Results 1 - 20 of 45
|Results from: Answers
On or After: Thu 12/31/70
Author: Suede67 Ordered by Date
|1||was nathanael a martyr?||Bible general Archive 2||Suede67||119218|
This is going to be a long 'non answer'.
Unfortunately the 'missions' of several of the apostles are known only through tradition. Sometimes this is ok, sometimes the information is shakey and unrealiable. As far as Nathanael goes, first you should note that he is often known as Bartholomew. Oddly though, even this in itself is vague and is not completely agreed upon among scholars. However, with this assumption, one tradition has it that Bartholomew/Nathaneal was martyred in Kalyana, a city state on the west coast of India, near modern-day Bombay in roughly 62 AD. Supposedly Bartholomew was skinned alive and crucified. Another tradition in regards to the manner of his death, said it occurred at Albanopolis in Armenia. According to some, he was beheaded, according to others, flayed alive and crucified upside down by order of Astyages, for having converted his brother, Polymius, King of Armenia. There is a good chance though regardless that he was martyred. For sure only John died of natural causes. Most of the others that we do know about either Biblically or with much assurance were martyred. With this, it is a safe guess that Nathanael was maryured as well. Hope this helps,
|2||If you rape a virgin then she must mary||Bible general Archive 2||Suede67||118001|
Since you are in a discussion with non believers let me pass on two excellent websites to you. I'll give you their links that are specific to your questions, but I implore you to explore them further. Lastly remember that some times you are the only connection between a person and Jesus. Take care, best of luck,
|3||what are the ot citations for Galations||Galatians||Suede67||117603|
This may not be exactly what you are looking for, but these are themes that Paul refers to in Galatians. The first set is the Gal chapter and verse, followed by the OT book/chapter/verse. If you want a more detailed list, you'll need to get a study Bible or a cross reference of some sorts. But the below list should be a good overview.
3:6 Ge 15:6
3:8 Ge 12:3
3:8 Ge 18:18
3:10 Dt 27:26
3:11 Hab 2:4
3:12 Lev 18:5
3:13 Dt 21:23
3:16 Ge 13:15
3:16 Ge 24:7
4:27 Isa 54:1
4:30 Ge 21:10
5:14 Lev 19:18
|4||Can christian be reprobate||Rom 1:28||Suede67||117601|
That will ultimately depend on one's view of whether or not one can lose one's salvation, i.e. the preservation of saints. We find reprobated mind (or depraved mind) in Romans 1, verse 28 specific. Paul starts off in verse 18 and notes that mankind in general is aware of God. Sort of, God Concious. He notes in verse 21 that they are aware of God's existance, they still chose to reject him. Paul however does not note that these people are Christians, or ever were Christians. John notes in 1 John 2:19 that people that truly leave the faith were actually never a part of it truly. So in turn, I do not believe someone who is truly a Christian can have reprobated mind. Christians can fall, we can fail at times, but as children of God reprobated mind isn't for us. Take care,
|5||What's the abomination of desolation?||Dan 9:27||Suede67||117599|
Good question, though there is not a definitive answer to it. I'll present a rough sketch of ideas and thoughts on the topic. There are Jewish scholars that believe that the abomination took place 186 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes, the king of Syria, sacrificed a pig in the Holy of Holies. Though horrific it didn't seem to leave the Jewish nation desolate per say. As Christians we do not accept this since Jesus spoke of it happening in a future based on his present. A very popular belief, and probably the most correct one, is that it had something to do with Jerusalem being sacked by the Romans in 70 AD. Both Futurists and Preterists scholars agree on this, though timing of this is the only thing for certian. Unfortunately, no one is exactly sure what the abomination was. We know that Jewish Zealots murdered many preists in the Temple and this might have been the abomination spoken of. In turn though, if one does accept the 70 AD view, then one admits that at that time it would have been apparent as to what the abomination was. A full futurist view holds that the man of sin, or the 'AntiChrist' will enter a Third temple in Jerusalem and declare that he is God. Since this is a future view it is infalsifiable and can't be disproven out right. But, the Bible, the NT anyways, does support the 70 AD view above the others. Hope that helps, take care,
|6||Bible version can become an idol?||Bible general Archive 2||Suede67||117496|
That's a good question. Personally I don't see them becoming an idol among Christians. But that would have a lot to do with who all is defining what an idol is. In the 8th and 9th century there were the Iconoclastic Wars which were between groups that did not use images in their worship, and those that did. The Iconoclasts felt that NO images should be used in accordance with the 10 commandaments, but many opposed to their thoughts understood them the images to be merely symbolic. Eventually the Iconclasts lost out. In the same sense, it may be who is the detractor of a certain translations, not the promoter of it that starts the whole idolization of the Bible charge. As far as noticing the attacks and defenses on the web and in print, there is a movement called the KJV Only movement which believes that only the KJV is the true English translation. They in turn demonize modern translations, notably the NIV which in turn is where you have the NIV defend its stance. I think it's often the staunch detractors of things in Christendom that cause problems. To restate my own theory, I just do not see any Christian worshipping the Bible as if it were an idol. Realistically we all have our favorite versions. I love ultra literal translations such as Young's or Green's, but I don't idolize them. I know of nothing in the Bible about the idolization of the books and letters which comprise it. Idols is usually understood as graven images, 3D such as statues, not texts. Take care,
|7||Adultery is Sex Before Marriage?||Bible general Archive 2||Suede67||117030|
There is a difference between the two. Adultery is sex by a married person with someone they are not married to. This is strictly forbidden in both the Old and New Testament. Exodus 20:14 and Luke 18:20.
Fornication is sex before marriage. Fornication is forbidden, notable in Acts 15 when that was a law that Gentile converts were to follow. Fornication seems to be grouped together with sexual immorality as well and in 1 Cor 7:2 Paul notes, "Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband." Also note Ephesians 5:3-5 and Gal 5:19. In short, both pre marital and extra marital sex are forbidden. Take care,
|8||Did this war already occur?||Rev 12:7||Suede67||116129|
In short, yes it did. You are wise to see the time indicator in verse 3. That's not the only one either.
“…to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place.” (Rev. 22:6)
"Behold, I am coming quickly. " (Rev. 22:7)
"Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near." (Rev. 22:10)
"Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.” (Rev. 22:12)
"Yes, I am coming quickly." (Rev. 22:20)
A belief that might be up your alley is known as Preterism, which believes in past fulfillment of prophecies. Take care,
|9||tribe of dan||Revelation||Suede67||116099|
You're correct in your belief. Dan is not mentioned in Revelation 7, but then again neither is Ephraim. Both Dan and Ephraim are noted for idolatry (Jdg 18:18,19; 1 Ki 12:29-30; Hos 4:17) and this probably explains why they are not included in the list that is selected and sealed by God. However, this does not mean they are forgotten or out of God's grace. Ezekiel 48 deals with the restoration, which makes the events in it coming AFTER the events of Rev 7. So there is no mistake here. Due to their past wickedness, none were to be selected and sealed from Dan (or Ephraim) in Rev 7, but after the restoration of all things, God forgives and grace shines upon Dan AND Ephraim once again. If anything, this is a show of God's great grace and love, it is hardly a 'mistake'. Take care,
|10||What does this mean?||Luke 14:26||Suede67||116063|
Well it's best understood not as a literal hating of your family. Honoring your Mother and Father were part of the 10 Commandments, so Jesus wouldn't be saying something counter to that. Verse 33 sheds some light on this. "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." Jesus is showing in verse 26 just how serious it was to be a disciple of him, especially at that time when persecution and execution were very, very, real. You had to be able to set your family aside to be a disciple for Jesus. In Matthew Jesus noted this too,
Matthew 10:33-37 "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me."
We shouldn't take this to hate our families, or think they get in between us and God. Jesus was just stating the very serious business of being a disciple, something that many couldn't hack. Think of it as a sort of 'weeding out' process, so that only the cream of the crop remained. Take care,
|11||Jesus is the Son of Man?||Dan 7:13||Suede67||116059|
Son of Man, despite what it sounds like, is actually a divine title. Daniel uses it best in Daniel 7:13,14 about the Son of Man that comes with clouds of heaven and has a Kingdom that will never end. Jesus using this term leaves no doubt that he was referring to Daniel and little doubt that he was claiming divinity. The Jews of the day would have known what Jesus was saying by applying this title to himself. He uses this in the court, Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 22:69. Take care,
|12||Why God's RIGHT Hand ?||Col 3:1||Suede67||116057|
Paul is saying symbolically that Jesus has authority and power given to him by God. The right hand is symbolic for a position of authority and power. This is where we get the saying "his right hand man". It was common for kings and rulers to have someone at their right hand. If a king had a chief advisor, he would be to his right.
|13||why did Saul change his name to Paul||Acts 13:9||Suede67||116024|
It's actually a misconception that Saul changed his name completely to Paul. We can note in Acts 13:9 that Luke records that Saul is also known as Paul, but not that Saul completely dropped his Hebrew name. Paul was most likely still known as Saul among the Jews. According to Zondervan's Bible Dictionary, having a Jewish and non Jewish name was a common practice among Jews of the dispersion. Our information on Paul comes from Luke who wrote mostly to Gentiles it seems, and to Paul who almost preached exclusively to Gentiles. So in turn, Paul is the name that is used in more frequency.
|14||How long did Paul persecute the church||Acts 9:1||Suede67||116022|
I don't think it's possible to know an exact time frame, but it probably was not too long at all. Perhaps just a few months at the longest, I personally doubt it rolls over even into one year. Another to note is that it's not necessarily the length of time, but the passion in which he went after the early church. In short, he shows up in Acts 7 and it's not too long after that that he is on the road to Damascus where he is converted. Take care,
|15||Has the Great Tribulation taken place ?||Matt 24:34||Suede67||115736|
Yes, you are correct in your view. Though most Christians are known as Futurists when it comes to End Times, there's a group called Preterists which believe in past fulfillment,not future fulfillment. I'm one that holds this belief. Though it's small, it's gaining adherents rapidly. The basic view is that 70 AD marks the end. This still though leaves the great commission as well as the healing of nations. Take care,
|16||CAIN'S WIFE||Gen 3:20||Suede67||115023|
|On a side note, according to Jewish legend and non Biblical writings, Cain married his sister Âwân who was born after Abel. Seems weird, but incest had not yet been condemned and therefore it was not a 'sin' to do so. Take care,
|17||why don't people study the old testmant||OT general||Suede67||115018|
|That's a good question indeed, here's my thoughts. One, the OT is a larger volume and covers thousands of years and several individuals and groups. The NT is a slimer volume, covers roughly 70 years and has much fewer people in it. I think people start off with Genesis, but then once they hit the later chapters, they sort of trail off. Exodus is the same. A lot of the OT is history, not doctrine, and a lot of people aren't into that. I for one would recommend people read the Psalms, Proverbs and the works of the Prophets and Daniel in the OT. That's a good 'starting point' and those tend to have more immediate bearing on the NT. That's my thoughts anyways, take care,
|18||THE FLOOD-FACT OR MYTH?||Gen 6:1||Suede67||114297|
Great topic! Please look at the Answers in Genesis
website. It is very scientific, and has a ton of articles on the flood. Below is the specific link that you can copy to your browser or just search Answersingenesis.
|19||Question about timeline||Bible general Archive 2||Suede67||114126|
Good question, here's a very brief answer, hope it helps.
The adoption of the birth of Christ as the initial epoch of the Christian calendar. This epoch was established by the sixth century scholar Dionysius Exiguus, who was compiling a table of dates of Easter. An existing table covered the nineteen-year period denoted 228-247, where years were counted from the beginning of the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian. Dionysius continued the table for a nineteen-year period, which he designated Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi 532-550. Thus, Dionysius' Anno Domini 532 is equivalent to Anno Diocletian 248. In this way a correspondence was established between the new Christian Era and an existing system associated with historical records. What Dionysius did not do is establish an accurate date for the birth of Christ. Although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before A.D. 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive dating.
Given an initial epoch, one must consider how to record preceding dates. Bede, the eighth-century English historian, began the practice of counting years backward from A.D. 1. In this system, the year A.D. 1 is preceded by the year 1 B.C., without an intervening year 0. Because of the numerical discontinuity, this "historical" system is cumbersome for comparing ancient and modern dates. Today, astronomers use plus 1 to designate A.D. 1. Then plus 1 is naturally preceded by year 0, which is preceded by year minus 1. Since the use of negative numbers developed slowly in Europe, this "astronomical" system of dating was delayed until the eighteenth century, when it was introduced by the astronomer Jacques Cassini, 1740.
Even as use of Dionysius' Christian Era became common in ecclesiastical writings of the Middle Ages, traditional dating from regnal years continued in civil use. In the sixteenth century, Joseph Justus Scaliger tried to resolve the patchwork of historical eras by placing everything on a single system ,Scaliger, 1583. Instead of introducing negative year counts, he sought an initial epoch in advance of any historical record. His numerological approach utilized three calendrical cycles: the 28-year solar cycle, the nineteen-year cycle of Golden Numbers, and the fifteen-year indiction cycle. The solar cycle is the period after which weekdays and calendar dates repeat in the Julian calendar. The cycle of Golden Numbers is the period after which moon phases repeat approximately on the same calendar dates. The indiction cycle was a Roman tax cycle. Scaliger could therefore characterize a year by the combination of numbers S,G,I, where S runs from 1 through 28, G from 1 through 19, and I from 1 through 15. Scaliger noted that a given combination would recur after 7980 (equals 28 X 19 X 15) years. He called this a Julian Period, because it was based on the Julian calendar year. For his initial epoch Scaliger chose the year in which S, G, and I were all equal to 1. He knew that the year 1 B.C. was characterized by the number 9 of the solar cycle, by the Golden Number 1, and by the number 3 of the indiction cycle, i.e., (9,1,3). He found that the combination (1,1,1) occurred in 4713 B.C. or, as astronomers now say, -4712. This serves as year 1 of Scaliger's Julian Period. It was later adopted as the initial epoch for the Julian day numbers.
|20||Is it sin to smoke a cigarette?||Is 44:1||Suede67||114080|
I don't believe it is, that's a legalistic issue in my opinion. There was sort of a similar issue which Jesus dealt with only it was in regards to meat, but I think it can be applied here. Look at Matthew 15:10,11
"Jesus called the crowd to him and said, 'Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean."
Jesus elaborates further in verse 18 that it's things of the heart that make a man unclean. Now, I would however be cautious when it comes to smoking around other Christians, and here's why.
Romans 14:21 "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak."
I know back when I smoked, I did not smoke at Church functions, and I only smoked around my fellow Church members that I knew were 'ok' with it. So, if you think you're smoking will honestly offend your brother, or cause them to question matters of the faith, you need to refrain from smoking or smoke out of their sight. Love for your neighbor is the second most important commandment. Well, and last of course is smoking is in fact bad for you health wise. That's my 2 cents, God loves you, take care
|Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last  >>|