Results 41 - 60 of 75
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bstudent Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Who cares to discuss this verse? | Rom 8:19 | bstudent | 115508 | ||
What is the creation referred to, who are the sons of God it/they eagerly await? | ||||||
42 | Who cares to discuss this verse? | Rom 8:19 | bstudent | 115644 | ||
Why would and how can "all nature" wait expectantly? My dog does, but not my geraniums? And specifically, why would it be concerned about "the revealing of the sons of God?" I think you're right that the creation is talking about us, so why are we eagerly awaiting the revealing of the sons of God?" I believe Hebrews 11:39,40 relates to this passage. These sons must have a special role that will benefit others of mankind that do not share that role, such as all the faithful mentioned by Paul who died before Christ provided the ransom. At 1 Cor 15:22-26, "those who belong to Christ" are raised first, the first and better resurrection. But others will benefit when death is done away with by the kingdom which Jesus promised "a little flock" would reign. (Luke 12:32) The 'other sheep, not of that little fold' will be blessed in connection with them. (John 10:16) At Dan 7:13,14,15, the vision foretells of Jesus receiving kingdom power, but so do the "saints" or "holy ones of the Supreme One." (v.18) These will crush all opposers of the kingdom so that the earth can be what God originally purposed - Paradise. Yes, some will rule as kings in heaven over the earth,(Rev5:9,10)but the kingdom of course has subjects - that's us, the creation that keeps on groaning and being in pain, awaiting the revealing of the sons of God! |
||||||
43 | Who cares to discuss this verse? | Rom 8:19 | bstudent | 115789 | ||
Proverbs 2:1-5 promises: "My son, if you accept my words and store up my commands within you, turning your ear to wisdom and applying your heart to understanding, and if you call out for insight and cry aloud for understanding, and if you look for it as for silver and search for it as for hidden treasure, then you will understand the fear of the LORD and find the knowledge of God." This harmonizes with Jesus' famous words that "you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Paul's words at Romans 8:19 as well as elsewhere must have been meant to be clearly understood, for he himself admonished fellow Christians: "Again, if the trumpet does not sound a clear call, who will get ready for battle? 9So it is with you. Unless you speak intelligible words with your tongue, how will anyone know what you are saying? You will just be speaking into the air." (1 Cor 14:8,9) I would be happy to further share my thoughts on any Bible question as 'I received free so I give free." |
||||||
44 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118346 | ||
Does Paul mean that Christians do not engage in carnal warfare? What other Scriptures support the correct view a Christian should have toward secular wars? | ||||||
45 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118390 | ||
Christians have to have the courage to die for what is right; cowards will be cut off as will all other unrepentent sinners. Paul had a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge. He pursecuted Christians to the point of death. Yet when he learned the truth, he repented, had a clean conscience, and was used by God as an honorable vessel. I did many things before becoming a Christian I am not proud of. My only excuse is that I was ignorant of God's will as was Paul. The difference is that Paul was more accountable because he had the opportunity to have studied God's word. Jesus came to preach to the Jews. They had the law and were God's covenant people. They were in a serious position as His "holy nation." Jesus incidental encounters with gentiles foretold blessings for them as well, but the same level of accountability did not exist yet - Jesus had not provided the "ransom for all" and they did not know the law. To say that because he did not tell soldiers to "get a new job" indicates that he approved of their occupation would mean that because he did not tell the harlot to do likewise, she could remain in her occupation and have God's approval. Not consistent with Christian doctrine. Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, but the principles that applied to the Jews to whom Jesus ministry focused also apply to Christians. See Numbers chapter 35 concerning the "cities of refuge." In particular, verse 11 highlights that even "unintentional" taking of life was grounds for loss of the accused's life. This principle even can be seen in God's words to Noah as Genesis 9:6. Satan is the ruler of this world and is a manslayer. He does not want to see true Christians united so he attempts to embroil them in political contraversies among the nations that do not uphold God's standards and view of the sanctity of life. Paul could hold his head high despite his past because he did those things in ignorance. He came to have a fine record of courageous service for righteousness sake that God would not forget, but rather reward. Many Christians today have done likewise with the same results. To be 'no part of the world and set apart for sacred service (sanctified),' we must accept God's high standards, as unpopular as this may be in our nationalistic world. Prayerfully consider this subject. Although I was never called up for military duty, I would have done as you did. I used to work at a defense manufacturer until I studied the Bible. |
||||||
46 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118473 | ||
Matthew 21:23-24: “Now after he (one of Jesus disciples) went into the temple (Bible Forum website), the chief priests and the older men of the people (you and other “orthodox Christians”) came up to him while he was teaching and said: “By what authority do you do (write) these things? And who gave you this authority?” In reply Jesus (the disciple) said to them: “I, also, will ask YOU one thing. If YOU tell it to me, I also will tell YOU by what authority I do (write) these things.” My question to you is: “How did it occur that the majority of Christian men in Germany during WWII took up arms with or morally supported Hitler and his Nazi regime?” (Implication – How can you be certain that you wouldn’t have done likewise?) I'll try to ignore any possible 'rudeness' (bigotry) implied by your question, and will answer it after you have answered the above. |
||||||
47 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118475 | ||
That's shockingly similar to the response my Lord received! | ||||||
48 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118477 | ||
If you don't agree that a discussion of the Bible's counsel as it relates to a Christian's view of politics and nationalism is important, you are not obligated to participate. But, please refrain from prejudicing or intimidating other sincere persons from contributing. | ||||||
49 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118480 | ||
"Skirting the issue?" As you are hopefully well aware, there are only two religions - true and false. I believe I can defend "the way" Scripturally, but more importantly, the "proof is in the pudding." Speaking of "vague and flowering," - "speaking the truth in love?" I guess that depends on what "truth" is, and what "love" is. Knowledge puffs up, love builds up. Any obscuring going on is through those who will not discuss Bible truth, but prefer to debate about opinions. |
||||||
50 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118582 | ||
Cplusstudent: You deserve at least a Cplus for making a good point. I should have put "religion" in quotes, but my statement implies your sentiment that Christianity is the truth rather than a "religion." But just as there may in reality be only one God, the fact is there our many "gods" worshiped,(1 Cor 8:5)so too, even truth must be differentiated from among the worlds "religions." I thoroughly disagree with your definition of Christianity in your last paragraph. The New Testament is replete with contradictions to the concepts of "unconditional love" and "once saved, always saved." My favorite: "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." (Hebrews 6:4-6) If these verses do not suffice to overturn these strongly entrenched notions, then another 50 won't help either. Bstudent |
||||||
51 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | bstudent | 119169 | ||
Bible scholar B. F. Westcott's expertise in ancient Hebrew and Greek is fairly widely respected in the Bible community. You may find his comments regarding Hebrews 1:8, 9 which quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, interesting: “The LXX.(Septuagint-Old Testament in Greek) admits of two renderings: [ho the·os'] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os' sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him'] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os'] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26. Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, your God has anointed you,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon the throne of Jehovah.” (1 Chron. 29:23 ASV) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him. This seems consistent with the countless Scriptures that teach Jesus worshiped the Father as his God and continues doing so in his God-given role as his Messianic King. As 1 Cor 15:28 states: "And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." |
||||||
52 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | bstudent | 119192 | ||
Just thought you might want to know. Any comments on 1 Cor 15:28? Everywhere I read, in any translation, I keep seeing the Bible writers acknowledging the Father's superior position to his Son. The Father gives Jesus any and all authority he possesses because it belongs to Him. Jesus repeatedly pointed out his position relative to his God. For the Scriptures to use the relationship of a father and son to illustrate equality and "coeternity" to the patriarchal Jews is ludicrous, "it doesn't make sense." A handful of passages translated to support the trinity, even when it may be a legimate grammatical alternative to do so, cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence supporting Jesus being the firstborn of creation, a separate and obviously inferior creature to the Creator who had no beginning. In addition to your comments on 1 Cor 15:28, I'm interested to know how you respond to the spurious verses in the KJ at 1 John 5:7 and Rev 1:11? The translation influenced a lot of people. Why the need to bolster the trinity doctrine by adding to the things written under inspiration if its so clear? The sordid history of the development of this apostate doctrine is well documented in encyclopias. That history does not sound like the way truth was discerned in the days of the apostles! |
||||||
53 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | bstudent | 119202 | ||
kalos: I'm sure you're a nice guy too. As you say: “God alone is on his throne.” If he grants authority to anyone to rule, human (Solomon?) or spirit (Jesus), that authority issues from God. First, note the context. The NASB reads at Hebrews 1:9 reads, “God, your God, anointed you.” This makes it clear that the one addressed in verse eight is not God, but one who worships God and is anointed by him. Yet, you believe that Jesus can be God, and actually receive authority from the one referred to as ‘his God.” “God is my throne” does make sense. He is described as being my or our “shade”, “rock”, “strength”, “stronghold”, “salvation”, and “signal pole.” (Ps 121:5; 2 Sa 22:2,3; Is 12:2; Ex 17:15) Just as a rock symbolizing God’s constancy and dependability, his throne symbolizes his sovereignty. God is love; he is the epitome and source of true love. God alone is Almighty, and anyone he gives his power to may become “mighty” but always subordinate to Him. (Is 9:6,7) Perhaps now you see the reason for my eluding to 1 Cor 15: 28 in my first and second note. Not a “merry chase” at all, just a logical conclusion to the harmonious truth of God’s inspired word. |
||||||
54 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | bstudent | 119203 | ||
I only pointed out two, but there are a few more. Each of the dozen or so trinity text can be refuted easily, but its the volume of the verses that speak of Jesus subjection under God that one should consider. I'm sure you'll disagree, but the removal of that "honored and awesome name" has contributed much to the confusion about Jesus identity. Psalm 110:1 is a classic example. Check out this take on the name Jesus stated as the first priority in the model prayer: “MONGREL,” “hybrid,” “monstrous.” What would cause Biblical Hebrew scholars to use such emphatic terms? At issue is whether “Jehovah” is a proper English pronunciation of God’s name. For over one hundred years, this controversy has raged. Today, most scholars seem to favor the two-syllable “Yahweh.” But is the pronunciation “Jehovah” really so “monstrous”? According to the Bible, God himself revealed his name to humankind. (Exodus 3:15) Scriptural evidence shows that God’s ancient servants freely used that name. (Genesis 12:8; Ruth 2:4) God’s name was known by other nations as well. (Joshua 2:9) This was especially true after the Jews who had returned from exile in Babylon came into contact with peoples of many nations. (Psalm 96:2-10; Isaiah 12:4; Malachi 1:11) The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible says: “There is considerable evidence that in the postexilic period many foreigners were attracted to the religion of the Jews.” However, by the first century C.E., a superstition about God’s name had developed. Eventually, not only did the Jewish nation stop using God’s name openly but some even forbade pronouncing it at all. Its correct pronunciation was thus lost—or was it? In the Hebrew language, God’s name is written éäåä. These four letters, which are read from right to left, are commonly called the Tetragrammaton. Many names of people and places mentioned in the Bible contain an abbreviated form of the divine name. Is it possible that these proper names can provide some clues as to how God’s name was pronounced? According to George Buchanan, professor emeritus at Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., the answer is yes. Professor Buchanan explains: “In ancient times, parents often named their children after their deities. That means that they would have pronounced their children’s names the way the deity’s name was pronounced. The Tetragrammaton was used in people’s names, and they always used the middle vowel.” Consider a few examples of proper names found in the Bible that include a shortened form of God’s name. Jonathan, which appears as Yoh·na·than´ or Yehoh·na·than´ in the Hebrew Bible, means “Yaho or Yahowah has given,” says Professor Buchanan. The prophet Elijah’s name is ´E·li·yah´ or ´E·li·ya´hu in Hebrew. According to Professor Buchanan, the name means: “My God is Yahoo or Yahoo-wah.” Similarly, the Hebrew name for Jehoshaphat is Yehoh-sha·phat´, meaning “Yaho has judged.” A two-syllable pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton as “Yahweh” would not allow for the o vowel sound to exist as part of God’s name. But in the dozens of Biblical names that incorporate the divine name, this middle vowel sound appears in both the original and the shortened forms, as in Jehonathan and Jonathan. Thus, Professor Buchanan says regarding the divine name: “In no case is the vowel oo or oh omitted. The word was sometimes abbreviated as ‘Ya,’ but never as ‘Ya-weh.’ . . . When the Tetragrammaton was pronounced in one syllable it was ‘Yah’ or ‘Yo.’ When it was pronounced in three syllables it would have been ‘Yahowah’ or ‘Yahoowah.’ If it was ever abbreviated to two syllables it would have been ‘Yaho.’”—Biblical Archaeology Review. These comments help us understand the statement made by 19th-century Hebrew scholar Gesenius in his Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures: “Those who consider that éäåä [Ye-ho-wah] was the actual pronunciation [of God’s name] are not altogether without ground on which to defend their opinion. In this way can the abbreviated syllables éäå [Ye-ho] and éå [Yo], with which many proper names begin, be more satisfactorily explained.” Nevertheless, in the introduction to his recent translation of The Five Books of Moses, Everett Fox points out: “Both old and new attempts to recover the ‘correct’ pronunciation of the Hebrew name [of God] have not succeeded; neither the sometimes-heard ‘Jehovah’ nor the standard scholarly ‘Yahweh’ can be conclusively proven.” No doubt the scholarly debate will continue. Jews stopped pronouncing the name of the true God before the Masoretes developed the system of vowel pointing. Thus, there is no definitive way to prove which vowels accompanied the consonants YHWH (éäåä). Yet, the very names of Biblical figures—the correct pronunciation of which was never lost—provide a tangible clue to the ancient pronunciation of God’s name. On this account, at least some scholars agree that the pronunciation “Jehovah” is not so “monstrous” after all. |
||||||
55 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | bstudent | 119537 | ||
Col 1:15,16 as well as Rev 3:14 show Jesus is a creature, albeit the first and the one that God used as his master worker to create every other creature. (Prov 8:22-31) |
||||||
56 | What does He 11:39,40 mean? | Heb 11:40 | bstudent | 114608 | ||
What "something better" did Paul foresee for himself and other Christians? | ||||||
57 | How are pre-Christians made perfect? | Heb 11:40 | bstudent | 114624 | ||
How will these 'hall-of'famer' be made perfect in connection with those that receive "something better?" | ||||||
58 | How are pre-Christians made perfect? | Heb 11:40 | bstudent | 114716 | ||
Concerning Jesus relating the account of Lazarus and the rich man, I wanted to share some of my reasonings based on the Scriptures. 1) This is a parable, not to be taken as literal. The preceding account at Luke 16:1-8 begins very similarly to the subject account. Also notice verses 14 and 15. I think the Pharisees knew that Jesus was using the "rich man" to represent their position and privilege, but that 'The kingdom of God shall be taken away from them, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof,' common Jews who were despised by the Pharisees but repented and became Jesus' followers, represented by Lazarus (which means "God Has Helped.") (See Matthew 21:31,32,43) 2) Since Adam, the "wages of sin is death." That is death only! To tell Adam he would die, when in actuality he would continue living only to be tormented eternally strikes me as incredible implausible given God's nature. (1 John 4:8; Deuteronomy 32:4) I could not worship a God that would be less righteous than one of his creatures, creatures that are abhorred by fellow humans that would torture another human even for a few moments, even when such are guilty of dispicably inhuman acts themselves. Interestingly, when the Israelites had sunk to the degraded practice of their pagan neighbors, that of sacrificing their children, God had the following to say: "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded not, neither came it into my mind." (Jeremiah 7:31) Satan is the father of the lie and god of this system, and as such, he attempts to use false religious teachings to bring reproach on the true God. It was the privilege of Jesus and is the privilege of his disciples to help others know the Father that "loved the world so much that he gave his only begotton son." Jesus taught us to pray: "Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name" (or, "may your name be sanctified", made holy.) Proverbs 27:11 states: "My son, be wise, and make my heart glad, That I may answer him that reproacheth me." I hope that this information helps you to furnish such a reply to Satan. |
||||||
59 | How are pre-Christians made perfect? | Heb 11:40 | bstudent | 114801 | ||
Jesus taught in illustrations not only because it is an effective teaching technique, but to reach the hearts of meek lovers of truth. Thus, much of what he said was lost on the prideful. (Mt 13:10-15,34; 11:25) Studying the Bible is like putting together a puzzle, we find the corner pieces easily, then the flat edge pieces, then perhaps certain less complicated sections, and finally the hardest pieces have nowhere to go except their proper places. The problem with many is that they refuse to put the obvious first and only allow the more difficult verses to conform to these basic truths. God had an original purpose for the earth - that it will be inhabited by righteous people that will join with his intelligent spirit creatures in praising him forever. This has not changed and must be accomplished. (Is 55:11) The earth will thus always be in inhabited and never be destroyed. (Is 45:18; Ps 37:11,29;115:16) It is the wicked that will be torn away from the earth, those ruining the earth. (Ps 37:10; Pr 2:21,22; 2Pe 3:7) You use Isaiah to help explain Revelation. Excellent! Notice Rev 21:1. What is "sea" that is no more? Isaiah 57:20 states:"But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud." Yes, the "wicked" will be no more. Now we start to see that the "new heaven and new earth" must refer to persons as well. After all, why would heaven be destroyed? I think the new heaven is the kingdom of Jesus Christ that will bring to ruin all human governments (Dan 2:44; 1Co 15:24-26)and usher in the peaceful reign promised for the "new earth" of righteous people that shun the current ungodly world and its desires. (1 Jo 2:15-17) I would love to discuss more with you. Others at this website (edb for instance) only try to label persons with conclusions counter to their own, while failing to address specific statements with Scriptural references. I trust you will prove more Christlike and have pity on me if I am misguided. Thanks in advance. |
||||||
60 | Scripture? | Heb 11:40 | bstudent | 116044 | ||
At Rev 21:1 "the sea is no more." Isa 57:20 states that "the wicked are like the sea." So the wicked are no more in harmony with 2 Peter 3, the "ungodly men", not the physical earth were destroyed in Noah's day. Thus the heavens and the earth are people, the "former heavens" being former authorities or governments to be replaced by God's kingdom, and the "former earth" being those who supported these corrupt, anti-Kingdom authorities to be replaced by loyal Christians that have exercised faith in "the blood of the Lamb" and resurrected pre-Christian faithful. God promised not to destroy the earth by flood again. To do so completely "by fire" would hardly be in keeping with this promise. Gehenna or "the lake of fire" mean the second death, that is total destruction, no coming back. (Rev 20:14) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |