Results 61 - 80 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | What is the Apocrapha and its history? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13251 | ||
The Apocrypha was only recognized as canon by the Catholic Church in 1566, after the Council of Trent. The inclusion of these seven books is clearly a move of the Counter-Reformation in the 16th century. The Apocryphal books were included under the "Apocrypha" section of the 1611 KJV. However, they were not included in the Hebrew canon of Scripture (although the Septuagint has them). The OT canon had pretty much been set before Jesus was born, so this is why the early church councils never gave them too much consideration as inspired canon (despite their belief that they were useful books for study---they just don't have the tradition and authority that the 39 included OT books do). In addition, we see no quotes or references to the events in these books from the New Testament writers, which of course is an argument from silence; but history tells us that the Jewish people did not regard them as inspired, so neither do we. --Joe! |
||||||
62 | Follow up Peter first Pope | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13498 | ||
None of the five tenets of the Reformation Church had anything to do with hatred. They were: 1. Scripture alone is our authority (i.e. while the church is important, church tradition is fallible and does not carry the same authority as the Bible). 2. We are saved by God's grace alone (not by any merit on our part whatsoever) 3. We are saved through faith alone (not by any works on our part whatsoever) 4. We are saved in Christ alone (i.e. by his sinless life and substitutionary death on the cross in the place of sinners, not through any institution or human intermediaries) 5. All of this is to the glory of God alone. Notice that the key word here in all five tenets is the word "alone." Martin Luther said he would not recant unless he could be convinced by the Holy Scriptures that his positions were wrong. Did he get a biblical refutation of his position? Nope. And Luther did not divide the church. He reformed it. He initially tried to point out the errors made by the Pope and church tradition in the light of Scripture. It was the Pope who excommunicated Luther, not Luther leaving the church. Now, is the Roman Catholic church wiser for clinging to church traditions and practices and beliefs which are clearly contrary to what God has revealed in His holy book? --Joe! |
||||||
63 | Documented?? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13499 | ||
Brian" You wrote: "When Peter lead the Church, he created a Senate consistng of 24 priests and deacons - this is documented. One of the roles of this Senate was to elect the new Pope - with Linus being the first Pope elected by men." Exactly where is this documented? --Joe! |
||||||
64 | What do you base your belief on? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13500 | ||
Brian: You wrote: "How do we know Peter was choosen by Jesus to head his Church. "Three reasons: first, Matthew 16:17-19, And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church " And that was fulfilled in Acts 2. Nothing popish about this at all. --Joe! |
||||||
65 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13675 | ||
Okay, I was hoping for something a milennium and a half closer to the events themselves. Someone in the eighteenth century claiming that such a "papal senate" was formed carries no more weight than you telling it to me. What were HIS sources for making this statement? Thanks. --Joe! |
||||||
66 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13725 | ||
All I asked was a simple question. You asserted that there was early church support for a papacy starting with Peter. Since you made that assertion, I asked you to provide evidence of that from the early church fathers or other historical sources of the time period. How is that insulting? Ad hominem attacks have very little effect on me, so I politely ask you again to provide concrete evidence that would point to a papacy beginning with Peter. That will be a more than adequate answer for me. Furthermore, if I were Roman Catholic and wanted to defend such a notion, I would try my hardest to prove all those "hateful" Protestants wrong. If the evidence is there, surely someone has made it more than public to refute what you consider to be mockery. And if the evidenc edoesn't exist, you need to be intellectually honest enough to wonder whether we are right... --Joe! |
||||||
67 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13727 | ||
How melodramatic, Ed. I am so glad we live in a society where "tolerance" means that we can't even ask for evidence to support a claim made on a public forum without getting mealy-mouthed ecumenism from all sides. The forum is for debate. In no way have I acted in a mean-spirited fashion toward Brian nor anyone else with whom I disagree. O, for some discernment in the American church! (Curtain falls.) --Joe! P.S. Brian has demonstrated that he rejects completely justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Does that still make him a Christian? |
||||||
68 | Early church support for Peter as Pope? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13928 | ||
Ed: Actually, what you said was that "only God knows" whether the Reformation was good or evil and resulted in a weak, ineffective church. Do you really think that God leaves it all up to some cosmic "guessing game" like that? This all sprang out of Brian overreacting when I asked for a simple shred of evidence for a claim he was making. I did not declare him to be wrong (despite the fact I think he is). I simply wanted him to support his assertion, since the burden of proof lies on him. I did so in a polite marrer, and still I have not received an answer to my question, only a cry of being attacked which served to distract some individuals (*ahem*) from the issue of whether any such support exists. And then someone jumped in way too deep and moved the conversation in this direction. Wonder who that could have been, Ed? No one thinks that Luther and Calvin were saints (least of all, luther and Calvin themselves). Isn't it great, though, that sometimes when we sinful humans construct our soapboaxes with human hands, there is a clearly biblical, divine impetus behind it? :) --Joe! |
||||||
69 | book of barabus | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13983 | ||
There was an epistle written to Barnabas that circulated during the early couple of centuries, but it was never universally recognized as being part of the biblical canon. In other words, while many thought it was an insightful work, it was never considered by a large number of people to be inerrant and divinely inspired. Darrell L. Bock, research professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, puts it this way in his book, "Can I Trust the Bible?": "Works like the Epistle to Barnabas and the Didache were cited by some in the early period as if they were Scripture...these later works, though they continued to be read and studied as valuable, were not ultimately ranked in the exclusive category of canon. Rather they became associated with a collection that came to be known as the Apostolic Fathers." Therefore, your Muslim friend is misinformed about books being taken out of the Bible. While the epistle was held in high regard (as a book by a Christian author would be today), it was not Scripture that someone decided to remove from the Bible. Hope this helps! --Joe! |
||||||
70 | Who created god? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13984 | ||
No one created God. He is uncreated, always having existed. he is the First Cause, from which all effects have their ultimate origin. --Joe! |
||||||
71 | Who created god? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13985 | ||
God didn't come from anywhere! If you believe the Bible, there is no denying that God has always existed. This is one of the most basic characteristics of God! "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Israel, From everlasting to everlasting. Amen and Amen." --Psalm 41:13 "Before the mountains were born Or You gave birth to the earth and the world, Even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God." --Psalm 90:2 "Your throne is established from of old; You are from everlasting." --Psalm 93:2 "But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him, And His righteousness to children's children," --Psalm 103:17 "Are You not from everlasting, O LORD, my God, my Holy One? We will not die. You, O LORD, have appointed them to judge; And You, O Rock, have established them to correct." --Habakkuk 1:12 With all due respect, this is not a forum for speculating the nature of things apart from the Bible. The Bible specifically states that God has eternally existed. If we want to know God's character and what he is like, the last place I would look for an example is at fallen humanity (Romans 3). Rather, I would look at the Bible, which is not only a book ABOUT God, but also a book FROM God, telling us everything that we need to know about what He is like. It is his autobiography, and anything that contradicts what is revealed there is simply false. Pick up the Bible. Read it. Learn about God from His self-revelation rather than trying to figure Him out by using your imagination. Anything else simply is idolatry, and will continue to lead you astray from the truth of Christianity. --Joe! |
||||||
72 | Hello!Martin Luther KING???Really?? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 13987 | ||
You are mistaken in several ways. Martin Luther is the 16th-century German Reformer. Martin Luther King, Jr., is the 20th-century American civil-rights activist. Martin Luther stood on justification by faith, and never removed books from the Bible. --Joe! |
||||||
73 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14029 | ||
It is indeed wrong for Christians to seek for answers to the nature of God's existence and of His chararcter and the state of man outside of the Bible. What we see here is more than just a pondering of things that are not revealed in Scripture; what is being demonstrated in this thread is a complete ignorance of what God has said about Himself in the Bible. If we believe in the Bible (and I do), let's believe what the Bible says about God and humanity and sin and salvation and judgment and mercy. It is simply ridiculous to say, "I wonder" when the truth is there for all believers to pick up and read. --Joe! |
||||||
74 | earth 6-10000 years old | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14032 | ||
Just impish spite, I guess! --Joe! |
||||||
75 | book of barabus | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14357 | ||
Thanks for the info! Know where I can read more about it? --Joe! |
||||||
76 | Hello!Martin Luther KING???Really?? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14358 | ||
Praise God for your conversion! Where did your beliefs previously lie? --Joe! |
||||||
77 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14589 | ||
Charis: If you are going to rebuke me, point out Scripture. Your opinion holds just as much weight as mine unless one of them is supported by the Bible (1 Timothy 3:16). How in the world is it bigoted to point to the Word of God as the source of truth about Him? When I frequently address skeptics and atheists and agnostics, I certainly take a completely different approach; but this is a Bible study forum for people to discuss the BIBLE, not to dream up some New-Age fantasies. The person to whom I addressed my reply claims that she is a believer in Jesus Christ, but she is very wrong on several notions about the very nature of God and the nature of humanity. I have brought them up before, extensively pointing her to Scriptures which point out these errors; and the only reply I get is silence and repetition of the same unbiblical notions. Not terribly teachable (2 Timothy 3:16). I am sorry if you see my zeal for doctrinal purity as intolerance. Please be assured that you and anyone else on here can believe whatever you want, but I have a written standard which is very intolerant of falsehood about our Creator. The truth is pretty narrow, Charis, and it is wishy-washiness about standing up for what our holy God has revealed about Himself that has led to such anemia in the church today. Consider this to be correction (2 Timothy 3:16). --Joe! |
||||||
78 | For Joe. | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 14633 | ||
Charis: 1. I wasn't dealing with "Gentiles," but with individuals who claim to be believers in Jesus Christ. The only one slandering me as an evildoer is you; and 1 Peter deals with good behavior in the face of false accusations of those who are enemies of the cross (cf. 2:15). This verse is not being used in its proper context. 2.I never claim to be perfect, but the object of discussion in this forum is a perfect standard. I arrogantly hold that the Bible is truth, and that rather than making up reality, we read and believe what God says. 3. While sanctification is a life-long process (with some further down the road than others), it does not take place apart from the Word of God. If you will look back at the post that caused you so much dismay (if indeed you did read the original post which I made regarding the statement "Who made God?"), about three sentences were mine and the rest of the post was verse after verse from Scripture supporting the truth that God is uncreated. If we are to grow in Christ, it is not by sitting around and discussing "what would be neat," but by carefully examining the Scriptures. Some undoubtedly have more experience in doing that, but there is no question that those who are ignoring the Bible in their search for truth are NOT being sanctified. Continued ignorance of the Holy Bible is deplorable to its Author. Finally, Second Timothy 3:16 says nothing about Timothy as an acomplished apostle, but it says a great deal about the Bible: "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness." This is exactly how I used Scripture (i.e. CORRECTLY); so again, your beef is with Paul and with the Holy Spirit, not with me. --Joe! |
||||||
79 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 15403 | ||
I say that all Scripture is divinely superintended by the Holy Spirit in all of the original manuscripts (option #2, but including all of the Psalms and the Pentateuch). My question for you: Why do you select the NASB as inspired? What about the the King James Version? What about the NKJV? What about the NIV and the NRSV and the NLT? They differ in their translations (although not in any essential way, I admit). And then, what about the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses? Are all of them inspired? If not, how do you determine which one(s)? Also, why would God divinely inspire so many translations of His Word in the second half of the 20th century alone? Seems like that would be overkill on his part. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
80 | How inspired is the NAS Bible today? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 15490 | ||
The message is authoritative, not because it is inspired in its translation, but rather because it is translated from an inspired source. There is nothing miraculous about a translation. If I were to translate some other book, such as Don Quijote, from Spanish to English, how do I know that the text is authoritative? Because we have Spanish copies with which we can compare it The words may be different, but we can be confident that if I know Spanish and I know English, that my careful translation will be accurate to what Cervantes wrote. The same is true regarding Scripture. Scholars who know Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek and understand principles of translation can carefully create a new translation. Again, there is nothing supernatural about such a translation, but the fact that it is an accurate translation from an authoritative text makes us comfortable that what its Author had to say in Greek is so close to what we read in English as to bear the same authority. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [123] >> |