Results 141 - 160 of 232
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Taleb Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | what was the occupation of rehad | Josh 2:1 | Taleb | 78164 | ||
Believing you are referring to Rahab, she was a prostitute who saved the two spies visiting Jericho before its destruction. She became a descendant of our Lord Jesus Christ. Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||
142 | But are the Jews keeping track of tribes | Matthew | Taleb | 78103 | ||
Chusarcik, since the destruction of the Jew’s temple, records kept have been lost forever. While “records are still kept” today, they CANNOT make any connection to anybody prior to that destruction, contrary to what my Mormon relatives claim. To answer you question, I must point out that the “tribes of Judah” and the “kingdom of Israel” does not exactly “go together”. Israel, according to the Old Testament, separated from Judah. Some from the various tribes “joined Judah”. BUT after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. those peoples were dispersed into the world, and still are. Their purpose had been fulfilled – that to bring Jesus the Christ into the world. A side note: Abraham received the promise in Genesis 17 about his “seed” and Galatians 3:16 explains EVERYTHING that promise meant. And I quote: “Now the promises were addressed to Abraham and to his Seed – notice, in passing that Scripture doesn’t use a plural word as if there were several descendents, it uses the singular “seed”, meaning Christ.” end quote. Verse 19: “… UNTIL the arrival of the “seed” to whom the promise referred.” So, for anyone to “keep” records, serves no purpose in any plan of God’s. God’s promise, for the entire world to be blessed through Abraham’s “seed”, has been forever completed. Respectfully, Taleb |
||||||
143 | Which 12 tribes of Israel exist today | Matthew | Taleb | 77994 | ||
Genealogies stopped when the Jews were dispersed for the last time in 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed. But ... With Jesus, the Jewish “race” ended. That is something coming from one with “Jewish blood”, yet truth doesn’t change. The Scripture has many genealogies, and they end with Jesus. If you look at Matthew 1, it clues you in to what I am stating. From Abraham to David is 14 generations. From Solomon to Jehoiachin (when they were carried away into Babylon) is 14 generations. From Salathiel to Jesus, who is called Christ, is 13. Yet Matthew 1:17 says 14 each time. Why? You have to understand what it takes to be a Jew. To “be” Jewish, one only has to adhere to their wide-ranged doctrine. You can be a Buddhist Jew – no problem. You can be any race, never intermarrying from Noah, and still become a Jew. Yet, to become a citizen of Israel one only has to be born to a “Jewish mother.” A man decides to become a Jew. He does. He marries a non-believer, she too becomes a Jew. They CANNOT immigrate to Israel. They have a daughter, raised in the Jewish faith. She marries a non-Jew who “converts”. They have children. Her children CAN immigrate to Israel because their mother, not their grandparents, is Jewish. Col. 3:11 explains it better yet. “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision …. But Christ is all and in all. Taleb |
||||||
144 | What 2 languages was Daniel written in? | Daniel | Taleb | 77986 | ||
Searcher, apparently our "sources" differ. I only checked two, (one Christian. One Jewish.) they both totally agreed. According to those sources - The Aramaic is from chapter 2:46 through 7:28 - these portions "deal with God's program to the Gentiles". The rest is "supposedly" written in Hebrew - oh well. Interesting ... :) Taleb |
||||||
145 | Where was Daniel during Daniel chp 3? | Daniel | Taleb | 77982 | ||
Don’t forget, Daniel WAS a high official in the Kingdom. The “Kingdom” wasn’t confined to the “city”. PERHAPS, that was "why" the "stunt" was accomplished - Daniel was "out of town". Rest assured, Daniel, most likely, was not present during the “trial and sentencing”, nor for the songs of praise that rang out of the furnace. (According to my Jerusalem Bible.) :) My “answers” are probably not much help, huh? Taleb |
||||||
146 | What 2 languages was Daniel written in? | Daniel | Taleb | 77976 | ||
The portion in question was written in Aramaic. The rest of the book of Daniel is said to CONTAIN certain Greek and Persian words or phrases. The "rest" of the book was, according to the Jews, written in Hebrew. Taleb |
||||||
147 | Moses and the Canaan land | Num 20:12 | Taleb | 77965 | ||
To add to prayon's response, 1 Cor. 10:4 "And they (the Israelites in the wilderness) did drink of the spiritual drink: for they drank that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." In spite of Moses' disobedience, God demonstrated His never-ending mercy and gave them water in a dry land. Ho everyone who is “thirsty”, come ye to the water ... Jesus is the Living Water and whosoever drinks of the water that He shall give, shall never thirst again. From His Cup, Taleb |
||||||
148 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Taleb | 77822 | ||
Mommapbs, last week you asked for my comments on that website you gave to me. What raised your level of concern was their off-the-wall reference about being part of the 144,000. Good, yea, an excellent spiritual eye, even if you gave it only a “brief look see”. What “raised” my level of concern was their off-the-wall reference to “obeying” what neither Jew nor Gentiles have to anymore. They have NO understanding of the Sabbath, or its purpose. And, please don’t “misunderstand me”. To be brief (me brief? What an accomplishment), let me quote from The Jerusalem Bible Hebrews 8:13. “By speaking of a “new” covenant, He (God) implies that the first one is already old. Now anything old only gets more antiquated until in the end “it” disappears.” ”It” (the Old covenant and its rituals, etc.) did “disappear” when the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D. "It" couldn’t be done away with UNTIL after Jesus’ death and resurrection, because, as it says in Heb 9, the new couldn’t take effect UNTIL Christ, our sacrifice died. That “web-site” doesn’t recognize that fact. It obviously fails to take the Book of Hebrews (the book called “the letter to the Jewish Christians”) into account, thereby failing to take 1st Tim 3:16 into account, thereby taking ALL that prophets of old, even Jesus Himself, said --- about what WOULD BE --- into account etc. etc. Thus ends my "brief" comments. :) Respectfully yours, Taleb |
||||||
149 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Taleb | 77377 | ||
Mommapbs, I "found that site, and others that look interesting. Thanks. I'll get back to you about "my comments on this movement", but I already have many "opinions" (from family experience) already, so I'll search with an cautious "eye". Please be patient, if you don't receive a response as quickly as I hope I can. :) Taleb |
||||||
150 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Taleb | 77375 | ||
Mommapbs, good morning. I attempted to find, on two different search engines that “address” that you provided. They both gave me the old song and dance about not finding it, asking if my spelling was correct etc. It sounds like an “interesting” site to visit. I will make a more frugal attempt later. For now I want to “comment” on question concerning Ex 3:14. Hopefully, my “comment” won’t be too hard to follow. Let me state that spellings in translations vary. When someone asks “Who are you?” we respond according to who spoke. If my daughter asked me that, I would say, “Your father.” Throughout my life, I have responded to such “names” as son, brother, cousin, father, grampy, honey, dear, student, teacher, etc. Those are just SOME of who "I AM". Like you and me, God doesn’t limit Himself to “one” name or, more accurately, one “character”. God is EL HAJ (Living God); AND He is KETHER ETZ CHAIM JEHU (The Crown of the Tree of Life); AND HE is ADONAI ‘TSEBAYOTH (Lord of Army Hosts); AND He is BATH ‘KOL (The still small voice); etc. etc. In Exodus 3, it explains how, or in what manner God made His “appearance” to Moses. “In the flame of the burning bush, the Angel of the Lord APPEARED to Moses.” This WAS God. For it states that “God said out of the bush, “I AM THE GOD OF YOUR FATHERS”. In Exodus 6:2-3 God said (and I believe Him to be telling the WHOLE truth, contrary to what “our translators” say previous Scriptures say.) “I am the Lord. I APPEARED unto Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob BY the name of God Almighty (El Shaddai), but My name "the Lord" (Yawheh) was I not know unto them.” In Exodus 3:14 God is merely stating, in the same fashion “justme” states in his profile, “I’m just who I am. What you see is what you get.” The Hebrew “names” that God introduced Himself to Moses in Exodus 3:14 are EHYEH ASHER EHYEH. Our translators say it means I AM “THAT” I AM. Not "exactly". The best way to translate it, for us English speakers to understand, gives you the answer to your question. God is MERELY telling Moses, I AM (whatever I WANT to be) - is what I AM. That is one reason He “appeared” in the burning bush. That helped Moses KNOW God COULD be "whatever". Remember why Moses didn’t get to go into the promise land? He struck the rock, rather than speaking to it. Who WAS the rock? At that time and in that place, God “was exactly what He wanted to be" (“I AM ZUR – the rock”), just as He revealed to Moses in Exodus 3:14. The manna, etc. etc. etc. etc. WAS GOD. Or, if you will, "I AM THE MANNA". In the New Testament. it often “seconds” what I am stating. Jesus often said, “I AM THE ---” So to answer your question: how could one call upon God with the Name He gives Moses in Ex 3:14? You call upon Him by “whatever” YOU NEED to convey. The important thing is – to call upon Him. :) (As I know you well know.) Hopes this helps, and thanks for the “tip on the new site”. My, how I go on when I “talk” about what I love. Taleb |
||||||
151 | Is "mikvah" in the Law or tradition? | Bible general Archive 1 | Taleb | 77270 | ||
Searcher, I am glad to hear that you, like the Bereans did, check to see “if things are so”. The Hebrew term mikvah (spelled mikveh by some) literally and always means “gathering of water” as Strong’s states in Gen. For centuries before Christ it was a “ritual bath” that, according to “oral tradition” originates in Exodus. When the Law required “cleansing”, the initial ritual of mikvah, or mikveh, took place. Sprinkling or dipping WOULDN’T cleanse, so “completely under” they went. The priest and Levites know WHAT John the Baptist WAS doing. He was doing what had been done for centuries. They needed to know WHO he was. Had it only taken a “little” water, why did people meet him at the river? Why not by a well? A wedding, as in Rev. 19:7, “the bride has made herself ready” means she underwent the ritual of mikvah. For sure she "bathed" herself completely. Many men used, and still use, the ritual to prepare themselves for Passover, for Yom Kippur, for the Day of Atonement. Some participate before the Sabbath, every Friday. You wrote: “I didn't find where God had a person get in water. Can you cite in the OT, where God did so? I believe it was oral tradition, not the Law.” Even though there is no direct mention of mikvah in the Old Testament, the Jews STILL use the story from Exodus 19 as their basis for having a ritual bath. Right before the Ten Commandments were given to Moses, God told Moses to have the people sanctify themselves (make clean, purify) and have them “wash their garments.” Jews still believe these two "things" happened together. Strong’s 3526 sort of defines the word “wash”, “To trample with the feet”. BUT you must notice where else the word is used and that will “cancel” such a lone concept of separate “cleansing”. Psalm 51:7 “Wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.” Concerning the “ancient rituals of mikvah” still in effect today, I am reminded of Col 2:17 and 2 Cor 15:46, among other portions of God’s word. Baruch ata Adonai ... Blessed art Thou, Lord our God, King of the universe. Taleb |
||||||
152 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Taleb | 77198 | ||
mommapbs, You are correct (sort of) that baptism was used in the Old Testament when someone wanted to "convert". And I said "sort of" because it STILL is how one "converts” to Judaism. To answer your 2nd question - yes, the physical action MADE/MAKES them a "Hebrew". Even today, when someone "converts" to Judaism they are “proclaimed” to be the son, or daughter, of Abraham and Sarah. The reason why they become “children” of Abraham is because before God called Abraham to be the father, and Sarah the mother, of the Hebrews, they both were “Gentiles”. They “became” Hebrews. NO convert IS ever called one after they "convert". They are as though they were born into it. That's why so many of them call it "being born again." Interesting, don't you think? Has the purpose of baptism changed is hard to answer. It depends if you mean has God’s purpose changed, or has “the Church’s” purpose changed. God’s remains the same. The church’s – well – we are having a conversation that we wouldn’t be having if it hadn’t changed. Your question: “if you took a white cloth and dipped it in red dye, what kind of cloth is it white or red?” instantly brought to mind one of my favorite, (from thousands) :) promises from God’s precious word “Though MY sins be as scarlet, (red, if you will) they SHALL be made white as snow.” So I guess I will have to give you a “scriptural answer”. The “cloth” God would make white. P.S. I sure appreciate you, mommapds, and you are MOST welcome. Taleb |
||||||
153 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Not Specified | Taleb | 77178 | ||
When did God change the "mode" of baptism today from what it was in Moses’ day, and John the Baptist’s day? Seeing immersion (mikvah) still hasn’t changed for the Jews since it was instituted about the time of their exodus from Egypt. |
||||||
154 | When did God change "mode" of baptism? | Bible general Archive 1 | Taleb | 77186 | ||
When did God change the "mode" of baptism today from what it was in Moses’ day, and John the Baptist’s day? Seeing immersion (mikvah) still hasn’t changed for the Jews since it was instituted about the time of their exodus from Egypt. |
||||||
155 | What tongue or whose tongue will dry up? | Is 11:15 | Taleb | 76993 | ||
Ray, The first verses that came to mind is James 3: basically the whole chapter. And, according to Adam Clarke’s to commentary: “Man has one hundred and forty-eight members, some confined, others free. The tongue is placed between the jaws; and from under it proceeds a fountain of water, (the great sublingual salivary gland), and it is folded with various foldings. Come and see what a flame the tongue kindles! Were it one of the unconfined members, what would it not do?” The same sentiment, with a little variation, on Psalm 120:3: What shall be given unto thee, or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue? The holy blessed God said to the tongue: "All the rest of the members of the body are erect, but thou liest down; all the rest are external, but thou art internal. Nor is this enough: I have built two walls about thee; the one bone, the other flesh: What shall be given unto thee, and what shall be done unto thee, O thou false tongue?” Also from Clarke's: "Here is a plain allusion to the passage of the Red Sea. And the Lord’s shaking his hand over the river with his vehement wind, refers to a particular circumstance of the same miracle: for “he caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land,” Exodus 14:21. "The tongue; a very apposite and descriptive expression for a bay such as that of the Red Sea. It is used in the same sense, Joshua 15:2, 5; 18:19. The Latins gave the same name to a narrow strip of land running into the sea: He shall smite the river to its seven streams. This has been supposed to refer to the Nile, because it falls into the Mediterranean Sea by seven mouths: but R. Kimchi understands it of the Euphrates, which is the opinion of some good judges." Taleb |
||||||
156 | Baptism in the holy spirit? | Acts 19:1 | Taleb | 76989 | ||
Ray, I haven’t heard the phrase “charismatic” for soooo long. :) Actually, I’m surprised it’s still around. I remember when a friend was asked years ago if he was a Charismatic. His response was – “Only if it’s good to be one, because the same Spirit that raised Christ from the grave lives in me, and I want Him to stay. He doesn’t care for anything that isn’t good.” When asked if he spoke in tongues, he quickly stated, “My tongue speaks IN me.” “Charismatic” I have forgotten, but his responses live on. As far as which translation I used in my salutation – that IS Romans 8:11. I do however read from multitudes of translations. KJV; NAS; Philips; A.A.T; NJKB; NIV; Berkley; the Jerusalem Bible; and the NAB name a few I glean from and all of which state the same truth. Your “Ephesians 1:17, "that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him." I submit to you that this [holy] spirit of wisdom and of revelation leads us to knowledge of Spirit and faith in the Lord Jesus”, is well taken. What follows explains WHY Paul wrote about obtaining that spirit of wisdom AND of revelation. “… that you might KNOIW what is the hope of His calling, AND what the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, AND what the exceeding greatness of His power in us who believe …” And clinched with verse 23 “…and you are yourselves built up into a dwelling for God through the Spirit. Apparently, unless Paul prayed “vainless” prayers, the Ephesians NEEDED to understand what many in our churches NEED to understand. Yes, Ray, “The fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom” - Ps 111:10. “The fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of knowledge” – Prov. 1:7. The fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of wisdom: AND the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding – Prov. 9:10. The grace of our Lord be with your spirit, Taleb |
||||||
157 | Baptism in the holy spirit? | Acts 19:1 | Taleb | 76940 | ||
Sniper, my point was, and is, that Searcher's "definition of known languages" doesn't fit, because it really doesn't. I’ll reiterate the results of “my test” one more time, slightly changing my “terminology” to help convey the truth thereof. IF the term “tongues”, giving in the context of being “produced” by the Holy Spirit through any particular individual, actually means “known languages”, the Holy Spirit, who wants for us today to understand what HE meant then, WOULD only, and always, have used “dialektos” in each case, rather than “glossa”. Why? Because “dialektos” “means” a known language, while the other “glossa” offers too many possible “meanings” to be used as “evidence”. As a reminder, “dialektos” was used in Acts 2:6. (I stated Acts 2:11 before, but that is “the other tongue word, glossa”. (Whoops) This is the MAJOR verse used to “demonstrate” that ALL the other “tongues” ONLY and ALWAYS means what this one says about men hearing them speaking in “their own language”. Thanks for your input, and for pointing out how “silly” it was the first time through. :) Taleb |
||||||
158 | Can you be a Pastor if you are divorced? | 1 Tim 3:5 | Taleb | 76930 | ||
Met, while a few denominations take this literally, according to their interpretation, they fail to use ALL of Scripture as 2 Tim 3:16 instructs. For one of many examples: 2 Corinthians 6-9-11 explains what I mean. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortionists, shall inherit the kingdom of God." But it doesn't end with those words, it continues with these: "And such WERE some of you: BUT you ARE washed, BUT you ARE sanctified, BUT you ARE justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” In plain English, whatever the former sin, they are forever gone. Verse 11 began with “And such WERE (past tense) some of you.” Then it provided three “BUTS” to bring us to the present tense “ARE”. So in answer to your worthwhile question, "According to God's Word, anyone who has sinned and been forgiven can be a Pastor. Anyone who sinned before they were a Christian, has had ALL THOSE SINS forgiven, and HE doesn't remember them anymore. Blessings, Taleb |
||||||
159 | Baptism in the holy spirit? | Acts 19:1 | Taleb | 76906 | ||
Searcher, allow me to state at the offset, your “comeback” is well thought out and informative. I’ve never “noticed” the “first, second” etc. Thank you for pointing out those important facts. My “problem” lies with the concept that tongues are “known languages”. Here is a simple test I often use when I hear, or learn, that a word means “such and such”. It MOST ALWAYS works. I find other places where that same word is used and I read it using the word’s “definition”. It “should fit” otherwise something is most likely wrong. “Tongues” is one of those I “tested”. If “tongues” actually means “known languages” (and I understand how that conclusion is drawn -from Acts 2:11 where the Greek word, Strong’s 1258, Dialektos was used), WHY DIDN'T Luke use “Glossa” (Strong’s 1100)? By the way, do you have any idea which English word is derived from that Greek word dialektos? Yup, dialect. About that “test I used” – Let’s try it. We will use the “known language” definition in place of “tongues” to see if it holds the muster. Luke 16:24 uses the “Glossa” (Strong's 1100) word like most all the "tongues" in 1st Cor. Lazarus and the rich man had died. The rich man is in hell and asked, “… dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my known language.” OK, one from many more. James 3:6: “And the ‘known language’ is a fire … so is the ‘known language’ among our members.” Nope. I would say that “tongues means known language” doesn’t pass the test. And, Searcher, don’t forget the other Greek word translated “tongues”. Heteroglossos (Strong’s 2084) argues in favor of what you stated tongues means – speaking a foreign language. However, It is used only once, 1 Cor. 14:21. Whereas the next five (5) "tongues" in that chapter only uses Strong's 1100. The overall content of our response rings sadly true. Even after a couple thousand years, we, too often, still don’t “get it” right in Church. Really, Searcher, I DO appreciate your soul-searching, valid comments. And not ONLY on this thread. :) His Peace, Taleb |
||||||
160 | Baptism in the holy spirit? | Acts 19:1 | Taleb | 76903 | ||
Hello Ray, It's not so much "things" He offers us to be filled with - it's Himself. "If that same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead dwell in you, He shall quicken your mortal bodies ..." Thanks for asking, Taleb |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [12] >> |