Results 141 - 160 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232786 | ||
EdB, After rereading your earlier post I fear I might have put words into your mouth with regards to something. I said: Your statement was that there is no notion that they are property and that it allows them to be beaten/harmed. Now you did state the property part and the being beaten part but you did not connect the two explicitly in your post. So if that was an unfair reading of your view point forgive me. It was not my intention to misrepresent you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
142 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232785 | ||
EdB, Let me first make a plea for being given some benefit of the doubt. I do not advocate beating slaves to death, starving them, or any crazy cruelty. But I am wondering how tempered your statements have been by scripture. The two big instances that make me wonder are: 1. You state that seperating wife and children would be one aspect of slavery which God would not condone. Indeed the very idea that God would condone it would seriously offend you. However, have you considered this passage? Exo 21:1-4 And these are the judgments which thou dost set before them: When thou buyest a Hebrew servant--six years he doth serve, and in the seventh he goeth out as a freeman for nought; if by himself he cometh in, by himself he goeth out; if he is owner of a wife, then his wife hath gone out with him; if his lord give to him a wife, and she hath borne to him sons or daughters--the wife and her children are her lord's, and he goeth out by himself. How does this fit with your thoughts? 2. I'm by no means even competent in Hebrew. But I do know the word you are speaking of in Ex 21:20 and you are quite correct that it is most natural the word for "silver." However, does this change the idea so much? Your statement was that there is no notion that they are property and that it allows them to be beaten/harmed. Yet even with the word being translated "silver" is this not still at least slightly along that idea? If not how do you understand it? Let me post it again and substitute the word silver. Ex 21:20,21 If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his silver. Does this really change basic idea of the two verses? Now, don't think that by this I mean all other nasty things that came with American slavery. All I'm saying is that your statements do not look like they have been tempered by scripture. If it matters, one way we might resolve some of the tension is to suggest there is not the connection between the idea of a slave being property or a possession with all these other things. I don't think I'm being unfair in bringing up scriptures like these. And again, please be gracious enough to not assume that I embrace every vile thing that has come with historical slavery simply because I post these verses. They are relevant. I ought not have to apologize for bringing up scripture. In Chris, Beja |
||||||
143 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232782 | ||
EdB, I claim no knowledge of Chattel slavery or even if it is actually a real word. I simply posted scripture that seemed to be related to your discussion. I know that when I am considering a question I appreciate it when people point me to scripture that may weigh in on the question. I try not to take offense if I then determine the suggested scripture does not. On a side note, our modern sensibilities are often offended by scripture, and I would suggest our discomfort or indignation to be an unfit measure of truth. Take the modern offense over scripture's stance on woman authority in churches and homosexuality for example. But once again, Beja isn't even sure if Chattel is a real word and has made zero assertions on the slavery question, only posted some verses for you guys to weigh. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
144 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232779 | ||
EdB, "Chattel - where the slave is no longer viewed a ss person but rather as a piece of property." "God never condoned Chattel Slavery" Lev 22:11 'But if a priest buys a slave as his property with his money, that one may eat of it, and those who are born in his house may eat of his food. Exo 21:20 "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. Exo 21:21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property. For your consideration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
145 | Can anyone explain Mat 24:15? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232775 | ||
elder4yhwh, My opinion is that Luke interprets that passage for us in Luke 21:20. However, the full answer must be a deep one as Doc has suggested. This is because as CDBJ has pointed out, the same notion is taken up again in 2 Thessalonians. So I think that in that particular passage Jesus was applying the language to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but there must be a deeper fulfillment of Daniel with regards to this yet to come. In fact, you could pick a intertestemental event which we would almost swear fulfilled Daniel's prophecy had Christ not come along and told us to continue looking for its fulfillment. So there must be some way in which these things are types leading up to the ultimate expression of the prophecy which we would expect is what Paul points to in 2 Thess. But short answer. Luke 21:20 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
146 | Where did Jesus do away with the Sabbath | Luke 6:5 | Beja | 232705 | ||
elder4yhwh, In your view do we sin when we don't observe the sabbath? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
147 | insest | Lev 18:10 | Beja | 232665 | ||
