Results 1 - 20 of 37
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jalek Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240802 | ||
Greetings, Under the interpretation that Jesus went to retrieve the Righteous and Faithful from the place of the dead called Paradise, I will agree. However, the common definition for Hell/Hades is the abode of the wicked and evil, to which I do not agree that Jesus went there, because that is not what scripture teaches. That is the point I was trying to make. Jalek |
||||||
2 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240796 | ||
Greetings, Actually, the term for the place of the dead was Sheol, not hades/hell. Hades/Hell was reserved for the wicked and unjust, but Sheol was for all the dead. Abraham's bosom or Paradise was the place for those who were faithful to God. Jalek |
||||||
3 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240795 | ||
Greetings, Doc, again, with all due respect, where are these attacks against me about forum policy coming from? On several occasions, you've singled me out. All I did is what I have been doing from the beginning, and that is offer a valid interpretation of scripture, and backed up my claims with scripture as well as refuted other claims with scripture. If you have a problem with that, come right out and say so. Now, if this is about my comment that the Foundation needs to change their beliefs, then so be it, but my point stands. I'm not going to bend on what I believe just because some person comes along and tells me I have to. If I believe someone is teaching something contrary to the Bible, I'm going to speak up and say so, and that's exactly what I did. Jalek |
||||||
4 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240791 | ||
Greetings, With all due respect, Doc, I do not believe that Jesus's spirit went to hell during the time his body was in the grave, and for a good reason. First, none of those verses state that Jesus went to hell. The only one that even comes close to saying that is Ephesians 4:9 which states that Jesus descended into the earth, which can be interpreted as being put into the grave. Second, if Jesus was in hell for those three days, then why did he lie to the thief on the cross? He told the thief, "Today you shall be with Me in paradise." To say he was in hell makes him to be a liar. So, it's not out of disrespect I say this. Its because it's biblical. If the Lockman foundation teaches that Christ went to hell, they need to change their doctrine, cause the Bible doesn't teach that. Oh, and by the way, Psalms 23 only has 6 verses. Jalek |
||||||
5 | danger of small sins lead to larger sins | Matt 15:18 | Jalek | 240620 | ||
thanks Doc. I appreciate that. I would have enjoyed having you in class. | ||||||
6 | danger of small sins lead to larger sins | Matt 15:18 | Jalek | 240617 | ||
Greetings Doc, It's ironic you bring up John 19, because I taught a lesson from that passage just this morning in church. Let me ask you this. Is Jesus referring to the severity of the sin or the quantity of sin? Think on this a moment before you answer and look at the context. Jesus spoke those words to Pilate after Pilate informed him of his authority to release Jesus. When you look at the triad of debates between Pilate, Jesus, and the Jews, you see that Pilate was really only guilty of one thing: cowardice. One could also make a strong case of murder in addition to cowardice since he pronounced Jesus innocent three times, but still sentenced him to death due to peer pressure from the Jews. Now, look at the Jews. Not only did they try to murder Jesus on more than one occasion, but they fabricated evidence, lied about his true message on several occasions, they allowed their pride and religious fanaticism cloud their judgment, and they did this in the hypocritical belief that they were following God's law which they were really breaking. Do you see where I'm coming from, Doc? I hope so. Pilate was one man in one place at one time. His sin was inconsequential in comparison to the multitude of sins of the Jews who handed Jesus over to him. So, I see this passage as referring to "greater" in terms of quantity rather than quality or severity. Jalek |
||||||
7 | General Revelation | Jer 10:10 | Jalek | 240310 | ||
Greetings, First off, I'm not disagreeing with the quote from R. C. Sproul. I believe more clarification is needed. Secondly, the greek phrase, transliterated, is en autois. En is used with the locative case meaning "in, at, or on" or in the instrumental case meaning "by means of". Both of those are aspects of the dative case, which autois is in. So, the translation of "within them" is the more accurate translation. "among" would be closer to the greek preposition of Peri when used in the accusative case. With this insight, it is my belief that Paul is not only referring to God revealing himself through nature around us, but within us as well. After all, we are a part of God's creation and a part of nature as well. Thirdy, if you break down Romans 1:18-32 down and look at it from a strictly grammatical view, there are certain breaks in the passage where the thought shifts slightly: 18-20, 21-23, 24-25, 26-27, 28-32. These breaks and shifts in thought shows God punishing Mankind for their previous actions, and man falls further into depravity as a result. This begins in verse 21 with mankind not honoring God or giving him thanks. Now, I'm not saying that Jesus Christ is unnecessary. What I'm saying is that General Revelation gives enough knowledge to not only convict man of sin, but to also point them in the right direction which will ultimately lead to knowledge of Christ. So, yes, you're on the mark with what I'm trying to convey. We shouldn't dismiss general revelation as simply a means by which mankind is condemned. John 3:18 says "He who believes in him is not judged; he who does not believe is judged already because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." We come to know about the Son of God through Special Revelation, but how does General Revelation condemn us? It condemns us because it contains the first step towards coming to a saving belief in Christ. Jalek |
||||||
8 | General Revelation | Jer 10:10 | Jalek | 240303 | ||
Greetings, While I respect R. C. Sproul, I must comment on this quote. There's far more to what God reveals in General Revelation than what R. C. Sproul comments on. Paul tells us in Romans 1:18-20 that God revealed two things, not just one. He also revealed it in two different ways. While I agree that both ways fall under General Revelation, and that General Revelation doesn't contain saving knowledge, it can however lead to Special Revelation and Saving Knowledge. First, God revealed his wrath. He reveals it against Man's ungodliness and unrighteousness. He revealed this from Heaven. Now, Sproul comments that general revelation renders us without excuse. My question is ... excuse for what? Paul tells us in verse 21. "Although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks". There is an implied expectation within General revelation. That expectation is simple recognition. God expects man to recognize his existence, and to give him the honor due for his position as God and Creator. That is the first step towards salvation, recognizing that God exists and turning to him. This is revealed in General revelation. Second, God revealed his nature. He didn't reveal this just in the created world around us. Notice what Paul says in verse 19, "that which is known about God is evident within them,". This isn't just in nature, but is revealed within us as well. Humanity was created initially to be in the image and likeness of God. While ruined by sin, enough of that image still exists for God to use to reveal himself to us. But furthermore, in verse 20, Paul says that proof of God's nature is "clearly seen" and "understood". In Romans 1:18-32, Paul shows a downhill degradation as Mankind falls further and further into depravity. Each time a step is taken, God gives mankind a chance to turn back from their ways, and recognize his sovereignty. If they don't, God punishes them. So, yes, General Revelation doesn't offer saving information, but it does point to where saving information can be found. Jalek |
||||||
9 | 3 generations influenced by 1 verse | Phil 4:19 | Jalek | 240259 | ||
Greetings, This verse was my grandmother's favorite verse. She told me once that this verse helped her raise five children through poverty stricken times. She, my grandpa, and their children never had much, but she said God always provided what they needed. She would write to my dad every week when he was serving his country in Vietnam. She would end each letter with this verse. My dad said it was the one thing that kept his hopes alive during that traumatic time. She could write the verse down on ever card she gave me for my birthday and for Christmas. She even had a plaque in her room with this verse on it. For years, I knew the theology and meaning behind it, the context of the passage, but it didn't really hit home until today. I've been going through a personal financial crisis where I was going to be homeless in under four days if a miracle didn't happen. My dad, my pastor, my church, and my friends have been praying with me for a miracle to happen. Every avenue seemed to stop in a dead end, and I was growing more and more depressed. I e-filed my taxes a couple weeks ago, and put my bank account on the forms for a direct deposit of my tax refund. I wasn't expecting them since for the past ten years, they have been garnished and given towards my student loans. Tonight, after church, I logged onto my account online to view my balance of my account. I was floored when my tax returns had been deposited a few hours before. The amount of the refund is the perfect amount needed for me to get into a new apartment. I wanted to share this with my friends here as a story of renewed hope in this simple verse. Jalek |
||||||
10 | Resurrection or Easter sunday? | 1 Cor 15:32 | Jalek | 240220 | ||
Greetings, One explanation that I read once on why they call it Easter is because it was not only during Passover week, but also near a pagan holiday that paid honor to the ancient Babylonian goddess of sensuality Ishtar. Easter is apparently supposed to be a variant spelling of the name Ishtar. How true that explanation is, I don't know, but it is one that I've read in the past. Jalek |
||||||
11 | Why Passover? | Rev 5:12 | Jalek | 240217 | ||
Greetings Doc, Thank you for the insight. The purpose behind my question came from reading up on the purpose of Passover. Passover wasn't the time when Sins were atoned for. That day was reserved for the Day of Atonement. Hebrews 9 describes Jesus as the High Priest, entering the Most Holy Place, and offering his blood as the blood sacrifice needed for atonement of sin. The thing is, Hebrews 9 is talking about the Day of Atonement, yet Christ's work for Salvation was done during Passover. See why I'm asking? Jalek |
||||||
12 | When fasting can I drink coffee? | Matt 6:16 | Jalek | 240186 | ||
Greetings Doc, I believe the Bible does provide enough insight to give an answer. Fasting is mentioned several times throughout the Bible, and lasts for varying durations up to 40 days. Now, given that the human body can't go without food and water that long, it's reasonable to assume that water and bread were acceptable. In many cases throughout scripture, people who fasted abstained from even bread and water. According to Leviticus 23, people fasted at certain times through the year, such as the Day of Atonement, in order to humble themselves and atone for their sins before God. Isaiah 58 and Zachariah 7 speak of what is proper for a fast. It's the motive. Are you fasting because it's required or expected? Are you fasting because you want people to see how pious you are? Or are you fasting because you wish to correct your relationship with God and come closer to him? Now, to readdress the issue from the original question of drinking coffee in the middle of a fast. The idea of a fast is to abstain or go without. If one drinks coffee all the time, and continue through the Fast, is that person really fasting for the right motives? No, its more like a coffee only diet than fasting. Jalek |
||||||
13 | Three times Paul says his gospel was a m | Rom 16:25 | Jalek | 240029 | ||
Greetings, Is this not the same topic that Paul speaks of in the passages I mentioned in Ephesians? After all, he speaks of the same thing, and uses similar terminology as in ephesians 3. Jalek |
||||||
14 | Three times Paul says his gospel was a m | Rom 16:25 | Jalek | 240016 | ||
Greetings, First off, is the mystery that Paul is speaking about his own gospel or something else? Paul speaks about this mystery at length in his epistle to the Ephesians. In Ephesians 1:3-14 and 3:1-21, Paul talks about the mystery. In Ephesians 1:9, he calls it "the mystery of His (God the Father's) will". Later in Ephesians 3:4, he calls it the "Mystery of Christ". He's talking about redemption. It was hinted at in the Old Testament, promised, and prophesied, but it didn't become a reality and fully explained until Christ came and died on the cross. That is the mystery. It's redemption. However, it's not just redemption. In the Old Testament, almost everything about God's promises are focused upon Israel. In fact, the early church didn't think that gentiles, or non jews, were even worthy to hear the Gospel. It was two people who changed the early church's mind on that. The first was Peter, who had a vision in Acts 10. In Acts 11, he uses the vision as a defense to uphold the position of teaching gentiles the Gospel. The other place is in Acts 18. Paul has a vision from God after he makes a decision to teach the Gentiles. This vision reassures Paul that he won't be harmed as long as he's in the city and teaching. So, I think the mystery isn't just about redemption, but the redemption of both Jews and Gentiles alike, which hasn't been ignored. Jalek |
||||||
15 | was timothy an apostle | 1 Timothy | Jalek | 239896 | ||
Greetings, I wasn't aware of it either until I did some research for the question about Timothy being an apostle. Please keep me updated on your findings. It'll be interesting to see someone else's findings on the topic. Jalek |
||||||
16 | Anyone take notes during Yashua's life? | NT general | Jalek | 239870 | ||
Greetings, Something else to consider, in a time and place where paper may not be readily available, how do you retain knowledge? You pay attention and memorize what was said. Jalek |
||||||
17 | Anyone take notes during Yashua's life? | NT general | Jalek | 239848 | ||
Greetings, Pardon me for interjecting here. I wanted to add a bit of insight. The idea of a "Q" document is just that ... an idea ... a hypothesis with no real support beyond comparisons between the Gospels. However, Doc did touch on a far more likely and feasible explanation. The problem with the "Q" document is that there is precisely zero mention of it in the Bible, non-biblical sources of the era, and the early church fathers. Something as important as a collection of notes from the three years during the ministry of Christ would have been precious and cherished, as well as preserved. Especially if any of that was written by Jesus himself. What is mentioned is that there were eye witnesses still alive throughout the first century. When you take in the abundance of eye witnesses, you don't need some mysterious and unmentioned "Q" document. This is especially true when the majority of the eyewitnesses are jewish, which Doc pointed out had a strong oral tradition of memorization. Jalek |
||||||
18 | Genesis angels creating giants? | Gen 6:2 | Jalek | 239765 | ||
Greetings, You're welcome, and thank you for the compliment. I have a little more time to elaborate on what I said before. One thing I do want to urge caution about is that some translations do have "Angels" or "Spiritual beings" or "heavenly spirits" in the passage instead of "Sons of God". This is because they follow the false interpretation instead of the literal text. This is common with dynamic translations such as Contemporary English version, the New Living Translation, and in paraphrases such as the Good News Bible and the Living Bible. As I said before, this is a false interpretation, and it's why I don't put much faith in Dynamic Translations and Paraphrases. If you look at the chapters leading up to and following this passage, you have Mankind growing and getting progressively worse. In chapters four and five, you have the genealogies of Cain and Seth. You'll notice upon careful examination that there are names in both lists, such as Enoch and a few others. This leads many, such as myself, to conclude that the two lines intermarried, and that Genesis 6:1-4 is describing why and when. Also, the context is all about Mankind and specifically God's reaction and interaction with Mankind. Putting angels or spirit beings into this passage disrupts the flow of the context in these early chapters of Genesis. As far as the belief that Angels created giants, that is nothing but pure ignorance and lack of observation. As I pointed out before, the text clearly indicates that the Nephilim were already in existence when the Sons and the Daughters came together. It is impossible for the Giants to be their offspring. The only conclusion that makes sense is that the Giants comment is to establish a timeframe for the intended audience. Now, as to specifically what or who the giants were, we can only guess. I give serious doubt that they were the same giants as mentioned in Numbers 13 due to the flood killing all of mankind except for Noah's family, who aren't called Nephilim. That indicates that the term is descriptive instead of a proper noun. There are too many possibilities as to the identity of the Giants to speculate accurately. Jalek |
||||||
19 | Who's the "her" ? | Rev 18:4 | Jalek | 239691 | ||
Greetings, Nation ... city ... that's simply an oversight on my part. I didn't take Revelation 18:10 into account. As for the "she" in 1 peter 5:13, I think that is referring to the church, which is feminine in the greek language and often referred to as a female. Why I believe this is the way Peter refers to her as "chosen". With that said, I think that is different than the "She" and "Her" used in Revelation 17 and 18, which I think is specifically referring to Babylon. I think Peter's use of Babylon is to identify his location at the time. As far as what the Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18 is referring to, I still think that it is a nation, or a city acknowledging the above oversight. It would be a large, influential, and corrupting place, where the heads of governments come to meet. Now, with this being prophecy, we can't say for certain what this is referring to in terms of an identity, but one place that comes to mind right now would be New York City or Washington DC, but that is merely opinion. Now, one thing to take into consideration, the battle of Armageddon takes place before this, which I don't think has happened yet. This is getting into something I try to not speculate on. Right now, all we can do is try to interpret the signs given in the scriptures. Trying to establish identities to the symbolic images provided in these prophecies can lead to danger. I even have a book from the late 80s that goes into detail to explain why Mikhail Gorbachev was the Antichrist. Obviously he wasn't, but I hope it clarifies what I'm trying to say. We should be careful about trying to go further than what the scriptures provide. Jalek |
||||||
20 | Who's the "her" ? | Rev 18:4 | Jalek | 239680 | ||
Greetings, Babylon the Great is considered by many of the Biblical Prophets to have been the most glorious and influential empire, not necessarily the most powerful or the longest standing. In Revelation 17 and 18, John is referring to another nation that is similar to Babylon in glory and influence. The image of the harlot riding a dragon is largely symbolic. This is a warning as well as a prediction of a nation's corrupting influence and fall. As to which nation that is referring to, take your pick. Right now, we can't say for certain. Jalek. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |