Results 1 - 20 of 59
|Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes
Author: jawz Ordered by Date
|1||Why was Cain's offering not acceptable?||Gen 4:5||jawz||48131|
|Abel offered God the "firstfruits" of his labour, while Cain did not. Abel offered the best he could and Cain kept the best for himself.|
|2||How is comunion only symbolic?||1 Cor 10:16||jawz||48125|
|It is not symbolic. Everytime we have communion, the sacrifice Jesus made for us on the cross is "made present". It is not a repeat of the sacrifice, it is that very same sacrifice. That is how the disciples could take part in the body and blood of Christ before his crucifixion. God is outside of time, since time itself is merely a part of his creation. The early Church always understood the bread and wine to be the literal body and blood of Christ. Justin Martyr wrote as much in his First Apology around the middle of the second century. Ignatius in his letter to the Smyrnaeans around the end of the first century (or the beginning of the 2nd) says the same and Irenaeus (towards the end of the 2nd century) writes much on this subject. They are just a few of the earlier writings we have from the church.|
|3||My mom is praying to saints for||Jude 1:9||jawz||48124|
|Quote: "When she "ask" the Saints for intercessory pray, she is wrong because their are dead, and they will be dead until resurrection, if what we belive is true."
oscar, I would like to direct you to what Jesus says in Matthew 22:31-32 "But about the resurrection of the dead--have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' He is not the God of the dead but of the living."
|4||I KNOW OF JUDE BUT IT SAYS "WHEN" SO...||Jude 1:9||jawz||48123|
|The Jude passage is one example of the Apostles quoting tradition, you will not find it anywhere in the Old Testament, the same with verses 14-15. Paul also quotes tradition in 2 Timothy 3:8 and Acts 20:35|
|5||information regarding the body of Moses||Jude 1:9||jawz||48122|
|Deuteronomy 34:5-6 "And Moses the servant of the Lord died there in Moab, as the Lord had said. He buried him in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to this day no one knows where his grave is."
The Jude passage is one example of the Apostles quoting tradition, you will not find it anywhere in the Old Testament, the same with verses 14-15. Paul also quotes tradition in 2 Timothy 3:8 and Acts 20:35
|6||God does create evil.||Is 45:7||jawz||48121|
|In his discourse entitled That God is not the Cause of Evil, Saint Basil the Great writes the following: "But one may say, if God is not responsible for evil things, why is it said in the book of Isaiah, 'I am He that prepared light and Who formed darkness, Who makes peace and Who creates evils' (45:7)". And again, "There came down evils from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem" (Mich. 1:12). And, "Shall there be evil in the city which the Lord hath not wrought?" (Amos 3:6). And in the great Ode of Moses, "Behold, I am and there is no god beside Me. I will slay, and I will make to live; I will smite, and I will heal" (Deut. 32:39). But none of these citations, to him who understands the deeper meaning of the Holy Scriptures, casts any blame on God, as if He were the cause of evils and their creator, for He Who said, "I am the One Who makes light and darkness", shows Himself as the Creator of the universe, not that He is the creator of any evil.... "He creates evils", that means, "He fashions them again and brings them to a betterment, so that they leave their evilness, to take on the nature of good".
[St. Basil the Great, op. cit. 7, 94-96. In this particular passage, St. Basil carefully makes a distinction between the Greek verbs "ktizo" and "dimiourgo", both of which are generally translated into English as "create". However, "ktizo" has a long history, beginning with the Sanskrit kshi, which, as in early Greek, meant "to people a country", "to build houses and cities", "to colonize". Later, in Greek, the word came to mean "to establish", "to build up and develop", and finally, "to produce", "create", "bring about". Having in mind these other connotations of the verb "ktizo", St. Basil discerned the proper implication of the word in this context and hence made a point of emphasizing this distinction.]
|7||Is the Bible filled with TRUTH?||Bible general Archive 1||jawz||48120|
|I want to add my complete agreement with what Hank says. I looked at the examples you quoted earlier, and particulary with John 10:30 "I and the Father are one", there is absolutely no way that the greek can be translated as "like one". You will also not find a single English translation of the bible that translates it this way.|
|8||Sola Scriptura supported by bible?||Bible general Archive 1||jawz||48116|
|Hank, I do not attack the authority of the bible, but I do contend that there is synergy between the bible and the traditions. The bible came out of the traditions and the traditions out of the bible. One is not subordinate to the other. I believe the traditions are necessary for a proper understanding of scripture and to protect against us unwittingly applying our own bias to the interpretation of scripture. Like it or not, you have your own traditions, built on the doctrines of the reformists and their successors.
Just to make my position clear, questioning sola scriptura is not questioning the authority of the bible, simply your interpretation of what scripture says on this issue. Your stand, by implication claims that after establishing his church, God allowed it to be misled for fourteen centuries. I find this reasoning dubious at the very least and in direct opposition to what Christ said of the church.
|9||Sola Scriptura supported by bible?||Bible general Archive 1||jawz||48016|
|Hank, I take it you are sola scriptura. Can you provide scripture to support this stand?
Sorry, but you did slip a left jab in there regarding church traditions, so I feel entitled to a response.
|10||jawz, Who's the carpenter, son of Mary?||Mark 6:3||jawz||48015|
|The only traditions that Jesus broke were the false ones created by the Pharasees. God makes it very clear that the family is extremely important. If you believe that Jesus broke this tradition you really need to explain why.|
|11||Was James the son Alpaheus Jesus brother||Matt 10:3||jawz||48011|
|James the son of Alphaeus (aramaic for Clopas) is also the son of Mary, the wife of Clopas. He has a brother named Joses and they are two of the four "brothers" of Jesus. That they are called Jesus' brothers should not surprise us as Mary, the wife of Clopas is elsewhere described as the sister of the virgin Mary. Clearly they cannot be siblings as they would not both be called Mary yet they are still called sisters. Likewise, Elizabeth who is a descendant of Aaron is described as being the virgin Mary's cousin, yet Mary is descended from David and the tribes were not allowed to intermarry.
Steve, I know you don't agree with me but you could at least admit to the existence of different views on this matter.
|12||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47979|
|Married to a beautiful Greek woman and currently working at the Centre for the Greek Language in Thessaloniki. I'm a sixth generation Aussie if that means anything.
Tim, there is no point in the history of the Orthodox church that I can find where it was decided that Mary was ever-virgin. The Orthodox church maintains exactly the same traditions now that it has for nearly 2000 years. Church liturgy is filled with scripture such that every service is a recitation of scripture. If you go to a service in Egypt or Palestine or Greece, apart from the language the services will be almost identical, despite having been physically seperate for hundreds of years. This is the nature of the Orthodox church. All of them believe that Mary remained a virgin.
|13||Is the Bible filled with TRUTH?||Bible general Archive 1||jawz||47975|
|I can't remember who it was, but someone once said "All translators are traitors". Unless you are a native speaker of Koine Greek living around the time of the first century in Palestine, you are going to have to rely on what can at best can only be second best. It is my understanding though that none of the errors that exist in ALL translations will effect what is important in Christian doctrine. If there are grey areas in one passage, they will be clear on reading other passages.
Again, ALL translations fall short. That is the nature of translating.
|14||jawz, Who's the carpenter, son of Mary?||Mark 6:3||jawz||47971|
|So how do you explain Jesus entrusting Mary to the Apostle John. What is your basis for this if Mary has other children. We see in Acts that Jesus "brothers" believe after Jesus resurrection, so if they really are Mary's children they would certainly look after her. For Jesus to entrust his mother to someone else when she had other children would have been a serious breach of tradition and a serious affront to his "brothers. Can you explain this? No?
Conclusion, Mary had no other children.
|15||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47966|
|I think you will find that it is almost a direct quote from the greek scripture. You are interpreting it in exactly the same way as you interpreted the passage. Irenaeus is not stating anything more or less than what scripture says.|
|16||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47965|
|It is rather the absence of anything to the contrary of Mary being ever-virgin. When Jerome writes against Helvidius in the 4th century, note the tone of his response. Note also the complete lack of any disagreement from any of the churches at the time or later. If you go to any orthodox church on the globe, whether it be in Syria or Jerusalem or Norway or Egypt or Romania or Russia you will find the same thing taught about the ever-virginity of Mary, yet I do not think you will find anywhere in any ecumenical council where this was laid out as church dogma. It wasn't necessary because it was always understood to be the case.|
|17||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47963|
|I would hardly call it overwhelming contextual evidence. Two passages describe 4 men as being Jesus brothers, yet elsewhere two of them are identified as the sons of Mary, wife of Clopas. Nowhere is anyone but Jesus described as being the son of the virgin Mary. Mary, wife of Clopas is described as being the virgin Mary's sister which she clearly cannot be. Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist is described as her cousin, yet the Jewish tribes do not intermarry, Mary is descended from David, Elizabeth is descended from Aaron, so they cannot be cousins. However, from what we know from tradition, Mary was raised in the temple from childhood and would probably have had a close relationship with Elizabeth, the wife of the priest Zechariah. Clearly, the terms brother, sister and cousin are used to describe a broader range of kinship than we are familiar with in our modern society. We should change our views to fit the bible, not the other way around.|
|18||another hypothetical, applied ethics||James 4:7||jawz||47956|
|Your hypothetical is flawed from the outset. Satan is not the source of evil in the world, it is OUR disobedience, OUR rebellion against God. Satan dying would not remove evil from the world.
I would help him. It would heap insults upon his head :)
|19||A hypothetical question||Bible general Archive 1||jawz||47955|
|I would reply, "Thy will be done."|
|20||Was Mary a virgin her whole life||Matt 1:25||jawz||47954|
|Ray, I assume that you are saying that the term "firstborn" implies that there will be a 2nd born (and a 3rd, 4th,...). This is not the case. An only child is also a firstborn.
Matthew 1:25 could be understood as saying that Mary did not have sexual relations with Joseph prior to the birth of Jesus, or as most here assume, Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. The early church (which lived and breathed the Greek language) understood the first to be the meaning of the verse. The latter interpretation has only come into being in our 'enlightened' age.
|Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last  >>|