Lockman - Bible questions and answers

Results 121 - 140 of 156		Pages: << < [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] > Last [8] >>
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: MJH Ordered by Date
Results		Verse	Author	ID#
121	Jews' word for Hell comesfrom whatvalley	Bible general Archive 2	MJH	151724
	Was it the Hinnon Valley? Excuss my spelling... I do know it was the valley where all the trash was dumped and burned.
122	Are we free from the Law?	Rom 7:6	MJH	150100
	I am so glad you asked this question. I have been searching this out for the last three and a half years. If you are a reader, I can give you some good books to read. They will not give you a clear cut answer, but they will help in your search. Personally I have found the search for an answer far more rewarding than an eventual answer. In short, the covenant with Noah plays a large part in this discussion. In the first century the "God Fearers" were those who believed in the One true God, but did not want to have certain parts of their anatomy cut off (circumcision). They worshiped in the court of the Gentiles, but were not converts in the fullest sense. These people were expected to follow the Noah covenant. The Jews found 7 laws in this covenant. This all was practiced during the time of Paul. The Acts 15 counsel listed 4 things that the Gentile believers in Jesus needed to abide by. All four are a part of the covenant with Noah and fit in with how the first century Jew viewed these things. Paul did not want to force all of the Law on the Gentiles as it was lived out by Jews in Jerusalem. That being said, others say.... Read Acts 21 and on. There are thousands of Christians ZELOUS for the law, and Paul not only performs a sacrifice, but pays for others to be able to perform the sacrifice (Nazarite covenant sacrifice.) Paul calls himself a Pharisee in the present tense. In Acts 15, the 4 "rules" are laid out, but they end by noting that Moses is taught every week in the synagogues in every city, possibly implying that Gentiles know where to go to learn what else the laws say. Did Jesus do away with not eating unclean animals in Mark 7? Or is that a miss understanding of what He was saying. Could the Messiah do away with any commands of the Torah (Law of Moses) and still be the Messiah. Especially when in Matt 5, He says that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to place it on a firmer footing. Many think that in Galatians 2, Paul, when he says “works of the law” (ergos numos) he means “legalistic observance to the law”, but in the Greek in the first century there was no word for legalistic, and “works of the law” was the closest he could come. …. By now I am either boring you, or perking your interest. I do not have your answer, but I have been studying this for some time and read much about it. If you want to discuss it more, or want book recommendations, or have questions about statements above, let me know. KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS…… They are they key to wisdom…… MJH
123	children and last supper	1 Corinthians	MJH	150096
	Your first question. Yes wine was served at communion. Communion was first done by Jesus during the Passover which used 4 cups of wine. Children were always a part of Passover (which is what Communion in some ways represents.) Jesus chose this meal for a reason. Passover was a family meal where extended family attended, or neighbors, or the poor. Every Jew participated (if they were ritually clean), but it was done in the home. Wine was used, but grape juice is a perfectly acceptible alternative, and in mass church audienaces is the best choice. If you did communion in your home with your family, wine, even with children, would be acceptible as well. We are not talking about a whole bottle, right..... Some believe communion can only be given by a priest or pastor. I suppose if you feel that way, then you should stick to your denominations teachings. Otherwise, family communion can be a beautiful thing. MJH
124	Israel the promise land?	Gen 17:8	MJH	150095
	"the army from the north attack Israel..." If you look closely at the geography, all armies in the ancient world would have to attack from the north of south (or possibly from the west by way of the sea.) I can not think of a time that an army attacked from any other direction than north or south. Babylon may be more East, but to attack, they would have to come from the North. Just a thought. MJH
125	When did Jesus violate any law?	Rom 7:6	MJH	150094
	According to some, Mark 7 says that Jesus did away with the food laws, permitting anyone to eat any animal, clean or unclean. If Jesus revoked a law of Moses, then that would be a violation of the law. What do you think Jesus did in Mark 7? MJH
126	Matt 7:21 criteria for heaven	1 John 3:9	MJH	144345
	In understanding Matt 7:21 one must understand what Jesus means by "Kingdom of Heaven." First, the term Heaven in Jesus time often was used to refer to God since to even mention God's Name outside the Temple was too close to blaspheming It. Therefore “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Kingdom of God” are the same thing. Second, the Kingdom of Heaven is (among other things) a condition of the heart. Also to say, "The Kingdom of Heaven is near," would not mean "near" in the sense of time, but rather in the sense of being near by. Third, the Kingdom of Heaven is often revered to in the New Testament in two seemingly contradictory ways. 1) that the Kingdom of God is present right now (meaning in Jesus time), and 2) that it would be established in the future. Often when Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven and entering it (or not) and who is in it and who is not, refers to the condition of people's heart and how such condition places them within the Kingship of God (and the Messiah). For example: the prostitutes by virtue of their turning away from their sin and towards a renewed relationship with God and His Word, were in reality experiencing the Kingdom of Heaven (God) in their lives. They had God as their King and Ruler, whereas the Pharisees (not all, but many) were not repentant of sin and not turning toward the correct way to live out the Word of God (ie. mercy, love, compassion) and as a result their lives were not experiencing the reality of being in the Kingdom of God and having God as their true King. (They were Kings of themselves by their high view of themselves for following the minute "traditions of the elders" while missing the main thrust of God's Word to show mercy, compassion and love to all His people.) Therefore the answer to your questions is this: By doing the will of the father, you will experience the reality of being in the Kingdom of God, and He will be King of your life. It is NOT saying that those who fail to follow the law perfectly will not enter heaven. However, to say you believe, but to live an INTENTIONALLY sinful life is not possible. Belief and action are one and the same, at least they were in the mind of a Jew like Jesus and James (Jam 1:22 "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.") For James, a Jew from birth, to even say this shows that he was quite failure with Greek thinking by this time. For a Jew could not say this otherwise. For a Jew to "hear" the Word, meant to "do" the word. There wasn't a dichotomy of thought and action. The same is true in Matt 7:20-27 and 1 John 3:9. You can not be the one without being the other. You can not believe without action. Matt 25:31-46 also reveal this. Did I help or just serve to confuse? MJH
127	M- Is this about 2 believers who divorce	1 Cor 7:15	MJH	144270
	Ansewred in post 144209
128	MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only?	Matt 19:9	MJH	144233
	Searcher, The argument is one for you to prove otherwise. You have not taken much time or effort to make your point clear. I have laid out my position on divorce quite clearly. Since we are talking about divorce, not marriage, I stuck with the scriptures that deal with that. I will, for your sake, paste a commentary note on the subject: By John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible: Deut 24:1 "because he hath found some uncleanness in her;" "something that he disliked, and was disagreeable to him, and which made their continuance together in the marriage state very uncomfortable; which led him on to be very ill-natured, severe, and CRUEL to her; so that HER LIFE was exposed to danger, or at least become very uneasy; in which case a divorce was permitted, BOTH for the badness of the man's heart, and in favor of the woman, that she might be FREED from such rigorous usage." (CAPS are my additions). If you would write a position that is different, I'd like to read it because I am not dogmatic on every point with this issue. I also have not taken as much time with this issue as I have with others, so any detailed arguments that contradict any of my arguments would be looked at with appreciation. MJH
129	MJH, Where does the Bible add abuse?	Matt 19:9	MJH	144209
	Thank you for making me put more meat on this issue. To begin with, Jesus and Paul being silent on this issue does not mean that it is not scriptural. The overriding text on divorce is Deut. 24:1-5. All other text interpret this one either loosely or strictly. Jesus and Paul were very strict, but their comments do not touch on abuse specifically. Deut. 24 says that if a "man" finds. I am going to take this to also mean "woman" and argue that in our post messianic times (and probably before) this was most certainly applicable both ways (see Mark 10:12). The reason for divorce here in Deut. is "anything displeasing." What Jesus was dealing with was a gross miss-application of this law that said, "anything displeasing" is literally anything and everything that causes the man to be displease in any form. (Such as burnt food.) Had Jesus been asked the specific question of “gross abuse” of a wife by a husband there is no doubt in my mind that He would find this a "displeasing" issue that fit Deut 24. (note: Jesus made the law more strict AND more loose in the same statement in Mark 10:12 by including the passage to mean, “If a wife finds a husband . . .”) And then we need to take the scripture as a whole. The scripture speaks of LIFE, not death. Of reconciliation, not divorce. Of protection for the weak, not abuse. Taking people OUT OF BONDAGE not placing them in it. Some texts that apply to relationships in general: Lev 19:16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. Lev 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. (All apply equally to a wife.) Lev 19:33 "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. Lev 19:34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (If this is how they were to treat foreigners, then even more applies to the native born and yet more to the wife.) None of these texts apply specifically to the issue of abuse in marriage, but as stated before, one must look at the whole of scripture when attempting to apply it to an issue not specifically addressed in scripture. I believe that gross abuse of a spouse falls under the guidelines of “anything displeasing” since such acts are OBVIOUSLY displeasing to God Himself as is seen throughout the Text. (Sexual sins are displeasing as seen in the Law, but this isn’t in disagreement, but Jesus had to say what displeasing meant, and to do so had to rely on the Law to point out that sexual sins fell into the “displeasing” definition, but burnt toast did not. I am using the same method to show that abuse also fits the “displeasing” definition.) Then, like I said before. 1 Cor 7:15 – “If an unbeliever leaves. . .” Acts such as gross abuse render any so-called believer as an actual unbeliever (excommunicated if you will). AND such acts would mean the spouse has “left” even though he still remains physically. Then, finally, the texts on “Binding and Loosing” apply as well. The terms “bind” and “loose” given to the Apostles and henceforth to the elders of churches or denominations, allow for interpretation of texts to apply to new situations. If the church permits (looses) the divorce in cases of abuse, then so does heaven. The majority of competent Pastors, Elders, and church doctrine permit divorce in such cases, and those that do not have failed to see the heart of God (I believe). In summary: Jesus interprets Deut 24, and more specifically the term “displeasing.” The correct method for finding what “displeasing” means, is to known the rest of the Law. Sexual sin falls under this definition, and so does gross abuse. How did I do? MJH
130	Help with depression	2 Tim 1:7	MJH	144177
	- I agree with the great one, Doc. who already answered this post. - But on a personal note: Depression is a modern issue mostly. Also, it is rare in underdeveloped nations. For this reason, many believe that the foods we east may be one of the biggest causes of depression. (Food is dealt with in the Bible but we often ignore it. A GREAT book on the subject is "What the Bible Says About Healthy Living." by Dr. Rex Russell (see review below). My wife struggled for years with depression. When she finally decided to eat NO sugar in any form, her depression left within days and she said a cloud lifted from her head that she did not even realize was there because it has been so many years she assumed that was what life was. Her whole attitude and look on life changed dramatically. She went back to a sugar addiction a few months later and for a YEAR she was mildly depressed again. She just quit sugar again and life is much nicer around here. (I had to pay her to quite. This time it will cost me 625 dollars to help her last 10 weeks. After that we are hoping it will be easier for her. It is the best money I could spend.) Sugar alone may not be enough. She already identified food insensitivities and we eat whole foods (much of it organic) and no food coloring or non-food stuff like preservatives and nitrates and MSG and on, and on. (The book noted above helped us in this.) Basically it is a TOTAL lifestyle change when it comes to what we put in our mouths. It has changed our lives (my daughter had a chronic immune deficiency and she is now very healthy. When we were concerned that she wasn’t 100 percent, our Doctor said, "most kids like here are always sick and sickly looking. Your daughter may not be has healthy as you want, but she is much much better than most kids in her situation." When asked why, he said it was the food. We do not give her any medications. Most kids with her issues are on 3 - 5 medications at the same time. (She is 5 years old now.) Some people like to say all depression is one thing or another. I do not intend to say that all depression is food related (although eating healthy will always help every time it is tried). It is also not always spiritual, though it may be I suppose. Being a Christian does not prevent you from getting depressed any more than being a Christian prevents you from getting the flu. To see if you are addicted to sugar (or any substance or thing) try going without it for 90 days. If you can’t, you are addicted. (Maybe not medically speaking, but emotionally, or physically. You GOT to have it. Then “it” becomes a god.) Review of the book mentioned above by Amazon.com: “Why do we get sick? If God says we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14), why do we always seem to be hampered with health problems? While a perfect, pain-free existence won't happen on this side of heaven, there are tangible, successful ways you can improve your health and overall quality of life. The answers, says Dr. Rex Russell, ... lie in God's Word. Through year's of searching for answers to his own struggle with diabetes, Dr. Rex Russell finally discovered a successful plan for healthy living: don't eat anything God didn't intend for food (e.g. avoid scavenger meats ..., [non-food additives]); don't become addicted to anything (i.e. do not make food your god); and ingest food before it is changed into nutrient deficient or harmful products.” MJH
131	Is 1 free if divorce not due 2 adultery?	Matt 19:9	MJH	144172
	Searcher56 – (I know it is long, but I tried real hard, so forgive me) It’s been awhile, so I will try to tackle this one and see where it goes. :-) I’m going to deal with Luke 16:18 here for reasons that make sense below. Also, I will provide some context, some Greek verb stuff, and THEN answer your question. Luk 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” Divorce was one of the 8 great debates of the first century, thus the reason He is asked the question (Matt. 19:3). The 2 schools of thought were Hillel and Shammai. Jesus sides 7 times with Hillel and 1 time with Shammai. With divorce Jesus agreed with Shammai. (Hillel said you could divorce for “burnt toast.”) It is, of course, important to value the context, which I know you all know I bring up a lot. Jesus did not equate divorce and remarriage with adultery, as is often thought. Prohibiting divorce would abrogate the Torah passage Deut. 24:1-2. Jesus was intent on interpreting the Torah properly, but he did not want to destroy it. Another context can be seen in the Mishnah (Sotah 5.1) where a woman who is divorced because of an adulterous relationship is not permitted to marry the man with whom she had an affair. (Most of the Mishnah was taught before and during Jesus’ time, but not all.) - Context is used here NOT to change Jesus words or their meaning, but to help see the world as it was during the time he said these words. - Divorce for the SAKE of remarriage was therefore also adultery. When we look at the Luke 16:18, the verbs “divorce” and “marry” are in the present tense. (The parallel in Mark 10:11 put them in the subjective mood.” (see note below). Also, the conjunction “and” was often intended to express purpose. Re-wording the translation of the Greek into English to better capture the original meaning might be, “Every one who divorces his wife [in order] to marry another commits adultery.” “In light of the Mishnah passage in Sotah, if a man marries a woman who obtained a divorce merely for the sake of her second marriage, then it is considered adultery. Divorce is not adultery” and neither is remarriage. (see note below) Answer to your question. Divorce is allowed, but not divorce simply for the sake of convinces, whether that be to marry another or simply to avoid responsibility. Divorce for the sake of abuse, adultery, and any other things that fit under the term “unfaithfulness” is Biblically okay. If a spouse divorces un-Lawfully, then their partner is made free and permitted to remarry without committing adultery. (1Co 7:15 “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”) I understand that you said that “Unbelief” is not a part of the issue in your stated situation, but I think the “rule” here can still be applied. It was not the choice of the innocent partner to divorce, so if their spouse acts in an unbelieving manner by divorcing for illegitimate reasons, the spouse who is left is free (not enslaved.) Luke 16:18b “He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” This is the same idea only this time the woman is divorcing. So if a woman was divorced by her husband because her husband wanted another woman or simply because he didn’t liker her or she “burnt his toast”, then she would be free to re-marry. But if she divorced for the reason to marry another, then to marry her would be adultery. These things can get very complicated and so in the end we need to use our understanding of scripture on a WHOLE and apply it. We ought not to take one statement within the text and try to make situations fit, and thereby nullify other commands in the process. This was the BIG mistake of the Pharisees. Example: they took the Sabbath laws separate from the rest of the Torah, and applied them. They were correct in the letter of the one command, but wrong in interpreting the Torah as a whole. Jesus corrected them on this, and “loved His neighbor” by healing on the Sabbath. We too can take divorce laws out of the text and apply them to the letter correctly, but actually be misinterpreting the text on a whole at the same time. MJH
132	Saving sex for marriage	Ps 1:1	MJH	144144
	The words you are using are not in the Bible, but as Doc already answered you, Psalm 1:1 is a good verse. Since you are not asking IF God says to wait for marriage, then I assume you know that. Therefore, if we follow what God wants, we will enjoy life much more over the whole course of our life. (Those doing wrong may enjoy life in the short term, but latter they reap what they sow. It is easy to look around you and see.) Anecdotally speaking, I waited until I was married at 25, and WOW, it was worth it. Also, I have no memories of being with anyone else. Also, I worked (before being married) with some men at a factory who were shocked that I a) was a virgin in my 20's and b) that I was proud of it. After leaving the break time, one man who often commented on his experiences asked me why I was proud to be a virgin (He never meet someone like me). I told him, “I could be what you are within 3 hours. It was easy. But you can never be what I am. It is hard.” There is forgiveness and a person can turn and do right after making the error. God sees them in a right relationship. But they will still never experience what those who wait will. The consequence still remains. My wife became a Christian a couple years before we married and a year before we met. She didn’t have the value of a Christian up bringing. She came into our marriage clean before God and me, but she still had the past none the less. I hope that this helps some. And I pray that more men wait! MJH
133	Not know Summer from Winter?	Matt 24:20	MJH	144053
	No
134	Why did jesus speak in parables?	Matt 13:10	MJH	143847
	Jesus spoke in parables because it was one of the most common methods of teaching by the rabbis of His time. The other answer given to your question is also correct. MJH
135	Who saved James, Hebrews and Revelation?	Bible general Archive 2	MJH	143790
	Colin, You are so very correct when you say, "Protestant scholarship suffers from suspicion of anything Catholic. This is a terrible fault on our part as Protestants . . ." I grew in faith, grace and knowledge the years that I decided that other denominations had good things to say too. I grew in faith, grace and knowledge the years that I stopped treating the Catholic Church as the anti-church. And when I accepted people who loved Jesus, attended our protestant church, but stilled called themselves catholic. I grew in faith, grace and knowledge when I stopped viewing Judaism as a works based faith destined to damnation, and listened. I don't know where the future leads, and my own faith as not wavered (I haven't taken up heretical teachings) and my commitment to Jesus the Messiah has grown stronger, not weaker. The day we stop questioning, listening, and humbly seeking to know God, is the day we become the very thing we fear most. God Bless, MJH
136	If you gave a tenth of all you OWNED...	Prov 3:9	MJH	142630
	Infinity (and beyond) ;-) Technically speaking you would never give everything away. However, if you rounded off to the nearest penny, then it would depend on how much money you started with. Did I win anything? MJH
137	When was the Book of Job first published	Job	MJH	142372
	It is my impression that Job was written either during the exile in Babylon, or after that period when many of the apocrypha and pseudogrypha books were written. It is for this reason why the book is often viewed by people as an allegory (Israel was experiencing what Job experienced in many ways at this time. Job written at this time makes a lot of sense.) Just because the book may have been penned during the exile or post exile, does not mean that it isn't still historically accurate. Therefore your question about the origin of the book still remains and no one will ever know the answer for sure. I am certain, however, that the Jewish Rabbis have a lot to say about authorship. You might venture over to such a web site and seek an answer there. I'd do it, but just don't have time today. MJH
138	Baptism ritual before John	Lev 8:6	MJH	141974
	No, John the Baptist was not doing anything radically new in his day. The idea of water being used to make a person or object clean is written about all over the book of Leviticus. See Lev 14:8 and the whole chapter of Lev. 15 for a sample. The temple itself has many, many baptismal pools. (Singular they were called a Mikvah.) You can do a search at google with the word mikvah and find a host of information. They have excavated these pools outside the temple which explains why 3000 could be baptized at one time. The dead sea scrolls have a lot written in their societal order about their Mikvout (I think this is how you spell the plural of Mikvah.) Also the Jewish oral law, the Talmud or Mishnah, has a lot to speak of about these baptisms. John used the Jordan because it was a source of living water. A baptism required a certain amount of living water defined as water that fell from heaven, or water that was moving. A cistern or well (unless also a spring) was not living water. The people usually baptized themselves and did not get dunked by a rabbi or other person; however, that does not mean rabbi’s didn’t physically baptize also. Jesus did not baptize. Many wealthy Jews in Jerusalem has their own Mikvah in their homes. A person immersed themselves for many reasons such as to enter the Temple, to become ritually clean after becoming unclean for any reason, and then to signify a returning back to “Torah” or the written (and probably the Oral) law of Moses. John was calling people back to following Torah, or the books of Moses. To repent was to turn back to something. This something was the “Way” of God. (Way is another interpretation of the word Torah which also means teaching, law, commandments, etc..) “Biblical Archaeology Review” magazine has an in-depth article on this in one of their 1986 issues. Should you be so inclined to study this more, you can check it out at your local college or university library. Also, go to Amazon.com and type Mikvah in the search area and several books on the subject will come up, then check them out at your local library. It is quite fascinating. Too much to post here unfortunately. MJH
139	Did "betrothed" couples live together?	Matt 1:19	MJH	141581
	In the Hebrew culture, of which Joseph and Mary were apart, in the first century, engaged couples did not live together. In short, the engagement occurred between the couple’s father. The girl did have a say in the choice (and I presume the mother as well). After the engagement, the groom-to-be went home to his fathers house and added a room to the fathers household. When the father said that it was time, and not before (the son did not usually know the date or time of the wedding), then the wedding party would depart from the village and go to the brides village (if different) with trumpets and all announcing the wedding day. The girl and family went back to the groom’s home, they married, went together in the room or house, and afterward partied for 7 days. This is the basic idea of a wedding in first century Galilee. There may have been variations and I may have some small points out of place, but the main point for your professor is that they certainly did not live together. Your professor will not just accept my knowledge, so some books to help prove your point: “Life in Biblical Israel” by Philip J King and Lawrence E Stager. “Our Father Abraham”, Marvin R Wilson. “Mishnah” Translated by Darby. “. . . the bride was not to be seen by her intended husband until their entry into the wedding chamber.” Life in Biblical Israel” Page 54 For first century teachings of the Jews about Marriage you can consult the “Mishnah”, translated by Darby. It has a huge amount of the oral teachings about such matters most of which Joseph and family would have been aware of and none I assure you allow for the two to be together before marriage. Don’t forget that Joseph was described as being “devout” in Matt. 1:19. I hope this helps. MJH
140	Why worship on resurrection day?	Ex 20:10	MJH	140402
	Jesus instituted the Holy Communion during Passover and said to do "this" in remembrance of me. The question is, what does "this" refer to? If it refers to Passover, then possibly we have been getting it wrong. I will allow others to debate this with you and me, but I believe that we ought to celebrate Passover and do it in remembrance of Jesus. It's quite amazing how much of Passover reflects Jesus, even the way the Jews do it today. The early church DID celebrate Passover, and debated in the 180's AD whether it should be done on the traditional Passover day, or the Sunday following. Rome said Sunday, and Jerusalem said the traditional day. Rome almost excommunicated Jerusalem, but cooler heads prevailed, and they lived in peace for a while. But they both seem to have celebrated Passover in connection with the Lords resurrection. Certainly the Apostles celebrated Passover and connected it with the Lord's Resurrection. To believe otherwise is absurd. They were Jewish and Acts shows Paul eager to return to Jerusalem before Shavuot (Pentecost) to celebrate it in Jerusalem. Celebrating Jesus birth is man made; though I think a good man made tradition. Celebrating his Resurrection was not man made, but commanded by Jesus Himself. Easter was not a word even used, nor imagined to be used in connection with Jesus Resurrection until the 4th century when that pagan spring fertility celebration was mixed with the Holy Passover. I believe one of the greatest tragedies in church history. My family celebrates "resurrection day" and have a separate God honoring "spring celebration" for our girls that we try to tie into the first really nice sunny day to honor God for the seasons and new agricultural season. Our Resurrection Day happens two days (3 if your Jewish) after Passover when ever Passover happens. Then of course we do go to church on "Easter." God Bless you in your search for truth. MJH

Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >>

Search for your Bible question and answer here: