204728 | ||
Dear Flinky, I think that only Jesus had the power to forgive sins as a man because the Bible elsewhere says that the Pharisees were disgruntled becuase Jesus was saying He had the power to forgive sins and the author of the passages notes that only God could forgive sins. This is why they put Him to death, He kept making claims to deity. I think the concept of the message of reconciliation is the key here, that an apostle would know who was saved based on if they accepted the message, and then declaring who was saved and who was not based on that. That passage you mention where the power was given to men to forgive sins could only be applying to Jesus because other men are not God. Yeah I got a lot of inquisitiveness, but I gotta watch it doesn't make me lose my way too. Happy 4th of July to you. Tamara |
||||||
253 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204727 | ||
Val I truly appreciate your insight, I believe you are very correct in your intrepretation of how the Holy Spirit was working as a seal; we get a seal of promise from the Holy Spirit upon belief, we get a seal of the Holy Spirit to work for God, we see that OT saints received seals and also lost them, we see that Christ gave the power of the Holy Spirit in a huge out pouring as prophesied in Daniel as a final sealing to do God's work. I still have to go back and study something different about how the Holy Spirit was working in Luke. I like your picture of little stones and a bigs stone. God Bless happy 4th of July to you Tamara |
||||||
254 | Progressive Revelation | Eph 1:10 | Tamara Brewington | 204719 | ||
Progressive Revelation is the revealance to man of God through various forms. Progressive Revelation is not the gradual evolving development of history. Progressive Revelation builds upon latter revelations being built on the earlier revelations. One example is the sacrifices required by God in the OT resulting in the final sacrifice of Christ. Another is the General Revelation of what God has created as a witness to man that God is and then the Special Revelation of miraculous manifestations of God to man with Christ being the most special and ending with the Bible. A next form are the seven dispensations. Another form are the prophetic revelations from the OT resulting in Christ Jesus as the final revelations. Progressive revelation was first coined as a phrase by the Dispensational Camp. But the concept has been around since Paul wrote Romans where you find the first example of what a General Revelation is in chapter 1 and then Special Revelation as Christ in chapters 3-6. The concept of this then appeared in a certain form in the Epistle of Barnabas. Then elements appeared in the Dialogue of Tryphos by Justin Martyr. Elements appear in the writtings of the following church fathers as varying forms of Dispensationalism; Justin Martyr (A.D. 110-165) Iranaeus (A.D. 130-200) Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-220) Augustine (A.D. 354-430) The next persons to show elements of Progressive Revelation where; Joachin of Fiore Pierot Poiret John Edwards The persons who coined the term and see Progressive Revelation as only the seven dispensations; Charles Ryrie Isac Watts John Darby C.I.Scoffield The term has been much abused since the advent of dispensationalism. Systematic theologians see Progressive Revelation as the total of all the forms mentioned above and not just as Dispensationalism. There are scriptures which speaks of dispensations where a word in Greek means dispensation; Ephesians 1:10 with a view to an administration (dispensation) suitable to the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on earth. Ephesians 3:9 and to bring to light what is the administration (dispensation) of the mystery which for ages has been hidden in God who created all things. Hope this helps Tamara |
||||||
255 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204702 | ||
Dear Val, I can see how the apostles would be preaching a message resulting in forgiveness of sin and that the apostles would be merely assenting to what they observed. What I can't see is why Jesus would breathe the Holy Spirit on them to preach the message and then tell them in Acts 1 to wait for the Holy Spirit to come with power before they were to go preach the same message you are saying He was indicating for them to do in John 20:22. I agree whole heartedly with you about it being Peter's confession about Christ, but there is also that there is a play on words here with Christ saying Peter and petra and petra means foundation boulder. Peter says elsewhere that the church is built of living stones that all confess Christ. And in Ephesians it says that the church was built on the foundation of Christ and the prophets and the apostles, Christ Jesus being the chief cornerstone and the rest being a building fitted together (that is composed of stones in a building). God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
256 | Retain or forgive sins? | John 20:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204701 | ||
Dear Brother Tim, I have to agree to a point with your interpretation here as to the reason for why Jesus was saying for the disciples to go and forgive the sins of any and to go retain the sins of any. The reason is that you provided compelling evidence of how it would be possible for Jesus to say what He did. You put it in context with the rest of what scripture teaches about what it means to preach a message of reconciliation as being brougth by ambassadors of Christ who have the power to assure people that they have salvation, or to know that they don't and tell them their sins are not forgiven. Val hit on the same thing in different words and that struck me as a rather compelling representation of the function of preaching about salvation as being to present a means for the sinner to be forgiven. And in that sense the preaching would present the opportunity for sins to be forgiven by Jesus. Now that interpretation that you have given makes me wonder why Jesus would be breathing on them the Holy Spirit to make them witnesses when in fact He comes to them in Acts 1:4-8 to tell them to wait for the Holy Spirit to come to them with power so that they can to be His witnesses to do the very same thing you are telling me He was implying for them to do in John 20:22. That does not make sense... If what He was doing in John was breathing the Holy Spirit on them to anoint them and then telling them to go preach the message of recociliation in order to know for the sake of the sinner that they were saved or unsaved, why then does He tell them to wait for the Holy Spirit to come again in order to go preach that same message of reconciliation? I have asked someone before if John MaCarthur's take on John 20:22 is correct, that they did not receive the Holy Spirit, but just a pledge... The answer I received was that the Greek is saying that He blew on or blew in the Holy Spirit on or in them and that this was not a mere pledge. So now, while I can agree with your explanation of using passages which can explain the concept of how sins get forgiven I am left with a question of why Jesus wanted them to wait for something He had already done? God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
257 | What is the theme or themes of Luke? | Luke 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204680 | ||
Dear Searcher, I really appreciate your diligence in trying to help me find a thread about this subject. Using your threads I found the Genre, the audience and some questions about Luke, but to no avail. I am talking about the over all subject or subjects Luke is discussing or presenting to his audience. I do believe John actually did answer the questionn though, but thanks again. God bless hat lady |
||||||
258 | Carpenter or rabbi? | Matthew | Tamara Brewington | 204637 | ||
Dear Mike, No need to repent to anyone, a question is always legitimate as long as we are truly seeking an answer, doesn't matter if you already have one answer, there is wisdom in wise counsel and it is good to always get a second opinion on what you already know. I do that in here all the time... And remember the only one you ever have to repent to is JC, see I John 1:2... It may seem like the right thing to do when your conscience is bothering you, but it is not a requirement to repent to others about something you have done. Your character must be pretty good Mike if you are concerned about how you are doing on the minors! Keep on asking what ever questions you have for what ever reaon you have, we will all endeavor to answer you with sincerity of heart and remember seeking confirmation is not a sin, or wanting to be right, it may be wanting to make sure you don't teach the wrong thing! Watch out Mike for those who condemn you by commending themselves... Check out that verse sometime. The Bible doesn't say many things about one passage, there is always only one correct interpretation and you are not wrong to be correcting erroneous beliefs about what the Bible says, but those who are perishing will refuse to listen and will begin to argue becasue the message is foolishness to them! God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
259 | Is Jesus the same God as God, or a God? | John 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 204613 | ||
Dear heart, Go to John chapter 1, verse 1-5 and read them with the understanding that the word Word in Greek is Logos. They add the word a, making the verse read the word was a god. This is a referrence to Jesus Christ as being called the Word. This word means a number of things but the most important meaning is the Divine Expression, as in the Divine Expression of God. More important than that note what John is saying in verse 1; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God. This literaly means that Jesus who is the Word is God. Start with that as the begnining of your argument. Move along to one of their favorite scriptures Colossians 1:15. The words creation and firstborn are two of their favorite words. They take this verse to mean that Jesus was a created being, the angel Michael, who came to earth and became an ordinary man as the first born of those who have risen from the dead. They miss a couple things here. One is that it says Jesus is the image of God, not made in His likeness as we are. The word in Greek doesn't just mean image, it also means, more correctly, representation. Jesus is the representation of God as God's exact image, not as made in God's likeness. That means Jesus has the same spiritual nature as God not one derived from God as made to be like God, Jesus is God. They love the word firstborn because they believe in something called the Sonship of Jesus, that Jesus is physically begotten by the Holy Spirit as a created son of God and that Jesus is first in the order of created beings as an expample of how to be a son of God. They love the word creation becuase to them this usage of the word here means that Jesus was created. They ignore that down in verse 18 that it is saying that Jesus is head as ruler of everything based on verse 16. They further ignore that verse 18 says that Jesus is the first born of the rising of the dead, but it means to be the first to rise from the dead to eternal life, which is what verse 15 is talking about. Take verse 16 which they like to ignore. This verse clearly states that Jesus created everything and that includes the universe, the earth, and all of the spiritual powers and seats of authority. Only God Himself has that power, therefore Jesus is God. They add the word other five times in verses in this passage and the most important place is in verse 16. This makes it say Jesus as a created being created all other created things, rather than that Jesus created all things. The first means Jesus is a creation who created other creations things, the original means Jesus as the sovereign creator created all created things which means He could not possibly be a creature. The Old Testament says the Lord our God is one God. Deuteronomy 6:4 says the Lord our God is one. Exodus 20:3 says you shall have no other god before me. Therefore God doesn't need or approve of their being another God which is what they say Jesus is. Genesis 1:26 has God talking to other parts of His own personality. They try to get around this by saying God was talking to some angels or talking in the third person for royal effect. The word for God in Genesis is Elohim in Hebrew and means gods plural. There twisting of scripture goes on and on. Try this; Go to http:, two slashes, bible.ca, add one slash, Jw-NWT.htm This is a site that will have a chart for you of every twisted scripture they use in their false Bible which serves to remove the deity of Jesus. Whereever it says in your Bible, the Son of Man, this was an expression of the Hebrews from OT times that meant the Messiah. Wherever it says in your Bible, the Son of God, the Jews in Jesus time knew that it meant that the son of God was made of the same nature, character, authority and power as God and therefore was God, which is why they put Jesus to death. Try this; Go to www.blueletterbible.com and type in the search engine those two phrases and read the entire passages where these two phrases come up to see where the Bible is saying Jesus is God. Nathaniel said it; John 1:49 and see Mathew 16:16 and see Hebrews 1:6 - who else is allowed by God to accept worship except God. Make sure you look at that chart, I bet they twist this scripture too. Try www.scriptureanalyzer4alland the free parts of the www.esword.net to see what the Greek words really are that make up the English text and compare that with your Bible and then their Bible and you will see they add and remove words to make their case. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is the Son of God as the incarnation of the angel Michael. Nowhere does it say this is the truth in the Bilble. The Jehovah's Witnesses change the Bible at certain key points to make it say what they want it to say and take out key Greek word translations and replace them with whatever they want. Hope this helped. God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
260 | Amazement functioned in Mark? | Mark 1:22 | Tamara Brewington | 204609 | ||
Dear RC, No problem I will be wanting to write you back of course don't worry I always write back, character flaw I think. You got me wondering already what it realy matters how old the theology is, that smacks of holding to the traditions of the church fathers and the chruch above the higher authority of the Bible. I could care very little how old it is, only if is correct, but we will be getting into that after you finish teaching me what you know if that is ok with you. email me HAT LADY GOD BLESS |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [28] >> |