Results 3661 - 3680 of 3728
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
3661 | Was Adam there at that moment? | Gen 3:6 | Emmaus | 27983 | ||
All the Hebrew pronouns and verbs used in the account of the temptation and fall are in the plural (twelve times in seven verses)indicating Adam was right there. This would also explain why Adam so easily accepted the fruit from Eve. He had already heard the exchange between Eve and the serpent. He also failed in his charge from God to "tend" or "guard" the garden. He allowed the serpent to take the offensive and put Eve on the defensive and did not respond to the serpent's misrepresentations of God's words. Consider how differently Jesus, the new Adam, responded to his temptation after his fourty days in the desert in Matthew 4. |
||||||
3662 | John 13:26 is this communion (Lord's Su | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 27961 | ||
Grampa, John 13:26 would seem more a discription of the common practice in ancient and even modern Near East meals to take bread and dip it into the content of various bowls. It is interesting that John's Gospel does not give a eucharistic institution narrative as do the three synotic Gospels. John focuses more on the foot washing, the discourses and the priestly prayer of Jesus. John seems to address the eucharist in John 6, the bread of life discourses. The other three Gospels say "while they were eating," but St Paul in 1 Cor 11:25 indicates after "after supper." Luke mentions two cups, the second being the cup of eucharistic institution. In some churches communion is taken by intinction, where the bread or host is dipped in the chalice or cup of consecrated wine or grape juice. But I do not believe that is what John is describing in John 13:26. Emmaus |
||||||
3663 | Shunammite woman and Elisha | 2 Kings | Emmaus | 27954 | ||
Kiamlo, Please excuse my first answer. I was thinking of 2Kings 4:42-44. when I responded. Any of Jesus's miracles raising the dead to life would have been more appropriate, such as the daughter of Jairus in Matthew 9. There are many typological foreshadowings of Jesus in the life of Elisha. Emmaus |
||||||
3664 | Shunammite woman and Elisha | 2 Kings | Emmaus | 27950 | ||
Kiamlo, 2 Kings 4:24-37 is indeed a beautiful passage. It also seems to fit beautifully with John 6:1-15. Emmaus |
||||||
3665 | what was the origine of sunday worship? | NT general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 27927 | ||
Ndeipi, Jesus had authority over the Sabbath. Matthew 12:8. Jesus gave this authority to the Apostles and His Church, Matthew 10:40; 16:19; 18:18-20; Luke 10:16, including the sabbath, Colossians 2:16-22. Jesus rose on the first day of the week which came to be known in the Church as The Lord's day, on which they met for prayer and to break bread and give thanks. This became more and more an identifying mark of the Church as it was forced out of the synagogue and differentiated itself from the Synagogue and from the ritual system of Mosaic Law and also of Temple worship which ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Emmaus |
||||||
3666 | Rev 1:20 | Rev 1:20 | Emmaus | 27911 | ||
Brannon, If there was ever a book that requires a lot of help and even then leaves many questions it is the Book of Revelation. Below is a passage from one commentary I have regarding Rev 1:20. "The angels of the seven churches may stand for the bishops in charge of the them, or else the guadian angels who watch over them, or even the churches themselves insofar as they have a heavenly dimension and stand in God's presence as angels do. Whichever is the case, the best thing is to see the angels of the churches, to whom the letters are addressed, as meaning those who rule and protect each church in Christ's name. He is the only Lord, which is why He is shown holding the stars (angels) in his right hand. In the Old Testament the "angel of Yahweh" is the one charged to guide the people of Israel (cf. Ex 14:19; 23:20 etc.); and in the Apocalypse itself angels are given the mission of ruling the material world (cf. Rev 7:1; 14 ;18; 16:5). So Christ exercises his loving care and government of each church through the mediation of "angels", but it is difficult to say whether this means angels as such, or bishops or both." The Navarre Bible, commentary on Revelation Emmaus |
||||||
3667 | Rev 1:20 | Rev 1:20 | Emmaus | 27912 | ||
Brannon, If there was ever a book that requires a lot of help and even then leaves many questions it is the Book of Revelation. Below is a passage from one commentary I have regarding Rev 1:20. "The angels of the seven churches may stand for the bishops in charge of the them, or else the guadian angels who watch over them, or even the churches themselves insofar as they have a heavenly dimension and stand in God's presence as angels do. Whichever is the case, the best thing is to see the angels of the churches, to whom the letters are addressed, as meaning those who rule and protect each church in Christ's name. He is the only Lord, which is why He is shown holding the stars (angels) in his right hand. In the Old Testament the "angel of Yahweh" is the one charged to guide the people of Israel (cf. Ex 14:19; 23:20 etc.); and in the Apocalypse itself angels are given the mission of ruling the material world (cf. Rev 7:1; 14 ;18; 16:5). So Christ exercises his loving care and government of each church through the mediation of "angels", but it is difficult to say whether this means angels as such, or bishops or both." The Navarre Bible, commentary on Revelation Emmaus |
||||||
3668 | Baptized and the Salvation Process: | John 3:6 | Emmaus | 27842 | ||
Chucky, You raise some interesting question regarding baptism. I being Catholic come from a different perspective, but our thoughts may intersect in some ways. Here are my thoughts on the subject. What must we do to be saved? This was the question of those to whom Peter preached on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2: 37, and also the question of the Philippian jailer of Paul and Silas in Acts 16:30. Peter’s response was: “Repent and be baptized”! Paul’s response was: “Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household.” But then in order that he might believe Paul at once spoke the word of the Lord to him “and he was baptized at once, with all his family.” Why not just believe in the Lord Jesus? Why baptism? Because baptism is the physical sacramental means by which God’s saves us spiritually by grace and bodily even to the resurrection of our physical bodies. Baptism is the command of Jesus in Matthew 28: 19-20. Baptism is the means by which God effects our salvation by incorporating us into the body of Christ. (1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6) The use of the physical in the sacraments reflects the redemption of all of fallen nature so that nature agains works to the good according to God's original plan, even as Christ's Incarnation redmeems our flesh as well as our spirit or soul, so that all creation gives glory to God. What Did Jesus Say on the Subject? “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3: 5) I believe this refers to baptism. We know this from the context by what follows in John 3:22 when Jesus and the disciples went into Judea and baptized immediately following the discourse. Jesus also said: “But he who endures to the end will be saved.” (Matt. 24:13) “ Not everyone who says to me, ‘ Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father. On that day many will say to me ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and cast out demons in your name and do many mighty works in your name?’ And I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me you evil doers.’ (Matt. 7: 21) “Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you visited me...’” (Matt. 25:31-45). In the final analysis Jesus is Lord and He is the Word and He will have the last word on the matter of justification and salvation for each and every one of us. Another way it has been said is this: "God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments." We are bound to follow Jesus' command to baptize, but He can do things including save whomever He wishes in ways we may never dream. Emmaus |
||||||
3669 | Born from above, born of the Spirit? | John 3:6 | Emmaus | 27824 | ||
Robert, I think you have answered your own questions. I think it is also clear that what Jesus is speaking about in John 3:5 "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” refers to baptism. This from is apparent from the context by what follows in John 3:22 when Jesus and his disciples went into Judea and baptized. A new birth would indicate a new life, but one in which growth is expected.Birth is a beginning not an end. Scripture is full of stories about those resisting the Holy Spirit and God's efforts to lead into new areas of understanding and spiritual growth. Emmaus |
||||||
3670 | "am I wrong in thinking that you pray to | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 27558 | ||
Nolan, Peter's three fold denial and the threefold questioning of Jesus are obviously related. I think also related to those passages is Luke 22:31-32. Jesus redeems the fallen and makes His strength known through the weak by the power of the Holy Spirit. I have often pondered also the different way Peter's story ended compared to that of Judas. Faith in Jesus even in the face of cowardice and failure can lead to repentence and redemption and being lifted up, but despair and lack of faith in the same situation is deadly to body and soul. |
||||||
3671 | "am I wrong in thinking that you pray to | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 27507 | ||
Hank, I feel I have probably not done justice to this subject about which so much has been written. I have tried to stick strictly to the biblical roots of the subject. The dogmatic documents on Papal Infallibility are very narrow in scope. Only under very limited specific circumstances does the doctrine apply and only in matters of faith and morals. All other circumstances do not apply and it has rarely been exercised outside of a Council setting and then only after extensive consultation with bishops worldwide. I am not going to post Church Council document on the subject because it seems inappropriate on this list and seems likely to generate more heat than light. You can find the Vatican I document at the following link. It is rather formal in tone and structure like most official church document. http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6 The Vatican II document on that touches on the subject can be found at the following link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V2CHURCH.HTM starting at paragraph 18 as you scroll down. If I had to recommend a single book on the subject it would be: Jesus, Peter and the Keys, A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy By Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David Hess It is an exhaustive treatment that cites Catholic and Protestant scholars along with the Scripture and the Fathers. I assume like very other book in print it can probably be found at Amazon.com if you have that much interest. I have taken the time to read the archives of your other earlier posts as well as your profile. I enjoy your style of humor and repartee. It is somewhat reminiscent of J. Vernon McGee’s style. It seems only fair you should know something about me. We have an insurance background in common. I am a claims adjuster with prior police experience. I grew up in Washington D.C. and have lived in Baltimore for 33 years. I was raised in a large Catholic family. We did read and discuss the bible at home as well as hear it at Mass. I often wonder what Church all those other Catholics went to who say they never heard scripture there and were told not to read the Bible. Thanks you for your patience. I think I will take a break. |
||||||
3672 | "am I wrong in thinking that you pray to | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 27496 | ||
Hank, A few other passages that deal with Peter’s unique position among the Apostles are: Luke 22:31-32 “ And the Lord said unto Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat; But I have prayed for you, that your faith does not fail; and when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.” John 21:2, 15-17. In this passage Jesus questions Peter three times whether he loves Him. “Do you love me more than these?” Jesus tells Peter, “feed my lambs…, tend my sheep…, feed my sheep.” He is appointing Peter as the Shepherd of his flock. But he does not address the several other Apostles who are present. It is clear that Peter is to shepherd not only the flock of lambs but also the other sheep. This has been interpreted by some to refer to the laity as lambs, and the clergy as sheep. All including Peter himself are sheep of Christ’s flock with Jesus the ultimate shepherd. But again Jesus is here delegating His authority to Peter to be a shepherd of the flock and the other shepherds. Earlier Jesus had promised the special guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles and the Church in all truth. John 14:16-18, 26 and John 16:12-13. It is the Holy Spirit who will preserve the Church and the successors of the Apostles from teaching error. There are too many passages of Scripture Old and New Testament to list indicating the imagery of the shepherd as ruler. But this is the image in which the Apostles are cast by Jesus, with Peter as the chief shepherd by Jesus’ delegation of authority. The other Apostles do have similar authority invested in them by Jesus, but Jesus never gives them the keys nor deals with them in the special individual manor He deals with Peter. Their authority is real but must be in unity with Peter, the guarantor of the unity of the Church on earth by Christ’s investiture. The other Apostles or bishops represent the diversity of the Church and Peter its essential unity. I will not go into all the early Church Fathers who support this general understanding. I will only mention one of the earliest, a successor of Peter who asserted his universal authority over another local Church. That is Clement of Rome whose Letter to the Corinthians some wanted o be included in the Canon of Scripture. In that letter, circa 80-98 A.D., Clement asserted his authority over the Corinthian Church as Peter’s successor. The letter is easily available on any number of web sites. I cite it only because it is so early in the apostolic succession and because some argue that papal authority was an invention of the fifth century. The outward dressing of that authority may have developed over the years but the inner essential has remained the same. The dogmatic formulation was done at the Vatican Council I, 1870 and further refined at Vatican II. ……… |
||||||
3673 | "am I wrong in thinking that you pray to | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 27231 | ||
Hank, A scriptural antecedent or Old Testament type of the kind of commission Jesus gives to Peter in Matt: 16:18-19 can be found in Isaiah 22:15-25. It is the description of the delegation of authority to the chief steward or minister of the king. The steward is given the key of the House of David It is an office with succession. The authority over the House of David is transferred from one servant to a new servant and his line. Much as the stewards of temple worship in Jerusalem were cut off and Jesus the Son of David passes the authority of His house to Peter. You see there also the transfer of authority to bind and loose even as given to Peter in Matthew. What examples do we have in scripture of Peter exercising this authority? They are found in Acts 1:15 Peter leads the other apostles in the selection of Matthias to succeed Judas in his office. Acts 2:14 Peter is first to proclaim the Gospel at Pentecost. Acts 3:1-12 The first public miracle is worked through Peter. Acts 4:8-12 Peter professes the faith before the Sanhedrin. Acts 5:1-5 Peter exercises Church discipline on Ananias and Sapphira dramatically and Acts 5:3-10 speaks with amazing and frightening authority. Acts 5:15 The faith of the people in Peter’s authority is demonstrated by their actions. Acts 8:14-15 Peter goes to Samaria to lay on hands so the Holy Spirit would come. Acts 8:20-24 Peter speaks for the Apostles rebuking Simon Magus. Acts 10:1-48 Peter baptizes the first Gentiles into the Church. Acts 11:18 Peter’s authority in baptizing Gentiles is accepted after he explains actions. His decision was binding on the Jewish Christians to accept the Gentiles and loosing for the Gentiles, loosing them from any obligation to be circumcised. Acts 15:1-35 At the Council of Jerusalem after much debate on the matter of the Gentiles Peter again states his position on the question. The assembly falls silent, Paul and Barnabas speak, and James accepts and supports Peter’s doctrinal Declaration. James then addresses the issues of minimum disciplines the Gentiles must practice now that they are accepted without having to be circumcised. If one accepts the scriptural evidence of Peter’s primacy among the Apostles, which Catholics do, the next question is whether the office of the Apostles and their authority can be transmitted from generation to generation within the Church. The first scriptural evidence that the office of the Apostles can be transmitted is found in Acts 1:15-30.When Matthias is chosen to succeed in the office left vacant by Judas Iscariot. Later in Acts 13:1-3 Hands are laid on Barnabas and Paul. The true apostles after the original twelve are recognized because they are sent the original Apostles who have laid hands on them so that they speak with true authority. See also 1Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5 See Matt: 10:40-41, John 14:16-18 and John 16:12-13. This extremely brief treatment, excludes the Church Fathers witness on the subject. Continuing.... |
||||||
3674 | "am I wrong in thinking that you pray to | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 27130 | ||
Hank, This will require multiple posts. As you may already be aware the Catholic position on Peter, the papacy and papal infallibility starts at Matthew 16:18-19. “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Anyone demanding a proof text that says literally: “the popes are Peter’s successors and are infallible” should read no further. It isn’t in the bible and you won’t find it here. A discussion of Church structure and authority also presumes a belief in a visible Church. Catholics believe in that also, based on their understanding of scripture, others may not. Catholics as everyone knows are not “ Sola Scriptura” or “Bible Alone” people. Which is not to say they are unbiblical people, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding. Infallibility is not impeccability. Popes can and do sin. Some few seem to have wallowed in sin. That is not what this discussion is about. Let’s start with Matt 16:18 in its context: Matt 16:13-19 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." At this point a few facts indicating Peter’s primacy among the Apostles seems in order. In the New Testament, Peter, under his various names, Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, Simon Peter, is mentioned 195 times. The closest after him is the Apostle John mentioned 29 times. Whenever all the names of the Apostles are listed Peter is always first and Judas Iscariot is always last. Matt 10:2-5, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-17, Acts 1:13. Sometimes they are referred to only as “Peter and his companions” or in a similar manner. Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 2:37. Peter is seen as the spokesman for the whole group in Matt 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69. |
||||||
3675 | "am I wrong in thinking that you pray to | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 26992 | ||
When did I ever say Mary or we merited grace? We have no dispute on the definition of grace. You seem set on finding points to argue. That is not my purpose on this forum. I am here give my answers or notes on scriptual questions and to hear others. I do not attack them or their positions. If you can show where I have initiated an attack please do so. You have accused me of blasphemy, heresy and idolatry. I must admit I have grown to expect this from certain quarters, but I have never grown used to it. It is not a very good strategy for winning hearts minds or souls. |
||||||
3676 | Where did the word Rapture come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 26989 | ||
The English word rapture is not found in English translations of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Rapture is a transliteration of "rapiemur" in the Latin Vulgate New Testament of St Jerome. 1 Thes 4:17 deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera Recent "rapture" theology is a whole other discussion and only about one hundred years old and is generally attributed to a man named Darby. |
||||||
3677 | Where did the word Rapture come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 26987 | ||
The English word rapture is not found in English translations of 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Rapture is a transliteration of "rapiemur" in the Latin Vulgate New Testament of St Jerome. 1 Thes 4:17 deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera | ||||||
3678 | "am I wrong in thinking that you pray to | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 26985 | ||
"Let's look at Luke 1:28" and Ephesians 1: 6 The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you." Luke 1:28 (NIV) And what is grace but God’s favor freely bestowed? Highly favored, full of grace, perfected in grace. The Greek work is in the perfect tense participle, “kecharitomene”. ”All of these versions use the word "favored" or "highly favored." The exact Greek word is used in one other place in the New Testament. Does it refer to Mary? No. Jesus? Nope. Then to whom does it refer? Let's take a look: “ Yes, let’s take a closer look. This is not the “exact Greek word” in both verses. In Ephesians 1: 6 it is “echaritosen” the aorist tense indicative form of an action brought to pass, grace bestowed on us. Greek is a much more precise language than English. "to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved." --Ephesians 1:6 (NASB) However there is a perfect participle in Ephesians 1:6.It is the “beloved” referring to Jesus. No comparison to us and him. We are aorist tense, He is perfect tense. ”Make Christ the center of your theology. He certainly is the center of Scripture! “ Christ is the center of my theology. My whole input began in response to a question about Mary, not Jesus. It is only the fact that Mary is the subject of this particular thread that may make it appear to you my theology is centered on her. It is not. Ask me about Jesus. We will probably agree on everything about him. I fell pretty certain this will not be acceptable to you but there it is. I am done with this thread. As I said before, ask we about Jesus and we will probably find nothing to debate. Which was not what I intended when I answered the first question on where Catholics get the idea of Mary Queen of Heave, I was just giving the correct answer. That is where Catholic get it. Others may not but Catholics do. |
||||||
3679 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 26983 | ||
Well I guess we can now agree on one thing. I did use the word prod instaed of urge after instigate. My mistake. I can only say I did not intend it in the meaning you attributed to me. On the rest we will have to disagree. |
||||||
3680 | When did the catholic church go wrong? | Bible general Archive 1 | Emmaus | 26951 | ||
Joe,You make many demands and three serious accusations in your post. "Demonstrate to me that Revelation 12 literally refers to a single individual. Then go through the whole chapter and demonstrate to me that it refers to Mary." And just how much of Revelation and especially Revelation 12 do you take "literally"? Am I to suppose you do no interpretation at all? "Is Satan really a dragon, too?" The correct question is: "Is the dragon really Satan, too?" Yes. And is the son of the woman Jesus? Yes, but does it say that literally naming Jesus? No. And if the other two main characters are persons, logic would allow that the woman is also a real person. It might even be Mary, don’t you think? Or do you have another real person candidate that follows logically? "If your view of Revelation 12 is the best you have to go on in proving Mary is the "new Eve," you have a pretty paper-thin argument. Christ is specifically called the Second Adam in Scripture. We see NO such reference to Mary being the second Eve outside of Catholic dogma." Do you mean that the opinions of the Church Fathers are not outside Catholic dogma? Or are you admitting that they agree with Catholic dogma? "Why can't you just read the New Testament in its entirety and realize that while Mary was indeed blessed by God and honored to bear Jesus in her womb, that she is not in any way a central figure in the Biblical narrative. Jesus? Absolutely; first and foremost. Paul? Certainly. Peter? Without a doubt. Mary? A few scant references outside of the Advent story. It just doesn't wash." Jesus is the central figure in the biblical narrative and all history for that matter. It is just that Mary was literally wrapped around Him body and soul. He was flesh of her flesh and bone of her bone. Is there any better example of complete dedication to God? "Stop making so much of the wedding at Cana! It is such blasphemy to suggest that Mary has to "prod" Jesus -- very God of very God -- into doing what He purposed to do before the foundation of the world. A contemptible heresy is what it is, Emmaus. A violation of the First Commandment, too, at its heart." I did not say Mary “prodded” Jesus, I said Eve prodded Adam and Mary instigated the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. Webster’s defines instigate as "to urge on". "Romans 5:19 refers to Christ, not Mary. Stop ripping it out of its context and that becomes crystal clear. Hint: refer to verse 17 to see who "the One" is." "I did not say Romans 5:19 referred to Mary. I was using it to draw the parallel analogy of Eve and Mary. "When tradition takes precedence over the clear understanding of Scripture, theological gymnastics results." And there is no Calvinist tradition that influences your understanding of scripture? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 ] Next > Last [187] >> |