Results 1 - 20 of 465
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Parable Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | John 15:2, "cut off" or "lift up"? | Not Specified | Parable | 47473 | ||
My question is about how we come to understand the meaning of scripture. I use the example of John 15:2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit. (NKJV) Some have used this verse to support the idea that salvation can be lost due to poor performance as a servant of Christ. This idea is hard to understand in light of Romans 8:1 "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," and Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-- not by works, so that no one can boast." Also, the footnote on John 15:2 provided at www.biblegateway.com, suggests the word for "takes away" can be translated "lifts up". How are "takes away" and "lifts up" related? Given these questions, how are we to understand what Jesus is really saying? In his book "Secrets of the Vine", p. 33, Bruce Wilkenson offers this: "..a clearer translation of the Greek word 'airo', rendered in John 15 as 'take way, would be 'take up' or 'lift up'. We find accurate renderings of airo, for example, when the disciples 'took up' twelve baskets of food after the feeding of the five thousand (Matthew 14:20), when Simon was forced to 'bear' Christ's cross (Matthew 27:32), and when John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God who 'takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29)." He continues, "In fact, in both the Bible and in Greek literature, 'airo' never means 'cut off'. Therefore, when some Bibles render the word as 'takes away' or 'cut off' in John 15, it is an unfortunate interpretation rather than a clear translation." Clearly, Wilkinson is critical of the many Bibles that translate 'airo' in a way he does not accept. He goes so far as to say "in the Bible and Greek literature, 'airo' NEVER means 'cut off'." This is a bold statement, considering that so many Bibles do translate the meaning as 'take away' or 'cut off'. (See John 15:2 at www.biblegateweay.com and compare versions.) Also, he appeals to Greek literature, a non-biblical source, to support his position. Is it acceptable to question the Bible in this way? Is it acceptable to compare the Bible with other sources? I say YES to both. First, the Bible itself instructs us to "Test everything. Hold on to the good." -- 1 Thess 5:21 Second, the Bible often uses comparisons with life to make its point. Parables are the clearest example of how comparisons with things we already understand from life help us to understand God's truths. Third, Jesus' intent simply is not faithfully conveyed by "takes away" or "cut off". In light of everything the Bible teaches about grace, mercy and love, especially the redeeming work of Christ on the Cross and the meaning of His resurrection, the fact one verse may be translated in a way that is contrary to that global meaning should cause us to question that translation rather than the global meaning. Furthermore, if there is a reasonable way to translate that verse such that it supports the global meaning of Scripture, rather than confound it, we are duty-bound to examine the evidence in support of that translation and its consequences for interpretation. Given this responsibility, how does "take up" or "lifts up" faithfully convey Jesus' meaning? Wilkison explains it this way, in a conversation with a vinedresser he met. He stresses that the vinedresser wants each and every branch to be fruitful. Vinedresser: "New branches have a natural tendency to trail down and grow along the ground. But they don't bear fruit down there. When branches grow along the ground, the leaves get coated in dust. When it rains, they get muddy and mildewed. The branch becomes sick and useless." Wilkinson: "What do you do? Cut it off and throw it away?" Vinedresser: "Oh, no! The branch is much to valuable for that. We go through the vineyard with a bucket of water looking for those branches. We lift them up and wash them off. Then we wrap them around the trellis or tie them up. Pretty soon they're thriving." This is the understanding Jesus wants us to have because it is what the disciples and everyone else of that day would have understood. No one then would have accepted the idea of discarding an entire branch and neither should we. Pruning, on the other hand, is a different matter, and it is likewise understood to be loving discipline, not disposal. My questions to the forum? 1. Is this a biblical understanding of John 15:2? 2. Is there anything wrong in the method used to support this interpretation? 3. If you disagree, what do you suggest is the proper method and interpretation? Parable |
||||||
2 | another hypothetical, applied ethics | Not Specified | Parable | 47776 | ||
Here's another hypothetical to spark your imagination. Yes, there are many reasons it is silly, but that's why its called a hypothetical: You are a paramedic. You find Satan lying on the ground, injured and bleeding. Without first aid, he will die. Let us also say that if Satan dies, the evil now present in the world would disappear. Your options are: do nothing, let him die render aid, save his life kill him, hasten the removal of evil What should you do? Explain. |
||||||
3 | What does God accomplish in us? | Not Specified | Parable | 48103 | ||
I ask three questions, in reverse order, that you may see the logic I am suggesting. 3. What NT ideas must we hold before we can accept, serve and abide in Christ? 2. Since the OT points to Christ, what OT ideas must we hold before we can accept NT ideas? 1. What ideas must we hold before we can accept Scripture as the Word of God? For the sake of illustrating what I'm asking for, I suggest that before we can accept the Bible as the Word of God, we must accept that God exists and can speak to us through the inspired writings of others. Then, we must accept that He actually did so and the books of the Bible are indeed inspired by Him. My interest is to describe in bullet points what the Bible says is our path as we move from unbelief to abiding in Christ. Also, perhaps there are some conditions that must be in place, but are understood rather than explicity described in Scripture. I acknowledge it may not be a stepwise process, as the Holy Spirit may bring us to Christ in any way He chooses; my thought is to express in brief terms what is accomplished in us by Him. Parable |
||||||
4 | Is Quakerism valid? | Not Specified | Parable | 80274 | ||
Some scholars hold that Quakerism is a third form of Christianity, distinct from catholicism and protestantism. Yet, Quakers have also been persecuted as heretics. Is Quakerism a legitimate form of Christianity? Please support thine answer with scripture. |
||||||
5 | what is the world made of? | Not Specified | Parable | 84915 | ||
What does the bible say this world is made of, that is, its composition? (I'm not asking for a description of its character or nature at this time.) Please cite specific verses if possible. Parable |
||||||
6 | Lord, let us always be your remnant. | Not Specified | Parable | 105602 | ||
Not really a question, but an observation on the dangers of doctrinism. "Arminius himself was not a man of extreme views, but those he held, and those of Calvin, have been taken to extreme measures by those who follow them. Maybe were they alive today neither Calvin would be a calvinist nor Arminius an arminian... That this (calvinism, arminianism, and other doctinal positions) should result in the formation of groups of Christians based upon their allegiance to one particular doctrinal emphasis was almost inevitable if none the less regrettable. The establishment of the earliest independent congregations was generally on a much more sure foundation. Their basic objection to a State Church was that it did not allow for the scriptural conception of a church based on a purely spiritual unity. In this way, they recognized that believers must gather only because of their relationship to Christ, and that matters of spiritual understanding are secondary to spiritual fellowship. It was not long, however, before the order was being changed. Churches were being formed because of doctrinal affiliations, and others were being split because of doctrinal differences. In doing so, spiritual life began to fade. Sectarianism became the order of the day. The ground of the church was deserted by all but the remnant whom the Lord has always preserved from the earliest times." -- John W. Kennedy, Torch of the Testimony, SeedSowers Publishing, 1965, p179. |
||||||
7 | Pledge, "under God", WWJD? | Not Specified | Parable | 105846 | ||
In response to the "under God" controversy, Christians who object to the recent challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance might want to consider the question, What Would Jesus Do? Scripture (e.g. Romans 13) informs that all authority is ordained by God and that believers are to submit to civil authority as part of their submission to God. In the US, that civil authority ultimately is the Constitution, which precludes the establishment any official state religion. There are good reasons for this, not the least of which is the brutal persecution of independent groups of believers by powerful sectarian state churches. The Pledge is not law and therefore has no authority under the Constitution, yet it remains a nationwide daily ritual in public schools, imposed through the force of tradition. Of course, children and teachers can opt to remain silent during the Pledge, but such civil disobedience, with its associated personal costs, clearly should not be the expected norm for any student or teacher at any public school. Furthermore, for anyone in public schools to be required to recite an oath of allegience to "one nation under god" is to require them to swear an oath to that god, or at least to acknowledge that god. Consider how would you feel if the pledge were to say "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under Buddha" or "one nation under Cosmic Consciousness"? How can we be so sure that the pledge is not simply religious indoctrination imposed by the might of the majority? Is this how God operates in our lives? As Christians, are we not called to embrace the oppressed, weak and powerless, even if, especially if, we disagree with them? If the Supreme Court upholds the Pledge, it will be all too easy to gloat that justice, and God, have been served. But, the real test of moral conviction will be if "under God" gets struck down and it is Christians, not atheists, who must choose submission or disobedience. So, with all due respect I ask, what would Jesus do, submit or disobey? Please support your response with specific verses or generally accepted biblical principles. Parable |
||||||
8 | Prescription for living? | Not Specified | Parable | 142590 | ||
A secular friend has suggested that the world would be a better place if we would just live such that it doesn't matter if there is a God or not. What does the bible say about this approach to life, pro or con? I'm interested to know if this principle for living is compatible with a biblical worldview or not. Thanks |
||||||
9 | How do we respond to Sam Harris? | Not Specified | Parable | 177091 | ||
In his book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason", author Sam Harris suggests faith itself is understood as belief that transcends reason, yet at the same time is justified by appealing to physical evidence, such as the miracles described in scripture. (my paraphrase) Of course, Harris questions the historicity of miracles and suggests that the idea scripture is the inerrant word of God is merely because scripture says so, which he suggests is circular reasoning and therefore invalid. What does the bible teach about the nature of faith itself? And given this nature, what does the bible say about why God values faith, perhaps even more than love? (because it seems faith is a prerequisite to love) Finally, what does the bible say about Harris' suggestion that religion is the bane of mankind? Didn't Jesus also criticize religiosity in favor of relationship? Harris' book is a direct challenge to the most cherished tenets of christianity, indeed all religions, in that he is challenging all beliefs that depend on mystical faith. As per 1 Peter 3:15, how would the bible have us respond to this most fundamental objection to faith itself? |
||||||
10 | Adultery? | Not Specified | Parable | 180496 | ||
I have not found any postings on this topic, but if there are some, please refer me. The topic is divorce. Jesus expressly states that divorce is not legitimate unless adultery is involved. When Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant with Jesus, he considered divorcing her, but the angel encouraged him not to do this on the grounds that Mary's baby was from God. It is also stated that Joseph was a righteous man, so divorcing Mary would have been righteous, on the grounds that she must have committed adultery. The bible does describes that the Holy Spirit came upon her and impregnated her. If this is not adultery, why not? If it is adultery, what is the significance of this? |
||||||
11 | What is hatred? When is it ok to hate? | Not Specified | Parable | 191432 | ||
According to the bible, what does it mean to hate? What is hatred? When is hatred righteous, and when is it sinful? Please be specific with verses that support your answers. |
||||||
12 | Scripture alone? | Not Specified | Parable | 191867 | ||
I propose the following to those who would willingly undertake an experiment here, to explore a different way of interacting: Instead of answering a question with a combination of scripture verses and commentary, either one's own or from other sources, answer in verse only. That is, nothing but scripture would appear in your response, period. This should be sufficient, since "all Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work". (1Tim3:16,17), and in Luke 24:45, Jesus "...opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures", and in James 1:5, we are instructed "if any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." We need not interject our limited understandings, personal insights and experiences, historical analyses or applications….that is, God will take of what we might otherwise presume to undertake. So, if you are willing to try something different, for this thread and only this thread, either 1) ask a question, or 2) post a response containing scripture and nothing but scripture. Of course, a response to a response would likewise follow this pattern. When asking a question, try to limit the setup for the question so as not to introducde too many ideas at once. For example, if you have concerns about this approach, please demonstrate it rather than explain it by quoting a verse that supports your concern, but let the verse speak for itself without extraneous input or explanation. You got game? Parable |
||||||
13 | Adultery? | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180499 | ||
I have not found any postings on this topic, but if there are some, please refer me. The topic is divorce. Jesus expressly states that divorce is not legitimate unless adultery is involved. When Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant with Jesus, he considered divorcing her, but the angel encouraged him not to do this on the grounds that Mary's baby was from God. It is also stated that Joseph was a righteous man, so divorcing Mary would have been righteous, on the grounds that she must have committed adultery. The bible does describes that the Holy Spirit came upon her and impregnated her. If this is not adultery, why not? If it is adultery, what is the significance of this? |
||||||
14 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180511 | ||
My summary of the circumstances was perhaps too cursory; it was to provide context rather than prove anything. The core of my question is this: does what happened between Mary and the Holy Spirit constitute adultery? Mary and Joseph were betrothed, which in those days was part of marriage. Adultery is defined as illicit sexual relations with a person other than the marriage partner. The Holy Spirit is a person, and impregnation is about as sexual as it gets. I'm asking for the biblical basis that this act, committed by a willing Mary and God, is not adultery. Either it is by virtue of the fact the law does not apply to God or what happened was somehow not illicit, sexual or both. I favor the latter, because Mary's virginity remained intact, at least until after the birth of Jesus, when Mary had children by Joseph. |
||||||
15 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180513 | ||
Not only the Spirit's actions, but also those of Mary, who said "May it be to me as you have said." Luke 1:38 |
||||||
16 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180540 | ||
Excellent citation! Thank you! | ||||||
17 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180541 | ||
Thanks, Steve. I'm not assuming anything about God, or trying to box Him in. I'm just testing the logic that seems apparent and working to apply biblical principals to a fair question put to me by a sincere seeker. I get many questions like this working at a university as I do. |
||||||
18 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180542 | ||
I don't disagree with anything you have said, but you have not provided any scriptural references that support your points 1-5, which without specific scriptural support, appear to be conjecture or speculation. | ||||||
19 | A stone so heavy He can't lift it? | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180562 | ||
I don't disagree. Yet I seek scriptural suppport for this position. Also, sin means to miss the mark set by God. In this context, whatever God does is consistent with his own standards, so defacto it is not possible for him to miss. Some could take this logic to mean that anything God does is not sinful, by definition, rather than that He is holy. How do you respond? |
||||||
20 | Mary's virginity remained intact | Bible general Archive 3 | Parable | 180585 | ||
Of course it was a miracle. That wasn't the question. Please bear with my process, there is a point to it, and its maybe not to "logically explain it away." Legalistically, since Mary was still a virgin, no sex act occurred, so technically it can't have been adultery. Yet, there are many broken people who have experienced the pain of a spouse who was for all practical purposes unfaithful, but perhaps not sexually, rather emotionally with someone else. This is perhaps even more of a betrayal than the physical. For them, the question of what constitutes infidelity is not just about whether or not intercourse occurred. Certainly what happened between Mary and the Holy Spirit was intimate. In other words, does it not qualify as adultery by virture of the fact it was God who was involved, or that it was not sexual? (I think perhaps both, and seek scriptural support for the former aspect of that.) That is, if it were possible for a man to impregnate Mary without having sex with her, or even physical contact, how would it be seen and more importantly, would Joseph feel betrayed? I think we would have a problem with that scenario, and would expect no less from Joseph. So, my purpose is to illuminate why it may be different because it was God, not man. Scripture tells that Joseph, a righteous man, considered divorcing Mary because she was pregnant not by him. The angel told him not to do so because the child she carried was from God. Either this means that what happened was somehow not was not adultery, or if it was, it was somehow justified, like not all killing is murder, e.g. self-defense or execution by the state. This is exegesis, not an attempt to disparage God. |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [24] >> |