Results 6521 - 6540 of 6770
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Morant61 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6521 | once saved, always saved. | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10635 | ||
Greetings JMR! One of the things that seperates Christianity from every other religion in the world is that we can be certain of our position with God. Consider the following Scriptures: 1) John 3:16 - ‘‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." 2) John 3:36 - "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” 3) John 5:24 - "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." 4) John 10:9 - "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 5) John 6:40 - "For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” 6) Acts 2:21 - "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 7) Romans 10:13 - for, ‘‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Friend, I'm not trying to overwhelm you with verses, but I just wanted to show you from Scripture the promise of God. It says, "Everyone will." It says, "Whosoever will." It never says, Whosoever might." The "Good News" of the Gospel is that we can have absolute assurance of our salvation because it was paid for by Christ Himself and not earned by us. I don't know where you are spiritually, but if you have prayed and asked God to forgive you, He has. At that point, you can be 100 percent certain where you will spend eternity. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6522 | Are all Christians going to heaven? | Matt 7:21 | Morant61 | 10634 | ||
Greetings Appleseed! Those refered to as "asleep" in this passage are those who have literally died in Christ. In 1 Thess. 4 and 5, Paul is dealing with various issues. The issues breakdown in the following way: 1) 1 Thess. 4:1-8: Sexual Purity 2) 1 Thess. 4:9-10: Brotherly Love 3) 1 Thess. 4:11-12: Quietness of Life 4) 1 Thess. 4:13-18: Rapture of the Church 5) 1 Thess. 5:1-11: Second Coming of Christ 6) 1 Thess. 5:12-28: Final Instructions The passage you have been referring to (1 Thess. 4:13-18) is Paul's attempt to correct some false teaching that the Thessalonicans had received. There were some who had falsely taught that those who had died previous to the return of Christ would miss out on the blessings of His return. Paul corrects this teaching by pointing out that those "who are asleep" would actually go in the Rapture before those who are alive. The word translated "those who are asleep" is the Greek word 'koimao.' It is used 18 times in the New Testament. In 13 of it's occurances, it obviously refers to physical death. Mt. 27:52, Acts 7:60, 13:36, 1 Cor. 7:39, 11:30, 15:6, 15:18, 15:20, 15:51, 1 Thess. 4:13, 4:14, 4:15, and 2 Peter 3:4. The other 5 occurances refer to physical sleep, though two of these are used symbolically in reference to Lazarus. Mt. 28:13, Lk. 22:45, John 11:11, 11:12, and Acts 12:60. The context makes it clear that physical death is referred to in this passage. The are not to sorrow or grieve as those who have no hope. For just as Christ died and rose again, so God will raise those who have died in Him. So this passage does not refer to Christians who are asleep in their walk with Christ, but to Christians who are literally dead. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6523 | once saved, always saved. | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10617 | ||
Greetings Tom J! One of the things that seperates Christianity from every other religion in the world is that we can be certain of our position with God. Consider the following Scriptures: 1) John 3:16 - ‘‘For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." 2) John 3:36 - "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.” 3) John 5:24 - "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life." 4) John 10:9 - "I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture. 5) John 6:40 - "For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.” 6) Acts 2:21 - "And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved." 7) Romans 10:13 - for, ‘‘Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” Friend, I'm not trying to overwhelm you with verses, but I just wanted to show you from Scripture the promise of God. It says, "Everyone will." It says, "Whosoever will." It never says, Whosoever might." The "Good News" of the Gospel is that we can have absolute assurance of our salvation because it was paid for by Christ Himself and not earned by us. I don't know where you are spiritually, but if you have prayed and asked God to forgive you, He has. At that point, you can be 100 percent certain where you will spend eternity. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6524 | Is Jesus God? | John 1:1 | Morant61 | 10615 | ||
Greetings Isa! I wasn't sure if your comments were meant to agree that John 20:28 is an affirmation of the Deity of Christ or to deny that John 20:28 is an affirmation of the Deity of Christ! Would you please clarify? If you were intending to deny it, may I point out that the word translated 'answered' in the NASB is the Greek word 'apokrinomai.' This word can be translated 'answered' or 'replied.' Either way, it always indicates a response to something said or done previously. In this case, it would be Thomas' response to Jesus' statement in v. 27. Therefore, he is affirming that Christ is "his Lord and God" and not simply exlaiming in surprise. This is confirmed in v. 29, where Jesus compares the belief of Thomas with the belief of those who have not seen. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6525 | Carbon-14 Dating Questioned? | Gen 1:2 | Morant61 | 10614 | ||
Greetings Jim! I not a scientist and I'm operating from memory here, but I believe the problem with all of the dating systems is the assumptions involved in them. For instance, we know the rate of decay for whatever substance is being tested for. If substance A has a half-life of 10,000,000 years, and we find 1/2 A in the test result, then the age would be 5,000,000 years. The assumption though is that we began with A and not 1/2 A, or 1/4 A. All of the dating systems are basically circular arguments. We assume that evolution took place, devise a test based upon those assumptions, and lo and behold, they prove our assumptions. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6526 | Our forgiving others / God forgiving us? | Matt 6:14 | Morant61 | 10567 | ||
Greetings Prayon! Excellent comments! It definitely seems that forgiveness of others can only occur when we have been forgiven. Therefore, it would be inconsistent for someone who has been forgiven, not to forgive. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6527 | Our forgiving others / God forgiving us? | Matt 6:14 | Morant61 | 10565 | ||
Greetings Nolan! Excellent response! I too was thinking of the Parable in Mt. 18. I agree that there is a clear relationship. It doesn't seem to involve the reception of salvation. However, our forgiveness of others does seem to relate to our continuing reception of God's forgivness. The parable in Mt. 18 deals with someone who had already received mercy, but did not extend the mercy in kind to others. Therefore, Mt. 6:14-15 seems to be saying that as those who have received forgiveness, we have an obligation to extend that forgiveness to others as well. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6528 | The Sermon on the Mount? | Matt 5:1 | Morant61 | 10537 | ||
Greetings Prayon! Thanks for the response! I was particularly intrigued by your quoted statement that: "It reveals the standard of righteousness that Christ requires of all who belong to Him (5:1)." This understanding would be in harmony with Mt. 5:20, which says, "For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." I firmly believe that Mt. 5:20 is the key to understanding the entire Sermon on the Mount. The pharisees believed that one could earn right standing with God through obedience to the Law. However, Jesus demonstrates over and over again in the Sermon on the Mount that this is impossible. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6529 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10534 | ||
Greetings Nolan! Honestly, I don't have the resources to properly respond to these points. I definitely agree that Matthew was written in Hebrew first. However, it is the Greek version which was distributed widely and early. The only Hebrew version we have date from between the 4th and 7th centuries (I think!). Further, some of these points are disputed or could be explained as "corrections" of the Greek text. I checked the Greek text on all of the points above and there are no variant readings on any of them. However, I don't have any copies of the Hebrew text of Matthew. Plus, my Hebrew is so rusty, I doubt I could follow it anyway. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6530 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10531 | ||
Greetings Nolan! I am in the process of breaking down your detailed posts so that I can comment on them. I would like to begin with the historical evidence that Matthew was written in Hebrew originally. This has always been one of my pet peeves with modern critics. The historical evidence seems overwhelming that Matthew was originally written and Hebrew and was written first. Yet, because of the current documentary theories, the historical evidence is ignored. Everyone of the quotes above make it clear that the early church fathers all believed Matthew was written in Hebrew. It is theoretically possible that they could be mistaken, however that possibility seems remote given the fact that most of these writers were only a short time removed from the composition of the original Gospels. On of my favorite authors, Donald Guthrie, writes this in his New Testament Introduction: "This evidence points to an unbroken tradition that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and advocates of any hypothesis which disagrees with this must suggest an adequate explanation of so consistent a tradition. The usual explanation is that later Church Fathers were merely reiterating Papias' original mistake, or at least confusion, over what Matthew originally wrote in Aramaic. But since Irenaeus and Origen were both Greek-speaking and both presumably possessed Matthew's Gospel only in Greek, it is strange that neither of them considered the tradition of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original to be at all suspicious." - Pg. 39. Futhermore, the quote your friend refered to from Irenaeus above even dates the composition of Matthew. He says, "Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church." (Adv. Haer. iii. I.I) So, my thoughts on this point are simple: We should make sure that our documentary theories line up with history, which many modern critics fail to do. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6531 | The Sermon on the Mount? | Matt 5:1 | Morant61 | 10525 | ||
Greetings Forum! There has been a lot of discussion over the years concerning the Sermon on the Mount in general and the Beatitudes in particular. Let me ask these questions: What is the purpose of the Sermon on the Mount? What is the meaning of the Beatitudes? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6532 | Our forgiving others / God forgiving us? | Matt 6:14 | Morant61 | 10523 | ||
Greetings Forum! I spent some time awhile back memorizing the Sermon on the Mount. During that time, Mt. 6:14-15 struck me as two very powerful verses. So, let me throw this question out to the Forum for discussion: What exactly is the relationship between our ability to forgive others and our reception of forgiveness from God? Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6533 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10395 | ||
Greetings Nolan! Wow! There is a lot to absorbe in these posts. I am going to have to cut and paste them into a Word Document so that I can study them further. One possible weakness that I see in this particular theory (this post) is that the Hebrew and/or Aramaic phrases could simply indicate that the author was quoting Jesus in the original language rather than translating it into Greek. Or, one of them could have been quoting and one could have been written in Hebrew originally. I don't really know. I will have to study these posts in detail. Very good info, my friend! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6534 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10378 | ||
Greetings Nolan! I was familiar with the historical evidence, but I haven't not really done much reading on the textual evidence. Allow me to peruse it and I'll get back to you about that. The possibility that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew has some interesting ramifications for the source theories concerning the Gospels. Most modern scholars feel that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke used Mark and an unknown Q as sources. I don't agree. I believe that Matthew was written first. If Matthew was written in Hebrew, as history says, it would have been the earliest Gospel, again as history says. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6535 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10318 | ||
Greetings Nolan! It is just a guess on my part, but there is some historical evidence that Matthew may have been written in Hebrew first. Aramaic was most likely what Jesus and the disciples spoke normally. So, the original spoken words were probably in Aramaic (which Mark records), while the original written form of Matthew may have been in Hebrew. As far as I know, there is no evidence that Mark was ever written in anything but Greek. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6536 | "Eloi" or "Eli"? | Mark 15:34 | Morant61 | 10315 | ||
Greetings Nolan! The two words used in Matthew and Mark are actually two different languages. Mark uses 'eloi', which is Aramaic for "My God". Matthew uses 'eli', which is Hebrew for "My God". Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. The Hebrew form, as Elio, Elio, etc., is the Syro-Chaldaic (the common language in use by the Jews in the time of Christ) of the first words of the twenty second Psalm; they mean “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?” I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6537 | How did Mary become the mother Jesus | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10297 | ||
Greetings 1162tracy! Luke 1:26-38 gives the following account of how Mary became pregnant with Jesus: Luke 1:26 In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, ‘‘Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” 29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, ‘‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. 31 You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.” 34 ‘‘How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, ‘‘since I am a virgin?” 35 The angel answered, ‘‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month. 37 For nothing is impossible with God.” 38 ‘‘I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. ‘‘May it be to me as you have said.” Then the angel left her. We know from Scripture that Jesus is God. Therefore, He did not begin to exist at His conception within Mary. Rather, this passage tells us that the Holy Spirit placed the incarnate Christ into Mary's womb. The result was that Scripture was fulfilled in that a virgin conceived and gave birth. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6538 | Is Jesus really God? | John 14:7 | Morant61 | 10295 | ||
Greetings Fleedbd! There are several lines of evidence which demonstrate that Jesus is God. 1) The claims of Christ Himself. a) All of the "I am" passages, where He equates Himself with the "I am" of Exodus. b) Mt. 13:41, where He speaks of His angels and His Kingdom. The angels are referred to elsewhere as the "angels of God" (Lk. 12:8-9; 15:10.) The Kingdom is repeatedly referred to in the Gospels as the "Kingdom of God." c) Christ’s claim to be able to forgive sins in Mark 2:5 equates Him with God. The Jews understood this for in v. 7 they say it is blasphemy because only God can forgive sins. d) In Mt. 25:31-46, Christ speaks of judging the world. A function which properly belongs only to God. e) In Mark 2:27-28, Christ claims to be "the Lord of the Sabbath." The Sabbath was instituted by God. Therefore, only God could abrogate or modify this regulation. f) In John 10:30, Christ claims to be "one with the Father." g) In John 14:7-9, Christ says that to see and know Him is to see and know the Father. h) In John 8:58, Jesus claims to be God and pre-existent. i) Christ accepted the attribution of deity made to Him by Thomas, when Thomas cried "My Lord and my God (John 20:28). j) He claimed to have power over life and death in John 11:25. 2 The claims of others about Christ. a) John 1:1 clearly says that Christ was God. b) Heb. 1:3 says that Christ is the exact representation of God’s nature and the radiance of His glory. This could only be true of God. c) Paul writes in Col. 1:15-20 that Jesus is the image of the invisible God v. 15. That Jesus is the one in whom and through whom and for whom all things hold together in v. 17. In v. 19, he says that the "fullness" of God dwells in Christ. He states this again in Col. 2:9. d) Paul also writes in Phil. 2:5-11 of the divine nature and pre-existence of Christ. 3) The evidence of the Resurrection. The resurrection proves that He was God. Concerning your question about the Son of God. Consider the following: a) In John 5:2-18, Jesus defended His right to work miracles on the Sabbath. The crowd responded by wanting to kill him. The reason, v. 18 says, "This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the Sabbath, but also called God his Father; making himself equal with God." b) So, clearly the Jews considered the claim to be the "Son of God" a claim to be equal to God. I hope this helps! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6539 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10288 | ||
Part II....Sorry, I accidently submitted Part I unsigned. The second quote is from Dr. William Pettingill, who wrote: "I do not pretend to know the nature of the wine furnished by our Lord at the wedding of Cana, but I am satisfied that there was little resemblance in it to the thing described in the Scriptures of God as biting like a serpent and stinging like an adder (Prov. 23:29-32). Doubtless rather it was like the heavenly fruit of the vine that He will drink new with His own in His Father's Kingdom (Mt. 26:29). No wonder the governor of the wedding feast at Cana pronounced it the best wine kept until last. Never before had he tasted such wine, and never did he taste it again." In additon to the Biblical evidence, I believe it is wrong to drink alcohol for the following practical reasons. 1) Every non-Christian that I know considers it wrong for a Christian to drink. What does drinking do to our testimony? 2) If indeed some people are pre-disposed to alcoholism, how can a Christian encourage anyone to drink? What is the person you are giving the green light to is an alcoholic? 3) We know beyond a doubt that "drunkeness" is a sin. When is a person drunk? Does God use Indiana State Law? As a pastor, how can I tell a person when to say when? Especially since the word 'intoxication' refers to the process of becoming poisoned, not a state. From the very first drink, someone is being 'intoxicated.' 4) Why as a Christian would I want to be associated with something that is connected with death, breaking up of homes, and loose morals? Drinking never made anyone more moral. Drinking never made anyone more Christlike. 5) Finally, as a Christian I am told in Scripture to be self-controlled. Alcohol causes people to loose control. In summary, I think there is a strong case to be made from Scripture that drinking any alcohol is a sin. However, even if one does not agree with that position, I believe that the reasons listed above would provide enough justification for a Christian not to drink simply because of the effect it would have on their testimony and witness for Christ. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
6540 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Morant61 | 10284 | ||
Greetings Laughlin! There are several misconceptions that modern readers tend to have concerning this issue. 1) The first is that the word "wine" in the Old and New Testaments always refers to an alcholic beverage. The fact is that in the Old Testament there are several words refering to a wide range of drinks, some of which contain no alcohol. In the New Testament, the primary word 'oinos' refers to a wide range of drinks as well. 2) The second is that the ancients had no way to keep fermentation from occuring. This is simply not true. The whole point of the parable of the wineskins is that putting new wine into a new wineskin will keep it from fermenting. Putting new wine into an old wineskin will cause it to ferment faster and ruin both the wine and the wineskin. 3) Thirdly, that wine was as strong as today's drinks. Naturally occuring wine, through fermentation only, is not very potent. Even the stong drinks of Scripture do not compare to our distilled drinks. Concerning the miracle of the wine, consider the following two quotes. In 1907, Dr. R.A. Torrey wrote: "The wine provided for the marriage festivities at Cana failed. A cloud was about to fall over the joy of what is properly a festive occasion. Jesus came to the rescue. He provided wine, but there is not a hint that the wine He made was intoxicating. It was a fewsh-made wine. New-made wine is never intoxicating. It is not intoxicating until sometime after the process of fermentation has set in. Fermentation is a process of decay. There is not a hint that our Lord produced alcohol, which is a product of decay and death. he produced a living wine uncontaminated by fermentation." |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 ] Next > Last [339] >> |