Results 21 - 40 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | who was moses mother and dad | Num 26:59 | jonp | 184553 | ||
Hi Steve, You will note that what I have done is put up possibilities, and explained the Hebrew. I have been very careful not to be dogmatic. But I must point out that 'the literal statements' are in Hebrew and that we must therefore ask ourselves how the people of Israel would have interpreted them, for the Scriptures were initially addressed to them. And there is no doubt that the people of Israel used 'bore' and 'begat' in a much wider sense than we do today, (as indeed did all the nations round about). It is of course possible that there were two Amrams, each of whom was married to a Jochebed. I have no quarrel with that as a possibility. And it widens the options. Thank you for mentioning it. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
22 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184552 | ||
Hi Steve. Thank you for your courteous reply. What I actually said was that Baruch was the source from which Papias and Irenaeus quoted. If you will compare their quotations with Baruch I think you will agree. (I did not say that it was the source of Revelation 20). So we are left with Revelation 20 as the only New Testament source for possible teaching on the millennium, something which is quite remarkable if the doctrine is true. Clearly neither Jesus nor Paul thought it important enough to mention it. Perhaps we might learn a lesson from them? However I will try to give a brief resume of what I see to be the meaning of Revelation 20. In my view Revelation is split up into a number of visions each of which leads up to the second coming. Thus we have Revelation 6 which ends with His coming being implied in verse 17. We have Revelation 14 which ends with His coming in verses 14-20. We have Revelation 16 which ends with His implied coming in verses 19-21. We have 17-19 which ends with His coming in 19.11-21. And now chapter 20 which ends with His coming in verses 11-15, a depiction from another angle of what we find in Matthew 25.31-46. All are of course using metaphorical language. The reality will be beyond description. It will be such that it COULD NOT be described literally. So coming to Revelation 20 (in the short space permitted). Firstly Satan is bound. That event is described also by Jesus in Matthew 12.29; Mark 3.27; compare Luke 11.20-22. And this binding is for 'a thousand years' (i.e. a long time of unknown duration, compare 2 Peter 3.8). AFTER that he is loosed for a little while as described in 9.1-11; 12.12. Then we go back in time from the end of the 'thousand years' and see thrones set and those to whom judgment is committed. This is described by Jesus in Matthew 19.28; Luke 22.28-30. Along with the Apostles are all the martyred saints sharing in their triumph. They too all reign with Christ over the 'thousand years' that lie ahead. Along with them we have the company of all believers who have not worshipped the beast or accepted 'the mark of the beast'. These have taken part in the first resurrection. The first resurrection is described in Ephesians 1.19-2.6; John 5.24-25; Romans 6.4, 11; Philippians 3.20). For all of us who are in Christ have been raised with Him and are seated with Him in heavenly places. We share with the heavenly saints in the glory of His rule (Hebrews 12.22-24). Compare Revelation 5.10. You will note that I am taking Scripture literally. We are delivered from the second death, and reign with Him. Then Satan will be released for his short period (verse 3; 9.1-11; 12.12) until Jesus' coming brings about his defeat. At that point the 'second resurrection' will take place (John 5.28-29; 1 Thessalonians 4.15-16; 1 Corinthians 15). Finally comes the judgment of the end times. You will note that all my interpretations are based on solid Scripture and that all the incidents described have previously been described in Scripture as happening before Christ's second coming. It really is in my view too much of a coincidence that Revelation 20 follows exactly the pattern which occurred before Jesus'coming, if it does not apply to that. With all best wishes. Jonp | ||||||
23 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184551 | ||
Hi WOS, Well now you have me quite frankly puzzled. How can I possibly give a credible source for what I believe to be erroneous teaching? That is precisely my point. That early millennial belief, before the church as a whole condemned it, was based precisely on such undependable documents as I cited. There are no credible documents which teach a millennium in the sense in which millennialists teach it. I do not actually want you to buy in to millennial teaching. I was rather answering the question as to which intertestamental teaching was responsible for erroneous doctrine. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
24 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184550 | ||
Hi CDBJ The Gospel message is the whole of the Old and New Testaments, beginning at Genesis 3.15, (although the creation was also good news) as fulfilled in Jesus Christ. It is that the Kingly Rule of God has come and all who believe in Jesus may enter it and receive all the benefits that He has bought for them. I like your quotation. Nothing about a Tribulation period and a Millennium there. Good sound Christian doctrine. Yes I am very satisfied with it. And yet it does not mention the heavenly kingdom so it does not cover the whole of the good news or of the doctrine of salvation. After all that is not what Paul is trying to do, and I would not want to pick on him and pull him up because he does not include everything in one statement. Oh how I wish it was true that the majority of believers were relying on Bible doctrine and God's promises. What a saintly church you must belong to. The problem is (as any godly American minister will tell you) that far too many are depending on promises made in books which put on a pretence of being Scriptural and then make outlandish claims. Of course it is not possible to state in a few sentences what all Americans believe. To pretend to be able to do so would be absurd. Many are a-millennialists. Some are no doubt post-millennialist, and then we have pre-tribulational, mid-tribulational and post tribulational pre millennialists. But there is no doubt that the American church and the American public is bombarded with eschatological teaching much of which is of an extreme kind (in a way that is not true of the rest of the world), and that large numbers of American Christians spend too much time on thinking about eschatology at the cost of sound doctrine (and I have this on the word of godly American preachers). Equally of course there are good numbers who do not. In the end American belief is as diverse as that anywhere else. It is just that some emphases are different in different parts of the world, and one of the emphases of the American church is on eschatology, something which cannot honestly be denied. Yes like the writer to the Hebrews in chapter 11 I am 'proud' of being in a long line of saints, in which I have been placed as a result of the grace of God,and as the Scriptures tell me to do I look at them and rejoice in what they accomplished and then in the greater illumination God gave in the New Testament which I can enjoy, so that I can then look off to Jesus, the Author and Finisher of my faith. Do you not? May I suggest that you read Hebrews 11-12. May I also suggest that it is neither gracious nor helpful simply to take statements out of context and make them mean what every sensible person knows that they do not mean? We are supposed to be trying to understand each other, not getting at each other. All I have done is explain my position to people who have been asking about it, having first of all tried to dissuade them from asking. Genuine cordial best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
25 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184531 | ||
Hi Brian, I can clearly only deal with your question quickly but the answer is simple. The prophecies cover three periods. Firstly the time when God brought Israel back to its land and gave them prosperity, secondly the period of the Kingly Rule of God established by Jesus over the new Israel of God (Galatians 6.16; John 15.1-6), and thirdly the period of the everlasting kingdom, given in language that the people at the time could understand. Thus Joel 2.21-27 comes BEFORE the pouring out of the Spirit which Peter applied to Pentecost in Acts 2.18. In Joel 2.20 we are told that 'Judah will be inhabited for ever, and Jerusalem to all generations'. That requires everlastingness. Isaiah 35.1-2 was fulfilled prior to the coming of Jesus while verses 3-9 are fulfilled in the coming of Jesus (compare Matthew 11.3-5), and verse 10 refers to the everlasting kingdom, the only place where everlasting joy could be obtained. Isaiah 2.2-4 was fulfilled in the coming of Christ and the sending out of the Gospel. It was describing how Jerusalem would be the place where God revealed His blessing, followed by the new Temple of God's people becoming the source of life to the world. Acts 15.16-18 demonstrates the fulfilment of Amos 9.9-12, while the remainder speaks of the everlasting kingdom in idealistic terms. Note again 'they will never again be plucked up out of the land'. That requires everlastingness, not just a millennium. Micah 4.17 is not in my Bible :-)) Isaiah 11.4-10 is again describing the everlasting kingdom (do you really think it could happen at the same time as blood offerings were being made in the Temple?). Compare Isaiah 65.25 which is specifically in the new heavens and the new earth (65.17). Zephaniah 3.20 was partially fulfilled when Israel was restored prior to the coming of Christ, verse 19 in the coming of Christ. Habakkuk 2.14 is in process now, and will receive its final fulfilment in the everlasting kingdom. Haggai 2.7-9 had a partial fulfilment in the Temple of Herod, and a final fulfilment in the new Temple of God composed of His people, followed by the Temple in Heaven. Zechariah 8.3-5 is pictured in a slightly different way in Revelation 21.22-27. Zechariah 14.16-21 is a picture in terms in which the people could understand of everlasting worship, stressing why it will be universal. Jeremiah 31.31-34 speaks of the new covenant made by Christ and fulfilled in the Kingly Rule of God. Jeremiah 33.12-26 cannot possibly refer to a period that will end for it promises 'there will NEVER lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel', while the covenant with David is so everlasting (compare Isaiah 55.3) that it cannot ever be broken. This requires an everlasting kingdom. Ezekiel 36.33-38 took place during the restoration period. Ezekiel 37.24-28 (why omitted?), 'David my servant will be prince for ever' and 'my sanctuary is in the midst of them for evermore' again requires an everlasting kingdom. Revelation 20.4-6 refers to Christ's victory in the present age. I will later post evidence of this if you wish. Meanwhile you must be careful not to just ignore the significance of everlastingness. The answer to the remainder lies in the establishment of God's Kingly Rule in the church followed by the everlasting kingdom. Running out of space Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
26 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184524 | ||
Hi, You ask for evidence that millennialism was an intertestamental Jewish teaching? How about, 'and I appointed the eighth day also, that the eighth day should be the first created after my work, and that the first seven revolve in the form of the seventh thousand, and that at the beginning of the eighth thousand there should be a time of not counting, endless, with neither years, nor months, nor weeks, nor days, nor hours' (2 Enoch 33.1-2). And -- 'the Messiah will then begin to be revealed, -- the earth also will yield its fruit ten-thousandfold, and on each vine there will be a thousand branches, and each branch will produce a thousand clusters, and each cluster produce a thousand grapes, and each grape produce a cor of wine, moreover also they will behold marvels every day' (2 Baruch 30.4-6). This was in fact the source of the ideas of Papias, Irenaeus, Tertullian etc . Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
27 | Amalekites show up in 1st sam 30:1..???? | 1 Sam 30:1 | jonp | 184511 | ||
Hi The Amalekites defeated by Saul were seemingly roving in the Sinai peninsula which explains the presence of the Kenites. The Amalekites in 1 Sam 30:1 were a different tribal grouping from those slaughtered in 1 Sam 15. It was the latter who had caused the trouble to Moses. Amalekites wandered over the whole of the Arabian peninsula as well as over the Sinai peninsula. We are not told where the base of operations was in 1 Sam 30, only the areas that they attacked. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
28 | who was moses mother and dad | Num 26:59 | jonp | 184508 | ||
Hi Clearly Jochebed could not have been both the direct daughter of Levi and the direct mother of Moses. If she was then her age would have been around 400 years which would have been a little old for childbearing. And Amram died at 137. You can put SHE BORE in capital letters but it does not alter the fact that the Hebrew can indicate that she bore him through her descendants. I could put WHO WAS BORN TO LEVI in capital letters but again it would not alter the fact that the Hebrew can mean 'born to him through his descendants'. So we have to accept that we are not sure which it is. It is much the best not to be dogmatic about such things. This is made more complicated by the fact that in 1 Chronicles 6.1-2 we are told that the son of Levi was Kohath, and the son of Kohath was Amram, and the son of Amram was Moses. Again it is clear that this is unlikely to be the whole family tree covering 400 years. The normal way of seeing this would be that Levi was the patriarchal head, Kohath was the sub-tribal ancestor, and Amram the clan ancestor which would mean that he was the 'father' of Moses as his ancestor. Compare similarly 1 Chronicles 23.12-13. Recognising this is important if we are to reconcile the different genealogies. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
29 | who was moses mother and dad | Num 26:59 | jonp | 184488 | ||
Hi The father and mother of Moses may well have been Amram and Jochebed (Exodus 6.20; Numbers 26.59) although it is just possible that if Jochebed was the actual daughter of Levi these were the tribal ancestors from whom Aaron and Moses sprang. (It was common practise in asncient times to speak of people being 'born' of their ancestors) Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
30 | Amalekites show up in 1st sam 30:1..???? | 1 Sam 30:1 | jonp | 184486 | ||
Hi, The Amalekites were roving tribespeople (similar on the whole to Bedouin) split up into many smaller groups who had little contact with each other, although some apparently settled in Canaan as there was a Mountain of the Amalekites (Judges 12.15; see also Numbers 14.25, 43). Thus the Amalekite tribe defeated by Saul was a different one from that which invaded from the Negev (see Genesis 14.7; Numbers 13.29). In Judges 3, and 6-7 Amalekites also invaded from the east. They were spread over many places. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
31 | I can use Galatians 4:16 as a support. | 1 Tim 5:19 | jonp | 184484 | ||
Hi Thank you for your note. I had read you original question as signifying that you had problems with the leadership of your church as a whole. Later notes have revealed that you had one particular person in mind whose life was inconsistent with his profession of the Gospel. That is clearly a very different issue, and I actually agree with what you say :-))). Your course in that case would be to follow Jesus' instructions in Matthew 18.15-17, keeping in mind 1 Timothy 6.17-20. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
32 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184483 | ||
Hi Let me immediately make clear that I do believe in the literal second coming of Christ to the earth in accordance with 1 Thessalonians 4.13-18 (and all that Jesus taught on the subject). But no, I find that neither Jesus nor Paul taught a millennium, so I am in good and sound company :-))). On the other hand I do believe that the Book of Revelation is the inspired word of God. What I do not believe is that the pre-tribulationist position correctly interprets it. Pre-tribulationism is a comparatively new teaching which arose among the Plymouth Brethren in the 19th century, and was popularised by Dr Scofield (whom I admire even if I cannot accept all his teachings). Neither John Calvin nor Martin Luther nor George Whitefield nor John Wesley were pre-tribulationists. Millennialism was an intertestamental Jewish teaching which was never accepted by the wider Christian church. Thus I stand in the long line of saints who hold to the truth of the Gospel without getting caught up in fancy ideas. Possibly you are not aware of the fact that while in the US such teachings are widely influential, in the remainder of the Christian world they are very much secondary. And that is not because only Americans understand the Scriptures. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
33 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184482 | ||
Hi I am sorry if you found my note too long but as you will appreciate it is not always easy to be simple when dealing with complicated issues (But you did ask :-))) ). Each of us has to make up our own minds on eschatology. It is a question about which evangelicals have different viewpoints. But what is important is that we recognise that such issues are secondary. The moment the Lord has come for His own what follows will be in His hands entirely, and we may all be wrong. That is why there is so little agreement on the issues. What matters is that we concentrate on the primary issues, while by all means discussing the others in a friendly and loving way. What is undoubtedly wrong is to fall out with other Christians because of their views on the events connected with the second coming. When the Lord takes His own it will include amillennialists, pre-millennialist and post-millennialists, as well as preterites, and all will be equally welcomed. The purpose of eschatology is to be a comfort and a spur, not a cause for division. I used to believe in millennium, but I began to see that the idea contained far too many problems to be true, not least because neither Jesus nor Paul mention it. And alkso because it is neither one thing nor the other. I believe in the centrality of the true Gospel and prefer to have my eyes fixed on the eternal kingdom. 'Set your mind upon things above, and not on things on the earth, for you are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God' (Colossians 3.1-2). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
34 | Once saved, always saved? | Matt 25:14 | jonp | 184481 | ||
Hi Azure, Yes, you could put it that way. Jesus' emphasis is on the fact that because he saw his Lord as a hard taskmaster he did nothing with what the Lord had given him. He saw his Lord as fearsome and unresponsive. Many sadly do see God like that, and therefore do not respond to Him. But the emphasis is not so much on that as on the fact that he did nothing, when he should have done something. We are all given gifts of one kind or another (see for example Romans 12.6-13) and sometimes it is the one with the least important gift like this man who hides it away rather than using it. Jesus concern was that all should use their gifts to the glory of God, even those who think themselves unimportant. All can give a cup of cold water in His Name. His point is that not to do anything is unforgiveable. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
35 | What is a demon? | Matt 12:24 | jonp | 184468 | ||
Hi A demon is the same as an 'unclean spirit' and Jesus makes clear that they are under Satan's control and part of his kingdom, that is 'the dominion of darkness' (Matt 12.24-29; Colossians 1.13). Sin is not a demon, nor specifically caused by demons, nor do they ordinarily cause disease, although there are some who do. The Bible also distinguishes those who are demon possessed from 'lunatics' (Matt 4.24). Demons do in fact 'possess' people, but probably only when they open their lives to them in some way by dabbling in the occult. They do not necessarily try to prevent you from getting what you want unless what you want is spiritual truth. It need hardly be said that they are enemies of man and of Jesus. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
36 | Once saved, always saved? | Matt 25:14 | jonp | 184459 | ||
Hi Azure. They are professing Christians, people who call Jesus 'Lord, Lord'. But some 'do not do what He says' (Luke 6.46). Thus not all are true believers. Jesus point about the deposit was that this servant had failed to have any concern about the interests of his master. Not even enough to put his money on deposit so that his master could benefit. He was totally unconcerned about his master's concerns and purposes. Thus he was only a professing servant, not a real one. The idea of the outer darkness is that it is away from the true light. Where God is, there is light. To be in outer darkness is to be totally away from God. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
37 | Follow up to : Baptized in name of Jesus | Matt 28:19 | jonp | 184457 | ||
Hi It is the tendency of human beings to place the emphasis on the physical rather than the spiritual. By that means they seek to get the spiritual under their control. It gives them a feeling of certainty and makes men look up to them and even depend on them. But Paul lays the emphasis on the spiritual. He did not want people to look up to him and depend on him. He wanted them to look to Jesus and His cross and the Gospel of salvation. He was afraid that people might rather look to baptism as having some magical power which would in men's minds replace the cross and thus 'empty it of its power' because as a result the cross became ignored. And that is the great danger for people today. We must give baptism its due place as the means by which we make clear our desire to die with Christ and rise with Him, but we must not see it as actually accomplishing that purpose. That happens through faith alone when we 'reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus' (Romans 6.11). The triunity of God is something which is difficult to deal with in a short space, for it is something not within men's conceptions. It is true that there is only one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but within God (if we can use the word 'within' of the infinite) there are inter-personal relationships. Thus Father Son and Holy Spirit intercommunicate and reveal love to one another, and reveal God in different ways at the same time. Jonp | ||||||
38 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184455 | ||
Hi You will note that I did deal with your question concerning the meaning of olam, in other words what I considered was most important about your question. I avoided what I felt could only lead to absurdity. But if you mean do I believe in a coming mythical hybrid kingdom which is neither fully earthly or fully heavenly, with resurrected Apostles, who have amazing powers given by the resurrection, rather unsuccessfully ruling on thrones over sinful earthly people, where some second rate 'Gospel of the Kingdom' is preached which is a pale shadow of the true Gospel, and where Jesus is in charge of a failing experiment in Jerusalem, while the lambs which are at perfect peace with the lions and the wolves are only terrified of the men in the Temple who are slaying as many lambs as possible in what are called 'memorial offerings' (which are nothing like Old Testament sacrifices but are simply the product of vivid imaginations), and there are trees of life of which the fruit is for the heavenly favourites, and the leaves are for their earthly counterpart, then no, I don't. In my view it is a monstrous distortion of the truth. Do you consider that Jesus sacrifice of Himself was an allegory of the Old Testament sacrifices? No, of course not, it is the reality of which the sacrifices were the shadow. In the same way the Old Testament provided shadows of which New Testament truth is the reality. It was impossible for the prophets to teach New Testament truth in an Old Testament environment. There was no conception of a heavenly existence for men. Any such talk would immediately have been connected with polytheism. To them it was the gods who lived in such places. Thus it had to be presented in terms of a future EVERLASTING kingdom. When the early missionaries went to the eskimoes they proclaimed 'the great igloo in the skies'. They had to use ideas that the people understood. In the same way the prophets depicted heavenly realities, not by allegories, but in earthly terms, the only ones understandable to their listeners. Like the offerings and sacrifices they were the shadows of the great reality to come. It is quite frankly unbelievable that if Paul had believed in the Millennium he would not have mentioned it. Can you imagine any preacher who believed in it not doing so today? Of course not. And neither would Paul. So yes, I do consider that the Old Testament provided shadows of what was to come and no, I do not allegorise it. I accept it for what it is, a picturing of indescribable greater realities in the only way in which they could be sensibly portrayed. Best wishes Peter | ||||||
39 | only through suffering, He is revealed | Rom 8:18 | jonp | 184444 | ||
Hi It would just not be true to say that Jesus Christ is only revealed through suffering. He is revealed through His life (John 1.14; 1 John 1.1-4). He is revealed through His teaching. He is revealed through the Scriptures (John 5.39). But above all He is revealed to us through His cross and resurrection (compare Philippians 3.10) and through His enthronement (1 Corinthians 3.18) What is, however, true is that through suffering we can come to know Him better and are made more like Him. 'We rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces patient endurance, and patient endurance produces character and experience, and character and experience produce hope, and hope does not disappoint us because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy Spirit Who is given unto us' (Romans 5.3-5). But even here we should note that this is a result of our first having been accounted right in the eyes of God through faith so that we have access by faith into the grace (compassion and love of God exercised towards us) in which we now stand and rejoice in the hope of the glory of God (Romans 5.1-2). So first we have the access and the confidence and the certainty of God's gracious presence. All provision is made. Then the suffering follows in order to polish up the jewel, but even this is accompanied by the presence of the Holy Spirit. He does not leave us comfortless. He comes to us (John 14.18). Compare also 'if we have died with Him, we shall also live with Him, if we suffer patiently we shall also reign with Him' (2 Timothy 2.11-12). Again, note first the vital union with Him by dying with Him and receiving new life. Then the need for endurance because of what will follow. The one follows the other. First thepreparation, then the process. As James says, 'count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet with various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness, and let steadfastness have its full effect so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing' (James 1.2-4). And we should not be surpised at this because out Great Trek Leader was prepared for His task through suffering (Hebrews 2.10) so that He could lead us to glory. How much more then we must expect the same. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
40 | Jesus getting the keys to hell | Rev 1:18 | jonp | 184443 | ||
Hi The fact that Jesus holds the keys of Hades and of death does not mean that He was going there but that He decided who would be released from them. The idea is that Death and Hades held men captive, but that through His death and resurrection He has provided a way of release for all who look to Him (before they die). In the words of Jesus in John 5.21, 'the Son gives life to whom He will'. 'I am the resurrection and the life, he who believes in Me, though he may die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in Me will never die (John 11.25). Why? Because He has the keys of death and of Hades. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |