Results 701 - 720 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
701 | Debate Arminian/Calvinist views? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 81980 | ||
EdB: I see your points. I agree that we ought not to label people. Thanks! :-) Radioman2 |
||||||
702 | What qualifies as "heresy"? | 2 Pet 3:9 | Radioman2 | 89987 | ||
Greetings, Joe ("always Calvinist, sometimes hyper, but NEVER hyper-Calvinist"): I like your parenthetical description of yourself. Always remember: Extremism in the defense of moderation is no vice. And moderation in the defense of extremism is no virtue. :-) Radioman2 |
||||||
703 | Things the untaught and unstable distort | 2 Pet 3:16 | Radioman2 | 86195 | ||
Direct quotations from the pen of dschaertel. "To the degree that we claim to be right we in a sense are simply trying to justify ourselves." "The Bible to many people has become a crutch, kind of a security blanket." "The Bible can become a destructive tool..." "So my trust is in Him (Christ), not the Bible." ("So my trust is not [in] the Bible.") "Sola Scritpura (sic) is a doctrine that is not taught in the Bible." "You say there is agreement that the Bible is true, and I agree with that as well. But I don't believe in it's sufficiency..." Adam and Eve "didn't get kicked out of the garden because the[y] disobeyed." "Sola Scriptura is not taught in the scriptures. It was an invention in response to the oppresion of the Catholic hierarchy." "This talk about a future antichrist and this elaborate end times story is great for selling books, making movies and scaring people into coming to church, but it just isn't in the Bible." "There will be death in the millenium, because that is the period of time that we are in right now. The thousand years in the bible is not a literal thousand years." "And the question still stands, where does the Bible speak of the 66 or more books that we call the bible, and where does it say that they are the exclusive and sufficient revelation of God? What prohecy was this? I haven't found it, and nobody I know has found it either. As far as I can tell you are just making that up." "The question is of course what is scripture? Where does the Bible tell us what it is? You can't just say the Bible. Men wrote it and decided which books were in it . . . Where is the prophecy that there would be a New Testament with 27 books?" In reference to Genesis chapters 1 and 2: "But if we actually examine the text of the story, I guess I have to question it as being literal history. The imagery is quite fanciful and symbolic." "...take another look at the Garden [of Eden] story. There is some intersting things. Like for instance, God is walking and can't find them. What kind of God is that? He has leggs, and can't see through the trees. . . You see, the story doesn't hang together if it is literal." "Jesus can in fact be real even if Adam is a parable. Sorry, you have proven nothing here except that you wish Adam to be a real person . . . But I find no problem with the idea that it is a parable. And I find no real evidence that it isn't. I do see that it was in the character of Jesus Christ to speak in parables and it wouldn't be a surprise to me if the Garden story is a parable. What I do find problematic is people's religous devotion to it being literally true." |
||||||
704 | Poor old Paul! | 2 Pet 3:16 | Radioman2 | 91959 | ||
Poor old Paul! Perhaps the translators of the Septuagint demonstrate "the satanic nature of modern religious practice[s]" which are "Jewish and Christian attempts to obscure the sacred name of Jehovah God," according to JWs. If this were so, then it would seem that Jesus in the Gospels and Paul in his epistles erred in quoting the Septuagint. Poor old Paul! If only he'd had the benefits of reading the Watchtower; If only he'd had the teachings of Copeland, Hagin, Price, Meyer, Hinn, et al.; If only he'd known he was supposed to mention water baptism every time he preached the gospel; Then he could have avoided all the alleged errors he made in his NT writings. Radioman2 |
||||||
705 | Do you sin every day? | 1 John 1:8 | Radioman2 | 77847 | ||
"[deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin" Check this: In 1 John 3:9 this phrase conveys the idea of habitual sinning. Amplified New Testament 1 John 3:9 "No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him...and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God." The key words are: "[deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin" and "he cannot practice sinning." This phrase conveys the idea of habitual sinning (see 1 John 3:4,6). The emphasis here is on the first part of v. 9: "No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him." (Read 1 John 3:4-9 in the Amplified Bible in order to read the verse in context.) - - - - - - - - - - Amplified New Testament 1 John 1: 8 If we say we have no sin [refusing to admit that we are sinners], we delude and lead ourselves astray, and the Truth [which the Gospel presents] is not in us [does not dwell in our hearts]. 9 If we [freely] admit that we have sinned and confess our sins, He is faithful and just (true to His own nature and promises) and will forgive our sins [dismiss our lawlessness] and [continuously] cleanse us from all unrighteousness [everything not in conformity to His will in purpose, thought, and action]. 10 If we say (claim) we have not sinned, we contradict His Word and make Him out to be false and a liar, and His Word is not in us [the divine message of the Gospel is not in our hearts]. 1 John 2: MY LITTLE children, I write you these things so that you may not violate God’s law and sin. But if anyone should sin, we have an Advocate (One Who will intercede for us) with the Father—[it is] Jesus Christ [the all] righteous [upright, just, Who conforms to the Father’s will in every purpose, thought, and action]. 2 And He [that same Jesus Himself] is the propitiation (the atoning sacrifice) for our sins, and not for ours alone but also for [the sins of] the whole world. |
||||||
706 | How do we preach the Gospel? | 1 John 2:2 | Radioman2 | 100492 | ||
Colin: I read the Chambers quote and I agree with it. (I am a huge fan of Chambers and his book, MUHH. No one can read this book daily for a year without having their life changed.) I would say we ought to witness with wisdom, speaking the truth in love. But, when it comes to boldly proclaiming (preaching) the gospel of Jesus Christ, we ought to "cry aloud and spare not." You have to get a man lost before he can be saved. Meaning that you have to show him he is a sinner before you can get to him to acknowledge his need of a Savior. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
707 | How do we preach the Gospel? | 1 John 2:2 | Radioman2 | 100666 | ||
'However, some informed scholars prefer to use the secular designations "B.C.E." (before our Common Era) and "C.E." (of our Common Era.)' -- Jehonadab It is also true that the Watchtower organization prefers to use the secular designations "B.C.E." (before our Common Era) and "C.E." (of our Common Era.) --Radioman2 |
||||||
708 | How do we preach the Gospel? | 1 John 2:2 | Radioman2 | 100673 | ||
Hank: I know what you mean. Also, Watchtower publications often use the phrase "some scholars", "some authorities", etc. But they don't always identify these mystery scholars and authorities. It's amazing how they created the NWT without the aid of any Greek or Hebrew scholars whatsoever. --Radioman2 |
||||||
709 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Radioman2 | 86170 | ||
Part 1 'Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? 'By Rev. Bill Lee-Warner '"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." Matthew 24:34 'The above passage is found in what is referred to as the Olivet Discourse of Jesus given a few days before Christ's crucifixion. The context for Matthew 24:34 is Jesus' response to the questions of the disciples regarding His return and the end of the age. There are those in the church of Jesus Christ who understand "this generation" to refer to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking the day He gave the discourse. 'The apostle Paul recognized this error and warned Timothy of it when he wrote, "But avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness, and...spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, men who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some." (2 Tim. 2:16-18) 'Today, there is a resurgence of this teaching known as preterism. The term preterism comes from the Latin word praeterism and means "past" or already gone by. The basic teaching of preterism is that the great tribulation has already occured in the distant past, principally at AD 70. Those who hold to this teaching are known specifically as full preterists. There is another subgroup of preterists known as partial or moderate preterists. This latter group sees parts of the Olivet Discourse, or Jesus' teaching on end times, as partially fulfilled in AD 70 but other parts as yet to be fulfilled at the second parousia of Christ. Several efforts have been made to establish preterism as historically sound and biblical but the clear warning of Paul reminds us that it is an heretical and false teaching. The following reasons are offered to the student of Scripture and prophecy for consideration. Be a Berean (Acts 17:11) and examine the Word to "see if these things are so."' (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0003.html) |
||||||
710 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Radioman2 | 86171 | ||
Part 2 'Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? 'If the Rapture "has already taken place", then the resurrection has already taken place. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15 writes of the day when the final "trumpet" for believers will be blown and mortality will put on immortality. In this passage, he links the Rapture with the resurrection of believers. In other words, when the Rapture takes place, the resurrection occurs. 'Those who insist that the events of Matthew 24 are history and say that the "generation that sees these things" was the generation concurrent with Jesus nearly 2,000 years ago, must of necessity show that the resurrection has also taken place. The only way that is possible is to spiritualize the text by saying that the resurrection was a spiritual one and not a physical one. 'Moderate (or partial) preterist, R.C. Sproul recognizes this when he says, To maintain that these events [the Olivet teaching] were indeed fulfilled in the first century, one must interpret the relevant passages in a way that makes early fulfillment possible. The most severe obstacle [to that] is the absence of any historical record that the rapture of the living and the resurrection of the dead occurred. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 161) 'There are two serious problems with understanding the resurrection as a "spiritual" event. R.C. Sproul says, The first difficulty is that it [Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 15] involves propositions and assertions that can be neither verified nor falsified empirically. ... if one announces or predicts things that will take place in the arena of real history involving physical reality, then empirical verification becomes relevant and crucial...It is unfortunate that the apostle failed to alert the Corinthians-and us, by extension-that he was speaking of a secret, hidden, spiritual resurrection. His language certainly suggests something else, particularly as Paul so clearly conjoins the resurrection of our bodies with the resurrection of Christ's body. The resurrected Christ is the firstfruits of all who will be raised. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 162) 'And what was the resurrected body of Jesus like? First, the tomb was empty. In other words, there was a physical body in it but on the day of His resurrection, it became empty. A body had departed from it. Second, he had a glorified body. It was different from His previous mortal body, but it was the same body. Third, Jesus was visible to the disciples until the time He ascended and was touched by them and ate with them. Christ's resurrected body was a physical body, not a spiritualized one. 'A theological problem with a spiritualized understanding of the resurrection is likewise addressed by R.C. Sproul - If a spiritual body cannot be seen, touched, or handled, is it a body at all? It is one thing to say that our resurrected bodies will be spiritiual bodies, but quite another to imply that our resurrected bodies will be merely spirits. The Bible speaks of spiritual bodies. (R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, Baker Books, 1998, pg 164) 'A common problem among interpreters of the Bible is that of "shifting gears". If a person approaches his interpretation of the Bible with, for example, a face value hermeneutic, then it is critical that he remain consistent with his approach. However, many often "flip flop" in their interpretation approach to maintain a preconceived understanding of a text. An example of this is the above. Preterists interpret "this generation" in the simple sense as meaning the generation concurrent with Christ and then suddenly "shift gears" and apply a figurative approach to arrive at a spiritualized understanding of the Rapture and the resurrection. That is an inconsistent hermeneutic and leads to error. 'When spiritualization is introduced into one's interpretation, Pandora's box is opened and various meanings can be understood. The only way the integrity of the Author/author's wording and meaning can be preserved is by taking Scripture at face value. Taking Scripture at face value means that the student of Scripture recognizes the difference between what can be called the "simple sense" of a passage and what is understood as a literal understanding. A literal understanding includes the examination of the historical/cultural and lexical/syntactical considerations. It also recognizes symbols and figures of speech and realizes there is a referent for them. For further information on hermeneutical principles, see the "links" section of this website for an explanation. (Did Jesus Already Return in AD 70? By Rev. Bill Lee-Warner) (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0003.html) |
||||||
711 | Will we be here once anti-Christ appears | 1 John 2:18 | Radioman2 | 86175 | ||
Is Revelation Prophecy or History? "Over the centuries, four main approaches to interpreting the book of Revelation have developed. Each approach has had capable supporters, but none has proved itself the only way to read this book. However, the most basic application question for each approach can be summarized by asking yourself, Will this help me become a better follower of Jesus Christ today?" (Life Application Study Bible, Tyndale House, 1996) ____________________ Four main approaches to interpreting the book of Revelation ____________________ 'The Book of Revelation is the most difficult of all New Testament books to interpret because of the extensive symbolism. These symbols, which often seem strange and bizarre, have resulted in various methods of interpretation, from which we can identify four: *historical, idealist, futurist, and preterist*. 'The *historical* sees Revelation as a symbolic prophecy of the entire history of the church from the Incarnation to the return of Christ to establish the eternal state. In contrast to this view, the *idealist* avoids the difficulty of trying to find fulfillment of the book's images in history. Rather, these interpreters see only a symbolic portrayal of the spiritual cosmic conflict between the kingdom of God and the powers of evil. 'Probably the most popular interpretation of Revelation at the end of the twentieth century—evidenced by the millions of copies that Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins have sold in their popular Left Behind series—is the *futurist*. This approach interprets the book not as what was future to John and is now past or present to us, but as what was future to John and still future to us. It understands that the Book of Revelation has to do with the future of the world. 'Recently, theologians such as R. C. Sproul, in his 1998 book The Last Days According to Jesus (Baker), have revived interest in the *preterist* interpretation. This approach regards the events symbolized in Revelation as having occurred roughly contemporaneously with John's writing of the book, which Sproul dates before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Thus, for the preterist, the "last days" arrived at the time of John. Preterist interpreters stress the fact that Revelation belongs to a distinct genre of Jewish-Christian writings called "apocalyptic," which are "spiritual guides for difficult times." ( . . . ) 'Both the futurist and preterist views have their strengths and weaknesses. Instead of choosing only one or the other, a "both/and" approach that applies the strengths of each is a better option. ( . . . ) 'The preterist position by itself fails to understand that Revelation confronts the modern reader with promises, challenges, and choices that are similar, if not identical, to those faced by the book's original readers. The futurist position by itself is prone to see Revelation as a crystal ball with a literal timetable of events that will happen in the future. 'While the final book in the Bible had immediate relevance to the first-century church, it also speaks powerfully to us about the return of Christ, his judgment of this world, and God's ultimate eschatological victory over the power of evil.' ____________________ By David S. Dockery, president of Union University and the author of Our Christian Hope: Biblical Answers to Questions About the Future (LifeWay Press). Christianity Today, October 25, 1999 (Emphasis added.) Go to (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/9tc/9tc086.html) for links to read more about these related topics: —End Times —Apocalypse —Y2K —Christian Fiction P.S. I can guarantee you, on the forum there will NOT be a long, inappropriate discussion of this question. |
||||||
712 | What is a "carnal" Christian? | 1 John 3:10 | Radioman2 | 92030 | ||
John: Thanks for the link. I'll check it out later. Radioman2 |
||||||
713 | What is a "carnal" Christian? | 1 John 3:10 | Radioman2 | 92118 | ||
CurtMan: I have posted additional information on the subject of the carnal Christian. To read those posts, go to: ID# 92042 and ID# 92052. To read the article that I quoted in those posts, go to: (www.founders.org/FJ16/article2.html) and (www.founders.org/FJ17/article2.html) Following are additional quotes from that article which were not posted previously: 'The question we have to consider is: Does the Bible divide Christians into two categories? This is the issue at the heart of the "Carnal Christian" teaching.' ____________________ 'It is one thing to speak and teach that Christians have carnal out-breaks, which is biblical, but it is another thing altogether to make a third class or category of men--"Carnal Christians."' ____________________ 'To interpret 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, therefore, in such a way as to divide men into three classes [--natural man, carnal man and spiritual man--] is to violate the cardinal rule of interpretation.' ____________________ 'The most doctrinal portion of the New Testament is the epistle to the Romans, and on this all reasonable Bible scholars and theologians would agree. Most scholars (if not all) would further agree that Paul's epistle to the Galatians is the second most doctrinal portion of the New Testament. The first epistle to the church at Corinth is primarily dealing with practical problems in the church:' 'These two passages [Romans 8:1-9 and Galatians 5:17-24] simply set out what the rest of the Bible clearly teaches, namely, that there are only two classes or categories of men and within these two classes there may be many shades and degrees. To interpret 1 Corinthians 3:1-4, therefore, in such a way as to divide men into three classes [--natural man, carnal man and spiritual man--] is to violate the cardinal rule of interpretation. This rule requires us to interpret all single passages in the light of the whole, to interpret all subordinate passages in the light of the leading truth, or to interpret all obscure passages in the light of clear passages.' ****************************** To answer your question about locating a post by its ID#: On the Home Page, in the upper right-hand corner you will find a box labeled "Quick Search". Under the words "Quick Search" you will see "Word(s) or ID#". Underneath that type in the actual ID number, for example: 91913 Do not type in "ID#". Just type the number (for example: 91913) by itself. This will take you directly to the posting you are looking for. Radioman2 |
||||||
714 | Should Benny throw the Holy Spirit? | 1 John 4:1 | Radioman2 | 91473 | ||
Please, DO worry about Benny Hinn. Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. Php 3:2 (KJV) BEWARE! |
||||||
715 | Why would you include 1 John 5:7? | 1 John 5:7 | Radioman2 | 98641 | ||
It is impossible to either take away or put back a verse that was never there to begin with. --Radioman2 |
||||||
716 | KJV "inspired"?? | 1 John 5:7 | Radioman2 | 98778 | ||
Makarios: Please do post the translators' preface to the KJV. I would truly enjoy reading it. As you know, I love (but do not hold as perfect) the KJV. Grace to you, Radioman2 |
||||||
717 | Evidence against authenticity 1 John 5:7 | 1 John 5:7 | Radioman2 | 99597 | ||
Jehonadab: Thank you for posting this additional information re 1 John 5:7. --Radioman2 |
||||||
718 | "It is never done in the New Testament" | 1 John 5:14 | Radioman2 | 94092 | ||
"It is never done in the New Testament" I am not teaching that we should not pray in the name of Jesus. What I said is: 'PRAYING in the name of Jesus doesn't mean SAYING, "In the name of Jesus."' Praying '"in the name of Jesus" means something different than repeating those words.' '...you will never see a New Testament prayer that ends with the phrase "In Jesus' name. Amen," even though the same text teaches you to pray in Jesus' name. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to draw the conclusion that we are, first, to pray in the name of Jesus, and second, praying in the name of Jesus doesn't mean ending your prayer with the phrase "In the name of Jesus. Amen," because it is never done in the New Testament.' Radioman2 ____________________ See also "In the Name of Jesus" by Gregory Koukl at the following website: (www.str.org/free/commentaries/theology/nameofje.htm) |
||||||
719 | the wicked one does not touch [him] | 1 John 5:18 | Radioman2 | 103065 | ||
We know [absolutely] that anyone born of God does not [deliberately and knowingly] practice committing sin, but the One Who was begotten of God carefully watches over and protects him [Christ's divine presence within him preserves him against the evil], and the wicked one does not lay hold (get a grip) on him or touch [him]. (AMPLIFIED 1 John 5:18) | ||||||
720 | MOSES WAS BURIED IN MT NEBO | Jude 1:9 | Radioman2 | 80712 | ||
Deut. 34:5-6 (ESV) So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord, [6] and he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows the place of his burial to this day. You write: 'Moses and Elijah still have to die.' The scripture says: "Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab." So why does he still have to die in the Tribulation? You write: 'Moses' body was taken up by Michael right after he died.See Jude1:9.' Jude 1:9 (ESV) But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, was disputing about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a blasphemous judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." OK, we've seen Jude 1:9. Where in this verse does it say a word about Moses' body being "taken up" by Michael? The verse says nothing of the kind. So what happened to the body of Moses? He was buried. Buried -- not "taken up." The Bible tells us in plain English, 'he buried him in the valley in the land of Moab.' I'll tell you what is wilder than the Bible -- it is making assertions about the Bible without any scriptural support. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ] Next > Last [40] >> |