Results 1 - 20 of 46
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: RWC Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | credence for your understanding? | Col 2:5 | RWC | 243181 | ||
Thank you for your reply, Ed. While I am not opposed to the understanding that this is intended by Paul as a figure of speech, Paul's language here seems to suggest something more. He is using language that is decidedly different (I am with you, and I see your works) than what he used at the beginning of the letter that speaks of him having heard about them (1:4,8,9). Is there something specific, in the context here or elsewhere, that lends credence to the understanding that Paul does not intend this to taken literally? Or is it actually intended to suggest that he had maybe been given some kind of a vision of them or something more supernatural? | ||||||
2 | Absent in body, present in spirit? | Col 2:5 | RWC | 243176 | ||
It is hard to imagine that, even after all of the years that this forum has operating, no one has asked the following question! What exactly does Paul mean when he says, "though I am absent in body, nevertheless I am with you in spirit"? | ||||||
3 | Why is Moses being *compared* to Jesus? | Heb 3:2 | RWC | 233532 | ||
Re Heb. 3:2-6: Undoubtedly Moses was, although certainly not perfect, one of the best examples of faithfulness from a sinful human being. But this verse and verse 5 almost seem to lift Moses to the same level of faithfulness as displayed by Jesus. In V. 6, the point of *contrast* (the distinction between them) becomes about the fact of *who Jesus is* (The Son) as opposed to His greater faithfulness. Certainly Jesus' faithfulness *is* much greater than that of Moses. Why is this comparison (as opposed to a contrast) being made between the faithfulness of Moses and the faithfulness of Jesus? | ||||||
4 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:23 | RWC | 231545 | ||
Again, to my question about whether this song is more about David or about Jesus, how could David possibly say this about himself? The same question could be asked about the next verse (v. 24). Surely David would never suggest that he was sinless (that he had never departed from God's statutes)! Would this passage (and large portions of this whole song) not be better understood as being about Jesus rather than about David? | ||||||
5 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:16 | RWC | 231544 | ||
Further to my questions about this song being more about David or about Jesus, when did David see or experience anything like this? Would this not perhaps be better understood as having application (fulfillment) at the end of time (as we know it)? | ||||||
6 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:12 | RWC | 231541 | ||
When did David experience this? Could this more legitimately be interpreted as a prediction of the darkness that occurred during the last three hours of the crucifixion? | ||||||
7 | God riding on an angel? | 2 Sam 22:11 | RWC | 231540 | ||
Why is God pictured here as riding on a cherub (an angel)? I can't think of anywhere else in the Scripture where this kind of language (description) is used. What is the significance of this (if any)? | ||||||
8 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:8 | RWC | 231538 | ||
When did this happen in David's life? Could this be more a predictive prophecy of the earthquake that occurred at the death of Jesus? | ||||||
9 | Is this about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:1 | RWC | 231537 | ||
Is this song really so much about David, or at least _just_ about him? I wonder if it isn't as much or more about Jesus than it is about David. For example, how could David say (about himself!) the words found in verses 21-25? It would be incredibly arrogant for any human besides Jesus to utter these words about themself, would it not? | ||||||
10 | Does 'veiled' mean 'not used'? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173852 | ||
You quote Barret as writing: "The danger comes when it is concluded that in the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity took on human nature AND gave up or lost some of the divine attributes -- such that Jesus was not fully divine." I would absolutely agree with that statement. But is it not possible for Jesus to have set aside *the use* of His attributes of divine nature? Is that not what Barret means when he writes (as you quoted him): "Christianity maintains that Jesus did not 'empty' himself of any of his divinity in the incarnation, although it is true that his divine attributes were veiled"? I would agree that these attributes were at all times in His possession, but that they were veiled (hidden) and that Jesus willing chose not to make use of them (with perhaps a very few purposeful exceptions) from the point of His conception until His resurrection. I am further suggesting that this is what this verse is talking about when it speaks of His humility in emptying Himself. |
||||||
11 | Glory not an attribute of divine nature? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173850 | ||
Is His divine and eternal glory not an attribute of His nature? I have not given it careful thought and study, but upon first reflection it seems to me that it is. And if it is, how is it that it is ok to say that He can "surrender" His glory without it affecting His full and complete diety, but not any of His other attributes of divine nature? (BTW, I think the word "surrender" would convey something different than "set aside" [the phrase I used in my post from several years ago] or "veiled" or "laid aside" [both used elsewhere in the article you quoted].) I hope I made it very clear in my original post and in the follow-up discussion that I am firmly convinced of the diety of Jesus: that He was, is, and always will be fully divine. The thought that I was trying to put forward for discussion was that He had "set aside (not used) most if not all of His" attributes of divine 'nature' (to be distinguished from 'character'). In making that suggestion, I would not for one second wish to imply that such action would somehow diminish our view of who Jesus really is. I am suggesting that Jesus set aside the use of the attributes of His divine nature (not character!) and made Himself wholly dependant upon the Holy Spirit from the time of His conception until the resurrection. I am further suggesting that His action of setting aside the use of those attributes does not mean that He was anything less than fully divine. So, to sum up, I suppose I am struggling most with this statement from the article you quoted: "To say that Jesus surrendered even one divine attribute is to say that Jesus is less than God, and therefore not God at all! See, if God is deprived of even one attribute, then He is not fully deity." If 'surrendered' and 'deprived' mean that these attributes were no longer in His possession, then I would agree with that statement. However, if that is what those words mean, this statement would not be fairly representing (or responding to) what I am suggesting. My suggestion is that Jesus *set aside* the use or function of those attributes (and this is what this verse is talking about by saying that He emptied Himself), not that these attributes were not His to be used had He at any moment chosen to do so. |
||||||
12 | Have I plagiarized someone? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173840 | ||
I'm sorry, I don't understand why you have replied to my message with this post. Have I plagiarized someone? If so, please explain. | ||||||
13 | Isn't the main point volition | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154021 | ||
Thank you for your prompt reply. First a comment for clarification, and then I have two questions, if I may. You wrote: "The uniqueness of men and angels is not their volition, their ability to choose; and the image of God in man is not the will." and... "So, the image of God is not the will, but rationality." First, for clarification, I did not mean to suggest that the image of God is _simply_ our volition. Rather, I was suggesting that our volition is what makes us distinct from the rest of the animal kingdom that God created. As I understand it, there are three basic attributes that God built into humans and angels that makes us "persons". Those attributes would be intellect, emotion, and will (volition). It is, as I understand it, the combination of these same attributes that makes us "in the image of God;" that is, that we are "persons" and the rest of the animal kingdom is not. It seems to me that all animals, to one degree or another, have God-given intellectual and emotional ability. But humans (and angels) are the only created beings that possess volitional ability, and are, therefore, the only beings that are morally accountable before God. First question: You wrote: "As the above quoted passages demonstrate, knowledge, not will, is the basis of responsibility." In all three of the passages that you quote as support for this conclusion (Ro. 1, Lk. 12, and Jms 4), the main point (the problem, the issue) is centered on volition not knowledge. The whole point being made in each case is not that the humans had (or did not have) knowledge, but that they did _act_ (choose) correctly based on that knowledge. Would these verses not rather be supportive of the view that volition is basis of our accountability before the Living God, not our knowledge (or lack of)? Second question: I am wondering if we have the same basic definitions for "understanding," "knowledge," "intelligence," and "rationality." I know that you were asked about your definitions once or twice in this discussion 4 years ago, but I am still not clear as to how you have conceptualized these things. Can you please explain to me how (why) the intellect that you seem to admit that animals have is different in "kind" (and not just "degree") from the intellect that humans (and angels) have? I do ackowledge differences of _degree_ in God-given intellectual abilities between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, and sometimes those differences are obviously vast. But it goes too far, it seems to me, to say (as I think you did in one of your previous posts) that humans have the ability to "think" and that no other animals can do that. If, however, you were to make that statement about volition rather than intellect, then I think it would be true. Does that not seem so to you? [yes, that is a third question... sorry] Have a good day! Bob |
||||||
14 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 153948 | ||
Although this discussion is now quite old, with only a couple of additional repsonses in the last several years, I would like to propose a different point of view for your response. I do not think that this concept is "mine" (unique to my way of thinking), but I did not see it in this discussion and I think it would be worthy of consideration. I do believe that angelic beings and human beings are to be considered as distinct from the rest of the animated beings that God has created. Angelic beings and human beings do have at least one characteristic that makes them different than the animals, but it is not their "rationality." I think it is their "will" (the ability to make choices of right and wrong). It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans and angels morally accountable and which keeps the rest of the animal kingdom outside of that accountability. It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans and angels fall into the category of "persons" and which disqualifies the rest of the animal kingdom from being thought of this way. It is this unique God-given ability that makes humans (and angels?) to be uniquely created "in the image of God." Does this point of view not fit better with both the larger picture presented in Scripture and with the reality of the world in which we live? |
||||||
15 | How do you reconcile them? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131873 | ||
Hi there, I have no problem with the fact that Jesus maintained a position of authority over Satan throughout His whole earthly life through the power of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Word of God, including the period of temptations in the wilderness. The question I was trying to ask is, "How are we to understand this verse that seems to say that God is untemptable when we have other verses that seem to say that God the Son was tempted?" How do you understand it? How do you put this verse together with verses like Heb 4:15 and Mt. 4:1? |
||||||
16 | 1. logic? 2. differences with Eng. tr.? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131872 | ||
Hello Doc, If I may sir, I have two questions from your post. If I sound like "I am not getting it," I guess it is because I'm not. Please be patient with me. Question 1: How does your logic work here? You wrote that: 1. We are commanded not to tempt God. 2. Christ was tempted. Christ is God. Therefore, God was tempted. and then you say: "These conclusions make it impossible for your friend's translation to stand." But it sounds to me like your points 1 and 2 are *exactly* what my friend is trying to get this verse to say (that is, that we are being commanded not to tempt or test God: "God ought not to be tempted")! I don't think there is anything wrong with the statement biblically or theologically. I just am questioning whether it stands up textually in this verse. Question 2: Are you suggesting that textually this verse is not saying that God is untemptable (sorry for the double-negative), but rather that God cannot be tempted to the point of giving into sin? That seemed to be the point being emphasized by the literal translation that you offered for this verse, especially in light of your acknowledgment that God can be tempted. And if that is true (if that is what you see being said and emphasized in the text of this verse), then why do you suppose that none of the major English translations have translated it that way? They all seem to emphasize that God is untemptable. I hope I am not testing your patience with my questions. I'm just trying to understand. I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me. |
||||||
17 | So you tr: "God ought not to be tempted" | James 1:13 | RWC | 131844 | ||
There is much in your note with which I would heartily agree, but I am not entirely clear about your understanding of the Greek meaning of this word as it pertains to God in this verse. You wrote, "there is a kind of tempting of God that is prohibited. That is the kind that tests His patience in the face of disobedience." Then you add, "James in this passage is talking about that kind of temptation." Are you then in agreement with my friend's suggested translation of this verse as "God ought not to be tempted" (ie. God can be temptable, but we are not do it) or are you more inclined to stay with the common translation of "God cannot be tempted" (ie. God is untemptable)? Either option, of course, leads to further questions. A large part of the confusion that this passages causes, it seems to me, comes from the fact that this Greek word can have quite different meanings: *testing* meaning as you said "to be scrutinized, examined, proven, tested, assayed" and *tempting* meaning again as you said, "trying to get someone to do wrong, especially by a promise of reward." That confusion is made all the greater because, it seems, that at different places even within the context of this one passage (James chapter 1), both meanings are intended by the use of this one word. |
||||||
18 | How do they go together? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131821 | ||
To answer your question first, I don't think that it should be translated any differently than it is commonly communicated in the major modern English versions. That translation was offered to me as a "possibly better" rendering of the text by someone whom I respect a great deal and who knows Greek far better than I (though he is no expert either and he would never suggest that he was). My guess is that he read a definition for apeirastos similar to the one you quoted (untried, that is, not temptable: not to be tempted) and then he grabbed on to the last part of the definition (not to be tempted) as a means to try to deal with this apparent contradiction. I told him at the time that I thought he was on pretty thin ice textually, but that I would think about it and research it a little. So that is where the Greek part of the question comes from. I still think he is on thin ice textually. I would like to ask you a question from your comments though. You wrote that "God cannot sin, so He cannot be tempted to sin." If that is true, exactly and litterally as you have put it, how do you understand verses and passages that say that Jesus was tempted (Mt. 4.1 and He. 4.15 for example)? |
||||||
19 | Greek help in translation anyone? | James 1:13 | RWC | 131785 | ||
Would the translation "God ought not to be tempted" be a more reasonable (or better) translation of the Greek in thsi verse instead of "God cannot be tempted"? Is there anyone out there with enough of a background in Greek to be able to offer a litle insight here? | ||||||
20 | Is His humanity a reasonable explanation | James 1:13 | RWC | 131784 | ||
Yes, I have heard the explanation that Christ was tempted in His humanity but not in His divinity. I find that explanation to be somewhat unsatisfying though. Yes, Jesus was and is fully human and fully divine. Those two natures were somehow brought into a single union; by this I mean that Jesus is and was one individual being. But by saying that Jesus was tempted as a human though not in His divinity, are we not then suggesting that there is a "division" between Jesus the Son of God and Jesus the Son of Man; that they are somehow two different entities? That certainly seems, to me at least, to be where that explanation leads, and that is not good place to go. Does the Commentary Critical to which you refer offer this explanation for Jas. 1.13? I don't know of this commentary so I can't check myself. I agree with you that there is a difference between being tempted and falling to that temptation. But that difference really doesn't come into play in understanding this verse, although it is certainly part of the context of the verse (cf. vv. 14-15). This verse, or at least the part I am asking about, says quite directly (in the modern English translations) that God cannot be tempted, not just that He cannot fall to temptation. The problem comes around though because we know (Mt. 4.1 and He. 4.15) that Jesus the eternal Son of God was tempted. What are we not understanding that makes this seem like a contradiction? |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |