Results 41 - 60 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | chpt 5 v 24 why did God threaten to kill | Ex 4:24 | biblicalman | 229796 | ||
... | ||||||
42 | Why is it too sacred to pronounce today? | Deut 6:5 | biblicalman | 227818 | ||
I must confess I fail to see how Jesus could have used the tetragrammaton in John 8.56-58 or that he used it anywhere else. He could not have said 'before Abraham was YHWH'. If He was speaking in Hebrew (which is unlikely) He used the first person as in Exodus 3.14 (EHYEH). Certainly it is based on the tetragrammaton but it was in no way the actual Name of God. It was an interpretation of that Name. Thus Jesus never taught the way to pronounce YHWH. His hearers took it as blasphemy because they gathered the inference of what He was saying, not because He used the Name of YHWH. That does not of course in any way invalidate Calvin's comments. | ||||||
43 | What is meant by anointed? | 1 Sam 10:1 | biblicalman | 229361 | ||
To be 'born of water' does not refer to baptism as such. It refers to the new life that springs up through rain. The coming of the Holy Spirit on men is often likened by the prophets to rain. See Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5; 55.10-13. it was this experience that Jesus wanted Nicodemus to have. It is in Isaiah 55.10-13, where he speaks of 'bringing to birth' through rain, that the idea of new birth is specifically introduced, which is why Jesus expected Nicodemus to know about it. At this stage, as far as we know, baptisms in water were not being carried out. They ceased when John was put in prison and commenced again after Jesus' resurrection. But cerainly once we have been born of water and the Spirit we should be baptised. But it is the 'baptism in the Spirit' (1 Cor 12.13; Romans 6.3) that saves us. |
||||||
44 | who was king abijah | 2 Chr 13:1 | biblicalman | 228928 | ||
Hi Sorry not to reply earlier. I missed your post. Abijah (2 Chron 13.1), also known as Abijam (1 Kings 15.1) is described as 'walking in all the sins of his father which he had done before him' (see 1 Kings 14.23-24). 'His heart was not perfect towards YHWH his God as was the heart of David his 'father'.' (1 Kings 15.3). Thus he was not seen as a good king. On the other hand God did act on his behalf during his war with Jeroboam. Thus he was not wholly bad. Best wishes |
||||||
45 | description of lucifer | Isaiah | biblicalman | 227905 | ||
Strictly of course the name Lucifer does not appear in Scripture. It is the Latin name for Venus, arising long after Isaiah's day. Isaiah used the term heylel, meaning 'shining one', a term which indicated a star. As the King of Babylon had claimed that he would 'exalt his throne above the stars of God' it is a reasonable assumption that he saw himself as a special star, a 'shining one', especially as the Babylonians worshipped 'the host of Heaven'. Certainly God would not give him this name. He was hardly a genuine shining one. Nor would Isaiah except in sarcasm. Thus we must choose between the king of Babylon and his people as the originators of the name which Isaiah took up in order to mock him. Certainly the Old Testament never gives any hint that Satan is to be seen as a shining one. Thus the clear assumption is that it was the exalted title applied to the particular king of Babylon by his people, exalting him to a place among the stars of heaven, the 'host of heaven', a title taken up by Isaiah in mockery. As D J Wiseman puts it, 'it is applied tauntingly as a title for the king of Babylon who in his glory and pomp had set himself among the gods'. | ||||||
46 | Apostles - Non-Jewish | Matthew | biblicalman | 228248 | ||
Doc has made an important point. Anyone who stood at the foot of Mount Sinai when Moses received the Law was a Jew. Large numbers of them were from the mixed multitude in Exodus 12.38. But on that day they became Jews. Many of them were not directly descended from Abraham but were descended from servants in his household (Of which he had over 1000), or from servants in the households of the other patriarchs. They had previously been adopted as 'sons of Abraham'. But not by blood. And all these joined one or other of the tribes and finally began to believe that they were descended from Jacob. Through the centuries many converts were made to YHWH and they all became 'sons of Abraham' and many were forced to become Jews in the days of the Maccabees... Many were forced to become Jews at the point of the sword, the Edomites under John Hyrcanus, the Galileans under Aristobulus. But they soon saw themselves as Jews and connected themselves with the twelve tribes. By the time of Jesus those who could trace their ancestry back by more than five generations were a rarity, and sadly they looked down on those who could not. Of course the priests and the house of David could trace their ancestry back for it was necessary if they were to fulfil their function. At that time many genealogies were invented in order to prove a descent which was not genuine. Indeed in his anger at being seen as only a 'half-Jew' Herod the Great deliberately destroyed many of the genealogical records of the Jews. But is is probable that the majority of Jews today are not directly descended by blood from Jacob. They are descended by adoption and infiltration into the tribes of Israel. |
||||||
47 | when will tribulation/rapture occur | Matthew | biblicalman | 229421 | ||
Hi, The question is which days? Commencing with a resume of history Jesus was specifically prophesying about three things: The destruction of the Temple that Jesus was looking at (verse 2-3a; vv 15-22). The second coming of Jesus Christ (verse 3b vv 27-31). The end of the world (verse 3c ch 25.31-46). Now if the Abomination of Desolation (destructive idolatry) does not refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD it would mean that (according to Matthew) Jesus had not answered the first question at all. And we should note that in fact Mark and Luke concentrate on that question of the destruction of the Temple, (they do not refer to the second coming), and Mark also speaks of the Abomination of Desolation. It would be even more strange if Mark posed only one question and did not answer it. Furthermore paralleling verse by verse with Luke we discover that the Abomination of Desolation refers to armies surrounding Jerusalem followed by the Jews being scattered among the nations until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled (Luk 21.20-24). We shouild note that the 'great tribulation' was also to be initially escaped by fleeing to the mountains suggesting that it was limited to the Jews. Unless we are trying to fit it into some prophetic scheme this great tribulation mentioned here (which is like nothing before or since) is the tribulation that commenced for the Jews when Jerusalem was surrounded and taken with horrendous slaughter and suffering, continued on through the ages in their dispersion (including the Holocaust) as Luke brings out, and is even now being experienced by Jews in many parts of the world. You will note that connected with it is the rising of false Messiahs and false prophets which certainly occurred following the fall of Jerusalem. As to being trodden down by the Gentiles ancient Jerusalem is still occupied by the Arabs, and there are at the present time serious negotiations taking place for it to be taken over by the United Nations. It will be interesting to see what happens. Best wishes |
||||||
48 | How is Jesus related to King David? | Matt 1:1 | biblicalman | 227464 | ||
One possible explanation to this question is that Mathhew is giving the line of royal descent, while Luke is giving the line of actual descent by blood. Thus Matthew lists each person who ascended the throne even if they were not strictly sons of the previous person mentioned, if the previous one died childless. Thus Joseph's father was Heli, but his right to the throne of Israel came to him because Jacob died childless. He was thus from a Jewish point of view 'the son of Jacob', that is, his heir. | ||||||
49 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228154 | ||
The major problem with the suggestion that the crucifixion took place on a Wednesady or a Thursday is as to why the women waited until the first day of the next week to take the spices to anoint the body of Jesus. They wanted to do it at the earliest possible moment. The Scripture certainly gives the impression that the delay was only of one day. Thus it is clear that the Sabbath was the normal Sabbath. It may of course also have been the festal Sabbath, but that would not cancel the fact that the Sabbath in question was the regular Sabbath i.e. Saturday. To suggest the large majority of scholars of all persuasions agree with this position because they do not know the facts of the Hebrew feast is simply laughable. Many of them are experts in the subject. |
||||||
50 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228165 | ||
There are no reliable dates for when the crucifixon took place. We do not know for sure how long Jesus' ministry lasted. We only know that it was over three years. What is sure is that if the crucifixion was on a Wednesday the women would not have waited until the first day of the week to anoint his body. They would have done it on the following day, or if that was a festal sabbath, the day after. That is conclusive against Wednesday. With regard to the guards, the women stated that they did not know how they were going to move the stone. The guards were Temple soldiers, not Roman soldiers. The seal was placed by the chief priests. They could not exact the death penalty. Possibly the women were hoping to persuade the guards to open the tomb, or if the guards were not there, one of the gardeners. That was why they sent the youngest and prettiest women ahead to spy out the situation. But that problem was there whatever day the crucifixion was. The people who say Wednesday never consider the problem of when the women went to anoint Jesus which was clearly stated to be the first day of the week. |
||||||
51 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228196 | ||
If Christ had been crucified on a Thursday then in Jewish reckoning and description he would have been in the tomb four days asnd four nights. To a Jew part of a day could be called 'a day and a night', for he spoke of the part as a whole. Jesus was a Jew and used Jewish terminology. But the conclusive factor is that if Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday the women would have taken spices to the tomb on the Friday. They wanted to anoint His body for its burial. They did not know that that had already been done. They would certainly not have waited for the body to become putrefied. So the fact that they went to the tomb on the first day of the week (because they could not on the sabbath)demonstrates the He died on the day before that sabbath, that is Friday (Greek - paraskeue - 'preparation'). |
||||||
52 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228200 | ||
hi searcher an important necessity for the argument put forward on the site you mention is that Bethany was more than a sabbath day's journey from the Temple. However in Luke 24.50 Jesus took His disciples to 'Bethany' from where He ascended, and in Acts 1.12 'they returned from the mount of olives which is a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem'. Thus that Bethany was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. Thus the Bethany that Jesus spoke of was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. That indicates that Jesus could have gone from Bethany to Jerusalem on the sabbath day which invalidates a main part of the argument. A further factor to keep in mind is that a well known Rabbi said in 100 AD, "a day and a night make an 'onoh (24 hour day)" and a portion of an 'onoh is counted as an 'onoh. this confirms that from a Jewish point of view three days and three nights (three 'onohs) could be seen as a part of a day, a day, and a part of a day, which fits in with 'the third day'. The writer also dismisses the idea that the Jews in Jesus time ensured that two sabbaths never followed each other successively, although admitting that later on they did ensure it. but from what we know of the Rabbis they would certainly have found some way of preventing it happening in Jesus day if it was found to be such a problem later on. There is no proof that they did not. Furthermore on the high sabbath it was permissible to buy food for the feast. it is therefore equally likely that a body could be anointed on a high sabbath, especially if it was consecutive with a normal sabbath. thus if that were the case (and it is probable. they would not want to leave a body two days before anointing it) the women could have anointed the body earlier if Jesus died on a thursday. Thus many doubts must be placed on the reasoning of the article until that can definitely be excluded we mustg see the probability (as one of his witnesses said) that two sabbaths could not follow each other successively Best wishes |
||||||
53 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228206 | ||
hi searcher you are assuming that Bethany is simply the name of a village (it was not a city). Do you really think, even if we did not have Acts, that Jesus would go to a village from which to ascend? He would surely go to the Mount of Olives as Acts 1 and Zechariah 14 say. But Luke says He went to Bethany. Thus that 'Bethany' was the part of the mount of olives of which Acts 1 speaks.And wWhere He went was said to be a sabbath's day journey from Jerusalem. Thus the Bethany mentioned in Luke 24 is the same place as that part of the Mount of Olives and was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. How could this be? Because the area around Bethany (which was on the east side of the Mount of Olives) was also called 'Bethany' in order to identify it. This must be so, otherwise Luke and Acts disagree, which would be ridiculous because he wrote them both. In fact Jesus and His disciples probably camped out on the mount of olives (as many pilgrims did)in the region known as Bethany. There would be no house in a village which could house all His disciples. once you have gone a sabbath days journey you are allowed to return :-)) And in fact there were legally acceptable ways of doubling a sabbath days journey. Best wishes |
||||||
54 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228207 | ||
yes doc but John was speaking of the actual village not of the region of Bethany. Luke was speaking of the region of Bethany on the Mount of Olives, which Acts 1 tells us was a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem | ||||||
55 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228216 | ||
Lol Biblical maps are fine as far as they go but in many cases they are guesses. The village of Bethany on the far slopes of the mount of olives farthest from Jerusalem is 15 furlongs 'from Jerusalem', and if we have identified the correct village we know where it is. But has the correct village been identified? But Jesus ascended from 'over against Bethany', in a place which was stated to be a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem. And it was probably the place where Jesus and His followers were encamped. It was in the district of Bethany around Bethany. Thus when He went 'from Bethany' it was from the camp. That means it was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. Thus Jesus could go to the Temple on the Sabbath. You must, however, recognise that geographical information has to be gleaned from the Bible and from Archaeology. And the danger is that many identifications were made by later church teachers without accurate information to go on. There is no sign which says 'this place was called Bethany in 1st century AD'. Our guesses may therefore be incorrect. Far more reliable is the Biblical information which says that Bethany was 15 furlongs 'from Jerusalem'), but we must then ask, from what point in Jerusalem? It was certainly not 15 furlongs from the furthest outskirts of Jerusalem. Indeed what would be described as the furthest outskirts of Jerusalem? I used to travel a road to work which said 4 miles to Leeds. But I lived in Leeds!! Thus I lived four miles from where I lived lol. Thus to measure the distance from the Temple to the district of Bethany on the basis of Biblical information we have to ask what are the criteria. And the truth is that we do not know. We only know that it was a sabbath days journey from the camp of Jesus on the mount of olives in the district of Bethany. I would rather accept Luke's testimony than any map. Did you know that in the first edition of the New Bible Dictionary they included maps. You won't find maps in the current edition. Why not? Because they were treated with derision by many scholars and withdrawn. Our knowledge of the geography of Jerusalem in 1st century AD is patchy, because we only get information when a Gospel writer decides to give it. We know a few facts and that is all. For example we have no idea where Bethphage was. The makers of maps do their best to guess right. But I would not stake my life (or my beliefs) on them. |
||||||
56 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228246 | ||
hi searcher Bethphage was counted as in Jerusalem therefore any walking around in Bethphage would not affect the Sabbath Days journey. By the time of Jesus the sabbath days journey only began when you left your town or city. it was based on the fact that when Israel were in the camp they were not restricted as long as the walk was for spiritual reasons. The camp counted as home. the sabbath days journey only began when you left the camp thus walking around in Jerusalem did not count as part of the sabbath days journey. I think you will find that all the visitors to the Passover camped around the city were counted as living in the city. but i have never said anything about Palm Sunday so i am not sure what you mean all i have shown is that the Scripture makes clear that Jesus and His disciples started each day from a point which was within a sabbath days journey of Jerusalem according to Luke 24; Acts 1. Lol you can enjoy maps as you wish. But do not teach that they are necessarily accurate. MUch on them is guesswork with little to go by. Best wishes |
||||||
57 | Order of the books of the bible? | Luke 24:44 | biblicalman | 228791 | ||
just me thanks for your welcome advice :-)) Best wishes |
||||||
58 | Order of the books of the bible? | Luke 24:44 | biblicalman | 228815 | ||
Further to what has been said, we should note that these councils dod not start from scratch and make their decision. They sat down to ask themselves, what are the books of the New Testament which have always been accepted by the church? In the case of most of the books there was no argument. The four Gospels and Acts,and Paul's letters had never been questioned. They had always been accepted and are all found in all second century lists. 1 Peter and 1 John were also unquestioned. It is not that the others were doubted by everyone, but that they were doubted in some places. Thus the council looked at the evidence with regard to these books and then made their decision. |
||||||
59 | Please explain the Trinity | John 1:1 | biblicalman | 227463 | ||
I would mainly confirm what Beja says. I would add that we must remember that when speaking of God we have to do so in human terms, the only terms we understand. But God is not in any way human apart from the Son coming in the flesh. God is Spirit. and we do not understand spirit apart from what we can gather from our own meagre experience, which we can only define in terms of activity. Thus we can never hope to understand God, except in terms of His activity. Jesus spoke of Himself as the Son. What He was signifying by this was that He was of the same nature as the Father. But His Sonship was otherwise far different from ours. HE was not born. He always existed. Thus we must accept what it conveys about Him having the nature of God, but not press it too far. He was not a son in the same way as we are sons of our fathers, being born later than them and succeeding when they die. Compare how Jesus is called the heir of all things. But it does not mean that the Father will either die or retire. Again it is signifying one aspect of the word, that one day all would again be His. So all expressions about the Son have to be used guardedly, asking what do they teach, and where do they come short. When speaking of God human terms must not be strictly applied from all angles. Thus the oneness of Father, Son and Spirit is not simply a numerical oneness, it is a oneness of compound being. Within His oneness is a threeness in which each member intercommunicates, and yet to see one is to see all (John 14.7-9). They are not strictly three persons, for persons are individuals. Again the danger of a human terminology. They are inter-personal and intercommunicating in the One Being, and where one acts, all act. | ||||||
60 | Different beliefs and salvation | John 3:16 | biblicalman | 228214 | ||
Hi doc, The Anglicans in the uk spread from high Anglicans who are almost like Roman Catholics but in many cases without their worst features, to middle Anglicans who are mainly wishy washy, to Low Anglicans who are evangelical. The evangelical wing of the Anglican church is about 48 per cent of the whole, possibly more now that many high anglicans are drifting to Rome because of women priests. Strangely enough you are more likely to find high anglicans preaching the Gospel as against middle Anglicans (where the women ministers mainly reside). The low Anglicans would agree with the important aspects of the teaching of Calvin and Luther, and preach the Gospel soundly. They would reject auricular confession, praying to the Virgin Mary (the of course believe in the virgin Mary), transubstantiation, praying through the saints, high church robes, crucifixes with Jesus on, and other similar Roman Catholic ideas. Very few Anglicans, even High Anglicans, although there are exceptions, would agree with the Council of Trent as regards the Gospel. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |