Results 301 - 320 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
301 | Tempted to neglect God by those near us. | Deut 13:8 | Beja | 226237 | ||
Take heed of a snare in your bosom. This is one of the Devil's great subtleties, to hinder us from religion by our nearest relations, and to shoot us with our own rib. he tempted Adam by his wife, Gen. iii. 6. Who would have suspected the Devil there?...Take heed of such tempters; resolve to hold on your violence for heaven, though your carnal friends dissuade you. Tis better to go to Heaven with their hatred, then to Hell with their love. -Thomas Watson Deu 13:6-10 "If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods' (whom neither you nor your fathers have known,of the gods of the peoples who are around you, near you or far from you, from one end of the earth to the other end), you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. So you shall stone him to death because he has sought to seduce you from the LORD your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. |
||||||
302 | Woman in pants | Deut 22:5 | Beja | 213659 | ||
Do you really think that in our current culture pants is a "man only attire" in the same way a dress is "women only?" The reason it is alright for women to wear pants is that its no more a "man only" article of clothing than shoes are, at least in our current culture. Women in pants is not cross dressing. Perhaps where you live its different. In Love, Beja |
||||||
303 | Woman in pants | Deut 22:5 | Beja | 213689 | ||
Kcabm14, I hardly know where to begin, though I'm certain where to end. First let me point out the root of your error in this specific instance. You first are reading into the scripture. Deuteronomy 22:5 says specifically this, "A woman shall not wear man's clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman's clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God." Now, that is exactly what it says. Where in that do you see pants mentioned? Nowhere. Nor does it go on to clarify what those clothing articles might be. It leaves it completely blank. All we know with certainty is that a woman's clothing is off limits for a man, and a man's clothing is off limits for a woman. Nowhere does it identify any single article as specific to either a man or woman such as pants. So where shall we determine that from? It is specific to the culture to where the gospel travels. In this case the norm for society (within reason) determines what clothing is gender specific. You are bringing the presuposition that pants are male only. This presuposition is wrong even though it may have been true a century ago. Why does a Christian not have an obligation to cling to the standards of a century ago? Because it is purely incidental to morality. Nudity and lust are not incidental, but things such as pants, the color pink, are incidental. To go from this to the accusation that the church should let society establish its morality is absolutely rediculous and to suggest that I am making that suggestion from this arguement shows a shameful lack in reluctance to judge another man's servant. I'm not angry in the least at your suggesting this, my sterness in writing this is that I see in you this passage: "remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions." 1 Tim 1:3-7 I hold no animosity towards you, I have no anger or frustration towards you, but you really need to turn from such speculative, unedifying issues. In Love, Beja |
||||||
304 | What are some good ways to meditate? | Josh 1:8 | Beja | 229904 | ||
IsmailaGodHasHeard, The most important thing to know with regards to meditating as a christian is that it is radically different than what many other religions/people mean by it. In other settings, meditating is referring to an attempt to empty your mind in order to acheive some sort of inner stillness. In Christianity, meditation is not about emptying your mind, but rather setting your mind on God, his word, and his works in order to ponder them and understand them better. So the essential for Christian meditation is the word of God. Read scripture than think about what you have read, what it means, what it calls you to, and how it applies to various situations in your life. That is Christiant meditation. Jos 1:8 "This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it; for then you will make your way prosperous, and then you will have success. Psa 63:6 When I remember You on my bed, I meditate on You in the night watches, Psa 77:12 I will meditate on all Your work And muse on Your deeds. Psa 119:15 I will meditate on Your precepts And regard Your ways. Psa 119:27 Make me understand the way of Your precepts, So I will meditate on Your wonders. Psa 119:48 And I shall lift up my hands to Your commandments, Which I love; And I will meditate on Your statutes. Psa 119:148 My eyes anticipate the night watches, That I may meditate on Your word. Psa 145:5 On the glorious splendor of Your majesty And on Your wonderful works, I will meditate. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
305 | Called from Idolatry | Josh 24:2 | Beja | 225208 | ||
Where is the passage that states that Abraham came from a family of idol worshipers before God called him? | ||||||
306 | Called from Idolatry | Josh 24:2 | Beja | 225209 | ||
Nevermind, I found it. Joshua 24:2 | ||||||
307 | why five stones | 1 Samuel | Beja | 221219 | ||
Dear watchman, Clearly scripture does not answer this. So I take it that you are inviting friendly speculation. Let me share something with you that might help you think it through. Faith trusts in God for the deliverence. Presumption assumes it will be easy. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
308 | who are the prophets in Eph 2:20 | 1 Sam 19:20 | Beja | 231871 | ||
1Co 1:21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 1Co 1:22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 1Co 1:24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 2Co 4:3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 2Co 4:4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2Co 4:5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake. 2Co 4:6 For God, who said, "Light shall shine out of darkness," is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. Failing to see the glory of God in the face of Christ and what he has done in Christ is but a confession of ongoing blindness. It should spur our compassion, pity and prayers rather than debate. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
309 | David's sons' priestly status | 2 Sam 8:18 | Beja | 243691 | ||
Azure, Very astute observation. Yes, there is a passage that might hint, but nowhere is this really answered for us. Yet I am persuaded the answer is evident in the larger story line of scripture. The answer: we see minor glimpses of God's anointed blurring the lines between the role of king and priest. In Matthew 12 Jesus is challenged concerning activity on the Sabbath. One of his line of reasonings involves David having a very strange right to eat the bread of the presence. This was something only priests could do. Then Jesus explains that somebody greater than David is present. Now unfortunately Jesus does nothing to explain why David has that authority, or even precisely what that authority is. But the line of logic DEPENDS upon David having that authority. So here, as well in a rare few other instances we see glimpses of a blurring between king and priest. In Zechariah 6 we see one of high priestly descent given a crown. In Genesis we see Adam portrayed as both a royal and priestly figure. Meaning we see the original role that God intended for his king was also a priestly role. And on it goes. Neither in Matthew, nor in regards to Davids sons does scripture ever explain this to us, nor does it explain why blurring these roles is routinely rejected and yet in a few instances God annoints somebody in such a way that the roles get blurred, regardless of how we might long for it to do so. It is one of several riddles that the Old Testament leaves us with. What we can be sure of is that this is pointing towards the same person all the Old testament was pointing to. We are seeing small glimpses that God's purpose for his messianic king will also involve a priestly role. This puzzling thread in scripture, for which we have no explanation, is pointing onward to the true messianic king whom is also our high priest as well, Jesus. I wish there were much more scripture to point to, but I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
310 | Man of God | 1 Kin 13:1 | Beja | 224570 | ||
Inquisitor, This really is a very puzzling passage isn't it! I will give you my best attempt at understanding it. I see it as a parrallel sign to the message he had just delivered to Jeroboam and Israel. Allow me to try to point out the parrallels. Both Israel and the man of God had clear instruction from God. Both had some other human claim that on behalf of God they now had contrary instructions. Both went against God's previous command at this human encouragement. One was killed by the lion, they other has wrath proclaimed against it. Let me show you this with Israel. The people of God had clear instructions that they were not to worship whereever they chose but rather to worship in the place God chose, Jerusalem. They were also told not to make any image. Jeroboam then told them that this was where they were to worship God. Keep in mind that these, in their mind, was not a new God. But rather a new site where they worshiped the same God. The bulls I don't think were meant to be a new God. Yet they violated the commands of God from the instruction and assurance of a human claiming to speak for God on this issue. Now here I believe is the point. If this man of God who was only trying to do what was commanded of him, for simply eating bread when he knew God had said otherwise, was killed by a lion as punishment from God, what then would be the fate of Israel for going against such great commands as God? Shall their claim that Jeroboam "told them to do it" hinder their judgement? Certainly not. So I think this man's life and death became further testimony against Israel. I can't say with complete certainty that I have this right, but I can't understand it any other way. I look forward to anybody else giving me their take on it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
311 | Man of God | 1 Kin 13:1 | Beja | 224695 | ||
Inquisitor, You took a verse in Galatians and also Acts 15 and came to the conclusion that God doesn't want to micro-manage the details of how we do church, rather he just wants us to figure it out. This took some good bit of speculation and doesn't agree with the rest of scripture. I'll let Doc answer for himself but that's just what jumped out at me. How you go there was not exegesis but rather imagination. Jas 3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur a stricter judgment. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
312 | Man of God | 1 Kin 13:1 | Beja | 224698 | ||
Inquisitory, I'm very sorry, I meant for my post to be in response to post 224677, reread my post in light of your statements in that thread and perhaps what I said will make some actual sense this time. Sorry 8-) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
313 | Leviticus 26:29 | 2 Kin 6:29 | Beja | 221112 | ||
Dotanddro, This was a warning of what horrors would come upon Israel should they continue in disobedience to God. It was referring to the depraved actions that would happen while they were starved from armies laying siege to their cities. This actually did come to pass. See 2 kings 6:29 and Lamentations 4:10. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
314 | Job's suffering | Job | Beja | 230899 | ||
Atterbury, Why questions like this are extremely difficult to answer unless we are given a clear reason in scripture itself, and unfortunately in this case we are not. However, both the reasons you named are good suggestions. Let me give you two more thoughts however. In one sense Job was on trial, but in another sense it was God on trial. What Satan technically said was that Job would curse God if his "lush" situation changed, what was being accused on another level was that nobody would worship God with out a materialistic bribe to do so, God in fact was being accused of not worthy of worship otherwise. So on one level what took place was a public display of the wrong headedness of that notion. The second being that while what took place might have been to teach Job something, it was written and put in scripture not for Job, who was long dead when it was done, but in order to teach those who are alive, you and I. The book of Job was provided in the wisdom of God to teach us some very meaningful things about suffering, and it is best to be seen in that light. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
315 | does this refer to exodus or creation? | Ps 18:1 | Beja | 224520 | ||
vnct blzn, I think the key here is to recognize that this is poetry, not history. We don't accuse poetry of falsehood or deception because it describes things in over the top ways. For example if in a poem where I had been jilted I wrote something along the lines of... "You have torn out my heart yet I can not hate you. All my life has been reduced to ruins and ashes for the loss of you." NONE of that actually happened. She did not pull my heart out of my chest, nothing has been burned. Yet you would not read my poem then stand up and say, "Wait! That didn't happen!." Because you would understand that this is poetry and that such standards are not the realm of poetry. We need to realize the Psalm in question is poetry. David is speaking of God delivering him in over the top ways. To do such when writing poetry isn't error, falsehood, or being deceitful. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
316 | Questions about being Saved | Ps 22:1 | Beja | 206566 | ||
Question 1: Most believe that God can not look upon sin and therefore had to turn His face from Christ while Christ carried our sin on the cross. As you have already mentioned there is no way we can comprehend what implications such a statement would have within the trinity. Combine that with the fact that this answer is nowhere found in scripture I have to personally reject this idea. Another less popular theory, which I think is correct, is that Christ was drawing upon the 22nd Psalm. What he cried out is the first line of Psalm 22. In doing so the point was to bring to mind the entirety of the Psalm. Psalm 22 begins in utter dispair over the apparent situation of God forsaking the Psalmist and ends in a triumpant cry of God's faithfulness. I believe the cry was meant to bring to mind the entire psalm including the ultimate assurance that even in this God is faithful and will deliver. We do this often actually when we state some short phrase of an inside joke and intend for the person to recall to mind the punch line and see how it applies to the current situation. We do this with a variety of things, a brief song lyric, a movie quote, etc. Christ was simply doing this with a Psalm. Question2: For time reason I can't currently give you the full picture to answer this. You are touching upon a very large topic. But here is a tiny bit to help with what you specifically asked. We were "chosen" before the foundation of the world. The actually saving was yet to be done. The payment at the cross and our receiving the gospel for salvation was yet to be completed. |
||||||
317 | United States in Scripture? | Ps 82:8 | Beja | 227021 | ||
Holmes, I find myself unable to understand what it is exactly that you are suggesting in your post. The closest I can come to any kind of assertion is that perhaps you are hinting at 2 Sam 7:10 being fulfilled by USA? Can you clarify what you are suggesting? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
318 | United States in Scripture? | Ps 82:8 | Beja | 227026 | ||
Holmes, You state that you are suggesting nothing, and that the scriptures simply speak for themselves. But obviously you have something in mind. You think that there is some reason that the scriptures you are posting have to do with the question being asked. Why not post some scriptures on the ten commandments? Or perhaps the sermon on the mount? Because they have nothing to do with the question. Why not post things said about Babylon in the book of Revelation? Because you don't believe babylon is the answer. You are posting these verses for some reason. If you wish to leave it with what you've said, that's fine. However, there is no reason to pretend you have no view point. I only wish you'd help us understand what you are trying to say. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
319 | Psalm Refers to Jesus Calming the Sea? | Ps 107:26 | Beja | 206602 | ||
Are the two connected? Absolutely. But let me respond with this question. Was it a prophecy that Jesus had to fulfill? Or was Jesus simply intentionally doing this to connect Himself to that psalm in the mind of His disciples in order to make a statement about who He was. Side note: Fulfillment of passages in the OT within the new is a tricky topic. Becaues so many instances such as the one you just brought up are obviously connected to the life of Christ or the early church, but we must never forget the passage had very real meaning in the time of the Old Testament also. A Jew reading this Psalm in the year 10 BC would not have been confused by it but certain it was a glorifying story of Yahweh delivering sailors in the midst of a storm. So we find ourselves with the situation that nobody probably ever suspected this to be a prophecy until the moment Jesus did what he did. So we must ask ourselves, was it one? Or did Jesus just decide to pain a picture with His actions in an attempt to essentially say, "I AM this God who calms the storms in Psalm 107." I leave you to decide. God bless |
||||||
320 | Why isn't it a capital His? | Ps 130:8 | Beja | 241107 | ||
Sharsmit, We are speaking about this verse, no? "And he will redeem Israel from all his iniquities." It would be safe to say that the "his iniquities" refers to the iniquities of Israel. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ] Next > Last [40] >> |