Results 61 - 80 of 83
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Nevvvvine Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Test | Bible general Archive 4 | Nevvvvine | 211118 | ||
Just writing this to get this TEST off of the unanswered page. | ||||||
62 | Am I ignorant | 1 Cor 12:1 | Nevvvvine | 211065 | ||
Hi lionheart:: To me as far as I am concerned if the gifts were to stop at the end of what has been called the Apostolic age ie, 1st. cenruty. Then there would logically be scripture to tell us in the 21st. century that we have no need to seek after the gifts of the spirit because they have ended. But as we can clearly see in scripture it does not say anything of the kind. What you and others are proposing is. Because it does not explicitally say that the gifts will end then they must have ended. So it is not what truth is in scripture anymore that counts. It is what is not in scripture that carries the weight of truth. Let me ask you if you will. This belief that you have were you taught it as doctrine. Or did God himself by his Holy Spirit open your eyes to the fact that His gifts to the church have ceased to exist. Does the (BODY) of Christ still exist then are we not to have the same vibrance as a body that existed in the 1st. century are we not to be a be a light to the world? 1 Cor.12:--13:9-10 So your saying the perfect has come and the gifts are done away with. Just what is the perfect? Sounds like a good example of a Proof Text to me except you have neglected to explain to me what your saying with these scriptures. I guess I am supposed to pull out of the scriptures you have used your understanding of them. You say: "we need to let The Word speek and it does." Are there other places where The Word speaks to this issue? To put to rest any worries that you might have. I always read in context. In Him Nevvvvine |
||||||
63 | Am I ignorant | 1 Cor 12:1 | Nevvvvine | 211009 | ||
Hi Lionheart:: if everyone believes that the ("Gospel of Salvation") must be preached unto all the world then the end shall come then the gifts that were available to the 1st. century church must still be available to the 21st. century church simply on the grounds that there are still churches being set up even as we speak.So is there not still a need for all of the gifts? In His Love Nevvvvine |
||||||
64 | scape-goat | Leviticus | Nevvvvine | 211007 | ||
a1busdriver The name (Azazel) is not in the text you are using Lev. 16:8 Instead of reading things that aren't in the text, how about reading the things that are. In the following verses from Lev. 16: 8-10, 20-24 you will see that the scapegoat goes free. that is the meaning of (SCAPEGOAT).to Escape Jesus is "not" the scapegoat, taking our sins, as some people have put forth as truth, yes Jesus did take our sins, and he was crusified outside of the city, but that is where the simalarity ends, as you will see from the scripture, the position of the scapegoat is "not sacrificed," If we can say that Jesus is either goat. Then Jesus is the goat, the lot of the Lord fell upon, the one without spot or blemish, fit for sacrifice. I personally believe, Jesus is the Priest, making atonement for us. Matt.25:32 32.) And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: If we are concidered to be the sheep, then how can we even think of Jesus being a goat. (The word "Scapegoat" is a mistranslation of the word Azazel (a Hebrew word) originated by William Tyndale in his 1530 Bible, and appropriated in the King James Version of the Bible (Leviticus chapter 16) in 1611. Confounded by the word, Tyndale had interpreted Azazel as ez ozel - literally, "the goat that departs"; hence "(e)scape goat." In actuality, Azazel is an enigmatic name for a fallen angel from the Hebrew scriptures and Apocrypha, where the name is used interchangeably with Rameel and Gadriel. Thus Azazel can be understood as the evil demon in the desert to whom the goat was sent), though Rashi interpreted Azazel to be the name of a specific mountain or cliff over which the goat was driven, called so for its reputation as the holding place of the fallen angel of the same name. Modern scholars generally reject Tyndale's interpretation in favor of one related to the fallen angel/evil demon interpretation; in fact, today in modern Hebrew Azazel is used derogatorily, as in lekh la-Azazel ("go to Azazel"), as in "go to hell".) (from Wikipedia) Many decades ago, when I was in school, I was taught the meaning of the word scapegoat, it came from the fact a shepherd would use a scapegoat to lead the flock to slaughter, it wore a bell, and was lead by the shepherd, the flock would follow until put into a pen, whereupon the scapegoat was set free. This scapegoat was used over, and over again. It was calm, having a calming influence on the flock, even though heading for their deaths, they did nöt know what was going to happen. If they had a sence that something was wrong, frightening them, it could taint the meat. 8.) And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD, and the other lot for the scapegoat. 9.) And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. 10.) But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. 20.) And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live goat: 21.) And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: 22.) And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. 23.) And Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there: 24.) And he shall wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his garments, and come forth, and offer his burnt offering, and the burnt offering of the people, and make an atonement for himself, and for the people. In Him Nevvvvine |
||||||
65 | Are old words proper for Scripture? | Bible general Archive 4 | Nevvvvine | 210705 | ||
Hi Azure:: Just for clarification, would this following statement fall into the catigory of speculation, when there isn't any difinative proof one way, or the other? Note the beginning of the statement (some think). Some think the music the prophet called for is that sort the Greeks call "harmony," which is the gravest and saddest, and settles the affections: In Peace Nevvvvine |
||||||
66 | Are old words proper for Scripture? | Bible general Archive 4 | Nevvvvine | 210672 | ||
Hi gruvEdude:: To paraphrase Matthew 18:16 In the mouth of two or three, let every (HUH) be established. Just what is your point? If OLD words offend or confuse you, the simplest solution is to not use them. Then find a Bible that doesn't use them either. Not wanting to be offensive in,my quoting, of an Old Quote, I will therefore update it for your benefit and subsequent approval. I believe that you are only "Splitting Atoms". God speaking to Man in any country will use the language of said country, and Age in which he speaks, therefore we have a Bible, the (KJV) where we have the use of archaic words, because the (KJV) was published in 1611. To make a short statement even longer, I believe Adam could have been multilingual, let me explain, when Adam was in the Garden he spoke ("GOD") after the fall he spoke a human language, given to him by God. You might be able to call that language the "Adamite language" which would have been the language of Noah, and his sons. Then when God confounded the language of man, everyone that spoke a different language left the area, leaving the people that spoke what we now call the Chaldiean language, although in that area today, we would call it Iraqi. So what I am saying is, the Iraqui language of today could be a Dialect of what I termed as the Adamite language. When God spoke to Moses, he spoke Hebrew, although Moses and the people also spoke Egyptian, having been in Egypt for 410 yrs. GOD speaks his own language, do you think you would understand him, if he talked to you in his language? All languages are his creation, many variations on a central theme, like Birds, Dogs, Cats I guess the whole point of this is to let you know, it doesn't matter what language God speaks in to us. Don't try to box him according to our limitations. Be Blessed in Christ Nevvvvine |
||||||
67 | Shun two things or will be unGodliness | 2 Tim 2:16 | Nevvvvine | 210471 | ||
Hi memmie number 1 answer 2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. number 2 answer Haggai 1:6 You have planted much, but have harvested little. You eat, but never have enough. You drink, but never have your fill. You put on clothes, but are not warm. You earn wages, only to put them in a purse with holes in it." be blessed Nevvvvine |
||||||
68 | Two Natures or One? | Rom 6:6 | Nevvvvine | 210065 | ||
Hank:: Maybe you would be able to give me the reason for baptism, just what purpose does it serve in the christians life, if everyones opinion is that it is not for regeneration. Just why should a christian bother getting baptised today. Nevvvvine |
||||||
69 | Two Natures or One? | Rom 6:6 | Nevvvvine | 209956 | ||
Hi BradK:: Thanks for the interest. It is true I do uphold baptismal regeneration, but I feel more comfortable saying Born Again. Because I do, I feel that this also answers questions 1, and 2 . But because you asked for an elaboration, the "washing of regeneration" spoken of in Tit. 3 to me says baptism. Have a Blessed day Your Brother in Christ Nevvvvine |
||||||
70 | Two Natures or One? | Rom 6:6 | Nevvvvine | 209943 | ||
Hi Val:: Thank you for your welcome I'm glad you enjoy them, I enjoy discussing the things of the Lord. (you say) 1) "I tend to disagree with and that is at the point when one becomes "saved". 2) "Only God knows when that point is in a believer's life." 3) "Baptism is a reflection of that point" (answer) If I may, when one becomes "saved". and "Only God knows when that point is in a believer's life." I believe we can be witnesses to a persons salvation, because it is an outward sign that they believe. Rom. 10:9 That (if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,) and (shalt believe in thine heart) that God hath raised him from the dead, (thou shalt be saved.) Now if you are going to point at the believing in the "heart" let me then put this forward. 1 Cor. 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Baptism, is the part where everyone gets their tails in a knot;-( There are only two times "regeneration" is used in the bible. Mat. 19:28 and Tit. 3:5 (Not by works of righteousness which we have done,) (but according to his mercy he saved us,) (by the washing of regeneration,) and (renewing of the Holy Ghost;) Act. 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. At this point the washing of regeneration sure sounds like baptism, "If it walks like a duck" I have looked, I cant find any scriptures for the doctrine of Regeneration. It may sound nice, but that doesn't quite fit my criteria for a doctrinal belief. The word "renewing" is only used two times as well, Tit. 3:5 above, and Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: (but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,) (that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.) So it appears we are washed, regenerated, and renewed all at the same time. What then is being (saved, regenerated, born again)? Is being (saved, Regenerated, born again) the same thing? When we say we are (saved) what are we saved from? When we say we are (saved) are we (regenerated, born again) at the same time? When we say we are (regenerated, born again) what are we (regenerated, born again) unto, or for? Are we (saved) form eternal damnation in the lake of fire? It doesn't matter if you keep believing what you do, and I do the same, neither one of us will lose our salvation because of these beliefs. But without any rancor between us because of our differing beliefs, we continue to have a meaningful discourse on the things of God, then we are keeping the Unity of the Spirit, as we have been told to do. It means one of us has been given more light than the other, and that person should not put a stumbling block before his brother. causing him to fall because of the liberty that one has. One believes one day is Holy, another believes all days are. Your Brother in Christ Blessings on You Nevvvvine |
||||||
71 | Two Natures or One? | Rom 6:6 | Nevvvvine | 209939 | ||
Hi Tim This is the Part 2 so you will have to go down to read part 1 sorry Rom. 7:15 (For that which I do) (I allow not:) (for what I would,) (that do I not;) (but what I hate,) (that do I.) Rom. 7:24,25 O wretched man that I am! (who shall deliver me from the body of this death?) I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God;) (but with the flesh the law of sin.) Paul in this description is calling himself the wretched man, as the example for us in order for every man that call them selves Christian, to be able to understand the Grace of God, and the Power to be found in this Sacrifice of Jesus Christ, for us who believe. John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, (ye shall be free indeed.) 1 Cor. 6:12 (All things are lawful unto me,) (but all things are not expedient:) (all things are lawful for me,) (but I will not be brought under the power of any.) 1 Cor. 10:23 (All things are lawful for me,) (but all things are not expedient:) (all things are lawful for me,) (but all things edify not.) Eph. 2:1-6 (you say) Paul, in Galatians 5, Romans 6, and Romans 8, deals with our need to walk according to the Spirit so that we will not gratify the desires of the flesh. So, evidently, it is possible for a Christian to sin. (answer) Rom. 8:7 Because (the carnal mind is enmity against God:) (for it is not subject to the law of God,) neither indeed can be.) Gal. 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: (nevertheless I live;) (yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:) (and the life which I now live in the flesh) (I live by the faith of the Son of God,) who loved me, and gave himself for me. Gal. 5:24,25 And they that are Christ's (have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.) (If we live in the Spirit,) (let us also walk in the Spirit.) Rom. 6:11 Likewise (reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,) (but alive unto God) through Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Cor. 15:48,49 (As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy:) and (as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.) And (as we have borne the image of the earthy,) (we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.) John 3:6 (That which is born of the flesh is flesh;) and (that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.) It is all done for us, we do not have to wait to die before we can gain this freedom, it has already been provided for us, we just have to acknowledge it now. I guess that is a lot to absorb for now. Your brother in Christ Nevvvvine |
||||||
72 | Two Natures or One? | Rom 6:6 | Nevvvvine | 209938 | ||
Hi again Tim:: Thank you for the welcome I guess I could probably call this my Part-1 (you say) 1 John 3:9. This is the only verse in all of the Bible that seems to say that it is impossible for a Christian to sin. That fact alone makes it quite unusual. (answer) The fact it "IS" the only one, making it unique to the rest of the religious canon. That should make us ask the question all the more. Why is it here, what does it mean to us as christians, how does it fit with the rest of the teachings in the Bible? Instead we have automatically discounted it, based on our Doctrines, Dogmas, Traditions, Rituals. That kind of action on our part, would turn us into the equivalent of a 21st. Century Pharisee. (you say) Does it really mean what it appears to say? (answer) Well I'm here to tell you, "it sure does". (you say) Thus, it would appear that sin is a possibility for a Christian even as obedience is a possibility. (answer) John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, (and shall not come into condemnation;) ( but is passed from death unto life.) Rom. 8:1 There is therefore now (no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,) (who walk not after the flesh,) (but after the Spirit.) "Why?" you might ask. Rom. 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world:) (but sin is not imputed when there is no law.) Rom. 6:2,11 God forbid. (How shall we, that are dead to sin,) (live any longer therein?) (Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin,) (but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.) Rom. 6:4 (Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death:) (that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,) (even so "we" also should walk in newness of life.) The point you are failing to see is very simple. Upon the event of our baptism, our identifying with Christ by dying to the flesh, we are resurrected with Christ, this is the point of our regeneration, in newness of life. As spoken of in Rom. 6:4 This is the New birth, Born Again. Newness of life, New Creation, means just that, we have truly become a Peculiar People. We are in the flesh, (But we are dead to the Flesh) We are in the flesh, (But we are alive to the Spirit) This is not something we choose to do, this is something God has done for us, through the sacrifice of Jesus. Our flesh will still go through the motions of sin (Rom. 5:13 above) I have to split part 1 and make a part 2 Nevvvvine |
||||||
73 | Two Natures or One? | Rom 6:6 | Nevvvvine | 209918 | ||
Hi Tim:: You have made these two statements, You seem to be very emphatic with your (No!) I did not want to muddy the water, more than it has already, so I haven loaded this post with a lot of questions, only the answer to yours. If you would like to have all of my understanding on this I would be more than happy to oblige. But at this point I felt you needed to see this first. "Does this mean that a Christian can no longer sin? No!" "No where does Scripture tell us that it is impossible for us to sin" 1 John 3:9 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. God Bless Have a Good Day Nevvvvine |
||||||
74 | How many Gods | Bible general Archive 4 | Nevvvvine | 209871 | ||
Hi Idontknow:: Here are a few scriptures that say it all pretty plainly. John 10:30 30) I and my Father are one. 1 John 5:7 7) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. John 17:11 11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 1 Cor. 8:6 6) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. In ONE GOD Nevvvvine |
||||||
75 | Just a question | Bible general Archive 4 | Nevvvvine | 209868 | ||
Hank:: Thank you for your responce. Sorry for the mistake, I used "text proof" because that is what I read in a post form St John. Your example), "a favorite proof text used by promoters of baptismal regeneration is Acts 2:38" What makes the verse you have cited, out of context, in relation to the context, of the chapter in which it has been used? I'm not fully grasping the way in which this "proof text" thing really works. If a verse is taken out of context, it is to me just out of context, but calling it a "proof text" makes it sound more egregious. In the instance you use the term, is it because the text being used, is to define some sort of doctrinal belief? If this is what you are talking about, then wouldn't it be better to call it a Doctrinal Text. (you say) Genesis 6:14 provides a dramatic example of how misleading proof texting can be. Suppose we remove the verse from its natural context and interpret it soley on the basis of the command it contains. How about instead of doing that, we take the original verse you cited. "a favorite proof text used by promoters of baptismal regeneration is Acts 2:38" Are you saying, if we remove the verse from its natural context, and interpret it solely on the basis of the command it contains, in an attempt to use it in promoting the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, it then falls into the category of "proof text" is that correct? I am assuming, you are using the term baptismal regeneration, for another more well known term, being born again? (Questions) 1- If said verse is left exactly where it has always been, does it then leave the "proof text" penalty box? 2- If so then now being left in it's original context, what changes about it's meaning, understanding when it retains it's position, within the context of the whole chapter, that it can no longer be used, by a promoter of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration? 3- Is this verse ever put forward, to promote any other doctrinal belief? 4- Having then left the verse in question, in it's original contextual position, how is this verse now to be interpreted, in the context of the chapter in which it appears? I have heard it said, the Jews do not read "Isaiah 53" in the Synagogues. Does that constitute a "proof text" to them, or is it just something they Do Not want to see, acknowledge because if they did, they would then have to deal, with just what it did say? I agree whole heartedly with your following statements. If we do not handle the word of God righteously, by arguing over the doctrinal differences that divide us, rather than "honestly contending" to find the truth in God's word, regardless wether it fits our doctrine or not, then "WE" become the ones deceived. (you say) We can "prove" or "disprove" about any doctrinal position we wish if we handle God's word recklessly and abuse it to further our own suppositional errors. In his second letter to Timothy, Paul charged him to "be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth" (2 Tim. 2:15). And indeed those who do not accurately handle the word of truth have every reason to be ashamed. God Bless Brother Nevvvvine |
||||||
76 | Just a question | Not Specified | Nevvvvine | 209848 | ||
Can anyone define for me the term "a Text Proof", I have never before heard this term.Thanx Nevvvvine |
||||||
77 | Just a question | Bible general Archive 4 | Nevvvvine | 209849 | ||
Can anyone define for me the term "a Text Proof", I have never before heard this term.Thanx Nevvvvine |
||||||
78 | Is there "one" relgion? | Is 8:14 | Nevvvvine | 209847 | ||
Hi writteninthebook; Quick question, who is being spoken of in the verses 1 Pet. 2:7,8 as those who disbelieve? Gods day to you Nevvvvine |
||||||
79 | Is there "one" relgion? | Is 8:14 | Nevvvvine | 209844 | ||
Hi Hancock; Just saw your question, and I am wondering if you are asking about the One True Religion, as you have gotten the answer for, or are you asking the One (true) Christian Religion? Or in relation to the Catholic ie, Universal religion. Also if you would, tell us what your own views on this question are. God's Love Nevvvvine |
||||||
80 | What is the meaning of "the order of..." | Heb 1:1 | Nevvvvine | 209843 | ||
Hi there Cheri; Simplest of all would be to Google it, I just did, and there are 108,000 things on it for you to paroose. Type in this ----- the order of Melchizedek Hope it will help you In Christ alone Nevvvvine |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |