Results 1 - 20 of 75
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Lowest Common Denominator | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 663 | ||
This is a difficult question to answer because it's hard to determine exactly what you're suggesting and what prompted the suggestion. Is this a reaction or response to something that was said on the list, or simply a general suggestion that we should not take the Bible too literally or too seriously in judging the merit of theological "truths"? If this is a reaction to someone dismissing a biblically orthodox view based on their interpretations, I would agree that we should practice humility in recognizing our fallibility (as well as that of Calvin, Luther, Arminius, Wesley, etc.). However, if you're suggesting that (in the name of tolerance and good will) we ignore contrary arguments or retreat from using Biblical texts to test someone's theological claims, I think you're way off base. When (you or) I find that my (or my most respected theologian's) understanding disagrees with God, I need to have the humility to acknowledge that He is infallible (and therefore correct) and that we are fallible (and therefore wrong). Likewise, if you and I agree to usurp the authority of Scripture and place our own sensibilities over those of the Scriptures, we have rejected the only authoritative source by which to test doctrine. We become "like the surf of the sea, driven and tossed by the wind" and simply go after the doctrines that "tickle our ears" most. This is anathema to the discovery of Truth; this would be futile and foolish. | ||||||
2 | Is God responsible for evil? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 673 | ||
There is room for a wide range of interpretation on what is meant by the "sovereignty" of God -- particularly in the realm of the degree in which he chooses to exercise his power and authority; many great theologians more learned than I am have traced doctrines throughout the Scriptures on this, but I would like to make a few observations from Romans 8 and 9 that do much to resolve this without delving too deeply into the fray. First of all, Romans 8:28-30 declares that we can be confident of God overseeing all (as an entire synergistic whole) that enters the life of each one who loves him to his or her good. He specifically confirms that this is "because" he first foreknew those who would love him then predestined us to be conformed to the image of his son. It is this predestination (to conformity to Christ) of those whom he foreknew that he uses to sovereignly direct the overall entirety of what comes into our lives. In addition, those whom God thus predestines, he then calls, then justifies, then finally glorifies. Another sense in which we see God exercising his sovereignty is in his endurance of "vessels of wrath prepared for destruction" as in Romans 9:22. One solid interpretation (among others) is that God knows that their end is destruction prior to their (or any of their ancestors') creation but(contrary to the human wisdom of many parents who exercise their power to terminate the life of an unwanted or imperfect pregnancy, or who might if they knew in advance that the child would be a criminal) God does not choose to exercise his sovereignty by refusing their existence. He allows them to be made, live, rebel, blaspheme any and all loving conviction of his Spirit, and finally go on to the "destruction" that they will and do thus bring upon themselves. These examples of God's exercise of his divine sovereignty give partial indication of both his attitude toward evil (something to be temporarily endured and then destroyed) and his deliberate limitation of its ability to prevent the spiritual growth of his children. There is much more to say, but this is already a long posting. |
||||||
3 | AGE OF ACCOUNTIBILITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 681 | ||
To my knowledge, there is no command that a certain age be considered the age at which someone is held accountable for his or her sin. The only place I know of where God divided by age and punished by age was in Numbers (14:28-30 and 32:10-12), after the spies brought back an evil report and the people violently rejected the faithful report of Joshua and Caleb. All men 20 years old and older, except for Joshua and Caleb who had been faithful, were condemned to perish in the wilderness and forbidden from entering God's rest. I know of no precedent after this, however, for setting this up as some kind of legal age of accountability before or after the time of Israel's rebellion in the desert. | ||||||
4 | What would be considered the age? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1021 | ||
So far as I know, there is no explicit age given at which all children have developed the ability (and, therefore, must be held fully responsible) to choose between right and wrong. However, Isaiah's prophecy about the virgin birth contains a reference to a time "before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good" -- which indicates there is some point at which the person reaches this "knowledge". The age of 20 years old chosen by God is surely higher than this for most if not all people, and (as pointed out by JVH0212) there is Jewish tradition that treats the age of 13 as a special kind of ascent into responsibility under the law. Neither of these has the authority of a Scriptural command or universal precedent at setting that age. However, God has placed us under ruling authorities, such as governments (see Romans 13:1f and 1 Peter 2:12ff). Governments typically have standard ages of permission and responsibility, which are applied to their subjects; we are under their jurisdiction here. Finally, while parents are responsible for training up children, God does not judge them for the iniquity of their children. The clearest explanation of this is in Ezekiel 18, and I suggest reading the entire chapter. If being a good parent guaranteed faithful children, then God's children would never have rebelled, rjected him and fallen in the first place. God is our perfect example as a parent; yet he has many wayward children. Furthermore, the majority part of humanity has has gone so far as to reject his fatherhood altogether. |
||||||
5 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1342 | ||
Romans 8:29ff gives a clear sequence of conditions and actions on God's behalf toward those who love him (see Romans 8:28). This sequence begins clearly with some kind of foreknowledge and then progresses through predestination (that we be conformed to Christ), calling, justification and finally glorification. I have never known of anyone to question the sequence here of all the others (predestination then calling then justification then glorification). However, some force foreknowledge to somehow be assigned a secondary sequence to predestination (something like "He simply knew that he had predestined us.") This seems a very forced reading of the text, as opposed to the clear natural reading of sequence from start to finish. Nevertheless, this passage does NOT indicate exactly what he foreknew about us (just as the passages on predestination do NOT mention faith), and Ephesians 1 (along with various other passages) clearly indicates that predestination (to various things, but not necessarily to belief itself) happened "before the foundation of the world". Therefore, all of this (along with the decision for the Son to sacrifice himself for us) took place in the mind of the Father prior to Adam's existence. One view, attributed to Jacob Arminius (whether this is fully accurate or not) in his questioning of the full accuracy of Calvin's (and moreso Beza's) statements that "there was nothing foreknown prior to predestinating us" is that God foreknew OUR RESPONSE OF FAITH. This is a possible explanation, but seems at odds with the most obvious reading of Ephesians 2:8-9 -- that faith itself is a gift of God (one way of interpreting Ephesians 2:8-9). I lean somewhat toward this view, but I'm not clear whether the gift of the salvation process (of Ephesians 2:8-9) INCLUDES the gift of faith or simply uses faith as the avenue "through" which salvation is given. On the basis of the unforgiveable sin being "blasphemy against the Spirit" -- I would question whether the Spirit chooses to act in an irrestible manner, as the Council of Dort (perhaps more accurately rendered the "Inquisition" of Dort?) suggested. I would argue that there is a point at which a person's heart must be broken by the persistent conviction of the Holy Spirit, and that God works faith in the heart of the one who is thus broken. God knows whether a person's heart is so deeply arrogant (I can't say rebellious, as all of us were at one time completely rebellious against God until after he broke our hearts through his loving conviction) that he or she will finally reject him from any further conviction and completely by his persisten initiation -- veritably slamming the door in the Spirit's face once and for all. I would welcome any input on this, as any understanding must be tested against the Scripture and God's Word (rather than current understanding) be given precedence. This is already long, but I feel the need for a little more elaboration, so that responders and reactors can understand me as fully as possible before offering questions or challenges. I believe the primary sacrifice that we can offer to God at any time is a kind of imperfect "humility" or "poverty of Spirit" (for lack of other Scriptural phrases that immediately come to mind) -- without which no one will ever see the kingdom of heaven. Even grace, it seems, can be affected by humility versus pride. "For God is opposed to the proud but gives GRACE to the humble [emphasis mine]." |
||||||
6 | where do blacks come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1343 | ||
We are all descended from Noah and his sons, at least on the male side. We don't know the skin color of Noah, his wife, his sons or his sons' wives. The Bible is loudly silent with regard to any importance whatsoever being placed upon general skin color. (The only references that I'm aware of deal with leprosy or other skin conditions, not the skin's natural melanin content.) The only divisions (so far as I know) that God touches on (other than gender, which is related to completion, fellowship and procreation) in the Scriptures are related to language, genealogy, and beliefs -- with no general distinctions made based on skin color. Furthermore, Biblical Christianity requires a loving transcendence even of these distinctions -- EXCEPT BELIEF. Faith alone determines our salvation and joint (not individual) adoption into Christ's family as his brothers, sisters and heirs. There are brothers and sisters "from every tongue and tribe and nation" worshipping eternally at the throne of God. |
||||||
7 | what were the 7 Messianic signs | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1465 | ||
Do the Scriptures clearly indicate somewhere that there were precisely 7 Messianic signs or miracles that only the Messiah could fulfill? This is the first I've heard of such a Biblical prophecy of 7 signs, but I'm interested in hearing what Bible passage you may be referring to. The only reference to 7 signs I'm aware of was a movie called, "The Seventh Sign," which I was unfortunate enough to see a few years ago. That movie had virtually nothing to do with the Scriptures. Please tell me this isn't what you're referring to. |
||||||
8 | How can we assist our youth? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2092 | ||
Any congregation (and any denomination) needs to assess its priorities. I was strongly impressed by a recent newsletter I received from a cross-cultural missionary whose team is looking into their recruitment strategies, since these will limit or extend the kinds of people they will attract and minister to. I believe it's important for the church as a whole not to target certain groups and leave others out. Although it's natural to build larger programs for groups with wider representation within the congregation (responding to present needs), this can neglect the importance of outreach, proclamation and disciptleship of those whom God brings to us. The natural progression of such mere reaction to present needs is an ingrown church that declines after the present generation. |
||||||
9 | What unmarried sexual acts are sinful? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2377 | ||
"... but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you.... If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you...." Matthew 5:28-30 The issue is not primarily one of action alone but one of willful inclination, attitude and thought. Just as pusuing adulterous thoughts equals adultery, pursuing thoughts about intercourse outside of marriage equals fornication. Likewise, willfully placing oneself in a position of temptation and-or stimulation of sexual hunger is sin. I can not claim to be without sin in this regard. However, that doesn't change the gravity of the act. We are to "flee immorality" even above other sins (1 Cor 6:18) and to "flee from youthful lusts" (2 Tim 2:22). Of course there is forgiveness for the person who has already foolishly done this and repentantly comes to God seeking transformation (1 Jn 1:9); You (like myself or any other repentant sinner who comes humbly to Christ in confession and repentance) are currently purified from past sins. However, this is never an excuse for deliberately moving away from God by going down the road of chosen disobedience and pursuit of temptation (Gal 5:13). God gives grace to deliver us from naturally occurring temptations, but this includes waiting expectantly for the way of escape and taking it as soon as it becomes available (1 Cor 10:13). The best route is always to avoid temptation. There is no simple set of rules of conduct as to what is safe and what is not. The effect on the conscience and the pusuit of the excitement of temptation is not identical for everyone, and it's easy to rationalize away the sins that others can't see. Based on reports of my own and others' personal experience, I'm convinced that it is specifically the stimulation of this "sexual enticement and excitement" (either in oneself or in one's partner) that makes most (physical or fantasized) out-of-wedlock sexual contact attractive. As an additional note, seeking to stimulate urges in another is no less sinful than doing it in oneself. "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come! It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea, than that he would cause one of these little ones to stumble. Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him." (Luke 17:1-3). This passage also assumes close enough relationships with brothers as to allow accountability; this is a big help in such situations. Be careful to seek counsel from people with holy and repentant lives and not to look for counsel that merely affirms the decisions you are considering; this is not a natural thing to do when facing appealing temptations. Take heart. Holiness is a blessing, not a curse, and God has provided access to all you need for long-term and lasting victory. " No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. 1 Corinthians 10:13 |
||||||
10 | "is" italicized or not italicized? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2927 | ||
Maybe it was a typo in the original edition. That would seem to me to be the most logical answer. I know there have been a number of typos in well-respected translations (including the several original revisions of the KJV). With all those extra words, the Amplified would be much more likely to have uncaught typos than most other translations. |
||||||
11 | Wise Debate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3083 | ||
I think this is a great question, and I'd like to leave some suggestions in case Longman is watching this question for input. First, it would be wise for Lockman to have some responsible, knowledgeable and respected people (either from their own staff or from among publicly recognized experts who would be willing to be counted upon to participate voluntarily) watching the list -- as well as someone to administrate by delegating questions to these watchers to see that all questions were covered. I don't believe it would be necessary to publicly identify these watchers as representatives of Lockman, and Lockman may already have some on the list. Perhaps they should have a "future" list to draw from as the numbers of questions and-or participants increase. These "watchers" could simply join in on the discussion whenever a question was left unanswered and-or answered incompletely or unbiblically. This would serve to help people get solid answers without shutting down participation. While I'm less concerned if there are some "bad" answers in the postings, it is definitely disconcerting when someone's careful question is left without an answer or when I dig for a question that I saw previously only to find that it disappeared without being completely answered or with only an answer that may be really way out there. This seems to happen very rarely, and there do seem to be people who try to watch the list to prevent this. It should probably be broadened and or (if not currently in practice) initiated more deliberately (behind the scenes) by the hosts themselves. I agree with others' suggestions that it would probably not be appropriate to filter postings before placing them on the forum. However, it would be helpful to have some official direction and intervention from Lockman (rather than simply members from among us who may at times appear to be self-appointed rule-makers whether they are truly self-appointed or not) regarding preferred methods of hermeneutics, netiquette, and such. It may also be helpful for certain gracious administrators to privately contact individuals for correction, as long as users are notified of this practice BEFORE it starts (and new users at the time of registration). In addition, I think it would be helpful for us to try and direct our replies to the person who asked the initial question and simply refer to previous postings. That way, the person who actually posted the question would be aware of the responses (assuming he or she had requested automatic notification of answers). Finally, it may be necessary or helpful to archive questions and their answers after a certain period of time (particularly as the list grows, and it becomes difficult to "watch" late additions to old questions to make sure that twisted theology isn't slipped in to the questioner with no corrective response after the guards are down. The official "watcher" (or watchers) for the question could briefly summarize or make final comments under a different officially-recognized Lockman name before archiving them. |
||||||
12 | why is masterbation a sin. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3558 | ||
but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you.... If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you...." Matthew 5:28-30 This is simply a short(?) excerpt from a longer response to an earlier question from "searchingfortruth" on 4/3 (which may be the same question that "prayon" referred to earlier). I'd suggest looking over several of the many responses to that question, which were insightful and helpful. The issue is not primarily one of action alone but one of willful inclination, attitude and thought. Just as pusuing adulterous thoughts equals adultery, pursuing thoughts about intercourse outside of marriage equals fornication. Likewise, willfully placing oneself in a position of temptation and-or stimulation of sexual hunger is sin. It is difficult for me to conceive of deliberate contact (e.g. masturbation) resulting in orgasm as unaccompanied by some form of fantasizing or pursuit of temptation. I can not claim to be without sin in this regard. However, that doesn't change the gravity of the act. We are to "flee immorality" even above other sins (1 Cor 6:18) and to "flee from youthful lusts" (2 Tim 2:22). (As a side note, I would consider this to be very different from "wet dreams" -- which are often a natural release not directly related to any deliberate pursuit of temptation on the part of the individual prior to going to sleep. They may be irritating and unpleasantly messy, and the lack of control of one's thought may feel disturbing and "dirty", but I believe this is often a false guilt.) |
||||||
13 | Is Entire Sanctification Scriptural? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 7554 | ||
An excellent source would be the compilation of Wesley's writing on the topic of "Christian Perfection" and "Entire Sanctification" that you can find at the following URL. http:\\www.whatsaiththescripture.com\Fellowship\Wesley.Christian.Perfectio.html Within the the denominations and independent churches that seek to pursue Wesley's desire for "entire sanctification" -- there is a significant variance in understanding and explanation, but this article is from Wesley's own writings. He quotes the Scriptures extensively in this piece to guide his explanations. My understanding is that passages and verses such as Luke 14:25ff and Matthew 6:24-Luke 16:14, Romans 12:1f, etc. give the clearest indication of what Wesley meant by entire sanctification. It is not a condition of sinless perfection or an ability to set aside the flesh completely. Rather it is a state or condition of being fully set apart, not only positionally by God but in one's own heart and will -- a condition in which (by the Spirit's empowerment) nothing is allowed by the will to compete with God for allegiance. While there is great disagreement among those who have the pursuit of "holiness" as one of their central guiding principles -- I believe Wesley seems fairly clear in his own (later) writings that any state of "entire sanctification" can be lost and regained without at all affecting salvation itself. I believe Wesley would interpret 1 Corinthians 10:13 as a very real possibility for the true Christian at any given time and not simply a worthy but unattainable goal. This is an important part of the doctrine of many churches, as are other secondary doctrines for others. You do well to consider whether you could commit yourself to a long-term affiliation with such doctrine before you step into a new pastoral role. It is important that you follow your own conscience before God and not that of Wesley or any other great theologian -- since none of them are in full agreement about everything. (At least they weren't in agreement while in the flesh; Wesley and Whitefield, Lloyd-Jones and G. Campbell Morgan, Luther and Calvin, and others are surely in strong personal agreement now on many such matters that they disagreed upon before they entered God's presence without their fleshly limitations.) It's difficult to trace exactly what Wesley believed, as his "Wesleyan Quadrilateral" approach to doctrine resulted in his doctrine(s) being repeatedly revisited and retested by the Scriptures (maintaining the Scriptures as the supreme authority) makes it difficult to lock in on his final definitions of many concepts. Wesley was not a systematic theologian (most of whom also maintain the Scriptures as the supreme authority) who kept past conclusions on secondary doctrines as fixed and foundational -- immutable due to the height and width of subsequent doctrines built upon them. His views on secondary doctrines were somewhat more malleable -- for better or for worse. In brotherly encouragement, Brent |
||||||
14 | IS MICHAEL AND JESUS THE SAME PERSON? | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 37490 | ||
This is a valuable question to consider and look at carefully in the Scriptures because it is a point of doctrine common to some cults and is a sign of danger when encountered in teaching. 1) No, Michael and Christ are definitely NOT the same person. Michael is one of the archangels, and Christ is greater than the angels. The angels of God worship Him. (Hebrews 1:6). This concept of linking Michael and Christ has been an attractive idea to some who seek to expand beyond the Scriptures to some "deeper" understanding, and it seems to be a repeated tendency among cults of different ages (Jehovah's Witnesses, for example). Be very wary of any group or teacher who comes to you with this suggestion, and go to the Scriptures directly to test it. There are numerous references to Michael as one of the angels, and specifically as an archangel -- or one of the chief princes among the angels. For example, the angel speaking with Daniel in Daniel 10-12 refers to Michael as "one of the chief princes" (Daniel 10:13), and identifies Michael as the archangel specifically assigned to watch over the nation of Israel (Daniel 12:1). Some actually argue that the one speaking to Daniel in chapters 10-12 is the pre-incarnate Christ. The speaker refers to Michael in the third person as a prince who fights alongside him in battle. Regardless of the identity of the messenger, Michael is clearly identified by him as simply an archangel and not God. As already pointed out by srbaegon, Michael did not dare pronounce a railing judgment against Satan in Jude verse 9 either. God the Son would have no problem pronouncing judgment if He so decided to do. Michael and Satan are archangels, one faithful and the other fallen. Michael is not the judge of Satan. Finally, again in Revelation 12 Michael is identified as the leader of an army of angels who defend Israel against Satan and his army of angels. He is again portrayed as the faithful counterpart to the fallen Satan. (Rev 12:1-9). In contrast, Christ is carefully distinguished from all the angels in Hebrews 1 and elsewhere as being unique and unlike any of the angels. He is "the radiance of [God's] glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power." (Hebrews 1:3) 2) The Angel of the Lord, on the other hand, is God. He receives worship (Judg 13:20), is referred to by Himself and others interchangeably as God Himself (Gen 22:12; Exodus 3; Judg 2:1-4; Judg 6:22; etc.), and conversation with Him is treated as conversation with God (Genesis 16:10-13). It is reasonable to assume that He is the pre-incarnate Christ, since their qualifications match and their roles can be seen as parallel (One "The Messenger of God" and the other The eternal "Word"), and this is a common assumption among the experts whom I've read. I believe there are earlier threads to search related to the identity of the "Angel of the Lord," where additional passages are cited and better clarification is offered. |
||||||
15 | How long were years of Noah's life? | OT general | Brent Douglass | 150 | ||
There's no reason to assume the length of a year was any different, although this forces the question of how Noah (and virtually everyone who is mentioned as living before him) could have lived such (incredibly?) long lives. The most common (and reasonable) explanation I know of is that the earth's climate was completely changed by the flood. - Gen. 1:6-9 indicates that there were 2 "waters" associated with the earth, which were separated by air. Gen. 7:11-12 indicates that BOTH the springs from under the earth and the "gates of heaven" were poured out onto the earth. If these "waters above the earth" (or the "firmament" as they are often referred to) were a thick water-like protection of vapor (perhaps similar to a thick ozone with some kind of gaseous barrier holding it in place over the earth), it would function as a sort of terrarium, keeping out the harmful solar rays that significantly increase aging. - Increasing disease no doubt affected lifespans, as well, but there is an extreme drop in age immediately after the flood, which is most reasonably attributable to a major change in climate caused by the flood. - There is no mention of rain falling prior to the flood, and it's very possible that the method of watering described in the Garden of Eden in Genesis 2:5-6, 10 (water flowing out from underground and dew covering the surface) remained until the time of the flood. |
||||||
16 | where did God come from? | OT general | Brent Douglass | 13821 | ||
It sounds like your son's basic question is, "Who or what is God, and how can we know?" First of all, I agree that we have to be careful not to create a definition for God. However, the Christian Scriptures make no claims to be the philosophizing of man in trying to define God; rather they are the revelation of God and truth FROM GOD HIMSELF. Therefore, what is stated there carries the full weight of truth. One aspect of God's revelation of Himself is that He uses personal language and expression, repeatedly identifying Himself as a personal being, NOT as an impersonal force. The Scriptures repeatedly represent God as relating to His creatures in a personally active way. He also consistently portrays Himself as relating and reasoning personally within Himself (both before and after creation). The Scriptures clearly do not present God as an impersonal force but as an infinite and personal being Who desires to know and communicate with His creatures. Others can probably provide better Scriptural support for this. I'd be glad to give it, but I have to go back and review my previous study and research first, since I don't have those resources immediately at my disposal. Hopefully others will jump in and give you this more quickly than I can. This leads to a further question of how to test the authority of the Scriptures. There are many excellent books written that present the tests available to prove that the Scriptures of the Bible are truly supernatural revelations from God that are without error in their original content. There is absolutely no comparing any other so-called "Scriptures" with the tests that prove the authority of the Bible; it stands alone. |
||||||
17 | dinasaurs? did they exist? | OT general | Brent Douglass | 39099 | ||
Welcome, Strongfellow, and welcome to the family. The Institute for Creation Research -- at www.icr.org -- the organization suggested in Hank's previous posting, is an excellent reference for information on Creation Research. They come from a decidedly "young earth" creation standpoint and are very solid. Another "young-earth" group with lots of dinosaur information is Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism -- www.drdino.com. This group probably has the most extensive presentation specifically related to dinosaurs. Finally, Dr. Hugh Ross and the researchers at "Reasons to Believe" -- www.reasons.org -- have some excellent input from an "old-earth" creationist perspective. The old earth and young earth creationists sometimes disagree strongly on interpretation of the possible meaning(s) of the Hebrew work "yowme" used for "day" in Genesis 1 (for each of the 6 creation days separately) and in Genesis 2:4 (referring to all 6 days as a whole). However, both groups fully affirm the accuracy of the Scriptural account and the creation (rather than evolution) of plants, animals, and mankind. There is an in-house debate among them as brothers and sisters in Christ, and together they can refer you to many excellent resources that help to investigate the wonder and certainty of creation. |
||||||
18 | It is a general argument among believers | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2088 | ||
My understanding is that this is primarily an argument between the Roman Catholic Church and the rest of Christianity. I believe there was once a Papal decree regarding the perpetual virginity of Mary. I may be mistaken in this, but the staunchness with which the view is consistently defended leads me to think otherwise. If I'm mistaken in this, someone please correct me quickly and publicly. I don't know of any other reason whatsoever for interpreting away the existence of Jesus' brothers and sisters here or elsewhere. (I'm just coming back to the list after leaving to consider how to be more careful not to offend unnecessarily, and I'm already setting myself up to offend any Catholic brothers and sisters on the list. However, I felt this question merited an answer.) Since the Pope is considered incapable of error when speaking in his capacity of making doctrinal declarations, such a decree can not be reversed without compromising the doctrine of Papal infallibility. Such doctrines become foundational as a part of any future Roman Catholic systematic theology. As a result, Roman Catholics who affirm the Scriptures need to bring a different reading to anything indicating that Mary and Joseph ever had sexual relations. This creates a number of problems for them or anyone else who agrees with this view. 1) Let me give several examples of problematic issues? What about direct references to Jesus' brothers and sisters (as you pointed out)? Well, there must be an alternate explanation searched out and explained. Cousins is the only potentially defensible possiblity that fits with the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity (although it requires consistent rejection of the most obvious and natural readings of several texts); therefore, it is embraced. 2) What about the guidelines for husbands and wives not to deprive one another of sexual relations (1 Cor 7:3-5)? I have no idea what is done to make Mary exempt from this command as Joseph's wife (Matthew 1:24). 3) Doesn't Matthew 1:24-25 indicate that Joseph and Mary pursued normal marital relations after Jesus was born? Roman Catholics (and anyone else who comes to this verse assuming the perpetual virginity of Mary) must interpret this to be an odd way of introducing their sexual abstention as an ongoing (rather than a temporary) condition. I have heard Roman Catholic apologists compare the use of "until" in Matthew 1:25 to Luke 20:43 and Acts 2:45 (to the Son being at the right hand of the Father "until" the Father has made his enemies into his footstool). |
||||||
19 | Whatever happened to Joseph?? | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3419 | ||
Hank's concise earlier response pretty much answers this. I would simply add some of the logical observational basis for the common assumption that Joseph died before Jesus began his public ministry -- based on when the Scriptures do and don't say about Joseph. 5 observations are included below, which I believe indicate that Joseph died some time between Jesus' 12th birthday and the beginning of his public ministry. 1) Joseph appears in Matthew and Luke (particularly in Matthew, where Joseph's involvement is a primary focus) at the time of Jesus' birth. Matthew 1:19 specifically identifies Joseph as "being a righteous man." 2)Luke 3:23 and 4:22 identify Joseph as being the pulicly assumed and recognized father of Jesus (and 4:22 gives the indication that this reflected positively upon both of them, as they were all "speaking well of" Jesus at the time). 3) Luke 2:23 and following shows that Mary and Joseph regularly celebrated the Passover in Jerusalem and that both parents were with Jesus when he went up to Jerusalem at the age of 12. 4) The trip to Jerusalem at age 12 is the last mention of Joseph's active involvement with Jesus, and nothing at all from that time until the beginning of Jesus' public ministry is mentioned. The specific events of the (approximately 20 years of) interim are not apparently significant enough to the central message(s) of the Gospel to be included in the Scriptures (or available written history for that matter). 5) John 19:26,27 indicates that Jesus asked John to take responsibility for caring for Mary's welfare now that Jesus was gone and that John responded by taking her into his household from that day forth. (The logical implication of this is that Mary was a widow whose remaining children were not of sufficient age to care for her properly. This is an interpretation, but it's the only logical interpretation I've heard for this interchange on the cross. For further explanation of the guidelines and importance of caring for widows, see Acts 6:1-6 and 1 Tim 5:2-3,14-16). |
||||||
20 | Age between John the Baptist and Jesus | NT general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 3548 | ||
Luke 1:24-26,36 confirms that "Elizabeth was in her 6th month" when the angel appeared to Mary, so John was at least 5 months older than Jesus, since Jesus' conception was still in the future tense when the angel revealed this to Mary (Luke 1:31,35). We don't know at exactly what point the Holy Spirit came upon Mary to conceive Jesus, but it would appear from Elizabeth's greeting in Luke 1:42 that Jesus was already growing in Mary's womb when she arrived at Elizabeth's home. Six months, as DiVash already indicated, is probably a very close estimate. (For a little bit broader context related to the timing of these events, look at Luke 1:24-57.) | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |