Results 3121 - 3133 of 3133
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Makarios Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3121 | Codes for men? | Amos 1:1 | Makarios | 3546 | ||
Hello and blessings charis! 1 Corinthians 11:7 states that a man 'ought not to have his head covered' since he is the image and glory of God- I take this verse to mean anything from a hat to a hairstyle that is distracting towards worship. Some friends of mine in the past (guys) have chosen to wear their hair long and that did not personally distract me from worshiping with them. However, I feel that Paul here is providing direction for worshiping in the blessing of the Holy Spirit- to be honorable towards God in everything that we do, even how we wear our hair. Perhaps this is a question that should be answered by one's own conviction, but the church that I attend has certain guidelines to follow, much as in the spirit of Paul, to provide direction for worshiping God in the blessing of the Holy Spirit. I am not saying that a man is not in the blessing of the Holy Spirit if he does not cut his hair, but I feel that if the way that a person wears their hair becomes a distraction or stumbling block to the congregation, then they should review their decisions to make sure that they are proceeding in the utmost love and servanthood for the fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. In reality, there are no rules that we should follow, like cutting our hair a certain length or whatever. We are above the law if we are filled with the Spirit, and my church has this guideline to help insure that we are acting in the blessing of the Spirit. And everything that we do should be accomplished out of our love for one another. I am not saying that a man who wears long hair is out of the blessing of the Holy Spirit, he may be following the Spirit more intimately! However, in my church it would be a problem for people to accept as a member a man who wears his hair long because of the guidelines that we have agreed to in order to protect the church as a whole from not acting in the blessing of the Spirit. I believe that this is the spirit of Paul's message- to act in love and to act in the blessing of the Holy Spirit. If our motives are pure and we act in love, then we will be in the blessing of the Holy Spirit no matter what our hair length is. As for the Amish wearing vests and wide-brimmed hats, you will find a variance in their rules regarding those things just by going from church to church! :) I am not comfortable in my spirit observing these types of rules, that you should wear hats or uniforms or certain kinds of clothing. That is where I have (in my innermost spirit) 'drawn the line' for myself, and I will not go 'more Conservative' (adopting the views of the strict order Amish) because I believe that they are more focused on tradition rather than focusing on the Holy Spirit. So I see what you mean about the rules that are 200 years old and not 2000.. I hope that I have been a little more clear here. Have a blessed day! | ||||||
3122 | What will heaven be like? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3461 | ||
JVH, I appreciate your kind words! I'm a firm believer in laboring for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.. Its fun and easy to speak about things that you truly love in your heart! I wish to encourage you and many others in the best way that I know how. I praise God for our brotherhood in Christ! Your friend and servant in Christ, Nolan. | ||||||
3123 | Where do you see it? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3446 | ||
Right there with you Sam. I see no reference at all to any rapture whatsoever in Dan. 9:24-27.. | ||||||
3124 | Women's hair length and 1 Corinthians 11 | Amos 1:1 | Makarios | 3445 | ||
I attend a Conservative Mennonite Church and part of our discipline includes that women should wear a veiling.Here's our position on the veiling..The we be Scriptural in our hairstyles and honor the Christian order of headship in 1 Cor. 11:1-16. Men are to assume leadership roles in the area of spirituality. They should be examples of Christian discipleship and recognize their responsibility for the spiritual well being of the church and family. Men need to be examples of non-conformity to the world in their hairstyles, avoiding the latest fashions. They shall have short hair and be uncovered for praying or prophesying. We believe the covering is referring to a distinctive symbol, and not just casual headgear, however, we do ask that men remove such headgear when suitable as a sign of reverence to God.Women are to serve in a supportive role in the order of Christian headship. They should accept their Scriptural position of honor and femininity demonstrated by her long hair and consistent wearing of the veil. Sisters should manage their hair and wear their coverings in a manner that strengthens rather then weakens Scriptural convictions. While we do not require the hair to be worn up at all times, we believe wearing the hair up will make it easier to wear a covering and reduce the temptation to shorten and style the hair. Without specifying type of material, the covering should be a distinctive symbol, of substantial size, and be either a fitted or a hanging type veil large enough to cover the hair on the crown of the back of the head and visible from the sides. Worn properly, it will not allow for the hair to be placed over the covering. Because flat coverings and doilies are often seen as a loss of conviction for the veil, we ask that our sisters not wear them. It is important that brethren support the sisters in their distinctive appearance by their own attitudes and appearance. Together, brothers and sisters should willingly accept the directives of God's Word and be a witness to a Post-Christian world. (Taken from the Griner Conservative Mennonite Church Covenant, Middlebury, IN)My church's position on 1 Cor. 11 is pretty clear here, and you will find this consistent throughout the Anabaptist/Mennonite/Amish tradition. My church is one step away from being Amish Mennonite.It was viewed as a disgrace for a woman to wear short hair in Scripture (Isaiah 3:24, Ezekiel 16:7, 1 Corinthians 11:15, Revelation 9:8). 1 Cor. 11:6 says that it was a shame for a man to wear long hair, except for the Nazirites of course (Judg 16:17). | ||||||
3125 | Where is heaven? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3439 | ||
I have to go back to Genesis 1:1-20 on this one.. Evidently, there really aren't any bounds here for heaven; it sounds as if heaven is 'anything above dry ground'.. There is an 'expanse' (which I interpret as the sky) but that is also included in heaven. Acts 7:49 says that heaven is God's throne. But God dwells in all of heaven, since heaven and earth cannot contain Him (2 Chr. 2:6). And God even dwells in the highest of heavens (Job 22:12, Deut. 10:14). Hope this helps.. Taken from the Zondervan NASB Study Bible and Nave's Topical Bible by Hendrickson Publishers. | ||||||
3126 | What is heaven? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3435 | ||
Heaven is God's dwelling place. Deut. 26:15, Zech. 2:13, Isaiah 63:15, 1 Kin. 8:30, 1 Chr. 21:26, Job 22:12-14, Psalm 2:4, Psalm 11:4, Psalm 33:13; Psalm 103:19, Isaiah 66:1, Lam. 3:41; Matt. 5:34, 45, Matt. 12:50, and Mark 16:19 are just a few examples, all taken from Nave's Topical Bible (Hendrickson Publishers). | ||||||
3127 | Personal Introduction Service? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3431 | ||
Hey there charis.. I appreciate the service, but I'd rather not operate anonymously. I have nothing to hide and I would like to be as personable as I can be. I am thankful that I can meet people like you on this list who so freely offer their services and time to others. | ||||||
3128 | What will heaven be like? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3429 | ||
When I think of heaven (which is often), I am overcome with a great sense of anticipation! Where the people of God (those who have overcome this world and their body of death by the shed blood of our Savior) can actually sit down together and talk about all these things of peace without the use of a discussion list.. :)Just kidding! I turn to Revelation 21 and read through 22 also, where it describes heaven, the New Jerusalem, the River and Tree of Life and many other amazing things to look forward to.. God is in heaven (Deut 10:14) and so are His holy angels (Rev 5:11-12). Nothing impure will ever enter into heaven (Rev. 21:27) and we will be servants of God Most High, praising His Holy Name forever! I can't wait.. :) | ||||||
3129 | For debate purposes only | Gen 6:4 | Makarios | 3239 | ||
Very good question! This quite possibly could be the 'reasoning' behind the beginnings of Greek and Roman mythology, being that the 'sons of God' co-habitated with the daughters of men and created offspring. In Greek mythology, Zeus was noted for this type of behavior and Achilles was born. (Sorry, I'm not 'up to snuff' on Greek mythology- been a long time since I read the Illiad and the Odyssey :) ). But this type of thought could be a logical way to explain some aspects of the birth of pagan mythology. There are no doubt other situations in the Bible that are twisted in this way also.I have always interpreted Genesis 6:4 in this way: that the 'sons' of God were the descendants in the line of Seth as opposed to being angels. But I could be mistaken. The "Nephilim" could be referring to Dinosaurs here, but that meaning is not clear. | ||||||
3130 | 1st prophesy: Babylon invades Jerusalem? | Amos 1:1 | Makarios | 3236 | ||
In Ezekiel 21:1-27, there is a prophecy here that declares that God had drawn a sword against Israel (vv.1-7). Verses 18-23 explain that Ezekiel was informed that God would supernaturally direct Babylon toward Jerusalem, giving them an omen to go in that direction. Thus, the Babylonian Captivity was fulfilled (2 Chronicles 36:11-15). In Isaiah 39:1-8, Hezekiah shows envoys from Babylon all of his treasure (v. 1-2). Isaiah chided him for this (3-4) and predicted that all of his treasures would be carried off to Babylon including some of his descendants (5-8), but that this event would not occur in his lifetime. (2 Kings 20:16-19)Habakkuk 1:5-11 begins a prediction of the Babylonian invasion. | ||||||
3131 | What is the best version of the Bible? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3216 | ||
From my own experience reading, studying and interpreting the Bible in English, I have found that the New American Standard Bible suits all of my needs in the best way as a result of its excellent verse by verse accuracy to the original languages and because of its clarity.I have a hard time reading Greek straight through, so I have chosen a translation that I can trust, one that is written in my own native tongue that presents the most accurate rendering of each and every verse.My tongue is not in Elizabethan English, even though I have much respect for the King James Bible, being THE Bible of choice for 375 years, until it was replaced by the New International Version as the CURRENT Bible of choice.The NIV is an important and very popular step in Bible translation. However, I have found that I myself am looking for a translation in which there was as little as possible 'interpretation' of meaning. Also, I have found that the NASB includes in the text some passages that are textually questionable (critical) while the NIV does not retain those passages within the text. I have also found that the NIV does not capitalize the pronoun 'he' when that pronoun is directly referring to Jesus Christ, something in which the NASB translators were very diligent. The New King James is also a fine translation and one that deserves attention if you are looking for an alternative to the King James. Even though the NKJV is an accurate translation, I have found the English and word order to be ambiguous in many places, and the English that is used just doesn't read well nor compare to the usage of English in other modern translations. Also, the text is based on the Byzantine Tradition (like the KJV), not based on modern Textual Criticism like most of today's translations.The New Revised Standard is another good and widely used translation, but I was not comfortable with this Bible because of the gender inclusive language (or attempt of making the Bible gender inclusive) and because of its reliance on interpretation rather than accuracy in some areas.Don't get me wrong: the NIV, KJV, NKJV and NRSV are all good translations of the Bible, but I have found the NASB to be my Bible of choice because of the reasons above. | ||||||
3132 | Why is the Apocrypha not included? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 3214 | ||
The Apocrypha refers to 14 or 15 books of doubtful authenticity and authority that the Roman Catholics decided belonged in the Bible sometime following the Protestant Reformation. The Catholic Council of Trent (1545-1563) canonized these books. This canonization took place largely as a result of the Protestant Reformation. Indeed, Martin Luther had criticized the Catholics for not having scriptural support for such doctrines as praying for the dead. By canonizing the Apocrypha (which offers support for praying for the dead in 2 Maccabees 12:45,46), the Catholics suddenly had "scriptural" support for this and other distinctively Catholic doctrines.Roman Catholics argue that the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament) contained the Apocrypha. As well, church fathers like Iraneaus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria used the Apocryphal books in public worship and accepted them as Scripture. Further, it is argued, St. Augustine viewed these books as inspired.Protestants respond by pointing out that even though some of the Apocryphal books may have been alluded to in the New Testament, no New Testament writer EVER quoted from ANY of these books as holy Scripture or gave them the slightest authority as inspired books. Jesus and the disciples virtually ignored these books, something that wouldn't have been the case if they had considered them to be inspired. Moreover, even though certain church fathers spoke approvingly of the Apocrypha, there were other early church fathers- notably Origen and Jerome- who denied their inspiration. Further, even though the early Augustine acknowledged the Apocrypha, in his later years he rejected these books as being outside the canon and considered them inferior to the Hebrew Scriptures.The Jewish Council of Jamnia, which met in A.D. 90, rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture. Combine all this with the fact that there are clear historical errors in the Apocrypha (especially those relating to Tobit) and the fact that it contains unbiblical doctrines (like praying for the dead), and it is clear that these books do not belong in the Bible. In addition, unlike many of the biblical books, THERE IS NO CLAIM IN ANY APOCRYPHAL BOOK IN REGARD TO DIVINE INSPIRATION.This is why you will find the Apocryphal books in the Catholic New American Bible and frequently in the New Revised Standard Version as well as in very early editions of the King James Bible, but not in most of the major Bible translations that exist today. | ||||||
3133 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 236 | ||
Jesus, the Messiah, Deliverer, Son of God and King of Kings, was concieved by the Holy Spirit and born of a virgin. The fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily in Jesus while he was in every way a human being. Jesus was not fathered by any man, since no man had been with Mary (Luke 1:34). And Joseph, Mary's betrothed husband, at first struggled to accept this fact but later accepted it (Matthew 1:19-25). But Jesus had to be 'brought up' or 'brought forth' from the line of David; he Himself had to find his earthly beginnings and achieve his earthly ministry while being of the Kingly heritage of David. God's promise to David is ultimately fulfilled by Jesus as David's 'descendant' of whom it was promised in 2 Samuel 7:16, and in the line of Judah in Genesis 49:10: both fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ! And Luke 3:23-38 shows the 'direct line' genealogy from Mary, the vessel in which God used to deliver His only Son into this world, all the way down to David, and it even goes from David to Adam! And if you look in Matthew 1:1-17, you can see how Joseph, who was the step-father of Jesus, was also in the Kingly heritage, being a descendant of King David. So Jesus was in fact a descendant of David as well as being part of the royal heritage as promised by God. Now you ask: "What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?" (Matthew 22:41-46) They said to Him, "The son of David." Jesus said to them, "Then how does David in the Spirit call him 'Lord', saying, "THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, 'SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET' '? If David then calls him 'Lord', how is He his son?" Very good question! Here is the answer: Jesus was a descendant of David while he dwelt upon this earth, but He has always been and has always existed as God. He was never created by God but has always existed as part of the Godhead with His Father and the Holy Spirit. In this passage (Matthew 22:41-46), David called upon the Lord during his life, even the Lord Jesus! Now he says, 'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD'.. This is God the Father in heaven saying to God the Son, "SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET." So God the Son ascended into heaven to assume His Lordship at God the Father's right hand until the time when Jesus will return to earth in the Second Coming of Christ. So this is how the Lord Jesus is David's Lord (whom David called upon) and also David's son, or descendant, at the same time. I hope that this explanation helps. I use the New American Standard Bible ('95), which is my very favorite translation! | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 ] |