Results 641 - 660 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
641 | diakonos vs synergos | 1 Thess 3:2 | Beja | 241120 | ||
Chilidog, Unfortunately you will not receive a reply here from anybody who represents the translators of the NASB. All participants are just like you, those who log on to find a community to discuss questions like yours. What you ask is an excellent question, yet text criticism principles are hard to explain sometimes. As you seem to be aware, there is a mixed witness in the texts which we have. Diakonos by far has more texts, however the multitude of witnesses to a particular reading is not the only question which a text critic weighs. Another major question which determines the preferred reading is which of the readings best explain the development of the additional readings? In this case it is really easy to see how a scribe reading one being described as "a fellow worker of God" could see that as a bit much and out of a pious but misguided humility softening the statement to "servant." Now on the flip side it is really hard to imagine some scribe being so bold as to read the original reading of "servant" and then decide he should upgrade us from servants to "fellow workers of God." And this is precisely why groups favor the reading of "fellow servant" as being original rather then the more widely attested "servant." Now we can't be certain about this. But the reasoning is sound especially given that we know for sure that scribes often changed the text to what they thought would be a more reverent reading when they were copying. I hope this helps and if this type of information is helpful to you I recommend to you "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 2nd edition by Bruce Metzger. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
642 | Is any of this true? | 1 Thess 4:1 | Beja | 222090 | ||
Curious2010, Your question is being asked assuming a dispensational view of end times. So let me first answer your questionn assuming dispensation theology is true. No, the rapture could not have taken place because the treaty you are referring to would needed to have been broken half way through it, resulting in the anti-christ waging war on Israel. None of that happened therefore this was not the treaty prophecied and therefore there is no reason to think the rapture has taken place. Now let me answer the question from the view point which I believe is correct. The end times has nothing to do with a treaty with Israel, this is a major misreading fo Daniel chapter 9. Since the treaty has nothing to do with it, then once again there is no reason to believe the rapture has happened. Read 1 Thess 4, 1 Cor 15 (second half) and see what you think about the timing of these three events: the rapture, the ressurection, and the second coming of Christ. I think you will find that they are all the same occassion. At the second coming of Christ the resurrection will first take place, then the rapture. By all accounts the second coming of Christ will be a very visible dramatic event. We'd know if it happened. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
643 | We are having sexual relations. Is this | 1 Thess 4:3 | Beja | 229828 | ||
broadway, Yes. 1Th 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality; Furthermore scripture teaches that unless you repent you will damned for all eternity. Do not underestimate the seriousness of your need to repent. 1Co 6:9,10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
644 | is Jesus First | 2 Thess 2:1 | Beja | 226752 | ||
legsrandall, 2Th 2:1-4 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
645 | do u tithe on unemployment checks | 1 Tim 1:8 | Beja | 220602 | ||
Unbrown, I would respectfully challenge you to reconsider your question. Let me offer a quote from Paul then explain what I mean. 1 Timothy 1:8-11 says, "But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righeous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted." Paul's point, I believe, is that even though it is still wrong for a Christian to murder, what is that command to us? What is the command to not murder to one who is following the spirit of God who leads us to love even those who wrong us? It's be like giving me a command not to go to mexico when I'm on my way to Canada. So, let us apply this to your question. What is the command to tithe, the law, to one who is being led by the spirit to live in such a way as to be able to generously give to others? As you grow in your walk with God, the question should shift from what you are required to do, to, "how can I live so that I can have the means to give liberally?" When that is your heart what need do you have for the law? The tithe law, sir, is for non-givers. Though if that is the category you are in, then yes, the tithe is for you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
646 | do u tithe on unemployment checks | 1 Tim 1:8 | Beja | 220644 | ||
To various parties reading the tithing thread, As we have seen very clearly, the question of tithing is unavoidably tied to the question of how the law applies to New Testament believers. This is a question that impacts a great deal of things. Unfortunately it is something we have failed to understand more often than not. I would rather not debate the question on the forum, but I'd like to give some questions to help people think through the question. 1. When scripture says we are not under the law but under grace, does it mean a.that the moral laws of the old testament are no longer to be understood as how we should live? b.or does it mean that we are no longer going to be judged by them for our acceptance before God? 2. To facilitate this question, think through the ten commandments. Have they been abolished by Christ as rules for His people? Don't give a blanket theological answer, go back and look through them one at a time in Exodus 20 and ask it individually. 3. Did Christ teach that he was going to do away with the law? See Matthew chapter 5:17 and following verses. 4. Clearly scripture teaches that the ceremonial laws that were just meant to point to a future reality in Christ are gone. These are things such circumcision, festivals, sacrifices, dietary laws etc. IF you have decided FIRST that we are not judged before God based on the moral law, but we still are guided and instructed by the moral laws, such as do not murder, do not commit adultery etc. THEN you must decide how tithing fit into the old testament. In Short, was it a moral command or one of these ceremonial commands? Was tithing a sign given to point to Christ? Or was tithing as a command to honor God from your wealth an actual moral issue? 5. Now, if you have decided that even though we are not condemned by the law any longer, but we are to walk rightly according to it, and that tithing is infact a moral issue, we must consider how a christian was meant to view the law, even while walking in obedience to it. 6. In that case I would turn you to 1 Tim 1. What you will find is that the law will never be a problem to one following Christ by walking in the spirit, for the spirit is going to lead you to worship, love, and give. None of which are against the law. (I imagine galatians 5 is in my mind as I say this also.) The reason when you ask about tithes we get as many answers as we do, is that their answer assumes their stance on everything above. Whether they have actually thought through those questions or not, they have fallen into some stance on them. Now, in my opinion, those who think we have nothing to do with the tithe, need to think very hard about points 1 through 3. If somebody may say they think we should still walk in accord with the ten commandments, they may decide that tithing was simply a sign, to what I couldn't guess. I think its part of the moral law, but each must decide that themselves. Then on the other end of the spectrum there are those who think tithing is the point. And we best follow every point of it. They have an opinion of whether it is gross or net, etc. To them I would suggest you think very hard about point 6, as well as read 2 Cor chapters 8 and 9. I would encourage them to see that the point is not nearly so much about the money as a giving heart. And a giving heart will never struggle with tithing in the same way that somebody motivated entirely by love will never struggle with murder. I do not expect this to settle any disagreements, but only to help people think through the issue, and to understand why nobody agrees. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
647 | do u tithe on unemployment checks | 1 Tim 1:8 | Beja | 220659 | ||
Val, How shall I respond? Your post ignores every question I posted for thought and simply says that I'm wrong. My very first question was asking people to consider what scripture means by such things? Does every command need to be repeated in the new testament, or does the new testament assume the morality of the old? Show me please where the new testament forbids beastiality. And if you can not, shall I assume it is permissible since it is not repeated in the new? ENGAGE with what I said. Second, I think what you said was not very gracious. Why would you accuse me or anybody's motives as simply wanting to spend your money? I assure you that giving, and giving to the church specifically is biblical. Romans 12:13 says we are to be, "contributing to the needs of the saints." Galatians 6:6 The one who is taught the word is to share all good things with the one who teaches him. 1 Cor 9:13,14 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share from the altar? So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel. Might I ask where the money is to come from for this? Is it not people giving to the church? I challenge you to study 1 Timothy 5:17 and 18. Specifically to a word study on the word translated as "honor" in verse 17. Then see how paul uses the same Ox example in 1 Cor 9. I assure you I need no "tithe law" to scriptually preach that people should be supporting the church and pastor. My motive is not some worldly enjoyment of spending "other people's money." My goal is that I very much want to learn what scripture teaches so that I may walk obediently before my God. I challenge you again to actually engage with my post rather than simply dismissing it. What did Jesus mean in Matthew 5:17 and the following verses? How would you biblically argue that beastiality is wrong? What if I deny that it falls under the blanket categories of fornication and immorality? Can you prove from scripture that when the NT says that we are no longer under the law, it means, "Nothing said in the old testament can any longer tell us how one ought to live?" My post was meant to help us start looking at our assumptions yet you responded with nothing but unspoken assumptions. Please clarify. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
648 | do u tithe on unemployment checks | 1 Tim 1:8 | Beja | 220664 | ||
Val, 1. The book of Hebrews does not specifically say, "The law was abolished." In fact, if you do a search with a simple tool, you will find that the absolutely only time these two words are used in a verse together within the entire New Testament is in Matthew 5:17. I do not deny that Hebrew has a passage in particular which if read a certain way would amount to such a statement. But say those words "specifically" it most certainly does not. I'm thinking of Hebrews 7:12. But I would agree with John Gill when he says that this is not referring to the moral law but the systems of sacrifices. I think the context supports this. 2. "It was for Israel" If tithing was specifically instituted at mount sinai as a pact with Israel and ended with Christ, then why did Abraham tithe? 