Results 1 - 20 of 75
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Seething a kid in its mother's milk? | Deut 14:21 | Brent Douglass | 241625 | ||
Most commentators I have read suggest that there was likely a pagan ritual associated with this use of a mother's milk to boil its young, since the context is consistently associated with the commands of the festival sacrifices. However, I do not believe the specific ritual has ever been verified in any writings currently available, so this is to a large degree speculative. On the face of it, however, the image itself is also repulsive, and any such ritual by the pagans would no doubt add to this repulsion. In the animal kingdom especially (and with humans as well), a mother's milk is the dearest form of caring for her helpless infant suckling, providing its most basic nourishment in the most intimate and endearing way imaginable from her own breast. (Consider the tender imagery of Isaiah 66:10-13, Psalm 22:9, and Matthew 23:37.) Therefore, to take a mother's milk and use it as the means of boiling her own child to tenderize it for the consumption of the priests (or the morbid appeasement of a false god) is to take that which God has given by design as a means of sustenance and intimacy between a mother and her young and turn it into an abominable celebration of abuse of power over another. If this was done in pagan worship, this would seem to be the symbolism invoked. I do not believe it is a significant stretch to apply this personally to forbid the abuse of another's tenderness or maleability (due to concern for others) evilly against them to lead them into sin, to draw them to ourselves selfishly and separate them from others whom they love, and/or to otherwise use their vulnerability for our own benefit or sport. However, this command, although repeated three separate times, remains quite obscure as to any significant application beyond basic obedience to the command itself and the image of corrupting the beauty of mother-child intimacy (and tender care of the mother for her helpless infant) into something hideous. To go further in exploiting such a currently non-contextual command with illustrations or application toward other doctrines of personal interest would seem similarly inappropriate. |
||||||
2 | Saved by Grace or Acts? | Lev 6:2 | Brent Douglass | 230621 | ||
Hi Rhonda, Bill responded to my post, but I wanted to answer to you, so that you can see this directly. I think Bill had a lot good to say about the importance of obedience -- which should be a natural result of our salvation, since the Holy Spirit indwells us and empowers us to be able to obey once our relationship with God has been restored through faith. (John 1:12,13; John 7:37-39) However, I can not fully agree with the following statement by Bill, and I think it important for you to see the distinction: 'Now on the other question about repentance as one of the steps in getting salvation. Throughout the Bible the concept of repentance has always included the attempt of restoration. Thus a theif must return the stolen goods to their rightful owners or do his best to do so. A murderer should feel obligated to ask forgiveness from the family and attempt to restore the manpower as represented by his victim to that family, again as best he/she can within his/her ability. Why is this necessary? God's basic Principle of "Reaping what we've sown in life."' I believe Bill has gone too far in applying demonstration of repentance toward others (through restitution) as being potentially necessary to salvation. Salvation is the restoration of our relationship with God, not others; only Christ can and does provide our restitution before God. Once saved, God desires us to do all that we can to restore our relationship with others, and He can/will convict us of areas in our lives where He wants to continually make us more like Him -- this being one of them. This is much of the point of James (and 1 John for that matter.) Our lives should be transformed, and this is part of the outward testimony to others that Christ has come into our lives and made us alive. Without increasing obedience, our testimony is minimal. However, this is a result of salvation, not a part of it. As I said, salvation restores our relationship with God through Christ. As David said to God after his sin with Bathsheba (which included adultery, deception, and murder against others), "Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is in Your sight, so that You are justified when You speak and blameless when You judge" (Psalm 51:4). Repentance and trust before God brings us to dependence upon Christ and restores our relationship with Him. All that we owed and all of our guilt has thus been removed from before Him by the payment and merit of Christ alone. Once that has been done, but not as pre-condition, He will begin to show you how He wants you to act toward others. This obedience of demonstrating repentance to others (including restitution) is done from a response to what Christ has done and as a witness to others of His work in you. It is not part of the repentance and faith that leads to salvation. It is a resulting good work that comes afterward. (See Ephesians 2:8-10.) Do not let someone tell you that you are not saved if you have not reimbursed someone. The question of your faith and salvation is between you and God, and it can not be judged on the basis of one action -- since we all continue to have a sin nature but also now have the Spirit. Nevertheless, ask God what He would have you do as His beloved child -- for His glory and because of His grace (and even for greater riches in Heaven for your faithfulness)-- but not to merit His approval or salvation. Salvation is between you and God, and Christ is your full and only possilbe restitution. Restitution toward others is a separate and later issue, initiated by God but between you and the other person/people involved. |
||||||
3 | Significance to the tents' locations? | Gen 31:33 | Brent Douglass | 230605 | ||
The care with which the narration describes Laban's process gives the impression that there was something significant to it that would be understood by people of the time -- presumably recorded in Moses' time. Are there any indications of practices of the time that could shed light on this, or are only unsupported speculations available (such as the three potential, mutually exclusive, and completely unsubstantiated interpretations I offered in the initial question)? | ||||||
4 | Saved by Grace or Acts? | Lev 6:2 | Brent Douglass | 230600 | ||
Our relationship with God was broken by our sin and our sinfulness. For the one who trusts Christ, the debt has been paid with God by Christ, the barrier to relationship with God has been removed through Christ's sacrifice, and our relationship has been restored through the merit of Christ's perfect life. However, this does not remove the barriers that our sins have placed between us and others or the barriers that others' treatment of us has caused. We can forgive others their sins, and we can show repentance (including restitution when possible) for our sins against others. This is the heart of God toward us -- providing for us the restitution for our sins. As we seek to honor God, and as He develops His heart in us, we will want to restore relationships with others - so far as it depends on us. Therefore, we should show restitution and repentance -- valuing the others we have hurt as much as we value ourselves. See also Romans 12:17-21. |
||||||
5 | Different fathers of Joseph. | NT general | Brent Douglass | 229349 | ||
I would agree with Tim. The best answer, which follows the context, is that Matthew gave the genealogy of Jesus through his adopted father Joseph whereas Luke followed the genealogy through Mary. Perhaps more clarification would be helpful. The context of Matthew focuses upon the experience and involvement of Joseph, whereas Luke focuses on Mary and treats Mary as the primary source. Matthew says nothing directly of Mary's encounter with the angel or of Mary's travel to visit Elizabeth, but it includes Joseph's decisions, his encounter with an angel in his dream, his decision to take Mary as his wife but remain celebate until after the child's birth, the visit of the Magi and Joseph's dream after they left, etc. It is also more directly connected to establish Jesus as the Messiah who would inherit the kingdom of David -- which passes through Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), the last king assigned by the Jews rather than by a conquering power. However, although this would be the natural expected line of descent of kingship, Jeremiah had also prophesied that no blood descendant of Jehoiachin would ever sit on the throne (Jer 22:30). Thus prophecies regarding the re-establishment of the progression of the throne of David through a permanent future king (through the lineage under which the kingship passed down) would have seemed impossible -- until we see Jesus come as the adopted descendant of Jeconiah with all rights of inheritance, but not a blood descendant. Nevertheless, Jesus was also a true blood descendant of David's son Nathan through his mother Mary and her father Eli. I believe that adding parenthesis to the Luke 3:23 description would better fit the intent of the text -- "being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Eli..." Since Luke explicitly points out that Jesus was not really Joseph's son, but only supposed/thought to be so, it would be quite illogical to then immediately give the genealogy through Joseph. In addition, Jewish genealogies were very carefully recorded, particularly for descendants of David, and the writer of Matthew and/or Luke (whichever wrote later) likely had access to the other's writing as well. Therefore, the blood father of Jesus is Mary's father Eli, who is descended through David through his son Nathan, not through the kingly line of Solomon. Thus he meets the test of being a blood descendant of David (through Nathan, Eli, and Mary) and also receiving the passing of the kingship itself directly through Solomon and Jehoiachin/Jeconiah through adoption as Joseph's oldest son (adopted and treated as a son and heir before any other children were conceived). |
