Results 41 - 60 of 517
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239715 | ||
I do not think your rebuke was in line with the terms of use of this site. You might want to review the sections regarding denominational remarks. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
42 | Was John the Baptist a Priest? | NT general | Beja | 239685 | ||
Pete23, John was of priestly lineage because Luke 1:5 identifies his father as a priest. But if I understand the text and the Jewish religious culture correctly, John would not have been viewed as a priest. The function of a priest would have been something he had to step into at the appropriate age. In contrast we are told in Luke 1:80 that John remained in the wilderness until the day of his public appearance to Israel, which would have been when he began preaching repentance and baptizing. This staying in the wilderness is most likely where the notion of him being an Essene came from. Regardless, at no point did he accept priesthood functionally and this would have been determinative to the Jews in answering the question, "Was John a priest?" In Christ, Beja |
||||||
43 | 3 levels of Christianity as per Ephesian | Eph 1:3 | Beja | 239449 | ||
Greetings Fares, To my knowledge there is no "3 levels" of Christianity in Ephesians nor in any other book. But as this question seems to keep getting asked I am terribly curious. Where is this question coming from? Who has told you that there are three levels to be found in the book of Ephesians? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
44 | What exactly does this passage mean? | Heb 10:26 | Beja | 239302 | ||
Ed, I'm not for certain whether this post was meant to tag me or the original poster. If it was to me I will simply say that I standby my previous post. In Christ Beja |
||||||
45 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239285 | ||
Ed.O. You needed to read point 2 and 3. I was disproving number 1. The way you quoted me makes it sound like I was suggesting it. My logic was as follows. 1. Your Assertion:In Rev 20 phrase X must mean A. 2. My Counter Evidence: In John phrase X can not possibly mean A. 3. Therefore: Phrase X might not mean A in Rev 20. Statement 1 is false. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
46 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239283 | ||
Ed.O. That was Searcher who said that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
47 | Mark 10:24 ending change, why? | Mark 10:24 | Beja | 239282 | ||
Justme, Unfortunately I am not well trained in text criticism. However, from what I can tell the earliest appearance of that phrase is from the fifth century. However, I don't want to skew the data, because from what I can tell the earliest copies of Mark that I'm seeing in this list are from the 4th century. So the fourth century texts omit the phrase then it shows up in the fifth century. Now text criticism is far more complex than this. You have to consider what are called "text families" as well as internal considerations before making any well informed decision. Simply based on what Metzger stated in his book he seems to think that with the earlier texts attesting to the phrase not being there, they then felt comfortable suggesting that it is far easier to understand why the phrase would be added for the sake of clarity by later scribes, while it makes no sense for the phrase to be omitted by a scribe. They followed the principle of which reading best explains the rise of the other readings. If you want to do research into the text traditions. It looks like the big hitter, Sinaiticus, along with Vaticanus and some other less ancient texts as well all do NOT have the phrase. The earliest that contain the phrase are Alexandrinus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Ephraemi Rescriptus and then some less ancient texts. That is about as far as my expertise goes, I can not really tell you how much weight to give to certain texts. I know the two which reject the addition are significant texts but I can't help much further. Best of luck on it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
48 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239270 | ||
Ed.O. Know that I have no intention of belittling your views on this. Most of those I hold most dear in life would agree with your posts. My intentions are not at all to convince you of a post tribulation rapture. In order to do that we would have to begin with a very systematic review of relevant texts in order that I might try to persuade you. My single point with regards your original question can be stated in these two notions: 1.) To just answer your original question only, you will need somebody who first agrees with you on all other points of eschatology. 2.) Absent that, you will necessarily have to discuss all the other texts which you do not agree upon in order to explain how your are reading Rev 20. With a certainty you disagree with my post-trib view, but you amply illustrate the point I am trying to make. I'm not sure how well suited this venue would be for carefully discussing all the places where you and I would disagree. On this forum it is sometimes very hard to flesh out one thought before one of the people in the conversation rushes of to a point they would prefer to be discussing. The effect can sometimes be that rather get one idea across well we only skim many ideas poorly. However, I would not want you to think that I am playing with words. With regards to the apostle John attributing to Jesus the statement, "I will keep you from..." We need to think clearly. Hear is my thought process there. 1.) The assertion is that the phrase, "I will keep you from" the hour of trial necessarily means that they will be taken away from this hour of trial so that they will not have to face it. 2.) The only other place John uses this word, indeed the very phrase "keep them from" the evil one, he specifically states that what he does not mean is to take them away from it so that they don't have to endure it. In that context it can not possibly mean what you suggest it to mean in Rev. 3) Therefore it is error to say it 'must' mean that in Revelations. It could mean that, but it is no fancy playing with words to suggest that in Rev the phrase means what it clearly means in the gospel of John. I don't think that argument is playing with words. I leave you to decide whether the argument is valid. Again, I do not say this to persuade you of post-trib, I merely say this to clear myself of the notion of exegetical malpractice. When all has been weighed all I am saying is this: Your original question begs a lot of other questions. Your brother in Christ, Beja |
||||||
49 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239243 | ||
Ed.O. Well articulated. Its good to see you have scriptures in mind rather than popular fictions, sir! You also have illustrated my point very well. You come to the passage already certain that my particular interpretation can not be correct based on how you have previously interpreted these other verses. I also come to this passage having already determined that some interpretations aren't possible due to my take on other scriptures. Though I do hope we both would be willing to change our view should the passage be plain enough, it is apocalyptic literature which is rarely plain. This is why I said that the answer would not be able to be a simple one, when we ask what Rev 20 means we necessarily press upon ourselves a great many passages concerning end times. Let me give you some examples of where we disagree before we ever come to that passage. 1.) Do a search on the greek word for "keep" in Rev 3:10 and see the only other place where John uses the word. Does it mean that he will remove them from the problem or keep them through the midst of it? 2.) You say that it could not be at the end of 7 years because then we would know just when to expect him. But that would only allow believers to know when to expect him and doesn't Paul plainly say, contrasting believers to unbelievers, "But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a theif. For you are all children of the light, children of the day." 1 Thessalonians 5:4,5. 3. I disagree with a 7 year period of tribulation at the end. In this we have most likely interpreted Daniel chapter 9 differently. This again would make it such that Christ could come post tribulation and yet still surprise us. And these are all me simply responding to the verses you put forward, we then must look at the verses that a post-trib rapture thinks prove their point. I'm not actually trying to sway you to my view at this point, I'm simply attempting to persuade you that the answer to what Revelation 20 means is going to necessarily be tied to a discussion of the entirety of your end-times framework. But on the other hand as I said in my first post: Given all your assumptions a double first resurrection is one way to see it. If I'm not mistaken my father-in-law- holds that view. Your brother in Christ, Beja |
||||||
50 | John 10:10 Who is responsible for death? | Rev 1:18 | Beja | 236817 | ||
Doc, A fit response, sir. Well said. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
51 | TWO TRIBULATIONS | Genesis | Beja | 235980 | ||
Escar, Agree to disagree. One thing I would like to share. While you are entitled to your opinion you should know that most people on the forum are expecting to be answerig a question when they answer a question. One of the surest causes of strife and disagreement on the forum is when somebody asks a question that they don't actually want an answer for. They simply want somebody to answer so that they can then "teach" them the correct answer. That may have worked for rabbi's and Jesus, but unfortunately we are not disciples of any poster here. Please keep the question space available for true questions that you are really looking for an answer on. Many of us are actually taking a few minutes we have before work to attempt to be helpful to somebody. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
52 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235877 | ||
EdB, At least you can understand my confusion. I came late to the thread and clicked on the thread name reading back through the posts to gain the context. From that view it appeared you had simply taken offense to somebody being cessationist. My apologies for the misunderstanding. Though I did say from the start that I felt I must have been missing something. ;) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
53 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235874 | ||
EdB, Well, I'm not sure what to say after looking it over. I can totally understand your taking offense. However, I'm pretty fond of hearing quotes from great Christians of the past, so I don't have an interest in censuring that. The down side of that is that those past Christians are not going to be in agreement with the modern pentacostal movement on any of there distinctive doctrines. Historic Christianity just won't agree with you. In addition, they weren't concerned with being politically correct about it, particularly Pink. So I don't know. I don't blame your reaction, but at the same time I think restricting awesome quotes from the past would be horrible idea. Regardless, my opinion on that issue is irrelevant, I simply thought I owed you a post acknowledging the validity of your taking exception to the post since I had engaged you in this thread about it. God bless, In Christ, Beja |
||||||
54 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235871 | ||
EdB, Peace friend. Perhaps my use of the idiom "way out of bounds" was unclear. I only meant that I would totally agree with you that any such post as your hypothetical example would be quite unwelcome on the forum. Second, as I suggested in my previous post, I apparently missed the quote you are reacting against. I have not seen the statement you quoted, can you give me the post number? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
55 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235869 | ||
Escar, No, I'm afraid I'm not understanding how anything you said helps your position. First, I think you have failed to deal with 1 Corinthians 14. You have dismissed it as applying to translators for missions. However this has two serious faults. 1. You only addressed tongues, not prophecy. 2. Paul specifically singles this out for the church. 1 Corinthians 14:19 Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue. Now this was said in context of comparing prophecy with tongues. And again he says... 1 Corinthians 14:5 Now I want you all to speak in tongues, but even more to prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the CHURCH may be built up. Clearly the prophecy is in and for the church, not foreign advancement. So I think you have failed to address the text successfully. Now that being said, I am ok with that. I don't need help solving this dilemma because I don't share your presupposition that John was the last prophet. In fact I don't see how I could possibly affirm that while at the same time affirming that Christ is my prophet, priest, and king. For Christ came after John. I merely pointed you to a passage with which you ought to wrestle with and have an answer in your own mind given your theological position regarding John. Since you seem to have your mind settled with regards to 1 Corinthians fourteen then all is well. I don't need to understand. My theological position needs no answer for it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
56 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235867 | ||
EscarSmith, Perhaps, but you must then wrestle with why Paul encouraged the Corinthian church to desire that they might have the gift of prophecy above all other gifts. (1 Cor 14:1). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
57 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235855 | ||
EdB, Obviously the hypothetical you have given is way out of bounds. However, in reviewing this thread I have not seen anything at all even remotely like that. Perhaps I have missed something. You hinted at private correspondence at one point. Perhaps the insult was in that. Unless of course you consider the cessassionist view to be inherently offensive itself. Keep in mind that the view by its very nature necessitates assigning the "false prophet" tag to those currently calling themselves prophets in the miraculous sense. To say that a person can not believe that modern "prophets" are false is to actually forbid the cessationist view point. Unless it is directed as a personal attack on somebody on the forum, we have to see it simply as the articulation of the view. Sure, its probably offensive to those who claim the title "prophet," but as you have said, this view is within the bounds of orthodoxy that the forum allows. But again, perhaps I've just missed what you are referring to. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
58 | Why no prophets anymore? | 1 Cor 14:5 | Beja | 235850 | ||
EdB, Hey, I appreciate what you are saying. "it is my understanding that any one theological positon I s not t be championed." The only distinction here is that this principle is that the forum shouldn't champion a view. But certainly we are to grant individuals the right to champion a view. It is precisely when we do NOT allow an individual to champion a view that the FORUM begins to champion a view. Doc, posted his view as an individual holding to a particular theological stance. So long as the forum doesn't restrain the opposing view, or a poster doesn't contentiously belittle a POSTER for holding that view, it isn't censure. An individual has the freedom to say a certain view is in their estimate, wrong. You champion certain views. I champion certain views. We each champion certain views. The fact that we are allowed to do so is the very essence of the forum NOT championing a view. Now granted there are two big limitations. First, the forum has set certain boundaries such as Sola Scriptura. Second, my championing my view ought never to be mixed with my attacking another poster rather than my discussing the merits of his view. Being a jerk doesn't have to go hand and hand with voicing my views. The point being, forum fairness is not an obligation on individual posters to personally give equal support to views they don't hold. They just have to let others voice them. Don't you agree? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
59 | the word "world" and "all" refer to all | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 235647 | ||
Hupogramos, This is necessarily going to be impacted by our other views on this topic. I personally believe in predestination, but the topic of limited attonement has been a doctrine I have been slow to accept. I was determined to first look carefully at passages such as John 3:16. To that end John Owen's classic, "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" was invaluable. He particularly satisfied me with regards to John the apostle. I would dig there. It is hard reading though. Either way, we should all remember this is a volatile issue and while on the forum should approach it in the spirit of understanding one another rather than any spirit debate. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
60 | Love towards fellow man inspite of flaws | Matt 22:39 | Beja | 235018 | ||
"All men are endued with rational and immortal souls, with the understandings and wills capable of the highest and most excellent things; and if they be at the present disordered, and put out of tune by wickedness and folly, this may indeed move our compassion, but ought not, in reason, to extinguish our love. When we see a person of rugged humour, and perverse disposition, full of malice and dissimulation, very foolish and very proud, it is hard to fall in love with an object that presents itself unto us under an idea so little grateful and lovely. But when we shall consider these evil qualities as the diseases and distempers of a soul wich, in itself, is capable of all that wisdom and goodness wherewith the best of saints have ever been adorned, and which may, one day, come to be raised unto such heights of perfection as shall render it a fit companion ofr the holy angels, this will turn our aversion into pity, and make us behold him with such resentments as we should have when we look upon a beautiful body that was mangled with wounds, or disfigured by some loathsome disease: and however we hate the vices, we shall not cease to love the man." -Henry Scougal in The Life of God in the Soul of Man. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [26] >> |