Results 61 - 80 of 174
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Morant61 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Can Jesus be 'a god', when God said...? | Is 43:10 | Morant61 | 75547 | ||
Greetings All! I asked this question of a JW a few days ago, but I have not received a reply. So, I am going to post it to all because I am curious as to how those who believe that John 1:1 teaches that Jesus was 'a god' reconcile their belief with God's words in Is. 43:10. So, if you believe in the JW doctrine that Jesus was 'a god', how do you reconcile this belief with God's words in Is. 43:10 there there was no god formed before or after Him? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
62 | Is 'Pneuma' really feminine? | Jer 7:18 | Morant61 | 80582 | ||
Greetings gbenett76! You wrote: "Many theologians and scholars realize that the Holy Spirit written as, "Pneuma" in Greek everytime it appears in the New Testament, is a feminine being. Note that Pneuma is a feminine word in Greek." Where are you getting this information? 'Pneuma' in Greek is a neuter noun. It is not feminine! The only good thing about this misinformation is that it makes it clear how reliable the rest of your post is. Is 43:10, among many others, makes it clear that there is only one God. There are not any other gods or godesses. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
63 | Prosperity and Deut. 28? | Matthew | Morant61 | 14747 | ||
Greetings Kimberly! I noticed that you mentioned Deut. 28 in your post. Let me ask you a couple of questions. 1) To whom was Moses speaking in this chapter? 2) What were the conditions for prosperity? 3) Does it apply to us today? As you ponder these questions, let me make a couple of points clear. a) I firmly believe that God can and does bless. However, He is under no obligation to do so. b) There is nothing wrong with giving to ministries who are leading people to Christ. There is everything wrong with giving to "ministires" who are simply trying to build theme parks and big houses. c) Much of the Seed/Harvest and Word of Faith teaching is simply not Biblical. It takes passages out of context. With this in mind, my only concern in this post is that Deut. 28 has been taken out of context and misapplied. If you wish to respond to my questions, I would be happy to discuss my reasons for saying this with you. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
64 | How far would you go in a translation? | Matt 1:18 | Morant61 | 32784 | ||
Greetings Forum Friends! In light of the recent discussion about the new TNIV, I thought it would be interesting to get everyone's feedback on this question. Is it best to be woodenly literal when traslating or is it best to attempt to put the original language into it's English equivalent? There are many passage where even very literal translations will disagree, simply because the original language leaves out words, implies words, or uses constructions which are extremely difficult to understand. These are not the issue of my question. I am simply curious as to where we draw the line. For example: Example 1: Matt. 1:18 literally says of Mary, "...she was found in belly having of the Holy Spirit". Most translations say that "she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit". Would it be better or worse to simply say: "...It was discovered that she was pregnant." Example 2: John 6:47 literally says, "Amen Amen, I say to you, 'He who believes has life eternal'". The "he who" is the literal translation of the masculine pronoun associated with the participle "believing". Clearly this is a universal passage, which does not refer to only those of a masculine gender. So, would it be better to translate this passage as: "Everyone who believes" or "All who believe" rather than "He who"? My reason for questioning is simply to get your thoughts on how far we should go in our attempts to make a translation understandable. I am not defending or condemning the TNIV at this point, since I haven't read any of it yet - and may not! :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
65 | The Sermon on the Mount? | Matt 5:1 | Morant61 | 10525 | ||
Greetings Forum! There has been a lot of discussion over the years concerning the Sermon on the Mount in general and the Beatitudes in particular. Let me ask these questions: What is the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount? What is the meaning of the Beatitudes? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
66 | Sources? | Matt 5:17 | Morant61 | 137697 | ||
Greetings MJH! What are your sources for this idiom? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
67 | Our forgiving others / God forgiving us? | Matt 6:14 | Morant61 | 10523 | ||
Greetings Forum! I spent some time awhile back memorizing the Sermon on the Mount. During that time, Mt. 6:14-15 struck me as two very powerful verses. So, let me throw this question out to the Forum for discussion: What exactly is the relationship between our ability to forgive others and our reception of forgiveness from God? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
68 | More on Mt. 6:14 -15? | Matt 6:14 | Morant61 | 16481 | ||
Greetings Bill! You said: "In conclusion, if you are a believer, your forgiveness of sins IS NOT based upon whether or not you have forgiven the terrorists. And the inverse is also true. If you are not a believer, forgiving the terrorist WILL NOT secure forgiveness of sins from God on your behalf. Christ alone has done this." I understand that you believe that there are some parts of the New Testament that no longer apply to us, but based on this quoted statement, Mt. 6:14-15 has no meaning whatsoever to anyone. I'm not totally sure how this verse should be applied, but it must mean something or Christ would not have said it. There seems to be two possible approaches. 1) We can take it as a command to all. 2) We can take it as a command to only those who lived before Christ. Neither view is without problems. You seem to take it to refer only those before the resurrection of Christ. If this is the case, does Mt. 6:14-15 mean that everyone who forgave others was forgiven by God? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
69 | Are we saying the same thing? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8797 | ||
Greetings Sharp! You said in your post: "It is true that water itself does not contain any saving virtue, but God has chosen to include it in His plan of salvation." It may be that we are saying the same thing, but simply aren't making ourselves clear. Let me state again what I am trying to say: 1) Baptism is important, since it was commanded by Christ. I don't think anyone on this forum is saying that baptism is unimportant. I know I'm not! 2) Baptism does not in any way contribute to or take away from our salvation. In other words, one does not have to be baptized to be saved. 3) Baptism is a outward testimony of what God has already done in saving us. If this is what you are saying as well, then I agree with you one hundred percent. However, if you are saying that baptism is necessary for salvation, then I would disagree with you one hundred percent. That would be making a work necessary for salvation and Scripture is clear that we can do nothing to earn salvation. Let me know if you agree with the above statement, then we can proceed from that point. p.s. - I think your reference is Luke 7:30! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
70 | Why do so few Scriptures mention baptism | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8823 | ||
Greetings Sharp! Thanks for the response! Here lies the concern that I think most on the forum, including myself, have. Scripture makes it very clear that salvation is by faith, not faith plus baptism. So I ask my original questions about Acts 2:38 again! I would appreciate it if you would respond to these original points: I have been following this thread with interest. Is baptism a necessary for salvation? You seem to be arguing that it is based upon Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, ‘‘Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Thus, you must be taking the phrase "for the forgiveness of your sins" as expressing the result of repentance and baptism. However, there are three very good reasons to avoid this interpretation of this verse. 1) The rest of Scripture does not make baptism necessary for salvation, including Acts. Consider the following verses from Acts where forgiveness is mentioned and notice that not one of them links forgiveness with baptism. a) Acts 5:31 - "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel." b) Acts 10:43 - "All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." c) Acts 13:38-39 - ‘‘Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you. 39 Through him everyone who believes is justified from everything you could not be justified from by the law of Moses." d) Acts 26:18 - "to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me." Notice that none of these other verses in Acts tie baptism in with the forgiveness of sins. If baptism were essential to salvation, you would think that it would be mentioned in these other verses as well. 2) There are reasons to believe that "for the forgiveness of sins" does not express result, but rather expresses the ground or reason for baptism. The preposition translated as ‘for’ in Acts 2:38 is sometimes used in this way. Consider the following examples and notice that two of them involve baptism (additional evidence that Acts 2:38 should be translated as "on the basis or grounds of the forgiveness of your sins): a) Matthew 3:11 - "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." b) Matthew 12:41 - "The men of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and now one greater than Jonah is here." Allow me to address Mt. 12:41 first. The phrase "repented at the preaching of Jonah" uses the same preposition (eis) as does Acts 2:38. Obviously, the preaching of Jonah was the basis of their repentance, not the other way around. The other example illustrates the same thing and it involves baptism. In Mt. 3:11, baptism did not produce repentance. Rather, repentance was the grounds for baptism. 3) Finally, there is evidence in Acts 2:38 that the middle clause (involving baptism) may be a parenthetical statement. The command to repent is plural. The command to be baptized is singular. This would seems to indicate some break in the chain of thought. If this is the case, the phrase "for the remission of sins" may not even belong with the command to be baptized. No one would debate with you that baptism is important to a believer. However, I just can’t see that baptism is necessary for salvation. There are only a couple of debated Scriptures that even seem to make that case, while the vast majority of Scriptures make it abundantly clear that salvation is through faith alone. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
71 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | Morant61 | 8880 | ||
Greetings Mel! Thanks for the input to the discussion! Allow me to briefly deal with the two passages you mention which deal with baptism (John 3:5 and Acts 2:38.) Then, I would like you to address two specific questions. As a preliminary, let me state once again that no one debates that baptism is important. It has been commanded by Christ for Christians. The only point being debated is whether or not baptism is essential for salvation. You, Sharp, and Ezekiel seem to be saying that baptism is essential to salvation - no baptism, no salvation. I, and the rest of the thread, are arguing that our salvation is not effected in any way by our baptism or lack thereof. With this is mind, let me address these two passages. 1) Acts 2:38: There are two points that I think argue against baptism being essential to salvation in this passage. a) There is a grammatical anomaly in this verse. The command to repent is a second person plural imperative - in other words a plural you. Unfortunately, there is no way in English to distinguish between a 2nd person plural and a 2nd person singular. To use the King James method of ‘you’ and ‘ye,’ the command here is ‘Repent Ye!’ The phrase ‘for the remission of your sins’ is also a 2nd person plural as indicated by both the definite article and the personal pronoun. So, obviously, the command to repent and the phrase concerning the forgiveness of sins belong together. However, the command to "be baptized" is a 3rd person singular imperative. This simply means that the phrase "for the remission of sins" does not go with the command to be baptized at all, rather it belongs with the command to repent. b) Secondly, the phrase "forgiveness of sins" is used four other times in Acts (5:31, 10:43, 13:38-39, and 26:18) and none of them mention baptism. If baptism is essential for salvation, why don’t all of these other verse include references to baptism? My answer is that there is no command in Scripture to be baptized for the remission of sins. The command in Acts 2:38 is a command to repent for the remission of sins, with a parenthetical statement thrown in that each one should then be baptized. 2) John 3:5: Concerning this passage, my first observation is that Christian baptism is not mentioned directly anywhere in this passage. In fact, it would be unusual for it to be mentioned, since Christian baptism hasn’t even be instituted at this point. Your assuming that "born of the water" means baptized. However, the context makes it much more likely that "born of the water" is a reference to natural birth in contrast to spiritual birth. Notice the flow of the passage. Jesus says in Jn. 3:3 that no one can see the Kingdom of God unless he is born again. In verse 4, Nicodemus immediately assumes that Jesus must means that we have to re-enter the womb and be physically born again. Verse 5 is Jesus’ attempt to correct Nicodemus’ false assumption. In it, He says that we must be born of water and of Spirit. Is Jesus talking about baptism when He says "born of water" or is He talking about natural birth. I believe the later. Why? Because in verse 6, Jesus directly contrasts physical birth and spiritual birth by stating that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." So, even if my interpretation of this passage is in error, you would have to assume that Jesus meant baptism when there is nothing in the context that even deals with baptism. Every text used in this thread to support the idea that baptism is essential to salvation has some serious difficulties attached to it. Furthermore, the concept itself goes against everything Scripture says about salvation being through faith alone! I have tried to answer your questions, and I will expand on my answers if you wish. Now, I would like you to answer two questions. 1) In Acts 10, Peter is preaching the gospel to the household of Cornelius. As he was preaching, Acts 10:44 tells us that the Holy Spirit came upon all those who heard the message and they spoke in tongues, just as the disciples had in Acts 2. This is an important sign that God has extended salvation even to the Gentiles. Notice however what Peter says in v. 47, ‘‘Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." Were these people saved at this point? They had already been filled with the Holy Spirit! How could this be true if they were not saved? Yet, if baptism is essential to salvation, how could they have been saved without being baptized? 2) What about the thief on the cross (Luke 23:43)? Jesus told him that he would be with Him in paradise, today! Yet, he had never been baptized! Was he saved? I look forward to your response and I appreciate your kind spirit! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
72 | God and gods? | Matt 11:11 | Morant61 | 123211 | ||
Greetings Ralph2! From your post, I take it that you are a Jehovah's witness. The entire doctrine of the JW's specifically contradicts Jehovah's own words. Consider this quote from another of my posts: ************************************ Because Jehovah's Witnesses are so set on avoiding the Biblical teaching that Jesus is God in the flesh, they have mistranslated John 1:1. But, in doing so, they have created a false doctrine which says that there is more than one God. Is. 43:10 is a clear statement. There isn't anything unclear about it. There isn't any controversy about it. It simply says that there are not any other gods. Jehovah is the only God. Now, John 1:1 says that Jesus is God. Therefore, Jesus must be Jehovah. Just out of curiosity, how does the NWT translate Is. 43:10? I also found it interesting the Is. 43:11 also says that there is no other savior. Yet, consider the following verses where Jesus is called our savior. Luke 2:11 - "Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord." John 4:42 - "They said to the woman, ??We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.?" Acts 5:31 - "God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel." There are more, but especially Titus 2:13 where we are informed that Jesus is both God and Savior. "while we wait for the blessed hope?the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," We can discuss later the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. But, the first step is to confront the fact that the NWT is teaching a false doctrine in John 1:1. Jesus cannot be another god in addition to Jehovah because Jehovah Himself said in Is. 43:10 that there are no other gods besides Him. So, my simple question to you my friend is this: Did He or did He not say in Is. 43:10 that there is no other god besides Him? If He did, then how can Jesus be another god? ************************************* I would urge you to get away from these false teachings my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran Those on this forum do not accept the teachings of this cult. |
||||||
73 | God and gods? | Matt 11:11 | Morant61 | 123229 | ||
Greetings Ralph2! I notice that you did not respond to the questions raised in my post. If Jehovah says that there are no other gods but Him, then how can Jesus be a lesser god? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
74 | Revealing error is persecution? :-) | Matt 11:11 | Morant61 | 123233 | ||
Greetings Ralph2! If your group is teaching error and someone points that out in a loving manner, then that cannot be called 'persecution'! :-) One way to beginning addressing the error is to respond to my questions. Jehovah Himself said that there are 'no' other gods but Him. Therefore, Jesus cannot be 'another' god. He must be, as John 1:1 says - God Jehovah. Jehovah also says that there is no other savior but Him. Yet, Scripture calls Jesus are savior. How do you reconcile the two? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
75 | Apostle or not? | Matt 19:28 | Morant61 | 16477 | ||
Greetings CDBJ! Are you saying then that Matthias was not a legitimate Apostle? If so, then why: 1) Is there never anything said in Scripture about his not being a "real" apostle? 2) Is he recongnized by Luke as being part of the 12 (Acts 2:14 and Acts 6:2)? This is not meant to denigrate Paul in anyway, he is my favorite Apostle! However, neither should we deinigrate Matthias. Acts makes it clear that they gathered together to pray, that they were led to choose another to replace Judas, and that they prayed for God's will to be done. There is nothing in the text to indicate that God's will was not done. We are not comfortable with the casting of lots, but they had a long tradition within Judaism. The two stones attached to the High Priest's breastplate were used as lots to determine God's will in situations. This is exactly what the apostles did. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
76 | Who is Jesus? | Matt 24:28 | Morant61 | 23652 | ||
Greetings Ross! The point I made was simply that the word "cult" depends upon your perspective. Here is the ultimate test of a cult: Who do you say Jesus is? Is He God? Is He eternal? Is He the only way to salvation? Is He just one among many prophets or imans? Your answer to these questions will make it perfectly clear if Baha'i is a cult or not! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
77 | Is there a command to use wine? | Matt 26:29 | Morant61 | 34805 | ||
Greetings Tim! I was thinking about this after we posted to one another the other day and I question came into my mind. Where does the Bible command anyone to use wine during the Lord's Supper? There are passages which talk about a cup, or the fruit of the vine, but there aren't any passage relating to the Lord's Supper which use any word for "wine". Further, even if we are to use it for the Lord's Supper, where is there a Scripture verse which either commands or allows us to use wine for other occasions - like at home? Just a thought! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
78 | What is the Gospel? | Mark | Morant61 | 204446 | ||
Greetings Looking! What does the Bible say the Gospel is? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
79 | Which Translation are you using? | Mark 9:1 | Morant61 | 97811 | ||
Greetings Candy Lee! I forgot a point in my previous post! Oops! :-) Which translation are you using that says in Eze. 4:6 that 'a day is as a year'? Every translation I looked at said 'a day for a year', not 'a day is as a year'. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
80 | Did you have a particular source? | Mark 10:25 | Morant61 | 6405 | ||
Greetins EdB! Great point! Did you have a source in mind for Luke's word. I found one reference to it being a surgecial (spelling?) needle, but most of my references and dictionaries simply list it as a needle! Either way, I think the point of the saying is clear! Thanks, Tim Moran |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |