Results 21 - 40 of 70
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: rabban Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | What are some ex. of glimpes of heaven. | Ps 16:11 | rabban | 191579 | ||
Hi Many will see them in different ways, but omitting Revelation you could try e.g. Psalm 16.11; 23.6; Isaiah 4.2-3, 5-6; 11.1-9; 33.20-21; 35.10; 57.15; 62.2-5; 65.17-25; 66.22-23; Ezekiel 34.22-31; 36.8-12; 37.21-28; Daniel 12.3; Matthew 5.3-9; 8.11; 13.43; Luke 12.37; John 14.2-3; Hebrews 12.22-24; climaxing in Revelation 21-22. There are of course many other fleeting glimpses and no doubt one or two glaring ones that have not come to mind. But these should give you something to meditate on. They are not, however, to be hurried or their glory will be missed. Best wishes. |
||||||
22 | Bible lesson for nosy neighbor | Prov 15:1 | rabban | 191515 | ||
I wonder if this story might answer your question. A man was being tailgated by a stressed-out woman on a busy boulevard. Suddenly, the light turned yellow, just in front of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection. The tailgating woman hit the roof--and the horn--screaming in frustration as she missed her chance to get through the intersection. As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up. He took her to the police station where she was searched, finger printed, photographed and placed in a holding cell. After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal effects. He said, "I'm very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping off the guy in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him. I noticed the 'Choose Life' license plate holder, the 'What Would Jesus Do' bumper sticker, the 'Follow Me to Sunday School' bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian fish emblem on the trunk. Naturally, I assumed you had stolen the car." Beware of stickers which do not tell the truth about you. |
||||||
23 | Why divorce at this juncture? | Jer 3:8 | rabban | 191368 | ||
Surely because Josiah was God's last attempt to plead with His people. Once they had failed to respond in the long run to his reforms their fate was sealed. They would be offered no more chances. It was now not just separation, it was final divorce because of their adultery with idols. See the whole passage |
||||||
24 | Who are the Edomites today? | Mal 1:4 | rabban | 191239 | ||
The Edomites were only partly descended from Esau. He joined up in the territory of Edom with a large number of people whose descendants would also be Edomites (Genesis 33.1). No doubt others also later joined the tribe and became Edomites. They were overrun by the Nabataeans in 3rd century BC and mainly fled to Southern Judah were John Hyrcanus later forced them to become Jews and be circumcised. Herod was one of these i.e. an Idumaean. They were thus absorbed into Judaism. |
||||||
25 | Why did Joseph pick Simeon to imprison? | Matthew | rabban | 191245 | ||
Joseph knew that Reuben was the leader of the party. So he selected the one of next importance. The second eldest. |
||||||
26 | What is hatred? When is it ok to hate? | Matt 5:44 | rabban | 191434 | ||
Hi, it is never OK to hate people (Matthew 5.42-48; 1 John 3.15). It is always OK to hate sin (Romans 7.15; Hebrews 1.9; Revelation 2.6). The Old Testament regularly speaks about abhorring sin. One problem with the verb to 'hate' as found in our translations of Scripture is that in the Hebrew and Greek the word often meant 'love less'. It covered a wide spectrum of hatred, dislike and 'loving less'. This comes out in the story of Jacob. 'And he went in also to Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah.' (Gen 29.30). The position is clear, he loved Rachel more than Leah. Then it says, 'And the LORD saw that Leah was hated.' Here the word should really be translated 'loved less', according to the information found in the previous verse. When Jesus spoke of us 'hating' our father and mother, He was really speaking of 'loving less' than God. When God says of Esau, 'Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated' He then also says, 'the elder will serve the younger' (Romans 9.12-13). It was a matter of degrees of love, not of actual hatred. |
||||||
27 | silent prayer | Matt 6:5 | rabban | 191520 | ||
Hi,May I suggest 1 Thessalonians 5.17 Now I do not know about you but I think that if I went everywhere praying aloud unceasingly I suggest that it would make life very difficult. This would have been even moreso for 1st century Christian slaves. Consider also Psalm 4.4; 63.6; 97.6 in relation to this. When I was in the armed forces and we slept in nissen huts, 24 to a hut, I would probably not have got out alive if I had prayed aloud. I shudder to think of it. This must have been true in ancient homes when everyone lived in one room. It would have meant that they could only pray when they all wanted to pray. So it is quite clear that 'silent' prayer must have been a norm. |
||||||
28 | forgiveness | Matt 18:1 | rabban | 191351 | ||
