Results 1 - 12 of 12
|
|
|||||
Results from: Notes Author: NewPilgrim Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Jesus weeping | John 11:35 | NewPilgrim | 179142 | ||
No offence caused dear baggett. I find it was a very good question. My answer may have been rather long, so perhaps I could summarise it simply by saying: Yes Jesus did indeed weep for the people around him. He wept in frustration at seeing that they had little faith in him as Messiah. | ||||||
2 | Jesus weeping | John 11:35 | NewPilgrim | 179078 | ||
2 verses prior to "Jesus wept" we read that he groaned in the spirit and was deepy troubled. The word translated "groaned" is "embrimaomai" I trust my brother Doc will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe this type of groaning is commonly associated with annoyance and irritation. The same word is used of the apostles ( I believe it was Judas, actually)in Mark 14 when they "murmered" against the woman who anointed Jesus with a jar of spykenard. So it would appear that Jesus is frustrated and annoyed and ready to grumble against someone or something. What comes to mind is the distinct lack of faith around him. Some of the people gathered knew Jesus very well and clearly knew his ability to heal and even to raise the dead (I will include a footnote of interest re: this issue) and yet they still mourned for lazarus and complained against Jesus for not coming sooner. Such lack of faith from Jesus's own nearest and dearest? despite him having sent message to them not to be concerned? Jesus had little reason to weep for Lazarus, he'd be up and walking very shortly and Jesus had known this even four days previously. Jesus wept in reaction to the weeping and mourning of others. Could he not have weeped for his dead friend of his own volition? why would he have to see others weeping first before realising that perhaps he ought to weep too? Their weeping was because they believed that now "not even Jesus" could or would raise Lazarus, a sign of faithlessness and it was this for which Jesus was angered and it was for this that Jesus wept. Lack of faith was something that seemed to trouble Jesus deeply; when the apostles failed to cast out a demon he said to them "faithless and perverse generation, how long must I contend with you!" Now, after Jesus begins to weep, the others point to him, thinking he weeps for Lazarus and they declare "behold how he loved him!Could this man not have raised him from the dead!" We read that this caused Jesus once again to "embrimaomai" (groan in anger) Why? because once again they proclaim their lack of faith "he COULD have raised Lazarus"....but apparently could not now raise him, if we were to believe these onlookers. Footnote: But WHY? why did they believe Jesus could raise the dead, but yet not Lazarus and not this day? The Scribes and Pharisees taught certain "superstitions" concerning Messiah. Though these were not perhaps true prophetic teachings of God...Jesus nevertheless fulfilled all of them, quite possibly to spite the doubts of the pharisees and prove that even by their own false understanding they could not refute that hee is trully messiah. This event at Lazarus tomb, fulfils the superstition that when a person dies, their spirit hovers near the body for three days, perhaps not fully aware of what has happened to them. The Pharisees would teach that a prophet could raise a dead person during these 3 days, but not after, because the spirit would have been taken away from the Body, by God, after these three days and therefore no-one, could bring them back......except for messiah. This is key to understanding why it was that Jesus remained where he was a further 2 days after hearing of Lazarus's mortal illness. In delaying his arrival at the tomb by 2 days, he had ensured that at least 3 days had passed since Lazarus's death. 3 days had come and gone, the chance to raise Lazarus was over, he was dead and unretrievable and this is why the people mourned and moaned at Jesus for "being late" By raising Lazaurus even after the 3rd day had passed, Jesus demonstrated to those who understood the pharisaic teachings about messiah, that he is indeed messiah. |
||||||
3 | Understanding TULIP | John 2:9 | NewPilgrim | 179018 | ||
Going on from there then, is it not shocking to consider that regardless of the motive of salvation, that God is one who changes the will of men, against their will, and in saving them enters into them? | ||||||
4 | What does "remaining in Him" really mean | Mark 15:5 | NewPilgrim | 178985 | ||
Thanks for the input Tim...I'm no greek scholar, I'll be the first to admit, but I do what I can to delve into the original greek text using my lexicon. I'll give good consideration to your comments :) | ||||||
5 | Is there any scripture regarding whether | Gen 3:15 | NewPilgrim | 178973 | ||
As an addition to my initial reply Mark, here is a passage to consider (particular attention to v22 and v27): Jhn 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. Jhn 5:20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. Jhn 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth [them]; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will. Jhn 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, BUT HATH COMMITTED ALL JUDGEMENT UNTO THE SON: Jhn 5:23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. Jhn 5:25 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. Jhn 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; Jhn 5:27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, BECAUSE HE IS THE SON OF MAN. I would like you to consider that not only is this title "the son of man" a prophetic title for messiah, but it was often used by Jesus to highlight and illustrate his humanity. With this in mind, ask yourself the question "what was it about the humanity of Jesus that led the Father to give him the authority to execute Judgement?" |
||||||
6 | What does "remaining in Him" really mean | Mark 15:5 | NewPilgrim | 178972 | ||
Hi Newbeginning and Doc :) Doc, my understanding of this passage is a little different to the one which you have presented. In the verse of 1John 3:9 it is esposued that "that which is born of God CANNOT sin" The greek text I believe says: "ou dunamai hamartano" which translates as "is unable to commit sin" There is a discrepency between the two greek words for sin in the passage... 1 John 3:9, "Whosoever is born of God doth ( Poieo- to make\do\perform) not commit sin (Hamartia - sins/a sin) ; for His seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin(Hamartano - to commit a sin), because he is born of God." If we follow hermeneutics, I believe that the rule of thumb would be that the latter reference would follow the form and function of the first, in terms of context. However it would seem that the popular translation would be based on the reverse of that premise. Let us look again at the verse as I understand it from the use of the greek words "hamartia" (sins/ a sin) and "hamartano" (to commit sin) 1Jo 3:9 Whosoever is born of God "performs not sins"; for his seed remaineth in him: and he "is unable to perform sins", because he is born of God. The full impact of this is that John states whosever is born of God is unable to commit sin, not refrring habitually, but literally and practically. Now, before you start worrying that I am gnostic and a heretic, let me explain that there is a clear disctinction between that which is born of God and that which is not...and you and I have BOTH. That is to say that when we are born again, John teaches us that we are "born from above" or "born of God" This of course refers to our spiritual birth at salvation. However despite the birth of spirit which is of God and therefore incorruptable seed, as Paul tells us, we still have with us our flesh which is of corrupted seed with a propensity for sin, as Paul also tells us and illustrates for us beautifully in his lamentations in Romans 7. Paul understood only too well, as did John, that the christian man leads an existence of duality. Our perfect and holy spirit, born of God, which is unable to sin and desires all righteousness - and our corrupt and sinful flesh which is born of corrupt seed and seeks corruption. Therefore, when we apply this understanding to John 3:9 we can see that when he speaks of "that which is born of God" he is referring to our spirit, rather than our entirety of spirit AND flesh. John 3:9, "Whosoever is born of God (the spirit of the believer) doth not commit sin; for His seed remaineth in him: and he (the spirit of the believer) cannot sin, because he is born of God." What say you brother? By the way it is good to be with you once again having been out of touch with you for so long and I look forward to more of our discussions :) |
||||||
7 | Is there any scripture regarding whether | Gen 3:15 | NewPilgrim | 178968 | ||
"James 1:13-15 (NASB95) 13 Let no one say when he is tempted, "I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone. 14 But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15 Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death. Can you show me in the scriptures above where it says anything about Jesus must have the potential to sin before we are tempted. Does it not teach we are tempted when we give into our "OWN" lust. Can you show any scripture that teaches such a teaching." ---------------------------- No, steve, the passage you quoted does not teach that temptation is the act of conceiding to lust. It teaches that temptation is an enticement to sin and that IF we then conceid to that temptation, THEN it gives conception to sin. Let us suppose for a moment that your understanding is the corret one: "we are tempted WHEN WE GIVE IN to our "own" lust." "Giving in" to lust is sin, is it not? as the "giving in" is the performing of the lustful sin that we desire. So now if we equate temptation as the performing of sin (giving in to lust) then the writer of the hebrews would lead us to conclude that Jesus must have sinned!! Hbr 2:18 For in that he himself HATH SUFFERED BEING TEMPTED, he is able to succour them that are tempted. Let us interject your understanding from James that one is tempted "when he gives in to his own lust" Hbr 2:18 For in that he himself hath suffered being "tempted when he had given in to his own lust", he is able to succour them that are tempted. If however we apply the understanding which I have presented which is that temptation is an "appeal to sin" that we must overcome - but not the giving in as you suggest, we can understand hebrews far better: Hbr 2:18 For in that he himself hath "denied the appeal to sin", he is able "having overcome temptation" to succour them that are tempted. If Jesus had not had the potential to sin, then an appeal by satan to him to sin would have no purpose whatsoever, as I said it would be little more than a token gesture. A reasonable analogy might be to tempt a blind man to read pornography. "There was a pornography book on the table, but I never read through it" Would that statement have any impact coming from a blind man? no (I know there are other ways for this man to sin and you are free to pick at the loopholes if you wish to show an inability to grasp a simple concept) Let us consider also Adam, the first man, who was not born of corrupted seed but was made by Gods own hand, created righteous and without sin, who was a figure of the one who was to come (Romans 5:14) that is Jesus Christ who was the "last adam" Adam also who was holy and pure in every way as was Jesus, though not God incarnate, nevertheless had also the potential to sin and we know this because he quite deliberately (1Tim 2:14) fulfilled that potential However, rather than ending anecdotally, I would like to finish by reminding you of the initial contention of my post, which is that if we suppose that temptation is "Giving in to lust" then hebrews teaches us that Jesus also gave in to his lust, ergo he sinned. It seems to me that the suggestion that Jesus was incapable of sin, is a far more dangerous claim than the understanding that Jesus overcame sin and temptation through total obedience to the Father through faith, as he calls us each to do by his example to us. |
||||||
8 | Is there any scripture regarding whether | Gen 3:15 | NewPilgrim | 178966 | ||
Mark, I confess my language was rather poor. It is apparent to me that it would have been far more accurate for me to say "His overcoming of all temptation and rejection of all sin SHOWS him fit to Judge" He IS fit to judge and always has been, his perfect life as a man with a mans limitations during his 33 years among us is the evidence of it rather than the cause. I will respond at a later time with a more involved response :) | ||||||
9 | Is there any scripture regarding whether | Gen 3:15 | NewPilgrim | 178943 | ||
It was entirely possible for Jesus to have sinned, elsewise the overcoming of temptation would be nonsense and his sacrifice would be an eternal joke, being little more than a token gesture. For Jesus to be fit to judge, the scripture teaches us, he lived as a man, with the temptations of man. If Jesus didnt have the potential to sin then temptation would not be temptation at all. Jesus however has never sinned and sin is not in him. The only time that Jesus and sin have been synonymous was on the cross when he was made sin for us that he might pay the penalty for our iniquities. And this, not because he sinned but because he was able to present himself spotless before God as a perfect sacrifice. |
||||||
10 | Mat 5:27-28. Adultery. | Prov 5:1 | NewPilgrim | 178689 | ||
In all these matters one requires wisdom, KumKum. Striking a balance between the sinful flessh and the righteous spirit is extremely difficult - what I mean by this is that we all as christians desire to be righteous under God, this we attain by the blood of Christ. However we know also that our entire life we will have the company of our sinful flesh, which Paul laments in Romans 7 as being that thing which leads us to sin. A little earlier than the verse you quoted In ecclisiastes the writer states (v20) "For there is not a just man on earth who dooes good and does not sin" Infact it would seem that the writer is struggling with a similar problem as you which is "IF i am not to sin, how on earth can I do anything? - there is temptation and wickedness all around me, even in me" and this is the balance we must strike, dear kumkum, learning to depend wholly on the lord for our righteousness and our strength. If you fear that lust would overtake you in a relationship then it is good that you refrain from a relationship. Paul even commends it for those who the Lord predisposes to celibacy, but as you commented earlier you lust after one of your friends, so it seems we do not even need to have a relationship with someone to lust after them...do we then refrain from having friends? from looking at women at all? - no. We must adopt the correct attitude to women and to relationships. That is why we should read the scripture regularly and to have an active relationship with Christ, through prayer and communion and fellowship with our bretheren the bride of Christ. |
||||||
11 | Jesus' Deity? | Rom 10:9 | NewPilgrim | 178654 | ||
The claims of Jesus as to his deity: "Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." "Jhn 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am." Note that in both verses Jesus claims "I am" which we know is the diviine name YHVH (often written phonetically as YHWH) translated into english. In 8:24 particularly we should take note that Jesus states unless we believe that he is God (I am) then we will die in our sins. In the case of all these statements, the term "I am" is translated into english through the greek text. This does not diminish its meaning however as we can see by studying John 8:28 - "Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am, and I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things." These words of Jesus are a prophecy which we see fulfilled in John 19:19 - "And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross. And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20....and it was written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin. " In Hebrew, the most probable rendition of this title would be Yeshua Hanazerai Vmelech Hayehudi'm If we study the initials, as hebrews (and particularly pharisees/scribes) often did, we read the acronym YHVH pronouncing the name of God above the head of Christ on the cross. When the pharisees saw it they would know the truth of Jesus prophecy "when you have lifted up the son of man you will know that I am" Another reference to the deity of Christ which is often overlooked comes in the form of a Cross-reference. In studying John 1, the writer attributes the title of "The Word" to Jesus Christ. For Christ is indeed "the Word of God". If we seek the first reference of this expression in scripture, we find it in Gen 15:1 - "After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I [am] thy shield, [and] thy exceeding great reward." This verse as it stands recognises that Jesus came to Abraham in a vision, but this information alone does not suggest the deity of God. However when we read Abrahams response in verse 2 it becomes clear: - "And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house [is] this Eliezer of Damascus?" In the Hebrew text Abraham addresses him as YHVH, here translated as "Lord GOD" In these two verses alone we see the ability of Christ to transcend time and we see also the divine name attributed to him by Abraham. |
||||||
12 | Where did Cains wife come from | Gen 1:1 | NewPilgrim | 178652 | ||
Salty, I hope you will find the following article helpful in answering your question. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/cains_wife.asp The section which addresses your question directly is as follows: "Cain was the first child of Adam and Eve recorded in Scripture (Genesis 4:1). His brothers, Abel (Genesis 4:2) and Seth (Genesis 4:25), were part of the first generation of children ever born on this Earth. Even though only these three males are mentioned by name, Adam and Eve had other children. In Genesis 5:4 a statement sums up the life of Adam and Eve—‘And the days of Adam after he had fathered Seth were eight hundred years. And he fathered sons and daughters.’ This does not say when they were born. Many could have been born in the 130 years (Genesis 5:3) before Seth was born. During their lives, Adam and Eve had a number of male and female children. The Jewish historian Josephus wrote that, ‘The number of Adam’s children, as says the old tradition, was thirty-three sons and twenty-three daughters.’11 The Bible does not tell us how many children were born to Adam and Eve. However, considering their long life spans (Adam lived for 930 years—Genesis 5:5), it would seem reasonable to suggest there were many! Remember, they were commanded to ‘Be fruitful, and multiply’ (Genesis 1:28). If we now work totally from Scripture, without any personal prejudices or other extra-Biblical ideas, then back at the beginning, when there was only the first generation, brothers would have had to have married sisters or there would be no more generations! We are not told when Cain married or any of the details of other marriages and children, but we can say for certain that some brothers had to marry their sisters at the beginning of human history. " |
||||||