Results 101 - 114 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: loavesnfish Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | biblical significance of Emmaus Road | Luke 24:16 | loavesnfish | 232048 | ||
Luke 24:16, and 25-27 in the story of the two disciples on the Emmaus Road, even though they were discussing recent events, it was not resulting in faith. When Jesus appeared, their sight was somehow restricted so that they didn't recognize Him. This gave Him the opportunity to speak to them about the scriptures. Romans 10:17 would seem to apply here as Jesus seeks to revive their faith. Verses 30-31 indicate that their faith revived when they saw His ACTION in breaking the bread. He had asked the disciples to do this very thing in order to remember Him by it (Luke 22:19) and they did. Faith removed the hindrance to sight and they recognized Him. Faith is not just wishful thinking, but a true inner renewal which changes our ability to perceive God in daily life. | ||||||
102 | Why did she feed Saul? | John 6:48 | loavesnfish | 233336 | ||
In 1 Samuel 28:21-25 the medium insists on feeding Saul and Saul's servants agree with her. Why does she do this? Does the Bible ever tell what happened to her? | ||||||
103 | Does prophecy for Dan be fulifilled? | John 8:50 | loavesnfish | 232095 | ||
In Genesis 49:16-17, Dan is represented as a judge, i.e. deliverer, of Israel despite the fact that Dan was never a very populous tribe. An adder strikes directly at what it can reach and depends on its poison rather than constriction to kill whatever is threatening it. The adder does not leave its position to strike like a lion would, but waits vigilantly for the enemy to come within striking distance. Then even a very large, powerful enemy like a horse, which could easily destroy the adder by stepping on it, is destroyed instead. So Dan defends both himself and his brethren in warfare. This is NOT related to the anti-idolatry verses of Isaiah 42:16-17 which contrasts those who trust in God with those who trust in idols, or 42:1 which is speaking of one who brings judgment by his law (verse 4) without warfare. John 8:50 specifies one "who seeks" which the adder does not do, so this does not refer to Dan either. Christians would say that Jesus is the messiah as portrayed in Isaiah 42 and that Jesus referred to the Father in John 8:50, who was previously mentioned in verses 47 and 49. Does that help? | ||||||
104 | Why 153 fish in John 21:11? Why not 154 | John 21:11 | loavesnfish | 231910 | ||
Please explain why there were 153 fish in the net in John 21:11. Why weren't there 154? | ||||||
105 | Why 153 fish in John 21:11? Why not 154 | John 21:11 | loavesnfish | 239117 | ||
Hi Doc! Thank you for attempting to guide me here. I realize that my question was somewhat unfair, since it did not reveal anything about my thinking. In studying the numbers of the Bible, I have read many commentaries and some have really outlandish views, especially of this number. Yet, in the context it seems to have some significance or the text would just say an 'astounding number' of fish and leave it at that. One of the commentators suggested that there were seven fishermen, but did not elaborate. Dividing a catch of 153 by seven gives six shares of 22 (alef to tav) and one share of only 21. Clearly the problem is that one fish is missing, as in Luke 15 where one sheep, one coin and one son are missing. This would seem to go along with Peter's commissioning in the rest of the chapter. It also may have reminded Peter of the fish he caught in Matthew 17 which was a perfect provision for the tax. There seems to be potential here for discussing how God uses even details in our lives to communicate His love for us. Any thoughts? Abiding, loavesnfish |
||||||
106 | Why 153 fish in John 21:11? Why not 154 | John 21:11 | loavesnfish | 239145 | ||
Doc, Thank you for responding! I think you may have misunderstood me. I am definitely NOT looking for hidden meanings in the text. I am not one of those who has to assign symbolism to every number. I have read FW Grant, Bullinger and Panin and a few others to see what they had to say--disappointing. I have also read the book by Fee and Stuart you keep recommending (although I can't lay my hands on it just now). I really am not mixing interpretations. In several places throughout the Scriptures there are things notably missing, not as a mistake, but as a hint or example. In Luke 15 Jesus reveals the Father's heartfor His straying people by giving three examples of precious items going astray. Like Abraham, negotiating God down to ten righteous men, Jesus also keeps reducing the number of items as their value increases. A shepherd with 100 sheep can afford to lose one, but He won't allow it. When He finds it He rejoices. The woman who finds her lost coin rejoices even more. The man who loses his son rejoices most of all when his son returns.Jesus compares the joy in heaven over one sinner who repents to those three. Peter heard Jesus teach this many times. So what might have been his first thought when there was a fisherman with one lost fish from an unbroken net full of large fish with no small or dead to throw back in the sea and Jesus standing there on the shore? Jesus had told Peter that when he turned back he should strengthen his brethren. Here was a personal memo, by way of fish, that Jesus was rejoicing at his return rather than blaming him for his denials. He was the one lost son returning home. Jesus wasmaking sure Peter knew that he was forgiven. Jesus didn't have to mention anything in front of the others and make Peter an example. Peter 'got' the memo. After his experience catching the one fish with the stater in its mouth for the taxes, Peter knew that Jesus could control the number of fish and this was no mistake. So the risen Christ had his full attention for the three commissioning questions. When he was asked about loving Jesus "more than these" he knew that he had no guilt to make up for, just a commitment to give to the One who cared about one lost one as if he were the only one. If this seems a little melodramatic, I'm sorry about that. I think God actually works this way from time to time and this is an example of it in Scripture. It also shows how we can missa blessing by focusing on the wrong thing. God gave us the Scriptures so we can know Him. I hope there is a blessing in there somewhere for whoever reads this. loavesnfishes |
||||||
107 | People who pray for bad things for you? | Rom 12:14 | loavesnfish | 232308 | ||
Romans 12:14 gives the attitude we should have when anyone "prays" bad things for us--which is a form of persecution--bless them and do not curse in return. Also 1 Corinthians 4:12 applies. Romans 8:31-35 shows that anything pronounced against someone in Christ has to go before God first. Since He is the one who answers prayer, he simply says "no" to such prayers. The key here is to make sure you are pleasing God by the motives in your own heart and your own actions and entrust the situation to Him to deal with on your behalf. That is what Jesus did on the cross (1Peter 2:23; Matthew 27:39 and Mark 15:32). Christians are to behave like Jesus, so they don't revile or revile back. | ||||||
108 | where does the comma go? | Gal 1:3 | loavesnfish | 239165 | ||
CDBJ "Diacritical marks are usually the result of an inferior language." Please explain further what you mean by "inferior." loavesnfish |
||||||
109 | 1 Timothy 2:8-11 for disruptors? | 1 Tim 2:8 | loavesnfish | 232263 | ||
1 Timothy 2:8-11 says that men should pray in a certain way and LIKEWISE women should adorn themselves in a certain way. Both of these sound like ways to control disruptive behaviors and institute a more Jewish style of worship for gentiles who didn't know how to pray or learn in the Jewish way as Timothy and Paul did. Is it correct to say that men were disputing instead of praying and women were busybodies instead of minding their own business? |
||||||
110 | 1 Timothy 2:8-11 for disruptors? | 1 Tim 2:8 | loavesnfish | 232282 | ||
Steve, Thank you for answering my question. I think I left a wrong impression. I didn't mean to suggest that Paul was trying to make the gentiles Jewish. Lifting up of the hands in prayer was a custom practiced by Jewish men and therefore the church, which began with Jewish people and added gentiles as more and more people of all kinds believed. Also, being excessively decorative in one's appearance would have seemed normal to gentile women and abhorrent to the Jewish women who had been raised all their lives to pursue good works over adornment. Paul seems to be trying to help Timothy get everyone on the same page to restore order rather than dictate a dogma. The page he puts them on just seems more in line with traditional Jewish practices, which were based on Scripture, rather than the idolatry of their gentile past. |
||||||
111 | God's plan of protection? | 1 Tim 2:13 | loavesnfish | 232264 | ||
1 Timothy 2:13-15 seems to be emphasizing doing things according to God's plan for protecting people from Satanic attack, so how did it get to be a male-female thing? Isn't the context one of quelling disruptions by reforming behavior? | ||||||
112 | Heb6:4-6 Loosing salvation or what? | Heb 6:4 | loavesnfish | 232340 | ||
Dear Beja, You have been so helpful with my questions that I decided to try to answer some of yours in thanks. These verses are a stumblingblock for many people because they focus too narrowly and miss the greater context. The book of Hebrews, as you know, was written to people steeped in Mosaic teaching and customs who held the Law as the very highest expression of how man should relate to God. The author of Hebrews is trying to get them to see that Jesus (Yeshua to them) and faith in Him as a result of grace is so much higher even than the Law, that everything else should be viewed as below it. So any departure from grace and faith in Jesus in behavior was a fall to a lower level which is no longer efficacious for salvation or knowing God. In other words, there is no more going back to what they once knew, because Christ has superceded it. In 6:1-3 the author talks about pressing on to maturity, then verses 4-6, which you are concerned about, emphasize what is NOT the way to maturity: retuning to the Law, etc. at the lower level which they previously left behind. Verses 4-8 are what would THEORETICALLY happen to someone who does that, but Judas Iscariot is the only one it might fit, because Jesus stopped keeping him in order to fulfill the Scripture (John 17:12). Jesus guards and keeps ALL who truly come to Him and no one snatches them out of the Father's hand, as you know. So, what the author is really doing here is showing a picture (recrucifying Christ) of how appalling it is in God's eyes to return to the Law etc. The author wants to shake them up emotionally by the contrast to set them free from their old ideas which could lead them astray. The teaching method is very much like that of Matthew 5:29 where the shock value helps carry the seriousness of the message. I hope that helps. In Christ, loavesnfish |
||||||
113 | What are the books of Revelation 20:12? | Rev 20:12 | loavesnfish | 232156 | ||
In Revelation 20:12 It says "the books were opened" and "the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books." Usually, I have heard the books interpreted as records of the deeds of the dead. Where did this interpretation come from? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that these are the books of the Law which are publicly read to confront people with their sins as Ezra did in Nehemiah 8:1-9 and 9:3? Or as in modern courts where the laws are "on the books" and infractions of them are publicly judged? | ||||||
114 | What are the books of Revelation 20:12? | Rev 20:12 | loavesnfish | 239119 | ||
CDBJ This is a great answer, which I have never heard before, but where do you get the books of deeds. Is that in the Bible? or is it extrabiblical? loavesnfishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] |