Results 1 - 20 of 89
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: richilou Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | WAS JESUS FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER? | Matt 27:46 | richilou | 41210 | ||
I think it is an intellectual distorsion of what the Bible said concerning a reality. | ||||||
2 | WAS JESUS FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER? | Matt 27:46 | richilou | 41208 | ||
My brother, I think you misinterpreted what I meant when I wrote. It is often like that anyway among christians. Being a preacher and teacher of theology I know what I am talking about. Of course I do not believe Jesus was held by some poor nails He created Himself. All I can say is to tell you that you would have to study the doctrine of substitution more deeply. A good verse for that as a starting point could be Isa. 59.1-2. Immediately, I take care to warn you that you will say: "Wait a minute! The question here doesn't concern the separation of Jesus from God". On that point I would agree with you, but if you read the reason of the separation, you see that it is sin that causes it. Moreover, you know as myself that Jesus has been made sin for us (2 Cor. 5.21). In conclusion, you asked me to explain how Jesus could be separated from His Father being God Himself. Once again, if you look at it in that perspective, I agree with you. But the issue here is not that I believe in a split within the Godhead or His deity. It is rather a separation as a momentarily "being made sin for us" (2 Cor. 5.21). In fact, I think we believe the same thing. The problem is that you talk about it in a perspective and I talk about it in another. I will not come back with you on that. We are there to edify one another and all those who read us, not to undergo a dispute of words as Paul said. | ||||||
3 | WAS JESUS FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER? | Matt 27:46 | richilou | 41070 | ||
Ok my dear friend. I think that an illustration will help you to understand the idea I had in mind in my previous note. One day Jesus said: "I am the door". Was He really a literal door to enter a house? Of course not. It was another way of saying: "I am the One through whom you will find the way of eternal life", right? When we say that Jesus has been forsaken by His Father it is in the sense that Jesus had no way out to escape the situation because it was the one planned by God from all eternity past. And this situation was the terrible fire of God expressing His holy wrath against sin. Keep in mind that He was bearing on His shoulders not so much an abandonement of God as such, but rather He was there to be punished for our sins. It is in that way that God was forsaking Him. Another important thing is this. If Jesus would have not been really forsaken, His cry to His Father would have become inconsistent with His real feeling and would have been in vain. By the way, it was not just a false feeling that He manifested in words, it was a reality that was happening in His body and mind. We can say what you referred to to prove that God never forsake when you said the words: "I will never leave you nor forsake you...". But here, watch out! The comparison with what God said in that last passage and the situation of the cross are not to be compared at all. The reality of what happened on the cross was the reality of what happened in the heart of Jesus as I said. He felt abandoned because He was, period; not because He was out of control of His words being in a state of suffering, even terribly. So it is in that sense that God forsake Jesus. We must understand the sense rather than trying to reason the words. | ||||||
4 | WAS JESUS FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER? | Matt 27:46 | richilou | 41020 | ||
I think the answer is good and concise. The fact is to keep in mind that in theology, we call it the doctrine of substitution. That is to say that for a short period of time in eternity, God the Father saw His Son as the greatest sinner in all the human history in order to get salvation for all the elect. Now, He was the Son of God even though He was abandoned for a while. The issue is rather that as a Son He was abandoned for our salvation. | ||||||
5 | But what does it mean? | 1 Tim 2:15 | richilou | 13466 | ||
read the answer I gave to Moran61 on Sat 08/18/01 | ||||||
6 | What is your understanding of this? | 1 Tim 2:15 | richilou | 13453 | ||
What Tim Moran has already written on this is a helpful insight to do a right explanation of the text. But I would like to add something more. Paul was writing to a church of the first century who was influenced by a wide and large spectrum of what we call the Gnosticism. Even though the thing was at its beginning (in some areas) it is the same philosophy that was probably circulating around Ephesus, where Timothy was). Now, we must keep in our mind that Gnosticism has some bizarre beliefs and one of them was that spirit was good and flesh was bad. So you can imagine already what these proponents were thinking about giving "fleshly birth". To attain salvation we had to advance in a certain type of knowledge (that explains the word "gnosticism" from the greek verb "ginosko" which means to learn). Now watch this. In the area of Ephesus it seems that the influence was to despise the flesh, but also the giving of birth because it was again a fleshly experience. Many people were misled in their understanding