Results 1 - 20 of 132
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, 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 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240785 | ||
Greetings, According to his promise to the thief on the cross, Jesus was in paradise. I'm not sure where the idea of Jesus going to Hell came from, but I think it's a misinterpretation of a passage in 1 Peter where it says that Jesus visited spirits which were locked up. Jalek |
||||||
6 | Is cussing and premarital sex wrong or o | Bible general | Jalek | 240758 | ||
Greetings, Have you heard of the biblical scholar T. W. Hunt? If you haven't, I'd encourage you to look him up, and specifically his study called "The Mind of Christ". Taken from Philippians 2:5 where Paul tells the Philippian church to have the same attitude that Christ had. He also says elsewhere to "conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ". Think upon those two concepts a moment. There was a popular phrase when I was in High School. Now I'm probably giving my age out when I say this, but I was in High School when the "WWJD" movement began. WWJD was an acronym that stood for "what would Jesus do?". It was intended to be a question to ask yourself when you face with a troubling situation. It had Paul's words to the Philippians in mind. So ask yourself, would Jesus cuss like a sailor? No, he wouldn't. He would, as Paul says in Philippians 2:14, "do all things without grumbling or disputing". So, my advice to you is to sit down and read Philippians all the way through. In fact, don't just read it once, but study it. Try to read it once a day for two weeks straight. When you read it, be sure to read the epistle in one sitting. Now, why am I recommending this? Because when you read something over and over, it has a greater chance of being retained to memory. Also, each time you read it, there is a greater chance that you'll understand it a little better than the time before. So, reading it over and over is a good practice to get into. Now for your other concern about premarital sex. Personally, it is my advice to wait until marriage. Here's why. In the Old Testament, especially in the King James, sex was referred to as "knowing" your mate. It carried the symbolism of sharing intimate knowledge with each other. When you think of sex in that perspective, it becomes clear, at least to me, why it is best to wait until marriage. The Love that a husband and a wife share is to be unique only between them. That's why the Bible is so harsh on adultery and homosexuality and other sexual perversions. Sex was intended to be intimate, a secret, if you will. How would you feel if your secrets were known to everyone around you? Think of sex in the same terms. There's another concern that waiting until marriage solves. In today's world where STDs are rampant, who are the ones you can nearly guarantee won't have one? The ones who haven't had sex. Paul, in Romans 1, refers to STDs and describes it "as the due penalty for their error" when he describes the sexual depravity of sinful man. This links into what I was saying about the Mind of Christ. Do you read of Christ going around and sleeping with every woman that came along? No. He treated women with respect and elevated them, but he wasn't sexually active or married as far as we know. Given how the Church is referred to as his "bride", I seriously doubt he was married. So, again, what would Jesus do when it comes to sex? He'd be careful and respectful to his future spouse, and wait. Jalek |
||||||
7 | Enoch, Moses, Elijah in heaven | OT general | Jalek | 240639 | ||
Greetings, Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were old testament figures. Enoch was a pre-noahic figure. Moses and Elijah are considered to have been the two most powerful prophets ever to live. Moses actually died, which is recorded in Deuteronomy 34. Enoch and Elijah, however, were taken up by God. Meaning that there is no recorded death for them, but they were carried up to heaven by God himself due to their faith. Jalek |
||||||
8 | divorce,marriage,divorce,remarry1st wife | 1 Cor 7:1 | Jalek | 240629 | ||
Greetings, Its in the minor prophets somewhere, but God said "I hate divorce." Jesus comments that a person who marries after getting divorced has committed adultery. Paul, in one passage, encourages reconciliation. So, in the eyes of God, you're still married to your first wife already. My advice is that if you can reconcile and remarry your first wife, then go for it, and may God be with you. Jalek |
||||||
9 | 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. | ||||||
10 | 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 |
||||||
11 | danger of small sins lead to larger sins | Matt 15:18 | Jalek | 240615 | ||
Greetings, One problem with this question is the assumption that there are different categories of sins. The Bible makes no such claims about degrees of severity when it comes to sin. Sin is sin, and all sin is an act of disobedience against God's will. It is man's need to justify his sin that classifies sin into greater sins like the so called "Seven Deadly Sins" and lesser sins like the "Little White Lie". The so called "Seven Deadly Sins" are not found in the Bible, but is actually a misinterpretation of Proverbs 6:16-19. However, when you look at the context, Lying and Murder are both viewed as equal in the eyes of God. With that said, there are passages that hint to a progression of sins leading to more sinning. Psalms 14, Habakkuk chapter 2, Matthew 15:15-20, and Romans 1:18-32 all hint to this. Jesus in Matthew 15 clearly teaches that it is what comes out of the mouth of man that defiles him. In the following verse, he lists several sins in no real certain order, nor does he indicate any particular hierarchy. Paul and Habakkuk both claim that one sin leads to another as a result of Man's lack of faith and willful disobedience against God. Like Jesus, David in Psalms comes right out and describes man as corrupt to the core, and do not even consider doing good. Hope this helps, Jalek |
||||||
12 | Is Mary anyhow related to King David???? | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240493 | ||
Greetings, As I stated in my previous post, both of those were excerpts from two different sources that comments on the genealogies. As far as a Bible passage that states the genealogy in Luke is through Mary, there isn't one. However, I'm confused as to why you seem hesitant to extrapolate from Scripture, yet at the same time admit that the Bible is subject to individual interpretation. After all, Extrapolation and Interpretation go hand in hand with one another, especially when done through proper exegesis and hermeneutics. Now, as far as your primary question, "Is Mary anyhow related to King David?", the answer is obvious, and I'm surprised that it even needs to be asked. "Yes, she is." Why do we know this? The answer is equally simple, and the Bible does tell us. In Revelations 2:16, Jesus says it plainly, "I am the Root and Offspring of David." Now, since he's not born to Joseph, but born only to Mary, then we can EXTRAPOLATE that Mary was also an "Offspring" or a descendant of King David. Jalek |
||||||
13 | Jesus lineage through Mary!!! | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240491 | ||
Greetings, The explanation of Luke using the heads of houses was the one given to me by my New Testament professor when I asked a similar question when in College. However, for some references, here's an excerpt from the Biblical Illustrator which might explain it better than I am able to. The double genealogies of Christ as the Son of David The general facts are these— 1. The genealogy in St. Matthew descends from Abraham to Jesus, in accordance with his object in writing mainly for the Jews; whereas St. Luke’s ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, in accordance with his object in writing for the world in general. 2. The generations are introduced in St. Matthew by the word “begat”; in St. Luke by the genitive with the ellipse of “son.” 3. Between David and Zerubbabel St. Matthew gives only fifteen names, but St. Luke twenty-one; and they are all different except that of Shealtiel (Salathiel). 4. Between Zerubbabel and Joseph St. Matthew gives only nine generations, but St. Luke seventeen; and all the names are different. The difficulty as to the number of the generations is not serious. It is a matter of daily experience that the number of generations in one line often increases far more rapidly than that in another. Moreover the discrepancies in these two lists may all be accounted for by noticing that Matthew adopts the common Jewish plan of an arbitrary numerical division into tesseradecads. When this system was adopted, whole’ generations were freely omitted, for the sake of preserving the symmetry, provided that the fact of the succession remained undoubted (cf. Ezr_7:1-5 with 1Ch_6:3-15). The difficulty as to the dissimilarity of names will of course only affect the two steps of the genealogies at which they begin to diverge, before they again coalesce in the names of Shealtiel and of Joseph. A single adoption, and a single levirate marriage, account for the apparent discrepancies. St. Matthew gives the legal descent through a line of kings descended from Solomon—the jus successionis; St. Luke the natural descent—the jus sanguinis. St. Matthew’s is a royal, St. Luke’s a natural pedigree. Here's another excerpt from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary: Have we in this genealogy, as well as in Matthew’s, the line of Joseph? or is this the line of Mary? - a point on which there has been great difference of opinion and much acute discussion. Those who take the former opinion contend that it is the natural sense of this verse, and that no other would have been thought of but for its supposed improbability and the uncertainty which it seems to throw over our Lord’s real descent. But it is liable to another difficulty; namely, that in this case Matthew makes Jacob, while Luke makes “Heli,” to be Joseph’s father; and though the same man had often more than one name, we ought not to resort to that supposition, in such a case as this, without necessity. And then, though the descent of Mary from David would be liable to no real doubt, even though we had no table of her line preserved to us (see, for example, Luk_1:2-32, and see on Luk_2:5), still it does seem unlikely - we say not incredible - that two genealogies of our Lord should be preserved to us, neither of which gives his real descent. Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph - here His real, there His reputed line - explain the statement about Joseph, that he was “the son of Hell,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Rth_1:11, Rth_1:12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported. However we decide, it is a satisfaction to know that not a doubt was thrown out by the bitterest of the early enemies of Christianity as to our Lord’s real descent from David. On comparing the two genealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Savior was sprung from Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human family, thus showing Him to be the promised “Seed of the woman.” Jalek |
||||||
14 | Luke 1:32-33 | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240489 | ||
Greetings, Check out Luke 3:23-38. This is believed to be the lineage you are asking for. Although it doesn't list Mary, but Joseph, Luke uses different language than Matthew does in Matthew 1:1-17. First thing to point out is that Matthew uses a term translated as "begat". Meaning that he's tracing through the genetic line. However when Matthew comes to Joseph and Jesus, he calls Joseph "The husband of Mary". He doesn't follow the pattern and say "Joseph begat Jesus". Thus meaning that the genetic line stops at Joseph, who is Jesus's adopted and legal father through the eyes of the Law and the Jews of his day. Luke, however, refers to Jesus as "the son of Joseph". Joseph was the adopted father, or earthly caregiver, of Jesus. Legally, Jesus would have been seen as his son. So, it is believed that Luke is following through Mary's lineage, but is instead referencing the heads of the house. So in summary, Matthew is following Jesus's line through his adopted father, using the genetic father and son. Luke is following through Mary's line, but he's listing the heads of the house. Second, as for Jesus's connection to David, look at both lists. Matthew, through the line of Joseph, his adopted father, was connected to David through Solomon. However, the throne was taken away from Solomon's line due to the actions of several of his descendants. However, through Mary, Jesus was connected to David through Solomon's brother, Nathan. Jalek |
||||||
15 | What Cup was Jesus talking about? | Matt 26:39 | Jalek | 240476 | ||
Greetings, It's an idiom. Basically, Jesus is asking God the Father if it is at all possible for the coming events to not take place. He's distressed and nervous over the coming beatings and crucifixion. In Dr. Luke's account of this prayer, he describes Jesus as praying with drops of blood, which is a medical condition brought on by severe stress where the blood vessels and sweat glands touch each other. It makes the skin very sensitive. Basically, the Cup represents all that is about to happen to Jesus. This is eluded to earlier in Matthew 20:20-23. The same basic meaning applies in both passages. Jalek |
||||||
16 | divorced-remarry makes one an adulterer? | Luke 16:18 | Jalek | 240472 | ||
Greetings, You're pretty much on the mark, but let me clarify. Recall your wedding vows ... "Till death do we part ...". It's not "Until we get sick and tired of each other ...". Biblical Marriage is until death, not until both parties get tired of being together. So, that's the primary reason why remarrying after divorce is the same as Adultery. Because the divorced person is still married in the eyes of God. Now, I realize this sounds harsh, but as God hates divorce, so do I. People in today's world treat marriage as something like a toaster oven they get on Christmas. If they don't like it, they can return it. Love isn't viewed as the most powerful of all emotions, but is viewed as something like their sunglasses and car keys, as if love is something that can be lost. Love never fails. Love never fades away. There's one last thing I want to point out is the reason behind divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses explains that divorce is allowed if the woman is found to be unclean or indecent in some manner. Jesus, in Matthew 19:1-12, clarifies that a person who remarries after divorce commits adultery unless the reason for the divorce is because the spouse was immoral. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, first recommends reconciliation. However, he goes on to say that if the divorce happens because one is an unbeliever and leaves, then to let that one leave. Jalek |
||||||
17 | what verses show that Jesus is God | John | Jalek | 240464 | ||
Greetings, I'd turn to the Gospel of John. John the Beloved's motivation to writing his gospel was to combat Docetism, which was an early Christian heresy that denied Christ's humanity. Look at the "I am" statements of Christ. If you look at these "I am" statements, there are two primary things, among others, that stand out. 1. The phrase "I am" is the same identity God gave to Moses at the Burning Bush. 2. There are Old Testament verses that parallel these statements. Since January, I've been going through the Gospel of John in the Sunday School class I teach. Let me show you what I mean. "I am the bread of Life." John 6:35 Now, compare this with Psalms 63:1-5. David speaks about how he longs for spiritual satisfaction, which mirrors the message that Jesus gives in John 6:35. David is saying that it is God who satisfies him, and Jesus is saying that he, himself, is the one who satisfies. In his own way, Jesus is claiming to be God. "I am the light of the World." John 9:5 Compare with Psalms 27:1. Of all the "I am" statements, this is the one that most clearly points to Christ being God. David calls Jehovah, specifically by name, as his light and his salvation. Jesus says the same thing, almost verbatim. I could go through each one and explain, but I'll provide the verses instead. Almost all of them are self explanatory. John 10:9 and Psalms 3:3 John 10:11 and Psalms 23:1 John 11:25 and Psalms 119:107 John 14:6 and Psalms 33:4 John 15:1 and Psalms 80:8 John 18:37 and Psalms 29:10 Now, for the second part, showing that Jesus was equal with God. The best passage for that is John 5:1-47 This is where Jesus heals the invalid at the Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath. The Jews get up in arms about this, and confront Jesus. They even wish to kill him because they view Jesus as a Sabbath breaker. In verse 17, Jesus says this "My father has been working until now, and I have been working." Notice the following verse. The Jews wish to kill Jesus because he not only broke the Sabbath in their mind, but because he also claimed to be God's son. Now, John the Beloved explains this. It is a jewish idiom. In the Jewish mindset, claiming to be the Son of God is the same as claiming to be God's equal. The final point of Jesus being human, I'd turn to John 4:7. Notice, he's thirsty. This is one of three times where Jesus is shown to be thirsty or hungry. The other two are John 19:28 and Matthew 4:2. If he wasn't human, then why did he get hungry and thirsty? Now, this may be more complicated than intended, but it gets the point across in the simplest way I can show. Jesus claimed to be God with his "I am" statements. He claimed to be equal to God by claiming to be his Son, and he was still human because he got Hungry and Thirsty. Jalek |
||||||
18 | MAT. 18:8? | Matt 18:8 | Jalek | 240451 | ||
Greetings, There's another interpretation to this passage than the vanity of clinging to temporal things. Jesus is speaking of things that cause us to stumble, or sin. He's saying that one should be willing to go to extremes to prevent himself from sinning. He's using these analogies as a way of getting his point across. If removing one of your eyes, hands, or feet will help prevent you from falling into the sin, then what is the loss of those parts and entering heaven in comparison to losing your body intact and soul in hell? Jalek |
||||||
19 | What Year was Acts Written? | Acts | Jalek | 240368 | ||
duplicate | ||||||
20 | Paul's Birth Year? Acts Written in What | Acts | Jalek | 240365 | ||
Greetings, The book of acts was possibly written about 63 AD. One of the reasons why this date is given is because Luke doesn't mention the deaths of Peter and Paul which happened around 67 AD, nor does he mention the burning of Rome in 64 AD. Furthermore, he doesn't say anything about the destruction of the temple. He closes Acts with Paul awaiting trial, but doesn't mention the results of that trial. So, the likeliest date is 63 AD. As far as when Paul was born, we can only speculate. The dates of his birth range from 5 BC to 5 AD. Jalek |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |