Results 1 - 20 of 51
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: richilou Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | WAS JESUS FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER? | Matt 27:46 | richilou | 41210 | ||
I think it is an intellectual distorsion of what the Bible said concerning a reality. | ||||||
2 | WAS JESUS FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER? | Matt 27:46 | richilou | 41208 | ||
My brother, I think you misinterpreted what I meant when I wrote. It is often like that anyway among christians. Being a preacher and teacher of theology I know what I am talking about. Of course I do not believe Jesus was held by some poor nails He created Himself. All I can say is to tell you that you would have to study the doctrine of substitution more deeply. A good verse for that as a starting point could be Isa. 59.1-2. Immediately, I take care to warn you that you will say: "Wait a minute! The question here doesn't concern the separation of Jesus from God". On that point I would agree with you, but if you read the reason of the separation, you see that it is sin that causes it. Moreover, you know as myself that Jesus has been made sin for us (2 Cor. 5.21). In conclusion, you asked me to explain how Jesus could be separated from His Father being God Himself. Once again, if you look at it in that perspective, I agree with you. But the issue here is not that I believe in a split within the Godhead or His deity. It is rather a separation as a momentarily "being made sin for us" (2 Cor. 5.21). In fact, I think we believe the same thing. The problem is that you talk about it in a perspective and I talk about it in another. I will not come back with you on that. We are there to edify one another and all those who read us, not to undergo a dispute of words as Paul said. | ||||||
3 | WAS JESUS FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER? | Matt 27:46 | richilou | 41070 | ||
Ok my dear friend. I think that an illustration will help you to understand the idea I had in mind in my previous note. One day Jesus said: "I am the door". Was He really a literal door to enter a house? Of course not. It was another way of saying: "I am the One through whom you will find the way of eternal life", right? When we say that Jesus has been forsaken by His Father it is in the sense that Jesus had no way out to escape the situation because it was the one planned by God from all eternity past. And this situation was the terrible fire of God expressing His holy wrath against sin. Keep in mind that He was bearing on His shoulders not so much an abandonement of God as such, but rather He was there to be punished for our sins. It is in that way that God was forsaking Him. Another important thing is this. If Jesus would have not been really forsaken, His cry to His Father would have become inconsistent with His real feeling and would have been in vain. By the way, it was not just a false feeling that He manifested in words, it was a reality that was happening in His body and mind. We can say what you referred to to prove that God never forsake when you said the words: "I will never leave you nor forsake you...". But here, watch out! The comparison with what God said in that last passage and the situation of the cross are not to be compared at all. The reality of what happened on the cross was the reality of what happened in the heart of Jesus as I said. He felt abandoned because He was, period; not because He was out of control of His words being in a state of suffering, even terribly. So it is in that sense that God forsake Jesus. We must understand the sense rather than trying to reason the words. | ||||||
4 | WAS JESUS FORSAKEN BY HIS FATHER? | Matt 27:46 | richilou | 41020 | ||
I think the answer is good and concise. The fact is to keep in mind that in theology, we call it the doctrine of substitution. That is to say that for a short period of time in eternity, God the Father saw His Son as the greatest sinner in all the human history in order to get salvation for all the elect. Now, He was the Son of God even though He was abandoned for a while. The issue is rather that as a Son He was abandoned for our salvation. | ||||||
5 | Is it God, Ourselves or Satan? | Bible general Archive 1 | richilou | 11351 | ||
So, I invite you to e-mail me again on your question if you want to exchange some points on that very delicate subject. | ||||||
6 | opinion in NET Bible (cf. www.bible.org) | Gen 1:26 | richilou | 11140 | ||
I don't really think that the concept of plural of majesty has to be retained here. | ||||||
7 | Whatever happened to Joseph?? | NT general Archive 1 | richilou | 11133 | ||
I would like you to remember that the person had said that we could answer by e-mail. Therefore, I just answered according to a possibility that was offered. | ||||||
8 | Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter? | Judg 11:31 | richilou | 11099 | ||
It is the position of the Dr. Gleason Archer in his "Introduction to the Old Testament. | ||||||
9 | Did Jephthah sacrifice his daughter? | Judg 11:31 | richilou | 11097 | ||
It is, as you said, much debated. But for another option to explain the text (without saying that it is truer) it would be good if you could read what Gleason Archer had to say about that in his book: "Introduction to the Old Testament". | ||||||
10 | Please add prayer requests in user info | Bible general Archive 1 | richilou | 11092 | ||
I will think about you Nolan in my prayer. | ||||||
11 | What is the purpose of this Bible | NT general Archive 1 | richilou | 11069 | ||
The answer you gave is exactly what I thought in myself and I think that we have to much people thinking that they are THE reference when we talk about a particular subject that doesn't fit their opinion. Good point my friend. | ||||||
12 | Were the Apostles theologians? | NT general Archive 1 | richilou | 11066 | ||
I think you missed the question of our friend. You used the word "theoreticians" while he spoke of "theologians". Maybe it is just an error of typing of your own. If this is the case, then forget what I said. | ||||||
13 | Was Jesus a reformer? | NT general Archive 1 | richilou | 11058 | ||
Good point Sam, and I would add concerning the fact that man has always been willing to redifine God and His will that Norman Geisler has written a good book on that very subject: "Creating God in the image of man!" | ||||||
14 | Was Jesus a reformer? | NT general Archive 1 | richilou | 11060 | ||
I agree with you Hank. | ||||||
15 | What form will our bodies be in heaven? | NT general Archive 1 | richilou | 10980 | ||
But I think that the question would need deeper thought than that. I agree with what you say, but many times, theological thinking is required and it is for that very reason I have suggested to the person to read the book of Murray J. Harris on resurrection: "From the Grave to Glory". | ||||||
16 | Divorce and remarry? | Ps 103:12 | richilou | 10976 | ||
I think you gave to him a good advice. | ||||||
17 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10926 | ||
Ok, my friend, let us study more on our own side. In Heaven we will try to find Paul...LOL | ||||||
18 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10834 | ||
My friend, there is a huge difference between applying the rules of hermeneutics and the outline of a letter. Sorry! | ||||||
19 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10832 | ||
You are very inconsistent with your critic of mine. You said that you have never seen the approach I had and at the same time, you say that you suspect that it could be the one of Dr. Edgar. So, what I noticed at 100 percent sure, is that you have never read the book of Dr. Edgar. So, read and after you will speak more solidly. And for the rest, study the hermeneutics in the times of the apostles and you will find that it is not an idea taken in the air... I conclude with this remark: Do you think you have all read what has been written on a subject? | ||||||
20 | Holy Spirit baptism and tongues | Mark 9:24 | richilou | 10776 | ||
If you understand the meaning of the word hermeneutic, I think, however that you seem to fail to apply it in the interpretation of a passage. When Paul made an allusion to the praying the tongue of angels, he didn't mean that it was a "reality" in the eyes of God, as a THING TO PRACTICE. It is there that hermeneutics comes to our rescue. First, we must keep in mind the real purpose of Paul in that chapter and not forget the real problem the Corinthians had with the gifts of the Spirit, more than likely the one of tongues. Follow the reasoning of Paul (not mine) here. He began the chapter in the words he finished the last (LOVE). But he says immediately, that prophecy was "preferable" to the tongues, not according to him or to God, but because of the corinthian trouble. Right? Why can we say that? Because they missed the point of the gifts in general and he wanted to reestablish the foundational goal that the gifts of the Spirit were for the edification of the saints, right again? Now, follow the rest. He said this: "For he that speaketh in a tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God; for no man understandeth; but in the spirit he speaketh mysteries. Now, of what mysteries was he talking about? It is in the sense that it is incomprehensible to the common man or the common language of the church. But now, the trap that so many fall in is this. They think that in saying that, Paul was promoting a spiritual exercice called "praying in tongue" and that, just because they see the expression "speaketh not unto men, but unto God". But, why did he say that? What did he mean by that form of argumentation. My friend, hermeneutics help us to know that in the times of Paul, the rethorical form of language for purpose of argumentation was very much used and above all, by the rabbinical way of teaching (do not forget that Paul had been trained at the feet of Gamaliel). So it was normal for him to borrow the same way of language when he tried to make a point very clear. But, once again, what did he mean by "speaketh not unto men, but unto God"? Here is the answer. The Corinthians have the tendency to forget the goal of spiritual gifts and Paul is saying that if there is no edification at all, you don't have any right to pretend that you do the best thing according to God. But the main point is the following. Verse 2 is another way of saying this: "Dear Corinthians, when you speak in tongue the way you seem to do, you are in reality not speaking to men that would have the right to be edified, but it is AS THOUGH YOU WOULD SPEAK TO GOD, BECAUSE IN THE WAY YOU SPEAK, THERE WOULD BE ONLY HIM THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND ANYWAY, SINCE NOBODY IN THE CHURCH UNDERSTANDS WHAT YOU SAY BY YOUR WORDS". Do you get the point he tried to make? He wanted to show that a mysterious language is good when it is accessible to others by the way of interpretation, and nothing else. But, for them it was totally the contrary; nobody was able to understand because there were not always good interpreters in their midst. So the second verse is a way of saying: "Hey Corinthians, for the sake of God and for the sake of your brothers in Christ, be not foolish in saying things that only God could understand. Remember that God would like you to practice in such a way that everybody would be able to get the mysterious message. Mysterious until it is interpreted correctly. That is the key of the passage and the help hermeneutics can give. | ||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |