Results 21 - 40 of 41
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: SBoone Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | IS LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN A PARABLE | Luke 16:19 | SBoone | 156706 | ||
Greetings, I am not a Jehovah's Witness, but I appreciated your comment that different ideas don't pit Christians against people. Your comment "if self-awareness after death is also false, then Jesus is using false doctrines to teach a truth. Parables illustrate truth" is true, but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusion. How do you explain the parable just prior to this in Luke 16:1-9. It seems to me that Christ here is using a negative action and drawing a spiritual positive comparison. This story has bothered me in that Christ uses someone's sinful behavior (squandering anothers possessions) to illustrate a principal that He wants us to follow (being faithful). Is it possible that Jesus simply taught so that those He spoke to could understand the truths He wanted them to understand. If I were a missionary and visited a tribe that believed the sun would punish thier bad behavior. Could I use a story of the sun showing mercy to illustrate the principle of mercy without condoning sun worship? Didn't Paul do something similar in Acts 17:23? God Bless |
||||||
22 | IS LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN A PARABLE | Luke 16:19 | SBoone | 156711 | ||
Kalos, In Luke 16:1-9 is it not a false doctrine that we should "rob" others in order to benefit ourselves? Is this not what the man did. He squandered his masters goods, and then he further cheated his master by discounting debts in order to protect his own future. Jesus then teaches that this was being faithful. Neither of us would then teach that we should use others to their loss and our gain. Rather we point to the point of the parable that Christ asks us to be faithful in the smallest areas and then more will be given us. I believe Paul was not saying this believing that they had been mistakenly worshiping the true God. I believe that he knew this to be another minor alter to yet another pagan god. He took advantage of their "ignorance" about one of their gods to teach an eternal truth. The false doctrine was worshiping the pagan god which the alter represented. Paul was not teaching false doctrine. He taught true doctine by using something others were treating in a false way. That being said. If you are correct that their worship of this unknown god was actually the worship of the Living God. Then it does nothing for my point. However the Luke 16:1-9 still illustrates my point. Thank you for your answer. |
||||||
23 | IS LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN A PARABLE | Luke 16:19 | SBoone | 156732 | ||
Hi Tim, Thanks for you comments. You make good points. It is using a negative to teach a principle. In my mind it still helps explain the Rich man and Lazarus story that follows. I believe that scripture never contradicts itself, and there are some texts that I can't reconcile to this story. Death is equivalent to a sleep Job 14:12,21 John 11:11-14 1 Thes 4:13-15 Matt 9:24 Along with many OT references to Kings sleeping when dead. Ps 146:4 "His spirit departs, he returns to the earth; In that very day his thoughts perish." In Gen 2:7 we are told that dust plus God's Breath equals a living being. In Eccl 12:7 we are told that death equals dust minus breath. Note - see margin note 1 on eccl 12:7. In Dan 12:2 says we sleep until the resurrection. Dan 12:13 says that Daniel was to enter into rest and rise again for his allotted portion at the end of the age. You must assume he is not receiving his allotted portion now. Is 57:1,2 Says the dead rest in their beds. Gen 3:17-19 God tells Adam that you are dust and to dust you shall return. Not your body but "you". Ps 115:17 "The dead do not praise the Lord". If they are in heaven why do they not praise the Lord? They will praise the Lord when they are awaken from their sleep. John 7:34 Jesus tells the disciples that where He goes they can not come. He must come back to get us. John 14:3 tells us that Christ left, but will come again to receive us to Himself, "THAT WHERE I AM, THERE YOU MAY BE ALSO". In context of these verses I can not believe that would God contidicts Himself in Luke 16. If the dead are asleep then the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus must have been a parable, or it was a glimps into the future when the wicked would be finally destroyed in hell. There are many other verses, but these give the basis of my thoughts. I know you don't share this view, and I do not mean to belittle yours or anyone else's views. I truly respect the comments that I have read on this board, and have found so much guidance. I simply share what my studies have lead me to believe. Your's in Christ |
||||||
24 | IS LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN A PARABLE | Luke 16:19 | SBoone | 156797 | ||
Good Morning Pastor, I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my comments. I have two comments. The first is that if in the OT the saints slept until Christ's resurrection then doesn't that mean Abraham was in the grave and not in Heaven holding Lazarus? Which means that the Rich man and Lazarus was either a parable or a story of some point in the future. The other comment is in scripture when I find texts that seem to contridict one another I like to dig up every text I can find on the subject and see if in context I can find (be shown) harmony. Immortality of the soul is a complex issue and in my study it was much easier to view rich man and Lazarus as a parable rather than trying to expain away the other texts. (I don't mean this negatively. I say this in the aspect that the two appear in conflict so one or the other must be brought into subjection to the other). Let's assume that the parable of the rich man and Lazarus is a literal story. Do people actually have conversations between heaven and hell? Do the people actually have fingers and tongues. If it is a literally story these present problems do they not? If this is a parable what is the teaching? Riches gained by greed, dishonesty or oppressing the poor are not a sign of God's favor. This fits with the parables prior to this as well. I believe there are many issues which don't require absolute unity in order to be brothers in Christ. My concern with this issue is the growth of spiritualism in the world. During the early Christian Church's struggle with paganism creaping into the church (which eventually lead to the reformation) a dangerous theology entered the church. Many Christians began praying to the dead. In many stories the dead spoke back. If you believe, as I believe the Bible teaches, that the dead are sleeping until the resurrection at the second coming then this false theology dies. Again thank you for your time and comments. I pray that the Lord will bless you and keep you (Num. 6:24). SBoone |
||||||
25 | IS LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN A PARABLE | Luke 16:19 | SBoone | 156817 | ||
Have a great rest! Just one comment on the Samuel story. Saul went to a medium which God clearly says is detestable (Deut 18:10-15 ; Is 47:13,14) God refused to answer Sauls question (See vs 6). Immediately after Saul goes to the medium he is killed. I would say that even if I believed as you do in regard to state of the dead. I would have a hard time thinking God would allow a medium to call up a saint to give an answer God had refused to give. I believe Saul lost his life for speaking with demons. Again, If you believe that the dead are asleep you don't have to worry about whether or not a spiritualist could call up a saint with a special message for us. Such things are of the devil. Thank you for the discussion. You have made me think and challenge my own thoughts. Sleep well my friend. SBoone |
||||||
26 | IS LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN A PARABLE | Luke 16:19 | SBoone | 156838 | ||
Hi again Mark, I really am looking forward to discussing some other topics that I'm sure you and I would hold in common. Your clear way of presenting your opinion is very challenging when you don't agree. The way I would read this is that the devil possessed woman who was "calling up Samuel" really thought she saw Samuel. Saul who was disobeying God really thought he was seeing Samuel. A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments gives arguements in favor of "that this was a mere deception", but goes on to state "many eminent writers, are of opinion that Sameul really appeared. Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible : Complete and Unabridged in One Volume says "to think that any good souls would come up at the beck of an evil spirit, or that God, who had denied a man the benefit of his own institutions, would suffer him to reap any real advantage by a cursed diabolical invention, was very absurd". He goes on to state that a saint would not "come up" since they are taken up at their death. Matt 7:17,18 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad furit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit". I would say that a devil possesed medium could not produce a real saint. I share your feelings toward Bible study. "My wisdom" is foolishness, so as the Lord reveals scripture to me I gladly cast off my foolishness in favor of His wisdom. Your brother, SBoone |
||||||
27 | IS LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN A PARABLE | Luke 16:19 | SBoone | 156888 | ||
Hi Mark, This is indeed a very powerful arguement. I would never encourage someone to use their own wisdom to interpret scripture. The only thing we can do is interpret scripture with scripture. The Bible talks about the sun rising and setting. The Bible talks about the four corners of the Earth. Should we take every word literally in scripture? My answer is absolutely yes! Unless the context of the entire scriptures proves otherwise. The Bible teaches that the dead don't know anything, their thoughts have perished, and they do not comprehend the things on earth. It is in this context that I would suggest that when the Bible says it was Samuel it is in contect of the witch and Saul believing it was Samuel, but was infact exactly what we would expect should a witch call up a dead person to speak to us today. I feel it is very important not to place our wisdom or our tradition in a higher standing than that of scripture. Is that clarifying my thoughts or complicating things further? God bless, SBoone |
||||||
28 | IS LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN A PARABLE | Luke 16:19 | SBoone | 156889 | ||
Sorry kalos, I thought I was responding to mark d sevier. I'm still getting used to this sites format. I agree with you that we need to take the scripture literally. It is the only safe way for us to study. SBoone |
||||||
29 | IS LAZARUS AND THE RICH MAN A PARABLE | Luke 16:19 | SBoone | 156890 | ||
Hi Mark, This is indeed a very powerful arguement. I would never encourage someone to use their own wisdom to interpret scripture. The only thing we can do is interpret scripture with scripture. The Bible talks about the sun rising and setting. The Bible talks about the four corners of the Earth. Should we take every word literally in scripture? My answer is absolutely yes! Unless the context of the entire scriptures proves otherwise. The Bible teaches that the dead don't know anything, their thoughts have perished, and they do not comprehend the things on earth. It is in this context that I would suggest that when the Bible says it was Samuel it is in contect of the witch and Saul believing it was Samuel, but was infact exactly what we would expect should a witch call up a dead person to speak to us today. I feel it is very important not to place our wisdom or our tradition in a higher standing than that of scripture. Is that clarifying my thoughts or complicating things further? God bless, SBoone |
||||||
30 | What is the OT role of the Holy Spirit? | John 3:11 | SBoone | 156982 | ||
Hello C.S.M., You said "Since Jesus had not died for mankinds sins yet, or been raised from the dead and ascended into heaven to sit at God's right hand, and the Holy Ghost had not yet been sent from God the Father, through Jesus his Son, to indwell believers, no one had been "born again" yet." What role did the Holy Spirit play in the OT? I'm particularly thinking of PS 51:11 where David is asking God not to "take Your Holy Spirit from me". Is Ezek 36:26,27 speaking of times after the cross? Could God's people in the OT not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I see how the NT shows that there would be a different type of work from the Holy Spirit, but I'm unclear as to exactly how that difference shows itself. God Bless, SBoone |
||||||
31 | OT Spirit limited by choice or Cross? | John 3:11 | SBoone | 157019 | ||
Hi WOS, Thank you for your comments. You have shared further texts that show the Holy Spirit was active in the OT. The apparent increased role of the Holy Spirit is what I'm trying to figure out. In the OT the Lord gave the sanctuary service and dwelt amoung the people. Today the Holy Spirit dwells within us. Is this because the Holy Spirit could not work in the same way It does today because Christ had not yet died and resurrected, or was it simply because God chose not to? It may be we don't have the answer to this, but if someone has some thoughts on this I'd love to hear them. God Bless, SBoone |
||||||
32 | OT Spirit limited by choice or Cross? | John 3:11 | SBoone | 157021 | ||
Kalos, You speak the truth when you say that "The Holy Spirit must never be considered merely as a blessing, a feeling, or an influence". I did not mean to imply that He was anything else. Thanks, SBoone |
||||||
33 | You must CHOOSE to believe? | Acts 15:7 | SBoone | 154839 | ||
Joshua 24:15 "Choose whom you will serve" is the closest I could think of. Belief comes by hearing (Rom 10:1-17), through unity (Heb 4:2), through Jesus (Heb 12:2), and we are to contend for it (Jude). | ||||||
34 | please help. | Romans | SBoone | 156737 | ||
Hi Lola, Romans 2:14-16 is an interesting few verses. Through the ages there are peoples who have not had the gospel message shared with them. It is my belief that the Holy Spirit witnesses to these people. They can choose God by following the Spirits guiding. Rom 1:19,20 ; Acts 14:17 ; John 10:16 Seem to support this idea. Zech 13:6 tells about children in heaven that do not know what the marks in Christs hands are from. This would be those that died prior to the cross, but could also represent children that followed the Spirit's guidance in spite of false teachings. Ps 87:6 implies that God will take into account what children are taught in the judgment. Remember that God loves those children more than your fiancee, and He has told us that He doesn't want anyone to perish (2 Pet 3:19). Stay steadfast in your faith and the Lord will keep you in perfect peace (Is 26:3,4) SBoone |
||||||
35 | Confused of the 10 Commandments. | Rom 13:8 | SBoone | 157423 | ||
Hello JOEB, I believe that as Christians we need to obey what God says until He says to stop. The OT law is for Christians except where God explicitly says the law is no longer in effect. Matt 5:17,18 Jesus taught that He did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill and not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Ps 89:34 God says He will not alter His utterances. Matt 24:35 tells us that God does not change. In Heb chapter 7 we are specifically told that the priesthood has concluded and is now performed by Christ in Heaven. In Heb chapter 10 we are specifically told that the sacrificial system has concluded with the true sacrifice at the cross. So here are two examples of an OT law that God has told us is no longer in effect. Rom 10:4 says that "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes". Now the question is how do we understand this in light of Jn 13:34 where Jesus said "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you". So has all law been abolished for the righteous or not? I would suggest the following as a partial answer to that question. The law said that when we sinned we must die (Eze 18:20 ; Rom 6:23 ; Gen 2:17), and it is that law that is ended for the righteous. We now, in spite of our sin, can live eternally through Jesus Christ our Saviour. Don't be discouraged. As you prayerfully ask God to teach you Biblical truth you will find that the things that were confusing will become clearer. God Bless SBoone |
||||||
36 | Confused of the 10 Commandments. | Rom 13:8 | SBoone | 157424 | ||
Hello Kalos, I'm not suggesting you believe this, but I think we need to be careful not to teach that the OT is void unless it is confirmed in the NT. I believe the safer method is accept all that God teaches until He Himself says it is changed. 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching" That said I do believe there are teachings in the NT that remove certain OT laws, but they are clearly stated. God Bless, SBoone |
||||||
37 | Confused of the 10 Commandments. | Rom 13:8 | SBoone | 157431 | ||
Hello Kalos, You said, 'But let it be immediately understood that this does not mean to say that we should necessarily behave in a manner just opposite to what the Mosaic law commands—that we should kill, steal, bear false witness, etc. Long before the law was given through Moses, it was utterly wrong to do such evil things. . .2' This is really the point is it not. I agree that the new testament teaches we are no longer under the law. When Christ said a new commandment I give you that you love one another. Am I under that law or not? Even this law if broken can be forgiven and wiped clean, but as a child of God I desire to do the will of God. If it His will for me not to murder then I choose not to murder. There are many occassions where after teaching that that we are not under the law the Bible goes on to say "does that mean we go on sinning? May it never be". See Rom 6:15 one verse after one of yours listed above. See also Rom 7:22 "I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man". Also, Gal 3:21 which teaches that the law is not contrary to the promise. If we are not to continue on in sin what does that mean? 1 Jn 3:4 says sin is the breaking of the law. I do not dispute that we are no longer under the law. I absolutely do not want to place myself back under the law, but now that I'm free I serve out of love. God Bless, SBoone |
||||||
38 | Does sin prove one is not a believer? | 1 Cor 6:9 | SBoone | 158016 | ||
Good points Mark, You could add Matt 22 the parable of the wedding feast as a Biblical example of standing on your own works. The parable says one man chose not to accept the wedding garment (Christ's robe of righteousness), and wear his own clothes (his own righteousness). The end result in vs 13 was being cast out into the outer darkness. God Bless, SBoone |
||||||
39 | What does the Bible say about marijuana? | 1 Cor 10:31 | SBoone | 156736 | ||
Hello, Add 1 Thes 5:23 "May your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame" 1 Cor 6:19,20 "Glorify God in your body" 1 Cor 10:31 "Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." The closest thing to drug use I know of would be Proverbs 23:29-35. Speaking of a drunkard v.33 states "Your eyes will see strange things, and your mind will utter perverse things." Drug and alcohol abuse have similar effect on the brain. From a medical perspective it is not that marijuana users are enlightened when using, but rather their judgement is so impaired that simple ideas seem rather brilliant. SBoone |
||||||
40 | Why did Paul never preach on tithing? | Hebrews | SBoone | 154842 | ||
Rom. 12:8 talks about giving liberally. 1 Cor 9:13,14 talks about giving to support God's workers. 2Cor 9:13 God loves a cheerful giver. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |