Results 101 - 120 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Once saved, always saved? | Matt 25:14 | jonp | 184459 | ||
Hi Azure. They are professing Christians, people who call Jesus 'Lord, Lord'. But some 'do not do what He says' (Luke 6.46). Thus not all are true believers. Jesus point about the deposit was that this servant had failed to have any concern about the interests of his master. Not even enough to put his money on deposit so that his master could benefit. He was totally unconcerned about his master's concerns and purposes. Thus he was only a professing servant, not a real one. The idea of the outer darkness is that it is away from the true light. Where God is, there is light. To be in outer darkness is to be totally away from God. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
102 | Once saved, always saved? | Matt 25:14 | jonp | 184481 | ||
Hi Azure, Yes, you could put it that way. Jesus' emphasis is on the fact that because he saw his Lord as a hard taskmaster he did nothing with what the Lord had given him. He saw his Lord as fearsome and unresponsive. Many sadly do see God like that, and therefore do not respond to Him. But the emphasis is not so much on that as on the fact that he did nothing, when he should have done something. We are all given gifts of one kind or another (see for example Romans 12.6-13) and sometimes it is the one with the least important gift like this man who hides it away rather than using it. Jesus concern was that all should use their gifts to the glory of God, even those who think themselves unimportant. All can give a cup of cold water in His Name. His point is that not to do anything is unforgiveable. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
103 | Baptized in name of Jesus or Trinitarian | Matt 28:19 | jonp | 184416 | ||
Hi The Name of the Triune God as mentioned in Matthew 28.19-20 is in Hebrew YHWH and in Greek Kurios. The Name of Jesus is YHWH/Kurios (Philippians 2.8-11). Thus to be baptised in the Name of the triune God and to be baptised in the Name of Jesus is precisely the same. It is however not true to say that the Pentecostal faith teaches baptism only 'in the Name of Jesus'. When I was younger I regularly attended a large Pentecostal church (Elim) which baptised in the Name of the triune God. Baptism can in fact not affect a person's salvation one way or the other. That is why Paul said, 'Christ sent me not to baptise but to preach the Gospel' --- 'lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power' -- 'the Gospel -- which is the power of God unto salvation to all who believe' (1 Corinthians 1.17; Romand 1.16). Yes, before you ask we should be baptised, but it should be because we have been saved, not in order to be saved. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
104 | Follow up to : Baptized in name of Jesus | Matt 28:19 | jonp | 184457 | ||
Hi It is the tendency of human beings to place the emphasis on the physical rather than the spiritual. By that means they seek to get the spiritual under their control. It gives them a feeling of certainty and makes men look up to them and even depend on them. But Paul lays the emphasis on the spiritual. He did not want people to look up to him and depend on him. He wanted them to look to Jesus and His cross and the Gospel of salvation. He was afraid that people might rather look to baptism as having some magical power which would in men's minds replace the cross and thus 'empty it of its power' because as a result the cross became ignored. And that is the great danger for people today. We must give baptism its due place as the means by which we make clear our desire to die with Christ and rise with Him, but we must not see it as actually accomplishing that purpose. That happens through faith alone when we 'reckon ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus' (Romans 6.11). The triunity of God is something which is difficult to deal with in a short space, for it is something not within men's conceptions. It is true that there is only one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but within God (if we can use the word 'within' of the infinite) there are inter-personal relationships. Thus Father Son and Holy Spirit intercommunicate and reveal love to one another, and reveal God in different ways at the same time. Jonp | ||||||
105 | can someone make Mark 2:21 more clear? | Mark 2:21 | jonp | 184044 | ||
Hi The point is that the Pharisees and the disciples of John asked why Jesus' disciples were not fasting. Presumably this must have been because it was a regular feast when fasting was expected by the pious in order to encourage the arrival of the day of the Messiah. Jesus is pointing out that with His coming everything has changed. The fasting was aimed at bringing in the age of the Messiah. But as the Messiah had come the old ways no longer applied. So the old ways were incompatible with the new, just as an old cloth was incompatble with a new patch. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
106 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184006 | ||
Hi If you refer to Philippians 2.8-11 you will discover that Jesus was given the Name above every Name. This is the name of YHWH. In Matthew 28.18-20 Jesus told His disciples to baptise in 'the Name' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the Nme of YHWH. Thus the Name of the Son is YHWH. In Isaiah 43.11 it is YHWH Who is the Saviour. Thus there is no contradiction. The name Jesus in fact means 'YHWH is salvation. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
107 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184039 | ||
Hi I am not quite sure how we disagree :-)) You are quite right in saying that 'the Lord' (kurios) was used by LXX to translate YHWH, and that the Lord YHWH is the Father Son and Holy Spirit. Thus YHWH is 'the Name' of Father Son and Holy Spirit that Jesus was indicating. Is that not what I said? | ||||||
108 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184050 | ||
Hi, The Bible speaks of the Spirit as 'the Spirit of YHWH' (e.g. Judges 6.34 and often), YHWH revealed through His Spirit. And that is why Matthew 28.19 speaks of him under the umbrella heading of 'the Name'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
109 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184066 | ||
Hi In 1 Corinthians 2.11 we read 'for what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of man which is within him, so also no one comprehends the thoughts of God but the Spirit of God' and we could add 'no one comprehends the thoughts of YHWH like the Spirit of YHWH'. We can agree that the parallel is not exact. A man's spirit does not have a separate personality like the Spirit of God has in relation to Father and Son, but the point is clear, there is a unity of being that is so close that all the thoughts of one are known to the other. Thus the spirit of a man is the man, the Spirit of God is God, and The Spirit of YHWH is YHWH while carefully noting the distinction mentioned above. However if you cannot agree it would probably be best if we agree to differ unless you have different questions that arise in your mind. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
110 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184076 | ||
Hi If you are not prepared to see that the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of the Lord and the Spirit of God are one and the same then I will not be able to help you without writing a book on the subject. I would however point out that Paul refers to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of God in Romans 8.9-17. You seem awfully keen to prove that the Bible disagrees. But if you wish to do that fairly then you have to read the Bible on its terms not on yours, and not lay down your own conditions. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
111 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184085 | ||
Hi further to my previous note the Spirit of God is said to be the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 12.3, and in Ephesians 4.30 He is called 'the Holy Spirit of God' combining the two titles. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
112 | Test the spirits | Luke 8:28 | jonp | 184261 | ||
Hi, 1 John 4.2 is referring to testing the spirits of the prophets. The point is that when a prophet speaks you can test his spirit by what he says about Jesus Christ. That is a very different thing from a testimony wrung out from a tormented spirit face to face with the Master and unable to deny Him. Behind His back he would almost certainly have denied Him. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
113 | Same supper as John 12? | Luke 10:38 | jonp | 184355 | ||
Hi The incidents in Luke 10 and John 12 are very different incidents. In the first case Mary and Martha had welcomed Jesus into their home somewhere in the middle of His ministry. Martha was the practical one and was very busy looking after twelve hungry disciples. But Mary was sat at the feet of Jesus. To her this was an opportunity not to be missed during which she could learn from her Lord. It is little wonder that Martha was a little upset, for she badly needed help. Her view would be that the women should be busy about the practical things while the men talked. But Jesus gently pointed out to her that Mary had chosen the better part. In fact His reply was quite revolutionary. For a Rabbi to favour a woman listening to Him was quite unusual. He was quietly bringing out that women were equally as important as men, and had as much right to be with Him and to hear His word as men had. And a further important lesson that comes home to us all from this is how important it is that we put our feeding on His word before the feeding of our bodies. Martha was providing daily bread (11.3) but Mary was seeking the Bread of life (John 6.35). However we must still remember that the church needs both Marys and Marthas. Martha must not be disparaged. It was just that she had not discerned the time. The second incident was totally different. That was in the house of Simon the Leper and Martha had been called in to help out. (She could always be depended on wherever hard work was called for. She was a marvellous example of faithful service). But no one thought of Mary. However Mary had her own agenda. No one asked her to serve. She was totally impractical, but she did love her Master. So she decided to serve in her own way. She went and found a precious jar of perfumed oil that she had probably treasured for years, and came and poured it on Jesus' head and feet. It was an act of pure love. Although she did not realise it (but He did)the anointing on the head spoke of His Messiahship, the anointing of the feet was preparing them to walk the way of the cross. To some of the disciples this appeared to be a total waste and they protested. All they could see was the externals. (It is salutary to think that they did not rejoice that their Master was honoured). Jesus, however, silenced them by pointing out what a good work she had done on Him. For He saw in her action the confirmation that His Father was watching over Him. He knew that those feet would soon walk the way of the cross and that that anointed brow would soon bear the crown of thorns, and that that body would soon be lying in its tomb. And He was saying 'My Son, none of those who are with you know what lies ahead for you. But I know. And in this act I am preparing you for what lies before you. Do not be afraid. This is an assurance that You walk the way ahead under My care.' No wonder Jesus said, 'she has wrought a good work on Me'. Again the lesson is that we should ensure that we are not so taken up with practicalities that we miss the opportunity for pure worship. It is that we must ever remember to keep Jesus Himself before us and not allow secondary things to take our eyes off Him. This was Mary's forte. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
114 | Same supper as John 12? | Luke 10:38 | jonp | 184364 | ||
Hi Jeff Thanks for your kind comments. However while as you rightly say John picks out what Judas said, and his motive, Matthew 26.8 brings out that a number of 'disciples' were involved in criticising her. Compare also Mark 14.5, 'they' reproached her. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
115 | study notes on the woman at the well? | John 1:1 | jonp | 184320 | ||
Hi, You can access commentaries on John by IVP and Dr Constable at http://www.geocities.com/petepartington/ | ||||||
116 | woman at the well impact women today | John 4:10 | jonp | 184294 | ||
Hi Only in that it brings home three of the most vital factors which can affect the world today. Firstly because in it Jesus reveals Himself as the spring of eternal life of which he who drinks will never thirst again (John4.10-14), secondly because it reveals that those who worship God do not have to go to any special holy place but can worship Him in Spirit and in truth (John 4.20-24) and thirdly because it reveals that Jesus is the Christ, the Saviour of the world (John 4.42). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
117 | what does it mean; look to Bethesda? | John 5:2 | jonp | 184375 | ||
Perhaps it signifies looking to what happened at the pool of Bethesda and learning from it. At that pool many hoped for a miracle based on superstition. But the lame man learned there that he should rather look to Jesus. And when he did so he was made whole. He also learned that he must go and sin no more. Here is the essnce of the Christian message. We were all 'lame', but when Jesus comes to us and calls us we are made whole as a free gift, and this is always followed by the command 'go and sin no more'. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
118 | The Passover Celebration | John 6:53 | jonp | 183742 | ||
In context in John 6.35 Jesus described what He meant by eating and drinking. 'He who comes to Me will never hunger, and he who believes on me will never thirst. So we eat of Jesus' body and drink of His blood by coming to Him as the One Whose body was broken for us and by believing on Him as the One Whose blood was shed for us. We do celebrate the Passover but the Passover lamb is now Christ our Passover who was sacrificed for us (1 Corinthians 5.7), the Lamb of God Who takes away the sins of the world (John 1.29). Jesus was partly using Old Testament pictures which depicted killing people in term of eating bread (or flesh) and drinking blood. In order to fully appreciate this we need an awareness of vivid Jewish imagery. In the Old Testament the Psalmist spoke of those who ‘eat up my people like they eat bread’ (Psalm 14.4; 53.4), and Micah describes the unjust rulers of Israel as ‘those who hate the good and love the evil --- who eat the flesh of my people’ (Micah 3.3). Thus ‘eating flesh’ or ‘eating people’ signified killing them or doing them great harm. In Zechariah 9.15 the LXX speaks of the fact that the victorious people of God ‘will drink their blood like wine’ signifying a triumphant victory and the slaughter of their enemies, and David used a similar picture when three of his followers had risked their lives to fetch him water. He poured it out on the ground as an offering to God and said, ‘shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?’. Isaiah brought both metaphors together when he said of the enemies of Israel that God would ‘make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine’ (Isaiah 49.26), signifying that they would destroy themselves. Thus in Hebrew thought drinking a person’s blood meant killing someone or benefiting by their death. This can be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament for in Matthew’s Gospel the people said of their 'fathers' that they were 'partakers in the blood of the prophets’ (Matthew 23.30), because they contributed to their deaths. Thus when Jesus spoke of ‘eating my flesh and drinking my blood’ He was using easily recognised metaphors which signified the fact that He must be violently killed and that the benefit of His death must be received by believing on Him.. |
||||||
119 | The Passover Celebration | John 6:53 | jonp | 184035 | ||
Hi Searcher You will note from John 5.18 that these latest hearers were the same men who were plotting to kill him. They were men of blood. They carried death in their hearts. This explains the change that now takes place in Jesus’ tone and the change in His illustration. Their presence had brought home to Him what lay before Him. From now on He would not talk of ‘the bread of life’, the life-giving bread, but would use the Old Testament simile of ‘eating flesh’ and ‘drinking blood’, which meant killing someone, or benefiting by their death. It would still give life, for finally that life would be made available through His death. In order to fully appreciate this we need an awareness of vivid Jewish imagery. In the Old Testament the Psalmist spoke of those who ‘eat up my people like they eat bread’ (Psalm 14.4; 53.4), and Micah describes the unjust rulers of Israel as ‘those who hate the good and love the evil --- who eat the flesh of my people’ (Micah 3.3). Thus ‘eating flesh’ or ‘eating people’ signified killing them or doing them great harm. In Zechariah 9.15 the LXX speaks of the fact that the victorious people of God ‘will drink their blood like wine’ signifying a triumphant victory and the slaughter of their enemies, and David used a similar picture when three of his followers had risked their lives to fetch him water. He poured it out on the ground as an offering to God and said, ‘shall I drink the blood of the men who went at the risk of their lives?’. Isaiah brought both metaphors together when he said of the enemies of Israel that God would ‘make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine’ (Isaiah 49.26), signifying that they would destroy themselves. Thus in Hebrew thought drinking a person’s blood meant killing someone or benefiting by their death. This can be paralleled elsewhere in the New Testament for in Matthew’s Gospel the people said of their 'fathers' that they were 'partakers in the blood of the prophets’ (Matthew 23.30), because they contributed to their deaths. Thus when Jesus spoke of ‘eating my flesh and drinking my blood’ He was using easily recognised metaphors. Initially Jesus signalled the change in tone in His words by saying ‘The bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh’. This had more sinister overtones than what had gone before. His flesh must be given for the life of the world. Previously the eating had been by coming to Him and believing in Him. Now the thought entered that it must be eaten through His death. We could paraphrase what follows like this - ‘you are plotting to kill Me (to eat my flesh and drink My blood). Well, let Me tell you this. It is necessary for Me so to die so that this offer of life might be provided. Paradoxically, unless you do put Me to death (eat my flesh and drink my blood), the life will not be available. But as a result of the death you are plotting for Me, men will be able to partake of the benefit of My death by believing in Me and finding life through it.’ This is not a message He had been preaching to the crowds. They would not have understood. But now He has been forced into going public, for He is facing those who are after His blood, and He will declare it. These men were planning to kill Him, to eat His flesh and drink His blood. Well, they will be permitted to do so. His death was necessary for men to benefit from His life. Indeed if life was to be made available it was necessary for them to put Him to death, to “eat His flesh and drink His blood”. And paradoxically the result would be that they could then, if they came to believe, partake of the benefits of His death by receiving life. Indeed all who would come to Him must recognise that they were responsible for His death and must partake in that death and the benefits that spring from it. The innocent listeners would be puzzled, but the plotters would be fully aware of at least part of the import of His words. They knew what their own sinister intentions were. They knew what they were plotting. They knew that they were ‘after His blood’. And so did He. Yet still He was offering them life. He would not give up on them. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
120 | John 10.3The sheep hears his voice | John 10:3 | jonp | 184020 | ||
Hi Sorry for my lack of clarity. YHWH is the name of God in the Old Testament (Yahweh; Jahweh; Jehovah). The four letters which represent His Name are in fact unpronounceable. The Jews consider it blasphemy to speak the Name, thus the Hebrew text represents it with the four letters together with indicators that when read another word should be used, either LORD or GOD. So when in such translations as AV, RV, RSV etc you see GOD or LORD in capital letters it is an indication that they are translating the sacred Name of YHWH. The reason why it is unpronounceable is because as it was never pronounced eventually everyone forgot how it should be pronounced. So now no one knows!. It is often called the Tetragrammaton. Hope this clarifies the situation. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |