Results 41 - 60 of 1275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: srbaegon Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Becoming a christian | John 6:37 | srbaegon | 222911 | ||
Hello Inquisitor, What you find is that the NT references to baptism have an absolute and unbreakable link to salvation. But understand that baptism in the NT was a confession of faith like the so-called "Sinner's prayer" used today. Instead of talk, there was action. The correct understanding of what happened was misunderstood in later years of the church, eventually giving rise to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Steve |
||||||
42 | Mary and Joseph | Luke 2:5 | srbaegon | 220539 | ||
Hi Aileen, Scripture tends not to dwell on the ordinary course of lives. That is why so much attention is given to the miraculous circumstances of Jesus' birth bu not the mundane things concerning their marriage or early family life. Had they not been married, this would have been scandalous and greatly inhibited the Lord's later ministry. As it was the ruling Jews tried to make an issue of the virgin birth in John 8:41 with a partially veiled insult. [Jesus said,] "You are doing the works your father did." They said to him, "We were not born of sexual immorality. We have one Father—even God." Then in verse 48 that add to it: The Jews answered him, "Are we not right in saying that you are a Samaritan and have a demon?" They were insinuating that his mother had an affair with a Samaritan or Gentile, and Joseph married her possibly out of pity. Had any of this been true, the whole ministry would have been in question because Jesus was claiming God as his father. Steve |
||||||
43 | Chgs - early Jeruselem Church structure? | Bible general Archive 4 | srbaegon | 220278 | ||
Hello Flying_V, The fact that you acknowledge yourself as a deacon demonstrates that structure. Also, 1 Timothy 3:1 reads "The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task." Office infers structure. Understand none of this means that there is a hierarchy. Nowhere in Scripture will find that concept. Rather each believer fulfills his or her role in the local church as overseen by the elders. Steve P.S. I always preferred the Gibson Les Paul Classic, but that's me. |
||||||
44 | Aren't there differences? | Bible general Archive 4 | srbaegon | 220141 | ||
Hello lightedsteps, Had you read what had already been posted, you would know these verses have been addressed--lightly in this thread and heavily at previous times. Steve |
||||||
45 | Is there a reason to debate? | Bible general Archive 4 | srbaegon | 219991 | ||
dodoy, I have no example of fasting twice per week beyond the one I gave, but that does not mean it did not occur--only that it was not otherwise recorded. Your examples attesting to twice-daily fasting are nonsensical. The OT examples are simply giving a time period for the length of the fast, no more. The reference to Christ's fast just ensures that the reader understands it was 40 consecutive 24-hour periods in length, again nothing more. You are playing games with the text. As you have stated, "protei" can have various translations depending on context, but your translation attempt is invalid because the Greek text simply will not support it. "Sabbatou" is in the genitive and is modifying "protei," so besides "first of the sabbath" as I mentioned, it could also be literally translated as "on the sabbath's first [formemost, chief]." In order for your translation to be correct, "sabbatou" must be either in the dative case agreeing with "protei." Steve |
||||||
46 | Is there a reason to debate? | Bible general Archive 4 | srbaegon | 219973 | ||
Hello doday, Consider Luke 18:12 as an example of translating "sabbatou" as "week." Translating as you suggest would give "I fast twice a sabbath..." That does not make good sense. There are multiple issues at work here when insisting that "sabbatou" must be "sabbath:" 1) "protei sabbatou" is literally "first of the sabbath." What is the first of a sabbath? What does that mean? 2) Which sabbath is meant: sabbath of days; sabbath of weeks; sabbath of years? Steve |
||||||
47 | Correct Understanding of verses? | Bible general Archive 4 | srbaegon | 219340 | ||
Hello, Your quotation is accurate but taken out of context. As given here the quote appears to demonstrate that obey the law makes one righteous. That is not correct. Later, Paul writes: Romans 3:19-20 (ESV) Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God. [20] For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. Since obeying the law does not justify anyone, how can Paul say that obedience to the law will justify? Paul's point in chapter two (as you follow it through to chapter four) is to make plain the fact that he is comparing the Jews who hear the law and do nothing because they really do not believe it to Gentiles who have not heard the law but instinctively do part of it. He is trying to point out that the high-minded Jews are no better than the barbarians mentioned in chapter one. Then he summarizes in chapter three that ALL men are sinners and we cannot do ANY work to justify ourselves. Steve |
||||||
48 | Women are to be silent? | NT general | srbaegon | 218339 | ||
I am giving a non-answer to make a point about exegesis, because your question has multiple facets to it. Here are questions that must be answered: 1. Were women required to be silent or quiet? 2. Why were women to be silent/quiet? 3. When and where were women to be silent/quiet? 4. What was the benefit, if any, of being silent/quiet? 5. What was the consequence of not being silent/quiet? 6. Can a Scripture passage be applicable only to a particular culture? 7. If a passage is indeed cultural, what textual indicators tell me it is only cultural? Or what later commands were given so it is no longer applicable? 8. If I consider a passage cultural, do I undermine the teaching of the book where it is contained? For example, If I say woman's silence is cultural in 1 Cor 14:34, do I negate the whole passage (14:26-39) which teaches that there is to be order in the church? After all, if one verse is cultural, maybe that section is cultural; or the chapter is cultural; or even the whole book is cultural. How does one know where to stop? Those are some random ideas to help move things along. Steve |
||||||
49 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | srbaegon | 217899 | ||
True, most would not follow given the consequences, but that is missing the point. David should never have committed those acts because they were of a sinful nature. They were contrary to God's desire. David explicitly says so in Psalm 51:3-4 3 For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me. 4 Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment. David cries out for mercy, because he knows the sins he committed were flagrant, and there was no sacrifice that could be offered to atone for them (see Leviticus). He was guilty beyond hope according to God's law, so he had to go to the righteous judge of heaven and earth and throw himself on the mercy of the court. Steve |
||||||
50 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | srbaegon | 217889 | ||
I was originally speaking of Nabal and Abigail, then extended it to Uriah and Bathsheba. But you have sufficiently answered my question enough to point out your error. The king was in a position to make laws concerning the civil administration of God's laws, but he could never supersede them. David wrongly had Uriah killed in order to cover up adultery. God confronted him through the prophet Nathan for both sins (2 Samuel 12:1-15). David then goes through a period of repentance and grieving for it (2 Samuel 12:16-23; Psalm 51). That being the case, we cannot follow David's example in this great sin though it is recorded in God's word. Steve |
||||||
51 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | srbaegon | 217886 | ||
You still avoid the question. I will restate it. Is any sin of David, whether as king or prior, permissible for Christians to follow in? Steve |
||||||
52 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | srbaegon | 217883 | ||
You avoided my question. Do David's actions lend credence for believers to kill foolish men? And are we expected to be polygamous and marry the fool's widow after he dies as David does Abigail, being his second wife? Steve |
||||||
53 | Should I get baptized again? | Acts | srbaegon | 217873 | ||
I am certain that BradK, Doc, or I would completely agree that the 66 canonical books are "God-breathed." That is not in doubt. The warning is taking a statement from a narrative book and building a doctrine around it. For instance, consider 1 Samuel 25. David went to Nabal for supplies for his men, but Nabal refused. David is upset and says, "Surely in vain have I guarded all that this fellow has in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that belonged to him, and he has returned me evil for good. God do so to the enemies of David and more also, if by morning I leave so much as one male of all who belong to him." Does that lend credence to believers to kill foolish men? Of course not. Neither are we expected to be polygamous and marry the fool's widow after he dies as David does Abigail, his second wife. Historical narrative accurately tells us what happened. We can learn patterns of godly conduct from it, and there are even some precepts given in it. But to build a theology on it can be dangerous. Steve |
||||||
54 | Using the word Lucifer | Is 14:12 | srbaegon | 217857 | ||
Terms of Use specify that our answers be biblically based. By extension, opinions should be kept to a minimum. Steve |
||||||
55 | NT Church | Matt 16:18 | srbaegon | 217141 | ||
Hello rakpak, I knew the answer when I asked the question. I was trying to draw out the contributor to understand the intent of the post. Steve |
||||||
56 | Does God hate people? Psalm 5:5 | Ps 5:5 | srbaegon | 216822 | ||
Hello hopalong, We have a problem then. If we state that the evildoers or sinners in Psalm 5 are the same as believers who sin, sometimes grievously on occasion (see Psalm 51), then Scripture must be contradicting itself. More correctly, this needs to be understood in reference to the sin and trespass offerings in Leviticus. There the only sins that could be atoned were those done unintentionally. Psalm 5:5 refers to the one who sins with a "high hand" or arrogantly for whom there is no atoning sacrifice, frankly because he doesn't want one. Steve |
||||||
57 | Does God hate people? Psalm 5:5 | Ps 5:5 | srbaegon | 216749 | ||
My answer remains unchanged: look at the context. Steve |
||||||
58 | Paul’s missionary work created a controv | 2 Tim 2:15 | srbaegon | 216469 | ||
Hello grafted in, I question your assertion that there were no Christians at the time of Cornelius. This makes no sense. Whether called "The Way" in Judea (Acts 9:2) or "Christians" later in Antioch (Acts 11:26), the assigned moniker relates to the same group of people. Steve |
||||||
59 | Main changes an develop in early church | 2 Tim 2:15 | srbaegon | 216308 | ||
If I may add to what Doc mentioned. I am listening to Calhoun's lectures now and am enjoying them. Gerald Bray also has a series at http://www.biblicaltraining.org/speakers that I can recommend. Steve |
||||||
60 | As to getting to heaven? | Heb 10:25 | srbaegon | 215966 | ||
Hi MeMe 3, Thank you for your patience. I just wanted to understand properly. Our eternal destiny does not depend on which denomination we are affiliated with. It depends on whether we obey the gospel. The only concern is where you stand concerning the crucified and risen Christ. Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [64] >> |