Results 1 - 20 of 72
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Why did Jesus have to beborn of a virgin | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 267 | ||
This is an excellent though-provoking question. I would advocate that God's plan as to how the baby would be born came prior to the prophecy -- not the other way around. Of course, the Son of God would need to have God as a parent in order to be God (maintain his God-hood as a person) genetically. However, I don't see that a faithful and consistent wife or a widow would contribute any more "sinful" of a nature than a virgin. (In fact, this concept in an extreme form could lead to wives witholding relations in a way that could hinder the marriage relationship.) There is a connection of virginity with ceremonial purity, however, that could be significant. In addition, female virginity is typically verifiable by physical means for the majority of women. In this way, Mary's virginity right up to the point of birth would most likely have been verifiable by Joseph, a midwife or anyone else who was allowed to investigate fully; her virginity would act as a testimony, therefore, that the "male seed" was placed there by the Holy Spirit rather than through sexual intercourse. With a non-virgin, there would always be more room for question and accusation. | ||||||
2 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 268 | ||
This argument, that Luke gives the genealogy through Mary and that Matthew gives the genealogy through Joseph, would seem the most logical. The contextual perspective also supports this. The entire story surrounding Jesus birth in Luke focuses around Mary -- her revelation, visit to Elizabeth, etc. -- as she "treasured these things in her heart" and probably reported them to Luke along with her genealogy. Matthew, on the other hand, talks about Joseph -- his reaction to Mary's pregnancy, his 2 dreams from God, etc. Luke's genealogy of Jesus could also be logically read as "being only supposedly the son of Joseph but actually the son of Eli" -- with Eli being presumably Mary's father. The kingship came through David via Solomon through Joseph by adoption -- just as we are adopted as heirs of God. However, there was also a direct physical descent through Mary, since there could be no physical descent through Joseph. | ||||||
3 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 274 | ||
Jesus inherited the throne of David through adoption by Joseph, who was of the kingly descent that passed through each the kings of Judah (as in Matthew's genealogy) -- just as we inherit the kingdom of God through adoption as his children (his princes and princesses, if you like). His physical descent was through Mary (as in Luke's genealogy). | ||||||
4 | Lowest Common Denominator | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 664 | ||
On this same topic, I also noticed after finishing my message that you were quoting from John 17:17-20 "that they may be one" as the reasoning behind looking for the "Lowest Common Denominator". This passage also clearly sets God's word as the means by which we, as Christians, are set apart ("sanctified") to be separate from the world but united to each other in the same kind of agreement that the Father and the Son share. I assume that you meant to include the complete and final authority of Scripture within your view of this agreed-upon "lowest common denominator". If not, the unity of his people for which our Lord so yearned (and yearns) is simply mocked and twisted rather than pursued. With the Scriptures as our starting place, we have a basis upon which to pursue the commonly held faith that binds all mature Christians (and any truly "Christian" congregation or denomination)in unified faith. This agreement often proves elusive, but it is surely Biblical and desirable to pursue it. | ||||||
5 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1445 | ||
I don't have any problem with your explanation of the "Biblical" meaning of the word knowledge, but it doesn't change the idea that foreknowledge came BEFORE predestination; it seems merely to divert and avoid the question. There is no one whom God does not have intimate and complete knowledge about, yet there is something (for lack of a better word) that drew God to specific people that AFFECTED God's decision to predestine us. We know from other places in Scripture that there is nothing that makes us "worthy" of his choosing (or even somehow less "unworthy" than others). Yet there is something. The question is, "What is it that God foreknew?" My understanding is that Arminius thought it to be some kind of openness to faith. It seems to me that it is more a final openness (when pressed to the wall) to the Spirit's persistent conviction of sinfulness and a resulting inner hunger and desperation for salvation. I'm not sure that this is fully accurate; nevertheless, there appears to be something that God foreknew (rather than fore-ordained) in us that came prior to his predestining us. I appreciate your study on one of the meanings used for "knowledge" in the Bible. However, your additional comments make it sound like you're trying to treat "foreknowledge" and "predestination" as virtually synonymous; I can only assume this is being done in order to avoid the idea of anything coming prior to predestination. This seems to me the equivalent of saying that Paul really meant to say, "For those whom he predestined he also predestined...; and those whom he predestined he also...." I understand that Christ himself and Paul both sometimes repeated phrases for stress. It seems bizarre, however, that he would give a deliberate sequence like, "God A'ed, then A'ed, then B'ed, then C'ed, then...." ;-) I'm confident that this is not really what you meant to suggest, but could you elaborate? |
||||||
6 | Predestination vs free will--a thought.. | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1463 | ||
I don't feel disrespected by your reply at all. I hope mine didn't seem disrespectful to you. Argumentation through writing without "knowledge" of each other can certainly come across as bickering or condescending, and I have no desire (or position of authority, for that matter, if the desire were there) to treat you in that way. It's simply that your expanded definition of "foreknowledge" seems cyclical w/ predestination. In other words, it sounds like your suggesting that God chose (elected, selected, predestined) to foreknow some (rather than others), then predestined them further. It seems that you've basically added a new "predestined" at the beginning of the sequence. As a side note (I hope), perhaps I'm misunderstanding your perception of predestination. Are you assuming that all are predestined to conformity to Christ and that all are, therefore, foreknown? This creates significant other problems, but resolves this particular concern. However, based on what I've seen of what you've written, I doubt this is your view. I think I understand your concept of God having a certain kind of pre-existing relationship with some that he did not have with others. However, we (like all others) were at enmity with God before (and even after) he predestined us -- right up until the time of belief. Ephesians 1-2 is one of the passages that clearly indicates how our condition before God was radically and completely changed at the time of conversion. We did not have this intimate relationship with Him until that time. I'm not sure where you would be going in indicating some kind of previous level of closeness (unshared by others) prior to conception that somehow changed once we took on flesh then returned at our conversion. Can you clarify? |
||||||
7 | what was Mary's geneology | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 1991 | ||
Jesus Himself was... being, as was supposed, the son of Joseph, the son of Eli, the son of.... (Luke 3:23f, NASB) Thank you for your gracious response, Ray. I'd like to add some additional explanation as to why I'm convinced that Luke gave the genealogy of Jesus through Mary's father rather than through Joseph. After this posting, I'll be taking at least a week off from the list. I hope to get back on and read any responses at that time. Luke deliberately added the phrase, "... being as was supposed, the son of Joseph," to the beginning of this lineage. It would seem pointless, immediately after pointing out that Joseph was not actually Jesus father, for Luke to proceed with Joseph's lineage. Therefore, it's most reasonable to presume that he will proceed with a different lineage. Perhaps Matthew's account, giving Jesus' royal ancestry as the adopted son of Joseph, was already printed. Even if not printed yet, the lineage was almost definitely available in circulation for a historian such as Luke to use, yet he gave a different version. I believe Luke did this in order to demonstrate that Jesus the Messiah was not only the adopted heir to the throne of David but also the natural blood descendant of David according to prophecy. It's my understanding that New Testament Greek had no punctuation, and that translators seek to use punctuation that expresses the ideas while avoiding interpretation as much as possible. However, since I do not claim the authority of a translator, I will have the audacity to simply add punctuation to the NIV translation. Version 1 is the Luke 3:23b from the NIV with punctuation removed, and version 2 has what I feel is the appropriate punctuation added. Version 3 is as it appears in the actual NIV. 1) He was the son so it was thought of Joseph the son of Heli,... 2) He was (the son, so it was thought, of Joseph) the son of Heli,... 3) He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,... Thanks for your patience. |
||||||
8 | Did the Amplified come from Wescott and | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 2718 | ||
Thank you, Dacajunwolf, for a very informative and helpful explanation. I haven't studied Greek (yet, but hope to) and hadn't heard of Westcott and Hort. I'm sure this (and the other replies, as well) will help prevent misinformation. Thanks to RevC for the question -- for the same reason. | ||||||
9 | AGE OF ACCOUNTIBILITY | Bible general Archive 1 | Brent Douglass | 79355 | ||
I'm not sure exactly what you mean. There are 2 separate questions. One question is whether there is a POINT before which people may be given special grace due to a lack of the faculties necessary to exercise faith. It sounds like this is the issue you are considering, and there are varying opinions within orthodox Christianity. This is separate from trying to consider a standardized AGE of accountability. Anyone seriously considering a specific AGE of accountability has already assumed that there is some kind of prerequisite level of cognitive (or other) functionality for accountability to be present (or that God would not be willing to somehow act in advance based on His perfect foreknowledge of what would have happened in the person's life had such faculties been present). The question at that point is then whether we can assign a specific AGE that everyone before that age is considered safe and everyone after that age is considered liable -- similar to a voting age, driving age, age to buy tobacco or alcohol, etc. It's not surprising that the Scriptures are basically silent on such an age. I believe that attempting to set such an age is a dangerous and slippery slope theologically. The most natural fleshly result would be a contrived attempt to identify specific unbelievers as guilty before God while identifying other specific unbelievers as not guilty based on some abiblical calculation. God has not given us a neat formula nor the freedom to make such judgments. |
||||||
10 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 724 | ||
Oops! Found David's son Nathan in 2 Samuel 5:14 -- but just the mention of his being born in Jerusalem. Bad choice of examples, but I'm sure you get the point. | ||||||
11 | when did it rain for the first time? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 725 | ||
This is certainly not a doctrine to die for, as there is no direct statement that rain did not start at some time after man and cultivated plants appeared but prior to the flood. However, there are enough descriptions (like this one, as well as the statement that there was water on the earth and water above the earth separated by the air in Genesis 1:6-8, and the drastic drop in lifespan after the flood) that indicate some kind of major increase in aging after the flood that was probably caused by the changes surrounding the event. The theory of a protective thick vapor "firmanent" that was opened and emptied out during the flood is the most logical and conceivable explanation I have heard given the information available from the Scriptures. | ||||||
12 | How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 770 | ||
This is a long posting. I'm not sure that you read my posting, Seven, except for a few words here and there that seem to have offended you and hindered (or colored) your reading of the remainder. The question that I was answering dealt with how long Adam and Eve were in the garden. I said that we don't know for sure. My impression is that you automatically assume that virtually no time transpired simply because events are not described. This is possible but speculative. I agree with your (possible) underlying concern that speculation about what is not there should never be used as a basis for doctrine or exposition; I noted this in my earlier posting. However, you seem to have gone beyond this in assuming that ONLY that which is explicitly stated could possibly have happened; in this you go too far. For reasons within God's all-knowing and sovereign nature, God has chosen to include some events while excluding the vast majority of human (and heavenly) events that happened from the beginning of creation until the completion of the canon (i.e. the Revelation of John). This is affirmed at the end of John's gospel (John 20:30-31; 21:25); there is much that has been left out. The events and timeframe of Adam and Eve's life together in the garden prior to Satan's possession of the serpent are left out of the Biblical account. There is no benefit in defending my suggestions about possible (but completely speculative) children born BEFORE Adam ate of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil and what would have happened to them. Although I believe the ideas are easily defensible, they are irrelevant to the study of Scripture, since they are merely speculation. However, I do feel that I should address your apparent underlying assumptions that what is not there does -- by default -- not exist. For example, the vast majority of Bible scholars recognize Luke's and Matthew's genealogies to trace Jesus's lineage separately through Mary and Joseph, although Mary is not mentioned in either genealogy. The two genealogies trace Jesus through separate sons of King David all the way down to Jesus himself but agree prior to David; they are obviously not the same genealogy, so there is a question created. Furthermore, Matthew deliberately skips all generations prior to Abraham and many generations after that; yet we know that those generations really existed on both sides of Jesus's genealogy. Questions can make us feel pressed for answers, but not all of them have simple pat answers. The questions of 1) how long Adam and Eve were in the garden prior to the fall, and 2) what their lives and relationship(s) were like prior to the fall are left unanswered in the Scriptures. Any answers (either way) are fantasy and speculation and should be processed in this light. Opting for rejection of the possibility of anything not there is no less speculative than opting for the possibility of something more; it is simply tidier in that it generates less unanswered questions. |
||||||
13 | Flood in the air? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4551 | ||
It also solidified (or perhaps re-solidified) into huge masses of ice at the north and south extremes, and dissipated into the earth in most other places. The current existence of large amounts of such frozen and underground waters is a recognized observable fact by all -- whether the Scriptures directly state the obvious in this case or not. | ||||||
14 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4577 | ||
I think I understand what you're saying. Thanks for responding. There's nothing in the text that would indicate the first day (of the creation sequence) beginning after the formation of the heavens (with the 6 days referring to only the creation of the earth and what is on it), but this is a possible interpretation, and it may allow for reconciliation between observational data and the text; this is the first I've heard of this view, but there may well be others with a similar view. There is disagreement amongst those scholars and researchers who are investigating these events. There is obvious room for disagreement and discussion among those who are recognized as orthodox in their other beliefs and their general life and witness as Christians, as to whether the "SIX days" you refer to from Gen 1:3 onward (and-or the 6 days from the beginning of the first creation to its conclusion) are 24-hour days or sequenced blocks of time. |
||||||
15 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1927 | ||
Again, it's more accurate to say that many conservative scholars postulate that they are angels. There's nothing particularly dangerous about this in the book of Job, and it's typically such a minor point as to cause no problems. I doubt it's a stand that virtually any conservative scholar would be willing to die for; they just agree on what appears to be the most logical meaning in an unclear reference within the context of Job. The problem comes when some charlatans start traveling around the nation or the world telling sensationalistic tales about holding down women who are being violently raped by invisible demons while they and their cronies are casting the demon out. |
||||||
16 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1933 | ||
p.s. I agree with your last paragraph. You'll have to get another fantasy, Charis; I think the one about other people being actually created by God is probably ruled out by this verse that InHzSvc quoted (Genesis 3:20). p.p.s. Is my CAPITALIZATION OK? ;-) |
||||||
17 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1976 | ||
Sorry, Charis. There was no rudeness intended. It was just meant as a joke in this case. We had both agreed that it was speculation, and I'd already used the term "fantasy" primarily to refer to my own idea about Adam and Eve having children before the fall who were then adopted by God, so I didn't mean anything demeaning by using that word. I was just jokingly saying that you'd have to let go of it. I'm sure you're aware that even a fantasy should be dropped completely if there is actual contradiction in the Scripture and was just joking with you. I apologize for any indication of belittling or condescension. This was never intended, but I probably should have been more clear. (I guess that's what happens when I try to get away with a short reply.) Sorry, again, brother. |
||||||
18 | what are you not sure about? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1977 | ||
Sorry for the further offense, guys. I capitalized your names because they're screen "names", and the question about capitalization was an allusion to the earlier threads where people were disputing when and when not to capitalize. I think I'll just stay off the list for a while, before I offend too many more people. Sorry again, brothers. |
||||||
19 | what are you not sure about? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 2090 | ||
Thanks for your response, brother. Sorry I didn't respond more quickly. I had decided to get off the list temporarily because I needed to consider my level of intensity and the offenses I might be causing. I decided not to wait a week, after all. I'll probably maintain a similar intensity in my postings (like the one I just posted on Jesus' brothers and sisters), but I'll try to be (somewhat) more careful with my humor. | ||||||
20 | Does Satan have free will? | Job 2:6 | Brent Douglass | 4856 | ||
Thanks for the clarifications. I think I'm in full agreement to what you have said. Satan must have decision-making ability and can NOT be simply a negative extension of God's will and plan, since God can not tempt, and since God is light with no darkness or evil intent at all. Any implication that Satan does not have a free and independent will would naturally lead to very dangerous and unbiblical doctrines as to the nature of God. My following statement is not in any way meant as disagreement, but simply as additional clarification. There is some difference in Satan's "will" and ours, since the Scriptures seem to indicate that fallen angels are incapable of repentance, whereas fallen people (everyone, as descendants of Adam and Eve after the fall) can respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, confess our sins, repent, believe and be restored to everlasting fellowship with God. There is disagreement among orthodox Christians as to how "free" (or "irresistable") this interaction is, but we all agree that people can do this under the prompting and working of the Holy Spirit. I'll post a question to the list as to what passages advocate this eternal and irrevocable quality of the fallenness of evil angels, but I'm confident that it is Biblical. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |