Results 3081 - 3100 of 3122
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: EdB Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3081 | How did He get into closed rooms? | John 20:19 | EdB | 7773 | ||
Nolan that's simple He is God and can do anything He wants. Why ask the question? I hope your not suggesting in anyway that he had to be a ghost or spiritual being to accomplish this. I think that is the falsehood the JW's teach. |
||||||
3082 | What is worship, according to the Bible? | John 4:24 | EdB | 7763 | ||
Steve I would like to hear more on what you have to say about worship. I feel this too is a something the church is missing. How do you see it being done? What needs to change wthin the church? How does our thinking have to change? |
||||||
3083 | Is This Supposed To Be an Answer? | Acts 5:34 | EdB | 7727 | ||
Hank cool down let him explain himself. I can feel the temperature rising and none of us know what he meant by his comments on worship. | ||||||
3084 | Denominations, why? | Phil 1:1 | EdB | 7572 | ||
Charis I don’t think anyone can supply a Biblical answer since denominations are more or less man made. However I will try to explain the reasons I see for denominations. First leadership we see an example in Acts 12:17 with the implication of James being the leader of the church in Jerusalem. It has been surmised that in the first through third century each church had a pastor or a pastor would be shared by two or three smaller churches. However in each city there was a man charged with the oversight of the churches of that city. Denominations may well be the natural extension of this city grouping of churches. Leadership implies government and even church leadership must have some form of government. We all know there are many and widely varying forms of government. There is one person in charge making the decisions, the whole church collectively voting on decisions, and the elected/appointed body of representatives charged with making decisions. There are many variations of one or all three of these that effectively or not so effectively govern organizations and churches. People naturally gravitate to the form of government that best suit their needs. I have seen abuses in all forms so there is no conclusive argument for any one form. However I do believe a man pastoring a church should submit himself to someone, if for no other reason than accountability. Denominations fill that need. Charis you said not to use the size factor but I think that one point is too big to ignore. First a denomination can supply printed materials, books and other resources one church or organization could never hope to. Then there is missionary support, a grouping of denominational churches can collectively support many missionaries where one church may not be able to totally support any. We must include hospitals, colleges and institutions, many colleges started as seminaries and bible schools to train up pastors and missionaries. There have been many abuses but many denominational bible colleges remain faithful to that purpose. The ones that have turned secular they still served to educate the population examples Harvard and Yale. Hospitals are mostly started by a denomination. Without the denominational support many would probably would have failed to have been built or stay open. Senior adult care facilities are springing up all over the place many are denominational supported and from my experience preferable to government or private institutions. Theological beliefs help to group people. As we have all seen in this forum there is more than one way to believe and still be a Christian. I think grouping together in like mindedness is essential for the life of a church and any hierarchical oversight. Denominations therefore became the next logical step. I don’t think denominations were the intended result of people gathering together in like mindedness, however that is what evolved. We all know power corrupts and total power totally corrupts. Case in point the Catholic church before the reformation. I think having multiple and various denominations limit the power of each. I don’t see badness in denominations, however I see disaster in what they have become. By competing with a win at any cost attitude denominations have pitted Christian against Christian. We never fairly teach what another denomination believes we only convince our members that another denomination’s belief is wrong and therefore we have a obligation to help save others from that error. We mock and belittle people of other denominations and soon animosity and hatred prevails. In many cases in our zeal to rid ourselves of denominationalism, we avoid all use of catechisms, hymns, and creeds. However these were proven and repeatable forms of instruction which are lost to many churches today. The results are churches filled with people that have no real idea of what it is they believe and if they have some concept, have no way to articulate or to put it into words. Without this basic capability they soon feel disenfranchised and begin to drift back into the world. Denominations are not in themselves bad it is what man has turned them into that is bad. However isn’t that true of anything man gets involved in? |
||||||
3085 | Performance or Preaching? | Acts 5:34 | EdB | 7492 | ||
Hank, how nice to have you back! Without a doubt many times it is entertainment. Too many people think attending church gives them entrance to heaven. Therefore they feel that since they must attend they might as well find the most entertaining to attend. There is one church that the Pastor raises from below the platform in a cloud of smoke and flashing lights. He then preaches his sermon and at the end he ascends up and out of sight again surrounded by smoke and flashing lights. Watch any Christian TV network for a day or two and you will probably see much more. However the thing that has me concerned is the heresy that is being taught. There is more junk in many of our churches than there is in the neighborhoods that surround them. I have seen just about every form of heresy taught/preached from pulpits and the people walk out raving about the what a mighty man of God the preacher is. When will the people learn that just because the man says Jesus a few times doesn’t make him a disciple or even a believer. I have seen men give all kinds of credit to Jesus however their Jesus is not the son of God but rather an deity of their own invention. No wonder Jesus responded the way He did. "Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; Depart From Me, you who practice lawlessness.' Matthew 7:22-23 Are others seeing this same lack of discernment? |
||||||
3086 | Study Bible Forum -- or Circus? | Gen 1:17 | EdB | 6837 | ||
Hank, didn’t we just talk about this? I think there is an even more insidious problem than the endless displays of ego, intellect and argumentative skills. There is the problem is misinformation. Take almost any subject discussed that has more than three responses and you will probably find one saying the answer is ‘yes’ and one saying the answer is “no’ and a third saying it is in the “maybe”. The problem is which answer should a new believer hold onto? In the debate over Calvinism and Arminianism, there is so much information, misinformation, name calling, verbal abuse, opinion, point and counter point it bewilders the mind. It would be virtually impossible for a new believer to read through all of that and come up with an informed answer. Or the debate over whether Nebuchadnezzar was saved or not. Endless speculation through point and counter point, information, misinformation, opinion and pure argumentative input on this subject. How could a new believer ever expect to come up with an answer? Yet we say we are creating a study bible with wide margins, Hank I submit to you we are creating a study bible that contains the confusion of the world through the opinions of man. Now read the questions that have only one or two responses. Many have answers that have totally misleading information in them. But since they weren’t a provocative enough subjects no one read the responses to see if it was Biblical or not. Again more bad information. I have seen some that are pure trash yet they go unchallenged, while everyone focuses on the juicier topics. I believe for this forum to be what it is meant to be, people will have to step up to some issues. First there must be a way to limit or avoid endless point and counter point discussions. Secondly every question and every answer given must have a Biblical answer and any that does not must somehow be eliminated or corrected. Any question that has multiple commonly accepted theological answers needs to be summarized to say so, (example the Calvinism and Arminianism debate). There needs to be a way to neutralize any question that baits an argument, thus enabling their submitter to constructively contribute to this forum. Lastly a way has to be found to prevent all responses that are purely from the pit of hell from effecting or at least appearing to be Biblically correct answers. I believe the if these issues were addressed and solutions put in place to correct them then this forum would stand a chance to become a limitless wide margin study bible that I think everyone desires. I'm in agreement with you unless change happens quickly this forum is in danger of becoming another “use to be”! |
||||||
3087 | Where is "paradise" in Luke 23:43 | Luke 23:43 | EdB | 6828 | ||
Dear Dana permit me to stick my nose in. The definitions of Paradise you were given were correct but I think they left some very important things out and one may have been a little misleading. Jesus when he died went to paradise which is correct, however He then ascended into heaven taking with him the believers that resided in paradise. “…"When He ascended on high, He led CAPTIVE A HOST OF CAPTIVES, And He gave gifts to men."” Ephes. 4:8. Paradise was a holding place for Old Testament saints (believers) to reside until the blood of Jesus was shed to cleanse them of sin. After Jesus’ death and the shedding of the His blood the holding place for believers was no longer needed. When believers die now we do not go to paradise as was inferred in one of the responses but rather straight to heaven. How do we know this well first we know Jesus sits on the right hand of God the Father. We also know the throne is located in Heaven God’s immediate domain. Secondly Paul tells us in 2 Cor. 5:8 2 “we are of good courage, I say, and prefer rather to be absent from the body and to be at home with the Lord.” Meaning when we died as believers we go directly into the presence of Jesus. And He is at the right hand of God. Jesus also ascended into Heaven after His death to fulfill the obligation of presenting of His blood upon the altar. “and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.” Hebrews 9:12 Dana I pray this will answer your question. |
||||||
3088 | Did you have a particular source? | Mark 10:25 | EdB | 6456 | ||
In Matt 19:24 and Mark 10:25 the word for needle in the original is 'raphis' which means to sew or sewing needle. In Luke 18:25 the word is 'belone' which means needle and was the term used by the people of time to speak of a needle used by a physician versus the needle used in sewing. |
||||||
3089 | What took you so long? | Rom 5:6 | EdB | 6396 | ||
Percival who are you talking to? Your comment is not connected to the other discussion on Romans 5:6. so I assume you must have someone or something in mind. What? | ||||||
3090 | How does the wall theory soften? | Mark 10:25 | EdB | 6395 | ||
Morant61 did not give the "rest of the story". Those that support the eye of a needle gate theory further report that for a camel to pass through such, they the camel had to kneel and crawl through on their knees. Thus turning it into a possible situation. However Luke in the original language when relating this story used the term for a medical needle rather than even a common sewing needle. This to my way of thinking eliminates any misunderstanding, Jesus was talking about a literal needle. Also to the best of my study there is no historical evidence of any gates, gateways, or passages being commonly referred to as the "eye of a needle" | ||||||
3091 | Yet another capitalization question? | Heb 7:26 | EdB | 6389 | ||
Ray after submitting my answer I realized I only addressed Heb. 7:26 and not your second or main question. As far as capitalization of "Son of Man" I think the issue comes back to a case of position verses the person in position. In the case of high priest many men served in the that position. However only one can be called the perfect High Priest, that being Jesus. With the position of Son of Man however there is only one that ever can ever be the Son of Man and that is Jesus. Every male can be ‘a’ son of ‘a’ man but none except Jesus can be ‘the’ Son of Man. Therefore since that position can be filled by only one and that one is Jesus Christ, referring to that position should be capitalized. |
||||||
3092 | Yet another capitalization question? | Heb 7:26 | EdB | 6388 | ||
Ray I looked at many other translations and none except NKJV has this capitalized. It was a mystery to me, until it dawned on me they are talking about the position rather than who filled the position. In other words they referring to the position of high priest rather than to Jesus being our High Priest. Even knowing Jesus is in the position of the high priest I think any time we are referring to just the position it should remain uncapitialized. | ||||||
3093 | Nebuchadnezzar a true believer? | Dan 2:47 | EdB | 6325 | ||
And now we are reading the hearts of men?????? Come on!! James 4:12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the One who is able to save and to destroy; but who are you who judge your neighbor? Guys there are people dying and going to hell while we squable over Nebuchadnezzar, surely we have better things to do. |
||||||
3094 | Why require faith to perform miracles? | Matt 13:58 | EdB | 6322 | ||
I'm sorry I meant for my response to be tied to Hank's question rather than Nolan's answer. | ||||||
3095 | giving your tithe | 1 Cor 9:16 | EdB | 6299 | ||
I will not dispute any comments made here but I want to make a comment. Where ever you give the money make sure it is going for the purpose you intended. Many many ministries have huge overheads, and while you think your giving to some needy cause you are really giving to fat fund raisers and bureaucrats running the program. Many TV solicitors fall into this group. That is why I believe giving to the church and let them funnel the money directly to the need is often the preferred. | ||||||
3096 | Why send demons into the pigs? | Mark 5:12 | EdB | 6216 | ||
I think what JohnBible wrote is valid and is a good observation. I also think Jesus was giving us a practical demonstration. Jesus by granting the demons request to be sent into the pigs was demonstrating, demons can not predict the future because they have no idea of the future. The demons didn’t want to be without a body to inhabit, so they figured they would ask to be sent into the pigs which a Jew (of which Jesus was) would already consider to be unclean. Jesus on the other hand knew exactly what the pigs would do, so He allowed them to enter the pigs. Lesson Satan and his demons can not tell the future. |
||||||
3097 | Biblical support for animals in heaven? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 6162 | ||
Prayon had us on the right track in Ecclesiastes 3:18-21. However we stopped short. Move on over to Ecclesiastes 12:7 and see the writer answers the question he stated in 3:21. There is no clear Biblical assurance that there will or will not be animals or our pets in Heaven. However I think the above is strong indication there will not be. Any belief that animals will be needed to complete Heaven falls short of understanding the presence of God. When we come into the presence of God and Christ Jesus all else will pale, all else will be forgotten, all else will mean nothing. We have no appreciation for the Glory and Holiness of God. Do you think that Angels worship Him because they don’t have anything better to do? They do it because He is God, He is the center of their being. Acts 17:28 states God is our existence. I’m certain then that none of us will ask to leave heaven should we get there and see there are no animals. I’m also certain if there isn’t any animals we will never ever miss them. If I offended anyone by this answer – I’m sorry I went out of my way not to. |
||||||
3098 | Who is going into the millenium? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 6093 | ||
I'm going to make one last attempt to educate someone. The two that flagged Orthodoxy's updates as being unBiblical are seriously mistaken. Orthodoxy’s view is called the Preterist view and is held by a great number of theologians. Men of renown that I feel safe in saying has spent more time studying the Bible and in particular the Book of Revelation than the two that flagged Orthodoxy’s updates as unbiblical. There is another school of thought that is very similar to Preterist in that they believe much of Revelation has been accomplished already and that school of thought is call Historist. Of which men such as John Wycliffe, John Knox, William Tyndale, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Ulrich Zwingli, Phillip Melanchthon, sir Issac Newton, Jan Huss, John Fox, John Wesley, Johnathan Edwards, George Whitfield, Charles Finney, C.H. Surgeon, Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, E. B. Elliot. H. Guinness, and Bishop Thomas Newton are members. (Revelation Four Views edit by Steve Gregg, Pub Nelson 1953,1997) Now If you will take a moment and study this list you will see names of men that died for Christ. Men that were persecuted for Christ. Men that gave their lives for Christ. I would like the two that flagged Othrodoxy’s comments as unbiblical to also know they are calling the idea’s these men held as unbiblical. These men may have had mistaken ideas (which has yet to be proved) but I believe they had held valid possible interpretations of the Bible and were not acting as agents of Satan trying to deceive anyone. The futurist view of which I’m sure the two of you hold is a fairly modern view and came into being around the time of John Darby, who then gave the idea to Scofield who incorporated the idea into his Bible. It wasn’t given much thought until Israel became a nation in 1948 and this opened the door for many many Futurist to declare the second coming of Jesus on or before May of 1988, 40 years or one generation from the founding of Israel. Many claimed to have been given visions, prophecy, and angelic visitations that confirmed this date. We now know they are all false. Now let us look at the accuracy of the Historist view. In 1690 the King of England asked Historist Robert Flemming by his understanding of Revelation when would the papal rule of Europe fall? He replied that it would began in 1794 and expire in 1848. 1794 marked the beginning of the French Revolution which was the beginning of the down fall of papal rule and in 1848 the pope was driven from Rome if only temporarily. Mr. Flemming had set those dates 100 years before they happened, and his book title Apocalyptic Key published in 1701 can confirm this. (ibid pg 35) What about the preterist? Well in Revelation chapter 16 it talks about hail raining down weighing one talent or 90 to 100 pounds. In the siege of Jerusalem the Roman army fired their catapults from over a quarter mile away and guess what size the projectiles were? You got it one talent in weight. What about the blood in the rivers? It is said that when the fighting for the temple was finished soldiers were forces to crawl over bodies to reach their next victim. The bodies were piled around the altar of the temple as high as the altar. One observers standing back observed that blood was flowing so freely that it cascaded down the temple steps and over the sides of the temple mount. That view from a distance with the fire in the temple and blood flowing over the mount made the whole thing look like apocalyptic volcano. All I’m asking if your going to flag someone’s comments as unbiblical know enough about the subject to be able to supply a logical defense for your action. |
||||||
3099 | A question of capitalization: small "s"? | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 6049 | ||
Ray, at first blush I would have to say the first three Rev.1:10, 4:2, 21:10 should be small "s" However knowing the intent is to show that the Holy Spirit is leading or revealing to John’s spirit, I’m not sure the capitalized “s” is all that wrong. In reference to Rev 1:13 it should be capitalized as I believe this is a direct reference to Jesus. NKJV bears this out. |
||||||
3100 | Please help. Post your comments. | Bible general Archive 1 | EdB | 6001 | ||
Hank, You asked so here goes. The rating system has me about upset. I asked a legitimate question and had received some answers; most left me looking for more. A person responded that offered another approach. This approach did not agree with someone, even though the approach is an accepted possible biblical scenario to a question that has been debated for years. Someone now has red flagged all the updates of that person. Which to me is absurd. I think we should be able to have the identity of who voted. Also I think this forum should not be used as an advice column. Too much of the advice that has been given in this forum is ungodly and straight from the pit of hell. Third problem I have is with the frequent responders that present themselves as Biblical scholars. When a tough or difficult question is asked they either do not response to it or more often they wait until someone else does, then they very piously, but oh so graciously tear apart that persons answer. It has all the appearances of an effort to esteem themselves above others by making others look like fools. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 ] Next > Last [157] >> |