Results 181 - 200 of 380
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Zacharias/Zechariah | Luke | biblicalman | 229505 | ||
Hi renewingmind' welcome to the forum Yes Zechariah is the Hebrew form of Zacharias (the Greek form). Best wishes |
||||||
182 | Jesus was born in 4 bc | Luke 2:7 | biblicalman | 227968 | ||
we do not know for sure when Jesus was born. we do know that He was born before the death of Herod. but the date of the death of Herod is not known for certainty. it could be anywhere between 5 BC and 1 BC. it depends on the interpretation of certain data. the 'registration' which brought Joseph to Bethlehem was probably the one which celebrated the 25th year of Augustus in 3 BC but it would take years to complete and Herod may have demanded it early. But Jesus was born in BC because the later calculators got the date of His birth wrong. | ||||||
183 | How do I kill my flesh daily? | Luke 9:23 | biblicalman | 229568 | ||
Paul said in Romans 6.11 that you are to 'reckon yourself as dead to sin, and alive to God through Jesus Christ our Lord'. That means that each day you must say to yourself, today I am dead. I no longer have the right to live out my own life. I no longer have the right to make my own choices. You must put off your 'old man', the man who you once were. And you must clothe yourself with Christ. You must put on the new man which in the likeness of God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Each day you must recognise that Christ lives in you (Gal 2.20) and wants to live out His own life through you. You must hand over the reins of your life to Jesus Christ. You must say, 'Lord, I am dead, dead to all that I once wanted. Live out your life through me'. And that is what you must do, recognise that Christ now possesses your life, and let him live through you. In the words of Robert Murray McCheyne you must say, 'there came the day that I died, died to the world, its approval and blame, died even to the approval and blame of my friends and brothers, and from that moment was determined to live only a life approved unto God'. That is what it means to die daily. It means to accept that the self-life is dead. It is to let Christ wholly live out His life through you. May God bless you and enable you to do so. |
||||||
184 | who is the foxes in luke 9;58 is t herod | Luke 9:58 | biblicalman | 227686 | ||
The foxes in luke 9.58 refer to foxes. Jesus' point is simply that while even foxes and birds have somewhere to be at home, He Himself did not. He was pointing out that those who wished to follow him must share in His rough life. We must beware of reading into illustrative parts of simple statements deep meanings. | ||||||
185 | REV.21 VS 8 ARENT THEY SAVED TOO? | Luke 23:39 | biblicalman | 229390 | ||
Hi Alalexnikki, Welcome to the Forum. We are saved by faith alone as the channel (Gen 15.6; John 3.16; Romans 3.24; Ephesians 2.8-9) We are saved by the Triune God alone as the Instrument and Means of our salvation, through the cross (Eph 2.8-9; 2 Tim 1.9; Tit 2.11; 3.4-5). All who are saved will finally be overcomers (1 John 5.4-5), for that is what salvation is in the end all about, producing fruit unto eternal life ('by their fruits you will know them'). An overcomer is one who confesses Christ to the end. 'He who endures to the end will be saved'. Concerning verse 8, Paul says, 'and such were some of you, but you have been washed, you have been accounted as holy, you have been accounted as righteous, in the Name of our Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God' (1 Cor 6.11). The dying thief who turned to Jesus was a thief, but when he was about to die he was no longer a thief, he was one of God's sanctified ones. Many to whom Paul preached were idolaters, but those who responded ceased to be idolaters and became God's sanctified ones. In other words verse 8 is saying that all who are still like this at the end, will experience the second death. If a man came to me and said, 'I am an unbeliever, i live vilely, I am a murderer, I live a sexually immoral life, I practise magic arts, I am an idolater, and I am a continual liar, but forty years ago I professed to believe in Jesus Chrst, am I saved? I would have no hesitation in saying 'no'. For Jesus said, 'by their fruits you will know them'. If Jesus Christ was saving him he would not be like that. Best wishes |
||||||
186 | Order of the books of the bible? | Luke 24:44 | biblicalman | 228786 | ||
The order is based on the Septuagint (Greek translation) of the Old Testament as perpetuated by Jerome. It is based basically on similarity of subject matter. The Hebrew text puts the books in a different order, but includes all the same books. The Jews divided the Old Testament into: THE LAW THE PROPHETS THE HOLY WRITINGS (Hagiographa) This latter was confirmed by Jesus after His resurrection when He spoke of 'The Law, the Prophets and the Psalms' (Luk 24.44). He cited the Psalms because it was the largest book among the Holy Writings but it was intended to include the others. The books to be included were finally settled by the Rabbis but were largely based on tradition that had come down to them. The important thing is that Jesus confirmed them and never argued against the inclusion or omission of any book. This is also the Jewish canon. Best wishes |
||||||
187 | Order of the books of the bible? | Luke 24:44 | biblicalman | 228791 | ||
just me thanks for your welcome advice :-)) Best wishes |
||||||
188 | Order of the books of the bible? | Luke 24:44 | biblicalman | 228815 | ||
Further to what has been said, we should note that these councils dod not start from scratch and make their decision. They sat down to ask themselves, what are the books of the New Testament which have always been accepted by the church? In the case of most of the books there was no argument. The four Gospels and Acts,and Paul's letters had never been questioned. They had always been accepted and are all found in all second century lists. 1 Peter and 1 John were also unquestioned. It is not that the others were doubted by everyone, but that they were doubted in some places. Thus the council looked at the evidence with regard to these books and then made their decision. |
||||||
189 | Doubt | John | biblicalman | 228778 | ||
Well one thing you cann do is read John's Gospel prayerfully on your knees and ask yourself, Who does Jesus portray Himself to be? He claimed for example that He was due to the same honour as the Father (5.23), that He did always what the Father did (5.19), and that he who had seen Him had seen the Father (14.7-9). He also claimed that He had been with the Father in glory before the world was (17.5). Elsewhere He is portrayed as the Creator and sustainer of all things (John 1.1-4; Colossians 1.16-17; Hebrews 1.1-3). Do you really think that a few little diseases and disablements would be a problem for Him? Best wishes |
||||||
190 | Please explain the Trinity | John 1:1 | biblicalman | 227463 | ||
I would mainly confirm what Beja says. I would add that we must remember that when speaking of God we have to do so in human terms, the only terms we understand. But God is not in any way human apart from the Son coming in the flesh. God is Spirit. and we do not understand spirit apart from what we can gather from our own meagre experience, which we can only define in terms of activity. Thus we can never hope to understand God, except in terms of His activity. Jesus spoke of Himself as the Son. What He was signifying by this was that He was of the same nature as the Father. But His Sonship was otherwise far different from ours. HE was not born. He always existed. Thus we must accept what it conveys about Him having the nature of God, but not press it too far. He was not a son in the same way as we are sons of our fathers, being born later than them and succeeding when they die. Compare how Jesus is called the heir of all things. But it does not mean that the Father will either die or retire. Again it is signifying one aspect of the word, that one day all would again be His. So all expressions about the Son have to be used guardedly, asking what do they teach, and where do they come short. When speaking of God human terms must not be strictly applied from all angles. Thus the oneness of Father, Son and Spirit is not simply a numerical oneness, it is a oneness of compound being. Within His oneness is a threeness in which each member intercommunicates, and yet to see one is to see all (John 14.7-9). They are not strictly three persons, for persons are individuals. Again the danger of a human terminology. They are inter-personal and intercommunicating in the One Being, and where one acts, all act. | ||||||
191 | who was nicodemus | John 3:1 | biblicalman | 228467 | ||
Nicodemus was a leading Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish body that ruled Judea. He came secretly to Jesus to find an answer to his questions (John 3). He also sought to defend Jesus before the Pharisees (John 7.50) and helped Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus' body(John 19.39). | ||||||
192 | believing and being born again? | John 3:16 | biblicalman | 227927 | ||
To be 'born again' or more preferably to be 'born from above' refers to the work of the Holy Spirit producing spiritual life within. It is not sufficient to have a vague intellectual belief about Jesus (compare John 2.23-25). The belief that is required for this to happen is 'belief into Christ', that is a genuine personal response to Christ, calling on Him to act as our Saviour. As we genuinely believe His promises to be our Saviour as a consequence of His work on the cross, and call on Him to work in our lives and make us into what He wants us to be, we come within the sphere of His salvation. He makes us into new creatures (2 Corinthians 5.17). We are born again of imperishable seed through the living and abiding word of God (1 Peter 1.23). | ||||||
193 | relationship with Christ | John 3:16 | biblicalman | 228193 | ||
The simple answer is that if she has a personal faith in Christ for salvation, and is hearing His voice and following Him, then yes she will be saved. Christ never fails anyone who truly puts their trust in Him. It certainly matters that Roman Catholics (we are all catholics for it means the universal church of which the Roman church is a branch)are wrong in some of their beliefs. And it would be good if those were sorted out. But it does not effect the salvation of someone who truly believes in Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord (Romans 10.9) for their whole salvation |
||||||
194 | Different beliefs and salvation | John 3:16 | biblicalman | 228211 | ||
No not at all. The belief in Christ must be of the God-man, the true Son of God, Who wrought salvation for us on the cross and Who is the only one who saves. You cannot be a genuine JW and be saved. But you must recognise that not all who belong to the JWs actually fully understand what they teach. Indeed it has changed through the decades. Thus a practising JW may believe in his heart that Jesus Christ is the true Son of God without recognising that strictly he is going against JW teaching. The same is true of Roman Catholics (although I would not parallel the two as RCs believe in the full divinity of Christ. Large number of Roman Catholics today do not strictly hold the teaching of their church. It is doubtful if they know it, and in fact what is taught depends on what part of the world they live in. Auricular confession is not necessary, but it is not a gross sin as long as the person looks to Christ and not to the church for forgiveness. Belief in the Virgin can vary over a wide range of ideas. The question is as to where their real trust is laid, is it in Christ or is it in the Virgin. The one saves, the other doesn't. So God looks at the heart. He knows who is truly believing in Christ for salvation. But once you are aware that the teaching of your church is false you should leave it. It is not OK to be involved in what you know to be false teaching |
||||||
195 | Different beliefs and salvation | John 3:16 | biblicalman | 228214 | ||
Hi doc, The Anglicans in the uk spread from high Anglicans who are almost like Roman Catholics but in many cases without their worst features, to middle Anglicans who are mainly wishy washy, to Low Anglicans who are evangelical. The evangelical wing of the Anglican church is about 48 per cent of the whole, possibly more now that many high anglicans are drifting to Rome because of women priests. Strangely enough you are more likely to find high anglicans preaching the Gospel as against middle Anglicans (where the women ministers mainly reside). The low Anglicans would agree with the important aspects of the teaching of Calvin and Luther, and preach the Gospel soundly. They would reject auricular confession, praying to the Virgin Mary (the of course believe in the virgin Mary), transubstantiation, praying through the saints, high church robes, crucifixes with Jesus on, and other similar Roman Catholic ideas. Very few Anglicans, even High Anglicans, although there are exceptions, would agree with the Council of Trent as regards the Gospel. |
||||||
196 | Different beliefs and salvation | John 3:16 | biblicalman | 228247 | ||
Well Julia every heresy and sect claims to be following Matthew 28.19. But every JW is expected to go from door to door in pairs, one usually a learner. Thus it is a requirement of the JWs. Matthew 28.19 says nothing about that. In fact all Christians and many heretics seek to obey Christ's demand to make disciples. But of course JWs are not Christians in the Biblical sense. They do not believe in the Jesus Christ of the Bible. Acts 5.42 says nothing about going from door to door to the unsaved. Christians visited each others houses. i wouldn't call it evangelism. They have no good news of a Saviour, whatever they claim. They believe that salvation is by works. The death of their Jesus only 'helps'. After all the death of the Jesus they believe in could not be sufficient for the sins of the whole world. Only the death of One Who was true God could be that. Like all propagandists JWS are fond of trying to make what they teach sound as if its from the BIble. But it is only convincing to people who do not know what the Bible teaches. Best wishes. |
||||||
197 | god's mercy why is there hell | John 3:16 | biblicalman | 229179 | ||
Hi again. Hell was not prepared for man. It was prepared for the Devil and his angels, the demon world (Matt 25.41). Unredeemed man participates in it because he has taken sides with the Devil. God is not willing that any should perish. He wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3.9). It is against His urgent entreaties that men opt to go to Hell. He even went to a cross in order to redeem us from sin. But men refuse to submit to God. They refuse to accept the awfulness of their condition as sinners and as evil (Luke 11.13). They refuse treatment. What would you say of a man with a highly contagious disease who deliberately went into a children's nursery and passed his deadly disease on to the children? And yet this is what we as sinners do all the time. We pass our sin on to our children, not only by birth, but by our bad example. Thus God has to keep heaven free from sin, and there is only one way to do that, and that is by excluding untreated sinners. You must not, however, see Hell simply as a place of deliberate torture. There are no toasting forks in Hell. It is a place of outer darkness, exclusion from the light which, if they ever experienced it, would in itself in their sinful condition be extreme torture.It is a place of loss. It is a place of burning remorse. But even there some are 'beaten with many stripes' and others are 'beaten with few stripes' (Luke 12.47-48). Thus God behaves justly in all His dealings. I am not sure why dying in the Holocaust should entitle people to special treatment. It was an awful fate. But men through the centuries have suffered awful fates. It is the consequence of man's inhumanity to man. Like all of us they will be judged on the basis of whether they sought treatment from the Great Physician, our Lord Jesus Christ. Best wishes |
||||||
198 | How is jacob the ancestor of a samaritan | John 4:12 | biblicalman | 228245 | ||
It depends what you mean by a Samaritan. If your mean the people of Samaria then yes some of the people of Samaria were descended from Jacob, those left in the land when the others were exiled. But the Samaritans in the New Testament came from around Shechem and were probably not descended from the ancient people of Samaria. Their religion was too pure for that. The people of Samaria may have worshipped YHWH but they also worshipped other Gods. Thats why Ezra would have nothing to do withe them religiously speaking. They were polytheists. And it was not permitted to marry them. But what were called Samaritans in the Gospel were worshippers of one God, the God of Moses. It is very doubtful whether they were descended from the mixed people of Samaria. Indeed it is probable that they were Jews, but with their own beliefs. Where they came from we do not know. See any good modern Bible Dictionary. |
||||||
199 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229266 | ||
There are no real grounds for suggesting that the Pharisees were referring to Jesus' birth in John 8.41. In Jewish eyes Jesus would not have been seen as born of fornication, for Joseph and Mary were betrothed, and betrothed couples regularly had children without it being frowned on (except by high sticklers). Betrothal was binding and could only be broken by divorce. Marriage simply sealed the betrothal. Furthermore the contrast made by the Pharisees was with God as their Father. Thus as you say they were contrasting themselves with those who had idols as their father and were thus 'born of fornication'. Idolatry was regularly seen as harlotry. |
||||||
200 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229276 | ||
Hi, The Israelites/Jews believed in arranged marriages, although that did not necessarily mean that the parents did not consult their children. But for a man or woman to marry without their parents agreement was unusual (Esau was an exception and thereby grieved his parents). When the couple were agreed on by their parents they became betrothed. This was then seen as binding, and only divorce could set it aside. The aim was that it would last for life. You will notice that Joseph was going to 'put away, divorce' Mary privately, even though they were 'only' betrothed. It had to be a semi-official action. Marriage wowuld then result when they had reached the necessary age. These are facts that can be found in any reliable Bible Dictionary, and good commentaries. NBD says, 'the betrothed woman was sometimes called 'wife' and was under the same obligation of faithfulness (Gen 29.21; Deut 22.23-24; Matt 1.18, 20) and the betrothed man was called 'husband' (Joel 1.8; Matt 1.19). Best wishes. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [19] >> |