Results 161 - 180 of 294
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Just Read Mark Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Freedom from what? | Luke 4:18 | Just Read Mark | 114788 | ||
Thanks. It seems we agree perfectly. The reason I mentioned Luke 5 was that Jesus addresses BOTH the physical needs AND the spiritual needs of the paralytic --- indeed, Jesus presents these as inseparable. Sometimes Christians use the "freeing the captives" passage in a way that ignores the call to help people here and now, to work for "shalom." yours JRM |
||||||
162 | Freedom from what? | Luke 4:18 | Just Read Mark | 114782 | ||
Is this passage referring primarily to freedom from personal sin and Satan's grasp? Jesus takes great care for the complete well-being of the people he meets --- so that physical healing and forgiving are equated (Luke 5:23). Do we miss the significance of this text by "spiritualizing" terms like poverty, blindness, and oppressed, making them refer to personal sin and the Devil? |
||||||
163 | Jesus and the Jubilee Year in Luke | Luke 4:18 | Just Read Mark | 114781 | ||
Prophet in his own country. Emmaus: thanks for the thought provoking post. Not only did Jesus welcome Gentiles to the table, he critiqued the faith of his own community. The transition in the text comes when the Nazarene's wonder, "Is this not Joseph's son?" Perhaps they were feeling a false pride, that this teacher should come from their community. Or perhaps they were discrediting Jesus, knowing that he was "only " one of their own. Either way, they were failing to hear message of Jesus, and he is scathing in his critique toward them. Interesting that this story is recorded in Luke -- the gospel writen by a gentile (also the only gospel to include the Good Samaritan story). JRM. |
||||||
164 | Should we ask God for the gift of tongue | 1 Cor 12:11 | Just Read Mark | 111643 | ||
Amazing Gibberish. Obviously, this is a divisive issue. I am from a mainline denomination, not known for its use of spiritual gifts. I have some friends who are very open to these things, however, and have learned as much as possible. At one service recently --- an event with perhaps 600 worshipping --- one of these friends prayed in his "prayer language," in the context of praying through "Christmas" texts in Isaiah. Driving home, a woman mentioned to another aquaintance of mine, "you guys are always surprising me. How did J. learn to speak an indiginous language from Ethiopia?" So this woman heard the text from Isaiah in her traditional language, from her remote area of Ethiopia. This has been a powerful testimony in her life, and for others as well. To me, it was gibberish. To Jeff, it was an act of trusting God amid sounds he could not understand. To Satan, it was the power of God to minister to a particular person who needed to hear God's word in a fresh way. I am quite stunned by this, happening with people that I know. How do I make sense of this? I think the reasons that the gifts were needed then are the same reason the gifts are needed now. |
||||||
165 | Should we ask God for the gift of tongue | 1 Cor 12:11 | Just Read Mark | 111640 | ||
Amazing Gibberish. Obviously, this is a divisive issue. I am from a mainline denomination, not known for its use of spiritual gifts. I have some friends who are very open to these things, however, and have learned as much as possible. At one service recently --- an event with perhaps 600 worshipping --- one of these friends prayed in his "prayer language," in the context of praying through "Christmas" texts in Isaiah. Driving home, a woman mentioned to another aquaintance of mine, "you guys are always surprising me. How did J. learn to speak an indiginous language from Ethiopia?" So this woman heard the text from Isaiah in her traditional language, from her remote area of Ethiopia. This has been a powerful testimony in her life, and for others as well. To me, it was gibberish. To Jeff, it was an act of trusting God amid sounds he could not understand. To Satan, it was the power of God to minister to a particular person who needed to hear God's word in a fresh way. I am quite stunned by this, happening with people that I know. How do I make sense of this? I think the reasons that the gifts were needed then are the same reason the gifts are needed now. |
||||||
166 | Who really wrote the bible? for a friend | 1 John 1:1 | Just Read Mark | 111207 | ||
God uses human writers. I think you are right: that God used his followers, inspiring them by the Holy Spirit. Other people have posted texts that show the inspired part. (See also Hebrews 4:12) It might also be useful to look at scriptures that show the obedient writing of the faithful. Here are just a few. I would be interested in other scriptures that shed light on the process of inspired writing. Psalm 45:1-3. The talent and skill of the writer, moved by God. Luke 1:1-4. Shows a "historian" researching the testimonies of witnesses. I Corinthian 7:10,12. Paul writes a letter. He makes a distinction between his own instruction, and an instruction from the mouth of Jesus. (Not to say that both are not inspired... it is just interesting that he makes this distinction.) Revelation 1-3. A revelation given to John, being swept up in a visionary experiece, and being told to write it down faithfully. I think it is a beautiful testimony to God's love for humanity, that so many authors were used -- across so many centuries. The result is an eternal Book that shines light onto every experience. |
||||||
167 | Baby Smashing? | Ps 137:9 | Just Read Mark | 111203 | ||
Massacre of the Innocents In terms of Biblical portrayals of killing babies, I think, also, of the "massacre of the innocents," at the beginning of Matthew's gospel (2:16-18). This answers Jeremiah's prophecy, (Jer 31:15.) This violent world, that we still recognize, is the world Christ was born to redeem. *** So, kalos --- how do we link these scripture verses to interpret Psalm 137? |
||||||
168 | Baby Smashing? | Ps 137:9 | Just Read Mark | 111183 | ||
Hi Steve. Thanks for your message. Part of me agrees with what you have said.... Part of me sees things another way. So, humbly, I submit these thoughts: 1) There is more than one category of violence, I guess. Sorry for my original blanket statement. So what kind of violence do we see in verse 9? The kind that "keeps political peace"? 2) The Israelites, surely, were called to different standards than the surrounding cultures. 3) Christians are free to ask for God's vengeance --- but are we to ENACT it? The radical nature of the gospel is that we are to submit, immitating Christ's submission. See the instruction to slaves suffering unjust treatment (1Peter 2:18-23). The Church is built by the blood of its martyrs --- literally and figuratively. It is interesting that the Isaiah text that mentions the smashing of babies has the Medes doing the dirty work (Isaiah 13:17), not God's chosen people. 4) God's judgement must come against nations and individuals alike. With Sodom and Gomorrah, the innocent were evacuated before the destruction. In Canaan, "Rahab the prostitute did not perish with the disobedient" (Hebrews 11:31) Surely, then, the justice of Ezek 18 can still apply. Although, perhaps this wasn't understood at the time Psalm 137 was written? It seems Ezekiel 18 was written as a counterpoint to the interpretation of other scriptures (where descendants are punished for their parents' actions). 5) Certainly, "Jerusalem was where God made his name and presence to dwell". But the exile began to pose some problems for this theology ---- even after the exile, they remained an occupied people. Even with the Maccabean uprising --- the dynasty that followed was far from faithful. Thus, the picture of what the "kingdom of God" should look like never really happened. It is this unfulfilled expectation that adds such drama to Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem. As Christians, we depoliticize "Jerusalem", understanding this merging of politics and faith to be about heaven. We are still, of course, politally active --- but "Jerusalem" becomes a symbol of our ultimate home. We can look back at Psalm 137, and see the view of Jerusalem as a distortion of God's plan. (Of course, how could they have known? But how can we read it without hindsight? How do we read without anachronism?) 6) Can you imagine Jesus smashing the baby's heads? A naive (and, again anachronistic) question, but I'll ask it anyway. Yours, JRM |
||||||
169 | women take men? | Is 4:1 | Just Read Mark | 111058 | ||
Here's the verse. Why were you wondering? All I did to find it was enter "women" and "man" in the search function to the right. Yours JRM |
||||||
170 | When is it time to say no? | Matt 13:55 | Just Read Mark | 111034 | ||
Thanks, kalos. That is very helpful to me. Was I right that punctuation is also very hard to deal with from the Greek? I heard that the sentences run together, so determinng where each thought ends is a delicate matter. JRM. |
||||||
171 | Baby Smashing? | Ps 137:9 | Just Read Mark | 111032 | ||
Hi srbaegon --- Thanks for the commentary. I guess the question is, what is "just retaliation." For another take on it, see my note below. I would be interested in your response. JRM. |
||||||
172 | Baby Smashing? | Ps 137:9 | Just Read Mark | 111027 | ||
The violence of nationalism. Thanks for your great answer. There is much to think about there. Here's what I've been thinking about since I posted the question. I'm not certain about it (and its definately a different take than what you have offered) but I think it makes sense. I read this Psalm with great empathy, thinking of all that they have lost. Their whole sense of God's action in their midst was centred on the Temple and the promised land --- losing both must have been devastating. It seems to me that, while God can execute judgement, it is not our place to call out for the smashing of baby's heads. God is judge; we are to turn the other cheek and get hit again (Matt 5:39). Since violence begetts violence, God often uses the wicked to judge the wicked --- which doesn't leave much room for "Blessed"... To destroy the children for the parents' fault also goes against Ezekiel 18. So, what then to make of this verse? Certainly it is the human cry of anger and humilation, crying out for "justice." But, as we are prone to do, it is a vision of justice gone awry. Then, looking back up the Psalm, we see other distortions that lead the lament to this point. The identification with Jerusalem is stronger than the identification as God's people. Exile does not alienate them from being God's people --- in fact, exile is anticipated in the Mosaic covenant (Deut 29:28). But, due to their nationalism, they are unable to sing the Lord's song in a foreign land. "If I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy." (v 6) Only God should be their highest joy. Thus, their idolatry of national pride leads them to the brutality of the final verse. |
||||||
173 | When is it time to say no? | Matt 13:55 | Just Read Mark | 111022 | ||
Never capitalize "him"? Hi compudex. Is it Ray, on this forum, that takes capitalization as his special interest? The diversity in the practice of translators probably means it is not clear in the manuscripts. As I understand it, capitalization (and even punctuation) is a more modern aspect of texts. Some translations don't capitalize pronouns for Jesus, even outside of direct dialogue. For example, Matthew 13:10 NRSV Then the disciples came and asked him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" American Standard Version And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? So, in this muddle, where does the "corruption of the Word" lie? Are "Him" and "His" ever warrented, or are the caps an anachronism? Yours, JRM. |
||||||
174 | trials and tribulations | Bible general Archive 2 | Just Read Mark | 110919 | ||
Trials in the Bible. Hello dckraus. Emmaus is right, that the Bible is FULL of stories of struggle, and loss, and finding God in the midst of it. Lamentations is another book to look at: the sense of loss over the captivity of Israel. This was a political loss, but also a sense of being abandoned by God (or worse), and of being seperated from the Temple. Their whole view of reality was crashing around them. On another note, there are many texts that talk about being strengthened through hardship. "Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." -- Hebrews 12:11 See also 2 Corinthians 4:17. How wonderful that this faith of ours is not candy-coated. With God, we can look even the harshest realities in the face. yours, JRM. |
||||||
175 | trials and tribulations | Bible general Archive 2 | Just Read Mark | 110918 | ||
Apocrypha. Hi Kalos. I, too, have been digging though the Apocrypha a little. My interest was in reading Maccabees, having recently read Daniel. Also, it is interesting to flesh out some of the history before the time of Jesus. It does help to understand the gospels, I think. I am reading a book by N.T. Wright called "The New Testament and the People of God" --- it is really helping me to understand threads withing Judaism in the time before and after Christ. Peace, JRM. |
||||||
176 | Do you know Him? | John 14:8 | Just Read Mark | 110915 | ||
Thanks, Ray, for linking these texts. Beautiful. Here are some of my reflections on these passages... Jesus, thankfully, is not a series of axioms we can type out. We must meet this living God in person. This also says something about how we introduce others to the Covenant God. The answer to Moses was all about relationship (God of Abraham, Isaac, etc..) Jesus' answer is also about relationship: "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still don't know me?..." Jesus is the perfect embodiment of the Father. But we, too, are to live incarnationally - with God within us. The promise of the Spirit follows closely (verse 26). Jesus shows us the Father... and, by our "doing greater works than these," we introduce others to Jesus. God depends on embodiment, where language fails. Let us be faithful to that call. Yours, JRM. |
||||||
177 | Baby Smashing? | Ps 137:9 | Just Read Mark | 110912 | ||
Any thoughts on how to interpret this "blessing" from Psalm 137? | ||||||
178 | Do animals have souls? | Eccl 1:1 | Just Read Mark | 110619 | ||
Human and Animal Souls. Hi there. As per my other questions on Ecclesiastes (see discussion on Ecc 7:16) -- it can be hard to interpret Ecclesiastes. In this text about afterlife, it is saying that -- as far as we can see -- humans and animals have the same fate. We all die. That is all that the Teacher presents as certain: animals and people all return to dust. He goes on to say, "who knows what happens after that?" (v.21) With the New Testament we have a clearer picture of life after death... But can this passage in Ecclesiastes teaches us much about what we'll find? Yours, JRM. |
||||||
179 | Don't be too righteous; nor too wicked? | Eccl 7:16 | Just Read Mark | 110618 | ||
What does "righteous" mean here? Hi Kalos. I don't have clear answers, but here's what I'm thinking. A general theme throughout the Bible is that we should strive for holiness. Admittedly, we fall short. But the New Testament reiterates the refrain of the Olde: "Be Holy, for I am Holy" (ie. 1Peter 1:16) This verse (I think) contradicts that instruction -- saying that seeking holiness can lead to a lot of problems. Look at Jeremiah being thrown in the cistern, and the persecution of the prophets in general. Look at people that stick up for justice today, and are punished. Holiness is very costly, and brings not peace but a sword. (Matt 10:34) One of the themes is Ecclesiastes seems to be "don't stand out. Just do your work, take pleasure in simple things." To strive for more than this is dangerous. So I would say "overly righteous" means to truely strive after holiness. The Amplified Version, I think, wants to gloss over the difficulty of this. Thus, they make the word righteous to mean "self-righteous" --- an arrogant attitude of legalism or pride. I see no reason for this in the text (other than to avoid difficult questions), and no echoes of it elsewhere in Ecclesiastes. If I am right about this, I am still left with a puzzle. How should I understand the moments of advice offered in this book? I see a struggling philosopher, trying on various approaches to life (work, pleasure, family, etc) - and then discarding them. So, is "be neither too righteous nor too wicked" advice to follow, or is this an opionion he experiments with and then rejects? How do we read this verse in context? |
||||||
180 | Don't be too righteous; nor too wicked? | Eccl 7:16 | Just Read Mark | 110603 | ||
I would like to discuss this verse (Ecc 7:15-18), as well as Ecclesiates generally. This verse seems to expound a human wisdom: that, being radical for what is good is very costly, so one leads a happier life with some compromise with evil. The one who fears God will succeed in holding both good and evil simultaneously (v18). I notice the lengths the amplified version goes to, to rationalize this verse with our usual sense of scripture. Their rendering, however, seems to distort the sense of the text - especially taking the book as a whole. In many ways this is a cynical book, seeing no merit in righteousness. For all mortals come to the same end anyway. Even pursuing holiness and wisdom is vanity. (Thanks be to Jesus Christ, who rescues us from the vanity of life!) So, as the wise Teacher brings forward the critique of Vanity, what are we to hold onto? He offers advice here and there, but (as we see in this verse) it is not always good advice. It represents a human seeking after the good life, and often discovers only arbitrariness in God, and certainty in death. How do we weigh this advice? Yours, JRM. (P.S. the forum has another discussion of this passage, at Ecc7:18. Somehow it became a discussion of Balance, forgetting the text commends a balance of good and evil.) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [15] >> |