Results 161 - 180 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | What is God saying in this verse? | Gen 3:15 | stjones | 107787 | ||
Hi, Tim; Ok, this is probably not in keeping the guidelines .... Perhaps you've heard the story of the seminary student walking across the darkened campus late at night and finding an old night watchman reading Revelation. The student said, as students will, "Revelation is pretty heavy stuff. Do you understand it?" The watchman nodded. Skeptical, the student asked him to explain it. The watchman replied, "God wins." Happy New Year! Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
162 | Where did Cains wife come from | Gen 4:17 | stjones | 106914 | ||
Hi, FT; You made a couple of assertions about God (he made you the way you are; he wouldn't dislike you because you ask why). But you are theorizing about a God you do not know, a God you are not certain even exists. You are describing God as you think he should be. Other than the time factor (you may get hit by a truck tomorrow and find that you dithered too long), there's nothing wrong with that; I did it myself for years. The danger is that armed with a pre-conceived idea of what God's nature should be, you will likely reject evidence of a God that does not conform to your idea. Better to be open to the possibility that your ideas may need adjusting. That is the essence of free thought. It is easy to go to the Bible and find reasons not to believe. It is easy to find reasons why God does not measure up to our standards. The fact is, it's easy to find fault with God. I do it often. But God isn't going to change his thinking to conform to my ideas, so I've found it much more reasonable to change mine to conform to his. Regarding Cain, you have had answers from mature Christians who have answered out their knowledge of God himself; they have gone beyond the bare facts to be found in Genesis. Having read the Bible as a non-believer and studied it as a believer, I can tell you that it reads entirely differently depending on which direction you approach it from. I'm not talking about some kind of secret knowledge here. I just mean that when I encounter an event that seems to make God look bad, I eventually discover that it was simply a matter of looking at it through my own eyes rather than his. If Cain is stumbling block for you, move on. As for the remark about cattle, I can only assume that you included it because you believe you have encountered some here. Perhaps you have. You will find cattle among "free thinkers" as well. You will find people who are so bound up by their own opinions of how things ought to be that they are utterly blind to how things are - they are far from free. I have a friend who is so enslaved to science that he changes his whole worldview with every promising new hypothesis. He believes he is a free thinker. I'm not promoting a debate here, merely hoping that you will ask yourself if your thinking is free enough to recognize the truth when you see it. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
163 | Bless Israel - say "God bless Israel"? | Gen 12:3 | stjones | 42431 | ||
Yes but he gave those territories to a nation he created, a nation clearly divided among the tribes, a nation that ultimately rejected his kingship, rejected his law, and rejected his Son. This modern state is one that the U.N. created; its borders were established by treaty and war, not by God's directive. It is a secular nation, ruled by politicians, not priests or prophets. It's just another country. The only Israel that matters is the one that lives in the hearts and bones and minds of Abraham's descendants. This Israel has no borders, no army, no parliament, and no ruler but God himself. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
164 | Bless Israel - say "God bless Israel"? | Gen 12:3 | stjones | 42464 | ||
Oh, well; we can agree to disagree. Won't be the first time. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
165 | What was the name of Lot´s wife? | Gen 19:26 | stjones | 73909 | ||
Hi, wordoer; Just a couple of points: First, the Bible does not indicate that the Book of Jashar (NIV) is inspired or authoritative - appropriate for what seems to viewed today as something like an early hymnal. Apparently the Israelites did not consider it worth preserving as part of the Hebrew canon. Second, at this late date, the burden of proof is on those who assert that their version is authentic. What is the provenance? If no known copy can be traced back more that 400 years (as Tim has suggested), I can see no reason to assume that it is authentic. Lacking any such persuasive evidence, I would have to approach it with a healthy dose of skepticism. Third, Taleb's observation about counterfeits is true for a very simple reason - there are only two authentic 20 dollar bills (American) but there can be an infinite number of counterfeits. There's no way to learn them all, so instead tellers learn to recognize the genuine articles. So it is with the Bible - there is no way to learn all the heresies, misleading interpretations and translations, and outright lies, so we must learn the authentic word of God in order to recognize the frauds. Having said all that, I can appreciate your interest in this book. Josephus is flawed, but we look with interest at his writings. You have clearly stated that Jashar is inferior to Scripture and that you are not defending it as authoritative. It's an intriguing rabbit trail. Others have chided you for spending time with Jashar that you could be spending with the Bible. This is true, but the same could be said for the time I spend in the workshop, so I'm not going to go there. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
166 | "God told me to do it" | Gen 22:1 | stjones | 107530 | ||
Hi, Ricardo; A couple of points: There was no benefit to God in testing Abraham's faith; as your friend Tim said, God already knew what Abraham's choice would be. We need to ask ourselves two questions when we study an event like this: 1) What was the benefit to or effect on the participants? Perhaps it was important for Abraham to know that God might make extraordinary demands, but he would always provide the means for satisfying them; at least, that seems to be what he learned and passed on to Isaac. And perhaps Abraham needed to discover for himself the depth and importance of his obedience. It was after passing this test that God reaffirmed his covenant with Abraham. 2) What did God want us to learn? Most of what happened during Old Testament times was not recorded. Only events and conversations of God's choosing were written down for us. So why did God preserve this incident for us? Was it his intent to teach us that he will sometimes ask us to do things that are wrong? If that were his intent, I would expect to see other examples; I don't. No, I think God wanted us to learn lessons similar to those taught Abraham. It is also important to remember the context of these events. It is silly to imagine that God will interact with us the same way he interacted with Abraham. None of us will be called to start a new covenant and a new nation as Abraham was. None of us will appear in the Bible. Abraham's experience was unique. Should we believe a virgin who in 2004 claims that Gabriel told her whe would bear the son of God? Of course not; that was reserved for Mary; it will not happen again. Like Mary, Abraham lived the life God set out for him. None of us will re-live his life. Finally, we need to remember that Genesis, the rest of the Pentateuch, the rest of the Old Testament, and the rest of the Bible represent a progressive revelation of God's character and will. Abraham had no Law to guide him; God was revealing his will a step at a time. It is likely that Abraham did not yet know that God abhorred the sacrifice of children. Through Moses his descendants knew it and so do we. If Abraham had not been paying attention the second time God spoke, he might have had a flimsy excuse for sacrificiing Isaac; we would have none. In short, with all of Scripture to guide us, we can be confident that God absolutely will not tell us to do wrong. There is no scriptural basis for believing that he would. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
167 | Is "Israel" actually Jacob's descendents | Gen 32:28 | stjones | 104939 | ||
Aaack! That's "chosen by God", of course. I apologize for reducing God the Father to a generic deity. Such was certainly not my intent. - Indy |
||||||
168 | Do you think moses wanted to obey God? | Exodus | stjones | 19775 | ||
Faith is matter of both belief and trust - the demons believed but didn't trust. Obedience can be motivated by something other than faith - for example fear (the sailors in Jonah 1:14) or a desire to appear faithful (the hypocrites in Matthew 6:5-7). Disobedience can exist despite faith. I have faith but I'm not completely obedient, not by a long shot. Usually I just think I have a better idea. Stupid, but there it is. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
169 | "seal of God" | Ex 1:1 | stjones | 22129 | ||
Hi, Bill; This statement seems a little tenuous: "The New Covenant says that God will write His laws (plural, loving God and loving our neighbor) on our minds, not Law (singular, the big 10)" Most translations I checked translate it in the singular. But it's not important because there's no meaningful difference anyway. The plural laws (as you refer to them) are given in the OT Law: "Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength" (Deuteronomy 6:5) "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD" (Leviticus 19:18) And of course Jesus said that these two OT commnandments form the basis of the whole Law: "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:40) Singular or plural, Jeremaiah 31:33 says that God's law[s] will be placed in our minds and written on our hearts. I assume, of course, that this prophecy is fullfilled when we receive the Holy Spirit: "we have the mind of Christ" (1 Corinthians 2:15) and "For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified" (Romans 10:10). But if Jesus is the fulfillment and embodiment of the Law, then it looks to me like the Law (singular) and the laws (plural) - one and the same - are in our hearts and minds. Just my two cents.... Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
170 | Was God the Protector of the Israelites? | Ex 13:21 | stjones | 107863 | ||
Hi, punkiedo; No, I'm sorry; it just won't do. God was not the ground; Moses did not take off his sandals and walk on God. And God was not the bush; God spoke from within the burning bush: "God called to him from within the bush" (Exodus 3:4) So, yes; I would like you to respond to my question about Matthew 3:16-17. This passage describes the interaction of three distinct persons - Jesus on earth, God the Father in heaven, and the Holy Spirit descending from heaven to earth. Your explanation seems be that upon coming out of the water, Jesus (as the Holy Spirit) descended upon himself and then from heaven (speaking as God the Father) proclaimed that he was his own son and that he was well pleased with himself. But I don't want to badger you about this. From what you have said (or not said) it appears that the Oneness Doctrine cannot account for this passage. There seems to be no point in dragging this out any longer. I hope you will take the time to study Jesus' baptism, the Transfiguration, and Jesus' many prayers - not to himself on earth but to his Father in heaven. And please consider this prayer of Paul: "I keep asking that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the glorious Father, may give you the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, so that you may know him better. I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and his incomparably great power for us who believe. That power is like the working of his mighty strength, which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms". (Ephesians 1:17-20) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
171 | Was God the Protector of the Israelites? | Ex 13:21 | stjones | 107968 | ||
Hi, punkiedo; Thanks for the reply. -Indy |
||||||
172 | "What did Jesus look like?" | Ex 20:4 | stjones | 56980 | ||
Hi, V; A simple, direct answer is that nobody knows what Jesus looked like. There are no contemporanious images of Socrates either, for example. But you have piqued my curiosity. I know that teens can be obsessive about appearance, but I can't imagine why they would insist on knowing what anyone who lived 2000 years ago looked like. Why do they want to know? Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
173 | Homosexuality and Christianity? | Leviticus | stjones | 29182 | ||
Hello, Jaylin; "Accepted" is vague - does it refer to the person or the behavior? Accepted by whom and for what reason? As Tim said, the genetic question is largely irrelevant but there is no credible scientific evidence that homosexuality is "caused" by genetics in any way. An excellent book on the subject is "Homsexuality and the Politics of Truth" by Jeffrey Satinover (Baker Books). In fact, we do have access to the mind of God: 'The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.' (1 Corinthians 2:10-16) The mind of God is revealed in Scripture which he authored. The Bible is unequivocal: Every single mention of homosexual behvior of any kind is negative; evey positive (normative) mention of sexual behavior is heterosexual and monogamous. There are no exceptions. God does indeed accept all who seek him and confess their sins. How many well-meaning Christians are condemning practicing homosexuals to eternal damnation by telling them God approces of their behavior and they have no sin to confess? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
174 | Homosexuality and Christianity? | Leviticus | stjones | 29224 | ||
Hi, gpaulturner; I assume that you are referring to the friendship between David and Jonathan and the adoptive mother/daughter friendship of Ruth and Naomi as two of the "great expressive love stories". I also assume that the one you say is fictional is Adam and Eve. Am I correct? If so, have you evidence that the story of Adam and Eve is fictional? I assume you are referring to 1 Samuel 18:4 to support your claim that Jonathan "stripped naked". Could you explain how you know that he was wearing only a robe, tunic, and belt? How do you know that this was a sexual advance by Jonoathan and that David reciprocated? Finally, if one were to agree (even in the absence of a compelling Scriptural basis) that there was a sexual dimension to their friendship, what would that prove? What evidence have you that the behavior of David, who was a monumental sinner at times, is in any way an example of acceptable behavior? Should heterosexual men assume that the Bible endorses spying on and seducing neighbors' wives? The word in Ruth 1:13 is indeed the same word that is used in Genesis 2:24 with respect to husband and wife (no mention of homosexual relationships there). It is also translated in Genesis 31:23 as pursue. Are you suggesting that Laban pursued Jacob to have sex with him? Forgive me if this note reads like an interrogation. Those who would throw out 2000 years of translation, interpretation, and teaching have a very heavy load to carry. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
175 | must be theologians? | Numbers | stjones | 103701 | ||
Greetings, Aixen7z4, I'm curious about your distinction between "search" and "study". As I consulted my dictionaries, I found them to be quite similar. The only real difference seems to be that "search" has more of a sense of being oriented toward a particular goal - to find or discover a particular thing or answer. I assume you don't mean to say that we shouldn't read the Bible unless we are seeking the answer to a particular question. There may not be a specific command to "study" the Bible, but there's no command to breathe either. Some things are too obvious to be explicitly stated. Ezra studied the Law (Ezra 7:10). There are many references in the Psalms to meditating on God's Law or precepts (1:2, for example). It's hard to meditate on something you haven't studied. As you observed, the Bereans examined the Scriptures (Acts 17:11). Paul wrote that "from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:15-17) How was Timothy to "know" the holy Scriptures if he just looked up answers to specific questions? Indeed, how would anyone know where to look for an answer without having studied the Bible? To tar all "professional" theologians with the same brush is to deny the value of teaching. What are those given the gift of teaching (Romans 12:7) supposed to teach if not the word of God? Good theologians work to organize and explain concepts found in the Bible; that's what a good teacher does. The Bible is a very disorganized book in some ways, hence Thompson's chain Bible, for example. A word doesn't have to be in the Bible to be a good and useful word; "sanctification" is an "invented" word that describes a very Biblical principle. You may find the concept of a single God in three persons - "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost" - not to your liking, but your beef isn't with the word "Trinity". Besides, if you limit the scope of the Bible's teaching to the words it contains, you're going to find a whole of host of 21st-century problems that the Bible doesn't specifically address. It requires theological thinking - identifying eternal principles and trying to understand how to apply them to the here and now - to deal with the world we live in today. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
176 | Explain the Holy Trinity-verysimple form | Numbers | stjones | 103707 | ||
Greetings, Aixen7z4; You said "But please do not believe them when they say 'the Bible describes God as one single being'. It does not. If they had seen it in the Bible they might quote the verse. They cannot." I'm not sure what you mean by "God as one single being", but if you doubt the Bible states there is only one God (not two or three or more), that's easy: "Have we not all one Father? Did not one God create us?" (Malachi 2:10) In Mark 12, Jesus confirmed the Old Testament teaching that there is one God: "Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one." James also affirmed one God: "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder" (James 2:19) But of course the Bible states equally clearly that God is more than one person. Who is this one and only God? Is he the Father or the Son? Do Genesis 1:1 and Malachi 2:10 contradict John 1:3? Or are the Creator - God the Father and God the Son - one God? They must be one, the one and only one. Did Jesus contradict Genesis when he said "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!"? (John 8:58) Who is "I am"? God the Father who spoke to Abraham or God the Son whom John quoted? The answer is clear: both. One God, at least two persons; I'll leave it to others to make the case for the Holy Spirit. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
177 | must be theologians? | Numbers | stjones | 103757 | ||
Greetings again; Thanks for both of your replies. I don't disagree with most of the substance of what you've said, though I might quibble with some words. So I'll reply to both here. I think the Trinity concept is confusing because terms such as "person", "being", and so on are not well-defined or are not well-suited to describing God. I assume that's the reason the term "Godhead" exists. The essential truth of the Trinity is the concept of three-in-one - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - one God. Conventional speech seems to generally refer to the three as "persons"; they are, after all, distinct entities with their own characteristics. Whether one uses "being" or "Godhead" to refer to the one God seems to me to be not terribly important. I suspect that parts of this thread are about terminology, not doctrine. On the one hand, I think it may be disingenuous to suggest "What is God saying to us?" as a question one might seek to answer in the Bible. The question is so open-ended that the only realistic way to find an answer is to study the Bible! But on the other hand, you have identified the key qualifier for whether a Bible scholar is worth paying attention to. Modern Bible scholars (and theologians) are faced with three powerful incentives to not approach the Bible with that question in mind - "What is God saying to us?" First there ia a century-old tradition of studying the Bible in the same way one would study any other text. By seeking the motives and underlying thoughts of the authors of the text, the question becomes irrelevant, since the real author is not taken into account. Second, the more modern acadmeic cancer of deconstructionism encourages the scholar to approach the Bible with a different question in mind - "What can I find in here to support my position?" Finally, there is the problem of tenure. God may not provide the insight in time to get some articles written and published before the Tenure Committee meets. And no one ever got tenure by publishing an article that said "With regard to faith and works, Luther had it right". Finally, I don't think teaching stops at imparting skills. In my years as a teacher (computer science), I tried to develop my students' skills but I also tried to impart principles, higher-level abstractions, and even wisdom. "Abstraction" has gotten a bad name recently, even been equated to "irrelevance". But is only through the process of abstracting themes and principles in the Bible that we can understand what God's will might be for today's world. That's what a good theologian or teacher does. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
178 | Explain the Holy Trinity-verysimple form | Numbers | stjones | 103801 | ||
Greetings, SQL; Interesting notion; one that Jesus himself (not to mention the entire OT) regularly contradicted. Methinks running SQL queries against Scripture is not the best way to study it. (inside computer-geek joke) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
179 | How would you apply Deuteronomy 29:29? | Numbers | stjones | 103866 | ||
Greetings, Aixen7z4; Amen. I've enjoyed our dialogue. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
180 | Explain the Holy Trinity-verysimple form | Numbers | stjones | 104394 | ||
Hi, Ray; Thanks for the reply. You always seem to come at things from a new direction - new to me anyway. I'll have to contemplate what you've said. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [25] >> |