of the role versus the value before God. So these false teachers who said that it was not good to take a wife (implied in 1 Tim. 4.1-3). Paul is speaking about the same false teachers here. According to verse 3, it was not only an option or a choice not to get married, but it was a "prescription". So the role of woman was very much despised and having to bear this influence, these women had to struggle in the realm of role to enhance their value. But before God, the value is not the same thing than the role and one doesn't change the other. It is for this reason Paul gave some advices concerning the role in the church for each one of them (men and women). Now, having put the text in its context we must now respond to the central question that is asked here. What does "women will be preserved or saved" mean? Paul is demolishing the philosophy of the false teachers and ended this chapter (even though there were not chapters in the original manuscripts) saying that in spite of all you, (women) have heard from that false teachers the fate of your soul and role and value in society will not be changed in the eyes of God. It is as though Paul was saying: "in spite of all that you heard, you will have the great benedictions and blessings that are supposed to be reserved only to those "initiated gnostics". In fact, they will never have them at all if they continue in their false belief. It is more a presevation or salvation of the value of their role as women and becoming godly mothers rather than just in the spiritual sense (eternal life). I think it is with that that Paul had to dealt with. | ||||||
7 | Created for heaven or hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | richilou | 11353 | ||
I think that even though I am a strong calvinist. It would be quite exagerating to think and to advocate a position that would make God, the desirer of hell for people. I think the answer is no, but we would have to exchange a bit on a certain text I would propose to you. But, as it is my usually way, I invite you to e-mail me at monric@sympatico.ca | ||||||
8 | Is it God, Ourselves or Satan? | Bible general Archive 1 | richilou | 11351 | ||
So, I invite you to e-mail me again on your question if you want to exchange some points on that very delicate subject. | ||||||
9 | opinion in NET Bible (cf. www.bible.org) | Gen 1:26 | richilou | 11140 | ||
I don't really think that the concept of plural of majesty has to be retained here. | ||||||
10 | Who is God referring to? | Gen 1:26 | richilou | 11137 | ||
I think that, even among many opinions that have been made through the years, the general opinion of the specialists of the hebrew language is that it is a encapsulated reference to the plurality of persons in God, which means for us, evangelical, trinity. | ||||||
11 | Whatever happened to Joseph?? | NT general Archive 1 | richilou | 11133 | ||
I would like you to remember that the person had said that we could answer by e-mail. Therefore, I just answered according to a possibility that was offered. | ||||||
12 | Urgent and swift help needed!! | Eph 6:12 | richilou | 11100 | ||
I think that if the problem is not settled soon, you will not have other choice to find another church. | ||||||
13 | Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter? | Judg 11:31 | richilou | 11099 | ||
It is the position of the Dr. Gleason Archer in his "Introduction to the Old Testament. | ||||||
14 | Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter? | Judg 11:31 | richilou | 11097 | ||
It is, as you said, much debated. But for another option to explain the text (without saying that it is truer) it would be good if you could read what Gleason Archer had to say about that in his book: "Introduction to the Old Testament". | ||||||
15 | Please add prayer requests in user info | Bible general Archive 1 | richilou | 11092 | ||
I will think about you Nolan in my prayer. | ||||||
16 | Please add prayer requests in user info | Bible general Archive 1 | richilou | 11091 | ||
Good suggestion! | ||||||
17 | musical instruments or not? | Bible general Archive 1 | richilou | 11087 | ||
I think that music would be not only a useful part of your worship, but I would dare to say that God would be very happy for you all. Because God created music, it is not bad to use instruments, just a fast reading of the Bible shows us how music was considered by the people. | ||||||
18 | Is it God, Ourselves or Satan? | Bible general Archive 1 | richilou | 11085 | ||
You know, it is a difficult question because it concerns the invisible world and the moment we go into that realm, answers may be legion as they may be whether all false or, at the very least, very incomplete. But may I ask you a question first? Is it a battle that you have in you very life right now? | ||||||
19 | What is the purpose of this Bible | NT general Archive 1 | richilou | 11069 | ||
The answer you gave is exactly what I thought in myself and I think that we have to much people thinking that they are THE reference when we talk about a particular subject that doesn't fit their opinion. Good point my friend. | ||||||
20 | Were the Apostles theologians? | NT general Archive 1 | richilou | 11066 | ||
I think you missed the question of our friend. You used the word "theoreticians" while he spoke of "theologians". Maybe it is just an error of typing of your own. If this is the case, then forget what I said. | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |