Results 101 - 120 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184076 | ||
Hi If you are not prepared to see that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Lord and the Spirit of God are one and the same then I will not be able to help you without writing a book on the subject. I would however point out that Paul refers to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of God in Romans 8.9-17. You seem awfully keen to prove that the Bible disagrees. But if you wish to do that fairly then you have to read the Bible on its terms not on yours, and not lay down your own conditions. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
102 | Age of those entering Promise Land | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184069 | ||
Hi After Israel had sinned by refusing to go forward in order to possess the promised land God determined that none of them should enter the promised land apart from Caleb and Joshua. Thus they wandered around the wilderness region near the mountains of Edom until all that generation had died out. We are not told at what age they were seen as being disobedient (the children had no choice in the matter). It may have been the age for battle (20), or it may have been the age of maturity (12-13). In view of the crime possibly it was the former. That would mean that the oldest who entered the promised land apart from Joshua and Caleb was fifty eight. The remainder would cover all ages below that. Life in the wilderness was hard on the old. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
103 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184066 | ||
Hi In 1 Corinthians 2.11 we read 'for what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of man which is within him, so also no one comprehends the thoughts of God but the Spirit of God' and we could add 'no one comprehends the thoughts of YHWH like the Spirit of YHWH'. We can agree that the parallel is not exact. A man's spirit does not have a separate personality like the Spirit of God has in relation to Father and Son, but the point is clear, there is a unity of being that is so close that all the thoughts of one are known to the other. Thus the spirit of a man is the man, the Spirit of God is God, and The Spirit of YHWH is YHWH while carefully noting the distinction mentioned above. However if you cannot agree it would probably be best if we agree to differ unless you have different questions that arise in your mind. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
104 | What do 10 signify? | Gen 8:5 | jonp | 184051 | ||
Hi, The number ten can mean 'a number of times'. For example Jacob said, 'you have changed my wages ten times' (Genesis 31.41). It can also indicate a complete series. Thus in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 we have two series of ten patriarchs which are intended to sum up the whole line of patriarchs. This last is the most common usage. In fact the ancients used numbers as adjectives in order to give an impression. Seven was used to indicate divine perfection and completeness. Numbers were first invented (in primitive form) in the area around Babylonia around 3500 BC. But their use was limited to a few experts. For long centuries most people had a limit of counting of three, and even today among a number of tribes three is still the limit of their use of numbers. (It was not a question of spiritualising them. It was the way that they used them). This comes out in 1 Kings 17.12 where the widow woman was collecting 'two sticks' i.e. a few. 'Three' would have indicated 'a lot'. That is why the hieroglyph for the number three in Egyptian also meant the universe. It went back to their thinking in terms of a man, his woman and the rest of the universe. The Sumerian symbol for one meant 'man', for two meant 'woman. and for three meant also 'many'. We have another example of this in 1 Samuel 13.1 where the Hebrew text reads. 'Saul was one year old when he began to reign and he reigned two years over Israel'. Saul was a primitive king and had no recorder and thus the later writers had no statistics for his reign. So they used the common people's conventions. 'One' indicated the first stage of life. He became king before he reached maturity. 'Two' indicated the first and middle stages of life. He never reached old age (which would have been 'three'). Even today among primitive tribes old men will proudly tell you that they are three years old. Our own number system indicates a time when ten was the limit of counting. Thus eleph en (eleven) mean ten and one more. two eleph (twelve) meant ten and two more. That may well be why thirteen originally became an unlucky number. It was originally the one outside the count. It is doubtful if in Jesus day the majority of Gentile Christians (and other Gentiles) could count beyond say twenty, even if that. They could probably also not read. That is why the Scriptures were read aloud in the churches. A number of the so-called number contradictions that some people claim today are easily resolved by recognising these facts. I realise this may seem strange to us. We have been brought up to count. But it is nevertheless true. To most ancient people numbers were a mystery. In the Egyptian texts a king who was able to number his fingers was counted as 'a great magician'. Such was the awe in which numbers were held. So ten was a significant number for it was the number of fingers on both hands indicating a complete series. Any good book on the history of mathematics will tell you these facts. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
105 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184050 | ||
Hi, The Bible speaks of the Spirit as 'the Spirit of YHWH' (e.g. Judges 6.34 and often), YHWH revealed through His Spirit. And that is why Matthew 28.19 speaks of him under the umbrella heading of 'the Name'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
106 | can someone make Mark 2:21 more clear? | Mark 2:21 | jonp | 184044 | ||
Hi The point is that the Pharisees and the disciples of John asked why Jesus' disciples were not fasting. Presumably this must have been because it was a regular feast when fasting was expected by the pious in order to encourage the arrival of the day of the Messiah. Jesus is pointing out that with His coming everything has changed. The fasting was aimed at bringing in the age of the Messiah. But as the Messiah had come the old ways no longer applied. So the old ways were incompatible with the new, just as an old cloth was incompatble with a new patch. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
107 | John 10.3The sheep hears his voice | John 10:3 | jonp | 184041 | ||
Hi Sometimes the writer wanted to say 'The Lord YHWH' (adonai YHWH). That is then translated as 'the Lord GOD' (e.g. Isaiah 50.4, 5, 7, 9). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
108 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184039 | ||
Hi I am not quite sure how we disagree :-)) You are quite right in saying that 'the Lord' (kurios) was used by LXX to translate YHWH, and that the Lord YHWH is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Thus YHWH is 'the Name' of Father Son and Holy Spirit that Jesus was indicating. Is that not what I said? | ||||||
109 | philippians 3 | Phil 3:10 | jonp | 184038 | ||
Hi I do not really want to argue over words but the value of something depends on how it is seen. Paul had certainly put great value on his keeping of the Law. It had been his life for years. It was the most important thing in his life. So moving from that to become a Christian would certainly have been a sacrfice for him at the time and his compatriots would definitely have seen it in that way. Of course later he recognised that it was no sacrifice at all. So in that sense I agree with you :-))) Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
110 | The Passover Celebration | John 6:53 | jonp | 184035 | ||
Hi Searcher You will note from John 5.18 that these latest hearers were the same men who were plotting to kill him. They were men of blood. They carried death in their hearts. This explains the change that now takes place in Jesus’ tone and the change in His illustration. Their presence had brought home to Him what lay before Him. From now on He would not talk of ‘the bread of life’, the life-giving bread, but would use the Old Testament simile of ‘eating flesh’ and ‘drinking blood’, which meant killing someone, or benefiting by their death. It would still give life, for finally that life would be made available through His death. In order to fully appreciate this we need an awareness of vivid Jewish imagery. In the Old Testament the Psalmist spoke of those who ‘eat up my people like they eat bread’ (Psalm 14.4; 53.4), and Micah describes the unjust rulers of Israel as ‘those who hate the good and love the evil --- who eat the flesh of my people’ (Micah 3.3). Thus ‘eating flesh’ or ‘eating people’ signified killing them or doing them great harm. In Zechariah 9.15 the LXX speaks of the fact that the victorious people of God ‘will drink their blood like wine’ signifying a triumphant victory and the slaughter of their enemies, and David used a similar picture when three of his followers had risked their lives to fetch him water. He poured it out on the ground as an offering to God and said, ‘shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?’. Isaiah brought both metaphors together when he said of the enemies of Israel that God would ‘make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine’ (Isaiah 49.26), signifying that they would destroy themselves. Thus in Hebrew thought drinking a person’s blood meant killing someone or benefiting by their death. This can be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament for in Matthew’s Gospel the people said of their 'fathers' that they were 'partakers in the blood of the prophets’ (Matthew 23.30), because they contributed to their deaths. Thus when Jesus spoke of ‘eating my flesh and drinking my blood’ He was using easily recognised metaphors. Initially Jesus signalled the change in tone in His words by saying ‘The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh’. This had more sinister overtones than what had gone before. His flesh must be given for the life of the world. Previously the eating had been by coming to Him and believing in Him. Now the thought entered that it must be eaten through His death. We could paraphrase what follows like this - ‘you are plotting to kill Me (to eat my flesh and drink My blood). Well, let Me tell you this. It is necessary for Me so to die so that this offer of life might be provided. Paradoxically, unless you do put Me to death (eat my flesh and drink my blood), the life will not be available. But as a result of the death you are plotting for Me, men will be able to partake of the benefit of My death by believing in Me and finding life through it.’ This is not a message He had been preaching to the crowds. They would not have understood. But now He has been forced into going public, for He is facing those who are after His blood, and He will declare it. These men were planning to kill Him, to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Well, they will be permitted to do so. His death was necessary for men to benefit from His life. Indeed if life was to be made available it was necessary for them to put Him to death, to “eat His flesh and drink His blood”. And paradoxically the result would be that they could then, if they came to believe, partake of the benefits of His death by receiving life. Indeed all who would come to Him must recognise that they were responsible for His death and must partake in that death and the benefits that spring from it. The innocent listeners would be puzzled, but the plotters would be fully aware of at least part of the import of His words. They knew what their own sinister intentions were. They knew what they were plotting. They knew that they were ‘after His blood’. And so did He. Yet still He was offering them life. He would not give up on them. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
111 | John 10.3The sheep hears his voice | John 10:3 | jonp | 184020 | ||
Hi Sorry for my lack of clarity. YHWH is the name of God in the Old Testament (Yahweh; Jahweh; Jehovah). The four letters which represent His Name are in fact unpronounceable. The Jews consider it blasphemy to speak the Name, thus the Hebrew text represents it with the four letters together with indicators that when read another word should be used, either LORD or GOD. So when in such translations as AV, RV, RSV etc you see GOD or LORD in capital letters it is an indication that they are translating the sacred Name of YHWH. The reason why it is unpronounceable is because as it was never pronounced eventually everyone forgot how it should be pronounced. So now no one knows!. It is often called the Tetragrammaton. Hope this clarifies the situation. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
112 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184006 | ||
Hi If you refer to Philippians 2.8-11 you will discover that Jesus was given the Name above every Name. This is the name of YHWH. In Matthew 28.18-20 Jesus told His disciples to baptise in 'the Name' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the Nme of YHWH. Thus the Name of the Son is YHWH. In Isaiah 43.11 it is YHWH Who is the Saviour. Thus there is no contradiction. The name Jesus in fact means 'YHWH is salvation. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
113 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183996 | ||
Hi Coper. If you read carefully I pointed out that the old covenant had passed away for all who had heard of Jesus Christ. Of course many Jews in the dispersion had not yet heard of Jesus Christ, and so the spiritual ones among them still benefited by the old covenant (just as Gentiles who had not heard of Christ benefited from general revelation and could respond to it and find mercy). Neither of these situations was affected by the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. The ones mainly affected had rejected Christ long before. They were therefore no longer benefited by the old covenant. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
114 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183992 | ||
Hi, I know of nowhere in Scripture where it says that the old covenant cannot pass away until all prophesy is fulfilled. If you are referring To Jesus' words in Matthew 5.18 then I am afraid that you are misunderstanding them. Not one yodh or tittle of the Law will pass away until after this earthly life has ceased, and all prophecy is fulfilled, for until then it will be required by man whichever age he is in. The Law is included in both covenants. Paul was equally concerned that we fulfil the Law as rightly used (Galatians 5.13-15). We are under the Law to Christ (1 Corinthians 9.21). The Law is good when a man uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1.8). Paul had nothing against the Law when used as a mirror. Indeed he commended it. What he rejected was the idea that a man could be justified by the Law. But the Law was never intended to be a means of justification, even under the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant offered mercy on the basis of God's gracious redemption (Exodus 20.1-2)and the Law was to be the people's response to that mercy providing a way of atonement and a requirement as to how to live. It was Israel's teachers who misrepresented it. We too need that example of how to live. When we sin as Christians (it is for all sinners, not just unsaved ones) the Law is used lawfully in pulling us up and telling us to get ourselves sorted out, just as it is lawfully used by making the unsaved realise their need of justification in Christ. But we can never be justified in God's eyes by trying to keep it. We are to be justified in Christ first, and then the Law becomes our friend, a necessary signpost on the way. That is why in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus clarified it. We are still required to live by the Sermon on the Mount. But the Sermon is for believers, God's blessed ones (Matthew 5.3-9). So yes the Law is still as solidly required to be kept by God's people as it was. It will never pass away until there are no more sinners to be condemned and no more saints who need guidance. So your question is based on a wrong premiss. It also fails in another way. Are you really suggesting that the Old Covenant did not pass away until 70 AD? It passed away as a result of Jesus' death and resurrection. After that it no longer had any validity for anyone who had heard of Jesus Christ. They either believed or were condemned. Israel was no longer the Jews. Israel was now the people of God who had believed in Jesus, the Israel of God. The old covenant had passed away. But the Law continued in its rightful use, showing God's people how to live. So the new covenant came in, and the old passed away long before the destruction of Jerusalem (see the letter to the Hebrews). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
115 | philippians 3 | Phil 3:10 | jonp | 183986 | ||
Hi, Paul had sacrificed all that he had previously believed in and all the efforts that he had made to attain righteousness through the law, so that he might 'gain Christ'. He had had to choose between holding on to his own life or losing his old life and receiving Christ, and he chose to receive Christ (because Christ had chosen him). Having received Christ all his efforts were now being put into knowing Christ more and more. The verb for to know is ginosko which means to know by experience. He was growing in his knowledge of Christ day by day (Ephesians 3.17-19). And through knowing Christ he also knew and experienced more of the power of His resurrection, and of being made conformable to his death, dying to himself and living to Christ (compare Galatians 2.20; Romans 6.3 ff). And all this with his final goal in mind to attain the resurrection from the dead in response to God's upward call in Christ. He did not attain it himself. He attained it by receiving the gift of Christ Jesus and by persevering in Him. That was his side of it. But that perseverance was guaranteed by the grace and working of God (Philippians 2.13; 1 Corinthians 1.8-9; Philippians 1.6). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
116 | what does ephesians 4:9 mean-"descended" | Eph 4:9 | jonp | 183984 | ||
Hi Minerva Paul's point is that Jesus descended into the grave, the world of the dead, before rising from the dead having broken the power of Satan (Colossians 2.15)and breaking the power of death for all believers (Hebrews 2.14) by rising far above all (compare Ephesians 1.19-22). Best wishes jonp. | ||||||
117 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183949 | ||
hi Thank you for your attempt at an explanation which I am grateful for. However firstly when I read of Jerusalem surrounded by armies, and then the people being put to the sword and the people being led captive among all nations for the period called the times of the Gentiles I can only see it as special pleading to suggest that this is before Jerusalem was taken. (You rather skipped over that bit :-))) ) That is clearly a picture of the end of the siege. Thus the judgment was over and what follows is AFTER the siege. Thus the coming in glory occurs some time after the judgment on Jerusalem. It seems to me that if words mean anything there can be no doubt about that. In which case it cannot refer to Jesus coming in judgment on Jerusalem. Your very noble attempt to explain it has not in my view succeeded. Perhaps you could think it over again and revise your comments and give a DETAILED explanation of verse 24. What in your view does each clause mean? Verse 25 then follows verse 24 so it cannot refer to the days of the siege. I did not suggest that Jesus came in glory at Pentecost. Then He came in power (Mark 9.1). The difference is carefully maintained. Nor does it say anywhere that He came in glory to judge Jerusalem. Coming in glory is described in Matthew 25.31 as being the judgment at the end of time when the final decisions concerning mankind will be made (Matthew 25.46). That certainly has not happened yet. I regret to have to say that I cannot accept your logic with regard to Revelation 1.7. It sounds to me like playing with words to obtain the meaning that you want. Peerhaps you would be kind enough to explain that in more detail too and do it step by step so that even the slowest of us can see the logic. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
118 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183936 | ||
Hi stjames7 First may I assure you that I have read the Roman Catholic catechism and have studied the early fathers in depth. Ignatius of Antioch was a godly man and a martyr, but he was hardly a competent theologian. The others you mention came 300 years after Christ and more. Do you really consider that as near to the events? Do you consider yourslf as near to the American War of Independence and therefore able to comment on it with special authority? I do trust in the church that Jesus founded on the Rock. But did you know that of the early fathers that you want me to take notice of 44 said that the rock was the words that Peter had spoken, 17 said that it was Christ Himself, and only 18 said that it was Peter. So listening to the early fathers and taking their majority vote I would have to reject your suggestion that Peter was the rock. And please note that that is on your terms not on mine. In fact the authority of the majority of the books of the New Testament was generally agreed among the churches long before there was a Roman Catholic church. And it was done by the consensus of churches around the world (most of whom did not own allegiance to Rome), not by one church, in the second century AD. Now they were near to the event for men wers still alive who had known the Apostles, and they knew where the Gospels and letters came from. The first in fact to authorise our present canon was the Bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius. And it was confirmed at the Council of Hippo. Thus the Eastern church were the first to confirm it. The Roman church followed their lead. With cordial best wishes jonp | ||||||
119 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183935 | ||
Hi Coper. Yes there are Scriptures which refer to Jesus returning in different ways. For example. 'I will not leave you comfortless, I will come to you,' (John 14.18). Does this not refer to Pentecost? Again in Matthew 28.20 Jesus says, 'And lo I am with you always'. Does this not have Pentecost in mind?. Again Jesus says, 'If a man loves Me he will keep My word, and My Father will love Him, and we will come to Him and make our home with Him.' Here we have Jesus continually coming a million times over. Again in Matthew 18.20 we read, 'where two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in the midst of them.' He could not be in the midst of them without coming! Hebrews 9.28 refers to a physical coming. I did not suggest that Jesus came physically at Pentecost or in the destruction of Jerusalem. My point in using Luke 21 was in order to demonstrate that Jesus made absolutely clear that there was a period of time between what happened to Jerusalem, and His glorious appearing. He demonstrated that there was a fairly large gap between them. Now please do not go off at a tangent. I am waiting to be convinced (I am not a pre-tribulational rapturist). If you can go through Luke 21.20-26 and show me what it means step by step then I will consider that you have an argument. If you cannot then my case is proved. Best wishes jonp |
||||||
120 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183910 | ||
Rehi stjames7 At least we can agree on the fact that salvation is offered as a free gift which cannot be earned by merit, and that no one is forced to accept that gift. But what is equally important is how that gift is obtained. You follow your church's belief that it is mainly obtained through the sacraments. But that is not what the verses you have cited say. Jesus' words to Nicodemus were to Nicodemus, and they were spoken before Christian baptism existed. They cannot therefore refer to Christian baptism. They could just possibly include a reference to John's baptism, but it is not really likely that Jesus was saying to Nicodemus 'you must be born of John's baptism' Rather as I mentioned previously His words have in mind the many promises in the prophets that speak of the Holy Spirit coming like rain and like water from Heaven (Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5). Thus His point is that he can be born from above throughthe Holy Spirit. But how does John see this as happening. He explains it in chapter 1.12-13. 'To as many as received Him to them gave He the right to become children of God, even those who believe in His Name --- who are born of God. He illustrates it in John 4 where the woman is to drink of spiritual water be listening to His words and as a result receiving the Holy Spirit to be like a spring within her heart. There too water is mentioned but there is no conception of baptism. It is true that baptism illustrates these experiences but it is never said to bring them about. You cite "Amen, Amen I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." And that is good. But I do not see there any reference to a sacrament. These words were spoken in front of His disciples to the antagonistic Jews long before there was any thought of the Lord's Table, or as you would call it Holy Communion or Mass. They could not possibly have been expected to see that He was speaking of a sacrament. But Jesus wanted them to understand His words. In fact He was taking well known figures of speech from the Old Testament where 'eating flesh' and 'drinking blood' first of all meant killing people, and then receiving benefit from their death. Thus Jesus was making clear to them in a very vivid way that if they were to find life it must first of all result from their putting Him to death. He was describing the inevitability of His sufferings knowing that they were already plotting His death. But He then brings out from that that by eating and drinking of Him (something that He has already explained the meaning of in verse 35) they can find life through Him. And what does eating and drinking mean? It means coming to Him and believing on Him. So you see if we take these verses in contex they have no reference to the sacraments at all, although we will all agree that the sacraments illustrate them well. Best wishes. jonp. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |