Results 741 - 760 of 787
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Radioman2 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
741 | THE CROSS | John 3:16 | Radioman2 | 78578 | ||
For God so loved the elect Hank: Haven't you heard? For God so loved the elect, that He gave His only begotten Son, that if the elect believe in Him they shall not perish, but have eternal life. |
||||||
742 | What is meant in Genesis 17, verse 1 - 7 | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78575 | ||
"We are told from the very beginning that people were making proclamation of the name of Yahweh (Gen 4:26; 12:8)." Then Moses said to God, "Behold, I am going to the sons of Israel, and I will say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you.' Now they may say to me, 'What is His name?' What shall I say to them?" NASB Exodus 3:13 'There has been considerable debate about the name of Yahweh in the Pentateuch, primarily because of the source critical approach that tried to argue that the name Yahweh was not known in antiquity. The argument of this whole section nullifies that view. The idea that God's name was revealed only here raises the question of what he was called earlier. The word "God" is not a name. "El Shaddai" is used only a few times in Genesis. But Israel would not have had a nameless deity-especially since we are told from the very beginning that people were making proclamation of the name of Yahweh (Gen 4:26; 12:8). 'It is possible that they did not always need a name if they were convinced that only he existed and there was no other God. But probably what Moses was anticipating was the Israelites wanting to be sure that Moses came from their God, and that some sign could prove it. They would have known his name (Yahweh), and they would have known the ways that he had manifested himself. It would do no good for Moses to come with a new name for God, for that would be like introducing them to a new God. That would in no way authenticate his call to them, only confuse; after all, they would not be expecting a new name-they had been praying to their covenant God all along. They would want to be sure that their covenant God actually had sent Moses. 'To satisfy the Israelites Moses would have had to have been familiar with the name Yahweh-as they were-and know that he appeared to individuals. They would also want to know if Yahweh had sent Moses, how this was going to work in their deliverance, because they had been crying to him for deliverance. As it turned out, the Israelites had less problem with this than Moses anticipated-they were delighted when he came. It is likely that much of this concern was Moses' own need for assurance that this was indeed the God of the fathers and that the promised deliverance was now to take place. See the discussions of this passage in the commentaries on Exodus by Benno Jacob and Umberto Cassuto. ' (Study note at Exodus 3:13, The Net Bible, (www.netbible.com)) |
||||||
743 | Taleb, Do Mat 24:29 - Rev 6:12 differ? | Matt 24:1 | Radioman2 | 78535 | ||
In Matthew 24:15 'The reference to the abomination of desolation is an allusion to Dan 9:27. Though some have seen the fulfillment of Daniel's prophecy in the actions of Antiochus IV (or a representative of his) in 167 b.c., the words of Jesus seem to indicate that Antiochus was not the final fulfillment, but that there was (from Jesus' perspective) still another fulfillment yet to come. Some argue that this was realized in a.d. 70, while others claim that it refers specifically to Antichrist and will not be fully realized until the period of the great tribulation at the end of the age (cf. Mark 13:14, 19, 24; Rev 3:10).' (Study Note 22 at Matthew 24:15 in the New English Translation (NET Bible) at (www.netbible.org/).) Note at Matthew 24:21 ' Suffering unlike anything that has happened. Some refer this event to the destruction of Jerusalem in a.d. 70. While the events of a.d. 70 may reflect somewhat the comments Jesus makes here, the reference to the scope and severity of this judgment strongly suggest that much more is in view. Most likely Jesus is referring to the great end-time judgment on Jerusalem in the great tribulation.' (Study Note 29 at Matthew 24:21 in the New English Translation (NET Bible) at (www.netbible.org/).) |
||||||
744 | What is meant in Genesis 17, verse 1 - 7 | Gen 17:1 | Radioman2 | 78531 | ||
WHEN was the name of God known? Genesis 4:26 American Standard Version (ASV) Genesis 4:26 And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah. NASB Genesis 4:26 To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD. Genesis 12:8 ASV Genesis 12:8 And he (Abram) removed from thence unto the mountain on the east of Beth-el, and pitched his tent, having Beth-el on the west, and Ai on the east: and there he builded an altar unto Jehovah, and called upon the name of Jehovah. NASB Genesis 12:8 Then he (Abram) proceeded from there to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east; and there he built an altar to the LORD and called upon the name of the LORD. For more information see Study Note #45 at Exodus 3:13 in the New English Translation (NET Bible) at (www.netbible.org/). |
||||||
745 | Is Jezebel part of the church? | Rev 2:20 | Radioman2 | 78222 | ||
THANK YOU, Joe, for setting the record straight regarding the theory of the Jezebel spirit. I've been hearing about this non-scriptural teaching for years. The notion of a Jezebel spirit in the church is just NOT in the Bible - period. In this thread I've seen a lot of talk, a lot of speculation, but only a few scripture references. These references tell about human beings who lived in the past, but there are none that say anything about a Jezebel spirit influencing the church. It just isn't there. |
||||||
746 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78126 | ||
John 17:3 and the Only True God "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent," (John 17:3, NASB). The Jehovah's Witnesses, among others, cite John 17:3 as a proof text to deny the Trinity and claim that Jesus Christ is not God. They reason is that if Jesus were God, then He would not have called the Father, "the only true God." If the Father is the only true God, then it must require that Jesus cannot be God. First of all, it is not proper to make a theological doctrine out of one verse. Of this the Jehovah's Witnesses are sometimes guilty. Nevertheless, they do tend to take one or two verses on a subject and use them to interpret all the others. Instead of getting a balanced position, they arrive at an interpretation that is in agreement with their theological position. This is called "proof-texting" and is something the Jehovah's Witnesses do frequently. Second, the context of Jesus' comment was that He was speaking as a man to His God. Remember, Jesus is both God and man, second person of the Trinity, the word made flesh (John 1:1,14). Since He was both divine and man, as a man He would naturally, and properly say that His Father was the only True God. He was not denying His own divinity, but affirming the Trueness of God as was done in the OT: “And now, O Lord our God, deliver us from his hand that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that Thou alone, Lord, art God,” (Isaiah 37:20). The truth is that Jesus was a man made under the Law (Gal. 4:4) and as a man He would be subject to God. Only in this case, Jesus was subject to the Father. That is why Jesus called the Father the only true God. But it is not a phrase that excludes Christ for Christ Himself said "Before Abraham was, I am" (John 8:58) and did not deny being called God by Thomas in John 20:28. Third, John 17:3 must be examined in the light of the totality of scripture. We see that Jesus is called God in John 1:1,14; 8:58; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:8. Therefore, John 17:3 cannot be interpreted in a way that disagrees with other scriptures. Of course, some people simply state that John 17:3 cannot allow for Jesus being God. But the simple fact is that Jesus is called God by God and others. Therefore, the whole of scripture must be harmonized. Fourth, this verse reflects the sonship of Jesus. The Father and the Son have a unique relationship. Jesus is the eternal Son. The terms Father and Son denote a relationship which is why God is called the God of the Son in 2 Cor. 11:31. Fifth, if we are to be consistent using the Jehovah's Witness logic that the Father is the only true God, then the following verses present a problem -- if we use their logic. "For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ," (Jude 4, NASB). Does this mean that the Father is not our Master and Lord? Of course not. Yet, Jesus is called our only Master and Lord. "There was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him," (John 1:9-10). Here we see Jesus being called the true light. Does this mean that the Father is not the true light? If not, then we have both the Son and the Father being the true light. "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone," (Mark 10:18, NASB). Does this verse mean that Jesus is not good? Jesus said only God was good. Then, if we use the Jehovah's Witness logic, Jesus is not good. Of course, that doesn't make any sense. “I, even I, am the Lord [YHW]; And there is no savior besides Me," (Isaiah 43:11). We know that Jesus is the Savior. Again, according to Witness logic, Jesus could not be the Savior since the Bible tells us that YHWH is the only Savior. "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord [YHWH], am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone,'" (Isaiah 44:24, NASB). According to John 1:3 and Col. 1:16-17 Jesus made all things. With JW logic would have a problem. Col. 1:16-17 says, "For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together," (NASB). As we can see, we cannot simply make a doctrine out of one verse. To do so is to invite error and it only serves to use the Bible to validate preconceived ideas about doctrine. (http://www.carm.org/jw/John17_3.htm) |
||||||
747 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78120 | ||
New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses) The following quotes are taken from language scholars who study the Greek language of the New Testament and are offering their opinions as to the validity of John 1:1. "...the Word was a god." John 1:1 (New World Translation) Dr. Paul L. Kaufman of Portland, Oregon: "The Jehovah's Witnesses people evidence an abysmal ignorance of the basic tenets of Greek grammar in their mistranslation of John 1:1." Dr. Charles L. Feinberg of La Mirada, California: "I can assure you that the rendering which the Jehovah's Witnesses give John 1:1 is not held by any reputable Greek scholar." Dr. James L. Boyer of Winona Lake, Indiana: "I have never heard of, or read of any Greek Scholar who would have agreed to the interpretation of this verse insisted upon by the Jehovah's Witnesses...I have never encountered one of them who had any knowledge of the Greek language." Dr. Walter R. Martin (who does not teach Greek but has studied the language): "The translation...'a god' instead of 'God' is erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship, ancient or contemporary and is a translation rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language may of whom are not even Christians, and cannot fairly be said to be biased in favor of the orthodox contention." Dr. J. R. Mantey (who is quoted on pages 1158-1159 of the Witnesses own Kingdom interlinear Translation): "A shocking mistranslation." "Obsolete and incorrect." "It is neither scholarly nor reasonable to translate John 1:1 'The Word was a god.'" Dr. Bruce M. Metzger of Princeton (Professor of New Testament Language and Literature): "A frightful mistranslation." "Erroneous" and "pernicious" "reprehensible" "If the Jehovah's Witnesses take this translation seriously, they are polytheists." Dr. Samuel J. Mikolaski of Zurich, Switzerland: "This anarthrous (used without the article) construction does not mean what the indefinite article 'a' means in English. It is monstrous to translate the phrase 'the Word was a god.'" Dr. William Barclay of the University of Glasgow, Scotland: "The deliberate distortion of truth by this sect is seen in their New testament translations. John 1:1 is translated: '...the Word was a god, ' a translation which is grammatically impossible...It is abundantly clear that a sect which can translate the New Testament like that is intellectually dishonest." Dr. F. F. Bruce of the University of Manchester, England: "Much is made by Arian amateur grammarians of the omission of the definite article with 'God' in the phrase 'And the Word was God.' Such an omission is common with nouns in a predicative construction...'a god' would be totally indefensible." [Barclay and Bruce are generally regarded as Great Britain's leading Greek scholars. Both have New Testament translations in print!] Dr. Ernest C. Colwell of the University of Chicago: "A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb...this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas. 'My Lord and my God.' - John 20:28" Dr. Phillip B. Harner of Heidelberg College: "The verb preceding an anarthrous predicate, would probably mean that the LOGOS was 'a god' or a divine being of some kind, belonging to the general category of THEOS but as a distinct being from HO THEOS. In the form that John actually uses, the word "THEOS" is places at the beginning for emphasis." Dr. J. Johnson of California State University, Long Beach: "No justification whatsoever for translating THEOS EN HO LOGOS as 'the Word was a god.' There is no syntactical parallel to Acts 28:6 where there is a statement in indirect discourse; John 1:1 is direct....I am neither a Christian nor a Trinitarian." (http://www.soulright.com/nwt.html ) |
||||||
748 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78116 | ||
Yes, you did say the NASB. No, you did not say NAB in any other post except this one. The post to which I am replying, ID# 78111, is the only one you have made today that contains "NAB". - - - - - - - - - - Further searching has revealed that you NEVER used the word "NAB" in anything you have posted, except for ID# 78111. |
||||||
749 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78112 | ||
The New World Translation Dr. Julius R. Mantey was a first-rate scholar who studied Greek for more than 65 years. He was well known for A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, which he co-authored with Dr. H. E. Dana. The following is a discussion that took place between Dr. Martin and Dr. Mantey on the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation. (...) Dr. Martin: I don’t know whether you’re aware of it, but there is not a single Greek scholar in the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. I did everything I could to find out the names of the translating committee of the NWT, and the Watchtower wouldn’t tell me a thing. Finally, an ex-JW who knew the committee members personally told me who they were, and the men on that committee could not read New Testament Greek; nor could they read Hebrew; nor did they have any knowledge of systematic theology — except what they had learned from the Watchtower. Only one of them had been to college, and he had dropped out after a year. He briefly studied the biblical languages while there. Dr. Mantey: He was born in Greece, wasn’t he? Dr. Martin: Yes, he read modern Greek, and I met him when I visited the Watchtower. I asked him to read John 1:1 in the Greek and then said, “How would you translate it?” He said: “Well, ‘the word was a god.”’ I said: “What is the subject of the sentence?” He just looked at me. So I repeated. “What is the subject of the sentence?” He didn’t know. This was the only person in the Watchtower to read Greek and he didn’t know the subject of the sentence in John 1:1. And these were the people who wrote back to you and said their opinion was as good as yours. Dr. Mantey: That’s right. Dr. Martin: Often we find JW publications quoting scholars. Do they quote these people in context? Dr. Mantey: No. They use this device to fool people into thinking that scholars agree with the JWs. Out of all the Greek professors, grammarians, and commentators they have quoted, only one (a Unitarian) agreed that ‘The word was a god.” Dr. Martin: You have been quoted as saying that the translators of the NWT are “diabolical deceivers.” Dr. Mantey: Yes. The translation is deceptive, and I believe it’s a terrible thing for a person to be deceived and go into eternity lost, forever lost because somebody deliberately misled him by distorting the Scripture! Dr. Martin: What would you say to a JW who was looking for the truth? Dr. Mantey: I would advise him to get a translation other than the NWT, because ninety-nine percent of the scholars of the world who know Greek and who have helped translate the Bible are in disagreement with the JWs. People who are looking for the truth ought to know what the majority of the scholars really believe. They should not allow themselves to be misled by the JWs and end up in hell. (www.equip.org/search/) These words were excerpted from the tape, "Martin and Mantey on the New World Translation" It is available from CRI. |
||||||
750 | Is the NWT more reliable than the NASB? | Bible general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 78108 | ||
'Examining Translations with Jehovah's Witnesses by Rachel D. Ramer' '(Note: numbers that appear in in the following text are footnote numbers. To read the footnotes, see www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm) ' Would you trust a medical doctor who, in the name of humility, refused to reveal where he or she went to medical school? Of course not. So why do Jehovah's Witnesses trust the "translators" of the New World Translation (NWT) who are so "humble" that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society won't reveal their names or credentials? In technical fields such as medicine, engineering, and translating, lack of training can cause physical - or spiritual - death. Displaying credentials is not pride, but accountability. ' Nevertheless, Jehovah's Witnesses read in the foreword of NWT (1984 edition) these seemingly comforting words: "It is a very responsible thing to translate the Holy Scriptures from their original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek into modern speech....The translators of this work, who fear and love the Divine Author of the Holy Scriptures, feel toward Him a special responsibility to transmit his thoughts and declarations as accurately as possible." ' With such a statement, why should Jehovah's Witnesses question their translation? Yet, observant Christians can help them do just that. ' Although it is essential for translators to know the languages they are translating, this doesn't mean we have to know Greek or Hebrew to catch the differences in translations. Simple observation can be powerful. 'Observing the Difference ' Jehovah's Witnesses will often refer to NWT's John 17:3, "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ" (emphasis added). In response, say to the Jehovah's Witnesses, "That sounds different to me." Then read the verse in a credible translation such as the King James Version (KJV), the New International Version (NIV), or the New American Standard Bible (NASB), all with a close variation of "that they may know You." Read all three if the Witnesses doubt the consistency. Mere agreement among translations bears weight. ' Discuss the difference between knowing a friend or taking in knowledge of someone, like studying Abraham Lincoln. Then read Jesus' words in John 5:39-40: "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life" (NIV). ' In NWT's Matthew 10:32-33, Jesus says, "Everyone, then, that confesses union with me before men, I will also confess union with him before my Father," instead of "confesses me before men." This takes the emphasis off of Jesus and puts it on something Jesus represents. Witnesses will insist there is no difference. Ask them what it means to confess Jesus - what is its purpose? It is primarily to acknowledge who He is - not what He stands for - the very issue the Watchtower wishes to cloud! 'Only the Context Knows for Sure ' When two visiting Witnesses emphasized the importance of the name Jehovah, they brought to my attention the verse: "Everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved" (Rom. 10:13, NWT). I responded, "I've read that the Old Testament word for Yahweh or Jehovah is never used in the New Testament1 Why would your translation say 'Jehovah'?" ' "It's only common sense," one answered, "to use the name Jehovah since this is a quote from the Old Testament referring to Jehovah" (see Joel 2:32). ' "Except," I countered, "in Romans, Paul was just referring to the 'Lord Jesus' specifically. When he used the term "Lord" in verse 13, he meant Jesus. He knew he was quoting the Old Testament. He was equating Jesus with Jehovah." ' Most Jehovah's Witnesses are fooled by their organization's use of Greek lexicons or expository dictionaries. William Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words was appealed to 52 times in their encyclopedia, Insights on the Scriptures, even though Vine strongly disagreed with their teachings.2 From sources such as these the Watchtower can sometimes obtain an altered wording for a critical passage and feel justified.' (To read the rest of the article, see www.equip.org/free/DJ511.htm) |
||||||
751 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | Radioman2 | 77992 | ||
The unfortunate Radioman of long ago forgot his password, so he had to re-register and append a "2" to his original user name. :-) Thanks for the welcome. And thank you for hanging in there with consistently reasonable, scriptural and accurate postings. Radioman2 |
||||||
752 | Faith plus Baptism or Faith alone? | Matt 7:13 | Radioman2 | 77974 | ||
Tim: You write: "Are you going to respond to every single post on baptism, no matter how old? :-)" Fact: As of 03-11-2003, at 6:30 p.m., this forum has received more than 1,000 Questions, Answers and Notes whose contents include the word "baptism." I offer this information without comment. Keep up the good work, Tim. Radioman2 |
||||||
753 | Identifying the born again moment | NT general Archive 1 | Radioman2 | 77863 | ||
A time of decision doesn't necessarily prove or disprove the existence of saving faith. 'A Time of Decision 'So often people say things like: "Well, I know I'm a Christian, because I remember when I signed the card," or "I remember when I prayed a prayer," or "I remember when I walked the aisle" or "went forward in church." A person may remember exactly when it happened and where they were when "it" happened, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. Our salvation is not verified by a past moment. Many people have prayed prayers, gone forward in church services, signed cards, gone into prayer rooms, BEEN BAPTIZED, and joined churches without ever experiencing genuine saving faith.' (emphasis mine) (www.gty.org/IssuesandAnswers/archive/genuinefaith.htm) |
||||||
754 | Where is "backsliding" in the NT? | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77860 | ||
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Nowhere in Matthew 24:12 is there any form of THE ENGLISH WORD b-a-c-k-s-l-i-d-i-n-g. I say again: If you can, show me the book, show me the chapter, and show me the verse where any form of the word "backsliding" appears in the NT. - - - - - - - - - - Once again, nowhere in the NT do we find the *word* "backsliding". What we do find in the NT is the English translation of the Greek word for "apostasy" (Apostasia (Strong's #646) defined as "a falling away, defection, apostasy." The English translation of the Greek word appears twice in the KJV New Testament. It is translated "to forsake" in Acts 21:21 and "falling away" in 2 Thess. 2:3. Apostasy defined and summarized: "Apostasy, Summary: Apostasy, "falling away," is the act of professed Christians who deliberately reject revealed truth "(1) as to the deity of Jesus Christ, and "(2) redemption through His atoning and redeeming sacrifice (1 John 4:1-3; Philippians 3:18 ; 2 Peter 2:1). Apostasy differs from error concerning truth, which may be the result of ignorance (Acts 19:1-6) or heresy, which may be due to the sphere of Satan (2 Timothy 2:25,26) both of which may consist with true faith. The apostate is perfectly described in (2 Timothy 4:3,4). Apostates depart from the faith, but not from the outward profession of Christianity (2 Timothy 3:5). Apostate teachers are described in: 2 Timothy 4:3; 2 Peter 2:1-19; Jude 1:4,8,11-13,16 . "Apostasy in the church, as in Israel (Isaiah 1:5,6; 5:5-7) is irremediable, and awaits judgment (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 ; 2 Peter 2:17,21; Jude 1:11-15; Revelation 3:14-16.)" Bibliography Information Scofield, C.I. "Scofield Reference Notes on 2 Tim 3". "Scofield Reference Notes (1917 Edition)". http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/ScofieldReferenceNotes/ 1917. |
||||||
755 | 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. |
||||||
756 | Ten Commandments or Nine in force? | Heb 8:13 | Radioman2 | 77743 | ||
I don't care to deal with the question of how many of the 10 Commandments are in force? I did deal with it on Fri 03/7/03. Following is a repost for those who missed it. "Are the Sabbath laws binding on Christians today? " "We believe the Old Testament regulations governing Sabbath observances are ceremonial, not moral, aspects of the law. As such, they are no longer in force, but have passed away along with the sacrificial system, the Levitical priesthood, and all other aspects of Moses' law that prefigured Christ. . . . Here are the reasons we hold this view. "In Colossians 2:16-17, Paul explicitly refers to the Sabbath as a shadow of Christ, which is no longer binding since the substance (Christ) has come. It is quite clear in those verses that the weekly Sabbath is in view. The phrase "a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day" refers to the annual, monthly, and weekly holy days of the Jewish calendar (cf. 1 Chronicles 23:31; 2 Chronicles 2:4; 31:3; Ezekiel 45:17; Hosea 2:11). If Paul were referring to special ceremonial dates of rest in that passage, why would he have used the word "Sabbath?" He had already mentioned the ceremonial dates when he spoke of festivals and new moons. "The Sabbath was the sign to Israel of the Mosaic Covenant (Exodus 31:16-17; Ezekiel 20:12; Nehemiah 9:14). Since we are now under the New Covenant (Hebrews 8), we are no longer required to observe the sign of the Mosaic Covenant. "The New Testament never commands Christians to observe the Sabbath. "In our only glimpse of an early church worship service in the New Testament, the church met on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7). "Nowhere in the Old Testament are the Gentile nations commanded to observe the Sabbath or condemned for failing to do so. That is certainly strange if Sabbath observance were meant to be an eternal moral principle. "There is no evidence in the Bible of anyone keeping the Sabbath before the time of Moses, nor are there any commands in the Bible to keep the Sabbath before the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai. "When the Apostles met at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15), they did not impose Sabbath keeping on the Gentile believers. "The apostle Paul warned the Gentiles about many different sins in his epistles, but breaking the Sabbath was never one of them. "In Galatians 4:10-11, Paul rebukes the Galatians for thinking God expected them to observe special days (including the Sabbath). "In Romans 14:5, Paul forbids those who observe the Sabbath (these were no doubt Jewish believers) to condemn those who do not (Gentile believers). "The early church fathers, from Ignatius to Augustine, taught that the Old Testament Sabbath had been abolished and that the first day of the week (Sunday) was the day when Christians should meet for worship (contrary to the claim of many seventh-day sabbatarians who claim that Sunday worship was not instituted until the fourth century). "Sunday has not replaced Saturday as the Sabbath. Rather the Lord's Day is a time when believers gather to commemorate His resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week. Every day to the believer is one of Sabbath rest, since we have ceased from our spiritual labor and are resting in the salvation of the Lord (Hebrews 4:9-11). "So while we still follow the pattern of designating one day of the week a day for the Lord's people to gather in worship, we do not refer to this as "the Sabbath." (www.gty.org) |
||||||
757 | Ten Commandments or Nine in force? | Heb 8:13 | Radioman2 | 77737 | ||
In the Mosaic Law there are 613 commandments. Neither nine nor ten, but 613. | ||||||
758 | Where is "backsliding" in the NT? | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77736 | ||
Hebrews 10:39 (NKJV) But we are not of those who draw back to perdition, but of those who believe to the saving of the soul. 10:39 "draw back to perdition. The writer expresses confidence that believing readers ("we") will not be counted among "those" who fall away to destruction" (MacArthur Study Bible). 1 John 2:19 (NKJV) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. 2:19 "They went out from us...none of them were of us. The first characteristic mentioned of antichrists, i.e., false teachers and deceivers (vv. 22-26), is that they depart from the faithful. They arise from within the church and depart from true fellowship and lead people out with them. "The verse also places emphasis on the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints. Those genuinely born again endure in faith and fellowship and the truth (1 Cor. 11:19; 2 Tim. 2:12). The ultimate test of true Christianity is endurance (Mark 13:13; Heb. 3:14) The departure of people from the truth and the church is their unmasking" (MacArthur Study Bible). |
||||||
759 | One lamb per household | Ex 12:3 | Radioman2 | 77735 | ||
NASB Acts 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household." "and your household." These words must be connected with "believe" as well as "be saved." Each member of the household must believe in order to be saved. |
||||||
760 | Where is "backsliding" in the NT? | Rom 8:1 | Radioman2 | 77728 | ||
Thank you for your reply. I appreciate your interest. But my question remains: Can you find any form of the *word* backsliding in the NT? Can you find the English word 'backsliding' (b-a-c-k-s-l-i-d-i-n-g) or any of its forms (e.g., backslide, backslidden, backslider) in the NT? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 ] Next > Last [40] >> |