Results 341 - 360 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227505 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Forgive me, I was not being very precise in that post. We tend to use the word "hell" to refer to two different things. One is hades, which is temporary. The other is the coming lake of fire. Please note the fate of those who are spoken of in the very verse you quoted. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. (kjv) So the current hell (hades) is not eternal, but what I meant was the lake of fire. This is clearly stated to be eternal in the very same passage. Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. So the very passage you cite affirms with certainty what I am saying. And lest we imagine that this is only eternal for demons and not eternal for unforgiven sinners let me quote Jesus' own affirmation of the eternality of hell when preaching to men and women. Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Mar 9:44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. So yes, the dead can be consigned to hell "for all eternity." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
342 | Does Jer 32:35 disprove hell? | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227517 | ||
Julia, The point in Jerimiah 32:35 is that child sacrifice never entered his mind. The means, passing through fire, is completely secondary to the point. The point was the child sacrifice. Nor can you take something like this in such a blanket sense. He means that He never wanted the Israelites to sacrifice their children, we don't stretch that to exclude something like God sending His son to die on the cross. Even if the point was a burning in fire, God would not then be saying that somebody burning in fire never entered His mind, but rather that THEM burning THEIR children never entered his mind to command them to do it. Your husband is simply applying this scripture in a way it is not intended. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
343 | Sodom and Gomorrah | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227519 | ||
Julia, I do not think it means to say that what sodom and gomorrah suffered was exactly the same thing as the eternal fires of hell. I'm not certain what the difficulty is but I imagine your husband's arguement going something like this: This says that what sodom and gomorrah experienced was the eternal fire. Yet this was only temporary and a moment and time destruction, so therefore eternal fire in other places doesn't really mean eternal. If I'm mistaken correct me. Assuming, however, that I'm correct I'll try to address this. Jud 1:7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. What we are seeing here, is that false teachers have crept into the church and the author is trying to assure them of the coming final judgement. How do we prove the coming judgement? There has never been an eternal judgement of the same sort. So what the author is doing is grabing examples of God's judgements that have happened and they are using those as proofs that God is in fact a God who has judged sinners in the past, and therefore we need not doubt that He will climatically judge them in the future. Therefore the fires of destruction that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah are held forth as a type or example of the eternal fires that are coming. So what we are seeing is a limited comparison. Something that has similiarities to eternal judgement, but is only limited in its similarities. I think what I'm telling you is accurate and you can trust it, however, let me just say that a passage such as this, where the meaning is somewhat uncertain should never be allowed to trump the numerous clear passages we have affirming the existence of hell. Clear passages always help us understand the unclear passages. We do not take an unclear passage and use it to negate clearly stated teaching in other places. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
344 | symbolic/literal scriptures? | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227521 | ||
Julia, Writing is very flexible. Something literal is taken at face value. A flower is a plant. This is literal, I'm not using fancy language to paint some picture for you. On the other hand I could give you a very similiar sentence, "Judah is a lion." And what I certainly do not mean is that Judah is a large hunting cat. I am not saying something literal. I'm attributing certain qualities of a lion to judah whether it be the ferocity, the preditory nature, or the majestic aspects of the creature. In scripture we sometime see very dramatic symbolism. In Zechariah chapter 5 we see a vision of a giant 30 foot long scroll flying through the air. The author does not meant for this to be taken as a prophecy of a literal giant scroll that will one day fly over the world. Rather he menas for it to be symbolic of something. In this case it symbolizes the words of the Lord that will be pronounced in a curse over the world. Now, one of the surest indicators of when symbolism is being used is what type of genre you are reading. There is poetry, history, apocalyptic literature, parables, didactic teaching. This may sound intimidating but give it a little thought. Where do you suspect symbolism? In history? Probably not. It is attempting to give an account of the past. However in apocalypic literature symbolism is used extensively. Revelations, Zechariah, and Daniel all have many examples of symbolism. Beasts that represent nations in reality. Trees that represent a kingdom, and on it goes. Now, to apply this to our current discussion, we have hell displayed as an eternal place of torment in a variety genres, apocalyptic, parables, and straightforward teaching. The suggestion that it is all symbolism in every case would be extremely doubtful. However, when they suggest that hell is symbolic, what they mean is that it is only speech that really means something else. For example it simply means to be a symbol of how God's wrath is really displayed at the end. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
345 | symbolic/literal scriptures? | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227532 | ||
Julia, Absolutely. I think those are fine examples of passages where there was full intent that the words be taken literally. In addition, you'll neve reach a point where it is all just obvious. You will have some passages which are obviously literal and you will have some that are obviously symbolic. However, there will always be some that we must work hard in order to see how the author intended his words to be understood. Though God's word is worth such diligent study. And my God cause you to prosper in knowing His word and may you be diligent to grow in it. Let nobody despise the day of small things, though let us not be content to stay there. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
346 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227545 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Right again. I'm sorry, I so very much slip into the common habit of referring to them both as hell. I think Gehenna here is referring to the lake of fire. Hades is one place, lake of fire/gehenna is another. Hades will be done away with and gehenna will never be quenched. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
347 | Hell | Jer 32:35 | Beja | 227550 | ||
PaulusSecundus, Luke 16:23 In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
348 | man in pit resued by rags tied | Jer 38:1 | Beja | 221732 | ||
Gaga, It was Jeremiah. See Jeremiah chapter 38 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
349 | Contrast Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20? | Ezek 18:20 | Beja | 206600 | ||
I would ask three questions of myself to guide my decision on how to understand these two passages in relation to one another. 1. What is the difference between "visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children" found in Exodus 20:5, and the "bear the punishment for the father's iniquity" in Ezekiel 18:20. Do you beieve that is a different way of saying the same thing? Or do you think perhaps Exodus is referring to the fact that the sins of the fathers have cascading consequences affecting future generations and the Ezekiel is talking about actual moral guilt in God's eyes. 2. In Exodus 20:5 it says "on the third and fourth generations of those who hate me." Who do you think "of those who hate me" is referring to? It could be referring to future generations who hate him. But I find that doubtful to be honest. 3. In Ezekiel God seems to be explicitly explaining how he accounts sin upon people while in Exodus He seems to be more so making a statement about who he is rather than trying to give an explicit account of his book keeping techniques. Because this statement is remarkably similiar to the statement God makes in Exodus 34:6,7 where God reveals himself to Moses in the form of a key statement of his character. A statement that went on to be a central defining description of who he was. I'm not so much giving you an answer but telling you that how I resolved the previous three questions in my head would very likely determine how I personally understand the two passages. Think about it, pray about it and see what you think. |
||||||
350 | Contrast Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20? | Ezek 18:20 | Beja | 206689 | ||
My thoughts on this is that the "visiting" the sins on later generations is not talking about the same thing as Ezekiel. Ezekiel is talking about actualy moral guilt and the perishing that goes with standing guilty before God. While I think Exodus is saying something with regards to how our sins will effect future generations, I believe the main idea in Exodus is that God is a God who takes sin very very seriously, and punishes it seriously, but much more does he reward those who love him. | ||||||
351 | different versions of Daniel 9:25 | Dan 9:26 | Beja | 221467 | ||
jan, I'm struggling to make sense out of what this is saying, but if I understand correctly, it is suggesting that the "messiah" figure here referred to shows up after the 7 weeks rather than after the 62 weeks. If we just look at the next verse it should help dispell this notion. In verse 26 the messiah is then cut off. Did this prince live over the entire span of the 62 weeks, 400 plus years? As far as the 7 weeks and 62 weeks being seperate time periods, I've never seen a translation that does not acknowledge this. I do not see how it makes their case. Hope I haven't missunderstood. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
352 | Explain inaccuracy of | Amos 9:15 | Beja | 224129 | ||
Infinity700, I'm not sure if you are trying to make a different point, but if you are saying that Amos is a false prophet you are in violoation of the terms of use of these forums. To use these forums you have agreed to abide by and not contradict the notions of sola scriptura. Part of that is that all of the Bible is inspired and inerrant. I hope you will respond and clarify to us all that you are not suggesting that Amos was a false prophet. Furthermore, I encourage you to see how the new testament interprets this passage in acts 15:16 and following verses. It indeed does see the church as the fullfillment of these promises. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
353 | Is there a literal restoration of Isreal | Amos 9:15 | Beja | 226458 | ||
Bob W, Your answers will vary greatly depending on how people understand many other scriptural issues. For my part, I believe that these prophecies and promises are being fulfilled right now through Christ and His Church, and will be climatically fullfilled when Christ returns. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
354 | What happend to Jonah? | Nah 1:1 | Beja | 207257 | ||
I believe the book of Jonah finished exactly when it intended to. The book of Jonah is a message to God's people. Not to ninevah. The repentance of Ninivah is nothing more than a piece of the plot in which the true message is given. The point of the book is the attitude that God's people had adopted. An attitude that quite literally was content to watch all other nations go to hell. The last chapter that so many people don't get is actually the key chapter to the entire book. In this last chapter it is finally revealed clearly what the problem has been throughout the entire book. Jonah was consumed with his hatred of Ninivah. The problem originally would have been assumed that Jonah feared them and so he ran. But finally and clearly it is revealed that Jonah did not want them to have God's mercy, he wanted them to die in judgement. God's people reading the story of Jonah were suppose to see themselves reflected in Jonah's attitude. There should have been a "wow, that is us" moment. The story ends at that moment of realization and at the moment of showing how contrary that is to God's heart, and then the reader is left to repent of it. That is the point of Jonah. | ||||||
355 | is gambling a sin | Hag 2:8 | Beja | 223527 | ||
Just my 2 cents, I have a hard time saying that gambling is a sin. First, I currently know of no scripture that does so. What we do know is that greed, covetousness and the love of money are sins. However, that does not necessarily mean that gambling is a sin. There have been several nights in my past that I sat with my brothers and their wives and we all played Texas Hold em' with nickles, dimes, and quarters. If after four hours of playing and laughing any individual was down two dollars it was about as horrible of a loss as we saw. Each time we all lost more money on sodas and chips consumed than the game itself. I have a very hard time looking back and saying that was sinful. So what I think is more appropriate is to identify the sins I listed earlier and be clear that those are sins. The condemnation of gambling in and of itself seems to me to be like forbidding dancing because lust is a sin. To be sure, some dancing is lustful, but there are many forms of dancing that is lighthearted, fun, and not in the least sinful. When my daughter is married I assure you I intend to dance with her. And if next new years my brothers wish to spend it playing a little Texas Hold em' I shall do that as well. But...these are just my thoughts; let each of us be convinced in their own minds. Romans 14:5 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
356 | Verse 14 About Judas or Israel and Judah | Zech 11:14 | Beja | 206601 | ||
Personally I understand the whole passage to be referring to the current situation. I just don't think the reference to the thirty pieces of silver in verse 13 merits understanding the whole passage as speaking about Judas. Far more likely it is talking about the very near judgement of God on this nation and later thinkers has the infamous 30 pieces of silver in mind when reading it. | ||||||
357 | Is forgiving the unrepentent scriptural? | Matthew | Beja | 223264 | ||
Biblenovice, I intend this really as a response to all three of your posted questions, but I'll just pick one so as to leave others up for people to answer. My response is actually a question for you though. Do you attend a church? Very much of what you ask contains so many confusions and missunderstandings that it would be quite a task to straighten them all out in a single response. These should be delt with through careful instruction week after week in a local congregation. If you do not attent a church then I tell you right now, THAT is the means appointed by God for your instruction, and you would do well to attend to it. These forums are and will always be, very limited in its ability to help you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
358 | was jesus ever, "wanted dead or alive"? | Matthew | Beja | 223833 | ||
bryan, I encourage you to read the gospels and get back to us on what you discover regarding that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
359 | Baptized | Matthew | Beja | 232314 | ||
Preston, You intend to prove your point by stressing that John said "must" rather than "should" yet I can not find in any gospel a verse that records him saying either. Did you just make this phrase up? Please help me out with a scripture reference. Where did John say, "Why must it be?" as you quote? I even checked the account in Matthew in the original greek to see if perhaps it could be translated as you are describing and yet none of it is there. How are you stressing the fine points of what was said to prove your point when the statements don't even exist? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
360 | Baptized | Matthew | Beja | 232329 | ||
G. Preston, The problem is that you are not actually defending your view. This simple fact is that historical Christianity takes the stance that you are misreading the passages that you are simply listing in passing. Now you suggest that agreed upon historical interpretation of the church can and has been wrong. Fair enough. That is entirely possible. However, when the vast majority of Christianity throughout history says that you are wrong in how you are reading those passages, the burden of proof is on YOU to unpack those passages and show us how they do in fact support your thesis. Being dismissive and acting as if you ought not have to defend your notion in such detail gives the impression that you are both unable to defend your position from scripture and also that you are unaware of how historical Christianity has interpreted this issue. This is not to mention that you are coming across as a bit haughty and unwilling to take the time and explain things to those not gifted with the insight you are apparently privy to. Summary, when you go against the history of Christianity on a doctrine, its possible that you are right, but the burden is on you to give a very detailed exposition of passages to SHOW that you are right. You don't get to dismissively throw out some references and act like all interpretors of scripture through out history are stupid. Well...you can do that but it only makes people not take you seriously. I say all this hoping it will prompt us to discussion of particular passages as this forum was meant for. You are correct that scripture contrary to your opinion has not been strongly supplied yet, though some has. I would put forward two places in scripture for starters. Romans chapter four where Paul excessively stresses that Abraham was saved by faith at the moment of faith without any external ritual such as circumcision. Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, "FAITH WAS CREDITED TO ABRAHAM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:10 How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; Rom 4:11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, Rom 4:12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. Now, two remarkable things are here relevant to the question. First, Paul stresses that he was justified by faith at the moment of faith with no other ritual aid. Second, he asserts this was written as a pattern for all who would follow after him by faith. So it seems clear to me, that Paul is arguing that we are saved by and at the moment of faith and not after the aid of any ritual. The second passage is ofcourse the theif on the cross where Christ himself assures us that the theif would be in heaven with no baptism. A simple yet powerful display that baptism does not save us. Ofcourse the passages you listed need to be discussed but this post is already too long and I'd rather let you show a willingness to discuss passages prior to putting in the effort of tackling them. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [40] >> |