||||||
6 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | Brent Douglass | 181477 | ||
I see in the Amplified the description of Mary's condition as "about to become a mother." What level of connotation does this word carry that is translated simply "with child" in the NAS but "about to become a mother" in the Amplified? Does it definitely mean something beyond "pregnant" -- requiring a translation of "about to deliver her child" or something like that? Or is it possible that this can refer to a woman in her 2nd trimester? | ||||||
7 | Todays fashions | Eph 2:2 | Brent Douglass | 82298 | ||
Hmm... my perception of the 3 most deadly worldly tendencies of the present age? That's a question for reflection. I'll have to think about that and get back to you. The passage is clearly referring to tendencies these Christians were following before trusting in Christ and that they should have been released from, so I would want to consider the same parallel for our present time. It sounds like you have been thinking about this already, Dan. What do you think they may be? |
||||||
8 | 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. |
||||||
9 | Married apostles | Matt 8:14 | Brent Douglass | 39062 | ||
Peter, Jesus' brothers (presumably the epistle writers James and Jude), as well as "the other apostles" had wives. Paul (and probably Barnabas) did not. It is not clear exactly which apostles were or were not married, but Paul's wording in 1 Corinthians 9 appears to indicate that marriage was the norm among most of the apostles. (1Co 9:3-6 "My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have a right ... to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right..?" We don't know with exact certainty by name which apostles were married or which were single -- with 2 exceptions: Peter(Cephas) was married, and Paul was not. I think that's about the only reference we have one way or the other as to the marital status of any of the specific apostles. I would be very careful of any assumptions that only Peter was married simply because there is no direct statement about any other specific apostles. Such an argument would be based on LACK of specific evidence rather than being based on any real evidence. The letters and histories of the New Testament were written at a time when the marital status of the apostles was probably well known, so there was no reason to deliberately describe it. It would also be contrary to Paul's indication in the passage above. Paul is simply making a general statement here, not declaring all the other apostles to be married, so we can't draw that conclusion either. (Paul's point was that Barnabas and he had given up a number of normal "rights" and practices for the sake of their special calling; he was not setting out to differentiate which apostles were and were not married.) |
||||||
10 | why is Barak cited in Hebrews 11:32? | Judg 5:12 | Brent Douglass | 38497 | ||
Those listed in Hebrews 11:32 are those who performed the actions in Heb 11:33-34. Barak put armies to flight by faith. Deborah may have had greater faith than Barak, but she did not put armies to flight or conquer enemies. Those mentioned are those who performed the acts listed. Faith, whether that of the people mentioned or that of others associated with them, was the power behind the acts committed in Hebrews 11. Another example of this is Hebrews 11:23; it was not the baby Moses' faith that caused him to be protected from Pharaoh and hidden along the Nile. We have come to associate this passage with "heroes" of the faith, but it is more accurately a chronicling of the power of faith. Those who exercise faith are heroes, but faith itself is the point, not the heroes themselves. They are simply witnesses of the effective power of faith. |
||||||
11 | 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. |
||||||
12 | Heresy or true? | John 3:18 | Brent Douglass | 37403 | ||
This is a very hard question that can generate some strong reactions and accusations within the believing community. There are those who would question the credentials (or even the salvation) of even such solid and faithful teachers as Billy Graham and C.S. Lewis based on their answers to this question. The statement, as it stands, without additional assumptions about underlying beliefs, is not hereticaly in and of itself. There is room for question as to whether it is belief in God or belief in Christ alone that saves. Active disbelief in Christ is active disbelief in God (Jn 3:18). However, we are judged based on that which we have seen and heard (see Romans 1:20), NOT that which we have not yet been exposed to. There is no disagreement among solid evangelical preachers or scholars that only because of the blood of Jesus Christ can anyone be saved. However, this applies to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. They did not believe in Jesus Christ in the sense that we do today, because Christ's work and person were something that even the prophets and angels could not grasp until they observed them(1 Pe 1:10-12). The same is true of anyone who has not heard today. Anyone who is willing to follow God will believe in Christ if-when they have the opportunity (Jn 7:16-17). Thus the gospel was, at the time of Paul, for the (believing) Jew first (Ro 1:16); I would apply this, in a lesser sense, to any God fearer. However, the gospel, by the power of the Holy Spirit, can also take one who has never believed before -- even in that which s-he has seen or heard -- and transform that one into a believer as well. Thus the Gospel is the power of salvation for the heathen as well (Ro 1:16). This is greatly simplified, but the basic idea is that the God-fearer MAY have life but lacks the sure hope available through the deeper revelation of the gospel of Christ. The heathen, in contrast, had no faith and no salvation at all, until he comes to the truth and the Spirit's conviction upon him. If he (or she) then believes, he is saved even if there were no previous knowledge, faith, or interest in God. |
||||||
13 | Why Jesus live Lazarus die after raised | John | Brent Douglass | 37302 | ||
I read the other answer that you received, and I think it was very helpful. However, there is a clarification that I want to add. In the resurrection, we will have our own (same) physical bodies, but they will be spiritual rather than fleshly, as Christ's body was spiritual (and could walk through walls, appear and disappear from sight, yet consume food) at the time of His resurrection. I believe that no one's body was physically resurrected prior to Christ, including that of Lazarus (although Elijah and Enoch are puzzling); Jesus our Lord was the first. However, when Christ was raised, other dead saints (holy ones) were raised with Him. (Matt 27:52 The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised.") Those of us who have died since Christ's resurrection will not be raised again bodily (only the soul) until the time of Christ's return, when our impure and perishable fleshly bodies (whether they have rotted in the earth or been burned to nothingness or not), will be raised and transformed into pure and imperishable spiritual bodies. Those who are still alive at His return will not die, but they will still need to be changed physically. (1 Cor 15:51-54 "Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. "But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, 'DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP in victory.'") This is the very point that Jesus was making to Lazarus' sister Martha before raising him from the dead. (John 11:25-26 "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?") |
||||||
14 | Who is the son of man which is in heaven | John 3:11 | Brent Douglass | 37296 | ||
John 3:13 reads as follows in the NASB: "No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man." The same verse in the Amplified reads as follows: "And yet no one has ever gone up to heaven, but there is One Who has come down from heaven--the Son of Man [Himself], Who is (dwells, has His home) in heaven." The context makes it clear that these translations have the most obvious natural reading of the puzzling part of this passage. Heaven is the home of Jesus -- the Son of Man. No man had yet ascended bodily to the third heaven, but Jesus had descended from there, and thus had the only eyewitness account available from any human being. Only Jesus, the Son of Man, whose eternal home had been and would always be heaven, could speak of heaven as one who truly knows it. |
||||||
15 | Does Mark 6:3 indicate a question..... | Mark 6:3 | Brent Douglass | 26911 | ||
(Part 2 of 2) We don't know exactly how long Mary and Joseph stayed in Bethlehem after Jesus' birth. However, we do know that it was long enough for the star to appear (presumably appearing at His birth rather than prior to it), for the magi to recognize it and make their plans, go to Jerusalem, wait for further direction from a gathering of all the priests and scribes, and then go on to Bethlehem (Matthew 2:1-6). We also know that Herod used the time of the star's appearance in deciding to slaughter all children 2 years old and under (Matthew 2:7,16), and we know that they were no longer in the stable but in a house (or an inn) when the magi came to visit (Matthew 2:11). After their approximately 2 years in Bethlehem, they ran away to Egypt (Matthew 2:12-15). Someone more knowledgeable than I can probably tell you when Herod the great died and they returned to settle into a "normal" life in Nazareth again (Matthew 2:19-23). However, sufficient time and activity had passed for the people of Nazareth to assume that Joseph was the father of Jesus and that He had been conceived after Mary and Joseph were married. People simply knew that Jesus had been born in Bethlehem but that Nazareth was the hometown of Him and His family. |
||||||
16 | Does Mark 6:3 indicate a question..... | Mark 6:3 | Brent Douglass | 26910 | ||
(Part 1 of 2) Dear Richbee, I think rocwalker1's answer is a very good explanation of this. This was simply a comment as to how familiar (and "normal") Jesus was to them. The people of Nazareth knew Mary and her other children, and most Christians assume that Joseph was dead by this time since he is not mentioned again after Jesus' visit to the temple at the age of 12 (Luke 2:41ff). I don't think there is any suggestion that Jesus was an illegitimate child of Mary here or elsewhere in the gospels by anyone in His life, although I'm confident that there was in the time of the early church -- once the reality of His virgin birth began to be openly taught after His resurrection. Modern myths and images surrounding Christ's birth make it hard to imagine that no one knew, but Matthew and Luke paint a different picture when read carefully. The complete lack of any such suggestion of illigitemacy by Jesus' opposition in the gospels suggests to me that no one (but Mary, Joseph, Elizabeth, Zechariah, and perhaps a very few close and trusted friends) knew the timing of Jesus' conception and birth as compared to Joseph and Mary's wedding. If they had, they could have been expected to assume illegitimacy and use it as a further excuse to denounce Jesus and His message. Even a righteous and loving man like Joseph (see Matthew 1:19), despite obvious reason to desire otherwise, could not believe any other conclusion than fornication -- at least not without divine intervention (Matthew 1:20). Jesus' miraculous virgin conception was no doubt one of those things that "Mary treasured .., pondering them in her heart," until she witnessed them to Luke and others after Christ's resurrection. God carefully, deliberately and exactly ordained the sequence surrounding Jesus' conception and birth and the marriage of His parents in such a way as to keep His miraculous conception a secret until the proper time and in order to safeguard their reputation as righteous and faithful servants of God. This is an exciting part of the Christmas story that we tend to miss. Bear with me, and I'll offer some observations (and minor interpretations that seem obvious once some modern myths are debunked). The angel Gabriel's words encouraged Mary to visit her cousin Elizabeth in rural Judeah (Luke 1:36-40), "[a]nd Mary stayed with her about three months, and then returned to her home." (Luke 1:56) Do you have kids? Then you, like me, may think, "Conception plus 3 months equals 1st trimester." Mary spent her "morning sickness" time away from Nazareth, with someone whose immediate greeting was Luke 1:42-43 -- "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! And how has it happened to me, that the mother of my Lord would come to me?" Mary received from Elizabeth encouragement and protection, and Zechariah kept his mouth shut too. By the time Mary returned to her home in Nazareth 3 months later (coincidence that Luke mentions 3 months?), she had stopped vomiting (assuming a "typical" pregnancy) but probably wasn't showing yet (again assuming a "typical 1st pregnancy for a young girl). Joseph then publicly married her (Matthew 1:24). The people of Nazareth had no idea that Mary was pregnant yet, but they would have soon if she had stayed there much longer. Then ("In those days") came the providential census that allowed Joseph and Mary to leave for Bethlehem abruptly with no need for explanation (Luke 2:1-5). The most logical assumption is that Joseph and Mary would have been prudent enough to leave for Bethlehem BEFORE Mary was visibly pregnant, since no one in Nazareth would have believed that the Holy Spirit had impregnated her; Joseph knew that from personal experience. The image of their arrival in Bethlehem with Mary ready to pop is a modern myth with no biblical basis; to the contrary, the wording "while they were there" (Luke 2:6) indicates that they had already been there (presumably sleeping in the stable) for some time when Jesus was born. Since we know Joseph was a righteous man, his family in Bethlehem naturally assumed that they had already been married when Mary conceived and that the child was Joseph's. However, in reality Joseph and Mary were careful to wait until after Jesus' birth before they actually had sexual union -- a point which Matthew makes sure we are aware of (Matthew 1:25). |
||||||
17 | Who were the sowers? | John 4:38 | Brent Douglass | 14272 | ||
Thanks for the added commentary, Ray. My question was actually much more narrow. I was referring specifically to the situation in John 4. Jesus was in Samaria, speaking to a specific group of people whom He soon sent out among the Jews and Samaritans. I don't know that the statement in this passage had any reference whatsoever to his later command sending them to the nations. At this point, I think I'm agreed with the view that John 4 is referring to the patriarchs and prophets, leading up through John and including Himself. Your reference to this passage as a parable (in your earlier response) confuses me somewhat. This is historical interaction without stories or parables being told. There may be some double reference to the disciples being sent to get bread that someone else had prepared and the upcoming evangelism among the Jews and Samaritans, but this is not a parable. You kind of lost me when you referred to this exchange as a parable, and I'm not sure we're on the same page right now. Can we backtrack to the current passage again, or were you introducing a new topic? |
||||||
18 | 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. |
||||||
19 | Ananias and Sapphira Had No Chance? | Acts 5:9 | Brent Douglass | 10991 | ||
Steve, There are some good questions here. Please don't be put off by the length yet incompletenes of my answer. The 3rd answer is probably the easiest to answer. I'd have to say, "No, it wasn't too severe," because it was God's judgment. His ways are absolutely perfect, with no error. My understanding is flawed, but not His ways. Isaiah 55:8f '"For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways," declares the LORD. "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts."' 1 John 1:5 "This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all." God knew their hearts. There is no indication in Acts 5 that Peter spoke the death sentence against Ananias at all. He simply stated that which Ananias had conceived and that Ananias had "lied to the Holy Spirit." With Sapphira, it is true that Peter declared what would happen. However, it was not spoken as a command but simply as a statement of what he knew to be true. The other questions are probably more to the point of the questions that I believe Luke (and God as the inspirer) was trying to convey through this, "Why was this sin so heinous, and what does that mean for me?" God clearly despises false deceptions in which we deliberately parade ourselves to be loving, spiritual or Christlike in a way that we are not. Barnabas was set forward as a true example worthy of emulation, and Ananias and Sapphira were set forth as a false example for all of us to fear. There was no obligation to give all of the proceeds, but the couple had clearly struck a bargain (based on Sapphira's interchange with Peter) to present themselves in a false way before the leadership of God's church. It is a reasonable assumption that they were not truly believers at all, but only God knows if they are now in heaven, and physical death is far less horrifying than spiritual death. False believers are in greater eternal danger than admitted unbelievers, for their judgment is greater, being constantly exposed to the truth and convincing others (and sometimes even themselves) of their faith while their souls have really never been reborn. See Matthew 7:13-23 (particularly 21-23) to get a glimpse of how we can deceive even ourselves but not God. God knew the hearts of this couple (including any willingness to repent if they had been given the chance) in a way that we do not, and Peter knew and spoke only what the Holy Spirit had revealed to him in this situation. We can postulate (and even assume with a fair degree of confidence) some of what it was that affected God's sudden punishment of them; while we may not know for sure, it is good for the same kind of fear that fell upon the people of that time to sometimes fall upon us as well.... Acts 5:14ff "And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things. At the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were taking place among the people; and they were all with one accord.... But none of the rest dared to associate with them; however, the people held them in high esteem. And all the more believers in the Lord, multitudes of men and women, were constantly added to their number." |
||||||
20 | Examine yourselves! | 2 Cor 13:5 | Brent Douglass | 7563 | ||
Further-more from 1 John -- recognition of the Father-Son relationship within the Godhead and acknowledgement of Jesus as Christ and Saviour, born of God. (1 Jn 4:14f; 5:1) We have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God.... Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him. (See also John 7:17.) Much of the rest of 1 John repeats the same concepts in other (or even exactly the same) words. God was clearly driving the points home through the apostle. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |