Results 121 - 140 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183908 | ||
Hi you claim that you received salvation at baptism. It is clearly a different salvation than the one PAUL speaks of, for he said, 'Christ did not send me to baptise but to preach the Gospel' (1 Corinthians 1.17). I thank God that I did not baptise anyone except --' (1 Corinthians 1.14). Then He goes on to point out that it is the word of the cross that is the power of God unto salvation. John 3.5 does not mention baptism. That is simply an inference. The reference to water rather has in mind the picture of the coming of the Holy Spirit as rain in Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-4. How can you be assured of eternal life if you can lose it? Eternal life in in fact received by hearing Jesus Christ and truly believing in God through Him (John 5.24). All who have truly received Christ have eternal life (1 John 5.13). Matthew 19.16-17 was spoken to a young man who did not have eternal life and refers to the attitude of heart that he must have in order to enter into it by following Christ. You might better have quoted Matthew 22.34-38. But if that is a requirement for salvation it leaves us all without hope. It is rather an indicating of what the saved should be aiming at. You rightly point out that salvation can be applied in different tenses. But one does not invalidate the other. If I have been saved from stormy seas and am in the lifeboat I have been saved, I am being saved (it has not yet reached the shore), I will be saved (when it reaches harbour). But it does not make my salvation less secure. Notice that it speaks of 'having been saved'. That indicates that the saving is carried out by Someone else, the Saviour. Now a life boat might sink, but the Saviour cannot sink. And if the Saviour has saved me (the aorist indicates once for all) then nothing can prevent that salvation. It is not dependent on me but on the Saviour. Of course the process of salvation goes on and must be revealed in a changed life, but that is the result of my having been saved, not a condition of it. True I have to 'work out' my salvation with greatest care, but in that I am responding to the fact that God is at work in me to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.12-13). HIS WORK of salvation is proceeding according to plan. Nevertheless the foundation of God stands sure. The Lord knows those who are His. And my being confirmed to the end depends solely on the faithfulness of God (1 Corinthians 1.8-9), He is the One Who saves to the uttermost because it is through His intercession not my weak struggling (Hebrews 7.25). He Who has begun a good work in me will bring it to completion in the day of Jesus Christ (Philippians 2.6). Jesus Christ is my Saviour not my crutch. Best wishes jonp |
||||||
122 | sermon on the mound | Matt 5:1 | jonp | 183907 | ||
Hi The Sermon on the Mount is Jesus' detailed instructions on what is required of those who have been blessed by God and are thus His saved ones. For a full and detailed treatment of the Sermon go to http://www.angelfire.com/planet/matthew1/index.html Best wishes jonp |
||||||
123 | 70A.D. or not? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183906 | ||
Hi, While I can fully agree that Jesus came in judgement on Jerusalem in 70 AD just as He came in power at Pentecost and in what followed I note that no one has mentioned what Luke says. There the position is expressed with total clarity. First the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21.21-24. Then the scattering of the Jews as they are led captive among all nations (Luke 21.24). Then the treading down of Jerusalem during the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21.24). Then the cosmic effects and men fainting for fear at what is to come (Luke 21.25-26). And then the Son of Man will come in power and great glory (Luke 21.27). I fail to see in this how His coming in glory can indicate the destruction of Jerusalem as important events are to take place between them. The 'these things' (which are to happen in that generation) are the indicators of the coming time of redemption, not the time of redemption itself (Luke 21.28), which Jesus did not know (Mark 13.32). They are the leaves that indicate that the Kingly Rule of God is near (Luke 21.29), not the actual coming of the Kingly Rule of God in His coming. There is no question therefore of unfulfilled prophecy. I do not wish to prolong this subject which has been well aired. But it important that we take all Scriptures into account. Perhaps you could be kind enough to explain what you think Luke meant, if he did not mean what he said. All best wishes jonp |
||||||
124 | insight on Romans 12:5-9 wanted | Rom 12:5 | jonp | 183892 | ||
Hi, This passage refers to God's gifts to members of His church through The Holy Spirit because each of us have a different function in the church. Each receives gifts in accordance with God's purpose and love. These include speaking in the power of the Spirit (prophecy), the comparative success of which will depend on faith, teaching with the guidance of the Spirit, exhorting and encouraging others, serving the church or others in differing ways through the Spirit, Christian giving which is to be done liberally, helping others which is to be done zealously, performing acts of compassion, which is to be done cheerfully, and so on. The important thing in each case is that the heart is in it. It is to be done for Christ in genuine love. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
125 | What is the IMAGE of the Glory of God | 2 Cor 3:18 | jonp | 183888 | ||
Hi the knowledge of the glory of God is found in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corintians 4.4-6). You can find it by reading the Gospels and becoming fully acquainted wih Jesus Christ, and as you do so your life will slowly change. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
126 | Isaiah 7:14 | Is 7:14 | jonp | 183886 | ||
Hi. The problem with the words bethulah (Hebrew)and parthenos (Greek) is that they are both used of 'virgins' who were very far from being virgins. Thus Anath the sister of Baal in the Baal myths was called a bethulah and she was the goddess of reproduction!! The Greek temple prostitutes were called 'virgins'. When the word bethulah is used of a virgin in Genesis 24.16 the words have to be added that she had also not 'known' a man,suggesting that a bethulah was not necessarily a virgin. There was in fact only one Hebrew word in which meant virgin and that was 'alma which meant 'a young woman of marriagable age who was not yet married' (and was therefore assumed to be a virgin. In Greek the nearest was parthenos, even though it was not perfect Best wishes jonp. | ||||||
127 | Where I can find documentation | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183876 | ||
Hi. Phew! Three books required all at once. For the Jewish canon may I suggest you read 'The Canonisation of Hebrew Scripture' by A C Sundberg. But of course we have clear evidence of the final decision of the Scribes in the Jewish Scriptures as contained for example in the Massoretic Text, and as accepted by the Jews today. The Jews of Alexandria, who were very liberal, incorporated the Apocryphal book into the Septuagint, but it is significant that no Hebrew versions of these books were preserved. They were not seen as Scripture by the vast majority of Jews. And this is confirmed by the resurrected Jesus in His definition of the Scriptures as the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24.44). He thus excluded the Apocryphal books You are quite right in saying that no person, church or council has the right to declare which books are the inspired word of God. However, apart from in the initial stages when all was overseen by the Apostles there was never a time when there was 'one church on earth' in an hierarchical sense. The church was one spiritually and looked on themselves as one body, but they certainly did not all look to Rome. Had you gone to Alexandria or Antioch around say 300 AD and said to them 'You are in submission to the see of Rome' you would have been lucky to escape with being tarred and feathered. Naturally the great cities began to be looked to as places which could settle disputes, for they had the largest churches and attracted the most prominent persons (including at first the Apostles). In the early church the see of Antioch originally held the position of primary see on prestigious grounds, although not as having authority over the remainder. It gained this privilege from its ancient heritage (Acts 13.1-2). Gradually the see of Alexandria began to claim prime importance. But neither paid any heed to Rome except as fellow brethren. Indeed the first weak attempt of Rome to claim primacy was at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD and that was firmly put in its place, even in spite of the support of Constantine the Great who was trying to insist on it. (Which was why they tried it in the first place). This is all well documented. In fact there has never been a time when the sees of Antioch or Alexandria genuinely accepted the priority of Rome. Of course Rome tried its best and having (a thousand years after the time of Christ) brought the leaders of Alexandria and Antioch together forced them to submit at the point of the sword (a truly-Christ like action) but they rejected it as soon as the sword was removed from their necks. Such a submission under duress meant nothing, except that they were cowards. So you see there never has been one hierarchical church. Of course the Roman Catholics are a denomination (given a name to disinguish them from the others) as are the Eastern Orthodox. More to follow later about the canon, but you might like to consider this bit first. With all best wishes. Jonp |
||||||
128 | When does one receive the Holy Spirit? | 2 Cor 1:22 | jonp | 183870 | ||
Dear Doc. As I was replying to a question put to me about the seal of the Spirit that was what I was emphasising. While the fruit of the Spirit is certainly the result of the Spirit's indwelling it is not in my view directly what the seal of the Spirit has in mind. The seal of the Spirit has in mind security and confidence resulting from Christs work within. I could not agree more that this must result in genuine fruit, as in fact I did mention. But I am conscious also that that fruit often takes time to grow. First the blade, then the ear, then the full corn in the ear (Mark 4.28). As I am sure you are fully aware it may take time for a person's conversion to become obvious to others. The 'old man' does not release his hold willingly. And some have problems to battle with of which others are unaware. I am reminded of the poem - Judge not. The workings of His mind and of his heart you cannot see. What seems to your dull eyes a stain In God's pure eyes may only be A scar won on some battle field Where you would only faint and yield. That look, that air, that frets your sight May be a token that below That soul is closed in deadly fight With some infernal, fiery foe Whose look would scorch your smiling grace And send you shuddering on your face. As you would no doubt rightly point out. Jesus said, 'Why do you call Me "Lord, Lord" and do not do the things that I say?' (Luke 6.46). 'Not everyone who says to Me "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingly Rule of Heaven, but those who do the will of My Father Who is in Heaven' (Matthew 7.21). This too is the RESULT of the seal of the Spirit in the heart. But in my view the seal of the Spirit is first given in the inner heart. 'The firm foundation of God stands sure, having this seal, "The Lord knows those who are His' although of course it is immediately followed by 'Let every one who names the Name of the Lord depart from iniquity' (2 Timothy 2.19). But even that is initially an awareness of what must be, rather than it immediately having become an actuality in practise (although of course eventually it must be). It is the anointing within that will lead us into truth (1 John 2.20, 27). I am ever aware that the young Christian can begin to feel that he is just not coming up to scratch. He begins to fear that perhaps he has not been 'saved' after all. Thus he needs to be aware of the seal within him that can give him assurance. 'Though I am not what I should be, I thank God that I am not what I was, for I now know that I have Christ within me, and I therefore know what I should be, and that is what I intend to be'. It is God Who will work within him of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.13). I am sure you will have noted my later stress on the fact that it is 'by their fruits that they will be known'. But those fruits are the sign to men, not the divine seal. I am not quite sure how you gathered from my words that I did not think it was possible to discern the effects of salvation. Eventually it inevitably is, and I thought that I had made that quite clear. But what I stressed was that we are not qualified to judge the genuineness of those effects. We are not infallible judges. In the end we must leave that to the One Who judges rightly (Romans 14.10-13). You may add to your quotes the words of George Whitefield, 'I care not a jot for that man's religion whose very dog and cat are not the better for it'. But it may take time for it to be worked out. Best wishes Jon |
||||||
129 | When does one receive the Holy Spirit? | 2 Cor 1:22 | jonp | 183840 | ||
Hi The seal of the Spirit is the evidence that a person is a Christian. But that does not mean that I can judge whether another is a Christian. 'There is One that judges'. It is not for me to decide whether a person has received the Holy Spirit. Some give a very good appearance of having received the Holy Spirit and the fall away. Others seem almost untouched, but the seed is growing secretly, and gradually it flowers. Such final judgments must be left to God. The point about the seal is that it is the guarantee until the day of redemption (Ephesians 4.30) when the Buyer comes to claim His own. Salvation is through faith alone. Nothing else is required. But the faith must be genuine. Intellectual belief is not enough. There must be a genuine response of the heart. For if the Holy Spirit has been at work that will inevitably follow. Remember the people in John 2.23-24. They 'believed', but Jesus did not trust Himself to them because He knew their hearts. Literally 'He did not believe Himself unto them'. That is what saving faith is, it is 'believing yourself unto Christ' so that He might believe Himself unto you. This is often expressed in the Greek by using 'believe unto (pisteuo eis) rather than 'believe in' (pisteuo en) although the distinction does not hold in every case. For in the end Jesus did not say 'by their faith you shall know them'. He said 'by their fruits you shall know them'. For once the Holy Spirit has been received, the fruit of the Spirit must eventually result (Galatians 5.22). You will find some 'at length' articles on the Holy Spirit at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/. You are of course right that some continue to live just on a verse here and a verse there. That is fine for the young Christian. But the mature Christian should be seeing the word of God together as a whole. They should be eating solid meat, not just milk (Hebrews 5.12-14; 1 Corinthians 3.1-3). And that involves 'hard work'. That is why godly men write commentaries in order to pass on the fruits of their own studies. See http://www.geocities.com/petepartington/ for some free up to date Bible commentaries Best wishes jonp | ||||||
130 | evolving or devolving? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183826 | ||
Hi stj. I will agree that Adam was an intellectual giant within the world in which he lived before the Fall. But he did not know how to split the atom. God had not provided a library. And he had not developed the skill of counting. He did not need it. Life was too idyllic to want to go to school. You must not confuse intelligence with skills that have to be learned. No one is born able to count or read. It has to be learned. I doubt too whether he knew that he had reached 930 years. With all the modern resources at my disposal I find it easy to forget how old I am, for it is not important. Why should Adam want to keep a record of his age? He was far too intelligent to worry about that. I was of course using the term history metaphorically to indicate those who lived in historical times, and to indicate that we learrn from history. Let us not argue about terms. It is the heart of the matter that is important. But happily we may disagree and part friends. I did not answer your question partly because it contained loaded terms which need to be defined,and partly because I felt that you thought that you knew the answer already. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
131 | When does one receive the Holy Spirit? | 2 Cor 1:22 | jonp | 183800 | ||
Hi The work of the Holy Spirit commences in us before we become Christians. We are elect according to the foreknowledge of God through the setting apart work of the Holy Spirit to obedience and the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus (1 Peter 1.2). But we can only be said to have received the Holy Spirit when we truly believe. At that moment we become His, and if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Romans 8.9). At that point we are drenched in the Spirit into the body of Christ (whether we are baptised in water or not) - 1 Corinthians 12.12-13). From then on we can experience the working of the Spirit in our lives in different ways. He gives His gifts as He wills (1 Corinthians 12.11). And by looking to Christ and walking with Him we can drink of the Spirit and thus be 'filled with the Spirit' (Ephesians 5.18; John 7.37-39). In order to maintain this we must walk step by step with the Spirit, crucifying the flesh with its affections and desires (Galatians 5.24-25). How full we are will depend on how close our walk with Christ. In the early days of the church everyone who believed was immeduately baptised with water. The message was 'believe and be baptised'. Now that baptism does not occur at the time of believing it ceases to be the time at which the Spirit is received. Although that being said it can result in spiritual blessing through the Holy Spirit. | ||||||
132 | evolving or devolving? | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183798 | ||
Hi stjohn You can read your Bible because you learned the meaning of words through secular history and because secular history developd writing. You use a dictionary produced by secular history. Without realising it you are using secular history all the time in order to understand the Bible. Archaeology illuminates the Bible. But of course God arranged it all. Thus it becomes spiritual history. The Bible is full of secular history and if you are going to fully understand it then you need to know about secular history, otherwise you can interpret it in your own terms. But the Bible shows how God arranged secular history to make it spiritual history. If you did not have definitions of common words supplied by secular history you could not even begin to understand much of the Bible. Understanding how numbers were used in secular history is important because all the Bible writers emerged from secular history and used numbers in the way that their contemporaries did. Much of your interpretation of the Bible arises from your own secular background. In fact of course no history is in the end secular because God is involved in it all. So I do not understand your problem. If you are saying that I believe that knowing the thought forms of the societies from which the Bible writers came helps me to understand what they meant you will be quite right. They wrote in those thought forms. If I interpret them in the light of my own thought forms then I am likely to distort them (as so many do). Of course the message of salvation can come through even if I interpret some things wrongly. But it is spiritually lazy not to try to understand the Bible against its background. Best wishes jonp May I suggest that email is better for questions like the one you asked. Unlike you I give my email address. | ||||||
133 | leviticus and hebrews | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 183791 | ||
Hi Leviticus oulines the sacrificial system and the activities of the priesthood, together with the details of the Day of Atonement. Hebrews reveals how all these were fulfilled by Jesus Who as God's High Priest offered Himself up as a sacrifice for us all. | ||||||
134 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183776 | ||
Hi, Initially three was the limit of counting for everyone. They thought in terms of themselves, their wives and 'everything else' (that was what the original words for two and three among the Sumerians meant). It was true for absolutely everyone!! There are still tribes today, in Indonesia for example, where people cannot count beyond three, and do not want to. A missionary to the Abiponese tribe in South America was astonished at how the people managed to run their affairs, watch over their herds and so on without being able to count beyond three. Until fairly recently the aboriginal tribes in Australia could only count up to three, some four, even fewer up to ten, and one tribe even up to twenty, but not beyond. This is all a matter of historical record. (My brother-in-law, a missionary in Indonesia, testified to the fact among the tribes he lived among ). Counting is natural to you and I because we were brought up to it. But it was not originally natural for mankind. It only really began about five thousand five hundred years ago and resulted in the invention of writing as men began to note numbers down, initially very low ones, and then add signs to indicate what they meant, and then developed the signs, finally developing more advanced scripts, and more advanced numbers. There were, of course, among the Apostles men who came from the more educated classes, James and John were from a fairly wealthy family connected to the chief priestly families, Nathaniel appears to have been very sophisticated. Matthew, of course, had learned to count for the purposes of his job, and would be extremely numerate. Thus some of them would be able to enumerate to a higher level. Matthew 14.19-21 consists mainly of numbers under twenty. The other figure is 'about five thousand'. This was achieved by dividing up the company into groups 'hundreds and fifties'. Both numbers (like the century in the Roman army) would be approximations. They would indicate groups of different sizes. But they would not specifically be exact figures. People of course understood that 'five thousand' meant a large crowd. But the number was used adjectivally rather than numerically. In Deuteronomy 25.3 there would be an expert present who would count the strokes. But again the judges would be more spophisticated people, some of whom could count. In Matthew 18.22 'seventy times seven' simply meant an unspecified amount. I presume you are not really suggesting that Jesus wanted us to count up to four hundred and ninety and then stop. Leviticus 12.2-5 would be regulated by the priests who would tell the woman what to do. For the thirty three she would be told that after four sabbaths she had five days to go. In John 21.11 there was clearly a numerate disciple present including possibly James and John, Nathaniel and even Matthew. No doubt you are amazed at the thought that 'common people' could not count. The idea takes some getting used to. But the evidence is in fact overwhelming. 'Forty days would indicate a few days past a moon period. This was how they thought. Don't believe me. consult the Encyclopaedia Britannica. See also the article on the Use of Numbers on http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
135 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183761 | ||
Hi Mark Thank you for your gracious permission for me to reply just once more. I will do so mainly to avoid misunderstanding. I did not say that no one could count in the 1st century, only that counting beyond ten or twenty and calculating mathematically was beyond the vast majority, and with many their limitation would be counting to three. There was little education available except for the wealthy and little reason to count and the synagogue schools were concerned with teaching people to read so that they could understand the Law, not with mathematics. Of course some were trained in numeracy, but they would be a comparatively small minority. Tradesmen would use tally sticks, and when they wanted to make an order they sent along sufficient tally sticks to indicate what they wanted. They did not need to use numbers. And so on. You tell me that the stars falling from heaven are really angels. Now it is true that there are places where it is made quite clear in the context that stars refer to angels. But not in a context like this one where all the references are to natural phenomena. In interpretation consistency is required. And there is no need to introduce angels here. So you see here it is I who am literal and you resort to symbolism, and may I gently suggest that the reason that you do so is because you recognise that the literal will not support your position. Thus you give your case away. You are not a literalist after all, only where it is not inconvenient. And that is why I objected to your suggesting that there was only one possible interpretation of Revelation 20. My interpretation there is equally as literalistic as yours. For while God can count, when He is speaking to men He speaks in terms that they would understand. And they would not understand a thousand literally. They had no conception of a literal one thousand. It was just a very large number. That was the literal meaning to them. You say that I must justify my contention that Revelation 20 is a recap of what has gone before. If you will look back at my first presentation you will find that that is precisely what I did. Incidentally the verb used of the sky is to 'roll up' like a scroll. That is much more than it being parted. It literally mean that the sky is longer spread out but bundled up in a roll. And it says of the mountains that they will be moved out of their place. Now I take all this literally as indicating the end of the world (as also in Revelation 20.11 - another recap) But I must ask myself, do you? Of course I appreciate that you cannot because of your views. You say that I should notice the references to 'after this --. But the question is, does that refer to the writer and his visions or does it refer to chronological sequence. I would suggest that it is the writer's movements and experiences that are in mind. You are happy to avoid seeing God as a bird. Good. But you then say we must demonstrate from the text what God intends us to know. Well I have done that for Revelation 6 (and for Revelation 20 when I commenced). That is what we all seek to do. But in the wider context we must sometimes do what you have done on Revelations 6. Recognise that symbolism MIGHT be involved. But we must not determine our use of symbolism simply in terms of what fits our position. We must do it in the light of the whole of Scripture. You will see symbolism where I do not. I will see picture language (symbolism is a loaded term) where you do not. But we should not therefore suggest that somehow one of us is more literal than the other. That was my argument in the first place. That we both see literal positions and positions which are based on picture language. It is necessary to use language in a way that people will understand. That is why the Old Testament prophets presented heavenly truths in terms of life on earth. It was the only thing that the people would understand. But they spoke better than they knew, as the New Testament makes clear. In fact if you carefully look at the language that you use you will be surprised how much of it is in fact picture language, and not literal at all. We are so used to it that we do not realise it. How boring it would be if we removed all picture language from our conversation. I do not want to convert you to my position. It is not the details that matter (neither of us can change what will happen) but underlying truth. All I ask is that you do not claim somehow to be 'more literal' than others when you turn to seeing things in picture language when it suits you. Best wishes and God bless you. It has been pleasant having a discussion with you. jonp | ||||||
136 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183757 | ||
Hi You may believe that Revelation is all chronological, but it does not say so. In fact 6.12-14 if taken literally must mean that the second coming has happened and that there can be no millennium after that as there will be no world. If the stars have fallen to earth (just one would devastate the earth) and the sky has vanished like a scroll and all the mountains and islands have removed from their place humanity could not possibly survive. The fact is that there are a number of visions in Revelation each leading up to the time of the second coming e.g. to 6.12-17 which refers to the second coming; to 14.14-20 which refers to the second coming; to 19.11-21; to 20.11-15 to take four clear examples. It is clear that you actually know little about the use of numbers in the ancient world. It is my specialist field. Most military leaders could not count. They relied on a few experts. They mainly counted their soldiers by the numbers of military units. But a century under a centurion might only contain sixty soldiers. But they would still count it as a century. Weavers and herders would be unlikely to be able to count beyond say twenty, and many not even as many as that (they had not been to school) and they did not need to. The herder knew all his animals and could tell whether there was a gap. Numbers were used roughly. Few people could count very far, beyond say ten or twenty. Thus the third day meant the same as three days and three nights, and so on. Nor were years in Palestine counted on the basis of orbits round the sun. They were based on twelve moon periods, with every now and then a third month introduced in order to keep the seasons in tune. So, no, speaking of 1000 years as a round number is not making it symbolical. It is looking at numbers as they were used in those days. This is an historical fact not a matter of interpretation (or indeed of argument. It is so). You have not explained how it is that chapter 20 repeats all the events that have happened previously. It is history repeating itself gone too far. It really is not good enough to quote some verses and say - 'Look they say what I said'. The problem is that large numbers of evangelical Christians do not agree with you. And anyway no one takes the whole Bible absolutely literally, not even you. Do you believe that we have to hate fathers and mothers. Do you cut your hand off when it sins? Of course not. But you would have to if you took the Bible literally. So we all have to judge when to take something literally and when not. And no, one questionable passage is not sufficient to demonstrate such an important doctrine. If it was not important enough for Paul and Jesus to mention it is highly questionable. You cannot really sensibly avoid the fact. And if we decide to rely on the fact that Jesus and Paul would have taught such an important doctrine if it was true I suggest that we are taking a very sensible position. A chapter from a book which clearly contains much symbol cannot overturn that. Best wishes Peter |
||||||
137 | Can anyone explain to me the meaning of | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 183755 | ||
Hi John 5.17-23 tells us Jesus and the Father always work together. This is because they are one God. It is impossible for the One not to work in complete harmony with the other. Thus what One does the Other does. In their essential Being they share with each other in everything. Thus the Son can give life equally with the Father, and all judgment is committed to the Son. However by becoming man there was a part of Jesus, the human part, which could behave contrary to the Father and did not share in all the secrets of the Godhead. Thus He did not know the time of His second coming (Mark 13.32). jonp | ||||||
138 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183743 | ||
Rehi Coper You ask for a timeframe. Jesus gave a clear time frame in Luke 21 (Matthew 24/Mark 13). He spoke first of 'these things'. Then He spoke of what would follow 'these things'. Of 'these things' (what led up to the destruction of Jerusalem) He said that they would happen in their generation. They were the leaves on the fig tree (Luke 21.29-30). But of His glorious coming which would follow 'these things' He said that He did not know the time (Mark 13.32). If He did not know the time of it He could not possibly be saying when it would occur. He also said that it would come at the end of the times of the Gentiles, which themselves would follow the destruction of Jerusalem (Luke 21.20-24). How then can His words about His glorious coming refer to that destruction? See Luke 21.20, 24, 27. Matthew omits some of this simply describing it as 'great tribulation', a tribulation which lasted from the destruction of Jerusalem to the present day in accordance with Deuteronomy 28 and occurs during the times of the Gentiles. With regard to Matthew 16 he said that some in that generation would not die until He came on the clouds of Heaven to the throne of God to receive Kingly Rule as in Daniel 7.13-14. That coming was from earth to Heaven as Daniel makes quite clear. It has nothing to do with His glorious appearing on earth. |
||||||
139 | The Passover Celebration | John 6:53 | jonp | 183742 | ||
In context in John 6.35 Jesus described what He meant by eating and drinking. 'He who comes to Me will never hunger, and he who believes on me will never thirst. So we eat of Jesus' body and drink of His blood by coming to Him as the One Whose body was broken for us and by believing on Him as the One Whose blood was shed for us. We do celebrate the Passover but the Passover lamb is now Christ our Passover who was sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 5.7), the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world (John 1.29). Jesus was partly using Old Testament pictures which depicted killing people in term of eating bread (or flesh) and drinking blood. 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 which signified the fact that He must be violently killed and that the benefit of His death must be received by believing on Him.. |
||||||
140 | Why God did not accept Cain's offering | Gen 47:1 | jonp | 183740 | ||
Cain's offering was not accepted because he had not 'done well. Sin lay at the door (Genesis 4.7). See free commentary on http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/ | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |