Viewing page: 1 of 3
Next Discussion Page >
1 2 3
Please Sign In or Register to post comments...
Which best represents the problem with the comment?
He goes on...
"Even in Old Testament times the sabbath was called the Lord's day, and is fitly called so still; and for a further reason, it is the Lord Christ's day, #Re 1:10|. If we thus remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, we shall have the comfort and profit of it, and have reason to say, It is good to draw near to God."
The above quotes from Henry and many others from him point to the weekly sabbath as the Lord's Day. No problem, until we read this supposed Commentary by Matthew Henry, 1710 from Acts 20:7-12,
"They came together on the first day of the week, the Lord's day. It is to be religiously observed by all disciples of Christ. In the breaking of the bread, not only the breaking of Christ's body for us, to be a sacrifice for our sins, is remembered, but the breaking of Christ's body to us, to be food and a feast for our souls, is signified. In the early times it was the custom to receive the Lord's supper every Lord's day, thus celebrating the memorial of Christ's death."
These two Commentary's by Matthew Henry, 1710 are in conflict with each other. Question: Did someone tamper with the later Commentary by Matthew Henry, 1710? If so, what purpose? Sun-day worship? Seems like it to me.
I think that you have been given mostly good references to commentaries. The only one I would not recommend is Bullinger, as he was am Ultra-dispensationalist. You may wish to find out more about Ultra dispensationalism before referring to Bullinger to see what e promoted.
I have not spent much time reading commentaries or online sites for most of my life. But I find them helpful when I wish to get a bit more information about certain things presented in Scripture. I often find that after I have sought understanding from the Spirit in Scriptures, and then I read a commentary or site, there is so much agreement with what I understood from Scripture and what the commentators understood. So, seeking such sources can be helpful. I would not discourage you from checking for more understanding using them. I would not read Bullinger, though.
Did figured of speech in the bible among others and Bishop K.C. Pillow who
Light through an eastern window. He was raised in Hindu culture and got
Born again and wrote books on the eastern thought in scripture related to
The gospel message and meaning.
It looks like some are questioning whether its morally right to use a commentary. Nothing replaces reading or hearing God's word directly. Ive never met anyone who disagrees with that. But a commentary is just someones interpretation or opinion. I see this as no different than a sermon or a bible study or discussion on this site. I do not believe its wrong to seek other perspectives of Gods word. of course discernment should always be used, not accepting any opinion as truth without a proper vetting including prayer.
Jesus did not need to read any commentaries because He was God in the flesh and had perfect understanding of Scriptures because they are His words. You nor I are not Jesus. We did not author the Scriptures nor have perfect understanding of them on our own.
Thank you for this post. We are a community of saints and need each other. We are to teach each other, for teachers are given to the church body for that purpose. We are to preach to one another, for pastors are given to the church body for that purpose. We are to evangelize, for evangelists are given to the church body for that purpose. We are to build each other up in the most holy faith, which involves doctrinal instruction as well as Bible reading. We are to check whatever we hear or read from others against the Scripture, but this does not mean that we only read the Bible and do not listen to or read another person expounding on the Scriptures.
I realize that each believer is free to choose the approach to learning Scriptural truths that they believe is best. For me, I believe that God planned for us to be united together with Jesus in a common fellowship (body) where we worship, serve on another, and learn from each other communally rather than as individuals who wish to be "loners" and only use their own minds, reason, and understanding in learning Scriptural truths from the Bible. These do use something other than the Bible -their own minds, whether they will admit it or not. But, I do believe that the Bible does say in Proverbs 11:14 that "where there is no counsel, the people all; but in the multitude of counselor there is safety." This wisdom is from God and therefore good to follow. We need one another to help with our growth in knowledge of God, Jesus, and the Scriptures.
So yes, I understand the absolute worth of just reading from the Bible without resorting to any other views or Bible helps, but can't seem to place much difference between what may be written on the printed page to what is shared from the pulpit. Am I assessing this correctly or am I missing out on something? Or, even on these pages here, maybe some of should do as a couple of others do when answering a question: just give our answers only as listed Scriptures to look up & prayerfully consider so as to gain the true answer they seek.
Writings were handed to Jesus and he found the place where it was written.
What makes that incredible is the original scrolls had no chapters no headings
They were just running hand continuous and He found the place where it was
Written concerning His Ministry. The scrolls in the temple and the synagogues
We're His main source also what God showed Him by the spirit.
Thanks that one will do for me .
Maybe the scriptures?
29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears. 32 And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. 33 I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.
These verses signified what happened when Apostles were killed. Any Religious sect Leaders who perverted the church will account to all their lies. From the beginning till end of the Acts of the Apostle, Luke the wrier clearly stated in transitional way who God chosen Apostle after Judas Iscariot. God is so bold that after he died he would not let any man decide the most important decision here on earth. The fallacy of any religious sect is that they could not outsmart God. We are purchased with Jesus Christ blood. Jesus knows who are those who follows men and not God. That makes the division who are the sheep and the goat. We are in perilous times and this warning has been written 2,000 years ago. There is an important reason why Paul, Jesus Christ chosen 12th Apostle, is our Apostle Today for the Jews first then to Gentiles, both Jews and Gentiles can be saved before Jesus comes, as we are warned in 2 Corinthians 6 in its entirety: Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,. Then reiterated in Revelation 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and
May God richly bless each and everyone that did reply
In both examples, the meaning is 'much or greatly'. It's just the way our language can be sometimes used, sadly, making it a little more complex for many readers.
I'm sure they were greatly conforted bit that is not what is writen.
Thank you for the reply
It states they were NOT a little comforted
Other versions they were
I am perplexed why they would not be conforted
I guess I will only give a little reply to this question from what I perceive. To begin with Lucifer it is known, I believe, that he was such a perfect angel, created by God, that he began to exult himself even to the point he wanted to be seated on God's throne. Then maybe when God put him in his place he is said to have gathered 1/3 of the angels in Heaven to follow him and make war against God. If this is correct here is a couple Scriptures of these things. Revelation 12:3-4, Revelation 12:7-9.
There is also the account of "other angels" who were banished, from Heaven, for what they did. In the Bible this account is not very detailed of the sons of God(angels) coming down and mingling with the daughters of men and making "giants" or hybrid angel/humans. Genesis 6. This was the main reason why God flooded the world with Noah and the ark etc. In the book of Enoch this story is much more detailed about what happened.
Verses of the "angels that sinned" 2 Peter 2:4-5, Jude 1:6. It is shown that even angels have free will.
As there may have been more to your question I hope what I have stated may have helped somewhat for an answer.
The LORD granted unto the apostles signs and wonders to be done by their hands to validate their testimony of grace ( Acts 14:3; Romans 15:19).
In a similar fashion, Peter was used of the LORD to restore Tabitha, known as Dorcas, back to life in Acts 9.