Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 1 - 6 of 6
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Kento Ordered by Date
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
1	Why call Christ "Lamb" in Rev 6:16	Rev 6:16	Kento	214070
	I've been looking at a variety of commentaries and for that most part, they don't really address the issue but just state that people recognize what is happening. The Albert Barnes commentary states it like this: "There seems to be an incongruity between the words wrath and Lamb; but the word Lamb here is so far a proper name as to be used only to designate the Redeemer. He comes forth to execute wrath, not as a Lamb, but as the Son of God, who bore that name. It would seem from this that they who thus dreaded the impending terrors were aware of their source, or had knowledge enough to understand by whom they were to be inflicted. They would see that these were Divine judgments, and would apprehend that the end of the world drew near." The part that struck me as getting close to what we are after here is "...knowledge enough...". I also notice that they (non-believers) speak of two parts of the God head. "Him who sits on the throne" (God the Father) and "...the Lamb" (God the Son). In verse 17 the plural "..their wrath..." is used. Again, "knowledge enough" i.e. not the full trinity. They know enough to know that terrors are coming from God but don't really know Jesus as the Lamb. So, where did their limited knowledge come from? Believing friends? The preaching of 144,00? Did they pick up a bible somewhere? The other issue that Barnes points out is that 'Lamb' is being used as a proper name not with the relational context that believers would have when referring to Jesus as "The Lamb of God". Kent
2	Jesus response	Bible general Archive 3	Kento	163024
	No, Jesus does not merely share the same nature as God, he has a unique unparalleled oneness with God as the second part of the Trinity. He has the authority to be called God because he is God. Joh 10:30 I and My Father are one. He testifies to it via his works: Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me? I’ll admit that I am a little fuzzy on vs 35 which is why I quoted the commentary. I don’t really understand your last question. I don’t believe they called themselves god but the Israelite rulers and judges Psalms 82:6 I said, You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High. I would paraphrase it like this: Look, you guys call the people who revealed God to you gods, I have shown you that I am one with the father, therefore I cannot be guilty as I am above those that revealed the word of God to you. Kent
3	John 10:31	Bible general Archive 3	Kento	163016
	From Websters: blasphemy Main Entry: blas•phe•my Function: noun 1 a : the act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for God b : the act of claiming the attributes of deity 2 : irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable The Pharisees accused Jesus of blasphemy because he claimed to be God. They did not accept him as the messiah. Jesus demonstrates his deity by the miracles he performed. From Albert Barnes NT Commentary: Verse 35. Unto whom the word of God came. That is, who were his servants, or who received their dignity and honour only because the law of God was intrusted to them. The word of God here means the command of God; his commission to them to do justice. The scripture cannot be broken. See Mt 5:19. The authority of the Scripture is final; it cannot be set aside. The meaning is, "If, therefore, the Scripture uses the word god as applied to magistrates, it settles the question that it is right to apply the term to those in office and authority. If applied to them, it may be to others in similar offices. It can not, therefore, be blasphemy to use this word as applicable to a personage so much more exalted than mere magistrates as the Messiah."
4	Why?	2 Tim 3:16	Kento	163012
	Textual consistency: We have many copies of very old manuscripts e.g. dead sea scrolls and they are amazingly consistent. Most secular history subjects do not have the same luxury yet secular society accepts them as fact without question. Fulfilled Prophecy: Many of the events foretold in the bible have occurred. Archeological evidence: The cities mentioned in the bible have been confirmed. I would recommend going to http://www.carm.org/evidence.htm and reading Lee Strobel's book "The Case for Christ" Kent Post Tenebras Lux
5	Old and New?	Matt 1:21	Kento	163010
	Before I really studied the bible, the old and new testaments seemed to be two unrelated books and nearly two different Gods. However, the more you study the more you see how the Old Testament is all about Jesus. I heard someone on the radio today characterize it like this. The first bit of the bible shows how the world was created and the fall of man. All the rest show God's plan for redemption.
6	Who is Luke?	NT general Archive 1	Kento	158882
	Below is an excerpt from Adam Clark's Commentary. I hope it's helpful. PREFACE TO THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE. WITH A SHORT ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE. THERE is little certain known of this evangelist: from what is spoken in the Scriptures, and by the best informed of the primitive fathers, the following probable account is collected:- Luke was, according to Dr. Lardner, a Jew by birth, and an early convert to Christianity; but Michaelis thinks he was a Gentile, and brings Col 4:10,11,14, in proof, where St. Paul distinguished Aristarchus, Marcus, and Jesus, who was called Justus, from Epaphras, Lucas, and Demas, who were of the circumcision, i.e. Jews. Some think he was one of our Lord's seventy disciples. It is worthy of remark that he is the only evangelist who mentions the commission given by Christ to the seventy, Lu 10:1-20. It is likely he is the Lucius mentioned Ro 16:21, and if so he was related to the Apostle Paul, and that it is the same Lucius of Cyrene who is mentioned Ac 13:1, and in general with others, Ac 11:20. Some of the ancients, and some of the most learned and judicious among the moderns, think he was one of the two whom our Lord met on the way to Emmaus on the day of his resurrection, as related Lu 24:13-35; one of these was called Cleopas, Lu 24:18, the other is not mentioned, the evangelist, himself, being the person and the relator. St. Paul styles him his fellow-labourer, Phm 1:24. It is barely probable that he is the person mentioned, Col 4:14, Luke, the beloved physician. All the ancients of repute, such as Eusebius, Gregory Nyssen, Jerome, Paulinus, Euthalius, Euthymius, and others, agree that he was a physician, but where he was born, and where he exercised the duties of his profession, are not known. Many moderns have attributed to him the most profound skill in the science of painting, and that he made some pictures of the Virgin Mary. This is justly esteemed fabulous; nor is this science attributed to him by any writer previously to Nicephorus Callisti, in the fourteenth century, an author who scarcely deserves any credit, especially in relations not confirmed by others. He accompanied St. Paul when he first went into Macedonia, Ac 16:8-40; 20:1ff;Ac 27:1ff;Ac 28:1ff. Whether he went with him constantly afterwards is not certain; but it is evident he accompanied him from Greece through Macedonia and Asia to Jerusalem, where he is supposed to have collected many particulars of the evangelic history: from Jerusalem he went with Paul to Rome, where he stayed with him the two years of his imprisonment in that city. This alone makes out the space of five years, and upwards. It is probable that he left St. Paul when he was set at liberty, and that he then went into Greece, where he finished and published this Gospel, and the book of the Acts, which he dedicated to Theophilus, an honourable Christian friend of his in that country. It is supposed that he died in peace about the eightieth or eighty-fourth year of his age. Some suppose he published this Gospel fifteen, others twenty-two years after the ascension of Christ. See much on this subject in Lardner, Works, vol. vi. p. 104, c., and in Michaelis's Introduction to the New Testament

Search for your Bible question and answer here: