Results 161 - 180 of 380
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Forsake | Matt 27:46 | biblicalman | 227392 | ||
Jesus was citing Psalm 22.1. It was the heart cry of some one who felt abandoned. but the psalmist was not abandoned by God and neither was Jesus, although both felt totally abandoned. none of us can even conceive what Jesus suffered or how abandoned He felt, as He bore the awfulness of our sin, but in His Godhood He could not be abandoned, nor would the Father actually have done so. | ||||||
162 | Matthew 28:18-19 | Matt 28:18 | biblicalman | 228066 | ||
I have to disagree with the one who says that 'all authority in heaven and earth does not apply to the Son in His Godhood. We cannot thus separate the divinity and the humanity of the Son. Jesus was both God and man at the same time. He was and is ONE. The fact that He excluded from Himself the right to utilise His powers as God did not make Him less than God, nor did it mean that He had lost those powers. It simply meant that He would not call on them. When He said that He was being restored to the glory which He had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5), He was not thereby saying that He had lost that glory. He was indicating that He had submerged it within His manhood, and was now about to enjoy it again. Thus when He said that all authority in heaven and earth had been given to Him it was as the God-man. Yes, He was receiving that authority as both God and man, having deliberately subsumed for a while His authority over all things in order to live as a man. We all too glibly speak as though Jesus Christ could be two persons. This is proved by His claim that He would be with us always. That could only be true of Him in His Godhood. At no stage did Jesus Christ lose His Godhood. In all that He did He acted as both God and man. And in all that happened to Him it happened to Him as both God and man. The fact that He chose not to manifest His glory (except at the Transfiguration which reveald that it was still His), and chose not to exercise His authority over all things was a deliberate choice, not a cessation of His Godhood. |
||||||
163 | whereis swine made whole? | Mark 5:13 | biblicalman | 228844 | ||
hi welcome to the forum are you sure that you don't mean where the demoniac is made whole when Jesus sent the devils into the swine? see mark 5.1 ff best wishes |
||||||
164 | traditions of men? | Mark 7:8 | biblicalman | 227688 | ||
The reference to tradition has in mind the 'traditions of the elders'. These were oral Jewish traditions of the past passed down among the Scribes based, at least theoretically, on what great Rabbis had said in the past. They were basically like commentaries, giving men's opinions on how the Scriptures should be interpreted. But they had been given a significance far in advance of what they deserved, and had become a law in themselves. Comparison can be made with 'the traditions of the fathers' to which the Roman Catholic church gives far more significance than they deserve. In both cases it was in order to support their own position. | ||||||
165 | book of mormon? | Mark 7:8 | biblicalman | 227725 | ||
The basic problem with 'the traditions of men' was that they resulted in a false interpretation of Scripture and distorted Scripture. They 'made void the word of God'. It is true that that is what Mormons and JWs do. But it can equally be true of all Christians if they take the traditions of their church and make Scripture fit into them, rather than the other way round. Our lives are full of 'tradition' but it only comes within the purview of Jesus' teaching on the subject when it results in misinterpretation of Scripture. Thus there are good traditions like holidays which do not affect the teaching of the Bible one way or another. To celebrate Easter is to celebrate the Passover in its new significance as pointing to Christ. If it makes us recognise the truth of the Bible, and celebrate Christ's death and resurrection, it is a good tradition. It is only if we allow it to distort Scriptural teaching that it becomes false tradition. |
||||||
166 | is there anywhere in the bible that says | Mark 7:19 | biblicalman | 228469 | ||
In the Old Testament it was forbidden to eat animals unless they 'parted the hoof and chewed the cud'. Only animals within that description could be guaranteed to both eat wholesome food and graze in healthy areas. Other animals ate food from places were death was common, or went to places where death prevailed. It was an object lesson to Israel about healthy and wholesome living, and the necessity of avoiding places of death. It undoubtdly saved them from many health problems, especially while they were in the wilderness. But once Jesus came, the epitome of holy living, the object lesson became unnecessary, and He declared all foods clean. As with all the other ordinances it was fulfilled in Jesus. |
||||||
167 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228148 | ||
It was towards evening on the day of preparation, thus it was still Friday. The body had to be buried before the Sabbath otherwise the land would be defiled. The modern Greek word for Friday is 'preparation'. Once the Sabbath started at nightfall nothing further could be done. That is why the women waited until the 1st day of the week. We know from Jewish tradition that the Jews spoke of friday afternoon to sunday morning as 'three days and three nights', because there was part of the first day and night on the friday, a full day and night on the saturday, and the first part of sunday was spoken of as 'a day and a night' It was Jewish usage. that is why Jesus also rose on 'the third day'. |
||||||
168 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228154 | ||
The major problem with the suggestion that the crucifixion took place on a Wednesady or a Thursday is as to why the women waited until the first day of the next week to take the spices to anoint the body of Jesus. They wanted to do it at the earliest possible moment. The Scripture certainly gives the impression that the delay was only of one day. Thus it is clear that the Sabbath was the normal Sabbath. It may of course also have been the festal Sabbath, but that would not cancel the fact that the Sabbath in question was the regular Sabbath i.e. Saturday. To suggest the large majority of scholars of all persuasions agree with this position because they do not know the facts of the Hebrew feast is simply laughable. Many of them are experts in the subject. |
||||||
169 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228165 | ||
There are no reliable dates for when the crucifixon took place. We do not know for sure how long Jesus' ministry lasted. We only know that it was over three years. What is sure is that if the crucifixion was on a Wednesday the women would not have waited until the first day of the week to anoint his body. They would have done it on the following day, or if that was a festal sabbath, the day after. That is conclusive against Wednesday. With regard to the guards, the women stated that they did not know how they were going to move the stone. The guards were Temple soldiers, not Roman soldiers. The seal was placed by the chief priests. They could not exact the death penalty. Possibly the women were hoping to persuade the guards to open the tomb, or if the guards were not there, one of the gardeners. That was why they sent the youngest and prettiest women ahead to spy out the situation. But that problem was there whatever day the crucifixion was. The people who say Wednesday never consider the problem of when the women went to anoint Jesus which was clearly stated to be the first day of the week. |
||||||
170 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228196 | ||
If Christ had been crucified on a Thursday then in Jewish reckoning and description he would have been in the tomb four days asnd four nights. To a Jew part of a day could be called 'a day and a night', for he spoke of the part as a whole. Jesus was a Jew and used Jewish terminology. But the conclusive factor is that if Jesus was crucified on a Wednesday the women would have taken spices to the tomb on the Friday. They wanted to anoint His body for its burial. They did not know that that had already been done. They would certainly not have waited for the body to become putrefied. So the fact that they went to the tomb on the first day of the week (because they could not on the sabbath)demonstrates the He died on the day before that sabbath, that is Friday (Greek - paraskeue - 'preparation'). |
||||||
171 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228200 | ||
hi searcher an important necessity for the argument put forward on the site you mention is that Bethany was more than a sabbath day's journey from the Temple. However in Luke 24.50 Jesus took His disciples to 'Bethany' from where He ascended, and in Acts 1.12 'they returned from the mount of olives which is a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem'. Thus that Bethany was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. Thus the Bethany that Jesus spoke of was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. That indicates that Jesus could have gone from Bethany to Jerusalem on the sabbath day which invalidates a main part of the argument. A further factor to keep in mind is that a well known Rabbi said in 100 AD, "a day and a night make an 'onoh (24 hour day)" and a portion of an 'onoh is counted as an 'onoh. this confirms that from a Jewish point of view three days and three nights (three 'onohs) could be seen as a part of a day, a day, and a part of a day, which fits in with 'the third day'. The writer also dismisses the idea that the Jews in Jesus time ensured that two sabbaths never followed each other successively, although admitting that later on they did ensure it. but from what we know of the Rabbis they would certainly have found some way of preventing it happening in Jesus day if it was found to be such a problem later on. There is no proof that they did not. Furthermore on the high sabbath it was permissible to buy food for the feast. it is therefore equally likely that a body could be anointed on a high sabbath, especially if it was consecutive with a normal sabbath. thus if that were the case (and it is probable. they would not want to leave a body two days before anointing it) the women could have anointed the body earlier if Jesus died on a thursday. Thus many doubts must be placed on the reasoning of the article until that can definitely be excluded we mustg see the probability (as one of his witnesses said) that two sabbaths could not follow each other successively Best wishes |
||||||
172 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228206 | ||
hi searcher you are assuming that Bethany is simply the name of a village (it was not a city). Do you really think, even if we did not have Acts, that Jesus would go to a village from which to ascend? He would surely go to the Mount of Olives as Acts 1 and Zechariah 14 say. But Luke says He went to Bethany. Thus that 'Bethany' was the part of the mount of olives of which Acts 1 speaks.And wWhere He went was said to be a sabbath's day journey from Jerusalem. Thus the Bethany mentioned in Luke 24 is the same place as that part of the Mount of Olives and was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. How could this be? Because the area around Bethany (which was on the east side of the Mount of Olives) was also called 'Bethany' in order to identify it. This must be so, otherwise Luke and Acts disagree, which would be ridiculous because he wrote them both. In fact Jesus and His disciples probably camped out on the mount of olives (as many pilgrims did)in the region known as Bethany. There would be no house in a village which could house all His disciples. once you have gone a sabbath days journey you are allowed to return :-)) And in fact there were legally acceptable ways of doubling a sabbath days journey. Best wishes |
||||||
173 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228207 | ||
yes doc but John was speaking of the actual village not of the region of Bethany. Luke was speaking of the region of Bethany on the Mount of Olives, which Acts 1 tells us was a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem | ||||||
174 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228216 | ||
Lol Biblical maps are fine as far as they go but in many cases they are guesses. The village of Bethany on the far slopes of the mount of olives farthest from Jerusalem is 15 furlongs 'from Jerusalem', and if we have identified the correct village we know where it is. But has the correct village been identified? But Jesus ascended from 'over against Bethany', in a place which was stated to be a sabbath day's journey from Jerusalem. And it was probably the place where Jesus and His followers were encamped. It was in the district of Bethany around Bethany. Thus when He went 'from Bethany' it was from the camp. That means it was a sabbath days journey from Jerusalem. Thus Jesus could go to the Temple on the Sabbath. You must, however, recognise that geographical information has to be gleaned from the Bible and from Archaeology. And the danger is that many identifications were made by later church teachers without accurate information to go on. There is no sign which says 'this place was called Bethany in 1st century AD'. Our guesses may therefore be incorrect. Far more reliable is the Biblical information which says that Bethany was 15 furlongs 'from Jerusalem'), but we must then ask, from what point in Jerusalem? It was certainly not 15 furlongs from the furthest outskirts of Jerusalem. Indeed what would be described as the furthest outskirts of Jerusalem? I used to travel a road to work which said 4 miles to Leeds. But I lived in Leeds!! Thus I lived four miles from where I lived lol. Thus to measure the distance from the Temple to the district of Bethany on the basis of Biblical information we have to ask what are the criteria. And the truth is that we do not know. We only know that it was a sabbath days journey from the camp of Jesus on the mount of olives in the district of Bethany. I would rather accept Luke's testimony than any map. Did you know that in the first edition of the New Bible Dictionary they included maps. You won't find maps in the current edition. Why not? Because they were treated with derision by many scholars and withdrawn. Our knowledge of the geography of Jerusalem in 1st century AD is patchy, because we only get information when a Gospel writer decides to give it. We know a few facts and that is all. For example we have no idea where Bethphage was. The makers of maps do their best to guess right. But I would not stake my life (or my beliefs) on them. |
||||||
175 | Exactly what does Mark 15:42 mean | Mark 15:42 | biblicalman | 228246 | ||
hi searcher Bethphage was counted as in Jerusalem therefore any walking around in Bethphage would not affect the Sabbath Days journey. By the time of Jesus the sabbath days journey only began when you left your town or city. it was based on the fact that when Israel were in the camp they were not restricted as long as the walk was for spiritual reasons. The camp counted as home. the sabbath days journey only began when you left the camp thus walking around in Jerusalem did not count as part of the sabbath days journey. I think you will find that all the visitors to the Passover camped around the city were counted as living in the city. but i have never said anything about Palm Sunday so i am not sure what you mean all i have shown is that the Scripture makes clear that Jesus and His disciples started each day from a point which was within a sabbath days journey of Jerusalem according to Luke 24; Acts 1. Lol you can enjoy maps as you wish. But do not teach that they are necessarily accurate. MUch on them is guesswork with little to go by. Best wishes |
||||||
176 | How old are the children? | Mark 16:15 | biblicalman | 227991 | ||
assuming you mean Mark 10.15 they were old enough to come to Him and for Him to put His arms round them and then lay His hands on them. 'that He might touch them' indicates those who were not babes in arms. They were therefore probably 5 upwards. In a comparative passage Jesus speaks of 'those who believe in Me' (Mat 18.6). Thus they were of an age to believe. His whole point is their openness and honesty without prejudice creeping in. | ||||||
177 | When did Peter first meet Jesus? | Luke | biblicalman | 227673 | ||
Peter first met Jesus when his brother Andrew brought him to Jesus in John 1.40-42, before Jesus had actually begun His ministry. | ||||||
178 | Bible verses' to suport how we are known | Luke | biblicalman | 228496 | ||
the truth is that we are given no information about recognition in heaven nor of how old we will appear. indeed as we will have spiritual bodies the latter questiion is a non-starter. The rich man in Luke 16 recognised Abraham but that may have been parabolic. Indeed how would he know what Abraham looked like? We must recognise that we will know the Lord and He will know us. That is what will really matter. Best wishes |
||||||
179 | Zechariah in OT same as in Luke 1:5 | Luke | biblicalman | 228789 | ||
John the Baptist's father was a different Zechariah from any in the Old Testament. Zechariah was a common Israelite name borne by a number of people. |
||||||
180 | luke 22 verse 3 | Luke | biblicalman | 228979 | ||
hi lady walker, Large numbers of the people saw Jesus as a prophet, thus the leaders were afraid that if they arrested Jesus it could lead to a commotion. Best wishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [19] >> |