Results 141 - 155 of 155
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183738 | ||
When I originally commented in a brief note in reply to someone’s concern about what Martin Luther had said about certain books of the Bible that his ‘popular’ views on the canon were not reliable because they were spoken as a preacher and teacher and not as a scholar I had in mind the statements that he made that were well publicised, not his lifeteaching as a whole. I was dealing with a particular viewpoint. Unfortunately for Martin Luther he is remembered popularly for the controversial things that he said and not for the good ones (a misfortune for most famous people. Few are interested in the good things that they said). Examples include, “In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.” This is then cited popularly as that he called it ‘a right strawy epistle”. Then again he later said, “…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.” Concerning the Book of Revelation he said, “About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment,” and again, “let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him.” The impression given (which I have elsewhere called ‘atrocious’ evangelically speaking) is that people can treat the Scriptures as something which can be accepted or otherwise depending on how their own spirit leads them. Of Esther he says, Esther…which despite their [the Jews] inclusion of it in the canon deserves more than all the rest in my judgment to be regarded as noncanonical.” Later, of course he dropped these statements from his translations of the Scriptures and he did include all the books in his Bible translations as Biblical books, in contrast with the Apocrypha of which he said that they were, “books not to be regarded as equal to Holy Writ, but which are useful and good to read”. But the damage was done and Martin Luther gained the popular image of a man who did not treat the whole canon of Scripture on a par. No doubt Martin Luther on the whole wished that he had never said these things, but unfortunately for him he did and it is these statements for which he is popularly remembered. I hold Martin Luther in the highest regard (what true evangelical would not). Beside him we are all pinpricks. But we still have to admit that he made mistakes which have unfortunately been perpetuated and have caused many people problems, and that such statements are best disregarded. |
||||||
142 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183735 | ||
Hi Coper Thank you for your question about Revelation 3.10. Firstly we should point out that 'about to come on the whole world' is an interpretive translation. Literally it is 'is coming on the whole world' (no time frame). But this is talking about the hour of testing not the Parousia. Such hours of testing have come again and again through history. It certainly cannot refer to the destruction of Jerusalem for that was of very limited effect, however intense it might have been for those involved. This trial was to be widespread. 'On the whole world' was looking from John's perspective of the world of his day. It was hyperbole. Compare 'from every nation under heaven' in Acts 2.5 and 'your faith is proclaimed in all the world' in Romans 1.8 neither of which can be taken literally. John was talking of widespread trials and testings. Certainly the first century Christians experienced such an 'hour of trial'. Christians through the ages have experienced such hours of trial. Many are similarly experiencing an hour of trial today. To all such Jesus said 'I am coming soon'. But as Peter makes clear 'soon' in Gods timetable can be a thousand years, and we can add two thousand years. For with God that is but 'two days' (2 Peter 3.3-10). The same applies to 'the last hour' in 1 John 2.18. It is likening history to a day and saying that we are in the final hour. But again we need to remember that with God an hour can be what we see as a long time. Just as the church has been in 'the last days' for two thousand years (Hebrews 1.1-3: Acts 2.17). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
143 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183701 | ||
Martin Luther was a linguist but he was not a critical scholar as far as the canon was concerned. His 'decisions' were based purely on personal opinion. I am not criticising Luther as a person, just his approach to the canon. His achievements speak for themselves but his views about the canon were atrocious. | ||||||
144 | Why is the Catholic bible different? | 2 Tim 3:16 | jonp | 183695 | ||
Hi, The books you mention were not part of the Jewish canon and Jesus laid His seal on the Hebrew canon (Luke 24.44 - 'Psalms' covered the the other sacred writings) but not on anything outside it. Thus we only have Jesus authority for the three groups of book in the Hebrew canon. On a practical level while Maccabees is of value historically it is clearly in some parts unreliable. Martin Luther was his own man. His decisions about the acceptability of books is not reliable. He was an evangelist and preacher not a Biblical scholar. If he did not think that a book fitted into his ideas her simply discarded it. By all means read Maccabees as a history book which is partly reliable but we have no genuine grounds for accepting it as 'inspired'. Best wishes Peter | ||||||
145 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183691 | ||
It concerns me Mark that you can say 'if one only interprets Scripture in the way that Scripture presents itself, then a futurist view of Jesus' coming in power and glory, and of the 1000 year reign is the only view allowed by Scripture.' I know of no Scripture that says 'there will be a millennium which will follow the second coming of Christ'. Indeed the truth is that if there is a doctrine of such a time it is completely ignored in the New Testament Gospels and letters. Can you really see pre-millennialists of the present time never mentioning the millennium clearly? That surely suggests that the New Testament writers did not belive in a millennium. There is only one New Testament Scripture that you could point to as possibly teaching a millennium and that is Revelation 20.1-7. But it is very doubtful if that is teaching a millennium after the second coming of Christ. Revelation 20 is a new vision, and it is a summary of what has gone before. Jesus Himself spoke of Satan being bound in His day (Mark 3.27). It is a way of indicating that God has limited his power. He could not literally be bound because he has no body. Those who were martyred for Christ, and those who refused to receive the mark of the wild beast enjoy the 'first resurrection'. That is the resurrection described in Ephesians 1.19-2.6 in which all who are Christ's have a part. 'You has He made alive --- who were dead in trespasses and sins'. And from then on they reigned with Christ whether they were on earth or raised up to be with Him as Paul says in Philippians 1.20-23. The 'thousand years, is the ideal period ahead for Christians before His coming. (It does not actually say that it will not be longer than that). Such huge round numbers were rarely if ever used literally. Most people were not numerate. It simply indicated a long period. Peter confirms this when he is the only one to mention the thousand years and there he refers it to the period between Christ's first coming and His second coming. The loosing of Satan for a little while is described in Revelation 9.1-11; 12.12. Thus Revelation 20.7 refers to a period after the time when God's people have been witnessing for some time and before the second coming. Thus it has already been described in Revelation. Now I realise that you probably interpret Revelation differently from me. But it is not on a basis on which all evangelical Christians can agree. My view of the whole of Revelation is that apart from Chapters 21-22 it is all speaking about what you would presumably call 'the church age', and that it began at the time of the death and resurrection of Christ. Now I do not question your right to disagree with me. But I do object (in friendly fashion) to your saying that I am not interpreting the Scripture literally. I certainly do believe in the fact that Jesus Christ will come personally in glory at the consummation, but I do also believe that the whole Book of Revelation (apart from chapters 21-22) has been in process of fulfilment through the centuries. That is the whole purpose of John's symbolism. It is to some extent applicable in every generation. In fact it is quite clear that the book comes up to the time of the second coming a number of times in different visions (e.g. Revelation 6.12-17; 14.14-20; 19.11-21). All this is open to interpretation, but it cannot be denied that it is to take it literally in so far as symbolism can be taken literally. See for this interpretation the commentary on http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
146 | Prayer for death | 1 Kin 19:4 | jonp | 183689 | ||
Hi The short answer is that no Elijah was not right to want his life to end. It was just that he was despairing because he felt that he had failed and was therefore no longer of any use. What he should have done of course, is what we should do in such circumstances, cast ourselves on God. But most of us have felt somewhat like he did. We are all sinners. | ||||||
147 | So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sara | Gen 18:6 | jonp | 183688 | ||
Hi Re Genesis 18.6-8 the answer is that it is indicating a good meal. We must not try and read in ideas that are not there :-))). See commentary on Genesis at http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
148 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183685 | ||
Hi Tim. The danger with labels is that we can begin to isolate ideas. As with Futurists there are different types of Preterist. There are many who both believe that Jesus in some sense came at the destruction of Jerusalem (and at Pentecost) but still believe in His return in glory. Cearly those who do not believe in a visible return of Christ must be seen as stretching Scripture, but that is not true of all Preterists. See the Commentary on Revelation at http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ which coul be described as both preterist and futurist. It is all a matter of definition. Best wishes jonp | ||||||
149 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183684 | ||
Hi Coper Thank you for your reply. My point was that 'Th Second Coming' was not a Biblical phrase as though it was a subject in itself. But you will note that I did also say that there would only be two physical comings (thus ruling out a rapture before the final consummation). But if Jesus could say 'Lo I am with you always' then clearly He was intending to return in invisible power to accompany His disciples on their worldwide mission. Further more He said, 'If a man loves me he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him' thus having in mind many comings. Compare also Revelation 3.20 which teaches the same. See http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp |
||||||
150 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183649 | ||
Hi Brad, My point is partly that we do not necessarily have to say 'this position is right' or 'this position is wrong'. Very often there is truth in a number of positions because the Bible has a number of factors in mind. That is why people have garnered them from The Scriptures. Thus the fact that Jesus in some way 'came' in the destruction of Jerusalem does not necessarily signify that He will not come personally at His second coming, and vice versa. The problem lies in our trying to fit divers verses into a single picture. See the commentary on http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ Best wishes jonp | ||||||
151 | Does the Bible diminish women? | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 183643 | ||
Of course the first point that has to be made is that in the beginning God made woman to be man's helpmeet. Each was assigned a role. It was not a case of one being 'superior' but of essential roles. It was sinful man who turned the situation into one of inferior and superior and sinful woman who sees it in that way. Bearing children and shaping the world through them was a huge privilege. Paul saw it as a supreme ministry (1 Timothy 2.15). It is still a main way in which she is to 'work out her salvation'. The strength of the church has always been the children brought up by Christian women. Why then should we see their situation as inferior? Answer because we are like the disciples arguing who is the greatest. Jesus said that we had to see ourselves as the servants of all. Thus we could argue that women were given a huge advantage. But like sinful man, sinful woman wants to be in control. God never diminishes the value of women, it is man who does that. What God did do was try and protect women in the light of the customs that sinful man has established. Women were not on the whole able to take up prominent positions in public because they had to be protected in a world which was violent and lustful. They could not go out into the world as they do today because it was not safe to do so. There were no police. Indeed even Deborah had to have her male support for this reason. Protection depended on the family and was only possible if women were cosseted. Indeed women were so valued that their purity was looked on as of primary concern. Men could be attacked but they could not be violated in the same way as women. And a violated woman would not find acceptability because she had already become another's. It must not be assumed that women in those days felt that their position was second best. They enjoyed the security that this protection afforded. It could be argued that it is women today who devalue themslves by their sexual behaviour. But it is true that as today God's purposes were very much manipulated by men to their own advantage. We must not however blame God for that. And we must remember that in those days might was right in practical living. God knew very well that if His commands were seen as too outlandish they would be ignored. (They were largely ignored anyway. That is the story of the Old Testament). His laws were intended to make a difference. They were not just theoretical ideals. He made them in order to regulate and improve a system set up by men and women (and even then the hand that rocked the cradle had unseen influence). With regard to Bathsheba she was not quite in the same position as David. He was the king which made his sin the more heinous. Thus the consequence for him was seen as important for it affected the whole nation. But she was allowed to live. She received the same mercy as David. She did not come off second best. So the truth is that most of the problem we have with a woman's 'position' is that we look from the world's point of view not from God's. We just cannot bring ourselves to believe that Jesus was actually right when He said that those who truly serve are the truly great ones. | ||||||
152 | Significance to Tree of Life? | Gen 2:9 | jonp | 183638 | ||
Hi The tree of life was probably a tree whose fruit provided unfallen man with the means of rejuvenating himself. Thus by eating of it he could perpetuate his existence. The tree of knowing good and evil (literal translation of the Hebrew) was probably like a sacrament, It stood there as the visible symbol of God's lordship. It was an act of grace and mercy so that man would not forget the One Who was his Lord. By refraining from eating of it He learned by practical experience true goodness which lay in obedience to God. Once he ate of it he learned evil by practical experience. For the first time he knew what it was to be in rebellion against God. Thus he had through it come to 'know (in practical experience) evil'. Previously knowing evil had been theoretically taught by the tree. He had then known that evil lay in disobeying God and rejecting His Lordship by eating of the tree. See commentary on Genesis at http://www.geocities.com/genesiscommentary/ | ||||||
153 | Still not convinced preterism is false | Matt 16:28 | jonp | 183636 | ||
Hi, We must be careful that we do not just fit Scripture into a neat pattern. It is dealing with matters of huge complexity. For example there is no doubt that Jesus came to His disciples at Pentecost. His promise was 'lo I am with you always even to the end of the age (Matthew 28.20). It is not enough to say that He came in the Holy Spirit. He was talking about Himself personally. At Pentecost they were to see 'the Son of Man coming in His Kingly Rule (Matthew 16.28) which had to happen in the disciples' lifetime and it continued on through Acts. Indeed we must distinguish His coming in power (to happen 'from now on' - Matthew 26.64 which has in mind Daniel 7.13-14 where the coming is to the throne of God but as Jesus says to be revealed in power on earth - 'you will see') from His coming in glory (Matthew 16.27; 24.30-31). But this is not to see two 'second comings'. If you like His coming in power was a continuation of His first coming. Actually the Bible does not speak of a 'second coming' (although it does speak of His coming personally at the consummation of all things). Jesus' activity is not to be limited to two events, although His bodily ptresence is. We must not be tied down to a primitive way of simplifying the complexity of God's ways. We do love to systematise everything. And then if we are not careful we become arrogant and think that only we are right. With regard to interpreting the Old Testament we should recognise that the New Testament sees much of it as fulfilled in the heavenly Kingdom and the true Jerusalem as being the heavenly Jerusalem (Galatians 4.24-28; Hebrews 12.22; and regularly in Revelation. The New Testament does not take the 'literalist' stand. It recognises thet the Old Testament prophets had to describe things in the terms that could be understood in their own day (there was then no conception of a possible hevenly kingdom), but much of what they said could not be taken literally (although of course much could). We must use discernment. For fuller treatments of these subjects see http://www.geocities.com/revelationofjohn/ and http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/ |
||||||
154 | scriptural basis for loving self | Lev 19:18 | jonp | 183634 | ||
Hi The Bible does not tell us to love ourselves, it assumes that we do so. What it does seek to do is make us look outward from loving ourselves, to loving other to an equal extent. It is paralleled by Jesus words about doing to others what we would want them to do to us (Matthew 7.12). Of course Jesus took this one step further and pointed out that we had to deny ourselves, take up the cross and follow Him (Mark 8.34 and parallels). In other words we must die to ourselves and live for Him, and thus for others (Romans 6.10-11). | ||||||
155 | KJV uses LXX, NET uses MT, NASB uses ? | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 183633 | ||
Hi In fact the KJV was translated from the MT and the byzantine Greek text, not from LXX. Nestles Greek New Testament is a published attempt at an accurate text of the original writng based on critical methods used to weed out interpolations etc. For further information about Biblical matters try http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/4027/ | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] |