Results 141 - 160 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228216 | ||
Lol Biblical maps are fine as far as they go but in many cases they are guesses. The village of Bethany on the far slopes of the mount of olives farthest from Jerusalem is 15 furlongs 'from Jerusalem', and if we have identified the correct village we know where it is. But has the correct village been identified? But Jesus ascended from 'over against Bethany', in a place which was stated to be a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem. And it was probably the place where Jesus and His followers were encamped. It was in the district of Bethany around Bethany. Thus when He went 'from Bethany' it was from the camp. That means it was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. Thus Jesus could go to the Temple on the Sabbath. You must, however, recognise that geographical information has to be gleaned from the Bible and from Archaeology. And the danger is that many identifications were made by later church teachers without accurate information to go on. There is no sign which says 'this place was called Bethany in 1st century AD'. Our guesses may therefore be incorrect. Far more reliable is the Biblical information which says that Bethany was 15 furlongs 'from Jerusalem'), but we must then ask, from what point in Jerusalem? It was certainly not 15 furlongs from the furthest outskirts of Jerusalem. Indeed what would be described as the furthest outskirts of Jerusalem? I used to travel a road to work which said 4 miles to Leeds. But I lived in Leeds!! Thus I lived four miles from where I lived lol. Thus to measure the distance from the Temple to the district of Bethany on the basis of Biblical information we have to ask what are the criteria. And the truth is that we do not know. We only know that it was a sabbath days journey from the camp of Jesus on the mount of olives in the district of Bethany. I would rather accept Luke's testimony than any map. Did you know that in the first edition of the New Bible Dictionary they included maps. You won't find maps in the current edition. Why not? Because they were treated with derision by many scholars and withdrawn. Our knowledge of the geography of Jerusalem in 1st century AD is patchy, because we only get information when a Gospel writer decides to give it. We know a few facts and that is all. For example we have no idea where Bethphage was. The makers of maps do their best to guess right. But I would not stake my life (or my beliefs) on them. |
||||||
142 | Different beliefs and salvation | John 3:16 | biblicalman | 228214 | ||
Hi doc, The Anglicans in the uk spread from high Anglicans who are almost like Roman Catholics but in many cases without their worst features, to middle Anglicans who are mainly wishy washy, to Low Anglicans who are evangelical. The evangelical wing of the Anglican church is about 48 per cent of the whole, possibly more now that many high anglicans are drifting to Rome because of women priests. Strangely enough you are more likely to find high anglicans preaching the Gospel as against middle Anglicans (where the women ministers mainly reside). The low Anglicans would agree with the important aspects of the teaching of Calvin and Luther, and preach the Gospel soundly. They would reject auricular confession, praying to the Virgin Mary (the of course believe in the virgin Mary), transubstantiation, praying through the saints, high church robes, crucifixes with Jesus on, and other similar Roman Catholic ideas. Very few Anglicans, even High Anglicans, although there are exceptions, would agree with the Council of Trent as regards the Gospel. |
||||||
143 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228207 | ||
yes doc but John was speaking of the actual village not of the region of Bethany. Luke was speaking of the region of Bethany on the Mount of Olives, which Acts 1 tells us was a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem | ||||||
144 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228206 | ||
hi searcher you are assuming that Bethany is simply the name of a village (it was not a city). Do you really think, even if we did not have Acts, that Jesus would go to a village from which to ascend? He would surely go to the Mount of Olives as Acts 1 and Zechariah 14 say. But Luke says He went to Bethany. Thus that 'Bethany' was the part of the mount of olives of which Acts 1 speaks.And wWhere He went was said to be a sabbath's day journey from Jerusalem. Thus the Bethany mentioned in Luke 24 is the same place as that part of the Mount of Olives and was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. How could this be? Because the area around Bethany (which was on the east side of the Mount of Olives) was also called 'Bethany' in order to identify it. This must be so, otherwise Luke and Acts disagree, which would be ridiculous because he wrote them both. In fact Jesus and His disciples probably camped out on the mount of olives (as many pilgrims did)in the region known as Bethany. There would be no house in a village which could house all His disciples. once you have gone a sabbath days journey you are allowed to return :-)) And in fact there were legally acceptable ways of doubling a sabbath days journey. Best wishes |
||||||
145 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228200 | ||
hi searcher an important necessity for the argument put forward on the site you mention is that Bethany was more than a sabbath day's journey from the Temple. However in Luke 24.50 Jesus took His disciples to 'Bethany' from where He ascended, and in Acts 1.12 'they returned from the mount of olives which is a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem'. Thus that Bethany was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. Thus the Bethany that Jesus spoke of was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. That indicates that Jesus could have gone from Bethany to Jerusalem on the sabbath day which invalidates a main part of the argument. A further factor to keep in mind is that a well known Rabbi said in 100 AD, "a day and a night make an 'onoh (24 hour day)" and a portion of an 'onoh is counted as an 'onoh. this confirms that from a Jewish point of view three days and three nights (three 'onohs) could be seen as a part of a day, a day, and a part of a day, which fits in with 'the third day'. The writer also dismisses the idea that the Jews in Jesus time ensured that two sabbaths never followed each other successively, although admitting that later on they did ensure it. but from what we know of the Rabbis they would certainly have found some way of preventing it happening in Jesus day if it was found to be such a problem later on. There is no proof that they did not. Furthermore on the high sabbath it was permissible to buy food for the feast. it is therefore equally likely that a body could be anointed on a high sabbath, especially if it was consecutive with a normal sabbath. thus if that were the case (and it is probable. they would not want to leave a body two days before anointing it) the women could have anointed the body earlier if Jesus died on a thursday. Thus many doubts must be placed on the reasoning of the article until that can definitely be excluded we mustg see the probability (as one of his witnesses said) that two sabbaths could not follow each other successively Best wishes |
||||||
146 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228196 | ||
If Christ had been crucified on a Thursday then in Jewish reckoning and description he would have been in the tomb four days asnd four nights. To a Jew part of a day could be called 'a day and a night', for he spoke of the part as a whole. Jesus was a Jew and used Jewish terminology. But the conclusive factor is that if Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday the women would have taken spices to the tomb on the Friday. They wanted to anoint His body for its burial. They did not know that that had already been done. They would certainly not have waited for the body to become putrefied. So the fact that they went to the tomb on the first day of the week (because they could not on the sabbath)demonstrates the He died on the day before that sabbath, that is Friday (Greek - paraskeue - 'preparation'). |
||||||
147 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228165 | ||
There are no reliable dates for when the crucifixon took place. We do not know for sure how long Jesus' ministry lasted. We only know that it was over three years. What is sure is that if the crucifixion was on a Wednesday the women would not have waited until the first day of the week to anoint his body. They would have done it on the following day, or if that was a festal sabbath, the day after. That is conclusive against Wednesday. With regard to the guards, the women stated that they did not know how they were going to move the stone. The guards were Temple soldiers, not Roman soldiers. The seal was placed by the chief priests. They could not exact the death penalty. Possibly the women were hoping to persuade the guards to open the tomb, or if the guards were not there, one of the gardeners. That was why they sent the youngest and prettiest women ahead to spy out the situation. But that problem was there whatever day the crucifixion was. The people who say Wednesday never consider the problem of when the women went to anoint Jesus which was clearly stated to be the first day of the week. |
||||||
148 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228154 | ||
The major problem with the suggestion that the crucifixion took place on a Wednesady or a Thursday is as to why the women waited until the first day of the next week to take the spices to anoint the body of Jesus. They wanted to do it at the earliest possible moment. The Scripture certainly gives the impression that the delay was only of one day. Thus it is clear that the Sabbath was the normal Sabbath. It may of course also have been the festal Sabbath, but that would not cancel the fact that the Sabbath in question was the regular Sabbath i.e. Saturday. To suggest the large majority of scholars of all persuasions agree with this position because they do not know the facts of the Hebrew feast is simply laughable. Many of them are experts in the subject. |
||||||
149 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228111 | ||
Beja Unfortunately you have misunderstood what I said. I did not say it was 'worldly'. My point was that words mean different things in different contexts. For example someone might speak of homosexual marriages. They are using marriage in a modern sense as simply a personal contract between two people. If I were to use the word in that way I would not expect everyone to always assume that i meant that when i used the term marriage in other contexts. It would depend on the context. When Jesus was speaking to the woman about her spiritual condition he was using common parlance so that she would understand what He was talking about. What other words could He have used without getting over-complicated? But that fact cannot be used to declare what He would have said if He was asked to define God's view of marriage, and to say what an authentic husband would be like. If you cannot see that then there is little point in discussing with you. Meanwhile i also find your postings on this issue very short on Scripture, lol. Meanwhile I deny your claim that my thought forms are required before you can understand what 1 Cor 6.16 means. It is quite clear. It is that if you have sex wth someone you are made physically one with them. That is WHAT IT SAYS. It requires no thought form to understand that. And that should then affect your thought forms. Best wishes . |
||||||
150 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228110 | ||
hi doc my point was the translation of a phrase in an old testament passage. The general consensus of the Rabbis may not lead to acceptable doctrine but it is very useful in deciding what Hebrew words mean to people who spoke Hebrew. i could have said in my view and according to my knowledge of Hebrew. but people might then have dismissed it. Jesus did not argue that the Scribes were wrong in their translation of the Hebrew. He said that Moses had spoken of divorce becos of the hardness of men's hearts. In fact both the Scribes and Beja misunderstood the real meaning of Deuteronomy 24. But that did not mean that the Scribes were incorrect in their translation. I agree completely that American dispensationalists who teach what you state are misinterpeting Scripture. I lay no emphasis on what the Rabbis teach, except as showing Jewish opinion. But I do respect their knowledge of Hebrew, even though they may sometimes fail to distinguish between their Hebrew and ancient Hebrew. May i suggest that you read what i actually wrote again |
||||||
151 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228091 | ||
lionheart. i am not sure what u are talking about. perhaps you could cite the passage in question. i have never said that sex outside of marriage could be justified. i think u have read something wrongly. Best wishes |
||||||
152 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228087 | ||
Beja, If we are going to count Scriptures quoted you quoted two, I quoted four. So I suggest you read what i said again (u claim i only quoted one). I also cited an Old Testament fact about marriage which is in fact found in Deuteronomy 22.28-29. Possibly i should not have assumed that you would recognise the Scripture. I also explained why u were misinterpreting Deuteronomy 24. I do not think that you can honestly call what I said about that a 'dismissal'. Let others judge. Thus i guess I win 5-2 lol Best wishes |
||||||
153 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228078 | ||
Beja Marriage consists of two vital parts, the taking of oaths before God and the consummation of those oaths by sexual union. This is even recognised by churches which do not allow divorce. If the marriage is not consummated by sexual union they consider that it can then be annulled, whatever the oaths made, because Scripture teaches that sexual union is an essential part of marriage. Thus an unmarried pair having had sexual union should marry. That is the essence of what the Old Testament was teaching. Having consummated the marriage before it has taken place they are then bound in God's eyes to take oaths of loyalty before God. Their very sexual union has bound them to it. And this is because the sexual union has made them one person (Genesis 2.24). The two have become one (1 Corinthians 6.16). It was because of the hardness of men's hearts that God made allowance for man's weakness. BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO (Matthew 19.8). Thus what you are describing as marriage is the lesser version which is not real marriage in accordance with God's purposes. It is lesser form of marriage, a sinful form of marriage, ssomething which falls short of true marriage. You may interpret Deuteronomy 24 as referring to unfaithfulness, but the Rabbis did not do so, and the Hebrew does not state it. It simple refers to some lack. That is why Jesus said that they allowed divorce 'for any cause'. However, Deuteronomy 24 does not permit divorce. It declares that if divorce has taken place and one party has remarried, the two can never again be married. Why not? Because that party has by sexual union become one with another. Thus for them to remarry is forbidden. So you are in fact wrong in saying that sexual union with another does not (in God's eyes)cancel marriage. It does. The fact that as a result of the innocent party forgiving there can be a renewal of that marriage by further sexual union does not mean that God did not see the marriage as broken. Jesus' teaching demonstrates that that is exactly how God saw it. That is why He stated that in that case divorce was permissible. The view of the Jews was that adultery ended marriage. That is why Joseph determined to put away Mary. Betrothal was a pre-marriage contract only breakable by adultery. So it was the same as marriage. No God's purpose was not that marriage should go on at all costs. God purposed that marriage be non-adulterous. It was man who messed things up. Anything following that was not God's purpose. It was thus not true marriage as God intended it to be. |
||||||
154 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228074 | ||
Beja, you are of course always entitled to disagree with me but i would claim that the Scripture is quite clear: 'perhaps you dont know that the man who joins his body to a prostitute becomes physically one with her'. to me that is quite clear the two have become one. and that is the essence of marriage as in Genesis 2.24. Jesus was not speaking in Biblical terms to the woman at the well, He was using common parlance. he was using the words as the woman understood them. you really cannot base your doctrine on what is said to a worldly woman. lol u wont offend me by disagreeing with me. you are welcome to do so. if what i say does not stand up then it deserves to be knocked down. thats what a forum is all about. i just happen to think that it does stand up. others must decide :-)) why do u think in the Old Testament that a man who had sexual relations with an unmarried woman was forced to marry her? it was for the reason i have stated. why was divorce permissible after adultery? for the same reason. the relationship of marriage had been broken by the sexual act best wishes |
||||||
155 | having sex if engaged biblical stance? | 1 Cor 6:16 | biblicalman | 228072 | ||
Beja. I would not call 1 Corinthians 6.16 speculation. It clearly teaches that sexual union makes us one with the person we have sex with. And that is marriage in God's eyes (Genesis 2.24; Mark 2.7-8) if we have not had sexual relations before. If we have tnen it still makes us one but in an adulterous relatonship. The principle is that sexual union makes us one with the person whom we have sexual union with. In the case of the first sexual union that is marriage (the two have been made one). A second sexual union is adultery. It is not marriage in God's eyes because the person had been made one with someone through the first sexual union May I suggest that your illustration misses the whole point In God's eyes (and in Jesus' eyes)she was married to the first man that she had had sexual union with. That being so Jesus would clearly not see her as married to the fifth or sixth man. Have you considered the fact that that was why He said that the man she was living with was not her husband (even if she was married to him, we do not know)? Man's misuse does not cancel the word of God. But we are not talking about a multiple adulterer who is at odds with God anyway. We are talking abut a pure girl who has had sexual union with a man she intends to marry. She can still have a husband in the eyes of God by marrying the man that she has had sexual relations with. If she marries anyone else she will be an adulterer. That is why if anyone in the Old Testament had sexual relations with an unmarried girl he was required to marry her and had no choice. As Jesus would have said concerning your illustration, 'from the beginning it was not so'. |
||||||
156 | women preachers | 1 Tim 2:12 | biblicalman | 228037 | ||
1 Corinthians 14 is irrelevant to the question as it has nothing to do with teaching. It is blurring the issue. Furthermore we cannot reasonably apply the situation at Corinth to every church. 1 Timothy 2.11 says nothing about it referring to church meetings. Ephesians 5 is also not referring to teaching but the meaning is quite clear that the woman is to be subject to her husband because he stands as representative of the Lord. To cite 'greek scholars' is irrelevant. There is wide disagreement among them. With regard to prophesying, no one would deny that women prophesied. The question is whether they did it before men, and there is no Scriptural evidence that they did so. Huldah was very much an exception. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. We can read into their ministry what we will. But our ideas are not Scripture. The question was, what does Scripturee say. And my point was that Scripture is quite clear. I personally have no problem with some women preachers and teachers, although I am very much aware that many of them introduce ideas which distort Scripture in an unusual way. But that was not the question. I recognise that I cannot justify my position from Scripture. In my view Scripture clearly restricts teaching to the church to men. | ||||||
157 | description of lucifer | Isaiah | biblicalman | 227905 | ||
Strictly of course the name Lucifer does not appear in Scripture. It is the Latin name for Venus, arising long after Isaiah's day. Isaiah used the term heylel, meaning 'shining one', a term which indicated a star. As the King of Babylon had claimed that he would 'exalt his throne above the stars of God' it is a reasonable assumption that he saw himself as a special star, a 'shining one', especially as the Babylonians worshipped 'the host of Heaven'. Certainly God would not give him this name. He was hardly a genuine shining one. Nor would Isaiah except in sarcasm. Thus we must choose between the king of Babylon and his people as the originators of the name which Isaiah took up in order to mock him. Certainly the Old Testament never gives any hint that Satan is to be seen as a shining one. Thus the clear assumption is that it was the exalted title applied to the particular king of Babylon by his people, exalting him to a place among the stars of heaven, the 'host of heaven', a title taken up by Isaiah in mockery. As D J Wiseman puts it, 'it is applied tauntingly as a title for the king of Babylon who in his glory and pomp had set himself among the gods'. | ||||||
158 | Why is it too sacred to pronounce today? | Deut 6:5 | biblicalman | 227818 | ||
I must confess I fail to see how Jesus could have used the tetragrammaton in John 8.56-58 or that he used it anywhere else. He could not have said 'before Abraham was YHWH'. If He was speaking in Hebrew (which is unlikely) He used the first person as in Exodus 3.14 (EHYEH). Certainly it is based on the tetragrammaton but it was in no way the actual Name of God. It was an interpretation of that Name. Thus Jesus never taught the way to pronounce YHWH. His hearers took it as blasphemy because they gathered the inference of what He was saying, not because He used the Name of YHWH. That does not of course in any way invalidate Calvin's comments. | ||||||
159 | salvation | John 10:28 | biblicalman | 227728 | ||
lol Doc i read mine again and i read yours prior to it. It seems to me your answer was more subjective than mine. However i was not expecting in four lines to deal with the whole question of salvation, I was merely dealing with the fallacy of speaking of salvation as though it was ours to gain or lose of our own choice. | ||||||
160 | How is Jesus related to King David? | Matt 1:1 | biblicalman | 227464 | ||
One possible explanation to this question is that Mathhew is giving the line of royal descent, while Luke is giving the line of actual descent by blood. Thus Matthew lists each person who ascended the throne even if they were not strictly sons of the previous person mentioned, if the previous one died childless. Thus Joseph's father was Heli, but his right to the throne of Israel came to him because Jacob died childless. He was thus from a Jewish point of view 'the son of Jacob', that is, his heir. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |