Results 21 - 37 of 37
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jalek Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | danger of small sins lead to larger sins | Matt 15:18 | Jalek | 240620 | ||
thanks Doc. I appreciate that. I would have enjoyed having you in class. | ||||||
22 | Did it start as a legal brief? | Luke | Jalek | 239124 | ||
Greetings, An investigative reporter trying to prepare a news article on a major event would do the same. Is he writing a legal brief? No, he's making sure that he's taking down precise information before relaying it to the public. A publisher wanting a book on a historical event will hire appropriate people to not only write the book, but investigate the accounts. Point being, a lawyer wouldn't be the only one to pursue eyewitness accounts. Acts doesn't focus entirely on Paul. Paul is a major player in the early church, and the book of Acts relays his importance. However, the first half is about Peter and the other Apostles. The major leaders of the early church were Peter and John. Almost all of the Apostles are mentioned at least once in Acts. As far as who Theophilus is, as I mentioned before, he's more than likely some kind of Roman Official, or very wealthy, given that he's addressed as "Most Excellent". Jalek |
||||||
23 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240791 | ||
Greetings, With all due respect, Doc, I do not believe that Jesus's spirit went to hell during the time his body was in the grave, and for a good reason. First, none of those verses state that Jesus went to hell. The only one that even comes close to saying that is Ephesians 4:9 which states that Jesus descended into the earth, which can be interpreted as being put into the grave. Second, if Jesus was in hell for those three days, then why did he lie to the thief on the cross? He told the thief, "Today you shall be with Me in paradise." To say he was in hell makes him to be a liar. So, it's not out of disrespect I say this. Its because it's biblical. If the Lockman foundation teaches that Christ went to hell, they need to change their doctrine, cause the Bible doesn't teach that. Oh, and by the way, Psalms 23 only has 6 verses. Jalek |
||||||
24 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240795 | ||
Greetings, Doc, again, with all due respect, where are these attacks against me about forum policy coming from? On several occasions, you've singled me out. All I did is what I have been doing from the beginning, and that is offer a valid interpretation of scripture, and backed up my claims with scripture as well as refuted other claims with scripture. If you have a problem with that, come right out and say so. Now, if this is about my comment that the Foundation needs to change their beliefs, then so be it, but my point stands. I'm not going to bend on what I believe just because some person comes along and tells me I have to. If I believe someone is teaching something contrary to the Bible, I'm going to speak up and say so, and that's exactly what I did. Jalek |
||||||
25 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240796 | ||
Greetings, Actually, the term for the place of the dead was Sheol, not hades/hell. Hades/Hell was reserved for the wicked and unjust, but Sheol was for all the dead. Abraham's bosom or Paradise was the place for those who were faithful to God. Jalek |
||||||
26 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240802 | ||
Greetings, Under the interpretation that Jesus went to retrieve the Righteous and Faithful from the place of the dead called Paradise, I will agree. However, the common definition for Hell/Hades is the abode of the wicked and evil, to which I do not agree that Jesus went there, because that is not what scripture teaches. That is the point I was trying to make. Jalek |
||||||
27 | who were the twelve disciples, what were | Acts | Jalek | 239114 | ||
Greetings, Why not read the first chapter as a whole, and you'll be able to answer those on your own. Jalek |
||||||
28 | Three times Paul says his gospel was a m | Rom 16:25 | Jalek | 240016 | ||
Greetings, First off, is the mystery that Paul is speaking about his own gospel or something else? Paul speaks about this mystery at length in his epistle to the Ephesians. In Ephesians 1:3-14 and 3:1-21, Paul talks about the mystery. In Ephesians 1:9, he calls it "the mystery of His (God the Father's) will". Later in Ephesians 3:4, he calls it the "Mystery of Christ". He's talking about redemption. It was hinted at in the Old Testament, promised, and prophesied, but it didn't become a reality and fully explained until Christ came and died on the cross. That is the mystery. It's redemption. However, it's not just redemption. In the Old Testament, almost everything about God's promises are focused upon Israel. In fact, the early church didn't think that gentiles, or non jews, were even worthy to hear the Gospel. It was two people who changed the early church's mind on that. The first was Peter, who had a vision in Acts 10. In Acts 11, he uses the vision as a defense to uphold the position of teaching gentiles the Gospel. The other place is in Acts 18. Paul has a vision from God after he makes a decision to teach the Gentiles. This vision reassures Paul that he won't be harmed as long as he's in the city and teaching. So, I think the mystery isn't just about redemption, but the redemption of both Jews and Gentiles alike, which hasn't been ignored. Jalek |
||||||
29 | Three times Paul says his gospel was a m | Rom 16:25 | Jalek | 240029 | ||
Greetings, Is this not the same topic that Paul speaks of in the passages I mentioned in Ephesians? After all, he speaks of the same thing, and uses similar terminology as in ephesians 3. Jalek |
||||||
30 | Resurrection or Easter sunday? | 1 Cor 15:32 | Jalek | 240220 | ||
Greetings, One explanation that I read once on why they call it Easter is because it was not only during Passover week, but also near a pagan holiday that paid honor to the ancient Babylonian goddess of sensuality Ishtar. Easter is apparently supposed to be a variant spelling of the name Ishtar. How true that explanation is, I don't know, but it is one that I've read in the past. Jalek |
||||||
31 | 3 generations influenced by 1 verse | Phil 4:19 | Jalek | 240259 | ||
Greetings, This verse was my grandmother's favorite verse. She told me once that this verse helped her raise five children through poverty stricken times. She, my grandpa, and their children never had much, but she said God always provided what they needed. She would write to my dad every week when he was serving his country in Vietnam. She would end each letter with this verse. My dad said it was the one thing that kept his hopes alive during that traumatic time. She could write the verse down on ever card she gave me for my birthday and for Christmas. She even had a plaque in her room with this verse on it. For years, I knew the theology and meaning behind it, the context of the passage, but it didn't really hit home until today. I've been going through a personal financial crisis where I was going to be homeless in under four days if a miracle didn't happen. My dad, my pastor, my church, and my friends have been praying with me for a miracle to happen. Every avenue seemed to stop in a dead end, and I was growing more and more depressed. I e-filed my taxes a couple weeks ago, and put my bank account on the forms for a direct deposit of my tax refund. I wasn't expecting them since for the past ten years, they have been garnished and given towards my student loans. Tonight, after church, I logged onto my account online to view my balance of my account. I was floored when my tax returns had been deposited a few hours before. The amount of the refund is the perfect amount needed for me to get into a new apartment. I wanted to share this with my friends here as a story of renewed hope in this simple verse. Jalek |
||||||
32 | was timothy an apostle | 1 Timothy | Jalek | 239896 | ||
Greetings, I wasn't aware of it either until I did some research for the question about Timothy being an apostle. Please keep me updated on your findings. It'll be interesting to see someone else's findings on the topic. Jalek |
||||||
33 | where Jesus take away the sting of death | 1 Pet 3:19 | Jalek | 238965 | ||
Greetings, Actually, this is incorrect. Hades, biblically speaking, is the place for wicked. Abraham's Bosom and Paradise were for the righteous. Hades/Hell and Abraham's Bosom/Paradise are two separate places. The Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus confirms this in verse 23 where it states that the Rich Man was in Hades after he died. So, when Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with Jesus in paradise, he didn't take him to Hades/Hell, the place for the Wicked, but to Paradise, the place for the righteous. Jalek |
||||||
34 | explain Genesis 6:2-4 | 2 Pet 2:4 | Jalek | 239059 | ||
Greetings, First off, my reply wasn't to Doc nor to you, but to the original poster. Secondly, I find the notion that you believe me to be some secular troublemaker disturbing since there is absolutely zero proof of such accusations in anything I have written in my short time here. For that, I would like an apology. Thirdly, I didn't turn to any secular sources at all. I provided an interpretation of the passage based on the grammar, hermeneutics, and simple common sense. As for Mark 12, yes, read the context. The topic is a question of who's wife will she be? Jesus answers that at the time, there will be no marriage, but that it will be for them as it is for the angels now. Meaning, that there will be no marriage. Now, to imply that Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage is not a great stretch of the context, but is plain in the text. My point in using this passage is to discredit the notion that the identity of the Sons of God in Genesis 6 is angels. This is based partly on the fact that the "Sons of God" took wives. As for Hebrews 1, again, the topic is comparing Jesus to Angels, and the rhetorical question is made of which angel did God declare to be his child? The answer, which I stated before, is obvious. None of them. Again, this also applies to discredit the identity of the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 as being angels because, as Hebrews implies, no angel has been called "a son of God". Now, my use of Romans 8:14 and 1 John 3:1 is to help support my main belief that the identity of the Sons of God in Genesis 6 is the line of Seth, who appeared to have been obedient to God's will, which carries a similar meaning to the usage in Romans and 1 John. A broader definition would "Human believers" As for the explanation of the Trinity, if you had read what I said, it should be clear. The only obscure use of the phrase "Sons of God" is found in Job. I was providing an alternative interpretation of the use of that phrase in Job as a pre-emptive explanation as to one of the more popular support passages that people will use to say that the Sons of God in Genesis 6 are angels. They will often use Job. My theory on the dinosaurs is just a simple explanation on who the nephilim really are. They can't be the offspring of the Sons and Daughters because they were already living when the two groups mated. Therefore, it means something else, as I explained before. Now, I have given my explanation on the passage, and I have provided this added bit of clarity. For the record, I did stick to the topic at hand, which was identifying the Sons of God and the Nephilim in Genesis 6. I pulled from resources found elsewhere in the Bible to support my claims. Never did I cite a resource outside the Bible. If you wish to believe in the myth of angels mating with humans, and creating demigods straight out of the tales of Greek Mythology, go ahead. Personally, I'll believe what I've supported, that this was a time when the godly line of Seth intermarried with the ungodly line of Cain, and it happened when the nephilim still walked the earth. Jalek |
||||||
35 | Why Passover? | Rev 5:12 | Jalek | 240217 | ||
Greetings Doc, Thank you for the insight. The purpose behind my question came from reading up on the purpose of Passover. Passover wasn't the time when Sins were atoned for. That day was reserved for the Day of Atonement. Hebrews 9 describes Jesus as the High Priest, entering the Most Holy Place, and offering his blood as the blood sacrifice needed for atonement of sin. The thing is, Hebrews 9 is talking about the Day of Atonement, yet Christ's work for Salvation was done during Passover. See why I'm asking? Jalek |
||||||
36 | Who's the "her" ? | Rev 18:4 | Jalek | 239680 | ||
Greetings, Babylon the Great is considered by many of the Biblical Prophets to have been the most glorious and influential empire, not necessarily the most powerful or the longest standing. In Revelation 17 and 18, John is referring to another nation that is similar to Babylon in glory and influence. The image of the harlot riding a dragon is largely symbolic. This is a warning as well as a prediction of a nation's corrupting influence and fall. As to which nation that is referring to, take your pick. Right now, we can't say for certain. Jalek. |
||||||
37 | Who's the "her" ? | Rev 18:4 | Jalek | 239691 | ||
Greetings, Nation ... city ... that's simply an oversight on my part. I didn't take Revelation 18:10 into account. As for the "she" in 1 peter 5:13, I think that is referring to the church, which is feminine in the greek language and often referred to as a female. Why I believe this is the way Peter refers to her as "chosen". With that said, I think that is different than the "She" and "Her" used in Revelation 17 and 18, which I think is specifically referring to Babylon. I think Peter's use of Babylon is to identify his location at the time. As far as what the Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 is referring to, I still think that it is a nation, or a city acknowledging the above oversight. It would be a large, influential, and corrupting place, where the heads of governments come to meet. Now, with this being prophecy, we can't say for certain what this is referring to in terms of an identity, but one place that comes to mind right now would be New York City or Washington DC, but that is merely opinion. Now, one thing to take into consideration, the battle of Armageddon takes place before this, which I don't think has happened yet. This is getting into something I try to not speculate on. Right now, all we can do is try to interpret the signs given in the scriptures. Trying to establish identities to the symbolic images provided in these prophecies can lead to danger. I even have a book from the late 80s that goes into detail to explain why Mikhail Gorbachev was the Antichrist. Obviously he wasn't, but I hope it clarifies what I'm trying to say. We should be careful about trying to go further than what the scriptures provide. Jalek |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |