Results 21 - 40 of 131
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Suede67 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107349 | ||
Depends on what view you hold. Most of Christendom holds a Futurist view, that is Christ still has yet to come, but will come in the future. However, not all Christians hold this view. I do not, I hold what's known as the Preterist view which means "past fullfillment" and believe that the NT and the OT even point to Christ coming back within 40 years of his ascension. Though this sounds very odd at first, it did to me, careful and attentive study of the NT as well as 1st Century History shows that this is most likely the correct view. Look at what Jesus told his disciples, "You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." (Matt. 10:23) Take care, Suede |
||||||
22 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107402 | ||
Hi Just Read Mark, Thanks for asking, I’ll answer you in parts. This is going to be a bit long. “”””“Hi. It has always been clear to me that the NT writers EXPECTED Jesus to return very soon.” Yes you are correct. Not only that, but they expected him to return within their lifetimes. “””””I have just thought that they were mistaken (seeing through the glass darkly)” Looking through the mirror darkly indeed. As it’s already been noted, no one knew the exact day or hour of his return, but Christ did give them a 40 year time frame. If we notice in the Gospels Christ states that “THIS generation shall not pass”, meaning that one, that specific generation in the 1st century was the so called terminal generation, and that two a generation as the Hebrews knew it was 40 years. ‘’’’’’’’I have never heard of your interpretation before. You are saying that Christ already did return? This makes my mind reel with questions:’’’’’’ It’s been around since Christendom, but Futurism is obviously far more popular. However, people are finally focusing on Eschatology or “End Times” issues now and noticing a LOT of problems with Futurism. Preterism is fortunately rapidly spreading through Christendom. ’’’’’’’’1) Why wouldn't the NT writers have mentioned something about that? The canon wasn't set til later anyway.’’’’’’ Actually the NT is chock full of passages that mention it. Too often we get our mind locked into a certain way of thinking, we have ‘set our minds’ and therefore when we do things we do things with that sort of mind set. You most likely read the NT with Futurism as your mind set, so when you come across a passage, you interpret it with that Futurist thinking. Too often we expect things to happen in a certain way, and when they don’t happen that way we are either consciously or unconsciously ignorant of the event taking place. Such as, you probably think a European super leader will rise, perhaps Catholicism is the Great Harlot (it was actually Jerusalem), China will come across a dried up Euphrates river, and there will be some sort of an implant or tattoo where you can’t buy or sell goods. Sound familiar? I too had that same “mode” of thinking. But the more you sit down and let the Bible explain the Bible, instead of the 5 o’clock news, you realize that Futurism doesn’t make Biblical sense. I would highly recommend you, at least just once, read the NT with a ‘past fulfilled’ frame of mind, it will help. Check out some of these verses and you’ll understand what I mean. "But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." Luke 9:27 "THIS generation will not pass away until ALL these things take place." (Matt. 24:34) “THESE are days of vengeance, in order that ALL things which are written may be fulfilled.” (Lk. 21:22) “This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 'And it shall be in the last days…'” (Acts 2:16-17) “Not for [Abraham's] sake only was it written, that [faith] was reckoned to him [as righteousness], but for our sake also, to whom it is about to be reckoned.” (Rom. 4:23-24) “We shall not all fall sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.” (I Cor. 15:51-52) “The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.” (I Peter 4:7) ””””””””2) And why didn't anything change upon his return (for Revelation and Thessalonians would certainly cause us to expect radical change)? Things DID in fact change, however this is what I was referring to with “mindsets”. We get our mind stuck on something, and when it doesn’t happen that way, we often dismiss the actual happening because it wasn’t a ‘custom fit’. Going off what my mind frame used to be, I remember thinking that the ‘end’ would involve no more wicked people and basically a physical restoration of the earth. BUT, is this what the Bible says? No it isn’t. Sadly Futurism has taught this, but it doesn’t match up with the Bible. Things were very much changing in the 1st century, but they were on the Spiritual level, not the fleshy one. People put too much value in flesh, forgetting that God the Father is spirit. cont'd SUEDE |
||||||
23 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107403 | ||
Part II cont’d ””””””””3) And -- if what you say is true -- what do we have to look forward to? Actually think about that in terms of Futurism. What is that Futurism has us looking forward to? Pretty awful stuff. We live in the Age that the OT saints truly desired. "For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” Matt. 13:17 The OT saints knew that the Messiah would come and redeem them, free them. We now days have forgotten that. The Messiah was set to do all things, Jesus stated this many times, that he was to fulfill ALL things, not just some. The OT saints, and the NT saints did not separate ALL things by thousands of years. They knew that once the Messiah showed up that all things would be fulfilled. “Not for (Abraham's) sake only was it written, that (faith) was reckoned to him as (righteousness), but for our sake also, to whom it is about to be reckoned.” (Rom. 4:23-24) See people think that Jesus was born at the beginning of an Age, he wasn’t; he was born at the END of the Age. ” Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” (I Cor. 10:11) We are truly free and we are to spread that message, the Good News. We are to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth, we are God’s children, there’s still plenty to do! Well, that’s just the tip of the iceberg, but I’m glad you asked about them. I hope I answered your questions, even if just on a very basic level. If you are interested in this I do hope you will study more, here’s some websites I recommend you look into Preteristplanet - includes forums where you can ask questions until you’re blue! Preteristarchive - perhaps the most comprehensive Preterist site on the web. Preterist.org - simple and thought provoking. And lastly I also recommend you study the Bible with a Literal translation such as Young’s or Green’s. Sadly, NASB and even NKJV touted as great literal translations still fall short. Too often Preterism is misunderstood because of passages that are ‘theologically’ translated instead of literally translated. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
24 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107404 | ||
8788, This is true, no man knew the day or hour. Preterism is consistent in this fact; it doesn’t claim to know the exact day or hour. At best we know it was around 70 AD, but as far as specifics, Jesus was right, we don’t know, for it was like a thief in the night. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
25 | women can wear makeup (where found) | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 113913 | ||
Well, that's going to kind of be a legalistic issue. Typically in the Bible, OVER ornamentation is often associated with 'loose' women. 2 Kings 9:30 Eze 23:40 Jer 4:30 In 1 Tim 2:9,10 Paul states that he wants women to be modest. I wouldn't twist this though in a cultic manner to say women can not wear make up. I think there is an appropriateness to all things. SUEDE |
||||||
26 | Question about timeline | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 114126 | ||
MrHearing, Good question, here's a very brief answer, hope it helps. The adoption of the birth of Christ as the initial epoch of the Christian calendar. This epoch was established by the sixth century scholar Dionysius Exiguus, who was compiling a table of dates of Easter. An existing table covered the nineteen-year period denoted 228-247, where years were counted from the beginning of the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian. Dionysius continued the table for a nineteen-year period, which he designated Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi 532-550. Thus, Dionysius' Anno Domini 532 is equivalent to Anno Diocletian 248. In this way a correspondence was established between the new Christian Era and an existing system associated with historical records. What Dionysius did not do is establish an accurate date for the birth of Christ. Although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before A.D. 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive dating. Given an initial epoch, one must consider how to record preceding dates. Bede, the eighth-century English historian, began the practice of counting years backward from A.D. 1. In this system, the year A.D. 1 is preceded by the year 1 B.C., without an intervening year 0. Because of the numerical discontinuity, this "historical" system is cumbersome for comparing ancient and modern dates. Today, astronomers use plus 1 to designate A.D. 1. Then plus 1 is naturally preceded by year 0, which is preceded by year minus 1. Since the use of negative numbers developed slowly in Europe, this "astronomical" system of dating was delayed until the eighteenth century, when it was introduced by the astronomer Jacques Cassini, 1740. Even as use of Dionysius' Christian Era became common in ecclesiastical writings of the Middle Ages, traditional dating from regnal years continued in civil use. In the sixteenth century, Joseph Justus Scaliger tried to resolve the patchwork of historical eras by placing everything on a single system ,Scaliger, 1583. Instead of introducing negative year counts, he sought an initial epoch in advance of any historical record. His numerological approach utilized three calendrical cycles: the 28-year solar cycle, the nineteen-year cycle of Golden Numbers, and the fifteen-year indiction cycle. The solar cycle is the period after which weekdays and calendar dates repeat in the Julian calendar. The cycle of Golden Numbers is the period after which moon phases repeat approximately on the same calendar dates. The indiction cycle was a Roman tax cycle. Scaliger could therefore characterize a year by the combination of numbers S,G,I, where S runs from 1 through 28, G from 1 through 19, and I from 1 through 15. Scaliger noted that a given combination would recur after 7980 (equals 28 X 19 X 15) years. He called this a Julian Period, because it was based on the Julian calendar year. For his initial epoch Scaliger chose the year in which S, G, and I were all equal to 1. He knew that the year 1 B.C. was characterized by the number 9 of the solar cycle, by the Golden Number 1, and by the number 3 of the indiction cycle, i.e., (9,1,3). He found that the combination (1,1,1) occurred in 4713 B.C. or, as astronomers now say, -4712. This serves as year 1 of Scaliger's Julian Period. It was later adopted as the initial epoch for the Julian day numbers. |
||||||
27 | Adultery is Sex Before Marriage? | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 117030 | ||
Ematt, There is a difference between the two. Adultery is sex by a married person with someone they are not married to. This is strictly forbidden in both the Old and New Testament. Exodus 20:14 and Luke 18:20. Fornication is sex before marriage. Fornication is forbidden, notable in Acts 15 when that was a law that Gentile converts were to follow. Fornication seems to be grouped together with sexual immorality as well and in 1 Cor 7:2 Paul notes, "Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband." Also note Ephesians 5:3-5 and Gal 5:19. In short, both pre marital and extra marital sex are forbidden. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
28 | Bible version can become an idol? | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 117496 | ||
Lorenzo, That's a good question. Personally I don't see them becoming an idol among Christians. But that would have a lot to do with who all is defining what an idol is. In the 8th and 9th century there were the Iconoclastic Wars which were between groups that did not use images in their worship, and those that did. The Iconoclasts felt that NO images should be used in accordance with the 10 commandaments, but many opposed to their thoughts understood them the images to be merely symbolic. Eventually the Iconclasts lost out. In the same sense, it may be who is the detractor of a certain translations, not the promoter of it that starts the whole idolization of the Bible charge. As far as noticing the attacks and defenses on the web and in print, there is a movement called the KJV Only movement which believes that only the KJV is the true English translation. They in turn demonize modern translations, notably the NIV which in turn is where you have the NIV defend its stance. I think it's often the staunch detractors of things in Christendom that cause problems. To restate my own theory, I just do not see any Christian worshipping the Bible as if it were an idol. Realistically we all have our favorite versions. I love ultra literal translations such as Young's or Green's, but I don't idolize them. I know of nothing in the Bible about the idolization of the books and letters which comprise it. Idols is usually understood as graven images, 3D such as statues, not texts. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
29 | If you rape a virgin then she must mary | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 118001 | ||
teachergary, Since you are in a discussion with non believers let me pass on two excellent websites to you. I'll give you their links that are specific to your questions, but I implore you to explore them further. Lastly remember that some times you are the only connection between a person and Jesus. Take care, best of luck, SUEDE http://www.tektonics.org/ancientmores.html#dt2228 http://www.christian-thinktank.com/virginity.html |
||||||
30 | was nathanael a martyr? | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 119218 | ||
Ducky12 This is going to be a long 'non answer'. Unfortunately the 'missions' of several of the apostles are known only through tradition. Sometimes this is ok, sometimes the information is shakey and unrealiable. As far as Nathanael goes, first you should note that he is often known as Bartholomew. Oddly though, even this in itself is vague and is not completely agreed upon among scholars. However, with this assumption, one tradition has it that Bartholomew/Nathaneal was martyred in Kalyana, a city state on the west coast of India, near modern-day Bombay in roughly 62 AD. Supposedly Bartholomew was skinned alive and crucified. Another tradition in regards to the manner of his death, said it occurred at Albanopolis in Armenia. According to some, he was beheaded, according to others, flayed alive and crucified upside down by order of Astyages, for having converted his brother, Polymius, King of Armenia. There is a good chance though regardless that he was martyred. For sure only John died of natural causes. Most of the others that we do know about either Biblically or with much assurance were martyred. With this, it is a safe guess that Nathanael was maryured as well. Hope this helps, SUEDE |
||||||
31 | What is the Darby translation | Bible general Archive 1 | Suede67 | 85592 | ||
A translation first published in 1890 by John Nelson Darby, an Anglo-Irish bible teacher associated with the early years of the Plymouth Brethren. Darby also published translations of the Bible in French and German. It's a well respected translation. John Darby was a staunch defender of Christ, and though I personally disagree with his views on eschatology (he was a PreMill dispensationalist), he was quite a theologian that left us over 50 volumes of work. |
||||||
32 | Disciples Killed Hung Upside Down Cross? | Bible general Archive 1 | Suede67 | 85596 | ||
It was supposedly Peter, but it should be noted that this is merely legend. There is no proof of this. We do know that both he and Paul were killed prior to 70 A.D. It is also rumored that Paul was probably not crucified since he did hold Roman citizenship. | ||||||
33 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115018 | ||
That's a good question indeed, here's my thoughts. One, the OT is a larger volume and covers thousands of years and several individuals and groups. The NT is a slimer volume, covers roughly 70 years and has much fewer people in it. I think people start off with Genesis, but then once they hit the later chapters, they sort of trail off. Exodus is the same. A lot of the OT is history, not doctrine, and a lot of people aren't into that. I for one would recommend people read the Psalms, Proverbs and the works of the Prophets and Daniel in the OT. That's a good 'starting point' and those tend to have more immediate bearing on the NT. That's my thoughts anyways, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
34 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115168 | ||
Hi Ischus, ""If you mean that the OT is more historical than theological I would disagree. None of the Old Testament is primarily meant to be history."" Well, this is where you and I differ then. I don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT. The overall message is that God is faithful, but a lot of the doctrine in the OT is the Law, legalistic in nature. But, we aren't under that, so I fail to see where the doctrine of the OT has much bearing on the present. The OT is in fact a lot of history, starting with Genesis and easily going to Psalms. Even then, books such as Daniel contain bits of history. One only need ask, what is quoted more or turned to more for guidance, the NT or the OT? Well, the NT of course, especially if we remove Psalms and Proverbs from the picture. I personally think statements such as "who God is, who his people are, how they are saved" are way too generalized. But, I agree that we shouldn't ignore the OT. That's my thoughts, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
35 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115233 | ||
Kalos, ""Suede, I am not against you. What I write is not intended as a personal attack.""" Understood, you and I disagree, but we can still act civil about it all. """Anyone who says that they "don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT" is in need of eye salve, "that you may see" (Revelation 3:18).""" How so? Did not Christ fulfill the things of the OT? """To say that the OT, the Word of God, is legalistic is absurd. To say that the Law is legalistic is to display a lack of knowledge and understanding of both the Law and legalism (two different things). Legalism is not obeying the written Law of God; it is the attempt to keep man-made rules and regulations, man-made interpretations of the Law. Jesus illustrated the difference in the Sermon on the Mount.""" Well, that's certianly one man's take on it all, I of course disagree with your take of Legalism and the Law and see it as a bit of semantics. The OT is legalistic in that it does in fact have written laws. And where there are written laws, there will be interpretations of them. Jesus and the Apostles did this; Christians still do this. """According to Paul, "All Scripture...is profitable for doctrine." To claim that the OT is NOT profitable for doctrine is to claim that it is not inspired Scripture."" Let me correct the above. The NT supercedes the OT. Also, saying that the OT is no longer valid in no way indicates that it is not inspired. That's a bad conclusion on your part. We can still draw things from the OT, but I don't put it on par with the NT. The bulk of the prophecies in the OT which make up the later half point to Jesus who fulfilled them. The first half of the OT is mainly historical and has little to do with doctrine aside from more generalized things like, God is faithful. All in all, Christians do need to know both the OT and the NT. That's my two cents, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
36 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115234 | ||
Ischus, """I do not deny that the bible contains history, but when it does, the point that the authors make is the way in which God works in history- the bible is not objective history (nor is any history, for that matter)- it is a theological interpretation of events that show God's divine work.""" You and I agree on this. But, let's say that the NT is more objective. """Each section of the OT demonstrates God's desire for a relationship with his people in spite of their failures; each book shows God's love, mercy, faithfulness, justice, holiness, grace, and his universal love for all people, including gentiles and pagans.""" Right. And the NT is the objective proof of that, John 3:16. Do you see what I mean? """These are not historical- they are Gospel! I am sorry to hear that you do not see the OT in this way.""" Well, historical none the less. I don't doubt the broad themes of the OT, of course the NT has those too. But I my point is that the NT IS the fruition of the OT. Things that were valid in the OT, the Law, aren't any longer. We as Christians don't go through laborious classes on the written law, why not? Because Christ was the fulfillment and freedom of the law. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
37 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115238 | ||
Kalos, """What did Jesus and the NT writers quote -- the NT or the OT? I am more concerned with what Jesus and the NT writers quoted than with what is quoted more.""" Strawman arguement/holier than thou attitude. Are we really to believe that you are more concerned with what King Soloman said than Jesus? Come on. Why didn't Jesus quote the NT? Because it was about him and events after he ascended? """'The law cannot be altogether invalid since the New Testament affirms its abiding applicability. "All Scripture is … useful" (2 Tim 3:16-17), including Old Testament laws. Jesus came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-20).""" The second statement refutes the first. Besides, Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." Also, Paul quoting and/or referring to the Law is of no surprise, nor does it place any precident or authority in it. Paul after conversion pushed salvation by grace and justification by faith, not by the law. Paul was a Jew. He was a Jewish thinker. Not only that, Paul was a Pharisee and many believe he was a Shammaite Phariesee, which means he was a Phariesee's Pharisee. He is drawing on information that he grew up with and studied, he's incorporating that information in his teachings. Look at what you wrote, "Paul derives a principle" "originally limited to courts, is applied more broadly to a church conference"; "derived from a law"; "Paul maintains the law's moral principle, yet in view of the changed redemptive setting, makes no attempt to apply the law's original sanction." We can see that we aren't exactly under the law here. This to me doesn't stand up to scrutiny. We can see that we aren't under the law as in the day of the OT. I understand the broad picture being painted here, don't get me wrong, but I also see the details. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
38 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115239 | ||
Colin, ""Suede, have you read the bible?"" A fair question. I have. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
39 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115248 | ||
Ischus, """Things that were valid in the OT, the Law, aren't any longer." This is absolutely false. The Law, apart from its cultural components, is completely valid. Where do you think Jesus got his priciples from? I am saying that God's principles and His nature are represented in the OT in a very unique way, and the NT cannot be a sufficient substitute for this."" Well, having 'prinicples' is very different from having 'practices', that's my point that's been missed this whole time due to semantics. The NT is sufficent, different, but sufficent none the less. Granted it would be better to have both, if a case arises where one can't, then go with the NT. ""The OT is not intended to give us information about the past,"" Of course it was, it's a very, very valid historical record. ""(It is) God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness."" Yes, I agree. But once again, we aren't under it in practice. Jesus and the writers of the NT were the fulfillment and application of the Law. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
40 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115254 | ||
ischus, ""I think that we are saying the same thing in different ways, and with different points of emphasis."" I agree. I sort of got 'jumped' here and I feel it's based on people's assumptions of what I was saying, not an actual, critical look at what I was saying. Thank you for going back over the posts. ""Is there another aspect that we can discuss?"" Perhaps there is, let me see how you react to this. It's interesting to find in the NT that the Jewish followers of Christ do actually remain under a rigid practice of the Law, well beyond mere principle, but Gentiles really are not aside from a handful of 'courtesy' laws. This seems to be odd to many as this is post ascension. Though there's different explanations to this, there's only one that I find truly valid and that's the Preteristic view. As far as "end times" go, I'm a Preterist and believe the Second Coming and all that goes with it happened in 70 AD. This means that until final completion of all things, the Law was still very much to be practiced by Jewish believers, that is until completion. This explains why the Law was still practiced by Jewish believers in the NT, and why practice of it trails off greatly. I'll let you sleep on that one, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |