Results 301 - 320 of 332
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: retxar Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | Please explain | Matt 7:13 | retxar | 8595 | ||
Please don't think Jesus was saying water baptism is a salvation requirement. Jesus explains exactly what he meant in John 3:5 when He said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Just read the very next verse and it will be very clear what Jesus meant. John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Jesus Lives! |
||||||
302 | EXPLAIN REPLENISH | Genesis | retxar | 8402 | ||
15 "Moreover if your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. Matt 18:15 (NKJV) |
||||||
303 | What is YIC | Rom 5:6 | retxar | 8040 | ||
Hey Zeek! Slow down, man! I don't think I ever said I believed in total predestanation did I? Suppose you were talking to someone else? Was the question not what is YIC? For the record I agree with all you said. Except that da should not be capitalized and Jesus should, as Ray would say. It's a joke son. You will understand in time, as Mel would say. It's late, lets all get some rest. God bless, retxar |
||||||
304 | How was Samuel called from the grave? | 1 Sam 28:7 | retxar | 8024 | ||
I don't think this was Samuel from the dead at all, but a demon acting as Samuel. Saul had already inquired of the LORD, and the LORD did not answer him, either by dreams or by Urim or by the prophets (1Sam 28:6). If God refused to answer thru the Holy Spirit, I don’t think He would answer thru demonic means, do you? Why would God talk to Saul thru means that would violate scripture? (Luke 16:26) Look at 1Sam 28:19. The demon (or Samuel) says “tomorrow you and your sons will be with me.” Did Saul join Samuel, or demons? I really don’t know for sure, but from the indication of scripture I do not think Saul joined Samuel. Can someone bring out a soul from the dead today? No! I believe today, when it happens, it is the same demon impersonation, as I think happened here. When people consult the devil, it seems to me it would be the devil who would accommodate them, not God. Could a witch bring out a soul from the dead at any time past? Jesus said it was NOT possible. Luke 16:26 says "And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us." I think I will go with what Jesus said. Jesus Lives!!!!!!!!!! |
||||||
305 | What DO you mean, then? | 1 Tim 6:20 | retxar | 7488 | ||
Or have you ever wondered if Adam and Eve had belly buttons? Hummmmmmm? retxar |
||||||
306 | Angel of the Lord - where in NT? | NT general Archive 1 | retxar | 7486 | ||
Ezekiel, Maybe if you look at "angel" from another "angle" you would see something much different! Just having a little fun Bro! God bless! |
||||||
307 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6961 | ||
Thank you JVH0212 for the kind words. And thank all you guys (and gals) for allowing me to express a view that is probably not too popular here (being a NASB/CT forum). I really appreciate that! The amazing thing to me, is not the differences in all the Bible evidences, but the supernatural exactness and preservation. Everyone has played the game where several people get together with one person telling another a phrase and that person telling another and when the last person gets the story, it is nowhere near what started out. Not so with the Word! There have been literally thousands and thousands of men's dirty little hands on God's Word over the years, with each one having the chance to introduce corruption, either intentionally or unintentionally. God's Word has been under attack, more than any other book that ever existed. What other book does anyone know of that people were (and are) willing to die for? The way God preserved and documented His Word thru mere men goes beyond what anyone should expect, even for a person who might think the Bible is only man's words! There is more documented evidence that Jesus was God the Son than that George Washington was our first President! I like what Gamaliel the Pharisee said in Acts 5:38-39 "for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it; lest you even be found to fight against God." We all know, almost 2000 years later that, how men are still trying to overthrow God and His Word, but God's plan and work are still going strong and that is made possible only thru and by THE WORD! God Bless! |
||||||
308 | Critical Text vs. Received Text | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6949 | ||
Good info Chris! The DTL web site you mentioned is the best place I know of to educate one’s self on this issue. The Received Text and the Majority Text are from the same Byzantine (Antioch) source. The Critical Text is from the Alexandrian (Egypt) source. The RT, in effect, is the same as the MT except for Revelation, as you pointed out. The 1 John 5:7 difference you mentioned is about the only difference you will find between the RT and the MT (except for Rev). The 1 John 5:7 variant is not really a manuscript difference, but came about as pressure from the Roman Clergy toward Erasmus (Texus Receptus originator) to make it agree with the longer Latin Vulgate ending. The small handful of manuscripts Erasmus had to work with speaks well of the MT consistencies. Almost any other small number of MT manuscripts could have been selected, at random, and the results would have been the same. The reason for the Revelation variants in the RT, is because Erasmus only had 1 or 2 manuscripts that contained Revelation at all. The Vulgate to Greek translating was very limited, however. It happened as a result of Erasmus rushing to get the TR published before he could get hold of reliable, complete Revelation manuscripts. The Revelation differences, that I saw, in my NKJV Bible, that demand a decision, are as follows: 1:5 (RT/MT-washed CT-freed), 5:10 (RT-us CT/MT-them), 8:13 (RT-angel CT/MT-eagle), 9:21 (RT-sorceries CT/MT-drugs), 10:11 (RT-he CT/MT-them), 11:8 (RT-our CT/MT-their), 11:12 (RT/CT-they MT-I), 12:8 (RT/CT-them MT-him), 13:1 (RT/MT-I CT-he), 15:3 (RT-saints CT/MT-nations), 16:16 (RT/CT-Armageddon MT-Megiddo), and 22:14 (RT/MT-do His commandments CT-wash their robes). Notice sometimes the RT agrees with the MT and sometimes the RT agrees with the CT, but most of the time the MT/CT agree with other, as you have pointed out. I will look further at the RT/MT differences to see if I want to scratch in the MT translation in my NKJV. I know there are many more Revelation variants than these, but these are the only ones I saw as effecting the meaning. Most are just word order. Thanks for motivating me to investigate! A good MT translation you might want to check into is the WEB (ebible.org). It is only available in the New Testament as hard copy at this time. It is available complete as a free download for the e-Sword bible program. E-sword is excellent and available free at e-sword.net. Check it out. In Christ Jesus! |
||||||
309 | Why? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6816 | ||
"We are to rightly divide the word of truth and be discerning toward unscriptural notions". Those are good words, Joe. Do you believe you are not using a few "unscriptural notions" here to try to defend something you took as an attack on your theology? There is nothing wrong with you defending your theology, but it was not under attack. Believe it are not, I believe the reformation of the Church was of God, and I believe Calvin was used by God to help bring it about. We can follow a mans theology, but we need not think all he does is anointed by God. They are flesh and blood as you and I. There is no way around the fact that the killing of Servetus was ugly. There is no way to dress it up as anything else. David’s murder of Uriah was ugly. Paul’s persecution of Christians was ugly. The Bible does not try to paint either as anything else. They both received forgiveness, and God used them in a mighty way. We don’t throw out there writings because of there actions. Did I paint Calvin as some bloodthirsty monster? I sure did not mean to. I say again, what I said, I said as a wisecrack. Not very thought out, I might add. I did not, at the time, think I was out of line. I realize now, I was. I hit a nerve on a subject that was much too touchy for a Calvinist to take as such. What I said was actually a prod. For that, I apologize. I accept your admonishment. I do not go along with ALL Calvin’s teachings, as you, but I would hope you would treat those who disagree with you a little better than Calvin did. retxar |
||||||
310 | unlimited atonement? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6750 | ||
??????????? Where did this come from? Are you talking to me bro? If so, what is your definition of omniscient? | ||||||
311 | Is harsh language appropriate? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6471 | ||
Is harsh language appropriate? According to Joe, YES! Two people that Calvin burned at the stake? I give up, who were they? | ||||||
312 | Judgment of Infants? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 6205 | ||
Jesus said many times of children, "such is the kingdom of heaven." Since Jesus did not sin, we can also be sure Jesus never showed partiality (James 2:9) between children of believers and children of non-believers. As far as the "children of wrath" statement in Eph 2:3, that is speaking of our nature before salvation, not God's judgement on children. Eph 2:4 speaks of God's rich mercy. Please consider Mat 18:10; "Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that in heaven their angels always see the face of My Father who is in heaven." Heb 1:14 says angels are sent forth to minister to those who will inherit salvation. In light of Mat 18:2, I think Jesus was using the little child He called to Him as the example when He said, "one of these little ones". Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
313 | Holy Spirit's power of Conviction | Rom 5:6 | retxar | 5879 | ||
