Results 61 - 80 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Do the original books exist | Bible general | Beja | 240210 | ||
nugtweety, We do not have the original copies of any of the books of the bible. However, there is no ancient document in all of history for which we have more evidence and certainty that we have essentially the original words preserved for us. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
62 | If "heaven" is a metaphor | Phil 3:20 | Beja | 240199 | ||
Movingon, Sorry it took so long for my reply. I've read over most, but not all, of the thread you pointed me to. I am no judge or jury on this forum nor do I intend to present myself as such. But since you have asked me regarding it, or at least I think you have... It is quite easy to identify where that thread went wrong. The problem was that it began with an insincere question. When I say an insincere question I mean a question that was not actually seeking to learn something. You already had your answer resolved, you asked purely to bait somebody to answer so that you could then "instruct" the forum. Everytime this happens on the forum it leads to a confrontational thread. Usually it is the sign that the poster will stay briefly and argue much. I so hope you prove this wrong. I hope you stay long and are benefitted by this community. But I also hope you refrain from trying to make this forum your personal teaching ministry. So often somebody will come here and they don't come to study scripture and to grow with everybody. The arrive planning to teach us something they assume we have all missed. This never goes well. You will likely continue to find yourself in confrontational threads as long as it is your intentions to be a "teacher." So much more good could be done on this forum if we all simply had the mind to discuss particular texts of scripture together. But sadly more often we come to this forum not studying scripture, but to argue for our systematic theologies. Systematic theology is great, but when we debate systems rather than slowing down and discussing individual sections of scripture we learn little and debate much. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
63 | If "heaven" is a metaphor | Phil 3:20 | Beja | 240192 | ||
Movingon, "is the same as most Amillennial twisting of plain literal words to suit their own inventions" Perhaps a little more graciousness to those we disagree with would be fitting. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
64 | belief in hell? | Bible general | Beja | 240094 | ||
Maus, I personally debated for sometime on whether the ideas concerning hell in scripture were metaphorical or literal. I do not think we are being disrespectful to scripture by asking how to rightly understand what it is asserting. However, we must remember the goal is not to consider what we think about hell, but specifically is scripture "intending" these things to be metaphorical or literal. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that scripture intends it to be literal. All this is to say I am not offended with the question, that being said I have two statements with regards to your reasoning. 1. Tracing the origen of the word is not the samething as wrestling with what Christ and other New Testament writers say about the subject. We must consider what it is they are saying about "hell" regardless what word they have chosen to label it. What do they say and how do they mean it to be understood? And because we affirm the inspiration of the new testament, it does not matter how they mature or develop the Old Testament doctrine, we believe them to have done so rightly. 2. Too often when somebody decides that Hell is a metaphor for some other penalty, they decide it is some other penalty far more bearable than the metaphor of eternal fire. What must be accepted, is that if the New Testament authors truely intended to describe eternal judgment by a eternal burning of which there will be no relief. Then whatever hell is in reality, it must be something horrible beyond our comprehension. Because the inspired writers chose the most terrible metaphor they could possibly conceived of, it must mean hell is worse than we can conceive of. So I always tell people, if you wish to sincerely wrestle with this question, by no means use it to lighten the concept of hell. The question is valid, but to then assume hell is less terrible is intellectually flawed, and is only motivated by our desire to ignore this terrible reality. As stated, I believe hell is literal, but these are some guidelines if we want to restle with the question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
65 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239830 | ||
Jasper, I'm not sure what to make of your post. Either you: a) Wish to debate whether salvation is by Faith alone with me. Although I have not tried to assert a position. or b) You somehow think throwing your lot with one side of the reformation actually answers the question of whether the two sides still disagree, when it rather proves an ongoing disagreement instead. Since the second option is silly and therefore would be ungracious of me to assume of you, I am left to think that you are trying to persuade me of salvation through works? Help me out here. Am I misunderstanding you? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
66 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239715 | ||
I do not think your rebuke was in line with the terms of use of this site. You might want to review the sections regarding denominational remarks. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
67 | Ecumenical Movement Avoid or Not? | Bible general | Beja | 239708 | ||
Ed.O, This is a difficult question to answer while still remaining true to the intentions of this forum. The forum is very specifically meant to be a place where both catholic and protestant professions are free to come and study scripture together. Your question has another question imbedded within it. The imbedded question asks us to give a blanket verdict on the doctrine of Catholics and those who would join with them. While I would naturally and permissibly disagree with catholics while discussing particular texts on this forum, I think it crosses a line to simply discount their beliefs. It invites argument in the absence of working on particular passages. In respect to the intentions of this forum I will not answer that imbedded question but I will state this: Evangelicals still preach salvation through faith alone, and Catholics still argue some other merits are necessary in addition to Christ. In that sense, I do not understand what they could actually mean when they suggest the reformation to be over. We still disagree on the same things. Perhaps they mean to suggest that we no longer care about those things to the same extent as our spiritual forefathers? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
68 | Was John the Baptist a Priest? | NT general | Beja | 239685 | ||
Pete23, John was of priestly lineage because Luke 1:5 identifies his father as a priest. But if I understand the text and the Jewish religious culture correctly, John would not have been viewed as a priest. The function of a priest would have been something he had to step into at the appropriate age. In contrast we are told in Luke 1:80 that John remained in the wilderness until the day of his public appearance to Israel, which would have been when he began preaching repentance and baptizing. This staying in the wilderness is most likely where the notion of him being an Essene came from. Regardless, at no point did he accept priesthood functionally and this would have been determinative to the Jews in answering the question, "Was John a priest?" In Christ, Beja |
||||||
69 | Baptized by Holy Spirit? | Matt 3:11 | Beja | 239530 | ||
Justin, With regards to being baptized by fire. I am inclined to see a stronger parallel between verse eleven and twelve. The fire in verse twelve is clearly judgment. So in eleven we see baptisms of spirit and fire. And in twelve we see the gathering of the wheat and the burning of the chaff. Now this being said there is no doubt that I am in happy agreement with the fact that tongues of fire settled upon them at Pentecost and I am also in happy agreement that the Holy Spirit works mightly upon the souls of men and that sometimes a burning passion is a quite apt description of that. I just don't think that these things are what is being referred to in Matt 3:12. Likewise the other posters will agree that there is a judgment in which God will separate the wheat and the chaff and it will be a judgment of fire. So we have a pretty substantial agreement in doctrine, we just don't agree which is being referred to here. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
70 | 3 levels of Christianity as per Ephesian | Eph 1:3 | Beja | 239449 | ||
Greetings Fares, To my knowledge there is no "3 levels" of Christianity in Ephesians nor in any other book. But as this question seems to keep getting asked I am terribly curious. Where is this question coming from? Who has told you that there are three levels to be found in the book of Ephesians? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
71 | What exactly does this passage mean? | Heb 10:26 | Beja | 239302 | ||
Ed, I'm not for certain whether this post was meant to tag me or the original poster. If it was to me I will simply say that I standby my previous post. In Christ Beja |
||||||
72 | What exactly does this passage mean? | Heb 10:26 | Beja | 239300 | ||
Dr. Phill, I would express both some agreement and some disagreement with the answer you received from, Ed. In agreement I would say that for anybody to go on unrepentantly sinning in a willful fashion would be to place themselves in damnation. In disagreement both I and historical reformed theology would suggest that their behavior and ultimate fate demonstrates that they were never a "truly saved" individual. I think the author of Hebrews would agree with me on this assertion and I would direct you to Hebrews chapter 3 to demonstrate this. Hebrews 3:13,14 But encourage one another day after day, as long a it is still called "today," so that none of you will be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end. Let me point out a number of parallels with the passage you asked about. 1. Both have an exhortation that we push each other to not sin and both are grounded in ultimate consequences. In the passage I quoted it presses us to encourage one another so that we are not hardened by sin and then it gives a FOR clause. In the clause there is a fatal consequence of us not being united to Christ. I will talk more of that one later but for now, the parallel. In Hebrews 10 we see a command to stimulate each other to love and good deeds in the midst of assembling together and then the FOR clause. After this it expresses the contrast as to go on sinning willfully. In this chapter again there is a ultimate fatal consequence of not being covered by the sacrifice of Christ. 2. Another parallel: In both passages they are encouraging us to not only not sin, but also to hold fast to our confession concerning Christ. In chapter 10 this is in verse 23. In chapter three you will see this in both verse 12 and in the FOR clause of verse 14 itself. So I see a very strong parallel between the flow of thought in these two passages. Now lets look closely at Hebrews 3:14. It states that we "Have become participants in Christ" IF... This is very important that we see how this is structured. We have PAST TENSE, (its actually a perfect tense) become partakers of Christ IF we hold fast the beginning of our assurance until the end. So he says that a past event really occurred if a future even is true. Namely we have past tense actually become united to Christ, if we go on holding fast to Christ in the future. So I argue, that in the mind of the author of Hebrews anybody who abandons Christ is demonstrating that they were never partakers of Christ to begin with. I think he has a consistent reasoning in chapter ten. Yes, to go on willfully sinning and rejecting his plea to hold fast to our confession of Christ(notice these two things are contrasts of each other), to do this would be to eternally jepordize our souls, but more than that, it is to show that we were never truly united to Christ in the first place. There are other places we could go to show this is the consistent testimony of scripture but I am more concerned to show you that the author of Hebrews himself is thinking this way. We must indeed hold fast to Christ and fight against sin in order to be saved, but all who truly belong to Christ will actually do so because God himself is working in them to bring it about. Philippians 2:12,13 ...work out your salvation in with fear and trembling; for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure. This is the paradox of life as a Christian. We labor with all our might to take hold of holiness but it is only because of God that we first desire to, second strive to, and finally succeed in doing so. It is all of God, and because it is all of God, it is certain. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
73 | Mystery Resurrection For Holy Ones | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239287 | ||
Ed.O. When posting a new question mid thread to a specific person, the unwritten norm on the form is to still mark it as a note. It will still alert me via e-mail that I was replied to so that I will not miss the question, and that way a question not meant for the general forum will no clutter the question section. But no worries, as I said, that is an "unwritten" norm. With regards to your question...I will answer it but then I would like to bow out of the conversation. I will try to refrain leaving my post in such a way that challenges you to respond as that would be an ungracious way to ask to be excused. I never wanted to debate viewpoints but only to be helpful in guiding whatever further discussion might ensue apart from me. But to the question...Let me first state what difficulty you might be assuming the text gives my viewpoint and then I will give my answer to it. Let me quote the text for the sake of the many silent readers. "And you shall flee to the valley of my mountains, for the valley of the mountains shall reach to Azal. And you shall flee as you fled from the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Then the LORD my God willcome, and all the holy ones with him." The given is that these are saints. I assume we both accept this point. The problem presumably comes when it says that he will bring the holy ones "with" him. The assumption being that they are already with him. How can I therefore say that they were not previously gathered? Clearly this triumphant judgment return of Christ happens at the turning of the ages. Any so called tribulation happens before the return depicted in this verse and here we see the saints are with him here when he does. This is the problem you are suggesting, yes? Let me give you a matching statement from the New Testament which I believe explains this. Paul states that when the Lord returns he will "Bring with him those who have fallen asleep." He says this in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4. So here we have a clear statement of whom Christ shall bring with him on his return. Those who have fallen asleep is a euphemism for those who have died in Christ. Second, and this is very much to the point, he is stating whom he will bring with him when he comes to rapture his church. So those whom Christ brings with him are not the raptured, they are the faithful saints through the ages who have died in Christ. Third, even the "bringing them with" is not what we would first expect for he goes on to explain that the "bringing them with" in specifically how it will play out will be Christ showing up, resurrecting the entire lot of them, and then he will call up those still alive. Now you and I would say, "Hey! but that isn't bringing them with him!" How can Paul say they are brouth "with him" and yet his very explanation of this phrase is that he ressurects them just before the rapture? But that is exactly the words that Paul uses for this. So I would argue that 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 explain specifically who are brought with Christ, and this event happens AT the rapture. So we see the rapture happens AT the time of Christ's return with his holy ones and AT the resurrection. Which also is AT the same time as his judgment on unbelievers (2 Thess 1:5-10), which happens AT the time of the destruction of the current heavens and earth (2 Pe 3:7). In Christ, Beja |
||||||
74 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239285 | ||
Ed.O. You needed to read point 2 and 3. I was disproving number 1. The way you quoted me makes it sound like I was suggesting it. My logic was as follows. 1. Your Assertion:In Rev 20 phrase X must mean A. 2. My Counter Evidence: In John phrase X can not possibly mean A. 3. Therefore: Phrase X might not mean A in Rev 20. Statement 1 is false. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
75 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239283 | ||
Ed.O. That was Searcher who said that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
76 | Mark 10:24 ending change, why? | Mark 10:24 | Beja | 239282 | ||
Justme, Unfortunately I am not well trained in text criticism. However, from what I can tell the earliest appearance of that phrase is from the fifth century. However, I don't want to skew the data, because from what I can tell the earliest copies of Mark that I'm seeing in this list are from the 4th century. So the fourth century texts omit the phrase then it shows up in the fifth century. Now text criticism is far more complex than this. You have to consider what are called "text families" as well as internal considerations before making any well informed decision. Simply based on what Metzger stated in his book he seems to think that with the earlier texts attesting to the phrase not being there, they then felt comfortable suggesting that it is far easier to understand why the phrase would be added for the sake of clarity by later scribes, while it makes no sense for the phrase to be omitted by a scribe. They followed the principle of which reading best explains the rise of the other readings. If you want to do research into the text traditions. It looks like the big hitter, Sinaiticus, along with Vaticanus and some other less ancient texts as well all do NOT have the phrase. The earliest that contain the phrase are Alexandrinus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Ephraemi Rescriptus and then some less ancient texts. That is about as far as my expertise goes, I can not really tell you how much weight to give to certain texts. I know the two which reject the addition are significant texts but I can't help much further. Best of luck on it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
77 | Mark 10:24 ending change, why? | Mark 10:24 | Beja | 239278 | ||
Justme, There is no way to know for certain. Textual Criticism almost never gives us that luxury. In "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 2nd ed. by Bruce Metzger it states, "The rigor of Jesus' saying was softened by the insertion of one or another qualification that limited its generality and brought it into closer connection with thte context." Then he goes on to list the textual varients. Bruce Metzger's book explains the text criticism decisions made by the UBS 4 Greek New Testament. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
78 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239270 | ||
Ed.O. Know that I have no intention of belittling your views on this. Most of those I hold most dear in life would agree with your posts. My intentions are not at all to convince you of a post tribulation rapture. In order to do that we would have to begin with a very systematic review of relevant texts in order that I might try to persuade you. My single point with regards your original question can be stated in these two notions: 1.) To just answer your original question only, you will need somebody who first agrees with you on all other points of eschatology. 2.) Absent that, you will necessarily have to discuss all the other texts which you do not agree upon in order to explain how your are reading Rev 20. With a certainty you disagree with my post-trib view, but you amply illustrate the point I am trying to make. I'm not sure how well suited this venue would be for carefully discussing all the places where you and I would disagree. On this forum it is sometimes very hard to flesh out one thought before one of the people in the conversation rushes of to a point they would prefer to be discussing. The effect can sometimes be that rather get one idea across well we only skim many ideas poorly. However, I would not want you to think that I am playing with words. With regards to the apostle John attributing to Jesus the statement, "I will keep you from..." We need to think clearly. Hear is my thought process there. 1.) The assertion is that the phrase, "I will keep you from" the hour of trial necessarily means that they will be taken away from this hour of trial so that they will not have to face it. 2.) The only other place John uses this word, indeed the very phrase "keep them from" the evil one, he specifically states that what he does not mean is to take them away from it so that they don't have to endure it. In that context it can not possibly mean what you suggest it to mean in Rev. 3) Therefore it is error to say it 'must' mean that in Revelations. It could mean that, but it is no fancy playing with words to suggest that in Rev the phrase means what it clearly means in the gospel of John. I don't think that argument is playing with words. I leave you to decide whether the argument is valid. Again, I do not say this to persuade you of post-trib, I merely say this to clear myself of the notion of exegetical malpractice. When all has been weighed all I am saying is this: Your original question begs a lot of other questions. Your brother in Christ, Beja |
||||||
79 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239243 | ||
Ed.O. Well articulated. Its good to see you have scriptures in mind rather than popular fictions, sir! You also have illustrated my point very well. You come to the passage already certain that my particular interpretation can not be correct based on how you have previously interpreted these other verses. I also come to this passage having already determined that some interpretations aren't possible due to my take on other scriptures. Though I do hope we both would be willing to change our view should the passage be plain enough, it is apocalyptic literature which is rarely plain. This is why I said that the answer would not be able to be a simple one, when we ask what Rev 20 means we necessarily press upon ourselves a great many passages concerning end times. Let me give you some examples of where we disagree before we ever come to that passage. 1.) Do a search on the greek word for "keep" in Rev 3:10 and see the only other place where John uses the word. Does it mean that he will remove them from the problem or keep them through the midst of it? 2.) You say that it could not be at the end of 7 years because then we would know just when to expect him. But that would only allow believers to know when to expect him and doesn't Paul plainly say, contrasting believers to unbelievers, "But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a theif. For you are all children of the light, children of the day." 1 Thessalonians 5:4,5. 3. I disagree with a 7 year period of tribulation at the end. In this we have most likely interpreted Daniel chapter 9 differently. This again would make it such that Christ could come post tribulation and yet still surprise us. And these are all me simply responding to the verses you put forward, we then must look at the verses that a post-trib rapture thinks prove their point. I'm not actually trying to sway you to my view at this point, I'm simply attempting to persuade you that the answer to what Revelation 20 means is going to necessarily be tied to a discussion of the entirety of your end-times framework. But on the other hand as I said in my first post: Given all your assumptions a double first resurrection is one way to see it. If I'm not mistaken my father-in-law- holds that view. Your brother in Christ, Beja |
||||||
80 | First resurrection happens twice | Rev 20:5 | Beja | 239227 | ||
Ed.O. You ask a good question but a hard question. The question can be answered by a simple yes or no, but the reason it is so hard is because the way one answers your question is determined by how I first understand a great multitude of other texts. So when I answer, it is going to tell you a lot about how I have already made up my mind prior to coming to this text. Let me give you two reasons this isn't a bad thing. First, it is not so bad of a thing because revelation naturally comes at the end of the entirety of all other inspired authoritative revelation given by God. In other words, the original readers of the letter were 'suppose' to already have many issues of doctrine already established in their mind. This includes many notions about what happens upon Christ's return. These may not have been horribly specific ideas, but they at least had broad brush-strokes such as resurrection, judgment, new creation etc. So we are suppose to have much in place before this passage. Secondly, it is not a bad thing because we 'ought' to interpret unclear texts in light of clear texts. This is not irresponsible reading but good hermeneutics. Yes, first seek to understand the passage on its own merits, but other scripture ought to interpret scripture. Having given those statements I'll give an attempt to sort of kind of answer you. 1.) You are not the firs to suggest your answer. For whatever its worth, other Christians have put the pieces together in the way you have. 2.) I disagree with the premise that there will be a resurrection before the final tribulation. In this case also, I am not the first Christian to suggest this notion. I believe the first resurrection happens at the end, not seven years prior to the end. This of course would allow you to simply read the "first resurrection" as the first resurrection. I encourage you to study, make your educated guesses, and then test those theories further against scripture. It will only lead to further understanding, but I invite you to agree with me that two believers who truly love their Lord can disagree on such difficult issues. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [40] >> |