Lindasue, Leviticus 18 is the most significant chapter on sexual regulations. However, let me just say that if you live in America and the granddaughter is under the age of 18 then you have a serious legal obligation to report such a thing as it is a crime. In such a case this would not merely be about sexual relations between relatives but is sexually abusing a minor. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
148 | my future wife hits me. What do i do? | Matt 5:44 | Beja | 232661 | ||
Mingo, Perhaps you shouldn't marry her? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
149 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232660 | ||
EdB, I keep writing replies and deleting them because they all sound insulting and condescending. I really am sorry for that. But I no longer know how to give you a reply that is not so. I can not believe that you can look at that post and not identify the correct paragraph. I am even more dumbfounded that you can not understand that I am telling you to look at a different paragraph in the post other than the one you are looking at. I can not communicate with you. Do you not think this thread has gone long enough and perhaps we should just let it die? Yet rest assured, somebody will come along and read this thread and think to be able to speak to you. You will not be satisfied with their answer and you will restate your entire case all over again. I plead with you to resist doing so. Lets let the thread die. Surely you see nothing edifying will likely come from it. We have answered you, you find the answers unconvincing, why go on? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
150 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232653 | ||
EdB, Read the post again. That's not even the right section. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
151 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232651 | ||
EdB, For the record I answered this question in post 232604. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
152 | Where did Jesus do away with the Sabbath | Luke 6:5 | Beja | 232638 | ||
elder4yhwh, That door swings both ways. When Paul says that nobody is to judge us with regards to a Sabbath, we can not suggest that only means for people not to judge us for observing one. We must also apply it the other way around. This means that nobody is to judge us if we do NOT observe a sabbath. And in the context this is clearly grounded upon the finished work of Jesus Christ. So the passage very much says that nobody is to judge a person for not obeserving the sabbath because of what Christ has done. Now granted, this does not explicitly spell out "Jesus has done away with the Sabbath." But how else are we to understand it? We no longer have the moral obligation to observe it due to the work of Christ. Call that what you will. I find it very relevant to your original question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
153 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232609 | ||
EdB, Having given a little prayer to the matter, and reflected some on past interactions involving you on the forums, I believe that your last post to me makes a little bit more sense. I understand that you think this forum is a haven for calvinists in which we chase off those who are not calvinist. So it begins to make sense to me why you somehow think reformed theology is the issue. This also sheds some light as to why you thought it needed to be defended that Christ being preached is a necessity, which I agree with and always have. But under the light of you thinking I was trying to censure your departure from calvinistic/reformed theology this statement at least seems to have some ground for you to bring it up. So, without engaging in the actual subject again, let me say just a couple things. 1. At no point was anything I was trying to explain about calvinism or anything unique to reformed theology. At least not to my knowledge. 2. At no point in any of our conversation was I trying to police or censure your posts due to their departure from reformed or calvinistic theology. 3. I in no way claim any right to censure you based upon your disagreeing with reformed/calvinistic theology. 4. I deny any notion that this forum is reserved only for those who hold to reformed/calvinistic theology. 5. I believe that all theologies within the terms of the TOU should have fair and open opportunity to be discussed and evaluated in light of scripture on this forum. 6. I reject that any theology has the right to be protected from evaluation in light of scripture on this forum from some mistaken sense of equality or tolerance. Neither reformed, arminian, Catholic or any other interpretation of scripture gets to ignore either inherrant contradictions or conflicts between it and scripture on the basis of this forum "being open to all." We are here to pursue truth together and that involves discovering errors. Again, I will not re-enter the previous discussion regarding judgment for those who have not heard of Christ. I simply wish to make the above points clear now that I think I know why you responded to me in the way you did. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
154 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232608 | ||
EdB, You have said, "you have ignored what I say actually prevents us from going to eternal damnation." Do you take what I have said to deny that we are saved by Christ's work on the cross? I have made no such denial in any of our discussion. You have said, "For Jesus to be understood the Eunuch said he needed some one to teach him or else this eunuch spoke a lie. Why would we consider others to be different?" When have I at any pointed suggested that Christ has no need to be taught? You have said, "you want to find exceptions in what I'm saying. I can think of no reason except for your personal knowledge of my perspective of reformed theology" You yourself thanked me for my exposition of Romans 1 and now you act as if my points are purely from a personal bias??? I have taken care to carefully explain the nature of your every error and yet you say it is not from any real solid ideas but just a bias? I don't know how to respond. You have said, "Reformed. And the last I checked the forum guidelines this is still a forum where one theology does not over rule another just because someone insists it should." As if I have not been discussing scripture and its right interpretation from context but merely saying you are wrong because you don't match some abstract dogma??? I wash my hands of the discussion. I said from the very beginning I did not wish to discuss any of it with you put merely provide a passage for other readers of this thread to reference. This is why I did not want to. May God and the careful reader judge for themselves the truth or error of what has been said. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
155 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232604 | ||
EdB, I struggle with how to respond to you. You are bringing so many assumptions to the text that make it impossible for you to see things rightly. I just don't know how to systematicly address all of it. Everything you are saying so far outside the historical Christian view of so many things. Let me at least give a couple examples. You said, "I’m talking of the person that truly loves God but for whatever reason has never heard of Jesus Christ." You are first assuming a situation which scripture is categorically denying the existence of. That is the point of Romans 1, there is no such human being. Every person in the entire world through sinful depraved hearts has either out right rejected what is universally known about God, or they have altered it to suit their own notions of what they want God to be. The reason you can't see scripture addressing what happens to a God loving person in ignorance is because there is no such thing as a God loving person in ignorance. We love because he first loved us. Any true love we have towards God is first prompted by a true understanding of God's grace towards us. Now your objection to this is to point to various devout people within false religions. But that is the exact thing which Romans 1 does indeed address. These people in false religions have no love for the TRUE God, but rather they have shaped God to fit their on "fuitile speculations" and have created a God in their own images in the "image of corruptible man." They have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie." There is none who love the true God outside of the revelation of God in scripture and the grace given from him for us to do so. When he grants us "repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 2:25). A second major error in your thinking, and where you depart from historical Christian thinking is your failure to see the promises of the Messiah as the Old Testament means of trusting in Christ. Christianity has taught that as the Old Testament saints trusted upon the coming Messiah they were trusting upon Christ. No, they did not know that his name would be Jesus but they still were trusting upon him. The promise of the coming seed extends all the way back to the fall of mankind as God held forth Christ as the promised seed of the woman to those who would hope upon the promise and be saved. Your failure to accept this biblical and historical Christian teaching forces you to look to strange ideas to speculate how an Old Testament Jew was saved. These are two major missunderstanding you have which makes any discussion over specifics built about sound understanding in these errors completely impossible. You presumptions are simply foreign to the historical Christian faith and contrary to what scripture teaches. In addition you threw out all my careful explination of Romans 1 and simply told me how you feel it should be interpreted with no real exegesis defending your statment. Your responses were full of statemetns such as... "I see the passage you pointed to in 2 Cor 5:10 as speaking..." "I see Jesus dying for the sins of the world and judgment for the unsaved at the..." "I don’t think he fits in the same category." "My view of Romans 1:18-32 is..." "because to me this situation..." Everything you say is defended by how you think, see, or feel. No conversation can be constructive until you take your views, thoughts, and feelings and put them forward for scripture to utterly anhilate if it contrary to it. I say all this for the sole purpose of trying to explain why I can not answer your questions. There are too many things keeping you from the answers. I'm sorry. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
156 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232597 | ||
EdB, RESPONSE PART 2 Now, with regards to Romans chapter 1. I can think of nothing but to walk you through it. Romans 1:18 says, "the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth" Please note that beginning of this section is showing what the wrath of God is being displayed against. God is angry about men "who suppress the truth." Now it says that they do so in unrighteousness but the people who are the object of his wrath are those who "suppress the truth." Now Paul explains what he is talking about... Romans 1:19 and says, "BECAUSE that which is known about God is evident within them for God made it evident to them" So Paul begins to explain what he means by those who "suppress the truth" whom God is wrathful towards. He says concerning them that that which is known about God is evident within them. Now he will explain that statment. Please note the words beginning the verses evidencing each verse as the grounds for the previous one. Romans 1:20 "FOR since the creation of the world, His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made SO THAT THEY ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE" Now lets follow the chain links. God is angry at those who "suppress the turth." Why? Because that which is known about God is known to them. How? Because it is evident in creation to everyman without special revelation. So God makes himself known in creation. Men in their wickedness reject what is evident, and therefore God is angry. Now be careful because this is where I think you go wrong. They are not being judged on whether they reject Christ. Christ is not revealed from nature. A coming messiah is not revealed from nature. Simply certain turths, not all truths, about God our revealed from nature. And God is wrathful that sinful men have turned from those truths. What we are going to discover in this passage is that at the conclusion men are sufficiently guilty to be sent to hell having never heard of Christ. Now verse 21b where it declares them without excuse is a bit of a watershed moment in this passage. 21b declares them "without excuse." That is the point of what he has been saying so far. But note the starting word of verse 21 and you will see he is giving a second ground for why they are without excuse. So first they are without excuse because ENOUGH truth is evident that hey are accountable for it and second Paul is going to explain that the second grounds of their lack of excuse is how they handled what turth they were given. Romans 1:21b-23 "so that they are without excuse. FOR even though they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man, and of birds, and four footed animals, and crawling creatures." All right it says what about them? They have no excuse because... 1. They knew God and inspite of this... 2. They did not honor him, nor give thanks 3. They became futile in their speculations. In other words they ignored what was revealed by God about themselves, and began to imagine who and what God was from their own sinful imaginations. They did not deny that there was a God, they created their own versions of God. This is not about Atheism, it is about idolatry and false ideas of who God is. 4. They exchanged the truth revealed for an image in some other form, what that form was doesnt matter. So do you see what its saying? God's wrath is against all mankind who have not yet had written revelation brought to them and this wrath is just because they have sinned against the natural revelation which they have been given by producing their own false ideas of who God is. They are guilty enough for Hell...and they will be judged so by God. Paul is purposely locking those who have never heard the gospel up as guilty before God on this basis so that beginning in chapter three he can began declaring the gospel as their only hope. There is much more in Romans 1:18-32 but this is sufficient. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
157 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232596 | ||
EdB, RESPONSE PART 1 I'm the one at fault. Yesterday I drove a two hour round trip to take a 3.5-4 hour exam. My responses to you were shortly after I had returned home and apparently all of my patience was spent. I did not actually feel angry in every way. But every time I had finished writing a reply I couldn't help but notice that my exhausation was evident in my tone no matter how much I didn't intend for it to be. I finally decided it best that I didn't reply. So I am the one who has need to apologize, and I do. Let me say what I think the root of your error is, and perhaps that will explain why I don't have much desire to entire a large discussion concerning this. Your root mistake is that you think people will be judged only on accepting or receiving Christ. This is an error. Those who are judged to eternal condemnation will be judged for their sins. Romans 3:23 says that the wages of sin is death. Paul does not present this as something that has pased away with the work of Christ. It is present tense. Both before and after Christ we are judged for our sins. 2Co 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad. It is my theory that because you reject this notion before you ever come to Romans 1:18-32 therefore you can not read it for what it plainly says. Because its plain sense goes against your previous notions. The reason I do not wish to get into a debate over this question is because we have done so once before on this forum if I am not mistaken. There is no merit to hashing it out all over again. I'm writing my exposition of Romans 1 and its relevence in a following post, it made this one too long. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
158 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232588 | ||
EdB, Here is a conclusion Paul draws from what he has previously argued in Romans 1:18-32 Rom 2:2 And we know that the judgment of God rightly falls upon those who practice such things. Based on Romans 2:2 would you still argue that we see nothing regarding God's standard of judgement on these people from this section of Romans? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
159 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232587 | ||
EdB, I can't come up with a reply befitting of Christ, therefore I will remain silent. Only note that I have not simply referenced verse 18 but rather I pointed you to the entirety of Romans 1:18-32. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
160 | God's fair standards to judge evildoers | John 5:28 | Beja | 232583 | ||
EdB, I would recommend reading the passage again. The passage is not about atheists. The people in the passage are indeed worshiping. I won't go deeper than that as I disagree with you on the very assumptions you are bringing to the discussion. I only wish to affirm that scripture does deal with the issue for those readers who wish to look into it. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [40] >> |