Sorry Joe, forgive me for offending you. Please allow me to explain. First of all, the “scripture weaving” I was referring to, was the attempts of those trying to prove the doctrine of limited atonement. That was what the discussion was about, right? You apparently were “questioning my motives” when you falsely assumed I was speaking of the doctrine of election. I was not. The doctrine of election is clear. The question is what election means; the before knowledge of God, or the before choosing of God. Those with the before choosing viewpoint must, somehow, make the doctrine of limited atonement stick also. I have read all the post, so I will not rehash what has already been said. For me, the scripture evidence to “make it stick”, is not there. Second of all, my choice of the word “slant” was not a good one. This is my fault. Forgive me again. You probably assumed the adjective definition, not the noun definition I meant. Slant as an adjective means “to distort so as to present a particular point of view.” Slant as a noun means “a tendency or inclination toward a particular point of view.” Could your view of limited atonement be defined as “a tendency or inclination toward a particular point of view”? My “slant” of un-limited atonement could certainly be defined as such. Last of all, I forgive you for your accusation of calling me a blasphemer. I feel you thought I was saying something other than what I indicated. Please don’t think I’m saying this in sarcasm. Jesus knows I am not. This is something that is required from me, not you. (Mark 11:25-26). See you in heaven brother! Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
314 | Is infant baptism Biblical? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 5671 | ||
You said "my views on justification will not allow me to support rebaptism." What are your views based on? Scripture please. Do you know something Paul did not (Acts 19)? Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
315 | Holy Ghost Baptism subsequent to salvati | 1 Cor 12:13 | retxar | 4826 | ||
Hi JVH0212. I’m finally getting a chance to get back to you. Thank you for your references. They help me know where you are coming from. I really enjoyed you’re personal sharing, as it helped me realize we believe a lot closer than I originally thought. Please consider, if you will, a couple of differing views, on John 20:22, and Acts 2:4. Please consider my thoughts on Acts 2:4 “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” I guess this is a repeat of what I have already said, but I will expound. You quote the MacArthur Study Bible here which says Acts 2:4 is NOT the “baptism with the Holy Spirit”, rather it is the “filling with the Holy Spirit”. I agree, all were filled with the Holy Spirit. This cannot be disputed, as this is what Acts 2:4 says. However, how can one possibly say this is not the baptism with the Holy Spirit, as this is exactly what Jesus called it? Acts 1:5 "for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now." Was Jesus talking about receiving the Holy Spirit upon baptism into the body of Christ at salvation as in 1 Cor 12:13? No! Jesus explained what He meant by “baptized with the Holy Spirit” in Act 1:8 "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." I can say “filled with the Holy Spirit” instead of “baptized with the Holy Spirit” till Jesus comes back, if I need to. I would rather have someone understand exactly what I am talking about, rather than having to guess. However, if someone says “baptized with the Holy Spirit”, instead of “baptized into the body of Christ”, I am going to think of “baptized with the Holy Spirit” as Jesus identified in Acts 1:5 and described in Acts 1:8. Please consider my thoughts on John 20:22. “And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit.” You quote the MacArthur Study Bible again here. It says the disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until Pentecost. If we interpret scripture with scripture here, I see no way the disciples COULD NOT have received the Holy Spirit when Jesus spoke the words "Receive the Holy Spirit.” Romans 10:9 says that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. This is the very first time the disciples were able to believe in their heart “that God has raised Him from the dead”. If we look down at verse 28 we see Thomas saying to Jesus, "My Lord and my God!" Thomas certainly “believed in his heart” and also “confessed with his mouth” that Jesus is Lord. Jesus confirms Thomas’s belief in verse 29; "Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed.” I feel the disciples HAD to “Receive the Holy Spirit”, just as Jesus said to them, in order to be true believers, which Jesus said they were. One more thought on John 20:22. Notice the words “He breathed on them”. If we determine that the disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit here, that statement whould have to be brushed off as in-significant. I think this is very significant and cannot be looked over. Every place in scripture I know of (Gen2:7, Job33:4, Ps33:6, Eze37:9 for example), that speaks of the breath of God, signifies life. I think, just as God breathed the breath of life in Adam as the first man, Jesus breathed the breath of eternal life into these first believers under grace, by giving them the seal of the Holy Spirit. What do you think? Thanks Bro, and God Bless! |
||||||
316 | Holy Ghost Baptism subsequent to salvati | 1 Cor 12:13 | retxar | 4764 | ||
Thanks JVH0212, I am printing out all the posting you referenced. I am pretty busy, so it may take me a day or two to get back to you. I will look at each one before I respond. You are very thorough, thank you. Jesus Lives! |
||||||
317 | Holy Ghost Baptism subsequent to salvati | 1 Cor 12:13 | retxar | 4739 | ||
Hi JVH0212, just a quick note. I know your post here is a few days old, so sorry if I'm bringing up something someone has already brought to your attention. You are correct, Acts 2:4 does not use the word "baptized." However, was this not the baptism with the Holy Spirit as Jesus promised in Acts 1:5? Didn't Jesus also gave a description of the baptism with the Holy Spirit in Acts 1:8? Was Jesus talking about receiving the Holy Spirit and being baptized into the body of Christ at salvation as in 1 Cor 12:13? I think not, as the disciples had already received the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 as promised in John 14:17, but they had not been baptized/filled with the Holy Spirit. Thanks Jesus is Lord |
||||||
318 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4737 | ||
Thanks Koinekid, for you input. Jesus be with you, and give you some relief with that tooth. Amen I realize the few verses I mentioned are not required to prove the deity of Jesus. However, if the added italicized words are taking anything away from the words Jesus actually said, this is not a small thing. Compare John 8:24 as you mentioned, with verse 58 in the same chapter. Both verses say "I AM" ("ego eimi" right??). If "the verb cannot exist without there being a noun to complete the thought", what happened to the noun to complete the thought in verse 58? If there actually does NOT have to be a noun added, which seems to be the case here, then verse 24 seems to be an interpretation decision, rather than a clarity decision. You seem to up on your Greek. I am not. The only Greek I know is "Greek salad" and "baklava", so don't think I know enough Greek to ask an intelligent question about it. If I knew Greek, I could probably appreciate a Greek to English bible translator more, so I realize there could be something I am missing here. I use the NKJV instead of the NASB (sorry, not a critical text fan). The NKJV (and KJV) also add an italicized “he” in the places I mentioned, so I am not trying to pick on any particular translation. The LITV and the MKJV are the only translations I know of that do not add “he”, so I suppose a Greek to English translation without adding “he” is possible, if not even correct. I can not help but think that these words were added to what Jesus said as a carry over from years past, not something to add clarity, as was the real intent of italicized words. Let me put it this way. If the KJV had translated these scriptures I AM, instead of I am (he), would the later translations have intentionally ADDED words to produce a WEAKER reading? I don’t think so. Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
319 | Do the italicized words clarify? | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4623 | ||
Hi Koinekid. Did you read the scripture reference? Did you understand the question? The capitalized words we were talking about were the ones that represent deity "(example Gen. 18:3 we talked about)". You answered, "Italicized words are words that do not exist in the Greek or Hebrew text, but were added to help the text make more sense in English." Thank you, that is correct. Now get out your bible, look up the scripture, and tell me what you think about the question I asked... "Do the italicized words clarify who Jesus is, or do they take away from the very words that Jesus spoke Himself, concerning who He is?" Jesus is Lord! |
||||||
320 | TRINITY | Bible general Archive 1 | retxar | 4377 | ||
Thanks Ray for the encouraging words, even tho I was a little off base. Maybe even on the wrong base! I see now, after looking at Gen 19, the two “men” who went to Sodom were definitely angels, and the one left talking to Abraham, was the Lord. The two angels, were not the “Angel of the Lord” as with Moses and the burning bush in Ex 3. With that, I see Gen 18 in a different light, but it still intrigues me. The Hebrew word for “Lord” in Gen 18:3 is “Adonay” (strongs 136). It occurs 434 times in the KJV and is translated Lord 431, God 1, and lord only 2 times, so this most likely would indicate deity. However, “lords”, as Lot addressed the two angels in Gen 19:2, is “adown” (strongs 113). It occurs 335 times and is translated lord 197, master 105, owner 1, sir 1, and Lord only 31 times, so this most likely would NOT indicate deity. In Gen 18:3 Abraham seems to be speaking to the three “men” indicated in verse 2 because of what in said in verses 4 and 5. In verse 5 Abraham repeats what he said in verse 3 by calling himself “your servant”, which I see as referring to the “men’s” servant. It is really hard for me to see Gen 18:1-5 any different than this. However, In light of the direction you pointed me in, I now believe the three “men” were God and 2 angels, rather than God manifested as three men, as I originally said. The only way the “Trinity manifested in the flesh” theory could be true is if two angels in Gen 19 were somehow not the same as the men in Gen 18. I cannot believe they are not the same. My only answer to Gen 18:1-5 is that the way Abraham perceived it was a manifestation of the Trinity, not that it actually was. The next time I think I have got a “revelation” at 3 am, I promise you I will wait until daylight to let the world know! Thank you for pointing out my error, and please forgive me Jesus. I do not wish to lead anyone astray. God bless you brother, and thank you again |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [17] >> |