Results 601 - 620 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
601 | does this mean a person is unforgiven | NT general | Beja | 222638 | ||
King T, Doc is not saying that nothing at all merits our redemption. He is saying that it is the blood of atonement to be found in what Jesus Christ did on the cross which merits it. Our repenting of our sins does not merit our redemption even though there is no salvation without repentence. Christ dying in our place does merit it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
602 | How can we know if Bible was not fabrica | Rom 10:17 | Beja | 222471 | ||
Billy, Forgive me, that last scripture reference should be ephesians 6 rather than ephesians 5. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
603 | How can we know if Bible was not fabrica | Rom 10:17 | Beja | 222470 | ||
Billy 2010, You said, "I don't want to simply have a blind-faith." Sir, I would like to commend very highly to you "blind faith." Hebrews 11 teaches us that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. And it is by this blind faith that abraham believed God that his descendants would be as many as the stars in heaven. It was by this blind faith that he was willing to risk offering up the one son of promise he had through whom God had told him this multitude would come, believing that if God let him die then God was able even to ressurrect him. Blind faith is the means by which men are saved. Read 2 corinthians 4:1-6. Men are not set free from being blinded by clever arguements, but by God granting them to perceive the truth of who Christ is. Romans 10:17 claims that faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of Christ! The parable of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16 ends with the rich man in hades crying out for lazarus to go warn his brothers of this place. He was told that they have Moses and the Prophets (the scriptures), the rich man responded that if only one rose from the dead then his brothers would believe!. The response to him was that if he will not believe those said scriptures, then he would not even believe should somebody rise from the dead to warn them. And I tell you, sir, should you not believe scripture for what it says with this "blind faith," then you will certainly not believe regardless what defenses we give you. That being said there are many apologetic sites that could give you "defenses" of scripture's inspiration. A couple of things that strongly argue in its favor are archeology and prophecy. Many prophecies in scripture were fulfilled with such obvious precision that it speaks of scripture's inspiration. Time and again also, the world has accused the scriptures of false history details, the book of luke was once laughed at for references to people and places that we had no record of existing. Yet christians took it with, "blind faith." Now Luke is marveled at as historically accurate to a remarkable degree. Why? Because archaeological digs kept proving Luke right time and again. There are other things to argue for it, but you can always find a way not to believe it. Seek out this blind faith you refer to. It is the good stuff. It is the saving stuff. It is the faith that can ward off all the attacks of Satan (Eph 5.) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
604 | Searching for the truth | Deut 6:5 | Beja | 222468 | ||
FytRobert, The intended function of the human body, soul, and spirit is to, "love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might." (Deut 6:5.) You are entirely purposed for the glory of the Lord. "the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body." (1 Cor 6:13.) Also, "you were bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body." (1 Cor 6:20.) All of your body, soul, mind, spirit, strength, will, whatever, is all for one function, the glory of God! Therefore, "whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (1 cor 10:31) This is for both now, and while you are in heaven. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
605 | Clarifying "handing over the kingdom" | Not Specified | Beja | 222375 | ||
1 Corinthians 15:24 claims that a day will come when Christ will hand over the kingdom to the Father. I can't help but wondering in what sense the kingdom is handed over. It can not be a complete end to the rule of Christ, because we know from many passages such as Daneil 7:14 and Luke 1:32,33, Isaiah 9:6,7 that this isn't the case. Unless we should understand it to be teaching that the kingdom is the eternal thing but not the rule of Christ. I'm less inclined to believe that. But it must in someway be a handing over of the kingdom, for it certainly means something! Does anybody have a very helpful commentary on this? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
606 | Clarifying "handing over the kingdom" | John 13:3 | Beja | 222378 | ||
1 Corinthians 15:24 claims that a day will come when Christ will hand over the kingdom to the Father. I can't help but wondering in what sense the kingdom is handed over. It can not be a complete end to the rule of Christ, because we know from many passages such as Daneil 7:14 and Luke 1:32,33, Isaiah 9:6,7 that this isn't the case. Unless we should understand it to be teaching that the kingdom is the eternal thing but not the rule of Christ. I'm less inclined to believe that. But it must in someway be a handing over of the kingdom, for it certainly means something! Does anybody have a very helpful commentary on this? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
607 | A mate from God | 2 Cor 6:14 | Beja | 222191 | ||
Child of j, 2 Cor 6:14 says that we are not to be bound together with unbelievers. I believe the context is primarily talking about church membership, but I think it certainly applies to marriage. 1 Cor 7:39 tells widows that they are free to marry again, but "only in the Lord." I believe this is a specific restriction to marry only Christians. I really think there is another good verse dealing with this, but it is slipping my mind at the moment. Beyond even direct commands how horrible of a situation you are pondering! Ephesians chapter 5 says unto wives that they are to obey their husbands even as the church is to obey Christ! What a sad lot for a godly woman to be in such that she must daily struggle to serve a man who does not honor God. A man that orders his entire household with no thought to the glory of God or obedience to God would be a constant torment to any truely godly woman. How difficult it must be to follow the instructions of 1 Peter 3:1 where it tells wives to be obedient to such husbands so that they will be won over by their wives conduct even while the wife keeps silent in prayer for their husband. You must understand also that the discussion in 1 Cor 7 is meant for those who have converted after marriage and yet remain married to an unconverted spouse. A godly woman ought sooner to consider robbing herself of an eye before chaining herself to an unconverted man, who is to then be the leader of her home with regards to discipling both her and her children! What could you possibly find in common when the delight of your every day is seeing the glory of God in Jesus Christ, and that while his every thought is displeasing to God because it is impossible for him to please God! (Rom 8:8.) His every thought is completely contrary to seeking the very one who is your everything? We should weep the sweet lamb of God that through fear of being alone forgets that the Lord is her constant portion and companion and provider (Heb 13:5), and through lack of faith in her heavenly Father's provision, chains herself to an unconverted man and gives herself over to so many miseries. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
608 | Why can they recieve repentance? | Heb 6:4 | Beja | 222172 | ||
marcia, The bad news is this is a very debated passage. The good news is that it has been very much debated on these forums. Do a search and you will probably find almost every opinion possible expressed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
609 | Is any of this true? | 1 Thess 4:1 | Beja | 222090 | ||
Curious2010, Your question is being asked assuming a dispensational view of end times. So let me first answer your questionn assuming dispensation theology is true. No, the rapture could not have taken place because the treaty you are referring to would needed to have been broken half way through it, resulting in the anti-christ waging war on Israel. None of that happened therefore this was not the treaty prophecied and therefore there is no reason to think the rapture has taken place. Now let me answer the question from the view point which I believe is correct. The end times has nothing to do with a treaty with Israel, this is a major misreading fo Daniel chapter 9. Since the treaty has nothing to do with it, then once again there is no reason to believe the rapture has happened. Read 1 Thess 4, 1 Cor 15 (second half) and see what you think about the timing of these three events: the rapture, the ressurection, and the second coming of Christ. I think you will find that they are all the same occassion. At the second coming of Christ the resurrection will first take place, then the rapture. By all accounts the second coming of Christ will be a very visible dramatic event. We'd know if it happened. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
610 | Please expain John 1:1 in layman's terms | John 1:1 | Beja | 222055 | ||
dsturges, First, as we read lets keep in mind from verse 14 that this Word is the Word which become flesh and dwelt among us. Or to put it more to the point, this word is the second person of the trinity, the Son Jesus Christ. Now to what the verses in question teaches us. In the beginning was the word. This phrase is meant to tell us that the Word Jesus Christ was eternal in nature. There never was a time when He did not exist and He is uncreated. Note that John is modeling this phrase after Genesis 1:1, which says, "In the beggining God..." John has begun, "In the beginning was the word" He's saying as clearly as he can the eternal nature of Jesus Christ. The Word was with God Next John draws a distinction. Even though the word was eternally uncreated, there was in fact a distinction between the word and the person whom we identify as God the Father. We are not to confuse the two and think they are one person. For if the Word was in fact synonymous with the Father and there had been no distinction, then John could not have said that the word was with God. the Word was God There is a great amount of debate about this phrase, yet since you specifically asked for laymen's terms then I will not go to the greek to explain it and just let you accept or reject the conclusion. This phrase essentially means that what God was, the Word was. It is not confusing the two persons he is discussing, but rather saying that they are identical in essence. So in summary, this passage is clearly teaching the trinity. Or at least the first two persons of the trinity. It teaches that Jesus Christ is eternally uncreated, was eternally present with the Father, and what the Father is in His glorious essence, the Son is also. Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
611 | Praying to Jesus in Jesus' name? | NT general | Beja | 222024 | ||
Nextman, I am very fond of John Piper's answer to this question. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v(equals)VMp5DFsuOTs Make sure you convert the (equals) to an actual equal sign, the forum won't accept that simbol. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
612 | man in pit resued by rags tied | Jer 38:1 | Beja | 221732 | ||
Gaga, It was Jeremiah. See Jeremiah chapter 38 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
613 | Can women teach in the church | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 221730 | ||
Finder, Just as a general hermeneutic, you need to change your order. Read scripture, then look at what is happening through the lens of scripture. We don't look at something, say, "That seems to look good to me, now how do I understand scripture passages given that experience tells me this is already a good thing." So, given that scripture says that a woman is not permitted to teach or hold authority over a man (in a church.) How do we then interpret what this lady is doing? Just fyi, I do not know Joyce Meyers or anything of her ministry, so I'm not judging her, simply giving the means to evaluate it. A good example of getting it right, imo, is Beth Moore. I'm not a huge fan personally, but when I see some of her video's its clear that God has gifted this woman to preach, and to preach well. But she uses that gift scripturally. She uses it to minister to women. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
614 | In the beginning | Gen 1:1 | Beja | 221728 | ||
CDBJ, I have no real concern about this discussion, but just from pure logic...if this passage proves that angels existed before the earth, then it also proves that stars existed before the earth by the exact same logic. So either scripture is contradicting itself, or you are putting more weight on this passage than it was intended to bare. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
615 | Resurrection Day or easter ? | 2 Tim 2:4 | Beja | 221692 | ||
Justme, Well, this is the type of question that their could be as many answers to as there are people, but I'll answer since it might interest you to hear from a pastor's perspective on it. Quite honestly there are many errors in our churches, some of them quite serious. Even a church who is officially doctrinally sound, deals with individuals who haven't grasped the half of it. Many of these things even regard issues of salvation. As I look at all I need to teach and to clarify as a pastor how does that compare to the issue you bring up? Easter to most Christians of any maturity whatsoever has nothing to do with any goddess of fertility, nor any pagan religion but rather is in fact celibrating the ressurection and we also happen to hunt easter eggs as well. With all the things I am preaching on, why would I start a huge squabble in the church over what we call the holiday, when they are all thinking of the right thing anyways? It is impacting no doctrine, it is worshiping no false deity, and it would not be to their edification to fight concerning what we call it. 2 Timothy 2:4 comes to my mind as I think about it. Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
616 | Praying to the Holy Spirit | Eph 6:18 | Beja | 221631 | ||
Cathy, Unless my greek is rusty, which it may be, then eipen means "to say" and apokrinomai means "to respond." His point being that if it had said the holy spirit had responded then it would have implied they were praying to the Holy Spirit, but the passage didn't use that word. I wouldn't say the word choice here is conclusive, but worth pondering. Either way there is just no reason to think that God responding through the Holy Spirit implies that was who they were praying to. If God sends a fireman in response to prayer does that mean we were praying to firemen? The logic just doesn't work. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
617 | Exact meaning of Biblical "The Lord" | 1 Cor 8:6 | Beja | 221567 | ||
Cathy, 1 Cor 8:6 might be a good verse to look at. Also Christ is continually referred to as Lord throughout the new testament. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
618 | Is it Ok to pray to the Holy Spirit? | NT general | Beja | 221560 | ||
Cathy, No, I've never heard of that being said of acts 13. I think you are correct to disagree with him. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
619 | what is ment by perverted sex in bible | Lev 18:1 | Beja | 221555 | ||
Curlewirler, I can't off the top of my head think of a passage that says "perverted" sex. I'm sure it may use that particular word in some translation, or it might in the NASB and I'm just not remembering it. But when scripture refers to immorality or wrong sexual relations I think it has Leviticus 18 in mind. So read that chapter and see if it helps you grasp a biblical notion of morality with regards to sex. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
620 | Is it Ok to pray to the Holy Spirit? | NT general | Beja | 221553 | ||
Cathy, Basically his answer is that the new testament pattern is that we pray to the father, in the name of Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, or in the Spirit. So we want to follow the new testament pattern whenever possible. So in general we pray to the Father. But he notes there are some exceptions to the rule. For example, "Come quickly, Lord Jesus." He mentioned an exception for the Holy Spirit also. So there are some things appropriate to address to the Son, and the Spirit, but our norm should be praying to the Father. But listen to the clip when you get the chance, there is just something about listening to John Piper that I certainly can't reproduce. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ] Next > Last [40] >> |