Results 401 - 420 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Mark 10:24 ending change, why? | Mark 10:24 | Beja | 239278 | ||
Justme, There is no way to know for certain. Textual Criticism almost never gives us that luxury. In "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" 2nd ed. by Bruce Metzger it states, "The rigor of Jesus' saying was softened by the insertion of one or another qualification that limited its generality and brought it into closer connection with thte context." Then he goes on to list the textual varients. Bruce Metzger's book explains the text criticism decisions made by the UBS 4 Greek New Testament. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
402 | Mark 10:24 ending change, why? | Mark 10:24 | Beja | 239282 | ||
Justme, Unfortunately I am not well trained in text criticism. However, from what I can tell the earliest appearance of that phrase is from the fifth century. However, I don't want to skew the data, because from what I can tell the earliest copies of Mark that I'm seeing in this list are from the 4th century. So the fourth century texts omit the phrase then it shows up in the fifth century. Now text criticism is far more complex than this. You have to consider what are called "text families" as well as internal considerations before making any well informed decision. Simply based on what Metzger stated in his book he seems to think that with the earlier texts attesting to the phrase not being there, they then felt comfortable suggesting that it is far easier to understand why the phrase would be added for the sake of clarity by later scribes, while it makes no sense for the phrase to be omitted by a scribe. They followed the principle of which reading best explains the rise of the other readings. If you want to do research into the text traditions. It looks like the big hitter, Sinaiticus, along with Vaticanus and some other less ancient texts as well all do NOT have the phrase. The earliest that contain the phrase are Alexandrinus, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Ephraemi Rescriptus and then some less ancient texts. That is about as far as my expertise goes, I can not really tell you how much weight to give to certain texts. I know the two which reject the addition are significant texts but I can't help much further. Best of luck on it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
403 | Different degrees of hell | Mark 12:40 | Beja | 226009 | ||
puppytoes, I don't think there is anywhere in scripture that speaks of degrees of hell, however, we do see instances where Christ refers to greater condemnation. Matt 24:13 Mark 12:40 Luke 20:47 From these passages we must at least wonder. It may simply be a greater shame as they are sent off to an equal judgement, or perhaps it is truely something along the lines of different degrees of hell. I think we ought to all have a bit of humility and admit we are speculating whichever answer we lean towards. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
404 | "why have you forsaken me?" | Mark 15:34 | Beja | 226489 | ||
EdB, I agree with you entirely on this. I also like to point out that this psalm ends with an expectation of God's triumph and glory. I think not only was Christ calling out in anguish, but at the same time He indeed, as you said, had the entire psalm in mind and that means that it was also a declaration of faith that even in this it would end to the glory of God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
405 | later versions contain this paragraph? | Mark 16:20 | Beja | 240553 | ||
Tim, Doc has indeed pointed you to one of the key places to begin a study of your question. However, just to be blunt, if you are not trained to understand those sources or have somebody able to help you work through them they won't practically pay off. You are going to basically be told that aleph and beta two fourth century manuscripts omit this section of Mark. Many more manuscripts contain it, the problem is that Aleph and Beta are perhaps the most reliable and of the most early of the sources we have available. However, any modern commentary on Mark that is worth its salt must deal with the question you are asking and likely deal with it in great detail. Therefore I would suggest you seek your answer in commentaries. They are far from inerrant but you will get to see the discussion. R.T. France's commentary on Mark is usually agreed to be at least among the finest of the commentaries on Mark recently published. So I would point you there to seek an answer. It will take a little work on your part but any answer given on this forum will be reductionistic out of necessity. Good luck to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
406 | is there forgivenessofsinswithouttruerep | Luke | Beja | 240276 | ||
Charlesey, I don't think that one proof text is ever going to finally settle this question, but let me attempt to help out. First, a proof text! Luke 13:1-5 tells us pretty clearly that repentance is required. Second, a bit of biblical context. Many places in scripture assume repentance and rather discuss what is actually the thing that connects us to Christ. The answer to that is faith. Some old theologians might call faith the appropriating organ, what they meant was that while faith is never alone, faith alone is the only event upon which we are justified. One really good excerice is to do a search on an bible software for the word repentance and repent. This will quickly give you a sense of the necessity of repentance. We are saved by embracing Christ's sacrificial death for our sins through FAITH. But Christ is offerred as such to REPENTANT sinners. Third, a seriously good resource on these are John MacArthur's books "The Gospel According to Jesus" and "The Gospel According to the Apostles". Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
407 | Where did Jesus do away with the Sabbath | Luke 6:5 | Beja | 232638 | ||
elder4yhwh, That door swings both ways. When Paul says that nobody is to judge us with regards to a Sabbath, we can not suggest that only means for people not to judge us for observing one. We must also apply it the other way around. This means that nobody is to judge us if we do NOT observe a sabbath. And in the context this is clearly grounded upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. So the passage very much says that nobody is to judge a person for not obeserving the sabbath because of what Christ has done. Now granted, this does not explicitly spell out "Jesus has done away with the Sabbath." But how else are we to understand it? We no longer have the moral obligation to observe it due to the work of Christ. Call that what you will. I find it very relevant to your original question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
408 | Where did Jesus do away with the Sabbath | Luke 6:5 | Beja | 232705 | ||
elder4yhwh, In your view do we sin when we don't observe the sabbath? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
409 | Pastor giving a wrong info | Luke 6:37 | Beja | 223229 | ||
00123, In addition to the wonderful advice of speaking to your Pastor, here is a ten step procedure for dealing with this situation! 1. Pray through Ephesians 4:9-16 over and over for you and your church. 2. Pray so much for this man that it would embaress you to tell anybody of it, then pray for him some more. Pray specifically that he would be an instrument of fulfilling the previous passage. 3. Pray over your own heart and make sure you are not twisting his words and that you are understanding him rightly. You would be surprised how your own heart can fool you. 4. Re-evaluate the situation after having prayed through it in this way. 5. Study hard to see to the root of his missunderstandings, or simply his general lack of knowledge in scripture and be able to demonstrate the problem with scripture. 6. Take your entire list you just made in step 5 and hold it up to God in prayer, searching it or your heart for any accusations, unbecoming attitudes, or lines of thought which you would not desire somebody to correct you with, and substitute something more loving, more gracious, more kind, and more in line with the gospel of Christ. 7. Pray more. 8. Correct your pastor in private. 9. Pray more. 10. Take your concerns to the church. Clearly I'm being a little playful with the "ten step" thing, but I hope the real counsel is evident. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
410 | Actions to preach the kingdom of God | Luke 9:2 | Beja | 224444 | ||
00123, Its a pretty interesting question you are asking. One that I admitedly haven't thought of much in the past. I'll give you some of my own thoughts on this matter and you can judge their worth for yourself. First, what message exactly was this kingdom message they went and preached? We must noticed that we aren't given any examples of it. I am left with the assumption that their message was the same message as Christ when He Himself preached the kingdom. So what did Christ do? That we have many examples of yet we then notice that Christ spoke in parables. Shall we assume that the preaching of the disciples were also them going out in parables? I couldn't say. Now, let me direct the question a bit further. If the case is that we are asking this question from just some trivial interest then we are forced to stop there. We are given no further evidence of how their preaching differed from post-ressurection preaching. But, if we are asking such a question because we feel it is of the utmost importance because we ourselves must know what we are to preach, then I suggest we reshape the question. Let us state it clearly in that case and ask what shall we preach? Now there we have very much guidance in the scriptures. We see very clearly what those disciples of Christ preached once the Holy Spirit came and they were filled with power on high. They preached Jesus Christ crucified for sins. They preached justification through faith. They preached the gospel. So what are we to be preaching? The gospel. And truely, that may be what preaching the Kingdom of God was from the beggining. Mar 1:14,15 Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." In this verse we see Christ preaching the coming of the kingdom to be a motivation to believing the gospel and repenting. And again scripture says Mat 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." So when Christ preached the kingdom of God, central to that was calling people to repent and believe the gospel. This is exactly what we see the aposltes take up after pentecost. Paul says his constant teaching was Act 20:21 solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. So there is no question what you and I are to be preaching. We are to call people to repentence and preach the gospel as ambassadors of Christ urging them to be reconciled to God. (2 Cor 5:20) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
411 | WHAT IS THE (PORTION) IN LUKE 12:46 | Luke 12:46 | Beja | 227015 | ||
JJE, To say that he would assign them their portion means that they will receive the same fate, the same lot, the same outcome as the unbelievers. It only refers to anything specifically in as much as that happens to be the actual portion of unbelievers. The figure of speech simply means to say, "Whatever it is they receive, so will your fate be." As a side note, I do believe this is in harmony with the security of the saint's eternal salvation. But that would become a much longer post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
412 | WHAT IS THE (PORTION) IN LUKE 12:46 | Luke 12:46 | Beja | 227060 | ||
JJE, Unbelievers will be in hell until that day comes that all are brought before the throne of God to be judged. At this point hell and unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 20.) In Christ, Beja |
||||||
413 | WHAT IS THE (PORTION) IN LUKE 12:46 | Luke 12:46 | Beja | 227070 | ||
JJE, I hold to a position that has been named amillenialism. So my answer might not be what you'd expect. After Christ's return, which is the time of the rapture, God will judge all flesh, and make all things new. Simple as that. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
414 | John 13 - Five ways to reproduce | John | Beja | 233361 | ||
Sixela, Well, whenever a baby is born I tend to assume it was done the old fashioned way. And so far I've been right more often than not. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
415 | Please expain John 1:1 in layman's terms | John 1:1 | Beja | 222055 | ||
dsturges, First, as we read lets keep in mind from verse 14 that this Word is the Word which become flesh and dwelt among us. Or to put it more to the point, this word is the second person of the trinity, the Son Jesus Christ. Now to what the verses in question teaches us. In the beginning was the word. This phrase is meant to tell us that the Word Jesus Christ was eternal in nature. There never was a time when He did not exist and He is uncreated. Note that John is modeling this phrase after Genesis 1:1, which says, "In the beggining God..." John has begun, "In the beginning was the word" He's saying as clearly as he can the eternal nature of Jesus Christ. The Word was with God Next John draws a distinction. Even though the word was eternally uncreated, there was in fact a distinction between the word and the person whom we identify as God the Father. We are not to confuse the two and think they are one person. For if the Word was in fact synonymous with the Father and there had been no distinction, then John could not have said that the word was with God. the Word was God There is a great amount of debate about this phrase, yet since you specifically asked for laymen's terms then I will not go to the greek to explain it and just let you accept or reject the conclusion. This phrase essentially means that what God was, the Word was. It is not confusing the two persons he is discussing, but rather saying that they are identical in essence. So in summary, this passage is clearly teaching the trinity. Or at least the first two persons of the trinity. It teaches that Jesus Christ is eternally uncreated, was eternally present with the Father, and what the Father is in His glorious essence, the Son is also. Hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
416 | Is God one person? | John 1:1 | Beja | 223776 | ||
Integrity, This is called modalism and it was rejected by christians a long time ago. Ironically I think one of the best passages in refuting it is one of the ones they site, John 1:1-3. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
417 | Please explain the Trinity | John 1:1 | Beja | 227459 | ||
hswcurl, I'm hesitant to answer your question since it is my stance that your question does not have a correct in depth answer. When I was in seminary I had the privledge of taking a class on the historical doctrin of the trinity. We surveyed people throughout history trying to explain the concept of the trinity. What we ended up seeing was that any attempt to explain the trinity in depth only lead to heresy. Here is what we can say with clarity from scritpure. The Father is God. Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit is God. However, the Father is not the son, the Father is not the Holy spirit, and the son is not the Holy spirit. Now how exactly does that fit together? We can't grasp it. Attempts to fully grasp this has always lead to one error or another. But here is the good news. First, we do not have to grasp it, merely accept it. Second, in my opinion it is a very fit and good thing that God has some mystery with regards to exactly WHAT he is. It is fitting that our great God transcends our ability to point out his parts and say, "Aha, I've mentally grasped the internal workings of the God head." Further, what I teach in my church is that God is concerned with us growing in knowledge of WHO he is, not WHAT he is. It is important that we know that God is three persons in one essence or unity. However, that is all we must know concerning WHAT he is. Beyond that God wants us to grow in the knowledge of WHO he is, in other words, His Character. Take a look at Exodus 34 when Moses was begging to see the glory of God. What did God show him? He announced His character to Moses. That is what we are to spend our time persuing. We affirm the trinity because it is true, and because it is neccessary to properly worship God in his three fold person. However, we do not try to erase the mystery. Learn of God's might, his steadfast love, his mercy, his wrath, his holiness, his all sufficiency. This is what we need to strive to intimately know about God. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
418 | Do we accept? | John 1:1 | Beja | 229984 | ||
Wings, It seems to me that your question is concerning the trinity. There is indeed a oneness in God that is so deep it is difficulty to explain. However, there are two ways you can overstate this oneness. 1.) You can overstate this oneness by denying the diety of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Scripture affirms the diety of these. So whatever Scripture is saying in these verses affirming their diety, it can not be used to contradict that or we have mishandled those passages. 2.) We can overstate God's oneness by denying the distinctions between the three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This would be akin to saying that Jesus is God but there is no distinction at all between Christ and the Father. Scripture does teach a distinction. Now within that bounds it is very fair to say that we can not begin to grasp the intense way in which they are united. Christ does affirm that anybody who sees Him has seen the Father. And Paul affirms that the Spirit is the Lord and again he calls it the Spirit of Christ. Their unity is deep beyond our ability to explain. But we must not let our inability to explain cause us to ignore either scriptures testimony of Christ's diety or its testimony of their distinctness. How should we feel about this? First, we affirm what scripture affirms whether we can explain it or not. Second, we ought to see a certain appropriatness to our inability to explain "what" God is. He is beyond our understanding. It is ours to know what He has revealed, not to explore the depths of his composition. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
419 | Do we accept? | John 1:1 | Beja | 229989 | ||
Wings, This is what scripture tells us and we must not pit the new and old testaments against each other. Col 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, Col 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him. And Jesus tells us Joh 8:24 "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
420 | Pharisee expectations on baptism | John 1:25 | Beja | 220392 | ||
John 1:24,25 Now they had been sent from the Pharisees. The asked him and said to him, "Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?" Anybody know what the connection in their thinking was? Apparently they had some understanding of baptism in which any of these three figures were expected to be doing this but nobody else. Why did they see Baptism as some extremely authority oriented event? What in the old testament might have shaped this view? Or perhaps do you know any of the Jewish tradtion at that time that might explain it? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [40] >> |