Results 441 - 460 of 1443
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Emmaus Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
441 | How to compare Genesis 3 with John 19 ? | Gen 3:15 | Emmaus | 80369 | ||
Like the tree of Life for example. One in the Garden od Eden and on on calvary. Do you see any others? Emmaus |
||||||
442 | How to compare Genesis 3 with John 19 ? | Gen 3:15 | Emmaus | 80372 | ||
Ray, There is the tree of Life in the garden, which Adam rejected in favor of the Tree of Knowledge. But Jesus chose to accept the cross, having rejected the temptations of Satan, which is the Tree of life shown by the Resurrection. Then there are the thorns of Gen 3:18 and the thorns in John 19:2. Do you see any others? Emmaus |
||||||
443 | How to compare Genesis 3 with John 19 ? | Gen 3:15 | Emmaus | 80417 | ||
Searcher and Ray, We have the tree of Life in the Garden and on Calvary where "there was a garden". John 19:41 We have Adam who gave into temptation and chose the Tree of Knowledge over the tree of Life and Jesus who resisted temptation and clung to the tree of Life, the cross, as we see by the Resurrection. We have the serpent asking "did God really say that" and Pilate asking "what is truth.?" We have the thorns of punishment and the crown of thorns. We have the sweat of the brow of punishment and the sweating of blood. We have the Cherubim garding the Garden and the angels at the tomb in the garden. We have Adam the original gardener and Jesus who is mistaken for the gardener. There may be more in other details. Just an interesting study. Emmaus |
||||||
444 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | Emmaus | 110957 | ||
Jon, You seem to have an extraordinary high standard for proofs. Mine may not satisfy you, but here is my reasoning from Scripture. Many hold that the geneology of Luke is Mary's geneology. But even if that was not the case, under Jewsish law an adopted son has the same status as a natural son and so the geneology of Joseph would applied to Jesus, just as our status as adopted children of God (see Romans) grants us status in the family of God. Emmaus |
||||||
445 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | Emmaus | 110960 | ||
Jon, Don't you think the earliest Christians had the same question you do? How do you think they resolved them? And who or what, in your opinion, is the final arbiter of the "TRUTH" of any interpretation of ambiguous passages of Scripture? The Scripture, you , some other authority? I know my answer to those questions, but I am from a minority camp on the foruma dni don't think you are in that particular camp, so what is your answer? Emmaus Emmaus |
||||||
446 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | Emmaus | 110963 | ||
Jon, What do you think was the purpose of Matthew's geneology of Jesus through Joseph, his foster father, if it did not mean anything to the Jews, whom Matthew was addressing? He used that geneology to adress the question of whether or not Jesus fulfilled the Scriptures that said the Messiah would be of the line of David. Yet at the same time Matthew affirmed the virgin birth of Jesus through Mary? Would Matthew, a Jew, have used such logic, if it did not fulfill the demands of the prophets and the Law and if he thought it would not satify the questions being raised by his audience of Jews and Jewish Christians? Emmaus |
||||||
447 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | Emmaus | 110964 | ||
Jon, The Catholic minority camp, that believes in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. But here I try to work within the parameters of the beliefs of the majority of the forum and the forum's sponsor, which is Sola Scriptura. Emmaus |
||||||
448 | How was Jesus of David's seed/line? | Gen 3:15 | Emmaus | 110968 | ||
Jon, At this point you are not making sense. If we have a "wrong translation" and Matthew really meant that Jesus was "the sired son of maiden Mary" why would Matthew assert the virgin bith? I think I am at the end of my thread. Perhaps you will find answers to your questions elsewhere. I am inadequate to the task. Emmaus |
||||||
449 | Significance of wording in Genesis | Gen 4:1 | Emmaus | 163155 | ||
Doug, I take no offense and I am one of the young old timers who go back to 2001 on the study bible forum. Emmaus |
||||||
450 | Significance of wording in Genesis | Gen 4:1 | Emmaus | 163965 | ||
DUGinSD, If they are Bible questions the forum would be the proprer place. If not, elsewhere. My e-mail address is in my profile if I can be of any assistance. Emmaus |
||||||
451 | Robots? | Gen 4:7 | Emmaus | 79757 | ||
Radioman, I always find what I was taught on this subject to be the most balanced approach to this question. You may find it interesting even if you do not agree with all of it. http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT6.HTM#1 Emmaus |
||||||
452 | Robots? | Gen 4:7 | Emmaus | 79776 | ||
I believe it is an opinion based on the authority of God's word. You may have noticed the scriptural citations in the endnotes. | ||||||
453 | was Noah restrained from his wife whil | Gen 9:1 | Emmaus | 69207 | ||
Angelwings, I can't find it in the Bible either. I don't think it is there. Emmaus |
||||||
454 | How old was Abraham when he left Ur? | Gen 12:4 | Emmaus | 152024 | ||
timurray, Even as I answered your question I wondered if it was actually about UR rather than Haran. I looked at the context and in Genesis and could not see enough data to answer your question as it relates to Ur rather than Haran. Perhaps someone else will see something I did not. Emmaus |
||||||
455 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | Emmaus | 36190 | ||
Mist, You said: "If what you said about "firstborn" as not meaning the phisically "firstborn" but who was blessed, then we should see this repeated tens of times in other situations, this however is not the case." It is in fact a recurring OT theme. See Cain and Abel, Essau and Jacob, Reuben and Joseph. Not tens of times but the most important times. Emmaus |
||||||
456 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | Emmaus | 36354 | ||
Mist, I don't know that I have much to add to your conversation other than what I have already posted. It is apparent that the technical "first born" with certain inheritance rights can lose them to another son as in the case of Esaau selling his bithright to Jacob for a mess of pottage and later Jacob tricking Isaac into giving him the blessing. Jacob's name meaning supplanter. or Abel's receiving the blessing of God being pleased with his sacrifice and rejecting Cain's or Reuben being supplanted in his father's favor by Joseph the late born child of his first love Rachel. God is not bound by the machinations of men who think they know better how to accomplish His ends. He blesses whom He will and even uses the headstrong when they think they are making things happen in their own way. I do have a book recommendation for you. If you do not already have it or have not read it, I recommend, Answering Islam by Norman L Geisler and Abdul Saleeb from Baker Books. You can probably get it through Amazon on the web or order it through a bookstore. I also recommend this link http://www.ewtn.com/library/HOMELIBR/HERESY4.TXT which is a chapter from a book by Hilaire Belloc titled The Great Heresies. This particular chapter is title The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed. It is more an historical book from the Catholic Christian European perspective. It was written in the 1930s when all Islam was prostrate at the feet of colonial powers, but was prophetic in predicting that Islam would rise again. It does touch on some theology but is mostly history and very readable. It is about 40 pages if printed out. Emmaus |
||||||
457 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | Emmaus | 36379 | ||
Mist, I was not aware I was addressing myself or the text to a Muslim unless you are one. I also made plain the orientation of the book. Your judgment seems rather hasty after only two pages. I also made plain this more a historical persepective than theological. But you may have other more appealing Christian responses to or criitiques of Islam to pursue. I would point out though that memory not translation was the primary mode of transmission among most people who were illierate at that time. And most Christians in the area spoke Arabic or Aramaic and churches had manuscript bibles in those language. Mohammed obviously learned much and remembered much both Christian and Jewish in his business travels. His illiteracy was neither unusual for the time nor a hindrance to his success in business and society as you obviously know. You seem to be speaking from the position of accepting the Koran as divine revelation rather than taking the objective stand that you previously indicated. I think I may have offended you because you are a believer in Islam. I know Tim earlier sensed the same possibility. You have not stated your personal belief, but you do know ours. I will leave you and Tim to continue the conversation. Emmaus |
||||||
458 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | Emmaus | 36532 | ||
Mist, We are all seeking the truth, but we and your Muslim contacts are willing to say from what position we stand in our search. You are not willing to tell us where you stand or what your point of reference is as you search. It is not your search for truth that irritates your contacts on both sides but you lack of transparency about what you believe. You must believe something. Everyone does. "As for Christians, we know quite well that Muhammad never encountered any at the time before Hijra (before going to Madina). Jews were concentrated in Madina also." How do we know this quite well? Was not Mohammed a caravan trader? Did he not travel far and deal with many communities including Christians and Jews? It is extremely unlikely he dealt only with local pagans in his trade. Logic my friend. Emmaus |
||||||
459 | no sperm upon the ground | Gen 38:9 | Emmaus | 81089 | ||
EdB, " i,ve been told this is in the bible.I,ve looked and cannot find it.(do not cast thy sperm upon the ground,it is better to cast it in the belly of a whore than upon the ground." Kingbass "I have heard this saying many times, worded exactly as you have quoted it and it is no where to be found in the Protestant Bible. I suspect it's origins is from Catholicism. It may possibly be taught in Catholic Catechism. Maybe our friend Emmaus can shed some light on the teaching." EdB I assure you it is not Catholic teaching. I have never heard that phrase before. Why would whoring be better than spilling one's seed? That would only be encouraging and mutliplying sin wouldn't it? Emmaus |
||||||
460 | no sperm upon the ground | Gen 38:9 | Emmaus | 81095 | ||
Edb, The Catholic and Protetsant,where it is taught, prohibition against mastubation does draw from the Bibilical source of Onan's spilling his seed on the ground in Genesis 38. What is not Catholic teaching is what Kingbass quoted about it being better to spill your seed in the belly of a whore than on the ground. The quote, nowhere to be found in scripture or any Catholic teaching that I am aware of, sounds like a twisted generalization based on the facts of Genesis 38 in which Onan was killed by God for spilling his seed on the ground, but Jacob was not killed after he had sexual relations with Tamar, having been tricked by her into thinking she was a pagan temple prostitute. Tamar had to do this to Jacob in order to get the justice due her under the leverite law, which Jacob was denying her. Any such teaching as suggested would be tantamount to promoting fornication at the very least. So it is no surprise it is not found in scripture. I have never heard it myself before today. It also sound like a sinner's rationalization of one sin by saying it is less sinful than another sin. Emmaus |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ] Next > Last [73] >> |