Results 41 - 60 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Why not Baptize as Jesus said to? | Acts 19:5 | stjones | 108190 | ||
Hi, Natasha; You can claim that my belief is something I have been taught. To make that claim, you have to continue to ignore the scriptures I have provided because they are the basis of my belief. You claim that no one else saw Jesus' baptism, but Luke says "When all the people were being baptized, Jesus was baptized too". But you ignored that scripture as well. Your most telling statement is this: "There is One God, not three". That tells me that you simply do not understand the Trinity doctrine. That is probably because you have been taught to believe that the Trinity doctrine says there are three Gods. It doesn't. But once again, you ignored what I said in my last post "there is indeed only one God". That is what the doctrine says. One God. I'll ask you once more to explain the presence of three distinct divine persons at Jesus' baptism. Let's look at Luke 3:21-22 since he describes the same scene but includes "all the people" as well. Did Jesus as the Holy Spirit descend bodily on himself? Did Jesus speak as God the Father from heaven and announce that he (Jesus) was his (God's) own son and that he was well pleased with himself? Jesus taught the truth; why did he construct this elaborate deception? Can you provide a biblical answer to these specific questions? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
42 | My conscience is clear | Heb 10:14 | stjones | 108133 | ||
Hi, Gal5:16; Thanks for the reply. I agree that there are people who use grace as an excuse to sin. I know very few people like that and I don't think it is typical of most Christians. I also agree that it is God's intent to mold us into his Son's likeness and that our submission is required for that to happen. I don't agree that anyone has achieved such a perfect state of submission and such a perfect knowledge of God's will that God's job is finished. Everyone who falls short of that perfection (which is everyone but Jesus) is a sinner, plain and simple. If your conscience is clear, then you mispoke yourself in your original post; you must indeed be perfect. If you aren't perfect, you're a sinner just like the rest of us. You can't have it both ways. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
43 | How does John 3:13 fit with Genesis 5:24 | John 3:13 | stjones | 108124 | ||
Hi, Tim; Just a note to tell you that, as always, I admire your calm and reasoned approach to discussions such as this. We have disagreed now and then but you are among a handful on this forum whose opposing view is always worthy of close examination. At the end of the day, I may still disagree with you but I can understand and respect the process that led you to your wrong conclusion. :-) Keep up the good work. -Indy |
||||||
44 | Why remain defeated? | Heb 10:14 | stjones | 108099 | ||
Greetings, Gal5:16; I probably shouldn't respond because such judgmental, prideful posts always put me in a bad mood. I find messages that purport to tell the reader what he or she is thinking particularly annoying. But a couple of points just cry out for comment: You said "One question I always ask people to which they cannot respond is if perfection is not humanly possible, then how did Jesus do it." I can't imagine who you've been asking; the answer is simple. Jesus was fully God. He was not a human infused by the Holy Spirit as ordinary Christians are. If I'm not mistaken, there hasn't been another since - not me, not you. But as I read the rest of your post, I see that contrary to your initial claims, you too seem to "remain defeated." You do not "claim to perfect." If you are not perfect, then "you do what is sinful." And as John says, "No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him" (1 John 3:6) Unless God has started grading on a curve, you are failing right along with the rest of us miserable sinners. I hope you'll let us know when your knowledge of God's will is perfect every second of every day and your obedience to his will is perfect every second of every day. Until then, I suggest you trust in Jesus to cover your sins - even those you commit today. See? I told you such posts make me grouchy. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
45 | virgin birth | Matt 1:19 | stjones | 108044 | ||
Why, thanks. Encouragement is always appreciated. I think we need more of that around here. And I say that knowing that I am among the worst - always ready to disagree but seldom popping in with a word of support or encouragement. Maybe it's a waste of bandwidth, but it might help visitors to know that an answer given by one person is agreed to by others. Just my two one-hundredths of a dollar. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
46 | virgin birth | Matt 1:19 | stjones | 108042 | ||
Hi, Schimc; I suspect that I won't be the only person on this forum to pray for you and your brothers. I pray that the God of all Truth will make himself known to your brothers and that he will prepare you with whatever defense you need. And I hope you'll stick around and contribute your own thoughts and ideas to this little free-for-all. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
47 | virgin birth | Matt 1:19 | stjones | 108010 | ||
Hi, schimc; Like love, belief is a commitment. Sometimes when the going gets tough, commitment is the only that carries you through. A closed mind isn't necessarily a bad thing; some people's minds are so open that every new breeze blows the contents away. -Indy |
||||||
48 | Why not Baptize as Jesus said to? | Acts 19:5 | stjones | 108000 | ||
Hi, punkiedo; I think you'll find others here who care passionately about Jesus and don't like to see his plain words distorted in order to make him something he is not. Why adhere to a doctrine that makes him out to be liar? At his baptism, this doctrine turns him into a ventriloquist, pretending to be his own father in heaven and announcing that he is his own son and he is well pleased with himself - deliberately misleading many witnesses (Luke 3:21). At the last supper (John 14-16), this docrtine has him telling countless lies about his father in heaven when he's really just talking about himself - misleading his disciples. Even after his resurrection, he's at it again; he didn't really mean for his followers to baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19), he meant us to baptize in the name of Jesus and of Jesus and of Jesus - misleading his disciples yet again. No, the doctrine is false. Jesus did not lie about the existence of his Father, or their relationship with one another, or our relationship with God the Father through Jesus the Son. He did not lie about the Holy Spirit and his role as teacher and comforter. I apologize if I've insulted you or hurt your feelings. In fact, I thank you for introducing this doctrine and the web site that promotes it. You gave me cause to go back into the Bible and re-discover Jesus' clear words on this subject. I'm more certain than ever that God is indeed a triune God, that there is indeed only one God and that there are indeed three distinct Persons who comprise the Godhead. Thanks again. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
49 | Was God the Protector of the Israelites? | Ex 13:21 | stjones | 107968 | ||
Hi, punkiedo; Thanks for the reply. -Indy |
||||||
50 | Is the Virgin Birth of Jesus a myth? | Matt 1:19 | stjones | 107964 | ||
Hi, schimc; I'm not sure what "discovery" you are referring to. There is certainly no reason to believe that Matthew made anything up. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all refer to Isaiah 7. I doubt that all three misunderstood Isaiah's prophecy. I do, however, think that we may misunderstand what it means to fulfill prophecy. If you read Isaiah 7, it is pretty clear that this was not a direct reference to Jesus. The boy named Immanuel was to be a sign to King Ahaz during his lifetime. But that does not mean that Matthew and the others are wrong. A New Testament scholar and seminary professor whom I have the utmost respect for (conservative, evangelical) offered his explanation to a class I was in. In the Hebrew world, the fulfillment of prophecy meant that a prior word or event was brought to perfection. We tend to think of prophecy as a kind God-ordained forecast - the prophet says thus-and-so will happen and when it happens we say that the prophecy has been fulfilled. We can also say that the prophet's words were brought to perfection. For exmaple, if I say the drought will end because it's going to rain tomorrow, that's nice; it may remind someone to take their umbrella, but it won't water the crops. When it does indeed rain, those words are brought to perfection and the crops are in fact saved. The words have been made perfect in physical reality. But an event can also be prophecy. The birth of the boy Immanuel is an example. His name was to be Immanuel ("God with us") because his birth was a sign to King Ahaz that God would be with him in an upcoming battle. But the idea of a boy being born who would embody the promise of "God with us" was brought to perfection in the birth of Jesus. There can be no more perfect example of "God with us" than Jesus, who was God and was (and is) with us. Given the ancient Hebrew understanding of what it means to fulfill prophecy, we can see that it was proper for the three Gospel writers to refer to Isaiah 7, even though the boy named Immanuel had been born and died long before. As others have mentioned, the Hebrew word that Isaiah used to describe Immanuel's mother does not necessarily mean a virgin in the modern sense. Assuming she was just a young, unmarried woman, we can see that Mary, who truly was a virgin in the modern sense, was the perfection of the idea of a pure young woman bearing a son who would fulfill God's promise. Sorry to be so long-winded. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
51 | When were we a Christian Nation? | 2 Chr 7:14 | stjones | 107865 | ||
Hi, justme; Alas, the United States never was a Christian nation. The founding document - the Constitution - makes no mention of God. Some of the colonies were distinctly Christian, but that did not carry over to the United States. The Constitution does reflect some philosophical principles that arose from Christianity but it embodies none of the theology. Perhaps the biggest difference between now and then is that those politicians who were Christians seemed to be a bit more open about it and were more willing to be guided by their Christian values. And people were not horrified to learn that a politician might read the Bible and be guided by Biblical principles. That is not to say that the great promise in this passage is irrelevant. It just means that it is up to individual Christians to apply the Great Commission to our own neighborhoods, cities, and states. If we make this a Christian nation - not politically but one convert at a time - I'm sure God will indeed heal our land. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
52 | Was God the Protector of the Israelites? | Ex 13:21 | stjones | 107863 | ||
Hi, punkiedo; No, I'm sorry; it just won't do. God was not the ground; Moses did not take off his sandals and walk on God. And God was not the bush; God spoke from within the burning bush: "God called to him from within the bush" (Exodus 3:4) So, yes; I would like you to respond to my question about Matthew 3:16-17. This passage describes the interaction of three distinct persons - Jesus on earth, God the Father in heaven, and the Holy Spirit descending from heaven to earth. Your explanation seems be that upon coming out of the water, Jesus (as the Holy Spirit) descended upon himself and then from heaven (speaking as God the Father) proclaimed that he was his own son and that he was well pleased with himself. But I don't want to badger you about this. From what you have said (or not said) it appears that the Oneness Doctrine cannot account for this passage. There seems to be no point in dragging this out any longer. I hope you will take the time to study Jesus' baptism, the Transfiguration, and Jesus' many prayers - not to himself on earth but to his Father in heaven. And please consider this prayer of Paul: "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms". (Ephesians 1:17-20) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
53 | Issues with LDS religion | Gal 5:7 | stjones | 107820 | ||
Hi, Chochma; You want contradictions in the Bible? I could point you to several sophomoric web sites that claim to reveal "contradictions". They are all hosted by people who can read words but can't understand them. There are not many on this forum who are fooled by them. I'll reply to your alleged "contradictions", but please - no more. Deuteronomy 4:2 instructs the Israelites not to change the Law given to Moses. Neither Joshua nor Jesus did so. God certainly did not say that he would be silent from that point on. God's continued involvement with humanity is what the rest of the Bible is about. James does not contradict the doctrine of savlation by faith alone. James says that faith does not sit idly by, it shows outward signs. No outward signs, no faith. We certainly shall strike Luther Calvin, and Zwingli if we are seeking God's word. Unlike Muhammad and Joseph Smith, they did not claim to be recipients of a private divine revelation. I agree that believers can and sometimes do turn the Bible into an idol; I've said so myself on this forum. But it is not the greatest idol of all. The human intellect and its worldly products are the greatest idols of all. God is not contained in a book; his word is. It is reliable; the human intellect is not. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
54 | What is God saying in this verse? | Gen 3:15 | stjones | 107787 | ||
Hi, Tim; Ok, this is probably not in keeping the guidelines .... Perhaps you've heard the story of the seminary student walking across the darkened campus late at night and finding an old night watchman reading Revelation. The student said, as students will, "Revelation is pretty heavy stuff. Do you understand it?" The watchman nodded. Skeptical, the student asked him to explain it. The watchman replied, "God wins." Happy New Year! Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
55 | Was God the Protector of the Israelites? | Ex 13:21 | stjones | 107781 | ||
Hi, punkiedo; Well, I believe that God was in the pillar of cloud and in the pillar of fire as Exodus 13:21 says. Why do you ask? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
56 | Would I submit? | Prov 3:5 | stjones | 107777 | ||
Fair enough. Probably time to let it go. - Indy |
||||||
57 | Is it true? | Prov 3:5 | stjones | 107733 | ||
Hi, Aixen7z4; You can't have it both ways. You say that the questioners "could be aggressive in expressing their thoughts", yet you object to that very behavior today. How will you compel questioners to end by "asking the 'experts' how those thoughts squared with Scripture"? As for the Bereans, they were indeed exceptional. So was Jesus. Should Christians not strive to be exceptional? We would do better to encourage all visitors to test every word rather than spoon feed them with "expert" answers. You said "I do fear that if we abridge the freedom of the participants to come on and pontificate, that they may not come at all." I wonder if you can make the same statement reversing the "we" and "they": "I do fear that if they abridge the freedom of the participants to come on and pontificate, we may not come at all." Are you among those who pontificate? Do you see yourself as a questioner or an "expert"? Indeed, I would like everyone who is calling for "experts" to state unequivocally that they would submit to the judgment of the "experts" if they were not among the chosen few. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
58 | People want answers! | Prov 3:5 | stjones | 107724 | ||
If I may be so bold.... Perhaps this is not the place to find definitive answers. This forum encourages the exchange of ideas - good, bad, foolish, insightful, even evil perhaps. As soon as you have a panel of "experts", you kill the interchange of ideas. Once the "expert" provides the "correct" interpretation, the dialog ends. No thanks. I have learned from most of the old hands around here. And I have disagreed with every one of them at one time or another. I don't consider any of them - or all of them - qualified to answer every question. I'm sure they all agree that I'm not qualified either. I promise that if the Holy Spirit starts posting answers here, I'll re-think my position. Anyone care to stake that claim? Worse, your proposal relieves all participants of the obligation to be good Bereans and to question every word posted here. The Lockman Foundation does a decent job of sending most of the kooks and whackos packing. They warn visitors that the opinions expressed may not represent commonly-held views. But iron doesn't sharpen iron without friction, heat, and sparks. You can't do serious Bible study by asking questions and passively accepting the answers. The Bereans didn't; I won't either. I commend the Lockman Foundation for having the courage and the faith to make this forum available. You folks are asking for a different web site with a different purpose. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
59 | Issues with LDS religion | Gal 5:7 | stjones | 107712 | ||
Hi, Chochma; Based on your profile, you seem to believe in almost everything. That is the logical equivalent of believing in nothing. The problem with alleged sequels to the Bible (the most famous being the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon) is that to believe them is to disbelieve the Bible they claim as their basis. Both of these books say, in effect, "my foundation is the Bible; however, the Bible is wrong". What kind of doublespeak is that? If the Bible is true, the sequels are false; if a sequel is true, the Bible and the other sequels are false. Belief in what these books say is akin to a famous logical conundrum: "The next sentence is true. The previous sentence is false." If the first is true, the second is also true; but if the second is true, then the first is false. If the first is false, then so is the second and if it's false then the first is true. And so it goes. Perhaps you can make sense of these sentences. I can't. Likewise, I can't make sense of a book that says the Bible is true and then contradicts it. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
60 | why is Acts 2:44 not practiced today | Acts 2:44 | stjones | 107711 | ||
Ah, I love these sweeping condemnations. Can you explain how I can be together and have everything in common with my brother in Kenya or my sister in Korea? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [33] >> |