Results 481 - 499 of 499
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Scribe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
481 | christians don't sin??? | 1 John 3:9 | Scribe | 41124 | ||
1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. You have to read the context of John 3 and you will notice that John has already stated that if we sin we can ask for forgiveness and recieve cleansing from all unrrighteousness. If John says that then it must be that he does not mean it as it may sound. John would not say. If you sin ... do this.. and also say.. you cannot sin it is not possible. He would be contradicting himself and only an insane person would speak that way. So what other meaning can you apply to someone saying You cannot do something? It would have to be that same way we speak when we say "I just can't do that" meaning not that it is a physical impossibility for us but that we cannot bring our selves to do such a thing. So if you read the verse in that light you see that John is saying...If you are born of God, (by the word of God) the Word of God is internalized within you by that supernatural thing that God does whereby with the eternal Word of God he is working in you that which He pleases, and you will not be able if you are born of God to stay in sin, you will have to repent, you will have a nervous breakdown if you don't. You will find that the Spirit of God in you as your own thoughts is screaming in your spiritual ears.. "I can't do this, I Can't keep doing this, I can't live this way, This is not what God has called me to., I am never going to be happy doing this, I will never have peace until I repent... etc) But on the other point about Paul. Read the context of what Paul wrote in Romans 7-8. You will notice a definite topic and that is that of living under the law and why he was guilty of sin and how that the Faith live freed him from sin and the bondage of sin he was never free from under his religious efforts to try to be righteous. Paul never taught that christians that are Born again have to live with a struggle of always sinning when they really don't want to. |
||||||
482 | Napkin? | John 20:7 | Scribe | 41118 | ||
I do not have a scripture for it, but it sounds as though it is saying that the napkin was where it would be if His body had just risen and left the clothing where it would be if it did not move when His Supernatural Glorified body arose. The head cloth (napkin) was lying there where His head would be and seperate from the rest of the linens where the body would be. The position of the clothing seems to be a testimony that a miracle had taken place of His Body coming through the clothing and leaving it exactly where it was. | ||||||
483 | Should music be allowed in church? | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 41115 | ||
One of the reasons most commonly given by the Church of Christ denomination (and it is a denomination in every definition of the word even if they say they are not a denomination) that the church should not use musical instruments in worship is that the New Testament does not mention the christians using musical instruments in worship. This is not true. I do not know why they say this it is an out right falsehood. It is a tremendously flagrant error. Here is the reference. Revelation 15:2 And I saw as it were a sea of glass mingled with fire: and them that had gotten the victory over the beast, and over his image, and over his mark, [and] over the number of his name, stand on the sea of glass, having the harps of God. Now if in heaven, where the saints are in the MOST Reverential state of worship they can be in they are using harps then it must be a very Holy thing. Now we do not HAVE to know how to play music on a stringed instrument now to be able to worship Him. But then we will all be able to. Praise God. That't good news for all you people that wish you had learned to play a guitar in order to worship the Lord with sweet music as you sing. No the fair question is not should musical instruments be allowed in worship but rather "can I worship God with just as much "will of God on earth as it is in heaven" without a harp?" and of course the answer is yes, but it would be a fair question since you read that the saints that get the victory over satan are worshippin in heaven with a harp. Now the arguement of not reading of harps in the book of Acts is very weak. We do not KNOW for sure that the New Testament saints did not use a harp or a lyre or a tamborine. There were Jews that did so it could be that there were NT saints that used them in worship. However we do KNOW for sure that the New Testament saints did not use Air Conditioning in their meetings. So in hot months they did sweat it out. So if the logic that we should not use instruments because we do not read of the church in Acts using it, why does not this logic apply to Air Conditioning. I have strong historical evidence that New Testament christians (especially Jews) would have used tamborines, and I have many verses in Psalms and even the prophets that show God was pleased with Praising Him with instruments and I have the resurrected glorified saints in their perfect condition with heavenly instrument of which the earthly harp is only a type. So I have strong biblical evidence that instruments dedicated to worshipping God are acceptable and encouraged by God. (also remember that Lucifer before his fall was discribed as having instruments as part of his being and he was the anointed cherub that covereth of which we see a type in the Cherubs that worship the Lord and say Holy Holy Holy, so again we see that God has made a point even in the angelic creation to use instruments in worship) As I stated I have strong Biblical evidence that God is pleased with instruments of music in worship but I have no Biblical evidence for Air Conditioning. We know that first church did NOT use Air Conditioning when they worshipped. So why is it that the Church of Christ denomination can use Air Conditioning in worship and we know the first church did not. and yet be so adamently against instruments and we DO NOT KNOW for sure that the church in Acts never used instruments. If they were honest in this approach they would not use Air Conditioning in worship. I think this exposes a possible false motive behind the COC teaching. It is the same motive that drives them to state that if you are not a member of the COC you are not the Church. |
||||||
484 | where was Jesus? | Eph 4:8 | Scribe | 41105 | ||
I get my information from this verse Matthew 27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Don't you think here that is means after His Resurrection the saints came out and were seen? |
||||||
485 | May I Ask Again... Bible Software? | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 41097 | ||
My favorite software is free. Crosswalk.com Bible It has as many resources as most Programs I also use BibleSoft Library edition. It is huge. I have a lot of trouble with it as it relates to programming errors. I have had this trouble with Version 2 and 3 and in different Win 98, WinNT, and forget XP. I did not get support when I emailed them on it. But the program is great if it stays working. |
||||||
486 | Does Rev 22:19 teach loss of salvation? | Rev 22:19 | Scribe | 41095 | ||
Two points. One I have known people that were born again and lived it and after many years just went back into the world of obvious wicked living. These people are not going to heaven according to Paul when he said, be not decieved brothers (christian brothers) they that practice (unrepenting) drunkenness, fornication etc are not going to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Therefore I know that these people were born again, we were very close and they once lived in holiness and spoke intimately of the truths of Christ in them. But now they are drunkards and fornicators. You can construct all the twists and turns around scripture but Paul says they are not going to heaven unless they repent. You can say they were not born again but that is far worse sort of judgement on your part than agreeing with Paul that people that live like that are not going to heaven. Or you can say they are going to heaven but loosing rewards, but that is to confuse ministry works with wicked lifestyle. You can say the kingdome of heaven is seperate than eternal life, but that is trying too hard to dodge what Paul said. Now I do not understand how one that is born again and has known the joy of walking with God can live in sin any length of time without suffering a nervous breakdown. I know that christians will sometimes fall. I know that they are not unsaved if they fall. Having fallen before and experienced the misery of it I have no fear of losing my salvation. I understand that he that is born of God cannot sin, or cannot stay in sin becuase it is too hard for him. He will be too miserable because of the Word of God in him. If you are born again of the Word of God you will not be able to stay in sin. If someone does stay in sin and you know they have been born again, do not comfort them with lieing words that they are going to heaven anyway. All the apostles wrote and preached about it as though eternal damnation waits for those that do not repent. Let us preach the same way. Point 2 I love the book of Revelation and I am glad the KJV scholars kept true to the language when they used words like angel in Rev 2-3 which by doing so brings out truths that changing it to messenger would have ruined. |
||||||
487 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 41090 | ||
Paul listed being a drunkard (the simple act of using alcohol to get intoxicated and all the wicked thoughts and impulses that goes with it) as one of the life style sins that will cause even one who wants to number themselves with christians as a brother, as a sin that will keep them out of the kingdom of eternal heaven. If getting drunk is such an heinous sin to God then Why would Jesus give them alcohol of that strength to drink? Could they get drunk if they drank enough of it? Sure, it did contain alcohol, but not of the same strength as what you get at the liquour store. The fact that the fruit of the vine before it is fermented is healthy is undeniable. This too is called wine in Biblical context. The fact is that it would ferment also, But then you know that even to the Jews the person that drank to get drunk was considered a low life and a sinner. Historical evidence abounds that they did dilute the fermented wine for the purpose of both stretching the volumen and to also weaken the alcohol. If you drank even a few glasses you did not get drunk or even intoxicated. If you drank enought you would but then you would be obviously trying to be a sinner. So those that drank a healthy portion of wine diluted in this manner were not in anyway being evil nor did they poison their brains but instead recieved the nurishment of the grape. If you want to use the Biblical pattern of drinking wine and are not going to let anyone make you feel guilty, at least be honest enought to dilute your wine bottle. Add a 50percent mixture of water, maybe even more in lean times. If you notice that your desire for drinking the wine vanishes after you dilute it. Then it is possible your motivation for drinking wine was not Biblically based but a secret sin you were harboring to "feel" the effects of the alcohol, which even among the Jews was considered a scandulous thing. God Bless you ALL. |
||||||
488 | sin is a sin? | 1 John 5:13 | Scribe | 40995 | ||
You know the verse most often used to say that a christian will not sin is the one that says His seed remains in us and we cannot sin. The simple truth is that a born again christian with a history of serving and enjoying God, who falls into a sin will be so miserable that he CANNOT do it or CANNOT STAY there in that sin but must repent and turn back to the One he loves and wants to fellowship with, God. It does not mean a christian will never sin again, but is more expressive as when we say I just can't do that anymore. We don't mean it is physically impossible for us to do the thing but that we just can't endure the misery of sin. A person who is born of God cannot sin. (Cannot just walk in sin and live with it.) the Word of God the eternal seed will work on him until he humbles himself in repentance and shakes off that sin and finds peace again. The man who is born again will gaurd that peace and will not want anything to disturb it. This is where I agree with my Baptist brothers that say a born again saint cannot lose their salvation. The truth is that a Born Again saint will be too miserable in sin to stay there (howbeit one of the reasons they are so miserable is that while in sin they know they are not being saved and have not sure steadfast assurance of their eternal security) This person that may be holding on to a secret lust will have not assurance of salvation. Why? Because he is indeed in danger of Hell Fire and he knows it. |
||||||
489 | where was Jesus? | Eph 4:8 | Scribe | 40940 | ||
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) After searching what this lower part of the earth means in scripture I am convinced that Jesus descended there during the three days and did indeed release captives and this is why it was said saints were seen raised and in jerusalem. I don't fully comprehend that part but it happened. And I think it has to do with legality of fulfilling all things and satisfying the Justice and Judgement of a Holy God. There is more to the spirit realm than we comprehend. |
||||||
490 | Contrary Accounts of Jesus' Genealogy. | Rom 1:3 | Scribe | 40937 | ||
This is not an error. It proves the fact that Jesus is the promised messaih. "Matthew draws the pedigree from Solomon, whose natural line ending in Jechonias, the legal right was transferred to Salathiel, who was of the house of Nathan, another son of David, which line Luke here pursues, and so leaves out all the kings of Judah." Not an error but rather and exacting particular that if it were a false book the writer would have left this out. But since it is indeed from God it even details how that the legal right was transferred, which you can read about in the Old Testament. God is so awesome! |
||||||
491 | Different Claims On Joseph's Father | Rom 1:3 | Scribe | 40936 | ||
This is pretty simple actually. The problem comes from 'misreading' one small part. 23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was [the son] of Heli, 24 Which was [the son] of Matthat, which was [the son] of Levi, which was [the son] of Melchi, which was [the son] of Janna, which was [the son] of Joseph, 25 Which was [the son] of Mattathias, which was [the son] of Amos, At first you think it is saying Joseph is the son of Heli, but it is really saying Jesus is the son of Heli, in the same sense that he was supposed to be the son of Joseph, but we know that He was born of a virgin. So it could be said like this.. Jesus was the son of Joseph, and Jesus was the son of Heli, and Jesus was the son of Matthat, and Jesus was the son of etc, until you get to Adam and see that Jesus was that seed of the woman that would bruise the serpents head. Matthews point is not tracing Joseph to David, and Lukes Mary to David, that has been said but I don't see it. The obvious truth when you read the accounts is that Matthew stops at Abraham and that is what Matthew is pointing out, through Joseph's lineage, and Luke goes to Adam through Mary's. "Matthew designed to show that Christ was the son of Abraham, in whom all the families of the earth are blessed, and that he was heir to the throne of David; and therefore he begins with Abraham, and brings the genealogy down to Jacob, who was the father of Joseph, and heir-male of the house of David: but Luke, designing to show that Christ was the seed of the woman, that should break the serpent’s head, traces his pedigree upward as high as Adam, and begins it with Ei, or Heli, who was the father, not of Joseph, but of the virgin Mary". |
||||||
492 | WAS JESUS FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER? | Matt 27:46 | Scribe | 40932 | ||
Thanks EdB. You are preaching the truth. Jesus was not forsaken in the sense of God leaving Him, or the Father not able to accept Him. The Bible on numerous occasions stresses just how acceptable the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross was. So you cannot have an acceptable sacrifice and an unacceptable one at the same time. Also, if Christ had died spiritaully there would be no legal right to be the substitution for our spiritual death, he suffered in all points like us YET WITHOUT SIN, is the rest of that verse. If at any time he was found with sin He would not qualify to take our place for sin or to become sin for us, which is quite different than being guilty of commiting sin. This was most definetly a cry for all those to remember to read that Psalm which at the time was not Psalm 22. How did they identify a portion of Psalms then? By saying the opening verse maybe? It was as if Jesus was saying READ THE PSALM "MY GOD, MY GOD why hast thou forsaken men" and if they did, they would have seen the reference to the soldiers casting lots for his garment, the piercing of the hands and feet, the offering of the drink to quench his thirst, and much more. Now that being said, was the Prophecy of Psalm 22 speaking about God Forsaking the Messaih? And if so what does that mean. It is the same kind of cry David often wrote about when He was in anguish of soul and said such things as "how long God? Will you be angry . ... etc. We know that God does not forsake those that serve Him but at times of anguish of trial and tribulation many men of God and prophets have expressed such words. So often does this occur in the scripture that you soon get the idea that every saint will feel this way at some time. But God is still there and victory is just around the corner. Jesus is simply expressing the Human emotional pain He suffered on our behalf, and also quoting the Psalm 22 (howbeit Jesus probably continued in lower volume or whispers the whole psalm 22 in comfort to get Him through this greatest of all trials) If people will continually reference the OT in their study of the New Testament, they will find many truths that are much more solid than what they have always heard from other teachers that did not really understand. GBU all and may you study the Word Daily. |
||||||
493 | when we die where do we go immediately | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 39784 | ||
sleep becuase for the saint it is temporary. I think the first time that this became understood to the new testament saint was when Jesus said about one how had died, "he sleepeth" when the believer in Christ dies he is imeddiately with the Lord as the previous post made quite clear, but to us that are here on earth he sleepeth. We see only the dead body. But that state is not eternal. That body will be raised incorruptible and perfect. That is going to happen as sure as God is God. The promises of our body being raised incorruptible is a foundation of faith. As Paul said, if you remove the faith of a body raised from the dead, you remove faith of salvation. Paul said if the body be not raised you are still in sin. Only those that inherit the promise of a bodily resurrection have entered into the kingdom of not having sin imputed to them. It is a theological understanding that should be studied out. God Bless | ||||||
494 | Why not use Yahweh for LORD? | Bible general Archive 1 | Scribe | 39779 | ||
It is an english translation. If they were to translate all Hebrew words to Hebrew. Would not that be an exercise in futility? I suppose there is a degree of sincere reverence in many that wonder which name is correct when addressing God. But since Jesus said Eloi on the cross, when he called out to My God., where does it end? We are talking about God here not man. God does not go by a proper name like Tom or Joe. When men asked God's name he answered with Covenant personalities. I AM, which means I am all that you need God to be to you. If you will obey me in faith | ||||||
495 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | Scribe | 39776 | ||
Good point CDBJ, but what about the idea of being in the Last Days. If as Peter stated in Acts 2 we are in the Last Days since the day of Pentecost at least, becuase he said this is that spoken of by the prophet Joel, 'that in the last days I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh' then we have to be getting to the very end of the end days. This is why. If you draw a time line of earth history and place the day of Pentecost on the time line you have some 4500 years before it and some 2000 years after it. Now if Jesus comes again soon and wraps things up you can see how the day of Pentecost began the last third of man's history thus calling it the last days applies. But if you go too much further in the future say another 1000 years added to the one we are in, you see that the day of Pentecost was in the middle of the time line and thus it would be more like the middle days of man's history on the day of Pentecost when peter called it the Last Days. Now we could get all mentally indifferent to logic and just say, something like "who cares" but I think God's word is written with logic and understanding and that if Peter said that that was the Last Days and we are still in it, it HAS to end soon. God bless you. | ||||||
496 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | Scribe | 39774 | ||
Dear Love Fountain, You stated "Regarding Psalm 90:4, a thousand years in thy(mans) sight are but as yesterday sure sounds like 1 day is a thousand years to me" The statement by David is to God when he says "a thousand years in thy sight" he is referring to God. In God's sight or from God's Almighty and eternal view, a thousand years is as a day. No "less than that" It is like a "watch in the night" that is a three hour period. So now which is the 'formula' is it a day or a watch in the night? See the point of David is that of Isaiah and repeated by Peter.. All flesh is grass and as the grass withers and passes away so is man and all his history and man accomplishments. The point of David in Psalms 90 is the frailty of man.. that indeed as you stated, we 'are no one'.. " we spend our years as a tale [that is told " ps 90:9. So when Peter uses this text he is reminding those that were well read "remember how little this passage of time really matters to God" and do not say "all things continue as they have since the beginning". I have heard the 7 day theory and frankly I like it. But I do not see that this verse supports it the way it is often used. It may help to allow us to speculate about the 7 day prophetic time table, but we should do so with the attitude of "it could be" not "it is written" May God Bless you in your study. | ||||||
497 | Apostles Spirit-led? | Acts 2:38 | Scribe | 39516 | ||
One thing that seems to clear it all up is when people read books. Soon they find that the term "in the name of" means by the authority of, not what sounds come out of your mouth. So both verses are saying the same thing. Go in the authority of God. Who is the Father Son and Holy Ghost, and doing something in the Name of Jesus is the same thing as doing it in the Name of God, or if I write it in a more wordy manner "doing it in the name of Father Son and Holy Ghost" The error of this discussion among christians is that it hinges on ignorance of meaning of the phrase. This idea of it being some sort of "spell you Speak" was never what the disciples meant when they wrote about "in the name of" The term was used all around them at the time as it has been to this day when you hear someone say "Open up in the name of the Law" and if it is a policeman you do not even think for a moment that His exact syntax needs to be correct. You do not say I am not going to open up becuase he did not say "Open up in the name of the Police in Mayberry" No you get sort of anxious and realize that the POWER of the LAW is at your door and you must open or you might be face first on the ground in cuffs. I am amazed at how embedded this strange concept of speaking the words is what carries the power. The Law is powerful not becuase of the words of the Officer, but the Power behind the badge. You are going to open or more officers will come and they will enforce whatever law it is they are trying to enforce. You will not stand against them. When I go baptize in the Name of Jesus I go in the Name of Jesus because I am called. I go because I am sent. I have God with me and He has commanded me to Baptize. So if I say nothing at all when I dunk the new believer, (haveing taught him previous to the dunk to believe on Jesus) I am still baptizing in Jesus Name (or GOD) or Father Son and Holy Ghost, because he ordained me and sent me. | ||||||
498 | 1 day is 1000 years, why? | 2 Pet 3:8 | Scribe | 39506 | ||
Understand that the context is talking about mockers that come and speak against the coming of the redeemer to judge the world for ungodliness. These mockers were in Enochs, day and he contended with them also. The same devils motivated the men that came against Enoch and that mocked the promise that Enoch prophesied. That the Lord would come with 10,000 of his saints to execute judgement upon all....(see Jude.) Then also others mocked after the flood, being ignorant that the Flood was "a coming" for those mockers on the other side of the flood. Then Peter states that don't be ignorant of the fact that God is not slow concerning His Promise of the Coming of the Lord, both in salvation for us and in Judgement for the mockers.. Because with the Lord a day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years is as a day to Him.. Meaning in my opinion and within this context that "in the light of eternity where God dwells He is not being slow." Or .."so what if it has been 2000 years , what is that to God. It is still a short time. I do not think that God was trying to introduce a new mathematical formula. This is not the meaning of the phrase to me, to somehow present a new way of calculating time. That is not what He was saying. He is quoting an old testament verse and when you read that Old Testament verse no one ever says that God is meaning to calculate one day for a thousand years for prophetic time tables... Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Now after you see that Peter is quoting Psalms 90:4 do you see how the spirit of the message is that even though it may seem like a lot of time has past since the prophesy of the Coming of the Lord in the Old Testament was Given, and this is the same promise renewed in the New Testament... that even so it is only a short time in God's view and soon to be Our view when are there with Him. Praise God. Live ready for the Coming of the Lord draweth nigh! |
||||||
499 | WHO SAW THE H.S. AT JESUS BAPTISIM | NT general Archive 1 | Scribe | 39504 | ||
When I read it I see it as visible to all. The voice from heaven was heard by all and so there is no reason to "guess" at an illogical thought that only John saw the 'dove'. If I write such an account and do not tell you otherwise you are going to think I am saying that the dove was seen by all that were within eyesight. If I meant anything else I would be careful to make sure you knew with words such as "but no one else saw it but John" this is becuase we understand that that would be something that would need to be explained, however saying and "everyone saw it" is not necessary because we would expect that everyone saw it. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] |