Results 41 - 60 of 68
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Reighnskye Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Should nations own land territories? | Obad 1:20 | Reighnskye | 130512 | ||
Does God intend for one nation (race) to have more ownership over land territories than any other nation (race)? Who rightfully owns the land? | ||||||
42 | Will immortals walk with mortals? | Obad 1:21 | Reighnskye | 130513 | ||
When Christ physically rules the earth in the context of His millennial kingdom, will there still be other sinful nations outside the gates of the heavenly New Jerusalem? Will immortals and mortals walk the same earth for a time? | ||||||
43 | Excommunication. Is it for today? | Matt 18:15 | Reighnskye | 130423 | ||
Excommunication. Is it for today? Or was that simply an old practice in early church times? | ||||||
44 | NT tithing completely unbiblical? | Matt 23:23 | Reighnskye | 133364 | ||
Greetings all :) A few words (or paragraphs, lolol) about tithing. Although we find the concept of financial giving in the New Testament, I have not found any evidence that New Covenant believers are directed to tithe (according to a ten percent rule), during and/or after the formation of the early church. Give 5 percent or 15 percent to your local church congregation as you are able, but I have found no tithe (ten percent) stipulation issued toward New Testament believers, in regards to the church that they attend. I believe that the Old Testament doctrine of tithing (which the New Testament sometimes refers to) was strictly a ten percent taxation required of the Jews, in order to financially support their local government at the time. Much the same way that we pay our taxes to the IRS people today. The last three churches that I have attended have taught that the bible directs believers to tithe ten percent of their income to the local church, but yet they lacked any biblical basis, outside of utilizing the Old Testament Law of Moses (and a few New Testament references to the Old Testament law), which had specifically referred to Jewish societal taxation. Although, I believe that the doctrine of tithing a stipulated ten percent of one's income, to your local church organization, is completely unbiblical, I would be curious if anyone can substantiate that tithing is a valid New Testament practice. Perhaps your local church assembly performs this practice? I do not here present a scripture endorsing tithing in the New Testament church, because I don't believe that it exists (other than in the form of Old Testament societal taxation). Verse references, please? - PS. I'm particularly asking for specific verse references here, rather than asking what someone's local congregational practice is on the subject. I greatly appreciate that this is a very dear subject for many, but I just don't find it in the New testament, as it is typically taught in the organized religion today. - Blessings to all :) Reighnskye |
||||||
45 | Do we need the gospel to be saved? | Matt 24:14 | Reighnskye | 130425 | ||
Do we need the gospel of Jesus Christ to be saved? Or is it possible to go to heaven without hearing the gospel? | ||||||
46 | Is hell eternal? Or is it temporary? | Matt 25:46 | Reighnskye | 130444 | ||
Is hell eternal? Or is it temporary? | ||||||
47 | Is God male as opposed to female? | Matt 28:19 | Reighnskye | 133038 | ||
Is God male as opposed to female? | ||||||
48 | Is hell eternal? Or is it temporary? | Mark 9:43 | Reighnskye | 130442 | ||
Is hell eternal? Or is it temporary? | ||||||
49 | John Baptist's Jewish legal credentials? | Luke 1:5 | Reighnskye | 134053 | ||
What were John the Baptist's legal Jewish credentials to baptize the Savior? We know that he was the son of the High Priest Zacharias. Shouldn't John have been ministering as High Priest, in the Holy Place of the temple, as opposed to baptizing the Savior in the wilderness? John the Baptist apparently trashed his fine religious robes to wear a poor man's garb of camel's hair with a leather belt around his waist. Shouldn't Jesus have been baptized by John at the temple? |
||||||
50 | Would this be biblically accurate? | Luke 18:11 | Reighnskye | 133629 | ||
Would these statements be biblically accurate? - The only people who judge others are those who first originate from any of three groups: 1. Those who are first guilty of sin themselves but cannot conscience it, so they engage in a projected guilt transference upon others, instead of repenting of their own sins; or 2. Those who have been directly victimized by the sins of another, and who therefore seek vindictively painful justice upon the wicked; or 3. Both. All others have a natural tendency of forgiveness. - Accurate or inaccurate? Why or why not? Biblical basis, please. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
51 | scriptural veracity? | John 1:14 | Reighnskye | 135686 | ||
Here are some excerpts from THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY with my own inquisitive interjections regarding these portions. In other words, I would like to learn more on the subject. - "Article I We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God. We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source." I personally surmise that the authority of the ancient Church plays a vital authoritative role here, as slightly similar to the Catholic doctrines, although I do not place that same faith in the authority of our modern day church. I surmise that God is higher than the original authors of scripture and that the original authors of scripture are higher than the scriptures themselves. - "Article IV We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation. We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration." I surmise that human languages such as hebrew/greek, english/spanish are imperfect in their conveyance of divine revelation, and therefore fail to innerantly express the totality of divine truth. However, in contrast, I also surmise that the original revelations imparted to the authors of scripture originate from the Holy Spirit, and that the Holy Spirit witnesses the truth through the written scriptures, notwithstanding the imperfections of the languages which compose the written texts. The Holy Spirit conveys spiritual witness of the gospel directly to our human spirit, and not through the vehicle of the psyche via written texts. However, the written texts are vital to quicken our mortal psyches to a conscious awareness of doctrines. - "Article V We affirm that God' s revelation in the Holy Scriptures was progressive. We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings." I surmise that, although this article denies the current existence of inerrant scripture outside of the bible, that it does not however deny the potential for new divine scriptures to be written in the future at some point, in accord with the view of progressive revelation. - Would my personal surmising on these particular matters be accurate or inaccurate? ---- And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14 NAS95) - Reighnskye |
||||||
52 | Does God possess a spirit body? | John 4:24 | Reighnskye | 132795 | ||
Does God possess a spirit body with arms and legs, with which He interacts with prophets in the Old Testament visions? Or is He communicating through angels instead? The idea here is that no spirit (angel, human or demon) with a body possesses absolute omnipresence, by reason that such a manifestation is finite in nature. Hence, no God with a physical or spiritual body is omnipresent. - Hebrews 1 1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. (NAS95) Hebrews 2 2 For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, 3 how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, (NAS95) - Reighnskye |
||||||
53 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135068 | ||
Is it biblical for a church to authorize a marriage that is not simultaneously authorized by the government? In other words, can a church biblically marry two people, without the couple also being married by the government? The reason that I ask is due to financial penalties, that the government places on the legally disabled (medically handicapped), if they get married. I am legally handicapped, so I can't go to work more than 16 hours per month. If I get married, the government will take away my rent income, food allowance and medical coverage (medications and doctor visits). This is because I would be considered by the government as being a dependent on a potential wife, if I were to marry. I would be financially penalized 1200 dollars per month, which equals 500,000 dollars in 35 years. For this reason, I have chosen not to marry under the laws of the government. I am permanently disabled and will not likely recover. Is it biblical for the church to marry me, if I do not simultaneously get a legal marriage contract from the government? I would like to have kids too, but the government provides this obstacle. Further, my question is not regarding politics. I'm looking solely for a biblical basis on the issue of church ordained marriage. Biblical basis only please. |
||||||
54 | Married by church and not state? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135125 | ||
Searcher, I had originated this thread as a question, which has not yet been answered with applicable scriptural support. Here is the original question: "Is it biblical for a church to authorize a marriage that is not simultaneously authorized by the government? In other words, can a church biblically marry two people, without the couple also being married by the government?" And here is my original request for biblical support: "Further, my question is not regarding politics. I'm looking solely for a biblical basis on the issue of church ordained marriage. Biblical basis only please." - Searcher, you further stated: "Reighnskye, Genesis 2 doesn't allow you to violate God's law and make you married. YOU MUST prove bt Scripture you can be married the way YOU want." 1. Which of God's laws are you referring to? I'm not aware that scripture presents any such law. The only laws that a couple of posters have brought up are those originating from secular government, and those have not even been applicable in this situation, insofar as the government engages in no penal action, against church-ordained marriages. 2. You seem to be getting angry, if I call to account the fact, that none of the posters have yet answered my original question, from a biblical basis; at least beyond an inadequate appeal to state government, concerning governmental restrictions which do not exist. - The following verses present the divine ordination of marriage, in the absence of a written legal contract. Genesis 2 24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (NAS95) Further, no biblical basis has been presented by the posters in this thread, that necessitates a written marital contract. Please provide precise chapter and verse, if you have any. I'm not aware that a biblical basis for your stance exists. - Please further reference the following rules and guidelines, as presented by the Lockman foundation: "To adhere to StudyBibleForum's intended purpose, please read the following before submitting a post: 1. This post is biblically based and whenever possible, I have included Bible references to support it. 2. This post is not intended as a personal attack on the authority of the Bible or on other users of this forum. 3. This post is not submitted as an effort to foster divisiveness, ill-will, dissension or other disruptions to this forum. 4. I have carefully proofread my post and believe it represents my best efforts." Are you suggesting that I have violated one or more of these guidelines? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
55 | Doc, biblical basis, please? | Acts 20:28 | Reighnskye | 135145 | ||
Doc, I must admit, I was greatly surprised by the length of your last response to my previous questions, without a single scripture quotation included with your various perspectives here. I guess I'm not so much looking for your legal marriage counsel on the matter, but rather scriptural verifications. - You stated: 1. "In that case, you are right, the responsibility would not be with your spouse to provide for you. Of course, it is not prohibited, either. A good Proverbs 31 wife would be doing her best to make good use of the resources God provides." Scriptural verification, please? You are making the case that the man shall provide and the woman shall not. - 2. "Gratefully, we are not yet at a stage where our government watches everything we do. The onus of responsibility is on us to notify them of changes in our status that effect their dealing with us. So, unless you plan on talking to them about your public marriage, it would be concealment by omission, which is lying." Again, are you presenting this on a scriptual basis or a legal basis? I honestly have no desire to discuss politics here, and am looking for solely a scriptural basis. You had offered one verse prior to make your case on this, but it had seemed like a misapplication to me. - 3. "Furthermore when you accept each payment check, you are tacitly agreeing to the terms whereby you received it." Actually, I made no agreement whatsoever with the government when accepting medical provisions, in regards to marriage or anything else. Rather, my lawyer had adjured the court, through force of law, to pay legally-mandated funds to the handicapped. I suggest that your supposition is false. - 4. "The law bases many of its decisions on something we inherited from the British called "common law." If you live long enough with a woman, or you declare her your wife to others, you have what is called a common law marriage. Although this marriage has no ceremony, license, or vows, it is considered a legal marriage. Although many people now equivocate on these laws in order to avoid one thing or another, nevertheless they have prevailed for quite some time. This kind of marriage would be no different -- legally -- to the kind you are describing." I'd have to investigate the option of common-law marriage further, insofar as three of my friends are also involved in common-law marriages. Two of them are heterosexual and one is homosexual. They have reported no involvements of the government, and were each openly married in one church or another. Either way, you seem to be operating on the supposition that if something is governmentally legal, that it is also therefore biblical. I'm asking for more of a biblical perspective, rather than the legal one that you've provided here. - 5. "One sure way to find out, however, is to do the following: Give the government office in question a call and explain to them your situation. Explain the kind of marriage you will be having and how it is not the kind in which they are interested. See how they respond. :-)" I've discussed this to some extent with them, but have not yet recieved anything biblically founded. I have been legally counseled to either permanently refrain from marriage, or to engage in fornication, insofar as the financial ramifications of marriage could indirectly place extraordinary risk on my health status. - 6. "You should also consider that you might be interfering with how God chooses to provide for you. He will always use means that will not be questionable to anyone." I would suggest to you that you might be interfering with the way that God chooses to provide for me, by your offer of scripturally unvalidated counsel. On what scriptural basis do you say this? I don't mean to be rude, but it seems no more than idealistic theory. - 7. "Remember, what does it matter how much money you have, as long as you belong to God? Submit entirely to Him, and He will see to it that these things are provided." Indeed, God has already chosen to provide for my medical needs through the avenue of the government. It would seem that you are attempting to suggest that the current provision is not valid. - 8. "I'd also give pause to the entire plan. When we are to move, God always provides the means by which we can do so. Sometimes lacking the resources is a way that God closes door." Again, you've not provided scriptural support for this stance. In this regard, I'll consider it to be strictly theoretical on your part. I would suggest that God is not responsible for closing any doors here. Rather, it is the secular government which has closed doors. - I will kindly reiterate: Please provide biblical representation for these marriage perspectives. At this point, I will have to consider your perspectives as either secularly-based or completely theoretical in nature. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
56 | Am I under Jewish Law? | Rom 8:4 | Reighnskye | 135640 | ||
1. Wasn't the Old Testament Law of Moses strictly for Jews? Gentiles are not bound by the Old Testament Law of Moses are they? Since I live in the United States, I am not bound by the laws of either China, Egypt, Israel, Sweden or France. Why would I be bound by the Israeli Law of Moses? Granted, some of these laws have been partially replicated within the United States, but there are many differences also. If I am bound by any laws, I am bound to the laws of the United States. What other law holds sway over me? Romans 2 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (NAS95) - 2. Further, if we shall assume that some wild and watered-down variation of the Law of Moses holds sway over the church today, should the church not obey every last iota of the law? For example, the full observances of the Sabbath or circumcision? How is it that, if we choose to enforce the Old Testament Law of Moses on the church today, (which probably shouldn't be done in the first place), we leave out certain laws and don't go with all 613 commandents, upon the local congregation? James 2 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. 11 For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12 So speak and so act as those who are to be judged by the law of liberty. (NAS95) Romans 2 17 But if you bear the name "Jew" and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know His will and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, having in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth, 21 you, therefore, who teach another, do you not teach yourself? You who preach that one shall not steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For "THE NAME OF GOD IS BLASPHEMED AMONG THE GENTILES BECAUSE OF YOU," just as it is written. (NAS95) - 3. Lastly, law itself is designed specifically for lawbreakers and not for the righteous. 1 Timothy 1 8 But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, 9 realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers 10 and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, 11 according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted. (NAS95) If I am a lawbreaker, then I will bear it's penalties. However, if I am not a lawbreaker, then I am not subject to the penalties of the law. It's indicting power is diffused. - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
57 | Romans 2:14-15 commonly mutilated? | 1 Cor 2:14 | Reighnskye | 133413 | ||
I have many times heard a common mutilation of scripture within the organized religion, which is perhaps solely based upon a misapplication of the following scripture text out of Romans 2:12-16. Romans 2 12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14 For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16 on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus. (NAS95) - The common mutilation/misapplication of this particular text conveys the idea that those who never hear the Gospel of Jesus (in their own native language) will be saved solely through the state of their own conscience, apart from the Gospel message. (For example, the aborigine in Africa, where they don't have cars, indoor plumbing, lightbulbs, or bibles.) Romans 2:12-16 (verses 14 and 15 particularly) is often said to refer to people who have never heard the Gospel message of Jesus. However, I suggest that this is the farthest thing from the truth. I suggest that the text rather conveys that the Gentile believer lacks a knowledge of the Old Testement Law of Moses (the Ten Commandments and such), and therefore can yet be saved without a knowledge of Jusaism that was typically only had by the Jews. However, the text does not say that Gentiles don't need to hear the Gospel of Jesus in order to be saved. It rather simply says that exposure to the Law of Moses is not necessary. Please reread the text and notice the many references to the Old Testament Law of Moses as opposed to the New Testament Gospel of Christ. In other words, the Gentile need only hear the Gospel of Jesus, without reference to the Old Testament Law of Moses and the Ten Commandments, in order to be saved. A knowledge of Old Testament Judaism is unnecessary for purposes of salvation, as Gentiles were not commonly afforded that knowledge, as the Jews were. Paul later seems to reinforce the necessity of the Gospel message for Gentiles in Romans 10:14-17: Romans 10 14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher? 15 How will they preach unless they are sent? Just as it is written, "HOW BEAUTIFUL ARE THE FEET OF THOSE WHO BRING GOOD NEWS OF GOOD THINGS!" 16 However, they did not all heed the good news; for Isaiah says, "LORD, WHO HAS BELIEVED OUR REPORT?" 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ. (NAS95) Although God's voice through the Law of Moses (and even the creation itself) be wholly resisted and denied, nonetheless the word of Christ is yet capable of inspiring faith in darkened and ignorant unbelievers. - Comments? True? False? - Blessings, Reighnskye |
||||||
58 | Are miracles for today? | 1 Cor 13:8 | Reighnskye | 132721 | ||
Are miracles for today? - Reighnskye |
||||||
59 | What happens when we die? | 2 Cor 5:8 | Reighnskye | 133959 | ||
What happens immediately when a person dies? What do they experience and where do they go? A friend keeps asking me where her grandfather went. | ||||||
60 | Should saints be rich or poor? | Phil 4:11 | Reighnskye | 133945 | ||
Does the bible teach that the righteous should be rich or poor? How much is too much or how little is too little? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |