Results 3021 - 3040 of 3169
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: kalos Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3021 | Acts 16:3 How was circum. checked out? | Acts 16:13 | kalos | 2264 | ||
Not to be flippant, offensive, or insensitive, but, historically, how has circumcision always been checked out? Ask the Nazi SS troops of the Third Reich. | ||||||
3022 | what does this mean, is there no hope? | Heb 6:4 | kalos | 2262 | ||
" . . . logically [Heb 6:4] implies that if salvation were to be lost, it would be impossible for that person to be born again, lose it, and then be born again again. This much is clear: whoever openly and consciously rejects Jesus Christ is unregenerate even if he seemed to have been saved ealier." Whether he had lost his salvation or never had it to begin with, "either way, the result is identical." (note at Heb. 6:4ff, NRSV Harper Study Bible, Zondervan, 1991) . . . The warning in Heb 6:6-8 "is issued to those who have been instructed and even moved by the Holy Spirit but have never committed themselves to Christ. [In this passage] the experiences outlined may precede and even accompany salvation, but they do not always result in salvation. Scripture abundantly affirms the Christian's eternal security; therefore this passage must not be interpreted as teaching that believers in Christ can lose their salvation. See Jn3:15-16, 36; 10:27-30; Rom 8:35,37-39; Eph 1:12-14; 4:30; Phil 1:6; Heb 10:12-14; 1 Pet 1:3-5" (note at Heb 6:4, New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967). |
||||||
3023 | Online resources for Joshua study. | Joshua | kalos | 2226 | ||
For online Bible resources, always begin your search at one or both of these 2 sites: www.goshen.net; www.gospelcom.net |
||||||
3024 | what is baptized in the Holy Spirit | John 14:16 | kalos | 2215 | ||
1) Upon salvation we are baptized (placed) into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit(1 Cor 12:13). 2) Also, at the time of our salvation, we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9). 3) We must realize that those first disciples did not receive the Holy Spirit until the Day of Pentecost, because the Holy Spirit had not yet been given. . . . 4) Pentecost was a one-time, never to be repeated event in the history of the church. Now there is no need to wait or tarry to receive the indwelling Holy Spirit. This was only true of the first (pre-Pentecost) disciples/believers. . . . What exactly happened at Pentecost?" "The disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost." Acts 2:4 *filled with the Holy Spirit.* "In contrast to the baptism with the Spirit, which is the one-time act by which God places believers into His Body (1 Cor 12:13), the filling is a repeated reality of Spirit-controlled behavior that God commands believers to maintain. Peter and many others in Acts 2 were filled with the Spirit again (e.g., Acts 4:8,31; 6:5; 7:55) and so spoke boldly the Word of God. The fullness of the Spirit affects all areas of life, not just speaking boldy (compare Eph 5:19-33)" (p. 1635, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . To be "filled with" the Spirit means to be "controlled and empowered by" the Spirit. . . . I might add that while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9 "...Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."), it is obvious that not all believers at all times are *filled* (controlled and empowered) by the Spirit. |
||||||
3025 | Is man a 'triune' creature? | Heb 4:12 | kalos | 2211 | ||
Dear Charis: Even before I submit this note, I can already hear the outraged cries of dissent from all the armchair theologians. Nevertheless I quote John MacArthur. After you all read it, please don't ask me to explain or defend what he writes. Ask John MacArthur to defend John MacArthur. As far the Bible, we don't need to defend it. It is a weapon, a sword. Whoever heard of defending one's weapon? The weapon defends you. . . . MacArthur's note at Heb 4:12. "*division of soul and spirit.* These terms do not describe two separate entities (any more than 'thoughts and intents' do) but are used as one might say 'heart and soul' to express fullness. Elsewhere these two terms are used interchangeably to describe man's immaterial self, his eternal inner person" (p. 1903, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . MacArthur's note at 1 Thess 5:23. "*whole spirit, soul, and body.* This comprehensive reference makes the term 'completely' more emphatic. By using spirit and soul, Paul was not indicating that the immaterial part of man could be divided into two substances (compare Heb 4:12). The two words are used interchangeably throughout Scripture. There can be no division of these realities, but rather they are used as other texts use multiple terms for emphasis. Nor was Paul a believer in a 3-part human composition, but rather two parts: material and immaterial" (p. 1850, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . Yours in Christ, JVH0212 . . . (Note: many, many Scriptures were cited by MacArthur in the above note on 1 Thess 5:23 -- too numerous for me to include in this posting. However, one can read and look up for oneself the Scripture references cited in the MacArthur Study Bible.) |
||||||
3026 | Is man a 'triune' creature? | Heb 4:12 | kalos | 2206 | ||
I would not deny that man is "body, soul, and spirit," as it says in the verse you quote. But after years of reading commentary and definitions, it is still unclear to me what the distinction is between soul and spirit. I wouldn't even attempt to define the distinction between these two. Yours is a good question. When you find out the answer, share it with me, please. I, too, would sincerely like to know. | ||||||
3027 | Woe to us? | Matt 23:13 | kalos | 2204 | ||
Dear Charis: A partial answer to your question: Pharisees, not unlike tongues and other gifts of the Spirit, did NOT cease to exist at the close of the 1st Century A.D. Pharisees, whose character is marked by hypocrisy and self-righteousness, still exist today. Whoever they are (and their name should be Legion, for they are many) the woes and judgments of God would still apply. I don't know whether the hypocritical and self-righteous alone are responsible for the splintered church of today. Neither could I or would I defend the division we have. What do we do? Hypothetically speaking, if every believer would abide in Christ and let the Word of Christ and the Spirit of God dwell in him/her richly -- i.e. if agape love ruled -- then we could heal much of the division in the church today. What to do is fairly self-evident. HOW to do it, or HOW to bring it about, is something we still need to work on. Your brother in the Lord, JVH0212 | ||||||
3028 | Does God hate the workers of iniquity? | Ps 5:5 | kalos | 2202 | ||
Short answer: Yes, God hates the workers of iniquity. That's what it says in this verse in plain English. Read Ps 5 verses 4-6 together. Note in context the use of the words "not...Nor...not...hate...destroy...abhors." . . . "These 3 negatively phrased descriptions follow 3 directly stated affirmations. This reveals God's perfect standard of justice both in principle and in practice" (p. 746, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). . . . Ps 7:11 KJV "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day." . . . Rom 5:1 ASV "Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;" The sinner may think he is not at war with God, but God is most certainly at war with the sinner. "*peace with God.* Not a subjective, internal sense of calm and serenity, but an external, objective reality. God has declared Himself to be at war with every human being because of man's sinful rebellion against Him and His law (Rom 5:10; compare Rom 1:18; 8:7; Ex 22:24; Deut 32:21,22; Ps 7:11, John 3:36; Eph 5:6)" (p. 1700, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). |
||||||
3029 | Heaven | Matt 22:30 | kalos | 2186 | ||
Matt 22:30 (ASV 1901) "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven." This is neither doctrine nor dogma. It is merely my own observation on the above Scripture and related Scriptures. 1) The Bible does not SAY there will be no sex in heaven. WHAT IT SAYS is there will be no marriage in heaven. 2)Because of what the Scriptures tell us of Jesus' post-resurrection body, we know that our resurrection bodies will have the capacity to eat and drink -- normal biological functions. 3) Therefore, one can infer that if our resurrection (glorified) bodies can eat and drink, are they not able also to perform other natural biological functions, e.g. having sexual relations? Yours is a very good question. I don't even claim to have the answer, let alone the one right answer. But until it is proven otherwise, this is how I see it. |
||||||
3030 | what is the best inter. of the bible | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2184 | ||
Earlier I wrote you an answer to your question: What is the best inter. of the Bible? If I may, I would like to supplement what I wrote before with this additional information. . . . The best Bible version is the one YOU use -- the one you can understand AND trust. . . . If you asked 20 different people what's the best version, you would get 20 different answers. . . . First you have to answer the question, best for what? What will you be using this Bible for -- general reading, devotional reading, personal study, evangelism, teaching youth, etc.? . . . I personally use 16 different versions of the Bible. What are my top recommendations? They are, in alphabetical order: a) The Amplified Bible; b)New American Standard Bible; c)New International Version; d)New King James Version. . . . Which is my personal favorite over all, for reading, study, teaching, memorization, devotional reading, etc.? It's the New American Standard Version of the Bible. The New American Standard is widely acclaimed as "the most literally accurate Bible in the English language." I use many translations every week, but after 30 years of reading, studying, teaching and praying in the NASB, it is my personal favorite over all the others. . . . NO TRANSLATION IS PERFECT, INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE. Inerrancy can be said to apply only to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Back to my original answer: The best Bible version is the one you use -- the one you can understand AND trust. |
||||||
3031 | Pure joy in Heaven? | Rev 7:9 | kalos | 2174 | ||
In your question you write: "Revelation 7:9 says that we will recognize all family and loved ones in Heaven." . . . No, it doesn't. For the record, Rev 7:9 NASB says: . . . "After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;" |
||||||
3032 | Apostasy differs from heresy - how? | 2 Tim 4:3 | kalos | 2154 | ||
Time for the author of this question (yours truly) to remove it from the list of Unanswered Questions. | ||||||
3033 | what is the best inter. of the bible | Bible general Archive 1 | kalos | 2153 | ||
Yours is a very subjective question, but there seems to be a consensus among Bible scholars, pastors, teachers, and students that the two BEST English translations of the Bible are: the New American Standard Bible and the New International Version. . . . For LITERAL accuracy as well as a high degree of readability, the NASB is the favorite of many, many teachers and authors, both little known and well-known. There is a nearly universal agreement that the NASB is *the most literally accurate Bible in the English language*. For further information on this excellent translation, at this website click on "Lockman". . . . Then for readability and clarity of meaning, along with accuracy, the NIV (Zondervan) is first choice for preaching and teaching among a high percentage of pastors and teachers, missionaries, teachers of youth, etc. It is also highly recommended for devotional reading because of its great clarity. . . . Both the NASB and the NIV are well supported by the availability of a wide variety of reference works, such as concordances, etc. Note also that if you acquire a copy of the Amplified Bible, you will have no immediate need of a commentary (nothing against commentaries -- in fact, is not every preacher's sermon a commentary of sorts?). This is because the best commentary is a good translation. Further info on the Amplified Bible is also available by clicking on "Lockman". . . . Also very well liked and highly recommended is the New King James Version. Check this one out, too. . . . Please note: I have not said what my personal favorite(s) is/are. Rather I have given you the general consensus as to the translation with the highest literal accuracy (NASB), as well as the translation with the greatest readability and clarity (NIV). Finally, the bottom line answer to your question is: the best translation is the one *you* TRUST and UNDERSTAND. What good is one without the other? What would it benefit you if you had absolute trust in, say, a highly revered, centuries-old English translation, but found that it contained too many obscure and obsolete expressions and passages? On the other hand, if you happen to be highly proficient in 16th Century English, then go for it. |
||||||
3034 | Is it possible to love God as commanded? | Gal 3:24 | kalos | 2121 | ||
Question: Is it possible to love God as commanded? (?)Unanswered Not Specified Brent Douglass Sat 03/31/01, 10:43am Is the command to "LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH" in Mark 12:29-34 and elsewhere something that we, as Christians indwelt by the Holy Spirit can attain with God's enablement in this life, or is this merely an impossible command designed to humble us in our sinfulness? . . . My answer: The Scripture Jesus quoted in Mark 12:29 and following is part of the Mosaic Law. Note that in Mark 12 the question was asked by a Jew living in the age of the Law (prior to the age or dispensation of Grace) and answered by a Jew, who also kept the Law. (Since Jesus was entirely without sin, it is obvious that He kept ALL the Mosaic Law, never once stumbling in even one point. By definition sin is the transgression of the law.) So to answer the question, "What is the purpose of the Law?" would also be to answer your question, "Why was the commandment in Mark:12:29-34 given?" . . . Here is my best answer, according to my learning and understanding of what the BIBLE teaches re the Law and the believer's relationship to it. . . . 1) No one was ever saved by keeping the law. Gal 3:11 "But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for 'the just shall live by faith [trusting]'." . . . 2) The command in Mark 12 is a quote from the Mosaic Law found in Deut 6:4-9 and also in the book of Numbers. . . . 3) What is the purpose of the Law? This is a question whose answer I pursued for years. I finally found it in the NT Scriptures (right where it belonged). You'll find the answer in the third chapter of Romans and other passages, including the entire book of Galations, but especially Gal 3:19-25. Quoting Gal 3: 24-25: "Therefore the law was our tutor [literally, 'child conductor', a slave whose duty it was to take care of a child until adulthood] to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith has come, we are no longer under the law." See also Rom 3:28. Whole books have been written on the subject of the Law and its relationship to NT believers. But the entire answer to the question, "What is the purpose of the Law?" is summed up in the above quote (Gal 3:24-25) and in the following single sentence written by John MacArthur: "The law was our tutor which, by showing us our sins, was escorting (leading) us to Christ". . . . 4) The Law (including Deut 6:4-9) was given, in part, to show us our sinfulness. . . . 5) James 2:10 (ASV 1901) "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one [point], he is become guilty of all." Note: If one places himself under the law, how many commandments does he have to keep -- 10? No, all of them, all 613 commandments contained in the Pentateuch. (I do not mean to imply that this is what you are doing, sir, only that there are some who would do so, beginning with keeping the Sabbath and dietary laws and ending who knows where.) . . . To summarize: Gal 3: 24-25: "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith has come, we are no longer under the law." John MacArthur: "The law was our tutor which, by showing us our sins, was escorting (leading) us to Christ". |
||||||
3035 | When was the Holy Spirit first given? | John 20:22 | kalos | 2113 | ||
"Since the disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost, some 40 days in the future (Acts 1:8; 2:1-3), this statement must be understood as a pledge on Christ's part that the Holy Spirit would be coming." (p. 1627, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) . . . My answer to your last question will likely provoke some controversy. However, it is not my intention to be provocative or controversial. . . . As strange as it may seem, I believe the following with all my heart and understanding, even though I am a member of a leading Pentecostal denomination. . . . Question: "If Jesus first gave the Spirit here, what exactly happened at Pentecost?" My answer: "The disciples did not actually receive the Holy Spirit until the day of Pentecost." Acts 2:4 *filled with the Holy Spirit.* "In contrast to the baptism with the Spirit, which is the one-time act by which God places believers into His Body (1 Cor 12:13), the filling is a repeated reality of Spirit-controlled behavior that God commands believers to maintain. Peter and many others in Acts 2 were filled with the Spirit again (e.g., Acts 4:8,31; 6:5; 7:55) and so spoke boldly the Word of God. The fullness of the Spirit affects all areas of life, not just speaking boldy (compare Eph 5:19-33)" (p. 1635, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997). To be "filled with" the Spirit means to be "controlled and empowered by" the Spirit. I might add that while all believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:9 "...Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His."), it is obvious that not all believers at all times are *filled* (controlled and empowered) by the Spirit. |
||||||
3036 | It is a general argument among believers | NT general Archive 1 | kalos | 2100 | ||
See Matt 12:46 and Mark 6:3. In Matt 12:46 re the word "*brothers*. These are actual siblings (half-brothers) of Jesus. Matthew explicitly connects them with Mary, indicating that they were not cousins or Joseph's sons from a previous marriage, as some of the church fathers imagined. They are mentioned in all the gospels. Matthew and Mark give the names of 4 of Jesus' brothers, and mention that He had sisters as well." (p. 1415, MacArthur Study Bible, Word Publishing, 1997) | ||||||
3037 | 7th day | Col 2:16 | kalos | 2099 | ||
You write: "Where is your scriputural reference for SATURDAY is the Sabbath?" May I ask, where is the scriptural reference that shows: 1) the sun rises in the east and sets in the west; 2)wood floats and iron normally sinks; 3) which way is north; 4) summer is hot and winter is cold; 5) it's dark at night and light in the daytime, etc.? We don't need a verse of Scripture to prove every fact (historical, scientific, etc.) in the universe. | ||||||
3038 | Beautiful | Acts 3:2 | kalos | 2098 | ||
Acts 3:2 "'gate...called Beautiful.' The favorite entrance to the temple court, it was probably the bronze-sheathed gate that is elsewhere called the Nicanor Gate. Apparently it led from the court of the Gentiles to the court of women, on the east wall of the temple proper." (p. 1577, Zondervan NASB Study Bible, Zondervan, 1999) | ||||||
3039 | 7th day | Col 2:16 | kalos | 2060 | ||
As Charis wrote: "Jesus rose on the *first day of the week*, and we celebrate that and honor it in our hearts, not in a 'legal' manner. Sister TerryM said it best, "The Bible says give of the first fruits of your labor." This is an attitude of honor and worship, supeceding the letter of the Law, which has been clearly abolished. I, personally, consider Saturday to be a day of thanksgiving and preparation, but *Sunday is His day*," . . .Look in ANY translation of the Bible or ANY Bible dictionary or ANY commentary or ANY standard wall calendar (not those little executive appointment calendars). The FIRST day of the week is SUNDAY. Start with Sunday as the first day of the week, OK? 1) Sunday. 2) Monday. 3) Tuesday. 4) Wednesday. 5) Thursday. 6) Friday. 7) _______ (fill in the blank). What day would be the 7th day? If you still don't understand, ask a rabbi. The Jewish people have celebrated SATURDAY AND SATURDAY ONLY as the Sabbath for three thousand, five hundred (3,500) years. This isn't rocket science. |
||||||
3040 | Part 2 Apologetics? | Matt 11:13 | kalos | 2036 | ||
Thank you for another well-researched, well-written posting. --JVH0212 | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 ] Next > Last [159] >> |