The first thing to note about forgiveness from our point of view is that we can only forgive an offence against ourselves (even if it is sometimes indirect). I cannot forgive someone who offends against society or another. Only society as a whole or that other can do that. Thus due punishment may be required in that case. Having established that there are different levels of forgiveness. There is the total forgiveness that I should give to the one who has come to me saying 'I am sorry, and will not do it again' and means it. For such a person my forgiveness should mean that I reinstate them into the same position as if they had never sinned. That is the forgiveness that Jesus had mainly in mind in the Lord's prayer. It is the forgiveness that God gives us. He treats us as though we had never sinned. Then there is the lesser forgiveness that I give to those who have sinned against me but have not repented. I seek not to be bitter against them and to show a Christlike spirit towards them, but I have to take into account their previous behaviour. This would seem to be the situation in your case. Forgiveness does not mean being foolish. Sometimes you have to forgive from behind a protecting wall. Thus with a violent husband or wife forgiveness does not mean making yourself open to further abuse. You have no responsibility to do that. Unless there is a dramatic change e.g. through Christian conversion, a wife or husband beater will remain a wife or husband beater. But for your own sake it is good to be rid of any bitterness that may be in your heart, and to wish them well and pray for them. Nor does forgiveness mean that you should forego justified compensation. It simply means revealing Christlikeness towards them in your general attitude towards them, while keeping them out of your life. |
||||||
29 | Children watching for God | Matt 18:3 | rabban | 191675 | ||
I would be very hesitant about suggesting to children that they 'watch for God in the events of their lives'. In fact it would seem to me that they are more likely to see them than we are. What we need to do with chidren is continually introduce them to Jesus through His word, and to prayer, stressing His care and watch over them, and then leave it to Him. Otherwise things could become very artificial. Children are quick to see for themselves. He will gently lead those who are with young. In Him |
||||||
30 | What if it's just a feeling I get? | Matt 18:17 | rabban | 191758 | ||
Hi Spurgeon once said, 'if you find a perfect church, don't join it. You will only spoil it.' As I see it your choice partly depends from your point of view on your own spiritual quality and the needs of your children. Of course you also have to ask what is it like from God's point of view. If you are very much in need of spiritual sustenance yourselves because you are young in the faith, and do not feel you are getting it, or if you do not feel that the children's work will give your children a good foundation, then there may be a case for a move. On the other hand you always have to ask the alternative question, did God bring me here for a purpose? Can I help to make the children's work meaningful. Can I give support to someone who may not be saying much but is longing for support. A very godly evangelist whom I used to know used to remind us that Like a might armchair Moves the church of God Brothers you are treading Where the saints have trod. And it sometimes feels like that. But at some stage someone has to get out of the armchair and do something. And it is easier if there is more than one. From what you say 'they' are already nicely settled in their armchairs (although recognize that you may have received the wrong impression. Do you really know? Perhaps they are just discouraged). But until you get involved you will never know. Have you made any real attempt to get involved? When your church gets a new pastor he is going to need solid support. Are you able to give him it? There is never any suggestion in the New Testament that people 'looked round for a suitable church'. The impression given is that they went to their local church. Even in Revelation 2-3 they were to 'overcome' within the church. They were not told to form a new church. In the end however it is between you and God. God bless you In Him |
||||||
31 | one flesh? | Matt 19:5 | rabban | 191309 | ||
It would appear to me that Genesis 2.23-24; Matthew 19. 5-6 do adequately define marriage as the coming together of two people with the intention of being made one flesh, inseparable and undivided, something which is finally sealed when a man and a woman make love. Their flesh has by it been restored to the oneness that was Adam before Eve was created (Genesis 2.23). There would appear to be a uniqueness about the new relationship which is unlike any other on earth, apart from our new relationship with Jesus Christ when we come to Him and are made one spirit (1 Corinthians 6.17). In both cases it is permanent and intended to be unbreakable. The idea would seem to be that now they are inseparable, and that any such separation is to be seen as unnatural. They are to love one another and be faithful to one another as long as they both shall live. They complement each other and make up 'a whole man'. And it would seem that God does see them as one flesh in two parts. That is why once a couple have had sexual union thay are seen as married in God's eyes whether they have been officially married or not. Thus a man who lay with an unmarried woman had to marry her (Exodus 22.16). Where a man lay with a married woman both had to be put to death. They had produced a monstrous situation, a kind of three headed monster. Adultery alone breaks the marriage relationship because by it the man/woman has been made one flesh with another and they have therefore broken the prevailing unity. Their position from then on is one that is grievous to God even if they are not put to death. In God's eyes they are seen as 'dead'. That is why the innocent party is thereby freed from the union. (They can be made alive again in Christ by forgiveness but it should be seen that there is a deep sin involved and one not glibly forgiven). To lie with a prostitute was to become of one flesh with the prostitute (1 Corinthians 6.16). The situation is seen to be contradictory to all that a Christian is seen to be. One who is joined with Christ in one spirit has thereby become joined as one flesh with someone who is contrary to all that God wants us to be. Thus it would seem that the wife (or husband) was now freed from her husband (or wife) if she (he) chose to be so. There is no avoiding the fact that to break a marriage relationship is seen as a heinous sin, comparative with murder. It is to divide what God has joined together. It is to break a mystical union. Thus it is more than just being made one in unified purpose. You do not become one in unified purpose with a prostitute (except for a fleeting moment) It is a union which is such that to break it is to behave 'unnaturally'. It is as it were to divide someone in half. The purpose of this indivisible union was primarily the producing of a family. They were made so that they would 'go forth and multiply'. And that is why a woman's salvation is tied up with her having children (1 Timothy 2.15) and why it is the sexual union that makes them one. In most cases it is part of what her being saved involves. She can see it as a part of her growth in present day by day salvation. It is part of her God-given function. Thereby she ensures the growth of the Christian church and is especially pleasing to God. (Some churches have only survived through the centuries because of it). Clearly all this raises huge side issues but it seems to me that this is the Scriptural position. |
||||||
32 | for what reason can a man divoce his wif | Matt 19:9 | rabban | 191346 | ||
It sems to me that to suggest that lust is a grounds for divorce as Parable does is totally to misuse what Jesus said and to fail to understand the nature of marriage. Lust does not make two people one. And whose divorce does it justify? Certainly not the woman's. She has done nothing wrong. And for a considerable number of men it would mean divorce every week. So it seems to me that his conclusion is a non sequitur. The Pentateuch nowhere provides for divorce. Deuteronomy 24 is not intending to legalise divorce but to protect the situation after a divorce by custom has taken place. It should probably be translated, 'When a man take a woman and becomes her husband, if she does not find favor in his eyes, because he finds something indecent in her, and he writes her a bill of divorce for her ---' and then it goes on to deal with the fact that for him to marry her again is not allowable. (See P Craigie - Deuteronomy - Intnl Comm on the OT). It became seen as permission for divorce and that then raised the question as to what 'something indecent it her' meant. Rabbi Shammai said that it meant adultery. (He 'bound' the Law) .Rabbi Hillel said that it meant any fault at all like burning the dinner (He 'loosed' the Law). Both however conceded the right to divorce. But Jesus countermanded their ideas and said no divorce except on the grounds of adultery. So Jesus position is clear, no divorce except on the grounds of adultery. And then it is only the innocent party who can marry without sinning. This is the new principle of the Kingly Rule of Heaven. |
||||||
33 | about (ph) mohammed in bible? | Matt 24:11 | rabban | 191514 | ||
Yes Mohammed is mentioned in the Bible, although not by name. For example: Jesus said, 'And many false prophets shall arise and shall lead many astray' (Matthew 24.11; Mark 13.22). 'There will arise false Christs and false prophets, --- so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect' (Matthew 24.24). |
||||||
34 | What was in the cup, wine? | Mark 14:25 | rabban | 191862 | ||
Four cups of wine mixed with water were drunk at stages throughout the Passover meal. The one Jesus used as the cup of remembrance was probably the third cup, although some disagree. Luke mentions the cup of blessing which would be one of the first two cups (Luke 22.17). In Him |
||||||
35 | Do this and you shall live | Luke 10:28 | rabban | 191849 | ||
Hi These words of Jesus were for all people at all times. In them we find summarised the full-orbed Christian life (Galatians 5.14). They describe fully the life of Jesus Christ. They should be the goal of each one of us in their strictest application. However, as you have rightly discerned, we all fall short of it by a large margin. By this we discover the truth about ourselves. We discover that 'all have sinned and come short of the glory of God' (Romans 3.23). Thus if we are to find this life we have to come to God as sinners, admitting our sin and our helplessness, and seek forgiveness for our failure through the cross. We have to put our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. Once we truly do that all that Jesus describes here is imputed to us. We are accounted as righteous in His sight (Romans 3.34-25). And His righteousness is put to our account (2 Corinthians 5.21). From that moment on the Great Physician sets about our healing. We are made new creatures in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5.17). God begins to 'work in us to will and to do of His good pleasure' (Philippians 2.13). And gradually we will be transformed into His image (2 Corinthians 3.18; Ephesians 1.4-5; Romans 8.29 etc). And the wonderful thing is that through Him we then do this as those who have already 'inherited eternal life' (1 John 5.13). In Him |
