Results 1 - 20 of 146
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: benjamite Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is sarcasm sinful? | Job 38:1 | benjamite | 63404 | ||
Is God being sarcastic in Job 38? It seems like it to me. Again in Amos 4:4-5, God is telling the people to "Come and sin". Is that really what He wants? No, but he knows that's what they will do. How about 2 Cor. 11:19? To paraphrase, Paul says, "You're so wise, but your friends are fools." Sarcasm is not sinful. Truth is more than just the words we say, it is how we say it. |
||||||
2 | Christ died on a stake and not a cross? | John 19:17 | benjamite | 62642 | ||
I don't know what I did wrong, but it didn't come up that way for me. I didn't run across histemi, only stauros. |
||||||
3 | Christ died on a stake and not a cross? | John 19:17 | benjamite | 62347 | ||
In other words, Searcher, you are saying that Christ died on a cross, not just a stake. I tend to agree. 1) In Matthew 27:37 it says that the charge was put above His head - seeming to imply that his arms were sideways (and not above his head) - evidence for a cross-beam. (Or, if the other were true, why not say "above His arms"?) 2) Since "the cross" was carried to the site, this also serves as evidence for a cross beam, at least in my mind. For it seems implausible for an upright stake (capable of fully supporting an adult male "lifted up") to be carried to the site - since it would be somewhat longer than an arm-span. So, the cross-beam, alone, was carried to the site, and the cross-beam, by itself, at least by this point in history, was also refered to as the cross. Also, Searcher, where did you get the information on the root being the same as that of "histemi"? |
||||||
4 | what basis does Bible's authority rest | 2 Tim 3:16 | benjamite | 62056 | ||
The Bible is inspired by God - it is breathed out by Him. Concerning the Old Testament Scriptures, Our Lord says that "not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law until all is accomplished." (Matt. 5:18) Again, 2 Peter 3:15-16 looks at Paul's writings and equates them with Old Testament Scriptures. Note the wording "the rest of the Scriptures". The Bible's authority rests on the one who breathed it out - God. |
||||||
5 | What was Meshach's name? | Dan 1:7 | benjamite | 62035 | ||
Meshach's Hebrew name was Mishael. | ||||||
6 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | benjamite | 61694 | ||
A natural man seems to me to be one who does not have the spirit. A spiritual man seems to me to be one who is living by the Spirit. However, it seems like there is some sort of a "mix" - believers who still act like unbelievers. So with that admitted, I guess the question is, "Do 3:1ff and 2:14 refer to the same group?" I need to work on that. |
||||||
7 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | benjamite | 61280 | ||
Okay, so if that is all it takes, then Paul should have been able to talk to the Corinthians as Spiritual men. Yet Paul's context goes beyond the chapter divisions, for he says, "And (continuing the thought) I, brethren, could not speak to you (the believing, but still fleshly Corinthians) as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ." (3:1) (parenthetical thoughts are mine) The problem in Corinth was that the baby believers could not handle the solid food. Yes, they have the Spirit of God, but they were still fleshly. (3:2-3) The problem is that it is more than just whether one has the Spirit or not. |
||||||
8 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | benjamite | 60685 | ||
I do not know how old your grandchild is, but I bet he doesn't understand Calculus. Why not? Well, there are a lot of things that come between 1,2,3... and Dx(3xy) is 3y. Now, in several years, maybe, he will be ready for Calculus, but not yet. My point is that it is more than just the words you use to talk to your grandchild, but it is also the concepts. Calculus is foolish to those who are just learning how to count. If I mention the term "hypostatic union" to a new convert, I don't think he'll have any idea what I'm talking about. Now, on the other hand, a mature believer might understand that I mean that Christ was both fully God, as if he were not Man, and fully Man, as if he were not God - God and Man united in one person. In the same way that you cannot expect an unbeliever to understand the meatier doctrines, you cannot expect a new convert to understand the concepts that you and I have been working on for years. If it was just a matter of having the Spirit, the Corinthians should have been ready. Scratch that, they would have been ready. Not only that, but we would be ready to the extent that there would be no need for this forum. Yes, I would go as far as saying that the meatier doctrines are foolish to new believers. There are some Biblical truths that are foolish to believers who have been saved for years. Let's take Salvation for example. There is one view of Salvation that is correct. There are many believers who look at a certain set of verses and say salvation happens in this manner. However, there are other believers who look at a different set of verses and say salvation happens in a different manner, and that the first group cannot possibly be right. There is one truth, where all the verses pertaining to salvation fit together perfectly.However, until we reach glory, I can very easily see how we might view the Biblical truth as foolish. |
||||||
9 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | benjamite | 60659 | ||
I think I hear what you are saying. I was not always a spiritual man. At one point I was a natural man. However, if salvation is referred to in 1 Corinthians 2:14, and if a natural man never accepts the things of the Spirit of God, then no one could ever be saved. Is salvation the issue in 1 Corinthians 2:14? It seems like, from 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, that even babes in Christ won't accept the things of the Spirit of God that Paul is referring to. I think that 1 Corinthians 2 deals with the "meaty doctrines" as opposed to just "milk". |
||||||
10 | How can anyone be saved? | 1 Cor 2:14 | benjamite | 60294 | ||
The Bible says that God desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4) He does not delight in the death of the wicked (Ezek. 18:23; 33:11) The Bible also says that we have been saved by grace through faith, and that this is not of ourselves, it is the gift of God. (Eph 2:8-9) We also read that the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, righteousness, and judgement (John 16:8). Whoever will believe will not perish (John 3:16). |
||||||
11 | what was the name of Lots wife?? | Luke 17:32 | benjamite | 59808 | ||
We are not told. Even Christ refers to her as simply "Lot's wife". Another interesting point is that we are not told the names of his daughters, only their sons - Genesis 19:37 and 38. |
||||||
12 | good out of bad | Rom 8:28 | benjamite | 59806 | ||
Define "good". In Numbers 20:8-13, we see that Moses was told to speak to the rock and water would come forth. Moses disobeyed God and struck the rock, but water still came forth abundantly. However, Moses was forbidden from entering the promised land. Also, "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" Romans 5:20. Was the crucifixion of Christ obedience? I don't think so. I think it was open rebellion. Yet, at the same time, a lot of good came out of it. God is free to bless us in spite of our disobedience. |
||||||
13 | Who do you believe about Jesus? | Matt 22:42 | benjamite | 57573 | ||
I'm not exactly sure how to answer your question. On the one hand, you have Moses (by some accounts c. 1500-1400 B.C.). What the Lord prophesied about the Christ, through Moses and the other prophets, is true. (Luke 24:27, et. al.). As an aside, since I quoted from Luke, I would also mention that he was not an eyewitness, Luke 1:1-4. This is not meant to discredit Luke, by any means - simply an observation. "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" (2 Tim 3:16) We also have the testimony of those who beheld Christ's glory (John 1:14). If your question looks at what modern people think, I would see if their modern thoughts align with what the Bible says. |
||||||
14 | Who was Darius the Mede? | Dan 6:28 | benjamite | 57141 | ||
It seems like the experts are undecided. I looked up a couple different sources, and they only give options. Let me give you another option. Might "Darius the Mede" be another name for "Cyrus the Persian"? (Which, I guess, would mean that "he co-ruled in equal power with Cyrus the Persian".) Benjamite |
||||||
15 | I smell fire | Job 41:19 | benjamite | 56808 | ||
Perhaps, at one time, dragons really did exist. Maybe it was a type of dinosaur (if you'll allow for the possibility that the scientists are wrong and that dinosaurs and man actually co-existed). Now the question is, were all the stories of knights going off to fight dragons true? At this point in time, it seems to me that it is anybody's guess as to what these beasts really were - but no, they don't seem like gators to me, either. I, personally, don't have a problem believing that dragons did exist or that man and dinosaurs co-existed. Ben |
||||||
16 | NOW READY | 2 Tim 4:6 | benjamite | 56386 | ||
It is generally agreed that 2 Timothy was the last book written by Paul - shortly before his death. (Perhaps most look at this passage to arrive at that conclusion.) It seems like Paul, here, is looking in three directions - present (6), past (7), and future (8). 1. My death is at hand. 2. I have lived (fought or run) well. 3. Before me lies my reward. |
||||||
17 | Please explain atonement | Bible general Archive 1 | benjamite | 55654 | ||
"atonement" can mean "reconciliation" as in Romans 5:11 (compare NASB with KJV). Have you ever reconciled a checkbook? Often, atonement looks at how sin is dealt with. If I were to say "your sin must be atoned for", I would mean "your sin must be dealt with" - gotta get rid of it. Leviticus 4:26 looks more at dealing with sin. Often, "atonement" is related to the New Testament terms "propitiation" (1 John 2:2) - a covering for sin, or, perhaps, an ointment (or salve) for your sin. Around here, we have a triple-antibiotic ointment to put on scrapes or cuts. It gets rid of the infection and heals the wound. That's kind of like what propitiation, does for our sin. 1 John 4:10; Romans 3:25. One key difference is that you always had to atone for your sins in the Old Testament. In the New, Christ died for our sins once for all. (1 Peter 3:18; Rom 6:10; Heb. 7:27; and Heb. 9:26-28 ) |
||||||
18 | Was JESUS a king? | Matt 27:11 | benjamite | 49429 | ||
My understanding of the inscription above Jesus' head was that it was the charge against Him. Pilate didn't sentence Him to die because "He said he was the King of the Jews". Pilate sentenced Him to die because "He is (or I guess from Pilate's perspective, 'was') the King of the Jews". I'm not quite sure I follow you on the capitalization. My understanding of Ancient Greek manuscripts (at least from the 2 or 3 that I have seen) is that every letter is capitalized. The NASB has the inscription "THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS" (Matt 27:37) in capitals because it is an inscription. I looked at the Foreword to my NASB, to see what it says about ALL CAPS used in the version. It doesn't say anything about how ALL CAPS are used. Remember, Pilate washed his hands of Christ. He said "I find no guilt in this man." (Luke 23:4,14) Pilate had Him crucified anyway. As you say, Pilate had much of which to be afraid. These verses do show Jesus as King (as does Matthew 2:2). In Him, Benjamite |
||||||
19 | Was JESUS a king? | Matt 27:11 | benjamite | 49392 | ||
Yes, while Jesus was on the earth, he was a King. He still is King. (see also Mark 15:2, Luke 23:3; John 18:33-40) Note also that the Romans convicted Him of being a king. Note the inscription on the cross. (Matthew 27:37, et. al.) |
||||||
20 | What is meant by "us", "we", etc.? | Not Specified | benjamite | 49388 | ||
My question deals with the use of words like "us", "we", "our" (or for you language scholars, the use of the 1st person, plural, forms of the personal pronoun as well as verbs). In the epistles (primarily), do these words always refer to the group as a collective? Do they sometimes focus more on individuals who share common experiences? (For an example of the latter, more than one person can say, "I got up this morning", therefore, together we can say, "We got up this morning.") What are the implications of this? |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |