Results 161 - 180 of 784
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Beja Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | saved or sinners? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 231991 | ||
Goldy,, Yes, both. But I think I included both. In, Christ Beja |
||||||
162 | Should Ephesians 5:18 be "in Spirit" ? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232022 | ||
I_defender, The greek preposition "Ev" is remarkably flexible. However, one thing of note is that the normal means of being filled "with" something is usually the terrain of the genitive. Grammatically the most likely effect of "Spirit" being Dative makes this a matter of agency. In other words this is most likely saying that the Spirit is doing the filling rather than saying that we are being filled up with the Spirit itself. Now, I affirm that scripture teaches the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers. However, from the perspective of greek syntax it is very unlikely that this is what Paul is saying in this particular verse. It is possible, just very unlikely. But making any blanket statement about "ev" would be hazardous. It functions many ways in the dative. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
163 | who was thrown out of heaven and why | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232075 | ||
matricesmith, Though I do not think they actually refer to what many have often ascribed to them, I believe that both Isaiah and Jeremiah have the texts that are traditional suggested in answer to this question. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
164 | Target language problem? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232076 | ||
Loavesnfish, Its pretty straight forward in the greek. The "BE" that is inserted is simply a translation of an imperitive verb, a command. "Be filled" is a very normal and legitimate translation. The only possible question is what does "en pneumati" mean? Which is what I was addressing. Sorry if I missed your point. It is 1 am here at the moment so it didn't come across very clearly to me. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
165 | Who was Theophilus? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232078 | ||
Loavesnfish, The word "Theophilus" literally means "Lover of God." Ofcourse there is no erotic connotation there but rather a right and due love to their creator and savior. So one possible understanding of the Luke/Acts combination is that Luke is simply addressing any Christian that gets their hands on the books. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
166 | satan's activities | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232087 | ||
begbie, I can not think of any sense in which he is "destroyed." What passage says that he is? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
167 | Ezekiel's Temple vision-when, why, who? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232089 | ||
Loavesnfishes, The answer is Christ and His church. Really understanding why I feel so confident in this requires to think through the entire theology of the "temple" throughout scripture. I'll chart some beginning things to study. 1. Creation. No temple, God's presence unhindered walking in the midst of the garden with Adam and Eve. 2. The fall. Man removed from God's presence. Cherubim guards the entrance to the garden. 3. Tabernacle built. Especially note the garden imagry. The candlestick looks essentially like a tree of light in the midst of the dark tabernacle. Parallels to the tree of life. It constantly shines upon the showbread which represents God's convenant people. Key thought: Tabernacle from the beginning was meant to depict the "presence of God with His people." The tabernacle is now where God meets fallen man. Enabled through sacrifice. 4. Temple continues this exact theme. Garden imagery. Presence of God with His People. 5. Time of Ezekiel. Temple is destroyed but another greater temple is being promised. This temple is also notable in that a river is going to flow from it that gives life wherever it goes. 6. People return from exile and rebuild solomon's temple. However, the people who actually saw solomon's temple weep over how insignificant this temple is compared to the previous one. In other words, the rebuilding of the temple at this time most certainly did not fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy. Greater temple still expected. 7. Jesus Christ comes. John's gospel tells us that he "tabernacled" with us. Jesus comes claiming three things. First, his body is a temple. Keep in mind the entire point of the temple is the presence of God with His people. Christ is now the temple in the most literal sense in that He is where God meets with His people. Second, Christ claims that He is greater than Solomon's temple. Third, Christ claims that water flows from Him that whomever drinks it shall live forever. This he said refers to the Holy Spirit which He gives. Christ has become the next progression in the temple story throughout the biblical narrative. 8. Christ dies, is ressurected, ascends, and poors out the Spirit upon the Church. God now dwells in the midst of His church via the Spirit. New Testament writers repeatedly refer to the church as the temple. Christ in us has become the new dwelling place of God with His people (temple). 9. Rev 20-22. John tells us that ultimately in his vision of the new heaven and the new earth that there is no temple there because finally God walks unmediated in the midst of his people. And a river that gives life everywhere it goes flows from not a literal temple building, but the throne where the lamb of God sits, Jesus Christ who is the ultimate fulfillment of God's presence with His people, the true greater temple. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
168 | Ezekiel's Temple vision-when, why, who? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232090 | ||
Update to last post, I forgot to add in point 3, that we should note that on the curtains entering the tabernacle we find a Cherubim. The only places we find these cherubim that I can think of in scripture is guarding the garden, and guarding the entrance to the tabernacle/temple. This should help solidify in our minds that a return to the presence of God is being imaged by the tabernacle/temple and that is central to what it is about. Somebody coming into the tabernacle would literal have to go past the guardian cherbum into God's presence and do so safely only upon the blood of a sacrifice. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
169 | Ezekiel 40-44 measurements? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232093 | ||
Loavesnfish, I think you are pressing details too far. In every vision and prophecy we see a tendancy to provide details that are simply filling out the vision. Usually, not always but usually, prophecies tend to have one central point. However, here is what I think we should get from the measurements. First, the scope of the temple is huge. It is a "greater" temple than solomon's. Hence we are looking to something bigger and better than what had come before. Second, the entire thing is a square. The only other two places we see this in scripture is the most holy place, and the new Jerusalem. In both the later cases the square measurments are meant to draw on the significance of the first occurance. The "Holy of Holies" the very presence of God has filled the entire temple in Ezekiel's vision just as we now have direct access to the very presence of God through Christ. And ultimate in the new Jerusalem, John is not trying to tell us we are going to eternally dwell in a giant cube but rather it is meant to show that the direct presence of God has filled the entirity of the new Jerusalem. In the end, this is my view. I did not invent it, and it is well represented through the history of Christianity. But I leave it to your own prayerful consideration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
170 | Ezekiel 40-44 measurements? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232094 | ||
Loavesnfishes, One further thought. Let me tell you what convinces me. I am not convinced of this interpretation because I can go and show how every little measurement represents some spiritual truth. I know a lot of end time preachers tend to see old testament prophecy this way and glory in their ability to make something of every little detail. What pursuades me is that I am thoroughly convinced that when Christ showed up claiming to be a greater temple with a unquenchable flow of living giving water coming from Himself, He did not do so in ignorance of what Ezekiel wrote concerning an eschatological temple. I simply can not help but to believe that Christ was in fact interpreting Ezekiel vision. Are we really to suggest that Christ was unfamiliar with Ezekiel's writings? And if He was familiar with it, are we really going to suggest that Christ was reaching back, grabbing hold of Ezekiel imagery on purpose, then applying those things directly to himself and yet suggest He was not claiming himself as the greater temple? Are we really to think that the apostles weren't following this train of thought? That they did not see the redifining of the meeting place between God in his people when they claimed the church was now the temple of God? Did John not intend to weigh in on the concept of where we are heading in terms of an eschatological temple when he affirmed that in eternity to come there was no physical building as a temple but rather the temple theme was specifically fulfilled by the unmediated presence of God? Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. In the end. I was not pursuaded simply by reading Ezekiel. I was pursuaded by what Christ and his apostles did with what Ezekiel said. I believe they got the right of it. Why would we read the new testament continually affirming these things yet continue to look for a mound of bricks to call a temple? I personally have more trouble getting past that issue than I do some unexplained details in Ezekial. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
171 | Help me understand how do the parts fit? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232097 | ||
Loavesnfishes, I wouldn't reduce the vision to a picture of the attonement if that's what you mean. I think it is pointing to a future temple. I just believe that temple is fulfilled in Christ and His Church. Keep in mind, the key to understanding what I'm saying is to remember that the temple always has been centrally about the presence of God with His people. Therefore God in our midst as Christ, then as the Spirit in the Church, and ultimately the fulness of God in our midst unmediated is a very logical and greater fulfillment of what the temple was always about. As far as helping you understand the minor details of Ezekiel's temple, I can't do that. I don't believe they are all meant to be individual nuggets of truth. As I was saying, I don't believe in prophecies that every detail is meant to be analized. For example in Zechariah's scroll when we are told it measured 20 cubits (if I recall correctly) to ask what the 20 cubits meant would be to totally focus on the wrong point, missing what he is trying to say. What I centrally what to know is how did Jesus and his apostles handle the old testament text in question. In the New Testament, we have a divinely inspired and authoritative interpretation of the Old Testament. That's how I approach the issue. P.S. Its best to use "note" when replying. I will still be alerted via e-mail that you have responded. In Chrst, Beja |
||||||
172 | KJ Version | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232102 | ||
Gadrifter58, At first I hesitated to answer your question. Reason being that this question has so much potential to turn into an arguement over superiority of translations. This would neither be edifying nor could I imagine it in line with the purposes of this forum. However, there is a real question there and with real answers. So I'll attempt to do so. Here are some thoughts. 1. There are a variety of Bibles because there are a variety of goals in translations. There is an ongoing question of how literal of translation is best. When the literal words fail to capture the actual idea in English what does one do? When a Hebrew writers says that he feels something in his kidneys, intestines or bowels do we translate that exactly and leave english readers wondering what on earth he means? Or shall we go ahead and translate the word as "heart" in english? Which is really more of what that would have meant to a Hebrew. This is just the tip of the ice berg in a huge amount of questions when it comes to translations. 2. Language changes. Words continual change their meaning. Words used in the KJV no longer mean what they use to in the common usage of today. Study the change in the word "gay" for example. The KJV itself has gone through numerous revisions even. For this reason we will always need repeated translations if we wish the scriptures to be in the common speech. And we do want that. 3. We have continually made progress in understanding Koine Greek, which is what the new testament is written in. This increase in knowledge allows for better translations. Certain places in the king james scripture are translated with a vagueness due simply to this reason. 4. The one thing universal among almost, if not all, translators of scriptures is the conviction that we are to keep growing in understanding the original texts. No translator has ever finished their work on translating scripture and then said, "There, now this translation buisness is resolved. We can all just read this." Just about the ONLY thing all translators of all versions have in common is a recognition that having lots of translations is a very good thing. The translators of the KJV in a preface to their original work affirmed that having multiple translations of scriptures was desirable for getting the sense of a text. 5. I must make a remark with regards to asserting that the KJV is on a 6th grade level. I won't speak to harshly to that idea because you are the second person that I have heard that some. So the two of you must be getting that idea from some place. I have no idea where though. I will just say this. I have a college degree, and a graduate degree, and I routinely read works of the puritans. Yet I very often find places in the KJV where I can not begin to understand what they are saying until I consult another translation or even the greek. I may not be the smartest man, but I feel quite confident in saying that an average sixth grader is not up to the task. The source I have read says that the KJV is grade 12 and higher. All this said, the KJV is a valuable asset to a study library. But I hope this helps people believe that multiple translations are a good thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
173 | Question on Hymn of Invitation tradition | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232118 | ||
rustic1959, I also dissaprove of the invitations system as I have seen it done in my area. There are some ways of doing it which I might not object to. However, I think I'd boil down my objection to two points. 1. The act of lending musical accompanyment to us pressing people to "do something" is a good way to create false conversions. Also I do not think there is anyway that Paul, or Jesus Christ for that matter, would ask a lady to play a piano while he spoke in order to create more impact. 2. Pressing people to walk an isle or say a prayer is not what we are to call people to. We are to press for faith and repentance because that is what the gospel presses us to. Sinners in love with their sins will gladly walk down front if they think it is a substitute for repentance. That being said, there are bigger issues and currently I do attend a church which practices the invitation system. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
174 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232130 | ||
Preston, Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, I find this verse to differ somewhat with your list. And my church sadly does not have an altar. We are in serious trouble! In Christ, Beja |
||||||
175 | NIV...Gods...? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232132 | ||
Preston, I will continue to preach salvation in Christ alone, through faith alone, by grace alone. Scripture does not render faith as "assumed" in its message and neither shall I. Gal 2:15 "We are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles; Gal 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified. Php 3:9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. Rom 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. Rom 1:17 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS man SHALL LIVE BY FAITH." I place my hope in nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. I dare not trust my sweetest frame but wholely lean on Jesus' name. Christ purchases obedience for us, our obedience does not purchase Christ for us. Psa 119:146 I call to you; save me, that I may observe your testimonies. Salvation causes obedience. Obedience does not cause salvation. The order you seek them in makes all the difference in the world. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
176 | Is cremation wrong? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232200 | ||
CarlaLeo, Since you received two contradictory answers let me just through in my voice with one to help tip the balance. There is nothing in scripture to my knowledge that indicates cremation is wrong. You will also notice no scripture was given to show it was wrong. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
177 | Is practicing homosexuality wrong? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232321 | ||
Diego, The truth of the matter is that somebody with this disposition will more than likely not listen no matter how well you answer him. This is even more true based on the answer to the question, which is quite easy to for scoffers to accuse us of merely picking and choosing what applies. However, because God is able to grant repentance and for the sake of giving you truth personally I will lay out for you the basis of the historical answer Christianity has given to this dilemma. I myself think this answer is biblically sound. The basis of the answer lies in the division of the law. The law was in three parts, though it is often given all mixed together. The three parts are moral, ceremonial, and civil. The civil law, which is what your friend brings up to mock you, was limited to how Israel was to govern their nation. These things can not be applied merely to individuals or the church. We argue that the civil laws no longer apply, simply because we are no longer a worldly nation. The civil law had to do with the priesthood, clensings, sabbaths, festivals, sacrifices and such. All these things were pictures of Christ and fulfilled by Christ. The ended upon the finished work of Christ in his death, ressurection, and ascension because what they pointed to had been fulfilled. See Colossians 2:16,17 for this. The moral law remains both now and forever as the standard of righteousness. See Matthew 5:17,18 for Jesus' claim that this aspect of the law shall never pass away. We know that is what part he was referring to by his exposition of the moral law that follows. Homosexuality and the laws regarding it fall within this abiding moral law. When scripture says we are no longer under the law if we are in Christ we must grasp two things. 1. It does not mean that we God defines as right and wrong has changed. The moral law remains. 2. It means that if we are in Christ, we are no longer accepted or condemned based upon our keeping of that law. For example. Just because I am no longer going to heaven or hell based upon whether or not I resist coveting, does not mean that I now have permission to covet. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
178 | continued pursuit, or saving faith | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232353 | ||
loavesnfish, Wow, very old posts you have brought up. I will respond to this one but not the other. On the other passage my mind has both become resolved on in the three years since I asked the question and I have learned that it is a passage that causes much friction. With regards to this passage. 1. I never meant to suggest anything other than salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. 2. I think the basis of your point hinges on the word "rewarder." If I understand right you are suggesting that the notion of reward implies merit. We affirm that we in no way merit our salvation and therefore the passage can't be speaking of salvation. However, I think we must not import the notion of merit into this greek word in this particular passage. I'll show why in point three. 3.) The author is very much speaking of salvation by faith in this passage. Here is the evidence. ....in verse 3 abel by faith acts and receives the testimony (martureo) that he was righteous. So we see faith evidenced by works resulting in God declaring Abel righteous. ....verse 5 and 6 we see by faith that Enoch received the witness (Martureo) that he was pleasing to God. So again, faith receiving God's acceptance. ....verse 7 by faith Noah acts and builds the ark and is saved from the judgement upon the entire world. Specifically said to beecome an heir to the righteousness which is through faith. So again we see faith resulting in being saved and that faith is evidenced through works. ....verse 39 sums up the entire chapter saying that all these people gained approval (martureo) through faith. This word means testimony most literally. Testimony of what? The account of Abel sets our context. The testimony from God that they were righteous. So the entire chapter which illustrates verse six is all about individuals being declared righteous by God and receiving acceptance from God because of their faith which was evidenced by their works. 4.) This fits perfectly with the purpose of the book of Hebrews. The readers were being tempted to abandon faith in Christ so that they may avoid escalating persecution. Chapter 11 shows them those who because of sincere faith, held to their faith and endured hardship and received the ultimate reward. Likewise, the readers should through sincere faith endure the persecution thus evidencing the sincere faith and receiving salvation through faith as a result. Salvation through faith evidenced by obedience and enduring is what is being taught here. 5.) We must let the term "rewarder" be flexible here as we are guided by the entire chapter to understand that salvation is very much in the author's mind. We must believe that in God there is a great salvation which is valued above all this world and that it is worth enduring the many trials and tribulations through which we must pass in order to receive this salvation. Act 14:22 strengthening the souls of the disciples, encouraging them to continue in the faith, and saying, "Through many tribulations we must enter the kingdom of God." We must believe that God is a rewarder of those who seek him. There is no notion of merit here rather simply the declaration that not only must we believe that God exists, but despite all the current hardship and all the lying deceits of the lusts of this world, we must also firmly believe that in God alone is our good and hope in Him. That is faith. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
179 | Suicide Stop going to Heaven? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232391 | ||
Toylady, The way one answers this question is usually dependant on other theological convictions. I give a very brief explination of that in post 231575. It might or might not be helpful to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
180 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [40] >> |