Results 401 - 420 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Is it Ok to pray to the Holy Spirit? | NT general | Beja | 221560 | ||
Cathy, No, I've never heard of that being said of acts 13. I think you are correct to disagree with him. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
402 | Is it Ok to pray to the Holy Spirit? | NT general | Beja | 221553 | ||
Cathy, Basically his answer is that the new testament pattern is that we pray to the father, in the name of Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, or in the Spirit. So we want to follow the new testament pattern whenever possible. So in general we pray to the Father. But he notes there are some exceptions to the rule. For example, "Come quickly, Lord Jesus." He mentioned an exception for the Holy Spirit also. So there are some things appropriate to address to the Son, and the Spirit, but our norm should be praying to the Father. But listen to the clip when you get the chance, there is just something about listening to John Piper that I certainly can't reproduce. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
403 | Jesus time in Hell | 1 Pet 3:18 | Beja | 221546 | ||
Light, Just my personal opinion, but I don't think Peter is saying that Christ went to them in prison. It could very well mean that he preached to the ones NOW in prison, but rather He preached to them WHILE they were disobedient in the times of Noah, through the spirit through the preaching of Noah. Notice that it says "in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation." Also I think this is what the NASB is trying to convey when it translates it as the ones, "now in prison." Meaning that they weren't in prison when it happened. I leave it to you to ponder this interpretation. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
404 | Are there different levels of heaven? | John 3:16 | Beja | 221522 | ||
Kij, When you see scripture refer to 3 heavens it is referring to the sky, space, and then the third heaven is the abode of the LORD. Whether that glorious third heaven is divided into portions or what else no man knows. Or at least not this one. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
405 | Jesus time in Hell | 1 Pet 3:18 | Beja | 221521 | ||
Brad, It sure is one of the most difficult passages! In seminary I foolishly chose to write a greek exposition paper on that passage and never could make up my mind what it meant. My teacher gave me a C- I think and I was glad to get it! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
406 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221377 | ||
Lightedsteps, I'm assuming the question is for me since I think Keily would agree with you. My answer is that I think you are confusing the genres here. Revelation is not simple prophecy but apocalyptic literature. Were the four beasts that Daniel saw meant to be understood literally? Should we still be watching for them to appear? What about the scroll in Zechariah 5? Are we still waiting to see a 20 cubit long flying scroll fly through the air or should we say that he is trying to convey something with that image other than literally a flying scroll? What about the valley of bones in Ezekiel? Do we understand that as we are literally waiting to see a large pile of bones come to life or is it representing something else whether that be the new birth or the reformation of national Israel? My point is that just because messianic prophecies are fullfilled literally it does not follow that all scripture is meant to be taken literally. I'm not suggesting that we get to randomly pick and choose which is literal and which isn't. But if a text is not meant to be taken literally, then to read it as such is to read it wrongly. Hope this helps. Just as a tid bit for thought, listen to this quote by Eusebius, who if I'm not mistaken writes the earliest attempt at a history of the church. He wrote this around 310 AD "Papias supplies other stories that had reached him by word of mouth, along with some other strange parables and unknown teachings of the Savior, as well as other legendary accounts. Among them he says that after the resurrection of the dead there will be a thousand year period when the kingdom of Christ will be established on this earth in material form. I suppose that he got these notions by misunderstanding the apostolic accounts, not realizing that they used mystic and symbolic language. For he was a man of very limited intelligence as is clear from his books" Interesting that now Christians regard it as such a strange thing! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
407 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221365 | ||
Lightedsteps, Glad you enjoyed the discussion. If one is going to hold to a literal interpretation of Rev 20, then you'd have to read Mat 25 that way, yes? But wouldn't you say we would then be reading that into the text based on what we believe elsewhere in scripture? And that very well could be right. But is the amillenial interpretation of Rev 20 really doing anymore violence to the text than the other view is then doing to matthew 25? All I am suggesting is lets be fair. If you are amillenial, then you can't take rev 20 word for word literally. If you are not amillenial, then you also have passages you can't take word for word literally. Lets not accuse either side of being irresponsible with the text. In the end, we all interpret scripture in light of other scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
408 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221364 | ||
Keily, Absolutely. This is without a doubt a discussion we do not have to agree on to happily recognize each other as brothers in Christ! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
409 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221361 | ||
Keily, Forgive me, I must have been unclear. I am not at all suggesting that I read rev 20:1-3 literally. Quite the opposite. What I am saying is that a person must make a choice. Look at Matthew 25. Actually go look at it so you see what I'm referring to. The judgement here is clearly depicting one judgement of both the saved and unsaved in one event. The traditional dispensational reading of revelation 20 places the judgements 1000 years apart. Now you must make a choice. Which passage are you going to read literally and which is not literal? I could press you on matthew 25 with the same accusations you place against me regarding revelation 20. The truth be told, one of them is not intending the reader to understand it literally. My point is this, if you choose to read Rev 20 literally, you must say not only matthew 25, but MANY other passages are not literal. The question is this: which do you want to say is literal, either half a dozen passages from almost every genre in scripture, or a single passage in Rev? Do you see the choice now? You can't pass yourself off as somebody who reads scripture literally while the amill person does not. The truth is we MUST both claim something is not being understood literally. Anyways, I'm happy to let the discussion end, I just would be dissapointed if you left not understanding the view I'm trying to articulate due to my short comings in explaining it. After all, I'm attempting to express to you a view that has been around for 2,000 years, not simply my own personal take on scripture. I'd feel bad messing that up for you and other readers. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
410 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221356 | ||
Bruno, One thing where I'm not sure you are understanding me is regarding when we are to disobey. We do not disobey a government because the government has done something wrong. We are to obey even wicked governments up until they actually tell us to disobey God. At which point we obey God rather than men (acts 5:29.) Beyond that one command, we go back to obeying our governments. Second, are you suggesting that because I can or can not picture myself stoning a man that scripture is false based on that? Of course you would not suggest that. Sir, see that you are not at all appealing to reason but rather your strategy is to tell me that based on how I feel about what the old testament says, I am to judge it right or false. You are not using logic, but trying to horrify me by what scripture says. What is the "factual mistake and/or contradiction" here? My feelings do not trump the word of God! And with all due respect, neither do yours. I would also put forward, if I recall this old testament command correctly, you are misrepresenting scripture at this point. It is not as if somebody disobeyed their parents once and therefore were drug off to be stoned. If I recall correctly, this was a recourse for parents whose child was continually rebellious. But perhaps I am remembering the text incorrectly. In Christ, Bruno |
||||||
411 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221354 | ||
Keily, I believe that you are correct when you say that understanding the book of Revelation is dependant on how you first understand the rest of scripture. This unfortunately is where I think we would have a great deal of problems coming to understand one another. I suspect we disagree on many things which determine how we are going to read the book. I would suggest that the millenial reign of Christ began with His ascension. However, I'm not sure we should try to be so very specific on a precise moment, but rather let us say that it was accomplished by the first coming of Christ. Not that you agree, but let's express the amill view that way for our discussion. Also I really can't respond as to what other verses you mean when you haven't told me which ones. Let me address two possible objections you've brought up. One is the objection of taking the passage in some way other than literal. I find myself making a decision when I interpret this passage. On one hand I can take passages such as Matthew 25:31-46 which present a single judgement of both the saved and unsaved, and I can say, "Sorry, this passage can not be interpreted literally because I believe they are thousands of years apart." In which case I would have to do this to other passages also. Second, I would have to ingore that the end times view of scripture consistently portrays a single judgement, it consistently shows things such as the current heavens and earth being desrtoryed at His second coming (2 Peter 3), the evil doers being judged at His second coming (2 Thess 1), death being done away with at his second coming (1 Cor 15) and other such things. Now I have a choice. I can say to all these passages in scripture from a variety of genres, "No No, none of you can be understood literally and we must add at least a 2000 year gap in you." Or I can say to one single passage in revelation, which is a book absolutely full of things meant to be taken in a symbolic way, "This one is the one passage not to take literally." To me I take scripture as a whole far far more literally by taking the amillenial position. Second, your question about Satan is a good one. It is one I had to think through a great deal before I believed what I currently do. It sounds so hard to believe doesn't it? What an amill person is saying is essentially this: In some way, satan is restrained from deceiving the world in mass, though right now he does in fact deceive individuals. Later though when he is released from whatever is holding him, he will cause a mass falling away and rally the nations. This made the position hard to believe for some time, until I realized that it was saying nothing you didn't already have to deal with in scripture. As I turn to 2 Thess 2 and I read about the coming man of sin, what picture does 2 thess 2 paint for us? In some way, satan is restrained from deceiving the world in mass, though right now he does in fact deceive individuals. Later though when he is released from whatever is holding him, he will cause a mass falling away and rally the nations. One of the reasons that I believe the amill position, is that when I claim it, I am saying absolutely nothing nor creating any problems that I don't already see elsewhere in scripture. However, when I take a premillenial position it is quite the opposite. I am claiming a doctrine of a period in between this age and the age to come which I can find nowhere in scripture at all other than revelations chapter 20. We are literally restructuring the eschatology of the entire Bible passed on the addition of one passage in a book of symbols and metaphors. That sir, should make you question your view, I know it did me when I held your view. Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
412 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221342 | ||
Keily, You are correct that I think satan is currently bound. However, you are reading that in terms of what you think it will mean in what you picture to be a future millenia. Satan is not literally in a hole some place called the abyss. The passage defines what the binding of satan means. It says that it is such that he can not deceive the nations. I do not take this to mean that he is completely and utterly restrained from all actions. Revelations is a very symbolic book and much of it is not meant to be taken completely literally. Its simply not a genre that expects to be read in that way. So to answer, Satan is currently our foe that works against us, but he is not free to rally up the nations in a massive organized revolt against God and his people as he will in the final days. Isn't it remarkable that what is possibly the most well attested end times view point through out history (amillenialism), is now so nearly unheard of that it sounds a strange thing to us? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
413 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221336 | ||
Keily, Yes, sir. That is the one and only millenium in scripture. I'm saying that right now, Satan is bound in whatever respect is being spoken of in these very verses. At the end of which he will gather the nations for what you probably refer to as the battle of armegedon, at which point Christ will return and through the ressurection of the dead, the judgement and the restoration of all things, will then usher in the eternal state with the new heavens and the new earth. I hope this helps, I'm not trying to be elusive. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
414 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221335 | ||
Bruno, Yes, I'm sorry you missunderstood me. When I said that we live in a world in which, "It is noble to seek the truth, but the ultimate heresy to claim you've found it." I was not saying that you have claimed to found it but rather expressing what I considered the attitude of the world towards what we are discussing. Concerning governments. First, I do not think that the commands to Israel regarding how their judicial process were to work were mandates to every government that ever lives. Second, how would it logically follow that Western governments not obeying scripture proves scripture false? And third, I will not continue to debate the inerrency of scripture on these forums. In any other place I would gladly defend them, but doing so here I feel violates the terms of agreement you and I both signed upon joining this forum. The authority of scriptures is the "given" of these forums and I ask you in respect to our hosts to discontinue this aspect of our discussion. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
415 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221325 | ||
Keily, Revelations chapter 20 lays it out pretty well. Satan is set loose, he rallies the nations against God's people and when all hope seems lost Christ returns to bring judgment to His enemies and salvation to His people. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
416 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221323 | ||
Bruno, You missunderstood my last post, sir. I was not in any way suggesting that you claimed to have found truth. I'm not sure what you are wanting to know with regard to "biblical justice" thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
417 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221322 | ||
Keily, Wow, how much discussion I have missed in a single evening! Anyways, answering your question is a short one. Yes, I am saying they exist in the same time frame. The millenial reign of Christ is occuring right this moment. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
418 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221292 | ||
Meta, Sounds like you've got a very good head on your shoulders with regards to these things. We should all have as much humility. Indeed, the word millenium isn't used. This, as you've stated, refers to the 1000 years of satan's binding which itself is only referenced in Revelations chapter 20. Now many will argue that other passages is speaking of this period of time, but it is only explicitly called out in this one passage. However, I don't begrudge people using the word millenium which after all only means 1,000 years. As I said I myself am an Amillenialist. This means that I think the 1,000 years referred to in Rev 20 to be speaking of the present age from a heavenly perspective. The 1000 years being simply a simbolic number referring to an undisclosed amount of time, however long the church age ends up. If you are interested in learning more about this view then Kim Riddlebarger is writer who has much influenced my thinking. He has a decent book out called "The Case for Amillenialism." However his sermons are just as good and require less effort. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
419 | Jewish law during the millenium | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 221271 | ||
Meta, I wouldn't want to put words into somebody else's mouth but if I recall he mentioned this with reference to the last several chapters in Ezekiel, which deal with a new temple. I would simply guess that the logic was that a new temple implied renewed sacrifices. I disagree with this reading of Ezekiel but I suspect that might have been the logic. Personally I hold that Christ and His church is the new temple which was fortold of in Ezekiel. I'm curious, Meta, what end times view point you subscribe to. I found you challenging the use of the term Millenium very interesting. Personally I hold to an amill position, and wonder if you have a similiar outlook. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
420 | Good and Evil logycally ANTERIOR to God! | Gen 6:6 | Beja | 221216 | ||
Dear Bruno, ...to continue my post... Let me give the starting point for our thinking. The number one foundational truth of reality is this: There is nothing so wonderful, powerful, worthy, glorious, desirable, spectacular, unique or worthy of praise as God. Let that be the beginning of all our thinking. Now, if this is true the greatest good in all existence is for God to be made much of, and the greatest evil in all of existence would be for God to be belittled. Can you see how that follows? God's "holiness" is the starting point. Things are right in as much as they come into line with that reality. Things are wrong in as much as they diverge from that. Lets see if scripture indicates this? What is the worst of crimes? Or rather what is the most important thing that you should do or not do? If we thought of morality as divorced from flowing from God's holiness then we might say murder, rape, child molestation or some other horrid sin. Yet what did Christ say the greatest of all commandments was? To love God with all our being! Doing this is the greatest good, and failure is the greatest wrong! All other morality flows in a similiar way. Why was it wrong to take advantage of the poor? Proverbs 14:31 "He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker, but he who is gracious to the needy honors Him." Do you see how morality here is flowing from whether one honors or despises God rather than abstract right and wrong? Why is it wrong to take a life? Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man." When God gives permission to us to take the life of all other living things for food, He excludes Man why? Because man is in the image of God. Do you see how it doesn't flow from abstract morality but the honoring or belitteling of God? Why is it wrong to disobey governments? Romans 13:1 "Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God." Why are we to obey them? Because they are established by God, and to resist them is to resist God Paul goes on to say. Do you see how its not an abstract morality but rather making much or belittling God? I can not cover all possible examples. But I hope this post can turn your train of thoughts onto a biblical course. God is not under some authority, but He is ALWAYS behaving consistent with His holiness, which means He is always working to glorify Himself. Nor could God have chosen for things to be differently, because this morality unavoidably flows from who He is. How great is our God and our savior through whom He is revealed! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [26] >> |