Results 101 - 120 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228584 | ||
seektruth (but unable to find it) says: Look at John 1:1... You can't interpret that to me without changing the definition of God each time He comes up. You'd say that the Word was with God (the Father), and was God (the Son), right? Answer: No you are not right. The Word was with God (in interaction with God), does not refer to His interaction with the Father but His interaction with the Godhead. And the fact that He was God emphasises His participation in the Godhead. So there is no change of use. |
||||||
102 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228583 | ||
seektruth (and unable to find it) says: Most assuredly, Jesus is God. The Son is the Father manifest in the flesh. Answer : Nowhere does Scripture say that the Father was manifest in the flesh. It says GOD was manifest in the flesh, and then finally taken up in glory, clearly referring to the SON in distinction from the Father.. seektruth (but unable to find it) says: The Father is not the Son, but He is in the Son. There lies the difference. Answer: your statement is correct although not in the sense in which you mean it. It is true that the Father is not the Son. There are personal distinctions within the Godhead. It is true that the Father is in the Son, and that the Son is in the Father, for they are one God and in constant inter-communication. The difference lies in the fact that they intercommunicate and inter-react. seektruth (but unable to find it) says: And, Jesus was certainly not praying to Himself. Jesus was fully man, and as a man He had to pray to the Father. Answer: Jesus was fully man, but He was more than fully man. He was God become man. Thus while our human spirit manifests itself through our body, in His Case it was His divine Spirit which was manifest through His body. Thus when Jesus prayed to the Father, it was God speaking to God. |
||||||
103 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228567 | ||
you say you believe in the full deity of Christ? Do you believe in the full deity of Jesus? If you do how do you explain that Christ Jesus prayed to His Father. Was He talking to Himself? | ||||||
104 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228566 | ||
seektruth you say you are not a heretic. the whole church says that you are heretic. i wonder who is right? | ||||||
105 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228565 | ||
well seektruth (unbiblical) i'm glad you chose 1 John 3.1-5 you will note just before that it says quite clearly 'No one who denies the Son has the Father'. 'And the Word became flesh and dwelt among and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only Son of the Father' (John 1.14). This clearly indicates that it is the Son Who became flesh. But take warning with your attitude you will never see the truth. You are in danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit. I am sorry, you are not seeking truth. You are fighting it. |
||||||
106 | Will all have chance to accept Christ? | Rev 14:6 | biblicalman | 228553 | ||
We could also add to Romans 1.19-21, (which is confirmed in Romans 10.17-18), Romans 2.14-16. Best wishes |
||||||
107 | How many sons does jacob have? | Gen 29:31 | biblicalman | 228504 | ||
Jacob of course had twelve sons, Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Zebulun, Joseph, Benjamin, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Dan. | ||||||
108 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228494 | ||
The Scriptures say of Jesus Christ: 'By Him all things were made that were made' (John 1.3). 'By a Son by Whom also God made the world' (Hebrews 1.3). 'Through Him God created everything in heaven and earth --' (Colossians 1.16). 'He was already in existence before all things, and by Him all things hold together' (Colossians 1.17). Did not Jesus Christ then, like the Father, know the end of this creation from the beginning? The distinctions within the God head are not just distinctions of operations, if you mean by that what I think your mean, they are personal distinctions. 'The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world'. 'The Father has committed all judgment to His Son'. The distinction is real between Father and Son. It is the Son Who will save, and not the Father. It is the Son Who will judge and not the Father. And yet they work in total harmony. 'The Son does nothing on His own, He does only what He sees the Father do.' (Jn 5.19). Thus He observes the Father's doings, and Himself does the same. There are two distinct personal entities. The Son is given equal honour with the Father (John 5.23). Both are co-equal. 'All that My Father has is mine' (John 16.19). They co-own the universe, but in distinction. These are just a few Scriptures which bring out the relationship between Father and Son. The reason Jesus is called 'the Son' is in order to indicate His sameness of nature with the Father. |
||||||
109 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228491 | ||
The problem here is that you are giving your own definition to the word 'person' Person does not necessarily mean 'individual' or 'human being'. Our problem is always in finding human language which can be used to describe God. Certainly God is not three individuals, nor is He three human beings. In fact strictly the word used throughout history has been 'persona' which is not as strong as person. True the Father is Spirit, the Son is Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is Spirit. And the Spirit of the Son became man. This latter fact empohasises the distinctions within the Godhead. God is One and yet within Him is a threeness, and this threeness is intercomunicating and inter-personal. Thus Father communicates with Son, and Son with Father, and both communicate with the Spirit. Their relationship is inter-personal. For convenience we speak of three persons. We have no other word to use. But we must put the in proviso that God is not three separate individuals. Jesus clearly revealed this when He said, 'He who has seen Me has seen the Father'. In other words so close is the relationship between Father and Son that to see One is to see the other. Nevertheless the fact is that the Son became man and the Father did not. Thus they are not simply modes of the same Being. There is a separateness between them. |
||||||
110 | Take up another's offense or not? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228489 | ||
I am not sure if this has been answered, so if not, try Matthew 5.23-25; 18.15-17 for both sides of the picture with regard to putting right sin. As you will see the second verses specifically indicate a way in which we should take up another's offence. If we love one another we will certianly be concerned for their hurt. I am not aware of a verse which says what you say. Best wishes |
||||||
111 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228486 | ||
you said: If Jesus was with God eternally why would he deny him in these verses in Isaiah if he was there and coequal. Reply. The verses do not deny that the Son was an essentisl part of God. They only declare that God is One. There is only One God, revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, The Son was with the Father eternally, both being part of the Godhead. Jesus was the eternal God become man. There are distinctions WITHIN the Godhead. We only know this because that is how God has revealed Himself. So all the verses you cite simply indicate the Oneness of the Triune God The further verses, along with others, reveal that the One Who became flesh was God become man. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. That is why Jesus is constantly declared to be 'the LORD', there is one God, the Father, and one LORD, the Son. Both are God and LORD. They are, along with the Holy Spirit, the one God and one LORD. |
||||||
112 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228454 | ||
Christ Jesus was sent into the world as God Who humbled Himself by becoming man. It was through His manhood in association with His Godhood that He brought about the redemption from the world, rose again from the dead and was seated at the right hand of God. All these phrases refer to the manward aspect of His Being. His Godhood could not die, nor therefore could He as God rise from the dead. In His Godhood He sat on His Father's throne (i.e. reigned jointly with the Father - God is Spirit, He does not actually sit in a throne except when revealing His majesty to men). In the manifeatation of His manhood He sat at the Father's right hand. In the mmanifestation of His Godhood He was One with God. Part of His task as the God-man is the subjection of evil, the defeat of death and the bringing in of the everlasting kingdom. As the God-man He must reign until this is accomplished. Once all is subdued He in His manhood will subject Himself to the Godhead,(including His own Godhood), at which point He along with the Father and the Holy Spirit will be all in all. |
||||||
113 | I would like an explination of Geneis 6. | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228446 | ||
Hi Holmes, Genesis 4.26 depicts when men began to worship YHWH. Two people does not constitute a 'line'. So there were some godly people in the days of Seth and his son? That does not explain the calling of people hundreds of years later by the title 'sons of God'. They were not 'sons of God'. They were particularly sinful men. As far as we know the godly line of Seth ceases at his son Enosh (which incidentally means man in his frailty). Indeed you will notice it was 'men' who began to call on the Name of YHWH (not sons of God). Then in 6.1 it was 'men' who had daughters born to them. Thus the same people are in mind. You say does it make sense that demons (evil angels) are called sons of the elohim? Yes it does. Satan is called a son of the elohim in Job 1-2. Does that make sense? 'Elohim' can equally indicate the spirit world. (Thus in Psalm 8 man was made a little lower than the elohim which AV translates as angels). Angels are therefore called 'sons of the elohim'. The witch of Endor said, 'I saw elohim arising out of the earth'.(1 Sam 28.13). She was thinking of disembodied spirits. So it is very apposite that fallen angels be called 'sons of the elohim'. Goliath was just a large men. He was not some exceptional being. The Anakim were famous for their size. Compare the Zulus. But they have no connection with Genesis 6. All described in Genesis 6 were wiped out by the Flood. Yes I have read the passage very carefully. So there were large men on the earth? Now why should that be mentioned if there is no connection? And certainly the 'men of renown' were borne by the daughters of men who had relations (whether physical or demonic) with the angels. You still have not explained why the whole of the line of Seth apart from one family was wiped out by the Flood if they were 'the godly line of Seth'. They were wiped out precisely because they were ungodly. Who suggested that God would strive (or abide)with demons? It was man in his association with demons who would be rejected by God. Have you never heard of demonic intercourse? It even takes place today. This is therefore probably describing such intercourse. Remember the writer is trying to describe in simple terminology something profoundly evil. What other terminology had he for the idea of evil angels becoming one with earthly women? It was in the early days of language, when language was limited. In fact of course we do not know whether fallen angels could have intercourse with earthly women. Are you an expert on angels? Have you ever met any? How then can you say what they could do? If they can appear as men, as they regularly do, then they could have intercourse with women. The fact that it is unnatural for them is precisely the point. They were the 'angels who left their first estate'. They went against God's ordinance. Best wishes |
||||||
114 | I would like an explination of Geneis 6. | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228429 | ||
What has to be recognised is that there was no 'godly line of Seth'. Seth's descendants were as ungodly as Cain's. That is why thousands of them perished in the Flood and only one family survived. Some godly line lol. Why on earth should a line which was to be largely destroyed for sin be called 'sons of God'?And why should their subsequent offspring have been so unique as to be 'men of renown'? In fact of course many of Cain's descendants worshipped Elohim. Why were they then different? We cannot condemn them all because of the sin of Lamech and the folly of Cain. And what about the descendants of the other sons of Adam? Did they not worship YHWH also? And notice 6.1. 'Men (not Cainites) began to multiply on the face of the earth.' Why should that description be restricted to half the population? Why should it mean Cainites? Were the Sethites not men. And what about the children of all the other sons of Adam? They too were 'men'. And it was the daughters of these men in general who are referred to. Indeed the phrase the bene elohim (sons of God) was elsewhere only used in the Old Testament of angels (see Job 1-2). Thus sound exegesis demands that we see here the angels leaving their first estate (Jude 6). It explains why their offspring were so exceptional, and also why God had to take such drastic action. The only way to remove the effects of these unions was total destruction. Men had become possessed by evil beyond their understanding. |
||||||
115 | Sanctification Process? | 1 Cor 1:2 | biblicalman | 228428 | ||
Sanctification is not just 'setting apart', it is setting apart for a holy purpose, and when it is by God it results in being acceptable as holy in His eyes through Christ, and in His work of continually sanctifying us by His Spirit, with a view to our becoming holy in practise. We can see sanctifiction as God's side of it and consecration as man's side. In that sense man consecrates hoping that God will sanctify. Many a building is consecrated but not sanctified. But it is a matter of definition. Thus 'sanctify yourselves' is an Old Testament command, indicatng putting oneself in a position physically to be able to approach God(e.g. by washing our clothes and abstaining from sexual activity). Compare 2 Timothy 2.21. Consecration can indicate consecration by God, the equivalent of God sanctifying. The process of sanctification actually commences before we become Christians. 'God has from the beginning chosen you unto salvation through sanctificaton of the Spirit and belief of the truth' (2Thessalonians 2.13). The Spirit begins to set us apart to holiness resulting in our believing the truth and being saved. Thus we can be guided by the Spirit before we are born frm above. We must not limit what God can do by our definitions. I suspect that you are using the term consecration to signify your activity of submitting yourelf to God so that He will bless you and hopefully sanctify you continually. Thus consecration by you and sanctifying by God goes on hand in hand, indeed your consecrating of yourself, assuming it is genuine, will be a result of His sanctifying work. Thus one form of sanctification commences before we become Christians, as God works towards making real in us His choice of us before the foundaion of the world (2 Thessalonians 2.13; 1 Peter 1.2). Then as we respond to Christ for salvation God sanctifies us once for all as His (Acts 20.32; 26.18; 1 Corinthians 1.2; 1.30; 6.11; Hebrews 10.10; Jude 1.1). Then He commences His process of sanctification, the making of us holy in practise (Ephesians 5.26; 1 Thessalonians 5.23; Hebrews 10.14). And finally we will be presented to Him as fully sanctified, made holy in status and in reality, 'holy and without blemish' (Ephesians 5.27). |
||||||
116 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228346 | ||
Hi Doc Thank you for your 'correction'. My statement that obesity from non-medicsl causes was a sin was a little careless, seeing the end process in terms of what caused it, but as you will note below I was in process of correcting it when you wrote. It is as you rightly say sin that results in obesity. Although in my view to continue in obesity and not to be doing something about it is sin although possibly not the worst of sins. Anything that comes short of the glory of God is sin Thank you for taking the trouble to write. Best wishes |
||||||
117 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228345 | ||
First let me make clear that I do not think the obese person is somehow more sinful than other Christians. We all sin daily, and come short of God's glory. As you will appreciate I answered a question about a sin, I did not raise an issue about obese people. I will speak against laziness, but I do not go round telling people they are lazy. I leave the Holy Spirit to do His work. All of us are starting from a base of imperfection and wrong attitudes and are hopefully being transformed by the Holy Spirit 'from glory to glory' (2 Corinthians 3.18). What are not sins for us today, might well be sins for us tomorrow as we grow closer to our Lord Jesus Christ. There are times when we make great leaps forward, such as at times of dedicating ourselves again to His service. There are times when due to our indolent natures we allow ourselves to drift back into different sins. As Paul made clear, 'I AM fleshly -- it is sin that dwells in me'. It has to be constantly watched and overcome. And that is true for all of us. And we have a 'low' view of sin. Jesus must have been appalled at the sinfulness of His Apostles, for He had a high view of sin. But we would not be able to tell that He was appalled by what He said. He understood their weakness, as He understands ours. His words do, however, make clear that He was appalled at sin. What we can only do therefore is deal with the sins as they arise and are brought to our attention by the Holy Spirit. Obesity and being overweight, result from sin, the sin of overindulgence. But that does not mean that the obese person is at the present stage sinning, although yes i do think he/she should be trying to deal with the matter. The overweight or obese person is suffering for past sin. But I have no intention of targetting obese persons. I want to help them, as I hope they want to help me with my failings. I am not obese, but I certainly have to watch myself. And sometimes I have to take myself in hand and say, 'watch it'. The line is actually not easy to draw as with much sin. But the sin is in the attitude and failings that produce such a condition, and sometimes it can be upon us before we are aware. As we grow in Christ we become aware of things as sinful which previously we would not have seen as sinful. Paul saw sin as so powerful within him that he was ashamed. When we read his description we think, surely he couldn't have been as bad as that! Had we been watching him we would in fact probably have seen him as nearly perfect. We would have admired his spirituality. But he knew his inner self. He knew how sometimes he indulged himself by failing to pray as he should have done (something we might not even have considered). He knew of times when had he been a little more aware, rather than being taken up with other things, he would have been able to help a struggling Christian or church. He bore the burden of all the churches, and he was aware that sometimes he fell short. To him that was a gross sin. We on the other hand would have been commending his efforts, watching in silent admiration. It is not for me to draw lines. I leave that to the Holy Spirit. And remember that sin is to fail to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbour as ourselves. It is to come short of God's glory. So we are all sinners seeking to rise above what we are, while at the same time we are all saints, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.. We must never be judgmental of the sinner, for we too are sinners who will have to give account, but we must be judgmental of the sin. And we must help each other, coming alongside to help. Best wishes. |
||||||
118 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228343 | ||
Hi justme, thank you for your apology which is gladly accepted. We both share the same dilemma. How to be tough on sin and yet compassionaten with the sinner, a word that includes ourselves. We have to be aware of our own failures first. Best wishes |
||||||
119 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228339 | ||
Hi Holmes, I will deal with this one last question but I feel the forum will have had enough of this argument. If you are determined to believe in a future Temple you may of course do so. But as I have shown none of your verses say that there will be. If you wish to discuss it with me further give me your email address and i will contact you. I wrote: “But all that is by the way because Haggai was not referring to Solomon’s Temple at all. He was comparing the Second Temple to the one that was coming, that is, to Herod’s Temple. Solomon’s Temple had nothing to do with it.” Holmes says: See Haggai 2:3 “Who is left among you who saw this temple in its former glory? There was only one “former temple.” If God had been referring to the 2nd temple He would have said, “The latter glory of this house will be greater than the present (the one you are currently working on).” my reply. So you are now telling God how He should have written the Scriptures? You are a brave man indeed. Verse 2 does not use the same wording as verse 9. There is no mention in verse 2 of a former house and a latter house. It is therefore irrelevant. But let us take your point. You are saying that Solomon's Temple was the former house, and that the second Temple was the latter house? That's fine. Thus verse 9 does not mention a future Temple! Holmes says You wrote: I am interested to know how you know what was in Herod’s mind. From Unger’s Bible Dictionary: “Herod was not only an Idumaean in race and a Jew in religion, but he was a heathen in practice and a monster in character. During his administration as king he proved himself to be exceedingly crafty, jealous, cruel, and revengeful. He exercised his kingly power with the disposition of a very despot.” And those are just his good features! my reply All this is irrelevant. No one is suggesting that Herod's glory mattered. The physical glory of the Temple was undoubted. It was a wonder of the world at that time. As for cruelty, I would suggest you look at Solomon's behaviour when he wanted his house building. Forced labour which would have been enforced in cruel ways, sapping the country of its wealth. Solomon was nothing to write home about when it came to compassion and kindness. But all this is irrelevant. It is arguing for the sake of arguing. No one doubts the glory of Herod's Temple. And Jesus commented on it. And He never ran down the Temple merely because it had been built under Herod But as I have pointed out its glory was greater than that of any previous Temple for another reason, because in it walked and preached the Son of God. It was the place where God uniquely revealed Himself on earth. God had come to His Temple and entered into it, giving it a glory far beyond any other. It really cannot be doubted. And on that note I suggest that we draw this correspondence to an end. Best wishes |
||||||
120 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228338 | ||
Hi Holmes, Holmes says: You cite Zechariah as though you could simply apply these verses to the coming king because of the word Branch. But as we have already seen Zechariah 6.12-16 applies to Joshua the High Priest “ See Zechariah 6:13 “Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.” Joshua the High Priest never sat or ruled from a throne. He is not the “Prince of Peace,” nor did he ever serve as High Priest and King, “the two offices.” Where in scripture is the fulfillment of this prophesy that Joshua the High Priest is sitting on and ruling from his throne? My reply: The High Priests certainly ruled over Israel for a considerable period of time, and there can be no doubt that Zerubbabel and Joshua 'ruled' together, prior to Zerubbabel disappearing. That is why they are constantly mentioned together (Ezra 3.2; 5.2). Thus he was 'ruling'. The Hebrew word for 'throne' simply means any kind of seat. I presume that you will accept that he sometimes sat down when making his decision? Thus he ruled from his seat. But in fact he did more than that because after Zerubbabel the governorship passed to a Persian, as we know from the Elephantine texts. And following Persian methods he would leave detailed administration (ruling) to native leaders, that is at this time, the High Priest. And Joshua was the High Priest. Thus he ruled Israel and i suspect most would see his seat as a throne. I see no mention of a Prince of Peace. Perhaps you will direct me to the version which has that in? It is not in the Hebrew text. The two offices are not priest and king. They are priest and ruler. And Joshua combined the two offices. And the emphasis is on him being the PRIEST on his throne.The point is that religious and civic duties will be carried on in harmony. As Scripture does not deal with the period after the building of the second Temple, (there is a gap of some sixty years between Ezra 6 and Ezra 7) we would not expect to find the total fulfilment mentioned. But it tells us sufficient to see that Joshua did rule alongside Zerubbabel. Are you suggesting that no prophecy is valid if its fulfilment is not mentioned in Scripture? I would not say it too loudly if I were you :-)) It would rob teachers on prophecy of nine tenths of their material. Best wishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |