Results 61 - 80 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Mark 16:16 what does it say? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 50902 | ||
Hi, Raven; Just to put my cards on the table, I completely support Tim's statements on this issue. In everything I have ever seen him post these many months, he has consistently proven himself to be thoughtful, knowledgeable, curteous, and wise. In your note, you supposed that Tim "would admit that some scriptures point to the need for baptism" I don't speak for Tim, but I would agree that some scriptures do point in that direction. However, when a particular interpretation of a handful of passages directly contradicts a theme that is stated clearly and unequivocally throughout the Bible, I reject that interpretation as being of men, not of God. I'd like you to answer a question I recently posed to someone on the forum who seems to like rules and regulations - Paul wrote "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast" Grace accessed through faith; no mention of baptism. I would assume that many of the Ephesian believers had been baptised. But according to Paul, it was not baptism that saved them, rather it was God's gracious response to their faith. If Paul was not mistaken, not deceitful, not scribbling words that have no meaming today, how do you deny his simple, straightforward statement? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
62 | Mark 16:16 what does it say? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 50913 | ||
Hi, Joe! As a Presbyterian, I'm supposed to agree completely. There's just a teeny trace of Arminianism in me that keeps me at about 95 percent. ;-) Peace and Grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
63 | Dake's Annotated Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 54286 | ||
Somewhere between heretical and unorthodox. The NT most emphatically does not teach that Jesus did not exercise any of these attributes. Nor can one conclude that if he did not exercise them, it was because he did not have them. It's the old argument from silence fallacy. In particular, how does Ken Copeland presume to know what Jesus did or did not know (omniscience)? Or, for that matter, what Jesus was or was not capable of doing (omnipotence)? The Bible does not provide irrefutable teaching on these points. I've found that novel interpretations are usually the province of heretics and academics who are trying to get published. Neither is a reliable source. Why bother with this stuff? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
64 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 54375 | ||
Hi, GandT; No, the scholars are not inspired. Since it is scholars who do the translating, it follows that no version in any modern language (including 17th century English) is inspired. Furthermore, no original text of any book of the Bible remains, so there is no known copy of any book of the Bible that is inspired. So where does that leave us? It leaves us dependent upon scholars who sift through thousands of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts trying to reconstruct what the original writers - who WERE inspired - actually recorded. Mark's inspired original manuscript probably no longer exists. Scholars over a period of centuries have agreed on most of what we find in an English translation. But there are those troublesome four alternate endings. Which, if any, reflects Mark's original inspired writing? I certainly don't know, nor am I competent to decide. Since the pros don't know, I don't know. But you know what? It doesn't bother me at all. If you point out an idea in this section that confirms what can be found elsewhere in the Gospels, it hasn't added much to my knowledge. If you point out some unique, novel idea that can't be confirmed anywhere else in the Bible, then I'd question it anyway. God knows us; the really important stuff gets repeated over and over. So I'm just not too worried about this section and don't feel at all badly about not paying a lot of attention to it. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
65 | Was it complete? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 54377 | ||
Hank, Hank, Hank; Buck up, ol' buddy. I didn't even see your post to FORUM MEMBERS or Ed's support of you until I came across Brad's followup on the home page. I wasn't following the thread (but now, thanks to you guys, I've been drawn into it). So don't take silence for lack of support. There are over 50,000 messages here now. Anybody is bound to miss a few. You and I have had some ... enthusiastic disagreements in the past, but I'd tell anybody that your posts reveal an abiding respect and knowledge of Scripture. I'm sorry I didn't see (literally) the need at the time. But you bring up an interesting point. I've been hanging out here since October. At the start, it seemed as though most posts were pretty orthodox and pretty well thought out. Here lately, there seem to be a lot of folks who are obsessed with some side issue or some weird interpretation or simply are not Christians. That's all Ok as long as we can have a respectful dialog and maybe enlighten each other. But there doesn't seem to be as much reasoning going on. There seems to be a lot of concordance-driven proof-texting without much study or understanding. To tell the truth, I've thought about my good-bye post too. I guess I'm torn between 1 Peter 3:15 and 2 Timothy 2:23. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
66 | Jesus' existance | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 66463 | ||
Greetings, tetelestai46, Most modern historical scholars agree that there was, during the first century, a man named Jesus who was noteworthy or important. Secular history, however, is of little value in knowing or evaluating the claims that he made about himself, because the Bible is the only known source for this kind of information. While this makes it very convenient for skeptics to dismiss the evidence contained in the Bible, it makes sense. The early church made a conscious effort to gather, authenticate, and preserve accounts of Jesus' life (the Gospels) and letters written by those who knew him (the Epistles). That historical evidence became the New Testament. With all the interest in the ossuary recently revealed in Jerusalem and the story (in Popular Mechanics, of all places!) purporting to show what Jesus looked like, it shouldn't be hard to find references to some of the non-Biblical evidence. As inmyhart pointed out, this really isn't an appropriate forum for delving into such matters. Hope this is useful. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
67 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 68285 | ||
Greetings, Rob; I hope you don't carry through on your intention to not post anymore. Disclaimer: I don't speak for Hank or anyone else here. I hope you understand that there have been some very long threads with some very strange doctrines advocated with great passion but scant Biblical foundation. I think that has produced an air of argumentation where there is more often a spirit of healthy discourse. It does get a little rough and tumble sometimes. Probably more so than is altogether pleasing to our Lord (and I am as guilty as anyone here). Still, when "iron sharpens iron", some sparks are bound to fly. Anyway, I've enjoyed your posts. You seem to be a thoughtful and reasonable sort of chap, if just a little thin-skinned. :-) I hope you'll stick around and continue to bless us with your thoughts. Incidentally, Hank and I have been on opposite sides of some questions and on the same side of others. I assure you his bark is much worse than his bite and he's always worth listening to. Well, most of the time.... :-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
68 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 68286 | ||
Ooops; I meant Joe, not Hank. Same comments apply. Indy |
||||||
69 | do we have any free will? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 68305 | ||
Rob (and others - you know who you are); Someday we're going to get together in Heaven and have a good laugh at ourselves. I have a feeling that once we meet Jesus face to face and see how big God really is, our disagreements, our confidence in our own understanding, and, yes, our hurt feelings are going to look just plain silly. Faithful, earnest, even passionate - but just a little foolish when examined in the light of that divine reality. I expect that, like Job, we'll all say "I was talking about things I did not understand, things far too wonderful for me. ... I had heard about you before, but now I have seen you with my own eyes. I take back everything I said, and I sit in dust and ashes to show my repentance." (Job 42:3-6, NLT) But in the meantime, let me tell you what was wrong with your last post.... :-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
70 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71083 | ||
Hi, Steve; Emmaus' explanation - that Catholics simply ask Mary to pray for them as most of us ask our friends on earth to pray for us - seems reasonable enough. Intercessory prayer is both common and biblical; it doesn't displace Christ as our single mediator. I don't see any particular advantage in asking Mary or the departed saints to pray for me. But if Mary's extraordinary position ("blessed ... among women" and "the mother of my Lord", Luke 1:42-43) is rightly understood, I don't see any harm in it either. I don't believe that Jesus is offended when Catholics honor his mother. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
71 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71090 | ||
Hi, Steve; "Asking a dead person to pray for me is completely unreasonable" I'm inclined to agree. But the Gospel is pretty unreasonable too. Besides, I'd guess most Christians do lots of things in worship and prayer that are not specifically mentioned in Scripture. If reciting the Apostles' Creed or the Westminster Confession offends God, I'll be mighty surprised. Penitent too. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
72 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71099 | ||
Hi, graceful; As I said, I don't think praying to Mary is harmful IF one keeps her in the proper perspective. I assume that any Christian knows who Jesus is and what his role is in both our daily and our eternal lives. I would never advocate (nor do I think Emmaus did) praying exclusively to Mary or mistaking her for our savior. Anyone - Catholic or otherwise - who puts his or her faith in Mary is making an eternal mistake. But that's not what Emmaus described. I would never criticize someone for praying to Mary, but I would try to help them see their error if they did not confess Christ and pray to God the Father as Jesus taught us. Too many times I have seen people use Catholics' reverence for Mary as a wedge to try to split them out of the body of Christ. (I am NOT accusing you or Steve of doing that!) I would be offended if someone told me I wasn't a Christian because in my church we frequently recite the Apostles' Creed. The creed is not found in the Bible and we are not told to use it. I see nothing wrong with it because we don't use it as a substitute for worshipping God but as an adjunct. And, in fact, it serves as a reminder of what the essential facts of the faith really are. Likewise I am offended when my Catholic brothers and sisters are criticized for adding a rather unique dimension to their faith walk. As I said, if it's the sole or most important ingredient, that's a problem. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
73 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71130 | ||
Hi, Romans; You have given examples of Catholics taking Mary out of context and losing perspective. This is a bad thing. But Christians of any denomination can be so taken by the things of God that they lose sight of God himself. I know Christians who revere the Bible more than they do God. I know Christians who worship works, who worship spiritual gifts, who worship prosperity. Shall we take away Bibles, works, gifts, prosperity? No one is lost or saved based on whether or not they pray to Mary. It is only one's relationship with God through Jesus that matters. The enemy has enough wedges to drive Christians apart. I see no need to wield one myself. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
74 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71154 | ||
Hi, Romans; I seem to have mistaken your intentions; if so, please accept my apologies. I have Catholic friends who show Christ in their lives much more lovingly and more completely than I or most of my Protestant friends do. And I know Protestants who think Catholics aren't Christians - the very embodiment of focusing on the mote in their brothers' eyes. By "taking Mary out of context" I meant attaching more importance or ascribing more power and authority to her than the Bible says she has. If Mary is the focus of your faith, that would be wrong. If you think it is Mary who forgives your sins, that would be wrong. If you think you can't talk directly to God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit but only through Mary, that would be wrong. If you give Mary the praise and glory for God's acts of grace and providence, that would be wrong. If you think that it is only Mary's prayer at the hour of your death that gains you admission to the Kingdom, that would be wrong. My understanding (and I'm no expert) is that none of these is "official" Catholic theology. If priests or parishoners teach or assume these things, then that is wrong. It sounds as if the situation in the Philippines is such a case. (But I don't have to go any further than my TV to see erroneous teaching that borders on heresy.) Now, if you revere Mary as the very important woman that Luke 1 says she was, if you believe she has eternal life, if you feel drawn to her as a friend, if you believe she can hear your prayers, if praying to her is just one aspect of a healthy relationship with God through Christ, then I still don't see a problem. For example, I can see nothing objectionable in the "Hail Mary". Most of it is straight out of Luke 1. The request, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." looks a little strange to my reformed eyes. It could certainly produce some interesting theological discussions, but I would hardly brand it as heresy. There is no doubt that praying to Mary could be a symptom of a grevious underlying error. I just don't see that it is an error in and of itself. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
75 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71160 | ||
Hi, One; This whole discussion started with Emmaus telling us that praying to Mary is nothing more than Caleb Catholic asking Mary to pray for him. We could have a lively discussion about whether or not Mary is in a position to hear and respond to such requests, but I don't think we would find a conclusive answer in the Bible. So I don't know if such requests are effective or not. Likewise, I might ask Peter Protestant to pray for me. He may do it; he may not. I don't know if my request was effective or not. Is God offended that I didn't just speak for myself? No. Can we show that Mary neither hears nor honors such requests? No. Can we show that God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit would be offended if she did hear and honor such requests? No. Can we show that such requests offend God? No. I suggest that we have the grace to allow Catholics to ask whomever they like to pray for them if we can't show that the person they choose is unacceptable to God. Maybe the problem is in the phrase "praying to Mary". Praying to God means speaking to God; praying to Mary means speaking to Mary. The "Hail Mary" (the only prayer to Mary I know of) doesn't say "forgive my sins" or "admit me to Heaven" or "heal me". It says "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death". It asks for nothing more than a prayer to God on behalf of "us sinners". I can find no harm in that. Do some Catholics go too far? Of course. And there are Protestants who go overboard and focus on the Bible or spiritual gifts or prophecy or prosperity and so lose sight of God. The mere fact that some Christians misuse something doesn't make that thing bad; it's the misuse that's bad. So it is with praying to Mary. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
76 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71313 | ||
Hi, graceful; God and the Bible are not the same. The Bible is a book - the most important book, a priceless book, a book whose authors were uniquely inspired by God, a book provided by God for our guidance and edification, a book that is the standard for spiritual truth, a book that is the only reliable witness to Jesus, but it's still a book. Neither is it God's truth; it is a representation of God's truth. God's truth is bigger than the Bible; it exists outside the Bible and existed before there was a Bible. The Bible is a book whose original manuscripts are long lost, a book that has been copied and translated countless times. Not one word in my NIV (or KJV, or NASB, or Latin Vulgate, or Textus Receptus, or any other existing version) was actually spoken by Moses, or David, or Jesus. The book that we have represents the work of legions of human scribes, scholars, and translators doing their best to preserve these words and more over a period of three or four thousand years. I don't believe that God would allow the preservation of his inspired words to drift very far astray during this long handing-down process. I believe that God has always provided the people and tools to keep the Bible close to what the original authors wrote. Indeed, I think that the Bible as we know it is an accurate representation of God's truth, even if it may not be a perfectly accurate representation of the original manuscripts. I think God would see to that. So I read and study the Bible with confidence that the Holy Spirit will take those imperfect patterns of ink on paper and transform them into the truth of God that my mind and spirit can absorb and feed on. But the Bible is still a book, a representation. Just as the tabernacle was but "a copy and shadow of what is in heaven" (Heb 8:5), so the Bible is but a copy and a shadow of God's truth. "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming – not the realities themselves." (Heb 10:1) I hope you don't find my views too shocking.... Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
77 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71402 | ||
Hi, graceful; Oh, well; at least you know what I meant. ;-) Indy |
||||||
78 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71623 | ||
Hi, graceful; You didn't sound argumentative; I probably did. So I apologize as well. I agree with you completely; I have seen both attitudes too. As my post may have revealed, I am passionate about both sides - the Bible IS the revealed word of God, but it is NOT an idol or an object of faith in and of itself. I have conversed with Christians who seem a little confused about who or what is most important, the Bible or Jesus. Sad. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
79 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71993 | ||
Hi, debbie; Not to speak for aften1, but this could possibly be a reference to Isaiah 7:10-16: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (v. 14). But this is not a reference to Jesus; this virgin birth was a sign intended for King Ahaz to see in his lifetime. The fact that Matthew refers to Isaiah's prophecy in 1:22-23 can be confusing: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel'--which means, 'God with us.'" A Professor of New Testament whom I respect has said that "fulfillment" of a prophecy has two possible meanings. We usually think of it as meaning that an event foretold by a prophet has taken place. But "fulfillment" can also mean the perfection or purest example of a prophecy. With this reference to Isaiah, Matthew is saying that there was a virgin birth before, but this one is the purest, most perfect example of a virgin birth. This child named Jesus can also be called Immanuel because he is more than just an illustration of "God with us" - a sign from God to Ahaz - he is the embodiment of "God with us"; he is God and he is with us. Hope this helpful, or interesting, or something. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
80 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71996 | ||
Hi, Debbie; I have a gift for sowing confusion - just ask my kids. The whole story is in Isaiah 7. Ahaz (king of Judah) was under attack from King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel. This made Ahaz nervous. Speaking through Isaiah, God told him to relax, that the attack would fail, but "If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all." (v.9). God then invited Ahaz to ask him for a sign. But Ahaz declined, saying "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." (v.12) "Then Isaiah said, 'Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign'". (v.13-14) The sign was the one Matthew referred to: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (v.14-16) For the boy Immanuel to be a sign to Ahaz that Judah would stand against Rezin and Pekah, he would have to be born and known to Ahaz before the two kings were defeated. So Immanuel was born, lived, and died long before Jesus was born. Mathew said, in effect, that while Isaiah's prophecy conerning Immanuel was fulfilled in the sense that a foretold event had already happened, Jesus' birth was a further fulfillment of it. The boy that Isaiah spoke of was named Immanuel because he was proof to Ahaz that God was with him in his fight. Jesus - also born of a virgin - was more entitled to the name Immanuel because he wasn't just a sign from God, he was God. You can't get any more "with us" than that. Hope this clears things up - or at least doesn't muddy them further. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [33] >> |