||||||
36 | third temple built before Jesus returns? | John 2:19 | rabban | 191624 | ||
My view is that the Scriptures make quite clear that the third Temple is in Heaven. That is the message of the Book of Revelation. Its presence on earth was transferred to Jesus and the church. John 2.29-21 makes clear that Jesus had come to replace the Temple, and the result is that the church became the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3.16; 6.19; 2 Corinthians 6.16-18; Ephesians 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.4-6). In the same way the true Jerusalem is also now in Heaven (Galatians 4.25-26; Hebrews 12.22). There are verses which superficially can be made to look as though a Temple will be built on earth but on examination they are clearly talking about the church (e.g. Revelation 11.1-13 which is talking about the church in the Sodomic Jerusalem). The Temple in Ezekiel 40 onwards was a heavenly Temple which proved that God had returned to His people, and was available to His returned people through the altar (which was the only part that they were told to build) and its final fulfilment is again in the church (chapter 47.1ff) and in Heaven. No doubt others will see it differently. It is one of the secondary matters on which thee is much controversy (hopefully friendly). |
||||||
37 | third temple built before Jesus returns? | John 2:19 | rabban | 191626 | ||
My view is that the Scriptures make quite clear that the third Temple is in Heaven. That is the message of the Book of Revelation. Its presence on earth was transferred to Jesus and the church. John 2.29-21 makes clear that Jesus had come to replace the Temple, and the result is that the church became the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3.16; 6.19; 2 Corinthians 6.16-18; Ephesians 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.4-6). In the same way the true Jerusalem is also now in Heaven (Galatians 4.25-26; Hebrews 12.22). There are verses which superficially can be made to look as though a Temple will be built on earth but on examination they are clearly talking about the church (e.g. Revelation 11.1-13 which is talking about the church in the Sodomic Jerusalem). The Temple in Ezekiel 40 onwards was a heavenly Temple which proved that God had returned to His people, and was available to His returned people through the altar (which was the only part that they were told to build) and its final fulfilment is again in the church (chapter 47.1ff) and in Heaven. No doubt others will see it differently. It is one of the secondary matters on which thee is much controversy (hopefully friendly). |
||||||
38 | is jesus god | John 10:30 | rabban | 191890 | ||
To answer this question we need to look at the Scriptures, and we must be careful to consider each verse in context, and in the light of other Scriptures. Especially we need to look at the New Testament in the light of the Old, for Jesus and the Apostles all looked on the Old Testament as the Word of God. It is this consideration of Scriptures that will enable it to dawn on us Who He is. For the belief must capture our hearts if it is to be meaningful. 1). We will first of all consider the teaching of Paul. In Philippians 2 we have a clear statement of the fact that Jesus is called by the Name of the God of the Old Testament. That Jesus is LORD (Kurios). To appreciate this we need some background information. When God revealed Himself to Moses He revealed Himself under the name 'the I am' (Exodus 3.14). (The Hebrew is Eyeh). Then in Exodus 6 He relates this to His covenant name Yahweh (which means the 'He is', third person singular where Eyeh is first person singular). We do not know how this name was pronounced because it was so sacred that there came a time when to pronounce it meant instant death. All we know are the four consonants that make up the name, YHWH. This was the sacred name, the Name above every name. When a Jew or an Israelite read the Scriptures and came to the divine name he would substitute for it adonai ('Lord') or elohim ('God'). Thus God in the Old Testament was known as the 'I am' and as YHWH, but spoken of as Adonai ('LORD'). Thus the name YHWH was translated into Greek in the Septuagint in 2nd Century BC as Kurios ('Lord'). So when Paul speaks in Philippians 2 of Jesus as having 'been in the form of God' (in essence sharing Godhood), and emptying Himself to take 'the form of a servant' (in essence sharing servitude), being 'made in the likeness of man', and then being exalted to receive 'the Name which is above every name', we know that this latter was the name of YHWH (Kurios - LORD). That is the only Name which is above every name. Thus Jesus is declared to be thw YHWH of the Old Testament, truly God. Furthermore He Himself said that He had to return to ‘the glory which I had with You before the world came into being' (John 17.5).These are clear statements that being essentially God, Jesus became man, and having suffered death on the cross for man, was raised to again be essentially revealed as God, having the Name above every name, YHWH. Because of this every tongue will confess that Jesus is Kurios (the Greek equivalent of YHWH)as in Isaiah 45.23. In the light of the background, familiar to Paul and his readers, there could be no clearer statement that Jesus and the 'I Am' of the Old Testament are One. Furthermore in Titus 2.13 he speaks of 'the appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ'. Jesus is both God and Saviour. Compare also 2 Peter 1.1 which says the same. The same Greek construction says that He is LORD and Saviour in verse 11. That is why in John 8.58 Jesus could say, 'Before Abraham was, I am.' Here He compares His continually existent being with that of Abraham. He was the continually existing One before Abraham came into being. And even before Abraham, became a temporally existing one, Jesus was the eternally existing One. In 2 Corinthians 4.4 Paul can speak of 'Christ, who is the image of God', and thus as the One Who fully reveals what God is like. And he adds 'we preach Christ Jesus as LORD' (Kurios). Again the reference is clear to anyone familiar with the Hebrew background. This reference to Jesus as 'the image of God' (the One Who reveals what God is like) is again made in Colossians 1.15-17 where He is described as 'the image of the invisible God', the adjective 'invisible' thus removing any suggestion that the image spoken of is physical. The only way that you can be the image of One Who is invisible is to fully reveal in His own self what the Invisible One essentially is. Here also He is referred to as 'The Firstborn' (prototokos). This word comes from Greek philosophy where it refers to the Logos ('the eternal reason') with the idea that the Logos is eternal and not created, and is the source of all things. We note especially that Jesus is the ‘Firstborn’ not the first created, thus being equated with the eternal 'Reason' which was seen as ever-existent, as eternal. It equates with the use by Him of Himself as ‘the Son’. We are also told that as 'the Firstborn' He created all things both visible and invisible, is before all things (thus eternally existent), and holds all things together. Thus He is revealed as the Creator of the Old Testament and the sustainer of the world. In other words He was of the same nature and essence of the Father. ‘In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead in bodily form’ (Colossians 2.9). |
||||||
39 | is jesus god | John 10:30 | rabban | 191891 | ||
Hebrews 1.2-3 again emphasises His uniqueness. He is 'the outshining of the glory of God (the visible revelation of the gory of God - see John 1.14, 18), the stamped out image (the exact representation) of His substance' and is the One through Whom all things were made and Who upholds all things by His powerful command. Thus the One Who spoke and it was done in Genesis 1 is Jesus. He is the Creator. It is difficult to think of any way of putting it that could more clearly declare His full deity. Yet at the same time it is made clear that He is not the whole of the Godhead. That is why He is called 'the Son' as against ‘the Father’ in an otherwise inexpressible relationship. This term indicates that He is of the same nature and essence as the Father, but not the whole of the Godhead. It is of course using human terminology to get over divine truth. He is the ever-existent, eternal Son. There was not a time when He had a beginning. Human sons are born after their fathers and are of the same nature. Thus ‘the Son’ was of the same nature as ‘the Father’. But we must not press the analogy too far. Because He is of the same nature as the eternal Father He is the eternal Son. But there was no time when He was not. He was not 'born' later than the Father like a human son is born (except when He became man). Theologians speak of Him as being 'eternally begotten'. The Apostle John further stresses His Godhood. 'In the beginning the Word (Logos) was already in existence, and the Word (Logos) was face to face with God in personal communion (pros with the accusative), and what God was the Word (Logos) was' (John 1.1), and this Word (Logos) 'became flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1.14). It is sometimes argued by those with a limited knowledge of Greek that the lack of the definite article on theos ('God') in the third clause of 1.1 somehow suggests a lessening in His divinity (as though there could be levels of Godhood). However to have put in the definite article ('the') would have been incorrect, firstly because in Greek it would have meant John was saying that Jesus was all there was of the Godhead, i.e. that the terms 'Jesus' and 'the Godhead' were exact equivalents, and secondly because it ignores the fact that the very purpose of the lack of article is to show that theos is used adjectivally to mean 'of the essence of what God is'. As theos has already been used in the second clause, to use it in the third clause adjectivally quite clearly makes the use of theos indicate the same essence and thus it refers to the essential nature of God. 'He was 'face to face with' God in close personal communion, and was Himself of the same 'essence of Godhood'. Thus John depicts Jesus as the creative Word Who made all things (John 1.3), the Creator of Genesis 1, and as of the essence of the Godhead. |
||||||
40 | ... | John 16:28 | rabban | 191406 | ||
In John 16.27 Jesus speaks of them as believing that He had come from the Father. In John 16.28 He says that He had come from the Father. In 16.30 the disciples replied, 'By this we believe that you came from God.' Note that the change from Father to God is because the speakers are different, but all three refer to the same fact that Jesus came from the Father, that is, from God, and two refer to the disciples' belief in the fact. Clearly therefore God and the Father are the same. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |