Results 401 - 420 of 420
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | James is contradicting Apostle Paul | James | Radioman2 | 77244 | ||
Does James 2 contradict Romans 4? 'The most serious problem these verses pose is the question of what James 2:24 means: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." Some imagine that this contradicts Paul in Romans 3:28: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." John Calvin explained this apparent difficulty: 'It appears certain that [James] is speaking of the manifestation, not of the imputation of righteousness, as if he had said, Those who are justified by faith prove their justification by obedience and good works, not by a bare and imaginary semblance of faith. In one word, he is not discussing the mode of justification, but requiring that the justification of all believers shall be operative. And as Paul contends that men are justified without the aid of works, so James will not allow any to be regarded as Justified who are destitute of good works. . . . Let them twist the words of James as they may, they will never extract out of them more than two propositions: That an empty phantom of faith does not justify, and that the believer, not contented with such an imagination, manifests his justification by good works. [Henry Beveridge, trans., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3:17:12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1966 reprint), 2: 115.] 'James is not at odds with Paul. "They are not antagonists facing each other with crossed swords; they stand back to back, confronting different foes of the gospel." [The New International Commentary on the New Testament] In 1:17-18, James affirmed that salvation is a gift bestowed according to the sovereign will of God. Now he is stressing the importance of faith's fruit--the righteous behavior that genuine faith always produces. Paul, too, saw righteous works as the necessary proof of faith. 'Those who imagine a discrepancy between James and Paul rarely observe that it was Paul who wrote, "Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!" (Rom. 6:15); and "Having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness" (v. 18). Thus Paul condemns the same error James is exposing here. Paul never advocated any concept of dormant faith. 'When Paul writes, "by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight," (Rom. 3:20), 'he is combatting a Jewish legalism which insisted upon the need for works to be justified; James insists upon the need for works in the lives of those who have been justified by faith. Paul insists that no man can ever win justification through his own efforts. . . . James demands that a man who already claims to stand in right relationship with God through faith must by a life of good works demonstrate that he has become a new creature in Christ. With this Paul thoroughly agreed. Paul was rooting out 'works' that excluded and destroyed saving faith; James was stimulating a sluggish faith that minimized the results of saving faith in daily life. [D. Edmond Hiebert, The Epistle of James (Chicago: Moody, 1979), 175.] 'James and Paul both echo Jesus' preaching. Paul's emphasis is an echo of Matthew 5:3: "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." James's teaching has the ring of Matthew 7:21: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven." Paul represents the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount; James the end of it. Paul declares that we are saved by faith without the deeds of the law. James declares that we are saved by faith, which shows itself in works. Both James and Paul view good works as the proof of faith--not the path to salvation. 'James could not be more explicit. He is confronting the concept of a passive, false "faith," which is devoid of the fruits of salvation. He is not arguing for works in addition to or apart from faith. He is showing why and how, true, living faith always works. He is fighting against dead orthodoxy and its tendency to abuse grace. 'The error James assails is faith without works; justification without sanctification; salvation without new life. 'Again, James echoes the Master Himself, who insisted on a theology of lordship that involved obedience, not lip-service. Jesus chided the disobedient ones who had attached themselves to Him in name only: "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say?" (Luke 6:46). Verbal allegiance, He said, will get no one to heaven: "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 7:21). 'That is in perfect harmony with James: "Prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves" (1:22); for "faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself" (2:17). [Excerpted from Faith Works] (www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/james2.htm) |
||||||
402 | Restorations??? | Heb 6:4 | Radioman2 | 77232 | ||
"It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened . . . if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance," Hebrews 6:4,6 NIV __________________________ Hebrews 6:4-6 NIV [4] It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, [5] who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, [6] if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. 1 Cor. 3:6-7 (ESV) I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. [7] So neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. |
||||||
403 | is baptism necessary for salvation? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77212 | ||
Acts 2:38 (NET Bible) Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for[5] the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Footnote 5. translators' note. 'There is debate over the meaning of eij" in the prepositional phrase eij" a[fesin tw'n aJmartiw'n uJmw'n (eis afesin twn Jamartiwn Jumwn, “for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins”). Although a “causal” sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain. D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 369-71, discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: '(1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eij" has the meaning of “for” or “unto.” Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works—an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18); '(2)The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41); '(3)The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eij", but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it; '(4)Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. 'One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, “Acts,” EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BAGD 229 s.v. eij" 4.f.' (http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl#note_5) |
||||||
404 | What command governs giving today? | 2 Cor 9:7 | Radioman2 | 76863 | ||
2 Corinthians 9:7 (Amplified) Let each one [give] as he has made up his own mind and purposed in his heart, not reluctantly or sorrowfully or under compulsion, for God loves (He takes pleasure in, prizes above other things, and is unwilling to abandon or to do without) a cheerful (joyous, "prompt to do it") giver [whose heart is in his giving]. 2 Corinthians 9:7 (NLT) You must each make up your own mind as to how much you should give. Don't give reluctantly or in response to pressure. For God loves the person who gives cheerfully. |
||||||
405 | Have you been baptized right? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Radioman2 | 76746 | ||
Yes, I have been baptized for the remission of my sins. Acts 2:38 (NET Bible) Peter said to them, “Repent, and each one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for[5] the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Footnote 5. translators' note. 'There is debate over the meaning of eij" in the prepositional phrase eij" a[fesin tw'n aJmartiw'n uJmw'n (eis afesin twn Jamartiwn Jumwn, “for/because of/with reference to the forgiveness of your sins”). Although a “causal” sense has been argued, it is difficult to maintain. D. B. Wallace, Exegetical Syntax, 369-71, discusses at least four other ways of dealing with the passage: '(1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eij" has the meaning of “for” or “unto.” Such a view suggests that salvation is based on works—an idea that runs counter to the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance often precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v. 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18); '(2)The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41); '(3)The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eij", but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it; '(4)Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. That Peter connects both closely in his thinking is clear from other passages such as Acts 10:47 and 11:15-16. If this interpretation is correct, then Acts 2:38 is saying very little about the specific theological relationship between the symbol and the reality, only that historically they were viewed together. 'One must look in other places for a theological analysis. For further discussion see R. N. Longenecker, “Acts,” EBC 9:283-85; B. Witherington, Acts, 154-55; F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles: The Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary, 129-30; BAGD 229 s.v. eij" 4.f.' (http://www.bible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl#note_5) |
||||||
406 | Help | 1 Peter | Radioman2 | 76532 | ||
1 Peter 3:19 (ESV) in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, Please note that in v. 19 the word "back" simply does not appear. Nor am I aware of any Bible verse that says Jesus went *back* to the people of Noah's day and preached. 1 Peter 3:18-20 (ESV) For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit, [19] in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison, [20] because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. |
||||||
407 | Can a toddler go to heaven? | Rom 3:23 | Radioman2 | 76439 | ||
Do babies and others incapable of professing faith in Christ automatically go to heaven? * * * * * * * * * * * * * "...it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord. " * * * * * * * * * * * * * 'People often wonder about the eternal destiny of the unborn, babies, and those unable to intellectually understand the gospel. That question is a difficult one. Unfortunately, the Bible offers us no explicit answer. However, based on several passages, as well as an understanding of God's character and His dealings with men, we can develop a good idea of how He works in such situations. 'Second Samuel 12:23 is one of the passages often quoted to imply that babies go to heaven. Though the verse doesn't explicitly say that, David clearly does expect to one day be reunited with his departed child. Since we know David is a believer whose destiny was heaven, we can infer that his hope of reunion means he expected his child to be in heaven. Thus, 2 Samuel 12:23 suggests strong evidence for a heavenly destiny of the unborn and children who die young. 'If this were all we had to support our position, it would be admittedly less than stalwart. However, there are other evidences that point us to the same conclusion. First, the Bible clearly teaches that God cares deeply for children. Passages like Matthew 18:1-6 and 19:13-15 affirm the Lord's love for them. Jesus not only used children as an example of the qualities of kingdom citizens, but also taught that they each have guardian angels (Matt. 18:10). Those verses don't state that children go to heaven, but they do show God's heart toward children. He created and cares for children, and beyond that, He always accomplishes His perfect will in every circumstance. 'The psalmist reminds us that God is "full of compassion and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in mercy and truth" (Ps. 86:15). He is the God who became flesh that He might carry our sins away by His death on the cross (2 Cor. 5:21). He is the God who will comfort Christians in heaven, for "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death; nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain" (Rev. 21:4). We can be assured that God will do what is right and loving because He is the standard of rightness and love. These considerations alone seem to be evidence enough of God's particular, electing love shown to the unborn and those who die young. 'However, another point may be helpful in answering this question. While infants and children have neither sensed their personal sin and need for salvation nor placed their faith in Christ, Scripture teaches that condemnation is based on the clear rejection of God's revelation-whether general or specific-not simple ignorance of it (Luke 10:16; John 12:48; 1 Thess. 4:8). Can we definitely say that the unborn and young children have comprehended the truth displayed by God's general revelation that renders them "without excuse" (Rom. 1:18-20)? They will be judged according to the light they received. Scripture is clear that children and the unborn have original sin-including both the propensity to sin as well as the inherent guilt of original sin. But could it be that somehow Christ's atonement did pay for the guilt for these helpless ones throughout all time? Yes, and therefore it is a credible assumption that a child who dies at an age too young to have made a conscious, willful rejection of Jesus Christ will be taken to be with the Lord.' (http://www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/heaven7.htm) |
||||||
408 | Are "fleeces" necesary for today? | Judg 6:37 | Radioman2 | 76386 | ||
"Gideon was not here seeking to learn God's will, because that had already been clearly revealed to him (vv. 14,16). He put out the fleece for two reasons: (1) to strengthen the weakness of his own faith; and (2) to give him evidence that would convince the people that he was really God's instrument. This is not to be taken as the usual method for discovering God's will. See Prov. 3:5-6; Jas. 1:5-8" (Note at Judges 6:37, New Scofield Reference Bible, Oxford, 1967). NASB Judges 6:37 behold, I will put a fleece of wool on the threshing floor. If there is dew on the fleece only, and it is dry on all the ground, then I will know that You will deliver Israel through me, as You have spoken." |
||||||
409 | Baptism in the Holy Spirit? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Radioman2 | 76362 | ||
"For by one Spirit we were all baptized" NASB 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. AMPLIFIED 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by [means of the personal agency of] one [Holy] Spirit we were all, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, baptized [and by baptism united together] into one body, and all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit. |
||||||
410 | Baptism in the Holy Spirit? | 1 Cor 12:13 | Radioman2 | 76360 | ||
"For by one Spirit we were all baptized" NASB 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. AMPLIFIED 1 Corinthians 12:13 For by [means of the personal agency of] one [Holy] Spirit we were all, whether Jews or Greeks, slaves or free, baptized [and by baptism united together] into one body, and all made to drink of one [Holy] Spirit. |
||||||
411 | Mark 13:32 and 1 Corinthians 15:24,28 | Phil 2:6 | Radioman2 | 76141 | ||
If Jesus is God, then why did He not know the time of His return? In Matt. 24:35-36 (../kjv/Matt/matt_24.htm) Jesus said, "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah." If Jesus is God in flesh, then shouldn't He know what the day and hour of his return would be? After all, God knows all things. Therefore, if Jesus doesn't know all things, then He cannot be God. This objection is most often raised by the Jehovah's Witnesses (../witnesses.htm) but is also echoed by the Christadelphians (../christadelphian.htm). It is a good question. Jesus was both God and man. He had two natures. He was divine and human at the same time. This teaching is known as the hypostatic union (../dictionary/dic_g-h.htm); that is, the coming-together of two natures in one person. In Heb. 2:9 (../kjv/Heb/Heb_2.htm) that Jesus was ". . . made for a little while lower than the angels . . ." Also in Phil. 2:5-8 (../kjv/Phil/phil_2.htm), it says that Jesus "emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men . . ." Col. 2:9 (../kjv/Col/col_2.htm) says, "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." Jesus was both God and man at the same time. As a man, Jesus cooperated with the limitations of being a man. That is why we have verses like Luke 2:52 (../kjv/Luke/luke_2.htm) that says "Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men." Therefore, at this point in his ministry he could say He did not know the day nor hour of His return. It is not a denial of His being God, but a confirmation of Him being man. Also, the logic that Jesus could not be God because He did not know all things works both ways. If we could find a scripture where Jesus does know all things, then that would prove that He was God, wouldn't it? He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus *said to him, "Tend My sheep" (John 21:17 (../kjv/John/john_21.htm) - NASB). Jesus did not correct Peter and say, "Hold on Peter, I do not know all things." He let Peter continue on with his statement that Jesus knew all things. Therefore, it must be true. But, if we have a verse that says that Jesus did not know all things and another that says he did know all things, then isn't that a contradiction? No. It is not. Before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection. Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5. After Jesus' resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man. But, it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man and He knew all things. For further reading please see the two natures of Jesus. (../doctrine/2natures.htm) (www.carm.org/witnesses.htm) |
||||||
412 | Exodus 3:14 connected to John 8:58? | Ex 3:14 | Radioman2 | 76127 | ||
The Jehovah's Witnesses and John 8:58 'Let's turn to page 467 of the 1969 Greek Interlinear used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society:. 'The Watchtower's own interlinear translates John 8:58 as "I am" even though in the NWT it renders it as "I have been." In this, they admit that the Greek is indeed, "I am," the present tense. They will not deny this. What they assert is that it should be translated into the English, "I have been." Should it or could it? If it should, then Greek scholars would echo the NWT rendition in the great majority of instances. But they do not. Essentially, the Watchtower organization is saying that all the translations that have "I am" as the rendering are wrong, that the "proper" translation is "I have been." In a footnote at the bottom of page 467 regarding John 8:58 in the NWT is this comment: '"I have been equals ego eimi after the a'orist infinitive clause prin' Abraam genesthai and hence properly rendered in the perfect tense. It is not the same as ho ohn', meaning "The Being" or "The I Am") at Exodus 3:14, LXX" 'The "LXX" is the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament. The question is whether or not Jesus was quoting from the LXX or if He was simply translating the Hebrew. Again, Exodus 3:14 says, "And God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'" The phrase "I AM WHO I AM" is rendered in the Greek LXX as "Ego eimi ho on." Literally, this is "I am the being one." Most Bibles translate the Hebrew from Exodus 3:14 as "I am" -- the present tense as did the Hebrew translators of the LXX. The LXX also has it in the present tense which is what the Greek syntax states. Jesus uses the present tense in John 8:58. 'In spite of some of the translations regarding John 8:58, I do not believe the NWT's version of John 8:58 is warranted for three reasons: First, it purports to "transmit his [God] thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible."1 I do not believe this is the case at all. Rather, I see the Watchtower's bias against Jesus' divinity overtaking this verse and altering it as it has done in other verses such as Heb. 1:8 and Col. 1:15-17. Second, the most literal translations such as the NASB, the NIV, and the KJV do not render this verse as "I have been" but as "I AM." And, third, the context of the verse does not support the JW position. (...) 'If Jesus wanted to avoid any confusion with the Pharisees, why didn't He use one of the past tenses? Certainly he must have known that saying "Before Abraham was, I am" to the Pharisees would cause some problems. And it did. The aorist (I was), the perfect (I have been), and the pluperfect (I had been) all deal with the past, yet Jesus chose to deliberately use the present tense "I am." He used a past tense verb when describing Abraham ("before Abraham was..."), but a present tense verb when describing Himself ("I am"). He deliberately brought attention to the words, "I am." The Pharisees understood this and was indeed the last straw for them. 'Conclusion 'The Jehovah's Witnesses have spent a great deal of time developing and crafting linguistic arguments to favor their translation of John 8:58. Wading through their arguments dealing with Greek tenses, verb forms, and grammar rules is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is sufficient to mention that the Jehovah's Witnesses have a theological bias against the deity of Christ. Their translation of John 8:58 and their attempts to justify this translation are directly related to their presuppositions against Christ and his deity. 'The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society teaches its members to deny the deity of Christ. From this base, any and all affirmations to Jesus' deity will be undermined in whatever way possible. John 8:58 is just another example of this bias.' ___________ 1 New World Translation, 1961, page 5. 2 I should note that, most probably Jesus spoke to the Pharisees in Aramaic, a Hebrew Dialect. It is possible He spoke to them in Greek. But, since all we have is the NT Greek and no Aramaic writings of the NT, we must work from what the Greek says. WE WorldWide English Bible YLT Young's Literal Translation KJ21 21st Century King James Version CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS and RESEARCH MINISTRY (To read the entire article, go to: http://www.carm.org/jw/john8_58.htm) |
||||||
413 | Who were the people in the land of Nod? | Gen 4:16 | Radioman2 | 76057 | ||
What book, chapter and verse of the Bible says that there were people already in the Land of Nod when Cain was sent there? | ||||||
414 | Matthew 28:19 and Acts 2:38 Which one is | Matt 28:19 | Radioman2 | 76054 | ||
Was Jesus wrong when He said, "baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"? NASB Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," |
||||||
415 | Joseph: Jesus' father? | Luke 2:33 | Radioman2 | 76050 | ||
Luke 2:33 (NET) So the child's father[3] and mother were amazed at what was said about him. Footnote 3. tc Most mss (A Q Y 053 Ë13 Byz it) read "Joseph"; in favor of the reading "his father" (Í B D L W 1 700 1241 et pauci) is both the fact that Mary is not named at this point and that "Joseph" is an obviously motivated reading, intended to prevent confusion over the virgin conception of Christ. New English Translation (http://www.netbible.com) |
||||||
416 | How come we try to make what God told us | James 2:14 | Radioman2 | 61965 | ||
Question: How come we try to make what God told us to do to be saved into a battle of misunderstandings? Answer: Define "we". Who tries to do this? Question: At the end of the day, when one reads the sermon from Peter on the day of Pentecost, what did he tell the people to do? Answer: In the Bible passage, doesn't it say what he told them? Question: Was what he said for thier salvation? Answer: Since in your question you do not give the book, chapter and verse to which you are referring, I'm forced to guess that your question is about what Peter said in Acts 2:38. Was what he said for their salvation? If "the remission of sins" means salvation, then the answer would be, Yes, it was for their salvation. Question: Did they except what he said? Answer: Do you mean did they ACCEPT what he said? In the Bible passage, doesn't it say "they that gladly received his word were baptized"? Question: Did some reject what he said? Answer: Unknown. The passage does not say "some rejected what he said." On the other hand, that some rejected is a reasonable understanding of the passage. Question: Finally, does what Peter told the people to do, contradict what Paul and James said? Answer: No. |
||||||
417 | Radioman2, What "third toe"? | Dan 2:41 | Radioman2 | 61962 | ||
Question: What "third toe" ... I don't see it? Answer: The third toe is the one between the second and fourth toes. The third toe appears on every drawing or chart of the "single great statue" (Dan 2:31, NASB) that I've ever seen. |
||||||
418 | what is the ploest form of religion? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 60388 | ||
ploest "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right. "Suggestions for ploest: 1. poloist 2. -plast 3. Paulist 4. playsuit 5. pulsate 6. plots 7. poults 8. Ploesti 9. pollutes 10. Ploiesti" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) |
||||||
419 | what is the oldest form of religion? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 60386 | ||
ploest "The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right. "Suggestions for ploest: 1. poloist 2. -plast 3. Paulist 4. playsuit 5. pulsate 6. plots 7. poults 8. Ploesti 9. pollutes 10. Ploiesti" (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary) |
||||||
420 | Justify Leviticus 20:13 | Lev 20:13 | Radioman2 | 60303 | ||
Really? I say it's the tyranny of political correctness that is "a way of controlling the masses and preventing creative, independent thought." --Radioman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ] |