Results 401 - 420 of 449
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Can a person Fall From Grace? | NT general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 30143 | ||
In Galations 5, the topic isn't about the security of the believer, but what the believer adheres to: whether it be the Law or Grace. Paul's point in this passage is that if one chooses to follow the Law, then he must follow every measure of the Law perfectly to be declared justified. As a result, the matters of CHrist are to be useless to him, for he has chosen a different path. So, all in all, Galatians 5 isn't referring to the security of the believer. Now, on to the subject of Security. There are two camps: Conditional Security and Eternal Security. Conditional Security teaches that a person can lose his salvation by either failing to continue in the faith or by willing the salvation to go away. Eternal Security teaches that our salvation is kept by God himself, and that he alone keeps us in Salvation, no matter what happens. I believe in Eternal Security. Here's why. Romans 8:12-17 IN this passage, Paul talks about being adopted as Sons of God. According to the customs of New Testament times, Adoption was such a contract that could not be nullified nor broken in any capacity. It was so binding, that not even the courts could break it. Also, an adopted individual could not be denied his/her inheritance. This is the meaning that can be applied to Romans 8. Another text is 1 Peter 1:3-7. 1 Peter 1:3-7 The idea presented here is that our inheritance is reserved for us in heaven. There is nothing that corrupt it, take it away, or anything. Once it is there, it is permanently placed there for us. It also teaches that this is done through the Power of God. Now, turn to Ephesians 2:8-9. Ephesians 2:8-9 This gives the obvious proof for Eternal Security. It is so obvious that many people overlook it. Conditional Security takes our security out of God's hands and places it into our own. According to Conditional Security, salvation is indeed a gift by God, as Ephesians 2:8 teaches, but we need to work to keep it. This second part goes against Ephesians 2:9 which teaches that it is not through works, lest any man should boast. The idea being taught in the whole epistle to Ephesians is that God alone saves us and keeps us. There is nothing that we have done to achieve eternal life. This includes keeping our salvation. If we were allowed to hold ourselves in salvation, two things would be inevitable. First, no one would ever get to heaven. Second, if someone did get to heaven, he would be able to brag about it, after all he was able to keep his salvation while others lost theirs. You see my point. Conditional Security changes salvation from a faith and grace based salvation, to being works based, which goes against Scripture. Another thing it does, is that it restricts the power of God. Those who hold to Conditional Security are admitting that God cannot be trusted because he is not powerful enough to secure them. This leads to selfishness, which is foundation for which Sin is based upon. Overall, Conditional Security doesn't hold to all of Scripture. Only Eternal Security holds true to all of Scripture. These are only three passages out of numerous ones that I could present. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
402 | Same old question: man or Man? | John 1:1 | Jesusman | 30137 | ||
OK? As for John 1:2, remember what the verse says. "This was in the beginning with God." Now, there are two possible meanings here. Before I get into that, it is pertanent to clarify a few things. First, "outos" is a pronoun meaning "this". It is often used descriptively with another noun, for example "this chair", "this house", and etc. However, when it stands byitself, with a definite article, as in John 1:2, it functions as a noun on it's own. Thus giving the meaning of "this one", as in John 1:2. Now, the question then becomes, "what is 'this' referring to?" Now, in the context of John 1:2, you have two possibilities. "This" is referring to "the Word" or to the preexistance of "the Word" that is described in verse 1, as if to say "and vise versa". Both possibilities fit here in John 1:2. "outos" could be referring to the "Word", and summing up what was said in verse 1. Also, it could be trying to describe "God" in the same manner of pre-existance as it did for "the Word". Thus saying something like "in the beginning was God, and God was with the Word, and God was the Word." This is what I personally believe. While the first possibility does fit, it the second that I believe because it makes better sense in my mind. As for Matthew 9:3, here you also have "outos" by itself with a definite article. Through the context, we find that "this fellow" is in reference to Jesus. As in John 1:2, "outos" is being used in a similar manner than as a noun would've been used. Jesusman |
||||||
403 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | Jesusman | 30131 | ||
So, if a Christian can lose his salvation, then that means that God isn't as powerful as he claims, that it is up to us to save ourselves, and that we have bragging rights if we make it to heaven. Therefore, we are just as good on our own as we are with God. After all, God isn't powerful enough. Correct? Jesusman |
||||||
404 | "ONCE SAVED ALWAYS SAVED"!!! | Matt 22:37 | Jesusman | 30130 | ||
Hello, I believe in "Once saved always saved" for a few good reasons. First is in Romans 8:12-17 This passage is referring to adoption. As believers, we are adopted as a result of our faith in Jesus Christ. Upon salvation, the believer is given a "spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, Abba! Father!" I recently did a study on the New Testament view of adoption. During NT times, an adoption was such a contract that could not be broken nor nullified by any person. Not even the courts could break an adoption. The People involved could not nullify the adoption in any way. It was permanent. Also, an adopted child could not, in any capacity, be denied his/her inheritance. In fact, adoption was used on those who were declared legitimate birth children. This is the meaning that can be applied here in this passage. Once we are adopted, we cannot be unadopted in any way. We cannot deny it. We cannot give it back. Nothing. We are adopted, permanently. The next passage is in 1 Peter 1:3-7. In this passage, Peter declares that our inheritance is "imperishable, undefiled, and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, ...". In the following verse, he continues by saying that you "who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time." It is clear in this passage that our inheritance cannot be done away with. Then there is the parable of the prodigal son. Many who do not hold to eternal security use the father's statement "my son who was once dead, but now is alive ..." as proof for conditional security, or the idea that a Christian can lose his salvation. However, when you look closely at the parable, the son's status in the father's eyes and in the family never changes. The son is always the son. There is never a time when he is not the son. What changes is his residence, not his status. The son is always the son. Those three passages, and many others, lead me to believe that a Christian cannot lose his/her salvation. In fact, I am quicker to say that the person is either back-slidden, or was not truly saved to begin with than to say that they lost their salvation. Also, saying that a person lost their salvation implies two things. First, God is not all powerful. Second, that Salvation is by works. Both go against Scripture. Ephesians records, "By grace are you saved, through faith, not of youselves. It is the gift of God. Not of works lest anyman should boast." Indeed God does begin the process of Salvation, but keeping it is up to us, according to Conditional Security. As a result, Salvation is out of God's hands and is placed into our own hands. If we are not able to save ourselves, how on God's green earth are we going to keep it on our own? It cannot be done. Therefore, Salvation is by God alone, and we are kept in Salvation by God alone. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
405 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 30125 | ||
Hello tuli, I don't think you clearly understand what I am trying to say. Yes, the Anakim in Numbers and Deuteronomy are humans. That is beyond refuting. However, they are called "niphillim" due to their great size. In the post-flood passages, these giants are called men. However, the pre-flood giants, cannot be the same men due to the flood itself. The only people that survived the flood was Noah, his three sons, and their wives. The only animals to survive were those on the ark. All other life before the flood was destroyed. So, the anakim cannot be the Niphillim of Genesis 6. It is not only biblically impossible, but scientifically impossible as well. Therefore, the Niphillim of Genesis 6, must be either a different group of giant humans or something inhuman that is giant in stature. Now, Genesis 6 does not hint in anyway that the Niphillim are human or not, just that they are there. Also, we must adhere to the science pertaining to this area. Archeology has yet to uncover giant human remains dating back to the period of the Flood. The only remains that are giant in stature that can be found are dinosaurs. Therefore, the Niphillim of Genesis 6 is a totally different group than those of Numbers 13. As a result, Niphillim goes from being a name of a tribe, nationality, or species, to being a term of description, which is the only explaination that fully fits with both usages of "niphillim". As for the usage of Science, Science in it's truest sense is not to contradict the Scripture, but should be used to explain Scripture. Science should not be feared nor shunned but should be used to aid in the study of Scripture. As for Job, again, I'm not sure if you understand what it is that I am trying to convey. Notice in both Job chapter 1 and 2, that the "sons of God" are gathered before God. This can be taken two ways. 1) they are physically in front of God. 2) they are Spiritually in front of God. The most common meaning is the former of the two. However, I believe it is the latter of the two. Just because they are gathered before God in Spirit does not neccessarily conclude that they are there physically as well. Now, if the "sons" are angels, then it is that they are gathered physically before God. However, since angels are never called "sons" directly, then the explaination then turns to those who are directly called "sons", namely human believers. As a result of this shift, the gathering changes from being a physical gathering to being a spiritual gathering, as in worship. We, Christians, do the same thing every sunday morning. We gather ourselves before the Lord to present ourselves before him. So, this is a gathering for Worship. Now, we turn to Job, God, and Satan. Job immediately becomes the topic of the conversation between God and Satan, as if Job is among the worshippers. Now, Satan is physically before God, because they are talking to one another. Job and the other "sons" are spiritually before God. Let me explain this through the use of an analogy. Two high school baseball coaches are talking about the coming game between them. The team of the home team coach is currently practicing on the field. Now, which is more likely? That the home team coach is going to start talking and bragging about his star pitcher with the 95 mph fast ball? Or is the home team coach going to start talking about the pitcher of another team all together? He is going to start talking about his own pitcher who is already in the field showing his stuff. Correct? Well, I think the same thing, or similar at least, is happening in Job 1 and 2. As for Job 38:7, I believe that "morning stars" is in reference to angels. Angels are called stars in other passages throughout the Bible. However, I believe that "sons of God" is still in reference to human believers. For instance, why would the writer say, putting it into meaning, "When the angels sang together, and all the angels shouted for Joy ..."? Sounds repeative, right? Also, there really isn't any precidence in Job for such a repeation in meaning to happen. It doesn't entirely make sense. However, if it were to mean, "when the angels sang together, and all the believers shouted for joy ...", then there would be a clear understanding and less confusion. Also, it would bring emphasis upon the true meaning of the book of Job, that God is supreme over all creation. I hope this clarifies things. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
406 | What does "your eyes saw" mean in Deut 7 | Deuteronomy | Jesusman | 29507 | ||
Moses is speaking to the nation as a whole. Not just to the individuals. Also, while the parents would have died off, the children born to them shortly before the 10 plagues could've remembered some of them. Then you have the passing on of the stories as well as the miracles they have seen while during the wandering. Also, the point of this passage is that God is powerful enough to take care of you and will defend you against your enemies. Jesusman |
||||||
407 | the divinity of Christ | John 1:1 | Jesusman | 29497 | ||
Actually, I'm not shocked. For that matter, why is anybody shocked? As long as the Bible remains, there will always be someone to come along who will question it, it's teachings, and it's claims. This is just another one of those times. As for my faith, I'm Christian. I believe what the Bible literally teaches and I teach what the Bible literally teaches. I believe that Jesus Christ is the One and true son of God, come to us to save us of our sins, and that he is God the Son of the Tri-une God-head. I believe that he died for our sins, was buried, and was ressurrected on the third day by his own power as according to the prophecies. I believe that the Bible is the Inerrant, Holy Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and divinely brought to us through human means. Does that answer your question? Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
408 | Why was the man speechless? | Matt 22:11 | Jesusman | 29495 | ||
There could be any number of reasons. Maybe he was awestruck by the amount of food there was? The text really doesn't clarify. Jesusman |
||||||
409 | The Sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 | Genesis | Jesusman | 29493 | ||
Ok? About the Niphillim or Giants, as they are also known as, there is no relationship between them and the Sons and Daughters. They are merely mentioned that they were in the land in those days. The term Niphillim is only used three times in the Bible in only two passages: Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. Now, It is impossible for the Niphillim in Genesis to be the same or ancestors of the Niphillim in Numbers. Why? There is a giant, global, and wet event that takes place between the two: the Great Flood. The Bible records that all life, aside from those on the ark, was destroyed. Therefore, the two groups cannot be linked in any other way than just termanology. That leads me to believe that "Niphillim" is a descriptive term given to those who are giant in stature, fierce in attitude, and has a tendancy to stomp on their enemies and prey. This is what "niphillim" means in it's basic sense. Also, given the descriptions in Numbers of the Anakim, it just follows that "Niphillim" is used to give them a name which the other Israelites could relate to. It's as if a little 5 year-old girl sees a roaring Lion at the Zoo and calls it a "kitty!" The Lion is not a "kitty". It's a Lion. It may be related to a "kitty" in physical appearance, but it is still different than a "kitty". You get my point. Another point that I should make clear, is that the Niphillim are not the offspring. The Language does not support that in any way. The mighty men of old and men of renown are the offspring of the Sons and the Daughters. The offspring and the Niphillim are two different groups. All I am saying about the Niphillim in genesis is that they cannot be the offspring. There isn't any support for it. The only support that can be given is that they are point of reference, which I explain in my original post. Also, I don't think that the Genesis Niphillim are human. Scientifically speaking. If they were humans, then why hasn't science uncovered any giant human fossils? The only giant fossils that have been uncovered are dinosaurs. Now, I leave you to put the rest together. As for Job, notice that the Sons of God "came to present themselves before the Lord". Now, what is it that every Christian does for morning Worship? They present themselves before God. Correct? Not only that, but Job immediately becomes the topic of conversation. Which gives support for them being humans and Job being among them. Then there is Satan being there. Satan was kicked out of heaven. If these are angels before God in heaven, why is Satan there? All of those together point to a time of worship among the human believers of God on earth at the time that Job was written, which is believed to have been during the early parts of Genesis. Then you have the reoccurance in Job chapter two. Not only that, but never, no where in the Bible are angels called specifically the sons of God. With all of those factors together, the Sons in Job 1 and 2 are possibly human believers who are annually worshipping God. As for Sodom and the Angels, true, Angels have appeared as flesh. Even God appeared as flesh before the coming of Jesus. That doesn't support anything. Further more, you have Jesus' statement that angels are not given into marriage nor do they marry. Mostly, this is due to God's will. Now, even if angels are called "Sons of God", which they never are, if they came and married human females, they would be in violation of God's will, and no longer be called his "sons", but would be demons. Psalms 104 is merely describing the awsome power that God has. It doesn't support the idea that angels are his "sons", which is the true point to all of this. As for Hebrews chapter one, read it in detail. The whole chapter is devoted to Christ being more than an angel and also comparing us to angels as well. In hebrews 1:7, the author comes right out and asks "To which of the angels did He ever say, 'you are My son, today I have begotten you'?" The answer is obvious. None of them. Then you have verse 14 saying that angels are nothing more than ministering spirits, sent out to render service for those who will inherit salvation. The definition of a "son of God" is simple. It is one who is obedient to the will of the Father. Now, we have three groups clearly identified as "Sons of God". 1) Jesus Christ: Matthew 16:16 2) Israel: Hosea 1:10; 11:1 3) Christians: Romans 8:12-17 I give you this challenge. Find a verse which clearly identifies Angels as being the "Sons of God". By that I mean, a verse that has angels and "sons of God" in the same verse referring to each other. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
410 | the divinity of Christ | John 1:1 | Jesusman | 29216 | ||
The divinity of Christ being questioned? What's new about that? We are already combatting that. It's the same argument the non-christians have been saying since Christ first walked the earth, just in a different format. Jesusman |
||||||
411 | God's anger at Babel tower, why? | Genesis | Jesusman | 29215 | ||
They had the audacity to attempt to try and reach God on their own accord. Not only that, but they were trying to act without God. Basically, it all boils down to pride and selfishness. As a result of their pride and selfishness, God confused the langauges. This resulted in future college and high school students needing to fulfill a language requirement in order to graduate. :) Jesusman |
||||||
412 | Why was the man speechless? | Matt 22:11 | Jesusman | 29193 | ||
Hello Ed, This is the parable of the Wedding feast, and one of my favorites. The parable begins with the calling of those who were initially invited to the feast. However, they would not come. When asked a second time, they revolted, killed the servants, and made the king angry. As a result, the king punished them by burning the city and their homes, and killing the murderers. After that, he sent the servents to the highways to invite guests and travellers. Now, It was customary in those days to give a travller time to prepare after coming from a journey. It was also customary to have the guest change into their wedding clothes in preparation. If they did not have the proper clothes, they would have been provided with some. Here was a man who was not properly dressed. This was a sign of disrespect to the king. All the man wanted was the food, but did not want to do his part to get it. As a result, the guest was evicted from the premisses. So, while he was brought in, he was no better than the ones who where initially invited, and he was punished Jesusman |
||||||
413 | How important is your Church? | Bible general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 29192 | ||
Is not the entire collection of believers called "Church"? "Church" is the term given to the people as a whole, not the building or the small sect that you currently migrate with. It should not be a factor as to which group of believers you are with as long as they are being true the Word of God. Jesusman |
||||||
414 | Who was Cain's wife? | OT general | Jesusman | 29111 | ||
Hello, Before I speak, I have something to say. While the question has been asked before, I'll go ahead and answer it. The answer is both simple and obvious. Cain's wife was also his sister. Which would make his parents his own in-laws, as if parents aren't bad enough the first time around. Now they are the in-laws as well. His children would be his nieces and nephews, but that's a family matter. Can you imagine the reunions with that family? "Hello, Uncle daddy and Aunt Mommy. Where's Great uncle grandpa and Great Aunt Grandma?" Talk about relativity, Einstein had nothing on these folks. :) Now, to point out a few things, seriously. While only the males are mentioned in the Bible, logic dictates that there must have been sisters born and that those sisters eventually became the wives of the brothers. Something else, the law hadn't come about at this time, so it was permissible to marry your siblings. You had to. How else you to be fruitful and multiply with only one gender? Anyway, I hope this helps. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
415 | How important is your Church? | Bible general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 29110 | ||
9 - While going to church and being a member of a particular doesn't save you, the aspects about going to church is extremely important. Going to Church has three primary purposes. 1) Worshipping God. God deserves our worship. True, worship can be done privately, as it should be done, but it should also be done with other believers. 2) Fellowship with other believers. True, you can fellowship with other christians without going to a church building, but being with other Christians automatically becomes a Church, because what is a CHurch, but a grouping of believers? 3) Teaching and learning God's word. While fellowship and worship can be effectively achieved in private, knowledge of God's word comes easier and better when in groups with other believers. In fact, it seem that nowdays the only place to get true, hard-core bible teaching is at a Bible college or seminary. That should not be the case. It should be the church and the home where believers should recieve a majority of their biblical knowledge. The colleges and seminaries should be where pastors and teachers learn how to teach, not learn what to teach. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
416 | Questions about blessing others - take 2 | Matt 10:13 | Jesusman | 29109 | ||
Hello Love Fountain, Happy New Year to you as well. The sight is www.edepot.com, and it was the Christian forum. Edepot has many forums to visit ranging from many different topics. One being Christianity. I have recently left that forum. I do not plan to go back, unless it gets a major cleaning. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
417 | Questions about blessing others - take 2 | Matt 10:13 | Jesusman | 29103 | ||
Hello All, I'm a friend of Art from the other forum that he spoke of. The other forum we go to has become a battle ground of vague apologetics, foolish criticism, and a hot-bed of anti-christian feelings. Art, myself, and one or two others are all that is left of the strong christian core that once witnessed on that forum. At one time, we were a congregation that met online to share, witness, teach, and worship together. Now, we are a few who stay there in hopes that the Holy Spirit will still work through our words on the hearts and souls of those who attack us. We have two atheists, an agnostic, a daoist or two, and several who claim no religion at all for they believe that all religions ultimately lead to God and heaven. The peculiar part is that this is called a "christian" forum, dedicated to "Christians". It isn't as large as this one, and is open to various related Christian topics. Lately, Art and myself have been hit upon hard by many of the others there, especially by the atheists and agnostics. We are both very strong in our beliefs and are rather persistant in what we hold to be true. I cannot say anything more about Art's feelings, but I have been feeling as though I should pack-up and leave them to their own devices. I am, quite frankly, sick and tired of all the oppostition and conflict that I face there. Anyway, I didn't mean to get on my soapbox. However, I did want to provide a little background information concerning what Art was talking about and asking. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
418 | IS PRODUCING"GOLD DUST"@CHURCH A GENUINE | NT general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 29101 | ||
No I haven't. Has the slow baffoon in make-up been here? Jesusman |
||||||
419 | IS PRODUCING"GOLD DUST"@CHURCH A GENUINE | NT general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 28943 | ||
Hey Art, It's me, Jman. Don't forget what John the Beloved says in 1 John 3:1. "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if whether or not they are of God." Following that verse, he goes into what a spirit of God would do, say, and act. Jesusman |
||||||
420 | May I ask, why, Lord? | Bible general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 28940 | ||
Hello, I remember something my dad told me when I was a boy. He said, "Ask anything you want to ask. Just be respectful in doing so." This comes to mind when looking over the passages you gave. Notice that in everyone of the passages, the people asking "why?" were all respectful of God's authority. They all acknowledged God's authority and sovreignty before asking the question. So, it then becomes a request of information and/or insight than a question about God's ability. One of the many central themes running through Romans is that mankind often tells God, "You don't have a right to do such things." and God answers back, "Yes I do.". This is one such example. I hope this helps. Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Next > Last [23] >> |