Results 1 - 20 of 217
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Jesusman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | sin | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 194343 | ||
It's influenced by the modern philosophy of today's society. In today's society, there is no such thing as absolutes. There is the majority, and there is relativism. Basically, it's not what's wrong decreed by God, but what is wrong by what the majority of society says. An example of this is Spanking. 30 years ago, spanking was a legitimate form of punishing your child. Even the Bible, in proverbs, speaks about spanking a child and even encourages it. However, If you spank a child now, you are brought up on charges of child abuse and sentanced by law. The majority of society felt it to be wrong. Another example is Homosexuality. Leviticus and Romans both describe the act of homosexuality and declares it to be wrong. Yet, in today's society, the Majority of society has said that it is not wrong. By talking about the reality and consequences of sin, you are talking about the absolute truth about what is wrong and what is not according to the standard set by God. It takes the power of deciding right and wrong out of the hands of Society and places it back into the hands of God where it belongs. It basically reminds people that the power they have is only imaginary. It is one thing to be innocent in the eyes of the laws of society. It is something entirely different to be innocent in the eyes of God. The thought of being innocent in the eyes of society, yet guilty in the eyes of God scares people ... alot. Jesus loves you, Jesusman |
||||||
2 | what is the book of the covenant | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 194751 | ||
Depends on which covenant you are talking about. The Edenic, Adamic, and Abrahamic Covenants are in Genesis. The Mosaic Covenant is in Exodus. Palestinian Covenant is in 2 samuel, I think. The Messianic is in Isaiah, and the New Covenant is the New Testimant. Jesusman |
||||||
3 | difference in Lord and LORD | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 194753 | ||
Most of them will tell you in the front, but one version is the use of YHVH, the Holy Name of God, and the other is using other terms for God. I think LORD is the use of YHVH. Jesusman |
||||||
4 | difference in Lord and LORD | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 194831 | ||
By other terms for God, I mean ones like El, Elohim, Adonai, and the like. Jesusman |
||||||
5 | Why is wisdom referred to as HER? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 194919 | ||
Usually it has to do with the language. Both Hebrew and Greek, as with many languages, have gender. Hebrew has masculine and feminine gender, and greek has masculine, feminine and neutral gender. Although, I don't have my reference books at hand at the moment, I'm nearly certain that the word translated as "wisdom" has a feminine gender, which is why its called "her". Another word like this would be the word translated as "Church" in the New Testament. Its also feminine in the Greek, and described as a woman in the texts. Jesusman |
||||||
6 | halloween | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 195329 | ||
Greetings, For a long time, I was much the same way. I refused to participate with Holloween with the belief that evil was being promoted and celebrated. In many ways, I still believe that. However, what changed my view was a church I once belonged to that had a fair on Holloween for the children, but also a church wide celebration the next night, on November 1st. It was then that the history behind Holloween was presented to me. Holloween, or all hollows eve, was a night to ward off evil spirits in preparation of All Saints Day, a day to celebrate the lives and sacrifices of the Saints. The pastor began by dressing up as a christian saint he admired, and told of the saint's life, then other teachers and deacons would do something similar. I learned more about the christian saints that day than I ever did any other time. The children had a fun time also with various games and such based around period games. Although something was done on Holloween, it was the next day where the real celebration took place. Jesusman |
||||||
7 | What is dispensationalists? | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 195421 | ||
Greetings, Dispensationalists divide the Bible into 7 ages. It has a strong influence in the Baptist church. 1) Genesis 1:28 Innocence 2) Genesis 3:7 Conscience 3) Genesis 8:15 Human Government 4) Genesis 12:1 Promise 5) Exodus 19:1 Law 6) Acts 2:1 Church 7) Revelation 20:4 Kingdom Jesusman |
||||||
8 | Jesus unheard of in the old testament!!! | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 195583 | ||
Greetings, I enjoy topics like these. Cause it shows the stupidity of skeptics. First off, There is more than one single passage in the Old Testament about the Massiah. One of my personal Favorites is in Micah. I love the book of Micah, because it lays out like a time line. Chapter one predicts the fall of Israel and Judah. Chapter two predicts the period of exhile in babylon. Chapter three speaks of a period of darkness from God. A time when he won't speak to the prophets. This fits perfectly with the 400 years between the testiments. Chapters 4 predicts the coming of peace in the land, which can be the Pax Romana, or peace of the Roman Empire. Chapter 5 talks about the Messiah himself. I could go on and lay out the rest of the book of Micah, but this is enough to prove my first point. Micah was living during the same time as the Prophets Isaiah and Hosea. They were the earliest of the Prophets. Micah predicts the events of the fall of Judah and Israel. He predicts the 400 years between the testiments. He predicts the peace under the roman empire. He predicts the coming Christ. He lays it out perfectly in a concise time line. Second, he claims that Jesus is a fabrication. If so, then he is one hell of a fabrication. There are roman manuscripts confirming the existance of Jesus, where he was born, that he died of crucifixion, and that there was no body after the Crucifixion. You also have confirmed accounts of the first church members willing to die over this so called fabrication. NO man is willing to die over a lie, let alone the untold number of martyrs during the first century. There are reputable modern day historians who will hail the Gospel writers as being Historically accurate. Dr. Luke specifically has been hailed the most accurate historian of the 1st century. It has been said that there is more historical and archeological support for the life and existance of Jesus Christ, than there is combined evidence to prove that Socrates, Plato, and Alexander the Great even lived. Jesus was a real person. Anyone who denies that is a moron. Third, he says that Paul never knew Jesus. Paul was a pharisee. And given the time that Paul had his encounter, he would have known who Jesus was and what Jesus taught just as well as the Diciples. Paul talks and names Jesus time and time again through out his epistles. He knew Jesus. Fourth, He claims that the Bible has inconsistancies about the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Not true. You have the same story told by 4 different people. One is speaking to Jews, one is speaking to Gentiles, one is speaking about a hero, and another is speaking about his best friend. All four are speaking about the same man. To expect the gospel writers to all say the exact same thing about an event, and include the same exact information is rediculous. The facts are all present and consistant. One will add a tidbit that the other 3 don't. Big deal!! Again, he's being a moron. He talks about some things being left out of local history. Well DUH!!! Matthew 28:11-15 tells you that the High Priests told the soldiers to lie. They covered it up. This guy reminds me of the type who knows his version of the truth, and doesn't want to be confused with facts. The facts are there staring him in the face. Jesusman |
||||||
9 | How many Christians | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 195742 | ||
I would be just as easy to count the number of grains of sand on the beach. Jesusman |
||||||
10 | death and spirits | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 196425 | ||
Greetings, The teaching of soul sleep, that the soul is asleep in the grave until the coming of the Christ cannot be fully supported by the Bible. It's only true support is Jesus's comments while resurrecting Lazarus. The counters to this is the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus, who are both to be dead at the time and both in their respective places of the afterlife. Also you have Jesus's comments to the thief on the cross. "Today, you will be with me in paradise." He didn't say that he'll be with Jesus in a few hundred centuries after sleeping in the grave. As for life after death appearences to loved ones, There is some biblical support, but not much. One that comes to mind is Samuel's spirit being summoned. Also the appearences of Jesus. However, it's a controversal point. My personal take is that I don't reject it, but I don't support it either. When I read and hear about such events, I don't try to argue over it. jesusman |
||||||
11 | Why do people say this when in all actua | Bible general Archive 4 | Jesusman | 199118 | ||
How do you explain John chapter 3? The statement that Jesus was sent to preach the Word is self defeating. John chapter 1 tells us that the "Word" is Jesus himself. Are you saying that Jesus was sent to preach about himself? Also, what does the "Word" or the "Gospel" include? It includes the events leading up to and including the Death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as well as the motivation behind it, hence for Jesus to die for our Sins. Now, back to my initial question. John chapter 3, specifically verses 16 - 18, comes right out and tells us that the purpose behind Jesus coming was to save the world. Now, for your last comment/question about God not truly sending anyone to die for our sins. I refer you to the Gospel according to Matthew, chapter 16, verses 21 - 23. Jesus foretells his death. Peter opens his mouth and says "God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to you!" Jesus replies back, and rebukes Peter by saying "Get behind me, Satan." Such talk about Jesus not coming from God, or coming to save our sins, but coming for other purposes are nothing more than Satan trying to decieve. In closing, I refer you to 1 John, chapter 4. To sum up this passage, Don't believe everything you come across, hear, or read, or are told by those claiming to be from God. Instead, John tells us to put those claims to the test. That test is to compare what they teach about Jesus to the written Word. If they confess Jesus as being sent from God, and sens to be the payment of our sins, then they are from God. Those sent by God will teach and live and work through Love, because God is the originator of Love. Jesus coming to us, in the flesh, was because of God's Love. Jesus Loves you. Jesusman |
||||||
12 | Why the NKJV over the NASB ? | Bible general Archive 3 | Jesusman | 190115 | ||
One reason why I see the NKJV doing good is that it keeps the poetic flow of the old KJV, but it remains accurate and readable. I was raised with the KJV and still use it on occasion, especially when the congregation I am speaking to is composed of elders who use the KJV. When with a more eclectic and mixed congregation, I use the NKJV. When I'm doing a more deeper study or leading any study beyond that of preaching from a pulpit, I use the NASB. To comment on some of the translations mentioned by Hank, I use the NIV only on occasion when speaking to youth, and sometimes the ESB. I dislike the NLT with a passion. It's abhorrably mistranslated in several places. At one time I knew all the places. One place was in Romans 1. I'm not a very high fan of the Holman Christian Standard either. I dislike paraphrases like the Message and the Living Bible. Being a student of the Bible and of translations, I see paraphrase translations about as useless as a one legged man in a butt kicking contest. Anyways, Most of my study bibles that I use on a regular basis are NASB, NKJV, or KJV. Also, with my Degree in Greek and Hebrew, I'm a bit prejudice and favor the NASB, NKJV, and KJV over the others. |
||||||
13 | difference between grace ad mercy | Bible general Archive 3 | Jesusman | 190955 | ||
Grace and Mercy are related, yes, but not the same. Grace is giving you what you don't deserve. Mercy is not giving you what you do deserve. To explain it in a different way. We, being sinful creatures, do not deserve eternal life. However, it is provided through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We don't deserve eternal life, yet we are offered it anyways. That is Grace. We, as sinful creatures, do deserve to die as punishment for our sins. However, with salvation, we are pardoned. We won't die the eternal death, even though we deserve it. That is mercy. Jesus Loves you, Jesusman. |
||||||
14 | Confused? | Bible general Archive 3 | Jesusman | 192297 | ||
Greetings, Paul in one of his epistles clarified the role of the Mosaic law to the christian. Prior to Christ, the Law dominates and binds us to obedience. We either follow it or disobey it. Problem is that the Law is impossible to follow completely. However, as Paul explains, After christ the law becomes as a tutor or a teacher. We aren't bound under following the Law and the consequences of disobedience. However, It remains for us to be a guide .. a pattern to know what God expects. Jesus Christ came to fullfill the law .. complete it and make it whole. Galatians 3:23-29 Matthew 5:17-19 Jesusman |
||||||
15 | Did He complete the Old Testament? | Bible general Archive 3 | Jesusman | 192318 | ||
Short answer is yes. Long answer is that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ finalized the need for any further sacrifices. The author of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear in chapter 10 that the sacrificing of animals is drastically inferior to the one made by Christ on the cross. Jesusman |
||||||
16 | We can trust in the bible? | Bible general Archive 3 | Jesusman | 193167 | ||
Yes, we can. | ||||||
17 | what does it mean that it says solomon d | Bible general Archive 3 | Jesusman | 193201 | ||
Not sure what you are referring to, but 1 kings 11 does reveal that Solomon, in his later days, greatly angered God. Solomon had married many foreign women and began to raise altars to the gods they worshipped as well as worshipping them also. It doesn't say that Solomon died an evil death, but God did say he would take the throne away from Solomon's line, which happened twice. First, there was the split of the kingdom under the reign of his son, Rehaboam. Later on, the Kingdom of Judah, which was ruled by Jeconiah a decendant of Solomon, was captured by the Babylonians. Jesusman |
||||||
18 | final round of "contradictions" | Bible general Archive 2 | Jesusman | 102915 | ||
Hello, I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist this one. About King Zedekiah. Did you read Jeremiah 34:2-4 along with verse 5? And did you read how he died? King Zedekiah didn't die by the Sword. He died in prison. 34:2-4 says that King Zedekiah would be taken to Babylon to see the king, and verse 5 says that he wouldn't die by the sword. King Neb. sieged Jerusalem, took Zedekiah prisoner, and put him in prison. There, Zedekiah died, possibly of old age. Thus fulfilling Jeremiah's prophecy. About Egypt and Jeremiah Jeremiah is talking to Judah, the southern kingdom. Judah made a peace treaty with Egypt in a vain attempt that Egypt would protect them from Babylon. However, Babylon marched all the way to Egypt and conquered them as well. Thus fulfilling Jeremiah's Prophecy stated in Jeremiah 42: 13-22 About Babylon Are there people living in Babylon, the city where Nabuchdnezzar had his capital? Nope! It's nothing more than ruins. In fact, there's no longer a nation called Babylon. Babylon died at tha Hands of the Medo-persian empire. About Bethlehem Actually, The ancient name for Bethlehem was Ephrath. Genesis 35:19 So, Micah is referring to the city, and the coming Messiah. About the immortal generation in Matthew 23. Actually, this passage is referring to the Destruction of the Temple in 70 ad. Such a destruction would be the end of the world to a devout jew. About Matthew 16. Jesus says that they will not "taste death". Now, Is Jesus referring to physical death, which he once referred to as sleep, or spiritual death? I would say that Jesus is referring to spiritual death. About Hebrews First off, Are you sure that the author is Paul? Because the name of the author is never given, and no one knows for sure who wrote Hebrews. Second, They didn't receive the promise in their lifetime. That doesn't mean that it was never fulfilled. About mystakenly believing that they were in the end times. Peter never says in the verses you state that he believed that he was living in the last times. He does tell us what to expect when the Last times come about. As for verse 4:7, being "at hand" means that it could some at anytime. He's telling the audience to be alert because Jesus could return at anytime. John's epistle is about being alert and staying aware of the dangers around you. Like Peter, John is warning his readers to stay alert. In closing, I must insist that if you desire to put more apparent contradictions up, that you read the whole context, not just what you desire to read. Many of these contradictions were easily explained by looking at the surrounding verses. Jesusman |
||||||
19 | Should Christians remarry? | Bible general Archive 2 | Jesusman | 104498 | ||
Since Jesus and Paul both say no, then we shouldn't remarry after divorce. Why? Because it is concidered to be the same as adultry. Now, why do we? I don't know. Jesusman |
||||||
20 | How did Nephilims come into existance? | Bible general Archive 1 | Jesusman | 26998 | ||
Personally, I think that "Niphillim" is a generic descriptive term like "vehicle", for example. With vehicles, you have suvs, trucks, coupes, cars, sedans, vans, convertables, and so on. While each one is different, they are all "vehicles". I think that the same is true for "Niphillim". In it's original context, "Niphillim" means "giants". However, there is more to it. It also describes someone or something that is vicious, fierce, stomps on his enemies, and is giant in stature and attitude. Now, with this in mind, it is important to remember that there are two places in the Bible that this term is used. Genesis 6:4 and Numbers 13:33. I don't think that these two groups are related in any way other than termanology. In fact, it is impossible for the "niphillim" in Genesis 6 to be the "niphillim" in Numbers 13. Why? There is one massive, global event that separates them, the great flood. Scripture records that the flood destoyed all life except those in the Ark. Therefore, these two references are talking about two different groups and "niphillim" is a generic term of description. Now, look at Numbers 13:33. Notice that the group in question is the Sons of Anak. They are called "niphillim" not because that is who they are, but because of their size. Notice verse 32. The land is described as huge and it's inhabitants are described as huge. Given this description, it is no wonder why the Israelites would use "niphillim" to call the Anakim. This is common, especially in warfare. For example, In world war 2, Nazi German soldiers were called "Jerry". In vietnam, the Viet Con soldiers were called "Charlie". During the American Civil War, Confederate soldiers were called "Johnny". So, there is precedence for this. As for who the "Niphillim" of Genesis 6 are, they could've been Dinosaurs. After all, the description does fit that of dinosaurs. As for Numbers 13,it is beleived that these are the ancestors of Goliath. Their size could easily be explained as being natural for them. After all, genetically speaking, the majority of orientals are small in stature. Many of the African natives can grow to be tall and slender. Many slavic, sacndinavian, and those of Viking descendant are known to be muscular and of large stature. So, the Anakim being giant in stature could easily be a result of their genetic code and could've been normal for them. Jesus Loves You! Jesusman |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [11] >> |