Results 321 - 340 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
321 | dead beat dads | 1 Tim 5:8 | Beja | 227398 | ||
1 Timothy 5:8 | ||||||
322 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227320 | ||
Holmes, I am eager for this thread to end on some point that serves to edify, so let me make my cheif point a response to something which you have said that I agree entirely on. You said, "I think we can worship God and our Lord Jesus Christ on any day and at any time." With this I agree. I do not take the things which I am saying so far as to make sunday the day we "must" worship. And our disagreements will be minor if you do not take what you are saying to the point that you suggest saturday is the day we "must" worship. Rom 14:5 One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. Now, that being said, I would offer an important qualification and I only bring this up out of concern who might be reading this thread and how they would take it. We should not let the fact that we may, within bounds of Christian liberty, gather for worship on any day be twisted into the perversion that we gather for worship on no day. We should not jump from the fact that since everyday is holy to the Lord, then at no day do I need to set aside time for Christian fellowship specifically. We are clearly commanded to gather with Christian fellowships not simply in classes, not simply for music, not seminaries, not in para-church organizations, but we are to gather as churches. If that church wishes for their day of gathering to be saturday, I have no issue with it. If it be sunday, all is well. But we are to gather as Churches for mutual edification and accountability, and out of obedience. Now, I will say something small about your closing question, in which you ask where scripture changes the sabbath to sunday. I'll leave it to two simple points. 1. Nowhere does scripture state, "Now sunday will be the new sabbath." I do not suggest you will find such a statement. What we see however is the combination of two things. First, the sabbath is fulfilled in Christ. Second, there is clearly a high reverence and perhaps even bias towards meeting on the first day of the week. In 1 Cor 16:1,2 we even see it to be a matter of Paul's teaching, in my opinion. He taught them that on the first day of the week their offering was to be collected. What shall we suggest about it? That they met on saturday then were commanded to come give their offering the next day on which they were not to meet? And this was not something peculiar to the church in Corinth as if it was convenient for them to do so on the first day and for that reason it was to be the first day. No, instead we see Paul affirming that this is exactly what he taught to the Galatian Christians. In other words, we see that Paul habitually taught that on the first day of the week it was proper to fulfill this religious duty. However, even if that passage isn't persuasive to you it still ought to be evident that sunday holds itself to be a favorite meeting time. So in short, if you wish to see where the doctrine is coming from, it is in the sabbath being fulfilled and no longer binding, and the pattern we see. 2. If any would truely wish to know truth on this topic and be either confirmed in their belief or corrected of their error, he must go to those who are its chief defenders. In a word, the puritans. I am a babe in Christ compared to many who walk today, how much more so the giants of the past? For a man to think sunday worship holds no basis because I can not convince them would be comparible to a man thinking he had disproved the doctrine of particular redemption without having ever read John Owen's "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ," his masterpiece on the topic. In other words, go to those who have defended it so well and read them. Many will say, no, let us simply stand on God's word. Amen, and I agree. However, would you have a man show if you are in error in how you understand God's word? If not, then why do we discuss? If you do then find that man who is mighty in scirptures. And often you will find those men have long left to be with the Lord. They have left their teachings in books. Books which seek to explain the word of God. I pray no man would dismiss the historical teachings of the Church until they have first understood why the Church has understood scripture to teach those things, and that they would hear them from the very best of those who have articulated and defended the position. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
323 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227305 | ||
Holmes, I stand corrected regarding the timing of the meal in acts 20. I suppose I need to brush up on Acts some. I was running out of time for church and I was far more alarmed by your use of passover feast verse and spent my time double checking its context. Anyways, I clearly mispoke and it was right for you to correct me. However, as I stated in my previous post, even the fact that the meal took place after midnight impacts nothing in the discussion for the reason I stated. In addition to this, it would be rather misleading to focus this discussion on acts 20 in the first place. It was fitting for you to correct my error however for the convesation to remain at acts 20 unduely gives the impression that it is the basis of believing the early christians met on sunday when it is not. To suggest that sunday worship is based on acts 20 and a stray comment in revelations is to set up a straw man. A much more compelling arguement is made from 1 Cor 16:1,2. Now there is a passage I personally find to impact the discussion of when the early church met. Jonathan Edwards discusses this passage very well in "The Perpetuity and Change of the Sabbath." And even beyond all of these things we still focus on the wrong aspect. Looking at the ventures of the apostles and trying to piece together their mindset is all well and good but it is to never trump clear teaching which we have regarding the Christian's observance of sabbaths. Col 2:16,17 Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ. I have no expectations of persuading you regarding any of this. But I hope to establish that verses showing Paul went to evangelize Jews during the sabbath and presenting the case for sunday worship in unduely weak light is not sufficient to upset either the conscience of those who meet at sunday or the fact that the churches of God have always affirmed that the first day of the week is the day which scriptures displays as fit for the gatherings of the saints. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
324 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227297 | ||
Holmes, It says Paul extended his message until midnight. You are going by pure assumption when you say that the meal came afterwards, and indeed if you honestly think it was simply an ordinary meal then why would you think they didn't eat prior to midnight? Nothing in the text suggests the meal happened the next day. And additionally, if the meal had happened an hour after midnight, which there is no reason to believe, there is nothing to say that it would then follow that they saw it as a monday event rather than a continuation of the sunday worship. If you would like some explination as to why we would believe this was indeed communion then I would rather quote at length one a bit more knowledgable than myself. Here is John Gill on the issue. With regards to their coming together to break bread: not to eat a common meal, or to make a feast, or grand entertainment for the apostle and his company, before they departed; but, as the Syriac version renders it, "to break the eucharist", by which the Lord's supper was called in the primitive times; or as the Arabic version, "to distribute the body of Christ", which is symbolically and emblematically held forth in the bread at the Lord's table. Now on the first day of the week, the disciples, or the members of the church at Troas, met together on this occasion, and the apostle, and those that were with him, assembled with them for the same purpose; the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions read, "when we were come together"; Paul and his company, together with the church at Troas; for it is plain from hence that there was a church in this place, not only by disciples being here, but by the administration of the Lord's supper to them; and so there was in after ages. Who was the first pastor or bishop of this church, is not certain; perhaps Carpus, of whom mention is made in 2Ti_4:13 though he is said to be bishop of other places; See Gill on 2Ti_4:13. In the "second" century, in the times of Ignatius, there were brethren at Troas, from whence he wrote his epistles to the churches at Smyrna, and Philadelphia, and who are saluted in them by the brethren at Troas (k): in the third century, several martyrs suffered here, as Andreas, Paulus, Nicomachus, and Dionysia a virgin: in the "fifth" century, Pionius, bishop of Troas, was present at Constantinople at the condemnation of Eutyches, and afterwards he was in the council at Chalcedon; and even in the "eighth" century mention is made of Eustathius, bishop of Troas, in the Nicene council In Christ, Beja |
||||||
325 | was the sabbath still observed | Acts 13:13 | Beja | 227294 | ||
Holmes, These scriptures are rather devoid of context. It was certainly Paul's practice to go to the synagogues on the sabbath day in order to preach Christ to the Jews. This you have showed amazingly well. However, this doesn't show in any way that Christians were not meeting on the first day of the week. It simply doesn't address that. I think the 2 Corinthians passover passage also needs to be considered in context. Finally, two points with regards to the breaking of the bread. First, it would be quite remarkable if scripture intended to let us know they had lunch that day. Second, your estimate of that verse disagrees with how the church has always understood it. That should at least give you pause and cause you to consider on what basis you so readily dismiss it as not being communion. In many cases just listing a stream of verses is a good way to respond to a question. But it is indeed possible to misrepresent a verse simply by quoting it in the absence of any context or explination. Let me give you an example. Suppose I told you that it was wrong for people to use public water and I gave this verse to give support. Pro 5:15 Drink water from your own cistern And fresh water from your own well. Pro 5:16 Should your springs be dispersed abroad, Streams of water in the streets? Pro 5:17 Let them be yours alone And not for strangers with you. Now, that might sound like a passage telling us what is right and wrong concerning water. However, simply posting that passage is the height of deception because within its context it has absolutely nothing to do with water or cisterns. Check the passage to see what I mean. We must have context, and that context can greatly impact the message of a verse that might have seemed to say another thing in absence of the context. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
326 | Explain Acts 19:2 | Acts 19:2 | Beja | 227244 | ||
James Love, Read 19:1-6 as a whole. Then consider if this idea fits: Salvation does not come through just repentance, but through forgiveness offered only in the name of Jesus. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
327 | ... | Num 12:7 | Beja | 227240 | ||
Vicki Tracy, I have one major problem with what you are saying. You are saying that they are able to take shape for us "like Jesus did." This is a major error. Jesus did not take human shape for our sakes. He actually took on humanity, became an actual human being. If you wish to speculate that the Father or the Holy Spirit has at some time taken the shape of a human being for us then that is fine. I think it is incorrect but that is still, imo, within bounds. But we must always keep a distinction between what goes onthere and what went on in the incarnation. When they Holy Spirit decended in the likeness of a dove, it did not actually become a flesh and blood dove to live and die as a dove. It simply took the appearance of one. Christ did not simply take the appearance of a human being. He actually became one in order to live and die as one for our sakes. So if you wish to say that the Father took human shape or form to walk with any given Old Testament saint then fine. But please do not confuse that with what Christ did in actually becoming human. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
328 | is it a sin to masturbate? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227130 | ||
duplicate question | ||||||
329 | Is loving yourself by masturbating wrong | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227128 | ||
I think using the search feature might get you a reasonable bit of discussion on this. | ||||||
330 | what has to happen | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227094 | ||
legsrandal, First, the gospel must be preached to the whole world. Mat 24:14 "This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all the nations, and then the end will come. Second, the antiChrist must first come which is accompanyied by a great apostasy. 2Th 2:1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2Th 2:2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 2Th 2:3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 2Th 2:4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
331 | one on one relationship with God? | Eph 2:12 | Beja | 227092 | ||
ae9839, Eph 2:12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. I marvel at your question. You profess to not be saved. The implication being that all the wrath of God abides on you Joh 3:36 "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him." Yet the fact that you are unsaved does not discourage you, but the possibility you can not get answers from God would discourage you? Why do you delay in trusting Christ? He is very willing to receive you. The payment for your sin is available in his dying on your behalf. His righteousness is available to you to make you acceptable to God the Father (2 Cor 5:21). Eph 2:13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. All that is needed is for you to desire Christ over your sins (repentance) and to trust in what he has done as your only and sufficient merit before God (faith). Why wonder about these things? Be saved, have peace with God (Rom 5:1). Enjoy access to God (Heb 10:19-22). God is truely a loving and merciful God, but that love and mercy is in Christ. Do not be discouraged when He is so freely offered to you! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
332 | WHAT IS THE (PORTION) IN LUKE 12:46 | Luke 12:46 | Beja | 227070 | ||
JJE, I hold to a position that has been named amillenialism. So my answer might not be what you'd expect. After Christ's return, which is the time of the rapture, God will judge all flesh, and make all things new. Simple as that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
333 | What should I say? | Acts 20:20 | Beja | 227069 | ||
Julia, I would say something along these lines. "True, and it makes me very glad that our God is far more patient with the shortcomings of his people than your doctrine teaches." Beware setting up obedience in one specific area, or to one specific command as the end all test of true Christianity. If any command has that privledge it is the command to love one another. I challenge you to do a little reading. See 1 Corinthians 13. We see a long list. If I prophecy and have not love, if I have knowledge and have not love, if I give to the poor and have not love, if I am a martyr and have not love... Could we not so easily add, "If I go door to door witnessing every day and have not love.."? Christ himself says that it is by love all men will know we are disciples (John 13:15.) It is not by going door to door all men know that a church is the true church! See also 1 John 3:10, and 1 John 4:21 and see how this command is singled out as evidences of real Christians. Going door to door is simply not given that place of honor in Christians such that it is the mark of true and false churches or disciples. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
334 | FIG TREE | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227062 | ||
Legsrandall, There is more than one parable concerning a fig tree, you would have to specify which one. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
335 | WHAT IS THE (PORTION) IN LUKE 12:46 | Luke 12:46 | Beja | 227060 | ||
JJE, Unbelievers will be in hell until that day comes that all are brought before the throne of God to be judged. At this point hell and unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20.) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
336 | Once saved, are you saved forever, | 2 Cor 5:21 | Beja | 227049 | ||
Murphi, I do not say this in any way to scold you, but to try to point you in a right direction. Your understanding of what salvation is about and how it occurs to seem to be very lacking. You seem to be under the impression that your lack of attendance at church negatively impacts your state of salvation, and at the same time you seem hopeful that your current attendance restores it. The only source of salvation is Jesus Christ dying in order to satisfy all the wrath of God which was due to you for your many sins. All that one must do to be saved is to believe and to trust upon what Christ has done on the cross for forgiveness of your sins. He is offered to you freely. He is not for you to earn or in any way merit. Believe it, and trust fully upon his taking your place for your salvation. Do not trust in that you once were baptized. Do not trust in that you once said a prayer. Do not trust in that a pastor told you that you were saved. Do not trust in anything in heaven or earth other than that Jesus Christ has taken your sin upon himself, died for those sins upon a cruel cross, and that Christ has given you His very own righteousness in place of your sin. And for the love of your own soul spend your remaining days diligently in the word of God, faithly in the attendance of Church and hearing the word preached, and passionate in seeking to know Him that you might make up for the time you have lost so that you might know him and the gospel as you ought. Repent of the time you've lost and follow him. Know with certainty that all those who come to God through Christ are not only promised forgiveness of sins, but we are also promised that He will write His words upon our heart so that we shall become obedient to him (Heb 8:8-12, Ezekiel 36:25-27). So trust fully upon the cross of Christ and go forward and learn that obedience that was purchased for you on the cross. For God will enable you to make gains in holiness, "for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). God is able to restore to you the years that you lost (Joel 2:25). He is a compassionate God who delights in mercy (Micah 7:18). He will never cast out any soul that comes to Christ (John 6:37). He has infinite compassion on your shortcomings and weaknesses (Hebrews 4:15). Cling fast to Christ and the cross. Believe that He is a rewarder of those who seek him (Heb 11:6). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
337 | How to treat non-believers? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 227047 | ||
Camellia, This would be my guess. The information you give is far to little for anything but a guess though. I wish I could answer with certainty. Rom 12:18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
338 | United States in Scripture? | Ps 82:8 | Beja | 227026 | ||
Holmes, You state that you are suggesting nothing, and that the scriptures simply speak for themselves. But obviously you have something in mind. You think that there is some reason that the scriptures you are posting have to do with the question being asked. Why not post some scriptures on the ten commandments? Or perhaps the sermon on the mount? Because they have nothing to do with the question. Why not post things said about Babylon in the book of Revelation? Because you don't believe babylon is the answer. You are posting these verses for some reason. If you wish to leave it with what you've said, that's fine. However, there is no reason to pretend you have no view point. I only wish you'd help us understand what you are trying to say. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
339 | United States in Scripture? | Ps 82:8 | Beja | 227021 | ||
Holmes, I find myself unable to understand what it is exactly that you are suggesting in your post. The closest I can come to any kind of assertion is that perhaps you are hinting at 2 Sam 7:10 being fulfilled by USA? Can you clarify what you are suggesting? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
340 | questions on Numbers 5 | Num 5:5 | Beja | 227017 | ||
Azure, I will not suggest that I've mastered all those passages. In fact, I am a bit hesitant to answer since I have spent so little time meditating on the texts you are asking about. But seeing as an answer to your question has been slow incoming I'll make a few points. First, you asked, "In V5, what does it mean by "commits any of the sins of mankind, acting unfaithfully against the LORD" If that sin was an act unfaithful against the Lord, then why that restitution be made to the one whom wronged? and why to the relative in V8?" We have to understand that there is a sense in which when we wrong man, the chief person offended is God. Pro 14:31 He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, But he who is gracious to the needy honors Him. So we see that after David was guilty of both murder and adultery he is still able to say in Psalm 51 Psa 51:4 Against You, You only, I have sinned And done what is evil in Your sight, So that You are justified when You speak And blameless when You judge. Now I do not believe for a moment that David truely thought he hadn't sinned against Bathsheba and her husband. But even when sinning against another person, there is a sense in which the most offended party is God. So we see a command that restitution is to be made to the people whom we wrong and God both. Should I steal from somebody, I can repay it to the man I stole from and bring reconciliation between us, but then I must still have reconcilliation between me and God. Which is found in Christ alone. Now concerning the relative. This is for clarification should the one sinned against be dead. In that case the restituion was to go to the nearest relative. And should that be lacking, it was to go to the LORD, but it had to be paid. All this is "besides the ram of attonement" which was to be the reconcilliation between the sinner and God (verse 8). Second, you ask how such a discussion fits within a section of scripture which is primarilly military. Now here is where I have not done due dilligence in digging through the context myself. I have of course read numbers, just not recently. However, let me ask a question. Do you suppose after the battle of Ai, when a man named Achan had defiled the people of Israel by sinning and the results of sin undealt with found its fruition in the people of Israel being defeated in battle, do you suppose that Israel saw an intimate connection between sin, restitution, cleansing and holiness, and victory in battle? I hope this has helped. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] Next > Last [40] >> |