Results 21 - 40 of 44
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: rabban Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191631 | ||
No problem :-)) | ||||||
22 | What Happened To The Edomites | Mal 1:4 | rabban | 191238 | ||
The Edomites were overrun by the Nabataeans and fled to Southern Judah. They were forced to become Jews and be circumcised by John Hyrcanus and were thus absorbed into Judaism. Herod was an Edomite Jew, and idumaean. | ||||||
23 | forgiveness | Matt 18:1 | rabban | 191366 | ||
You say that you do not recognise the difference between the two levels of forgiveness, the one where someone has repented, the other where they have not? I would have thought that the difference was huge. Central to the forgiveness that Jesus describes in Luke 17.3-4 (compare Matthew 18.21-35) where a brother or sister has said 'I repent' is that the person is reinstated in the position that he or she was in before they sinned. We are saying with God, 'their sins and iniquities I will remember no more' (Hebrews 8.12 and Parallels). We are to treat them as though they had never sinned. They are a repentant brother or sister. Full trust must be restored. But in the case of the person who has not repented, while I will show full love to them (Matthew 5.42-48)I will not show full trust. I cannot trust someone who is likely to do it again. I am not sure that forgiveness necessarily means foregoing a right to justice. I can forgive and still seek justice. What I cannot do is forgive and seek vengeance. The two are incompatible. 'Vengeance is mine' says the Lord. 'I will repay' (Romans 12.19; Hebrews 10.30). |
||||||
24 | forgiveness | Matt 18:1 | rabban | 191376 | ||
Hi If I may say a word with regard to Jeremiah 31.34b.? The Hebrews had a way of deliberately stating the same thing in two different ways. It is a feature of their poetry and their prose. (If you watch out for it you will see it again and again, especially in the Psalms). Thus we have here: I will forgive their wickedness I will remember their sin no more. It is saying the same thing in two different ways. In Hebrew 'and' actually has little force. It is simply a conjoining letter. But God does not say that He will forget their sins. He says that He will deliberately 'not remember them'. He will erase them from His mind. That is forgiveness. The Greek word for 'forgive' actually means 'to send away, disregard'. He will treat them as if they had never sinned. 'Forgiveness' (aphesis) means 1) release from bondage or imprisonment 2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty. (See Strong). So the concepts are all similar :-))) Best wishes |
||||||
25 | for what reason can a man divoce his wif | Matt 19:9 | rabban | 191369 | ||
Forgive me for saying so but you appear to have a very easy attitude towards divorce which is totally contrary to the teaching of Jesus. What is important is that we ask what the Scriptures teach about divorce. I have already dealt with your argument that lust can be a grounds for divorce, which has no genuine Scriptural grounds. But you say, 'It is important to remember that God knows about divorce firsthand. In Jer 3:8, God divorced Israel for her faithlessness (abandonment) and idolatry (infidelity). We can know that God identifies with our suffering because He has experienced divorce. This divorce was necessary because the marriage with Israel was dead from a break of faith. It is in the context of faith that we are to be married, and when that is no longer possible, due to the hardness of someone's heart, (Matthew 19:8) divorce is appropriate.' What you have overlooked is that God specifically says that it was because of their adultery that He was divorcing them. Thus He was underlining Jesus' teaching before the event. I do appreciate the sad situation you have found yourself in (assuming I have read it aright). And your one consolation may be that it is unlikely that your 'husband' will not soon commit adultery. But we do not have a right to take clear teaching and manoeuvre it around on the grounds of modern reasoning. It is important that we ask, what does the Scripture teach? Breach of trust is not a Scriptural grounds for divorce. What we must seek to do is restore that trust. Jesus is basically saying that marriage is binding for better or for worse. Adultery is a grounds for divorce, not because it is a breach of trust, but because it is a deliberate break in the union between a man and a woman as described in Genesis 2.23-24 as Jesus makes clear (Matthew 19.4-6). Otherwise Jesus said 'what man has joined together let no man (or woman) put asunder'. As it happens even abandonment is not said to be a grounds for divorce. Paul in 1 Corinthians 7.14-16 allows for separation, he does not mention divorce or remarriage. It is just that that is often assumed to be inferred by his words. But Jesus tightened the law on marriage and divorce. He not only set aside Hillel's easy approach, but He also demonstrated that Shammai was inconsistent in agreeing that divorce could only be for adultery or impurity (as a theological position) while still not speaking out against divorce. Jesus spoke out against divorce. He said that it was a no, no, except where adultery had broken the bind that bound the man and the woman. Please note that I am not arguing for my position. It is not for me to say who can divorce and when. I am expounding what the Scriptures say. And they are quite clear on the subject. We can ignore what they say, but it is at the risk of displeasing the One Whose word it is. Because of their divorce Jerualem was destroyed and Judah went into exile. |
||||||
26 | What was in the cup, wine? | Mark 14:25 | rabban | 192017 | ||
While it is unquestionable that Jesus did drink mild wine mixed with water we have to remember that in those days water was in most cases almost undrinkable, unless you could go to a place where there was a spring. From there water jars would be filled and provided a limited supply of water (especially if you had to go a long way). Thus wine was the easily available cheap alternative and mixed with the scarcer water was a necessity. And it was unavoidably drunk by all, children included. The water in Ephesus was particularly bitter. That is probably why Paul said to Timothy (who was in Ephesus), 'Be no longer a drinker of water. Drink a little wine for your stomach's sake and your regular infirmities' (1 Timothy 5.23). This would suggest that Timothy did try to keep off wine, and was nobly sticking to the water that was making him ill. I do not think that this has anything to say either way about whether Jesus would enter a tavern, which is a totally different question. However, the Scriptures certainly condemn 'wine and strong drink', in other words the powerful stuff (Leviticus 10.9; Proverbs 20.1; Isaiah 5.22; 28.7; Luke 1.15). And Paul in Ephesians 5.18 warns against 'being drunk with wine' but rather urges us to be 'filled with the spirit'. Both produce singing, but of totally different kinds. |
||||||
27 | What was in the cup, wine? | Mark 14:25 | rabban | 192030 | ||
Hi You wrote "I thought that if alcohol was ingested and entered the bloodstream, the blood would be diluted w/ a foreign substance, making it into an altered state. I thought that Jesus would remain pure absolutely, making His sacrifice acceptable." The acceptability or otherwise of Jesus offering of Himself was dependent on His absolute obedience to the will of His Father (Hebrews 10.1-14). 'He was made sin, Who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him'(2 Corinthians 5.21). Nothing that enters the body and the bloodstream renders the natural body or blood unclean (Mark 7.1--21). Uncleanness is of the moral 'heart' (center of being). When we speak of the 'blood' of Jesus cleansing, we are really referring to the atonement and 'satisfaction' obtained through the shedding of His blood. The physical blood is irrelevant. The blood in the Old Testament was important for what it symbolised, a life given out in death. Thus Jesus was purer than the driven snow, a Lamb without spot or blemish.. In Him |
||||||
28 | third temple built before Jesus returns? | John 2:19 | rabban | 191636 | ||
Hi Cheri, While full details of the Passover are not included mention is made of the feast of the Passover (Ezekiel 45.21). They are to 'have the Passover'. It is the only Feast he actually mentions by name. He would not need to spell out the details. As you are aware Ezekiel gives little detail of the feasts. There was no need. Israel were fully familiar with them. I presume you are suggesting that the Passover sacrifice and the sacrifices of the Day of Atonement being omitted are connected with Christ having died as our Passover and Atonement? But if that were so we would expect no mention of a sin offering either. But the sin offering is prominent, as is the need to make atonement (43.21, 26; 44.29; 45.17, 19, 22, 23, 25). Thus we may see this latter as confirming the opposite to your suggestion, that it does not have in view the death of Christ except as something yet to come :-)))). But I do see as very significant that there is no suggestion anywhere that the Temple should be built. It did not need to be built. It came down on a mountain specifically outside Jerusalem as his full explanations make clear. God was again present among His people, not in Jerusalem, but in the land of Israel. Only the altar was required to be built. Before the new Temple was built this would be extremely important to the returning exiles. They could build an altar. They had no wherewithal to build a Temple. In Him. |
||||||
29 | God the Father as Provider or Saviour? | Rom 8:32 | rabban | 192080 | ||
... | ||||||
30 | THE APOCALYPSE CODE, Have U read it? | Rom 11:17 | rabban | 191337 | ||
Surely if we are grafted into Israel as you rightly say, and unbelieving Israel have been cut off then the church is the true and continuing Israel? Large numbers of Galilean Jews had become Christians through Jesus' ministry and would later have been confirmed as such by the Apostles. The ministry of the Apostles went on for twelve years in Jerusalem and was hugely successful. Thus a good percentage of the Jews had become Christian Jews. Paul declares the remainder as cut off from Israel. This resulted in the new Israel founded on the rock of Jesus' Messiahship. As Paul said not all of Israel were truly Israel (Romans 9.6). They had proved it by rejecting Christ. This is confirmed in Ephesians 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.5, 9; Galatians 3.29; and of course Romans 11.17-18. In accordance with Exodus 12.48 Paul said that the Gentiles who became Christians were to be incorporated into Israel through the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2.11). It was precisely because the Judaisers saw the converted Gentiles as becoming Christian Jews and thus part of Israel that they demanded that they should be circumcised in the flesh and demanded the circumcision of Titus. Paul's reply was not that the church was not Israel, but that the converted Gentiles could be seen as already circumcised in the circumcision of Christ and therefore as true proselytes to Israel. The whole reason for the argument was precisely that both sides saw the church as being the true continuation of Israel (John 15.1-6) and that was why the question therefore arose as to whether circumcison was demanded in order to fit in with Exodus 12.48. Paul's reply was that although they were becoming a genuine part of the new Israel, which was replacing the old (Matthew 21.43) they did not need to be circumcised, because this was already accomplished in them through the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2.11). Thus all parties saw the church as being the true Israel, who in Christ had come out of Egypt (Matthew 2.15). |
||||||
31 | THE APOCALYPSE CODE, Have U read it? | Rom 11:17 | rabban | 191412 | ||
Having read the review by Norman Geisler I am afraid that my view is that he is equally as guilty of misrepresentation and glossing over other peoples's views as Hank Hanegraff. Norman Geisler is clearly unaware (I will assume that it was accidental) of the views of many amillennialists and totally misrepresents their position. I am an amillennialist and I would be ashamed to hold the beliefs and interpretations that according to Norman Geisler I am supposed to hold. Unlike him I believe that the Old Testament must be interpreted in the way in which the New Testament interprets it. Nor would I agree that a literal interpretation of Revelation 20 demands a millennium. No millennium ON EARTH is mentioned there. These are gross misrepresentations although I am sure they are due to his lack of knowledge of what other people hold. However to be fair to Norman Geisler he does make clear that he does not fall out with amillennialists over their views as he considers such matters secondary as indeed they are. So it does not seem to me as if there is a divide between the two. If we cannot amicably disagree over a series of doctrines that will affect none of us (hopefully) then there is something very wrong with Christianity. I do not intend to say any more on the topic on this forum, but as my previous posting made clear I believe that the church IS Israel (not just a spiritual Israel). I will not fall out with anyone about it. But I certainly do not believe that God has made any promises that do not apply to the church as Israel. Most of you have your own settled positions on the subject, and that is fine. Stick to them. But please let us not demonise Hank Hanegraff or any who hold amillennial or postmillennial views. If anyone does have quetions raised by what I have said and would like to discuss them please contact me on jonrobb1@lycos.com. I will be happy to discuss them amicably. It is foolish to fall out about a future that none of us can possibly know about. It is equally foolish to say that the people who do not believe our particular angle are not faithful to the word of God. They can (wrongly) say the same about us. That is all I intend to say on the matter. but I did feel it necessary to make this position clear. |
||||||
32 | is masterbation a sin | Rom 12:1 | rabban | 191660 | ||
I have read right through the past postings on this matter very carefully and note that one aspect of the question has never really been dealt with, one that I would feel is very important. Parable's analysis of the question is very useful, and it does raise the question as to how far we can speak when Scripture is silent. After all we must ask ourselves, why was Scripture silent on a question which must certainly have concerned many men? God must have known the torment that could arise in sexually potent men when their sexual feelings were aroused through no fault of their own, and they were unable to be satisfied, say when they were travelling or when they were awaiting battle. And He must have known how they found release. Why then if He disapproved is nothing said? Moses must often have been approached privately by men who wanted an answer to the same question. And the same must apply to the prophets. Why then do we get no guidance if it was considered wrong? We are not talking here about a young man or a boy experimenting with sexual matters, where it is unquestionably wrong.But of a genuine problem facing grown men. I think Parables's summary at the end especially important. "While the Bible does not expressly address masturbation, it honors sexual purity and speaks to the content of our hearts and the life we give to our thoughts. Accordingly, masturbation should not be dismissed as trivial or irrelevant, but rather understood as a powerful experience that each person must consider in light of scripture, prayer, counsel and conscience." I think that is true. But let me suggest three scenarios. 1). Here is a man who dearly loves his wife. He married because he knew that the sciptures said. 'It is better to marry than to burn.' But sadly his wife is in hospital long term. Perhaps she is mentally ill and he knows that she might never come out. Or perhaps she is slowly dying of some lingering disease. And because he is highly sexed he is burning, and even in pain. There is nothing that he can do about it. It is his nature, the nature of which Paul spoke. And that burning as he works in an office with a woman at work is becoming uncontrollable (and only highly sexed males can even understand this). Yet he knows that if he finds relief in bed while thinking of his poor, beloved wife, those burnings will be controlled. He fears that if they are not he will soon do something that he knows to be wrong. And he knows that he will never forgive himself because he is loyal to his wife and to his God. What should he do? Here is another man. His wife has become very 'holy'. She refuses any more to have sex (I know of such a case). Again he married because he knew that he could not remain pure without doing so. Now he does not know what to do. His feelings are becoming more and more aroused and there is no way of being satisfied. He knows that his one hope of remaining true is to make love to his wife by proxy alone in bed. What should he do? Here is a Roman Catholic priest. He has made a vow of celibacy. He does not want to break his vow. Yet scantily clad women come to him for advice, and he feels his sexuality getting out of control. It has become not just a desire but a literal pain. He is afraid that if he finds no release he will commit some great sin. But he wants to be faithful to his vow (however ill-conceived). What should he do? I want to suggest that when we can answer these questions satisfactorily (women and lowly sexed men excluded) we have found the Scriptural answer to the question. |
||||||
33 | is masterbation a sin | Rom 12:1 | rabban | 191663 | ||
Thank you Azure, You will now see why I 'excluded' women and lowly sexed men. Neither can have the slightest knowledge of the extremly powerful urges that highly sexed men have. They can have a driving force which is virtually irresistible, and they go on and on and on relentlessly often destroying a man's usefulness, and very often resulting in actual pain and extreme discomfort. Now if we were talking about something specifically forbidden it would be one thing. My point is precisely that a wise God did not do so because He recognised the situation and need of special cases. Let me add another one. Here is a person with leukemia. As a result he has been infected with AIDS. As a result he cannot make love to his beloved wife. Can you perhaps tell me what the difference is between foreplay (which presumably you would not condemn) and masturbation with his wife in mind? There is little difference between the two. When we consider the emotions that foreplay arouse (and that is also never approved in Scripture, Song of Solomon notwithstanding) perhaps we should forbid that as well? Your article fits adequately the case of the young man considering the situation when he is unmarried. It overlooks totally the problems that I have described, and in fact hardly has them in mind, if at all. I would point out that the writer makes certain assumptions. How does he know what God designed sex for? Has he a direct line to God? And what I have described is in fact a bonding experience between man and wife. Is that not one reason why God 'designed' sex? That is why God gave us the Scriptures. It was that we may follow his will not men's ideas. especially in difficult questions like this. I have no intention of prolonging the subject. But until each one can give a satisfactory answer in their own hearts (not on the forum) to my questions I rest my case. In Him |
||||||
34 | Holy of Holies | Heb 10:19 | rabban | 191387 | ||
Hi Doc, Hebrews 10.22 says, 'Let us draw near with a true heart, in fullness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our body washed with pure water.' Thus we need to ensure that our heart is 'true' (compare John 4.24 and see Psalm 66.18) and we need to attune our faith, especially having in mind as we approach the precious means by which we approach 'through the blood of Jesus'. We need to apply the spiritual water of purification ('clean water', i.e. water sprinkled with the ashes of the heifer (Hebrews 9.13-14; compare 1 John 1.7 and see Numbers 8.7; 19.1 ff) ensuring that we approach Him as those who have been 'cleansed' from impurity through His sacrifice for us, and we should wash our bodies with pure water. This last is a little puzzling due to the reference to 'pure' water. It may have in mind Isaiah 1.16-18 where washing with water signifies living a continually reformed life. We can compare also the 'washing of water with the word' in Ephesians 5.26. See also the need for us to continually 'wash our feet' in John 13.10. But the idea of 'pure water'would seem to link up with the water of purification, water that has been purified, again linking with Hebrews 9.13-14 (compare Ezekiel 36.25-27), although in the Old Testament rituals that is used for sprinkling not washing. Possibly he has in mind the outward sins of the body that have to be purified. Or it may have in mind the way that the priests had to regularly wash their hands and feet prior to entering the Holy Place (Exodus 30.19-21). No doubt the water that was put in the laver was seen as 'pure water'. It would be sanctified by being in the holy laver. Thus we must continually be cleansed in the blood of Jesus (1 John 1.7) An alternative is to see it a having in mind Psalm 51.7, 'Purge me with hyssop (with the water of purification which contains the ashes of the heifer) and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.' Compare also 'wash me thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin' (Psalm 51.2). The idea, again in line with 1 John 1.7-10 being a thorough self-examination and admitting to God of our sin so that we might be cleansed. Contrary to many I do not see it as referring to baptism as baptism is not usually seen as washing in the New Testament. Baptism (a rather large subject to deal with here) rather refers to being made alive through the 'rain' of the Holy Spirit. The apparent exception in Acts 22.16 is probably not an exception at all but I will not go into that here. A similar idea is found in Psalm 66.18, 'If I regard iniquity in my heart the LORD will not hear me', and Matthew 5.23-24, where before we approach God we are to ensure that all is right between us and our brothers and sisters in Christ. |
||||||
35 | Holy of Holies | Heb 10:19 | rabban | 191424 | ||
Dear Doc. Thank you for your response. I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree.:-))) I do not consider that I am at all confused as to the imperative portion of Hebrew 10.22. If we are to 'be drawing near with a true heart and full assurance of faith' I cannot see 1) how that can posibly be said to be true of all Christians regardless 2) That that can mean any other than our checking the state of our hearts to ensure that we are approaching with a true heart and with our faith attuned. That is my view of the text. Furthermore the cultic reference to the sprinkling (rhantizo) connects it with the water of purification which was intended to be continual in its application to deal with day by day uncleanness. In my view that is precisely what 1 John 1.7-10 also teaches and what is meant here. Christ's perfect work has provided not only our being 'perfected in Him for ever' (Hebrews 10.14) but also a daily means of cleansing. We can compare the exhortation here with 2 Corinthians 7.1 which also speaks of a similar cleansing although there of spirit and body, which parallels heart and body here. You would not I presume make the confession of our faith a once for all event or the stirring up to love and good works. Then why the drawing near? My knowledge of Greek and my experience and awareness tells me that very often the tenses of the verbs say exactly what an expositor wants them to mean. While not as fluid as Hebrew (which as you know has no past tense) Greek tenses vary widely in their use and meaning. One moment, for example, the commentator is stressing that the aorist means a once for all event, and two verses later it is a 'timeless aorist' or a second aorist. The aorist is thus a fluid tense. And similar fluidity applies to other tenses. Of course Christ's blood allows us permanent entrance with confidence into the heavenly Holy of Holies, and nothing further is required. But are you really suggesting that we should therefore come into His presence unprepared? 'If I am regarding iniquity in my heart the Lord will not hear me.' Jesus Himself said that if we approach the altar and remember that someone has something against us, we must leave our gift at the altar and go and be reconciled to that someone, and then come and offer the gift (Matthew 5.23-24). If that is not timeless, what is? I am not adding to or detracting from the completed work of Christ, nor am I confusing justification with sanctification. Indeed in Hebrews sanctification is often the equivalent of justification (e.g. Hebrews 13.12). There is no doctrine of justification as such in Hebrews. He speaks rather of a once for all perfecting (Hebrews 10.14) or sanctification (Hebrews 13.12) and a continuing sanctification. Compare also 'you who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus' (1 Corinthians 1.2; 6.11) which demonstrates that Paul also speaks of a once for all sanctification. That is why we are 'saints'. I agree wholeheartedly with the words of your last paragraph and I would add also 'positional sanctification'. But I fail to see how it affects our interpretaion of verse 22. Verses 19-20 yes, but not verse 22. Surely pressing forward in our sanctification (Hebrews 10.14) does require that we constantly test whether our hearts are true and our faith is 'full'? Because the door is always open it does not mean that I can go in without wiping my feet (Psalm 15). 'He who is bathed need not but to wash his feet'. In Christ |
||||||
36 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | rabban | 191737 | ||
Hi Jeff, If you had said to me that you believed that salvation was by works I would go to a great deal of trouble to demonstrate from the Scriptures that you were wrong. Such a view could have possibly harmed your hope of salvation (I say possibly because you might have just been citing James). But when you say that you do not agree with my interpretation of who the spirits in prison are it really matters little to me one way or the other who you think they are. If you are convinced of your position, which I suspect you are, I have no desire whatsoever to try to change your view on a matter of such little relevance. And it would take up far too much space. If anyone is genuinely in doubt on the passage and would like to know contact me by email. But if you are confident of your own position then please do not waste my time. You are probably in no state to be convinced, and I certainly am not. I have studied all positions carefully. Changes of doctrine in such obscure matters do not in fact usually happen overnight. They arise when doubts begin to creep in. And you will be pleased to know that that is not one of the questions you will be asked at the pearly gates (please don't take that literally). In spite of the heading I was not answering a question about the spirits in prison. I was answering one about the meaning of verse 20. The previous verse was only dealt with in order to provide a context. However I do intend to add some explanation in response to your posting, and I will tell you why. It is because it is my inner gut feeling that you believe that it teaches a second chance. That I do consider to be important, because nowhere in Scripture is a second chance ever offered after death. As Abraham said to the rich man, 'Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, that they who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may pass from there to us' (Luke 16.26). As i have gone over my allotted words I will do so in another post. God bless you too Rabban. |
||||||
37 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | rabban | 191738 | ||
Hi again. When approaching a disputed passage the first important thing is to examine the Greek text carefully (a little unfair I know if you do not know Greek). And when I do so I discover the following: 1). The ‘in which’ in verse 19 is a construction that nowhere else in the New Testament refers to a preceding adverbial dative. If this principle is followed ‘in which’ cannot refer directly to ‘in the spirit.’ It probably therefore means 'in the course of which'. 2). ‘He went’ in verse 19 is the same verb as in verse 22. All other things being equal this would suggest that the two must be interpreted in the same way as a literal journey of Christ (as verse 22 clearly is) occurring around the same time, e.g. ‘He went to the spirits in prison’ and ‘He went into Heaven’. 3). The ‘through water’ in verse 20 finds its best parallel in ‘through the resurrection of Jesus Christ’ in verse 22. 4). The verb ekeruxen can mean either ‘preached’ or ‘made proclamation’. Both usages are found both in the New Testament and elsewhere. Had Peter wanted to say 'preached the Gospel' he had a verb ready to hand which he uses in 4.6, which would have left no doubt. In fact the idea of triumphant proclamation to the fallen angels of His victory ties in with all heavenly beings being subjected to Him in verse 22. (It is not a question of the Gospel being preached to them. kerusso is neutral. See e.g. Mark 1.45.) 5). The term ‘spirits’, when used on its own without qualification, always elsewhere refers to ‘spiritual beings’ (e.g. Hebrews 1.7, 14; 1 Kings 22.21-23; Job 4.15; Isaiah 31.3 with 2 Kings 6.17; Ezekiel 1.12, 20, 21; 10.17; Zechariah 13.2 where a false spirit of prophesy is in mind). We may add to this the fact that the idea of spiritual beings in prison or the equivalent is found in Isaiah 24.21-22; 2 Peter 2.4; Jude 1.6; Revelation 9.1-11, as well as in external Jewish literature. I am sorry but I do not agree that the context rules out angels. Peter has very much in mind that his hearers are being persecuted by people who believe in other heavenly beings, and wants to assure Christians that any such are already defeated foes. Furthermore heavenly beings are spoken of in context in verse 22. They will be further dealt with in 2 Peter 2. Compare also 1 Peter 5.8. To open and close the argument about what follows His resurrection ('made alive in the spirit') with a reference to the defeat of such heavenly beings seems to me very suitable. I would also point out that Peter does again refer to these heavenly beings who are in prison and that is in 2 Peter 2.4. Prisons very often were pits. Please can you tell me anywhere in Scripture where men are spoken of as 'spirits in prison'? Fallen angels will not be saved. Neither will fallen men once they have died. The men in Noah's day had the privilege of hearing 'the Preacher of Righteousness' (2 Peter 2.5). Why should they alone get a second chance when we are told that they were evil above all men and had opted to liaise with the Devil? The proclamation was rather of His triumphant resurrection, and of God's victory over all the powers of evil. (Who knows what hopes those evil angels had?). I see no reference to the generality of mankind in verse 20. It is simply your presupposition. He is not talking about mankind, but about Noah. So if I have read you right your position is contrary to the tenor of the whole of Scripture, is not based on sound exegesis, and is ignoring the literal meaning of the language. Sorry, but you did ask :-))) Each one who reads our postings must decide for themselves what they believe that Peter teaches. I do not on my part intend to enter into controversy about it. God bless you too. Rabban. |
||||||
38 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | rabban | 191754 | ||
Hi Jeff I was not 'offended'. Just pointing out that it is a waste of time to argue over something that has been disputed for 2000 years and will continue to be so to the end of time, and about which people have fixed and entrenched opinions. Even the answer I gave did not deal in any depth with the points that have to be considered. But I will leave it there. (If you wish to go into it more deeply see Selwyn's detailed and scholarly treatment in his commentary on 1 Peter. But note that he is not a conservative evangelical). I know of nowhere in the Scriptures that tell us when the fall of the angels took place. We have the shadowy figure behind the snake in Genesis 3, concerning whom we are only given the briefest hint; the 'son of the elohim' in Job 1 and 2, whom most assume to be the same; the opposer of Joshua the Hight Priest (satanas - adversary) in the time of Zechariah, ditto; and the deceiver of David (1 Chronicles 21.1), again the satanas. These only indicate ONE adversary of the people of God. As far as I am concerned Isaiah 14 is speaking of the King of Babylon and Ezekiel 28 of the King of Tyre. But even then each is only speaking of ONE person. We have no real grounds for reading into them the fall of angels. The first real hint that we have of enemy heavenly powers is in Daniel 10. But we are told NOTHING about their source. Thus I fail to see where you get the idea from of a 'fall of angels'in the Old Testament which can be dated, apart from Genesis 6.1-2, where again we have 'sons of the elohim' as in Job 1-2. Otherwise we owe it to Milton not the Bible. The New Testament writers never give any hint of believing in 'a fall of angels' outside Revelation. So the same picture emerges in the New Testament until we get to Revelation, apart from the fact that there we come across evil spirits/demons. We are told nothing of their background. We are told nothing about the evil angels in Revelation 9 except that they are in the abyss. We do not know when they were imprisoned there. The scene in Revelation 12 gives the impression that it is speaking of a time around the coming of Jesus Christ. Thus your assumption about a well known 'fall of angels', which I assume that you date before Adam (for which there is no Scriptural support at all) is not obtained from the Scriptures. The only indicators we have apart from these are in 1 Peter 2.19; 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6, one of which directly connects with the Flood, and the other two of which are in a series looking back to the Old Testament (angels, flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). Now as the ONLY mention of a fall of angels in the Old Testamentis found in Genesis 6.1-2 (which is by the way clearly seen in this way in Jewish tradition e.g. the Book of Enoch cited by Jude), then those references would seem to be pointing to that. There is nothing else in the Old Testament for them to refer to that is not simply the invention of men's fertile minds. Thus if Scripture is our authority 2 Peter and Jude can only refer to the angels who did not keep their separate status in Genesis 6.1-2. Jewish tradition can be cited that very much links the angels who fell at the flood with those who were cast in the pit (tradition which Jude cites) but I will not go into that. All I can say is that if you think you know when the angels fell (apart from Satan) other than in Genesis 6.1-2 then demonstrate it from Scripture. And perhaps you will also indicate where in Scripture mankind are called in an unqualified way 'spirits'. I have given you a number of references where angels are called 'spirits'. God bless Rabban |
||||||
39 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | rabban | 191755 | ||
Hi Jeff, I actually study the original Greek and Hebrew texts although I try to avoid citing them in forums. With so many differing translations, some of which are more reliable than others when dealing with the finer points, while others are more of a paraphrase, it is very often necessary in the case of disputed texts like 1 Peter 3.19 to go back to the exact Greek text. Strictly speaking that is the only one which is inspired. (You failed to take note of the fact that my statement was about 'disputed texts' only). I did not suggest that anyone needed to be a scholar to understand the main doctrines of Scripture. Scripture is broad based and our beliefs should not be determined by a point here or a point there. But when we are dealing with an obscure phrase like 'spirits in prison' about which there is disagreement then certainly reference to the original text is important. We have to be exact. Otherwise we are treating Scripture lightly. It is my experience that the ones who most protest about going back to the Greek text are the first to say 'the Greek text means' when arguing their own case on some disputed position on, say, the second coming, when fitting it into their own schemes. However, we have now both made our positions clear. It would seem therefore best if we leave the matter here. Others can then judge each of our positions as they will. Sincerely in Him Rabban |
||||||
40 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | rabban | 191859 | ||
Jeff I will refrain from following your pattern of behaviour. I will simply reply 1). That you clearly did not read carefully what I wrote. 2). That you did not have the courtesy to answer any of my questions such as (I quote) a). All I can say is that if you think you know when the angels fell (apart from Satan) other than in Genesis 6.1-2 then demonstrate it from Scripture. b). And perhaps you will also indicate where in Scripture mankind are called in an unqualified way 'spirits'. I have given you a number of references where angels are called 'spirits'. c). Please can you tell me anywhere in Scripture where men are spoken of as 'spirits in prison'? I note also that your answers are in the form of dogmatic statements not of arguments on the basis of Scripture, reference to which in your last reply is singularly lacking. You say, 'The long-held, orthodox view of the Fall is established from a common sense, logical, and contextual approach to Scripture'. That is always the refuge of those who have no arguments. I did not deny that angels had fallen (you see you do not read what people have written). I stated that you could produce no Scripture which said when it had happened. I had already given you detailed Scriptures about Satan so that is irrelevant. I appreciate that you are not a scholar and cannot therefore be expected to take a fully scholarly approach. But I do expect you to be fair. I have been checking back on some of your posts and I would remind you of what you said to one person you wrote to: "let me say that a quick lesson to learn regarding the forum is to not expect to respond to every post made to you. It may seem rude, but it's the reality of it. Very often the multiple responses are addressing the same issue and a response to the first questioner should be sufficient. In addition, there are others who can competently answer questions as well freeing you up from some of the responsibility." I had replied to the first questioner so it seems that you change your coat to suit the situation. You have admitted that you were not genuinely seeking guidance but were simply seeking to find fault. And quite frankly I do not like the way you treat your adversaries. I must therefore request that you will please avoid personally addressing any questions to me in future. Leave it to Doc to do the monitoring. I realise that you will want to have the last blast. It is your way. But please address it to the forum and not to me, for I am not interested. In Him |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |