Results 61 - 80 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Did John really baptise Jesus?? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223568 | ||
Lightedsteps, There is so much I want to say, but let me just this time simply try to reduce it to bare logic to show that what you are saying doesn't work. 1. Sin nature (whatever it is) Came as a result of something Adam did. 2. If it came as a result of something he did, then he, and as an extension, humanity existed prior to sin nature. 3. If Humanity existed prior to sin nature, then it must be possible to be both fully human and without a sin nature. Otherwise Adam wasn't human until he sinned, and nobody believes that. (as an aside: I do not mean that it is possible for you and I right now at this time. But I simply mean to show that at some time or place Human Nature does not equal Sin nature.) 4. If it is possible to be fully human and yet without a sin nature, then it is possible for Jesus Christ to be fully human without a sin nature. 5. If it is possible for Jesus Christ to be fully human yet without a sin nature, then all your arguements of how he MUST have had a sin nature merely because he was human are therefore invalid. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
62 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223585 | ||
Integrity, You said that there is plenty of scripture to back up what you are suggesting. I encourage you to provide that scripture. Where does it say that Christ was seperated from the Father? I do not think that "why have you forsaken me?" implies that neccesarily. Where does scripture indicate that a spiritual death is a better sacrifice? Where does Jesus say that a spiritual death was worse unless you refer to the passage that says fear not those who can take your life but Him who after taking your life can cast you into hell? If that is the case, and you are calling being thrown into hell spiritual death, then we have a much more clear definition of what you are saying. If you mean to say spiritual death is not that, then that passage doesn't support you. However, you've yet to say anything of serious error yet, but let me share what is concerning me about your thinking. If you stray into error on this, your error is going to be concerning the sufficiency of Christ's attonement. That would be a very very serious error indeed. This is why I am nervous with somebody who is reasoning that the physical suffering, death, and ressurection of Jesus alone doesn't seem to be enough. Now certainly there were spiritual implications of Christ's death. His death was an outpouring of God's wrath in a way that a typical martyr's death, for example, is not. However, it is hard for us to say anything beyond that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
63 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223588 | ||
Integrity, I didn't make any judgment regarding your salvation. I think my post was very restrained in the sense of making any statement of that kind. You are making a leap of logic that doesn't work. You are saying... 1. Jesus said going to hell is worse than dying. 2. Therefore seperation from God is worse than dying. 3. Therefore the real sacrifice was seperation from God. These things don't follow. If you are suggesting the true horror that Christ had to endure was going to hell for three days, then say that. If you are saying it was some other type of seperation from God other than going to hell, then that verse does not support your assertion. Second. Christ did say, "My God, my God, why have you foraken me?" That is a fact. To say that that phrase means that He and God the Father were somehow seperated is an inference. The text doesn't actually SAY that, you are inferring it from what was said. Now and inference may be correct, but we need to admit that it is what we are inferring from the text. Could it not however mean something else? If David were in a battle and was utterly defeated and cried out that exact same phrase, could he not be referring to the fact that God handed him over to defeat? The term "forsaking" need not be given some mystical meaning beyond our understanding. I hold that when Christ said those words that He meant to convey the concept of the entire Psalm which He was quoting. In Psalm 22 it describes the crucifiction event in great detail but ends in a proclamation of triumph. I think this is what Christ meant to convey. It makes far more sense than to say from this single phrase that somehow God the Father and God the Son became seperated in some mystical way. We can't even begin to understand such a suggestion or what the implications would be. So currently for your view you have an inference from a statement Christ made on the cross, and that Christ said that hell is worse than death. This is hardly a case which would give ground to make such a drastic statement that the physical death burial and ressurection of Jesus was not sufficient in and of itself. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
64 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223589 | ||
Integrity, Let me add some further thoughts. Scripture clearly affirms that the physical sufferings of Christ very much were the atoning factor. Isaiah 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our wellbeing fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
65 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223616 | ||
Integrity, Here is the entirety of your original post that began this thread: "Christ Death was only physical and only lasted three days. I hear people from all corners state that the Death of Jesus was a great sacrafice. Jesus knew that his death was only temporal. 1.Why is this death considered such a sacrafice. 2. What was the true sacrafice of Jesus." So you basically said that Christ's death on the cross was not the sacrifice for our sins. Asking what the true sacrifice was implies that his physical death for us was not the true sacrifice. You are going to make an assertion like that and now you say, "I do not think I have to point to scripture to prove this?" All I can say is "wow." Sir, you must always point to scripture, not the least when you try to debunk an orthodox view of the sacrificial atonement of Jesus. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
66 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223618 | ||
CDBJ, I'm very grateful that you brought Jesus' statement of it being finished up. I wish I had thought of it sooner. That certainly seems to debunk any mysterious punishment in hell being needed during those three days our Lord was in the grave. However, here is the verse: Joh 19:30 When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. I think it is much more reasonable that since Christ said this phrase as He was actually dying, that he was referring to His physical death. That seems a much more reasonable understanding of this text than to speculate that He was signifying his spiritual death and seconds later his physical. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
67 | Crusifixtion a sacrafice? John 3:16 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223623 | ||
Integrity, 1.) How could I be taking it out of context when I cited the entire post? What more context could there be? 2.) If you do not have time to look up scripture and cite scripture, then perhaps you shouldn't try to teach/explain it? Perhaps using your time you DO have to read scripture rather than put forward theories. 3.) You DID strongly suggest that the PHYSICAL death of Christ did not provide atonement. I'm following your posts just fine. You seem very reluctantly to truely own up to anything you are saying. The facts remains that this thread was begun by you for the purpose of asking what the real sacrifice of Christ was since it wasn't the physical death. Anybody reading this can go back to the original post and see it is true. One of the great things of this forum is that you can't pretend you didn't say something. Your words are there for everybody to see. So you can't initiate a discussion like this and then feel mistreated because we ask you to back up ideas with scripture. Studying scripture is the entire point of this forum. Suggesting theories to think about in absence of scriptural support, or thinking outside the box in that sense, is groundless, unedifying, and dangerous. This is what I truely hope you understand from this thread. I hope you find this forum to be a fruitful place of digging into scriptures, not a place to think outside the box. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
68 | adultery committed against our own body? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223911 | ||
Kay, I would be very careful not to missunderstand what the apostle Paul meant by this. He is NOT suggesting by this that other sins hurt people but you are really only hurting yourself by sexual sins. This could lead people to mistakenly believe that as long as they feel alright with sinning against themselves they are free to sin. I think what Paul is trying to say is that sexual sins are in some way especially defiling us in addition to all the normal ramifications of sin. It would take too long of post to explain what exactly I think he is saying, but do at least understand that Paul is presenting this as a more drastic thing not as a lesser sin. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
69 | What does it mean to lose ones crown? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 223988 | ||
swill6ky, Do you have a scripture reference that suggests loosing crowns? This really needs some context to answer properly. For some it would mean a metal cap on one of your teeth fell off and for me it's probably in the couch cushion somewhere. Where in scripture does it speak of us loosing a crown? Help us out with that and I think we could answer your question much better by looking at the context. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
70 | Jesus doesn't answer me | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224002 | ||
mamametal, May you be blessed from the Lord "under whose wings you have come to seek refuge." (Ruth 2:12) Let me say this, if I was personally asked something like this I would certainly not assume it to be an issue that could be resolved in a short time. It seems abundantly clear it is a matter for extended teaching and discipling. Let me ask you some questions. I do not ask these things to make you feel bad or to pick your post apart but rather they all matter a great deal in how to answer you. Do you regularly attend a church? If so what denomination is it? Knowing what you are being taught will help us to know if any mistaken notions drive you to such despair. Are you regularly reading scripture? You say, "Iam saved." How do you know? What are you resting such assurance upon? What is "being saved" in your understanding? When you say that you can't hear Jesus/God, what is it that you mean by that? Do you mean to say that you actually expect to hear an audible voice? Or do you mean that you don't feel particular leadings or convictions? How exactly do you think the Lord ought to be communicating to you? When you say that you want and need something personally, what is it that you mean precisely? When you say that you got a visit from the Holy Ghost, what do you mean by that? By what standards are you deeming that it happened? And what exactly in your thinking are the implications of it? All these things are important for giving you biblical answers. If you wish to discuss it with me, then it might be best if we do so over some e-mails rather than through this forum. This isn't going to be resolved with a few posts. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
71 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224007 | |||
jw(underscore)dobbins@hotmail.com replace the (underscore) with an actual underscore, no spaces. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
72 | women in Baptist Church | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224208 | ||
Mitch, While I agree with the others that this is probably not quite the best place to ask, for what its worth I shall respond. The reason I'm responding is because I am the pastor of a missionary baptist church. The answer is ofcourse that there is not set "role" of women just like there is no set "role" of men. All are to be godly, holy, obedient to the scriptures. All showing the traits found in places like galatians 5 and 2 Peter 1, all are suppose to be using their spiritual giftings to serve other christians. Perhaps if you were to ask a more specific question I could help you more than this. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
73 | women in Baptist Church | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224251 | ||
To the thread as a whole, As I stated earlier, I am a pastor of a missionary baptist church, and our church has a woman as our song director/worship leader. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
74 | Bible reference to infant baptism | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224278 | ||
sonofmom, I am a very committed advocate of credo baptism (believer's baptism as opposed to infant baptism.) However, such a light dismissal of the view of infant baptism shows not only serious lack of understanding their arguements but also almost unavoidably contains a bit of ungracious disdain for its proponents, since it necessarily sees them as unable to grasp a simple truth which the rest of us grasp. Do you really believe they just decided to start baptizing infants because they ran out of adults? Did you listen to the debate which he posted before so lightly dismissing the idea? As stated, I am against infant baptism, but I do not think we do the discussion justice by so lightly dismissing it but rather show that we have yet to truly see the issues. Forgive me if this post sounds unkind. I do not mean to offend, but I sincerly want to encourage you to actually hear and understand why they believe what they do before assuming they are simpletons. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
75 | tattoos | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224390 | ||
rockabilly, Welcome to the forum. Could you form that into a question so that we can help you with it? Also if you just want to hear thoughts on tattoos you could use the forum's search feature. I hope you find the forums to be to your edification. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
76 | Christians who convert to other faiths? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224413 | ||
To thread as a whole, I believe scripture teaches that one who abandons the faith was never saved previously. Let me offer just two places in scripture that teach this. 1Jn 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. Now in context John is referring to what he calls antichrists, but I think its a fair application I'm making. He says the reason they left us is to show that they never were truely of us. How does John know this? Because if they had been of us, they would have remained with us. Pretty straight forward. Heb 3:14 For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end, For we have become partakers, past tense, if we hold fast until the end, future tense. This is a remarkable conditional sentense. We have become partakers of Christ in the past, if we hold fast in the future. So if we fall from the faith in the future, we never were partakers of Christ in the past. I think these two passages show very clearly that a falling away from the faith is not the loss of salvation, but rather the revealing that salvation was never present. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
77 | Christians who convert to other faiths? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224416 | ||
Searcher, I think that is another fine example of what I'm suggesting. Thank you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
78 | Proverbs 3:5 | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224449 | ||
growing in the lord, What layers there are to what you just asked. The best way to give a brief answer is simply to say, "The Bible." However, for a more detailed answer we need a more detailed question. Do you mean to say, "How do I know what God says about various things such as homosexuality, adultery, theft, or a host of other issues?" That is one question you could be meaning. Another is, "What does God desire that I do so that I may be saved?" That is another question entirely. Or your question could be along the lines of, "How do I know if God wants me to take that job in chicago which would require me to move? Or does God which for me to marry Barbara or Susan?" Or any other such thing. All of these are different questions that a person could be meaning by your question. So, let me give the extremely brief answer to each and if you want to clarify your question I'd be happy to elaborate. Q1: How do I know God's will regarding specific moral questions. A1: Read His word in which we have the answers to such questions. Q2: What does God ask of me to be saved in the coming day of judgement? A2: Act 17:30 "Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent" and "Php 3:9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith," So, God asks of us repentance and faith. And faith is not some general trust in ignorance that God is somehow benevolent. But rather to trust in Jesus Christ that He has died for your sins and given you his righteousness and through that alone you stand acceptable before God. We, again, find this discussed in great detail in scripture. Q3: How do I find God's will with regard to moral neutrals, such as which job to take, whom to marry etc.? A3: Have your mind renewed by scripture. By this I mean so thoroughly soaked in scripture that you think with biblical views and think in a way driven by biblical motives. "Rom 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect." Your being able to discern God's will in such instances is intricately tied to your mind being renewed by scripture. When you mind has become so very wired in such a way you will very often after a time of prayer be able to discern one choice being better than another. You might realize that job in Chicago actually would require you to work 60 hours a week and your only motive for taking it would be for more wealth, whereas the job you are currently in gives you time with family and currently has you in a church which you love dearly. A scripture renewed mind will find such a thing an easier choice. So the answers are, scripture, scripture, scripture. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
79 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224569 | ||
Inquisitor, I had to go back and reread this thread to know where this was coming from. But if this is in response to somebody asking if another person was a campbellite I truely don't think that should be referred to as name calling. Over the centuries doctrinal view points will unavoidably be given some sort of name because we have to refer to it somehow don't we? It is very burdensome to everytime we wish to refer to that particular doctrinal view point to say, "those who believe baptism is an active cause of salvation" or some sort. So they get names. My own view points have names that I myself did not give them. I am a calvinist. I think that is a horrible name for what I believe. Why? Because calvin didn't come up with these teachings. Yet we must refer to that theological view point in some means for the sake of being able to communicate with each other. I'm an amillinialist. That label is actually horribly innacurate! Why? Because it literally means "No millinium." The rub is, amilliniallist do NOT deny a the millinial reign of Christ! Yet I own the title for the sake of us being able to identify and communicate what I believe. A while back on these forums somebody was very upset with me because I kept using the term dispensational to refer to their theology. They hadn't heard the term and felt I was insulting them. But I meant no insult, it was just much easier than laying out their entire doctrinal stance each time I refered to it, when their doctrinal stance had a ready title. So to sum, I don't think when we have titles for doctrinal stances that we should see that as name calling. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
80 | Harsh Treatment? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 224579 | ||
Inquisitor, You said, "I'm acknowledging that you, Beja and Searcher have all made good points about the weaknesses of mankind over the centuries." Ack! I'm more than willing to let the thread die but I feel I've been sorely missrepresented here! You took a minor thought in my post and made it the main idea. I confessed that I thought calvinist and amillinialist was poor titles yes. But my POINT was that even though I think that I own and accept those titles because I believe we do need them! We must have ways of talking about contrasting theologies. When somebody calls me a baptist I don't take offense to that. It would be silly to. I don't stop them and say, "Wait a minute...call me simply christian if you will. For everybody needs to recognize that what I believe is the true Christian Faith!" No no, I accept these titles and I use them with regards to others. Would I love it if the whole world of Christianity all became united in one doctrine and one title? Absolutely I would. But I freely confess that the only way that would ever happen is if the whole world converted to my own beliefs because here I stand! I do not think we should all ignore our differences. The only way anybody should be ashamed of their title is if they are ashamed of the doctrines which it represents. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [40] >> |