Results 61 - 80 of 221
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jesusman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | What is it about the hem? | Matt 9:20 | Jesusman | 189631 | ||
Well .. first off, this was a woman, who during this day and age would have been concidered just above a slave in terms of importance in society. Jesus being not only a man, but also a rabbi and a prophet, and given his fame, it would have been severely frowned upon by those in society for her to run up and touch him anywhere. Even if Jesus had stopped those around from harming her, they could have done something later on, even shun her. So to touch the hem of his cloak, she had to have been stooped down very low, even crawling through the crowd, possibly trying to not be seen. The purpose was for her to be healed and to do so, she believed that she needed to touch him. So, why did she touch the hem? I think it was because she wanted to keep a low profile, maybe not to have attention drawn to herself. Jesus loves you! Jesusman |
||||||
62 | What is it about the hem? | Matt 9:20 | Jesusman | 189630 | ||
Well .. first off, this was a woman, who during this day and age would have been concidered just above a slave in terms of importance in society. Jesus being not only a man, but also a rabbi and a prophet, and given his fame, it would have been severely frowned upon by those in society for her to run up and touch him anywhere. Even if Jesus had stopped those around from harming her, they could have done something later on, even shun her. So to touch the hem of his cloak, she had to have been stooped down very low, even crawling through the crowd, possibly trying to not be seen. The purpose was for her to be healed and to do so, she believed that she needed to touch him. So, why did she touch the hem? I think it was because she wanted to keep a low profile, maybe not to have attention drawn to herself. Jesus loves you! Jesusman |
||||||
63 | Trinity? | Matt 28:19 | Jesusman | 189536 | ||
Thanks, Hank. Good to be back. | ||||||
64 | Trinity? | Matt 28:19 | Jesusman | 189451 | ||
Greetings, This is more of a follow up on what Hank has listed here. Some added thoughts as it were. The term "trinity" is not found in the Bible, however, the doctrine is clearly found. Above was mentioned the baptism of Jesus. In this event, you clearly see the all three .. persons (for lack of a better term) of the Godhead. Those who don't believe in the Tri-une Godhead will say that God conveniently chose to appear as three different forms during this event, and that he could have appeared as any number of persons. However, one thing that must be asked is why would God appear as three separate persons, especially at this event, if he is only one God? Why didn't God simply appear before Jesus in a white light or the like? Something else to ask, if there is no tri-une Godhead, then how can Jesus be God while here on earth and pray to God at the same time, calling God "Father"? If you remove the Doctrine of the Tri-une Godhead from the equasion, what you have is a classic case of either multiple personalities or schizophrenia(sp). Then you have the declaration in Genesis 1 where God says "Let us create man in our own image .." "Us"? "Our?" If God isn't Tri-une then who is he talking to? Angels? Why would he make man in the image of angels when being in the Image of God is superior? Also, the context of the passage doesn't mention the mere slightest hint of angels. In fact, the first angel mensioned in the book is with Abraham. So .. that leave's God talking to himself. Again, with out the doctrine of the Tri-une Godhead, God is either talking to himself or needs to see a psychiatrist. There are too many events in the Bible and too many questions that can be raised if you remove the doctrine of the Tri-une Godhead. The only way these passages make any sense is with the Doctrine of the Tri-une Godhead. Jesus Loves you! Jesusman |
||||||
65 | Who is Jesus' God? | John 3:16 | Jesusman | 112041 | ||
If this is a discussion over whether or not Jesus declared himself to be God, then you need ton debate further, because he did. Althroughout the Gospels, Jesus is referred to as God, and never once does he correct them. Also, IN John 8:58, Jesus in reference to Abraham calls himself the "I am". The holy name for God that was told to Moses on the mount at the burning bush, what "Jehovah" actually means. Why do you think the Pharisees and Sadducees blaimed Jesus for committing blasphemy? Because Jesus declared himself as God. So, Thomas' statement of declaring Jesus as God incorrect? No, because Jesus declared it of himself before. As for Angels being Gods, that is simply false. Also, Jesus is not a created being, as it seems like you are implying. "Begotten" does not always mean "birthed", but "unique". That is an accurate description of Jesus, especially given the Doctrine of the Trinity, and Jesus being the Son within the Tri-une Godhead. As for the worship of Angels, Paul clearly denounces that In Colossians chapter 2. Besides, Hebrews chapter one raises Jesus higher than the angels, and lowers angels far below humans in status. The Bible makes it very clear that Angels are not gods and are not deserving of worship. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
66 | what do you understand by this verse | Rom 6:15 | Jesusman | 106319 | ||
Stop and think about what you are saying. Then think about what I am saying. Justification is NOT salvation. It is different. It is only one aspect to Salvation. Salvation includes Justification, Sanctification, and redemption. Justification is being declared without sin. YES, there is only one way to be saved, that is through the grace of God. However, there are two ways to be declared Justified. A) Through strict and perfect adhence to the Law. The problem is that, as James points out, if you mess up on one tiny point, then you have broken the whole law. It is impossible for man to accomplish, but it is one way to be declared Justified. B) To have Justification placed on you by another who is genuinely Justified. That is what happens with man. Man is unable to adhere to the Law as perfectly as God wants. So, when a man repents, God extends the justification of Christ onto the repentant man. Jesus needed a way to be justified. To be declared without sin. As Paul put it in 2 corinthians, "he who knew no sin ..." Does it make sense for Jesus declared justified due to his own genuine justification being extended to himself? No it doesn't. What does make sense? That Jesus followed the Law as strictly as God desired, and was declared just as a result? Yes, that does make better sense. Jesus is the exception to the rule. Why? Because he was both God and Man. He was human in order to be a personal sacrifice for man. He was God in order to be without sin, and to follow God's law without sinning. No man in existance can ever accomplish what Jesus did. Only Jesus is capable of following the Law to justification. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
67 | what do you understand by this verse | Rom 6:15 | Jesusman | 106225 | ||
If following the Law doesn't lead to justification, then why were the Israelites commanded to follow it? Justification isn't salvation. Salvation includes justification, not the other way around. Jesus needed to be declared justified, meaning without sin, in order to be the sacrifice for sin. Paul points that out numerous times. Now, how was Jesus declared sinless? 1) Did Jesus have faith in his own pending death, burial, and ressurrection, and declared justified by the grace of God? or 2) Did Jesus follow the Law and God's will perfectly and declared without sin as a result? Remember, Jesus was both God and Man. Due to being divine, he was born without a sin nature. Without that sin nature hindering him, Jesus could continue on with a life in perfect adherence to the Law. Thus becoming justified. After living a life of sinlessness and perfect adherence to the Law, Jesus died as the perfect payment for sin. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
68 | what do you understand by this verse | Rom 6:15 | Jesusman | 106215 | ||
2 Corinthians 5:21 He made him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in him. James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all. As you can see from these verses, one must keep the law in it's entirety in order to be declared without sin. In fact, these verses indicate that Jesus kept the law precisely and entirely. In order for Jesus to be declared one "who knew no sin", then he must've kept the law precisely and entirely. Since he did it, then it must be possible to be justified if the law is kept precisely and entirely. However, as you have pointed out, and as I stated briefly, such a task is impossible for us. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
69 | must be theologians? | Numbers | Jesusman | 103709 | ||
Hello, Yes, You still sound mixed up. First off, What's so strange about my name? Never heard of Jesus? Secondly, What is the big difference between "study" and "Search"? They seem like one and the same to me. "Search"? "Study"? What difference does it make as long as you get into the word of God? You're splitting hairs over nothing. Jesusman |
||||||
70 | must be theologians? | Numbers | Jesusman | 103676 | ||
Hello, Sorry to be blunt, but you are one mixed up person. How else is one supposed to know God and his will except he first study the Bible? The Bible isn't called the Word of God for publicity purposes. You claim that you don't study the Bible, and you also claim that we should not study it. If so, then you must not be familiar with Paul's command to study the Bible. 2 Timothy 2:15 Study to show thyself approved, a workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. "Theologians" quote "Study to show thyself approved", because it's in the Bible. Look it up for yourself. In fact, let's take this a step further. Why did Paul praise the Berean church? They examined the scriptures daily. Look it up in Acts 17:10-15. While your at it, look up what John says in 1 John 4:1 Beloved do not believe every spirit, but test the spirit to see whether they are of God. How do you test except through studying the Bible? I do call your post ignorance. Why? Simply because you throw out one of the basic commands of the Bible. Also, you have your terms mixed up, you don't know what a theologian is, let alone what he does, and you even denied known biblical passages. It's apparent that you are either ignorant or heretical. Which is it? I do appologize for the bluntness, but something needed to be said. You prayed that people be granted wisdom and knowledge from God, yet said that one should not study God's word. You said that we should not listen to theologians, yet you expect us to heed your words. You accuse theologians of making up words, turning to the greek and hebrew, and say that it is confusing and non helpful. However, you seem to want clarification on "biblical words" such as sanctification. Where do you think the idea of sancitfication comes from except through the study of the original Greek and Hebrew? Aixen, your post is filled with contradictions, and misconceptions. Jesusman |
||||||
71 | Explain the Holy Trinity-verysimple form | Numbers | Jesusman | 103669 | ||
But I did hear that from Hank Henegraf. If you don't believe me, call him yourself and ask him. 1-800-ask-hank. That's the number to his radio program. Call about 5 pm central time. You say that it's not a difficult concept. If so, then I must think that you don't fully understand it to begin with. The trinity isn't merely a family, a group, or some team wirking together. The Bible describes God as one single being. I used the term "person" because it conveys the same meaning. However, The Bible also describes The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as each being separate beings, or persons. The Bible further tells us that all three of these eternally distinct beings are the one and the same God. How do you resolve that? There is not one single "thing" in nature that even comes close to reflecting this. This is a concept beyond human understanding. The Trinity isn't a family like yours is. The Tinity isn't a group like AARP or the MOOSE lodge. The Trinity isn't a sports team like the Yankees. Hank describes the Trinity as three "Who's" in one "What". That, I have found, is the simplest and easiest to understand of every analogy, example, and formula that I have ever heard. I have heard the Trinity described as an Egg, A person with multiple personality disorder, a human with multiple responsibilities to multiple people, a sports team, and on and on it goes. All of them have their problems. Even Henegraf's example has it's flaws, but it's also the simplest, and closest to what the Bible teaches. Jesusman |
||||||
72 | final round of "contradictions" | Bible general Archive 2 | Jesusman | 102923 | ||
hey Hank, Yeah, it has been a while. It's good to see people still remember me here. Anyways, thanks for your comments, and inspiration. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
73 | One example of loosing salvation NT | Luke 8:13 | Jesusman | 88887 | ||
Stop thinking like your living in the twentieth century, and start thinking like the writers of the Bible. What the writers of the Bible thought about certain topics is different than today. They didn't go around "claiming" to be Christians while still doubting one of the fundamental truths of Christianity. Even in death, that Child was stil the child of the person who adopted him/her. There was absolutely ZERO method, NONE, No way, Nada to become "Un-adopted". It was perminant. The Child could not deny his/her adoption. The courts could not break the adoption contract. The adopted parent could not break, deny, or nullify the adoption either. The adoption was perminant. On top of that, The adopted child in NO way could be denied their inheritance. You may stand firm in your belief, but it isn't fimrly planted upon the Bible or it's teachings. You are fimrly standing upon your own stubbornness, and refusal to admit that your belief is wrong. 1 Peter 1:3-5, a passage I talked about in my previous post, talks about the inheritance. Did you read it? While we're on the subject of reading the Bible, how many of the Bible passages have you looked up? Anyways, 1 Peter describes the inheritance in this manner. It is imperishable, Undefiled, and will not fade away. It is reserved in heaven. Then, Peter turns around and tell us that we can ... do what? REJOICE!!! Why should we rejoice if you believe that we can lose our inheritance? According to Peter, who I am certain knows more about the teachings of Christ than you do, we can't lose our inheritance. John 6:35-40 talks about Jesus being the Bread of life, and speaks that all that the Father has given Jesus, Jesus keeps, and cannot lose. I have supplied three passages just off the top of my head that prove this teaching. So apparently it isn't from "men of denominations". Do you comprehend the implications of saying that our security lies in ourself? Do you? You are saying, "God! You are not powerful enough for me. Therefore, thanks for the salvation, but I'll take care of the rest on my own." Believe it or not, That IS what you are saying. You are saying that God can't do it. That Jesus doesn't have the power to hold you firmly to him. That you need to get to heaven on your own, and that all God did was show you which road to take. What is it that Jesus said about this thinking? "I am the way, the truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father, except through me." Do you know what Paul taught about the belief that You can reach heaven on your own? Such people are worthy of death. The only way to get to heaven is for God to carry you, guide you, and be with you the whole way. You cannot do it on your own. You are not that strong. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
74 | One example of loosing salvation NT | Luke 8:13 | Jesusman | 88842 | ||
1 Peter 1:3-5 Our inheritance is reserved in heaven. It will remain there under the protection of God and it will not be taken away, fade away, nor will it be defiled, nor perish. Roman 8: 12-17 We are called "Children of God". We are adopted by HIM. Are you aware of the First Century view on adoption? In the first century, an adopted Child could never be "un-adopted". Adoption was perminant. Not even the courts or an order by the Emperor could disolve an adoption. People, such as Government officials, the wealthy, and the like would adopt their own Children. Why? To ensure that they would get their inheritance. An Adopted Child could never be denied his/her inheritance. With these two passages, and others that I just plainly don't have time to look up, how can you you come to any other conlusion than that Christians cannot lose their salvation? ON top of that, why would you want to believe anything else? Are you seriously content with the idea that your salvation can be wisked away at a moments notice? I'm not. How powerful can God be if he cannot secure the salvation he provided for me? This God you speak of must be one gigantic weakling, especially if he depends upon my help to stay under his graces. Why should I fear a God who cannot keep a hold of his own subjects? Jesusman |
||||||
75 | Did God create evil? | Is 45:7 | Jesusman | 88837 | ||
No, After creation there was only Good. Somtime after Creation, Satan exherted his own desires in a vain attempt to be like God. God then kicked him out of heaven. Lucifer became lustful over God's power, and attempted to take it for himself. After Lucifer fell, he then tempted Adam and Eve to sin. When Adam disobeyed God, Sin then entered into the World. God did not create Evil and Sin. He permitted it. Satan created evil, and sin. Jesusman |
||||||
76 | Did God create evil? | Is 45:7 | Jesusman | 88801 | ||
Are you sure that God created Evil? You do realize don't you that there is a difference between "creating" Evil, and "permitting" Evil? All that God created is "Good". Why? Because God is good. He is truly Just, Holy, and Righteous. That is taught everywhere in the Bible. Sin is everything that is opposite of God. God cannot create anything that he is opposite of himself. Second, How can God be the perfect and righteous Judge of all if he is evil? How can he set laws of right and wrong if he is evil? Since when does an evil person obey the laws? See my point? As for the passage you chose, Are you sure that "Darkness" is refering to "Evil"? Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
77 | GOD MDE SALAVATION AVAIL 4 ALL | John 3:17 | Jesusman | 88237 | ||
God made salvation available for all. That's a far cry from everyone in the world being saved. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman ps: Don't shout! |
||||||
78 | difference Christian and catholic | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 51101 | ||
Uh? No. The words for "Peter" and "Rock" may derive from the same basic word, but they are different. "Peter" or "petros" in greek means "stone, rock, pebble." It carries the implied meaning of a small rock. "Rock" or "Petra" in greek means "Boulder, rock." It carries the implied meaning of a giant, huge rock. This difference is significant. Jesus is calling Peter a small rock, and in turn is saying that his church will be built upon a big rock. That "big rock" is Jesus himself. Paul confirms this time and time again throughout his epistles. You always read Paul referring to Jesus as the Head of the church and never Peter. Also, Paul often argued with Peter. If Peter was the first Pope, then why did Paul often argue with him. Also, why, in his own epistles, did Peter never refer to himself as Pope or describe himself in such manner? Why aren't there ever any references to Peter being the head of the Church? I will go so far as to say that the Jesus is prophecying that Peter will be a ruler in the future church. However, I do not go so far as to say that Jesus is prophecying that the future church will be built upon Peter, and that Peter will be the head of it. Besides, concidering Peter's life and actions, I wouldn't want the Church to be built on him. Would you? Would you want to be a part of a group whose leader was prone to violence, often denying his own loyalties, predjudice, presumptuous, timid, cowardly, impulsive, and even blasphemous when it suited him? If you believe that the church was built upon Peter, then that is what you are getting. Jesusman |
||||||
79 | Who wrote the book of Acts? | Acts | Jesusman | 51094 | ||
Hello, Hey, no problem. I'm sorry also if I came across rather harsh. Jesusman |
||||||
80 | Name of first Chirstinas 0-33 AD? | Acts 11:26 | Jesusman | 50950 | ||
If "Christian" carried implied meanings of slavery in it's original usage, then that would explain my Paul continuously calls himself a "slave" for Christ. Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [12] >> |