3. "We just have different perspectives" "Let us agree to disagree" The entire point of my post which you first responded to, was to help people understand what presuppositions causes the multitude of answers on the question of tithing. I was attempting to do this as a service because I worried about young christians seeing a simple question getting such wildly different answers. The way one answers the question of tithing is based on how one answers the question of the law's role with a Christian. You yourself are proving that your answer is based on this. What I wanted, was to present the question of the law clearly and let readers think through that so they could understand and formulate their own opinion on the tithe as it pertains to Christians. If you want us to agree to disagree, then let it lay there, with us letting people disagree on the role of the law in Christianity. That is where the disagreement is, not on tithes. The stances on tithes is merely a symptom of ones stance on the law. 4. "The other subjects you mentioned would be covered in their own topics." I am only discussing two topics, law and tithing. And both of these you once again made authority like statements on without quoting any scripture whatsoever. In conclusion, I do not mind letting us agree to disagree, or even letting the discussion end. But what we are discussing is a question that great minds have written many many pages on in the past. All I am attempting to do is give people a chance to think through these theological issues which shape our views on many things such as tithes. If you wish to discuss it with me, I very much welcome your careful presentation of your view from scripture. But if you have no interest in doing that, and just want to agree to disagree, I am happy to go along with that also. But please choose. Either articulate your position from scripture, or disagree silently. But don't just make decisive statements regarding the law over issues that have been debated for centuries as if you can declare the issue clear and closed, and that without quoting scripture. If you wish to look further into this via a book, I highly reccommend Edward Fisher's Marrow of Modern Divinity. Its a good place to start. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
649 | do you belive in woman minister | 1 Tim 2:1 | Beja | 223781 | ||
Glomo, You may need to flesh out your question a bit more. Do I believe women ministers exist? I do believe they exist. Do I think they ought to exist? It depends on what you mean by minister. If you mean an elder of a church then I believe then they ought not to be. However, what various people on this forum thinks is less than irrelevant. The real question is what scripture says, to which I would refer you to 1 Timothy 2. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
650 | Can women teach in the church | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 221730 | ||
Finder, Just as a general hermeneutic, you need to change your order. Read scripture, then look at what is happening through the lens of scripture. We don't look at something, say, "That seems to look good to me, now how do I understand scripture passages given that experience tells me this is already a good thing." So, given that scripture says that a woman is not permitted to teach or hold authority over a man (in a church.) How do we then interpret what this lady is doing? Just fyi, I do not know Joyce Meyers or anything of her ministry, so I'm not judging her, simply giving the means to evaluate it. A good example of getting it right, imo, is Beth Moore. I'm not a huge fan personally, but when I see some of her video's its clear that God has gifted this woman to preach, and to preach well. But she uses that gift scripturally. She uses it to minister to women. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
651 | is it wrong? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 228050 | ||
Julia, As stated earlier in the thread, 1 tim 2:11-15 is the most crucial passage. 1Ti 2:11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 1Ti 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. 1Ti 2:15 But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. We must be very careful not to come up with reasons to explain away scriptures. Specifically this instruction is not grounded in anything but the creation and the fall. See verses 13 and 14. So the reason is not cultural, but something applicable today. Everybody is so eager to explain why Paul said this and therefore why it isn't applying to us. However, they overlook that Paul told us clearly why in those two verses. However, let me give you why I think this passage does have some limitation to its scope. Paul forbids "teaching and excercising authority over a man." However it breaks down like this. Paul's command verse 12 Grounding and clarification verses 13-15 (chapt end.) Approval of men seeking the role of overseer (2:1) Qualifications for a man wanting to be overseer (2:2 and following.) So, first, this command comes in the context of Paul leading into a discussion of the overseer role, which are the elders. Second, Paul forbids the two things that are specifically the role of the elders, teaching and excercising authority. This makes me think that what Paul has in mind is forbidding women from the role of elders. The elders, to my understanding, had the official teaching ministry of the church. But while they had the official teaching ministry, all members were ministers of the word to each other on a more informal basis and I'm sure some where more spiritually gifted for it than others and sometimes that was women. So while people may give many examples to you of women prophesying, I doubt they can give any examples of women elders. Now, here is how I put these observations together. The instructions in 1 Tim 2 do apply to us. However, they are primarily a statement that the role of elders in the church is limited to men. However, within the church, women are free to excercise their spiritual gifts to the edification of all believers. Though, they must not be placed in an authoritative teaching position over men. Unfortunately part of the confusion is the lack of biblical structure in our churches. For example, what if your church is not elder led and elder taught? This makes the question much much more complex. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
652 | elder led, elder taught? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 228056 | ||
Julia, This link might be helpful to you. http://www.9marks.org/what-are-the-9marks/leadership Actually, that entire website might benefit you greatly. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
653 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 229602 | ||
"Some like myself, would say, scrutinise and thoroughly investigate, examine each and every instance that the culture of the time of Paul writtings might be limited to that epoc." Of course, before you do that investigation, you must first ignore that Paul clearly says exactly why he forbids it in the very same passage, where he reveals that it has nothing to do with current cultural phenomenon but rather he forbid it based on creation and the fall. 1Ti 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 1Ti 2:13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. 1Ti 2:14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
654 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 229608 | ||
justme, I agree that it has been debated more than enough. I also have no desire to debate the issue. However, when a person 1.) discuses 1 Tim 2:12 while intentionally leaving of verses 13 and 14 which explicitely give the foundation of it, and 2.) goes on to discuss other possible foundations for Paul's command, which coincidentally lay the foundation for ignoring the command, 3.) and all to what appears to be a younger and perhaps unaware questioner who would not know that something crucial is being carefully left off... That I suppose will always prompt a response from myself. I have no thoughts of changing your mind. But I can't bring myself to remain silent in the face of that knowing that the continuation of Paul's thought is being edited out in order to make a speculation of what Paul would "think about women today." I would have to be removed from the forum first. I agree and am satisfied for you and I to disagree. However, you have made your decision in light of verses 14 and 15. I ask that you grant inquirers the same courtesy as to let them make up their mind in light of that crucial bit of scripture. That being said, I hope for a peaceful forum. But as in the church, peace bought at any price is wrong. But, having alerted the young lady to the remainder of Paul's statement, I am happy to drop the subject. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
655 | Why can't women lead a church? | 1 Tim 2:12 | Beja | 229615 | ||
Justme, you asked, "We disagree. So why do you keep this going?" I only responded again in order to make clear that my objection with your post was not concerning a disagreement over the role of women (though I do disagree). For me to prolong a debate over such an issue is, I think, against the spirit of, and possibly even the letter of, the TOU. My objection and reason for posting was over your mishandling scripture. That is infact exactly the purpose of the forum. To discuss rightly exegeting passages. My objection to you is not: Women must not teach in churches. My objection to you is: When a statment is followed by a "For" plus a grounds of explination, we do not divorce the two when we teach or exegete the passage. On that issue, I hope we can find agreement. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
656 | can a women be a bishop | 1 Tim 3:1 | Beja | 235012 | ||
Doc, When you say that, do you mean the roles of elders by the word leadership (whether or not they go by the name of elders in a particular church), or would you extend your statement beyond that? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
657 | can a women be a bishop | 1 Tim 3:1 | Beja | 235017 | ||
Doc, As is often the case, I find myself in substantial agreement with you. Thank you for humoring my curiosity. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
658 | may i serve as a deacon if my wife don't | 1 Tim 3:11 | Beja | 224126 | ||
Jim, First, it is a very good thing that you take scripture so very seriously as to ask this question. God bless you for that. However, this is something that your particular church needs to study and discuss. Allow me to give you some questions that will matter as you study this passage. 1. Is verse 11 speaking of the wives of deacons, or female deacons? The word in greek can equally be translated woman or wife. 2. If you believe it refers to the wives of deacons tehn you must expect the wife of a deacon to be "faithful in all things." Your church must decide if your wife meets this standard. 3. When it says in verse 12, "Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households." What does that include? Does it mean that a deacon must successfully have his family attending church? Does it mean that as a husband he it to "put his foot down" so to speak and explain to his family that attendance at church is not under discussion? I think verse 4 and 5 might help give some light on why household management is so very important. These however, are the questions that your church needs to be deciding as they study this passage. Then you are to be measured by their best attempt to understand these scriptures. As an aside, there may be some that dislikes my saying that they are to be measured by their best attempts to understand these scriptures, as if it was in contrast to the scriptures themselves. My response would be that we are always using our best attempt at understanding these scripture and there are some honest questions as to what all would be implied by these statements. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
659 | 'women' or 'their wives', how did NASB | 1 Tim 3:11 | Beja | 232020 | ||
HatchB, The reason is that the same word in greek is translated both woman and wife, or women and wives. Only context determines whether it is talking about a married woman or simply a woman in general. In that particular passage the debate is over if it is referring to female deacons, or the wives of deacons. If I was to venture to guess the thoughts behind the NASB translation, I think their intentions were likely not to make the exegetical decision that this refers to women deacon, but rather to let the word "Women" show the ambiguity there in the greek. That is purely my speculation however. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
660 | dead beat dads | 1 Tim 5:8 | Beja | 227398 | ||
1 Timothy 5:8 | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 ] Next > Last [40] >> |