Results 1 - 20 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184636 | ||
Hi Brian, From the wording of your question I presume you would like me to reply. Your first question would require a long winded reply so I will leave it. Are we in a race in which we have been passed on the baton? See Hebrews 12.1-2 along with chapter 11. What happens to the sheep nations? If we accept Jesus answer to the question at face value they go immediately into everlasting life or everlasting punishment (Matthew 25.48). God has been reigning over the earth from the beginning of time (Psalm 22.28; 103.19; 93.1; 97.1; 99.1). Christ began reigning over the earth when He ascended into Heaaven and was enthroned (Acts 2.36; Ephesians 1.19-22). The souls of the departed began to reign over the earth when they died (Revelation 20.4). There is no suggestion anywhere that they reign ON the earth. Satan has been bound since Christ came and bound him (Mark 3.27 and parallels) and will continue to be so until he is let loose. We are the remnant of Israel over whom He reigns. |
||||||
2 | explain 1 John 5:1 | 1 John 5:1 | jonp | 184635 | ||
The first lesson being taught is that in order to become a child of God a person has to believe in Jesus Christ. 'To as many as received Him, to them gave He the right to become the children of God, even to those who believe on His Name -- who are thereby born of God' (John 1.12-13). The second lesson is that if we have become children of God we will love our Father. The third lesson is that if Christians love the Father then they will love all His children. We cannot claim to love the Father if we treat His children badly or are unkind to them. It would be to indicate that our love for the Father was not genuine. |
||||||
3 | What did Mordecai mean when he told Esth | Esth 4:14 | jonp | 184634 | ||
Hi Mordecai's point was that if Esther did not stand up for the truth then she and her family would suffer the consequences. However it was not to be thought that God depended on Esther. God could always do His delivering in another way, and would in fact do so. However what Esther had to consider was whether God had not put her in the right place at the right time precisely so that she could serve God in this way. |
||||||
4 | the fight against evil( the armor ) | Eph 6:14 | jonp | 184633 | ||
Hi you could point out that when Roman soldiers used to go into battle they needed to protect themselves with armour. Show them a picture of a Roman soldier in his armour. In the same way a Christian going into battle against evil and against Satan also needs to protect himself with armour. But in his case it is a special type of armour. Just as a soldier needs to be properly belted up so that his armour does not flap about, so the Christian should build himself up in the truth by studyimg God's word and listening to faithful ministry. Then he will not flap about when he faces the enemy. Just as the soldier wears a breastplate to protect his heart, so the Christian will protect himself by living a good, true and pure life. Then he will not be open to attack. He can also protect himself by covering himself with the righteousness of Christ (2 Corinthians 5.21). Just as a soldier needs to wear stout shoes so that he does not become weary or stumble, so we can make sure that we are not impeded in our walk by having a good knowledge of the Gospel of peace. peace with God and peace from God. Furthermore the Roman soldier often had spikes on his shoes so that he could trample on the enemy. So the Christian can trample on the Enemy by proclaiming the Gospel of peace. Just as a Roman soldier would protect himself from spears, arrows and sword thrusts with his shield so are we to memorise Scripture so that when Satan attacks us with the arrows of doubt and uncertainty we can hold up the shield of faith by quoting Scripture in order to protect ourselves, just like Jesus did when He was tempted. Just as the Roman soldier protected his head with his helmet, so should the Christian protect his mind by having a full understanding of what salvation means, both initial salvation through being put in the right with God, and daily salvation through God keeping us and working within us to will and to do of His good pleasure (Philippians 2.13). And just as the Roman soldier used his sword both to protect himself and to defeat the enemy so should we learn to use the word of God in defence and attack, parrying Satan's blows with Scripture and striking at his heart by proclaiming the Gospel.. . |
||||||
5 | Give someone a Second chance | Matthew | jonp | 184631 | ||
Hi Does God give people a second chance? See Matthew 18.21-22. Do you think God requires men and women to be more forgiving than He is? | ||||||
6 | Does God use extreme punishment | 1 Cor 5:5 | jonp | 184630 | ||
Hi Does God use extreme punishments? The simple answer is 'yes'. 1 Corinthians 11.30. | ||||||
7 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184611 | ||
Hi Jeff, I note your comments. One problem, however, as I'm sure you will have appreciated if you have noted the people to whom I have directed replies, is that I have been bombarded with 'replies to your posting' to which in courtesy I have had to provide replies. I do not like to refuse an answer to someone who contacts me through the forum however difficult the question, indeed it would be wrong for me to do so. And I have received a constant stream of questions. With regard to angles I am sure you will be aware that different Biblical writers do write from different angles For example the authors of the former prophets strongly emphasise God as the first cause of everything, thus saying that God caused David to number Israel. The Chronicler looking from a different angle says that it was Satan who caused David to number Israel. The writer in Ecclesiastes takes up a very different angle from the Psalmists. Daniel approaches things from a different angle to the other prophets. The Gospel writers each approach the life of Jesus from a different angle. Paul undoubtedly writes from a very different angle to that of James. The book of Revelation writes from John's own particular visionary and apocalyptic angle. Thus in the midst of unity there is great diversity, which is a very good thing as the Scriptures are not just for Western minds or for scholars. Eastern minds will interpret them very differently from us, and so will the young. And each of us will see them differently as we advance in age and spiritual maturity. But that is the genius of the Scriptures. For they are greater than all of us. And even Dr Scofield did not comprehend them all as B B Warfield and Edward J Young among others pointed out :-)))). That is why the Scriptures can be read both by children and by greybeards and be helpful to both. And they are so spiritually deep and extensive in what they teach that every single one of us can only hope to grasp facets of the truth even after a lifetime of study. Thus each of us must inevitably approach things from the angle of the position we have reached, and the particular emphases with which we have been brought into contact. So I can't quite agree that there are no angles in Scripture, even if we ignore the different angles from which we approach them. They are deliberately written in order meet a diversity of needs, and to provide for growth in knowledge and understanding over long lives. The truth of Scripture is unchanging, but our intepretation of it is ever changing. And it will be a sad day for us when that ceases to be so. Not everyone will agree with what I put forward, any more than I agree with all that they put forward,but it is precisely because I back up my arguments with Scripture that they have to be so detailed. And I do not think you can genuinely accuse me of not focusing on the truth of God's word. With regard to my profile originally I only provided my email address and it was suggested to me that I should put in my website address. With all best wishes Jonp | ||||||
8 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184603 | ||
Hi Thank you Brad for your advice. I am sure you are trying to be helpful. It is however a little difficult to be brief when questions are asked which require detailed and complicated answers, and detailed back up from Scripture. Especially when I am then criticised for not explaining enough. With regard to forum rules and guidelines I consider that I have quite satisfactorily maintained them. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
9 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184600 | ||
Hi Thank you Searcher for your kind advice. I was advised by the powers that be that there was no problem with putting my site in my details. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
10 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184599 | ||
Hi Thank you Searcher for your kind advice. I was advised by the powers that be that there was no problem with putting my site in my details. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
11 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184592 | ||
Hi stj. I did not think your repentance would last long :-)))). Perhaps you should equally apply your words to yourself? Are you really walking in the truth? That is of course something that you must judge for yourself. I would not dare to try to make such a judgment on one of Christ's own. Who am I to pass judgment on one of Christ's servants?. It is to your own Master that you stand or fall (Romans 14.4). Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God -- so each of us shall give account of himself to God (Romans 14.10-12). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
12 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184591 | ||
Hi stj The one problem I have with your outline is that you are not doing what Jesus did, focus on His church and what He is doing today. Most of what you have described focuses on what you think will happen after the rapture, all of which will not affect us, and is based on one or two very doubtfully interpreted Scriptures (Daniel 9; Revelation 20). Your idea of the Great Tribulation is not mentioned in the Bible (you read your interpretation into it), who the 144,000 are is very much disputed (James calls the whole church the twelve tribes of Israel - James 1.1), and no reign of Christ ON earth is mentioned even in Revelation 20. So your summary is very lopsided. The whole of the Old and New Testament is summarily dealt with, and you concentrate on one or two controversial ideas. By all means hold on to them if they help you but do also recognise that neither Jesus, not Paul and Peter, saw them as important enough to mention. Perhaps you might do well to follow their example rather than that of Dr Scofield. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
13 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184590 | ||
Hi Brian. The word Basileia actually refers to 'Kingly Rule' and not to a 'Kingdom'. A Basileia reaches as far as the king's influence and no further. The church ('congregation') are the true congregation of Israel. Old and new Israel are not my ideas. They are the ideas of Jesus and of Paul. The church has not 'taken up' the responsibility of others, it has fulfilled its own responsibility as the continuing Israel. Peter and the other Apostles, including Paul, would have denied hotly that they were replacing Israel. Peter addresses the church as 'the Dispersion' (Israel scatted abroad). James calls them 'the twelve tribes of Israel. The Apostles saw themselves as carrying forward their task as the renewed Israel. The Kingly Rule of God began at creation. It will never end, for it is everlasting. But it was especially brought home on earth by Jesus Christ as He brought the Kingly Rule of God to men's attention and sought to draw men into it. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
14 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184589 | ||
Hi stj, nobly put and I accept it in the spirit in which it is given. I can assure you that I am as hot for the truth of the word of God as you are, but I do recognise that it comes to us from many angles. Nor am I ever cavalier in my attitude towards it. I am too conscious that I am dealing with the word of God. But for that very reason it is necessary to go back to what was originaly given. And that is what Bible translators try to do. But it can never be done perfectly. And despite the claims of some, no one, not even the most fervent literalist, ever takes the Bible wholly literally, for it is not written in that way. Thus what we must each do is seek to obtain a balance. Very best wishes Jonp | ||||||
15 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184588 | ||
Hi WOS Out of courtesy I will reply, at least partially, to your criticisms, but may I suggest that if you seriously wish to take them up with me you do so by email. As I see it the forum is for positive Biblical contributions, not discussions on each other (we have wandered far from the tree of life). My email address is given in my details. I would however lovingly suggest that I have not ever called the kettle black. I constantly strive not to blacken others, and especially not simply because they disagree with me. I recognise that we are all sincerely seeking to find the truth, and will hold many different positions. When I put my points over (apart from when I am answering posts like this one) I always try to do so positively citing Scriptural backing, or in some cases the very surprising lack of it. I am not surprised that you find the situation confusing. That is one of the problems of having to deal with a vast and complicated subject by answering totally different types of questions in smallish snippets. To set out my position fully (as for anyone seeking to set out a position) I would have to write a book. As Jesus and Paul were not seeking to attack Millennialism there was no reason why they should mention it negatively if they did not believe in it, but as they both dealt constantly with eschatological matters I would certainly have expected them to mention it had they actually believed in it. The fact that they did not would be quite extraordinary. The argument from silence is therefore sound. With regard to your suggestion of lack of clarity. Has it struck you that those who are 'clear' on such a vast and complicated subject, are the ones who are naive and just accept a simplistic position? The only problem is that their 'clarity' results from ignoring everything that disagrees with their position. The Bible is in fact a vast and complicated book looking at things from many different angles. Thus bringing it all together is a huge and complicated task. I love your definition of me as 'a semi-partial preterist with a futurist impression'. Does it not strike you that that might support my position? The reason that there are both preterists and futurists among genuinely seeking Bible students is precisely because something of both positions is found in Scripture. I would therefore expect a balanced student to come somewhere between the two. With regard to Baruch, as with all such literature there is a problem with dating, but it was certainly early enough to have affected Papias' position (which was partly my point as Papias is the first known example of millemarianism, excluding a possible but doubtful reference in Revelation 20 which you will note does not mention a reign ON EARTH) and that must almost certainly date it in 1st century AD. As there was no New Testament as such until the mid-second century AD (only individial books being slowly gathered together)it can therefore be described as intertestamental. Furthermore there is little doubt in most scholars minds that it reflects earlier Jewish teaching. But I do not want to make a big thing about it. I was responding to a request for evidence of my statement that Jewish literature was partly responsible for millennial belief in the early church. It is irrelevant to Biblical exposition. With regard to the use of what you call 'symbolism' (a rather loaded term as it simply suggests not being literal, as though being 'literal' was somehow superior, while in fact most language is symbolic) we all have to feel our way through what is to be taken absolutely literally and what is to be taken as only partially so. To take the simple example of Jesus' statement 'if any man does not hate his father and mother he cannot be my disciple'. I hope none of us would take His words literally. The truth is we constantly have to read into statements and interpret them. Like others I do so the best I can. I would certainly never claim to be always right. Only an arrogant fool would do so. But with regard to books like the Book of Revelation I am always careful to interpret its symbolism in the light of other Scriptures, for that is what the write intended. It is chock full of references to earlier Scripture. If you do wish to take up anything of this, please do so by email so that we do not unnecessarily bore the forum. I have already been accused of doing so :-))))). Of course I recognise that what bores some, interests others. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
16 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184564 | ||
Dear Brother stj, May I lovingly suggest that you consider whether your recent submissions are honouring to Christ and in accordance with His teaching. Failing I may be as a disciple of Jesus, I have never suggested otherwise, but I would remind you that whatever you say about one who belongs to Christ you say to Christ Himself (Acts 9.4). With genuine love in Christ Jonp | ||||||
17 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184563 | ||
Hello Steve, I am quite happy for you to take up whatever position you consider agrees with the Scriptures, Indeed that is what I would expect of you. I am quite prepared to let each person judge for themslves by comparing the Scriptures. You asked me questions and I showed you the courtesy of replying to them. I have lived long enough not to try to get Christians to change their mind. In response to questions I have stated my case. I am then happy to leave it with God to reveal to people what He wills. But if you do not find the silence of both Jesus and Paul convincing I do. No modern teacher who believed in the Millennium would have been so silent about it. I have constantly stated, however, that I do not think a person's view about the supposed Millennium is important. It is a peripheral doctrine and not central to the Christian faith or to the evangelical position. If you find it helpful by all means hold on to it. For myself I found that discovering what I see as the truth about it made the Bible come alive to me in a new way. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
18 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184562 | ||
Hello Brian. You have asked me to define the Kingly Rule of God. The Kingly Rule of God has in one sense been established in Heaven right from the beginning (see Psalm 22.28 - 'the Kingly Rule is of the LORD, and He rules over the nations'. See also Psalm 103.19). God's original aim was to establish His Kingly Rule over Israel (Deuteromy 33.5) but this aim was thwarted by their rebellion (1 Samuel 8.7). They rejected His Kingship. The prophets therefore began to look for it to be established in the future. Thus when John the Baptist came he informed Israel that the Kingly Rule of God was at hand. Now they were again to be given the opportunity of coming under His Kingly Rule. Jesus emphasised that by casting out evil spirits He had demonstrated that the Kingly Rule of God had come upon them (Matthew 12.28). Thus He could say, 'the Kingly Rule of God is among you' (Luke 17.21). All who would could come and respond to Him and as a result they would come under the Kingly Rule of God. Indeed tax collectors and sinners were already flocking into it (Matthew 21.31). But no one could 'see' it unless they were 'born from above' (John 3.3). So in order to enter into it men had to be born from above by The Spirit of God (John 3.5-6). It was being established through the preaching of the word (Matthew 13). This establishment of God's Kingly Rule as something open to all who would respond to Jesus is common in the New Testament (compare Acts 28.21; Romans 14.17). But there is also a future aspect to the Kingly Rule of God, which again is constantly emphasised, and that is the everlasting Kingly Rule of God in Heaven (Matthew 5.10; 7.21; 8.11-12 and often). Many references could in fact refer to both. This is not surprising for God is the King and all those who have submitted to His rule by believing in Jesus and accepting Him as their Lord will come under His rule both in this world and the next. As a result of the failure of many Jews to respond to Him Jesus declared that 'The Kingly Rule of God will be taken away from you, and given to a nation producing its fruits' (Matthew 21.43). For Jesus had come as the true Vine, the representative of the true Israel (John 15.1; Matthew 2.15). All who were united with Him by being fruitful branches of the vine would become part of the new Israel. The remainder were cast off. For He had come to found His new 'congregation' (of Israel) on the rock of His Messiahship (Matthew 16.18). This new Israel was formed first of the Apostles and their fellow disciples and then grew rapidly after Pentecost as many Jews were 'added to the congregation' (the 'congregation' (ekklesia) was a word used to describe Israel in the Old Testament). Israel had always accepted Gentiles into the covenant when they sought the God of Israel (as long as they would be circumcised), and soon the Apostles were guided to allow Gentiles to enter the congregation. That caused a dispute as to whether they needed to be circumcised. This demonstrates that they all saw these Gentiles as becoming a part of Israel as it was formulated from the beginning. The decision made was that it was unnecessary because they were united with Christ and had therefore already been circumcised in the circumcision of Christ (Colossians 2.11). Paul makes clear in Romans 11.17-28 that these Gentiles have been grafted into the olive tree of the covenant, while the Jews who have not believed in Jesus have been cast off and are therefore no longer a part of the covenant. Israel is now made up of both Jews and Gentiles who have become a part of the household of God (Ephesians 2.13-22) through faith in Jesus. So the new Israel, which is the genuine Israel united with Christ as the true Vine (as opposed to the false vine of the old Israel), have replaced those who saw themselves as the old Israel. The new 'nation' has replaced the old. All the promises therefore now apply to the new Israel, because they are the true Israel, and it is they who are the true sons of Abraham (Galatians 3.28-29). This is the true Israel, the Israel of God (Galatians 6.16). I feel that is sufficient for this post so I will deal with the remainder of your question in another posting. Best wishes Jonp. |
||||||
19 | The fruit and leaves of the tree of life | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 184555 | ||
Hi again Brian. My previous note may well have raised questions in your mind. May I just therefore add a few words about the interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. In Genesis 13.15-17 God promised to Abraham, 'all the land which you see I will give you and to your descendants for ever. -- I will gve it to you.' Note the 'for ever'. How was Abraham to see this? Hebrews 11.10, 14-16 tells us. 'He looked forward to the city which has foundations whose builder and maker is God -- people who speak thus make clear that they are seeking a country If they had been thinking of that land from which they had gone out, they would have had opportunity to return. But as it is they desire a better country, that is a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for He has prepared for them a city'. These words come in the midst of a series of practical fulfilments. What better evidence that earthly promises are to be seen as pointing to heavenly fulfilment? Compare again Haggai 2.6-8. 'Once again in a little while I will shake the heavens and the earth, and the sea and the dry land --'. Compare Hebrews 12.27. 'This phrase "yet once more" indicates the removal of what is shaken, in order that what cannot be shaken may remain. Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken,--.' Once again the prophecy is interpreted in heavenly terms. Note also how the reference in Haggai to the riches of the nations is interpreted in Revelation 21.24, 26 in terms of the everlasting kingdom. Compare also how in Hebrews 12.22 the writer says, 'We have come to Mount Zion', (that is, what the old Testament has been speaking of when it spoke of Mount Zion). And what does it signify? It signifies the city of the living God (which Abraham had been seeking) the heavenly Jerusalem, which is where the angels are gathered and where the glorified people of God can be found, 'the spirits of just men made perfect'. It is thus clear that the word of God constantly interprets Old Testament promises in heavenly terms. Paul does the same when he declares that the true spiritual descendants look to the heavenly Jerusalem and not to the earthly (Galatians 4.25-26). One more example and I will finish. If we take Isaiah 2.2 literally it means that the (so-called) coming Temple is to be built on Mount Zion. But in Ezekiel 43 it is made clear that the coming Temple will be built in a holy place, surrounded by a large holy area, both of which are outside Jerusalem. If these prophecies are to be taken literally they are clear contradictions. However if we see them both as pointing ahead, first to the building of the Temple which is the people of God, founded on Christ (1 Corinthians 3.10-16; Ephesians 2.18-22), and then to the heavenly Temple, all is resolved. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
20 | emotion and soul | Gen 2:7 | jonp | 184554 | ||
Hi The temr 'spirit' can refer to the Holy Spirit, it can refer to an evil spirit, and it can be used to describe the inner man, our 'spirit' The 'spirit of fear, love and sound judgment' is the latter. It does not refer to 'a spirit', but to the man's own spirit through which he has contact with God. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |