Results 21 - 25 of 25
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Selection of high priests (revisited)? | Heb 5:4 | Brent Douglass | 26915 | ||
Thanks, Nolan, your answer was very helpful in clarifying that God (and not man) oversaw the selection of high priests. However, I also wondered specifically what methods (or criteria) were used. It may have been as simple as the first-born son (at least at first). Is this a consistent pattern throughout Scripture? (I have no idea.) However, the high priest (Caiaphas) at the time of Jesus' death was apparently the son-in-law of Annas, a previous high priest (Luke 3:2) -- who was still living (John 18:13-14). Maybe Annas had no sons, but the repeated reference that Caiaphas was priest "that year" (Jn 11:49;18:13; confuses that concept for me. But wait, you made we do a word search in my new E-sword software, and I see that there was a "high-priestly descent" at the time of Christ (Acts 4:6). Can someone elaborate further as to whether it was clearly and consistently a transition from father to son (or at times son in-law in the absence of a son)? How did they know when to pass the high priesthood on, or did the eligible descendants-generations rotate each "year" amongst themselves? |
||||||
22 | Aaronic high priest under Rome (new thrd | Heb 5:4 | Brent Douglass | 26930 | ||
Forgive my ignorance, but this is the first I've heard of Rome assigning the Jewish high priest. Can you (or anyone) clarify where the information regarding payment to Rome by high priests came from? Is there any allusion to it in the New Testament? Was it in Josephus? Can anyone verify a reference? Was there some kind of suggestion of bribes indicated (and-or direct assignment by Rome), or did they simply have official responsibility for turning over taxes from the temple treasury or something like that (w- or w-o a suggestion that some abused this by stealing some of it or inflating the amount in exchange for favors, as this would still be a separate issue)? Can anyone clarify? Also, if possible, I'd prefer to keep this as a separate thread from the earlier question of how the high priest was expected to be chosen (Scripturally and-or traditionally). The potential that the priesthood had corrupted its method of choosing the high priest under Rome is also significant, but I'd like to focus on the Scriptural and traditional guidelines in order to gain light on how the selection of Aaronic high priests illustrates the selection of Christ in the Melchizedek order. With respect to the answer about descendency from Aaron, I fully agree with you. All priests (under the Aaronic order of course, not the Melchizedek order) were descendents of Aaron, and that would include the high priest. If they remained high priest until death, could there ever be more than one "high" priest at a time? Annas was still alive when Caiaphas was high priest. Can anyone recommend specific reading that would give insight into this? |
||||||
23 | When did the Word become the Son? | Heb 5:5 | Brent Douglass | 37340 | ||
Was there an experiential "change" in the relationships of the essentially unchangeable Godhead when the Son was conceived? Were "God the Father" and "God the Son" new roles taken by the eternal Majesty (Heb 1:3; 8:1) and the eternal Word (Jn 1), or did these roles exist experientially within the Godhead from eternity? God does not change in His essence. However, did the eternal Majesty in heaven "become" the Father of the eternal Word (and the eternal word "become" the Son of the Majesty) at that time but not before (experientially)? |
||||||
24 | When did the Word become the Son? | Heb 5:5 | Brent Douglass | 37386 | ||
Thank you for your explanation of the eternal nature of the Word. I am in full agreement with you. However, my question was whether the relationship BETWEEN the eternal Word and the eternal MAJESTY changed experientially, NOT whether the essential nature of the eternally triune Godhead changed. Thanks for adding the necessary clarification. I apologize if the question came across muddled. There would be certain implications related to such a change in experiential relationship, as well as the resulting transformation in the way God experientially identifies with and deals with the faithful -- both those before and after Christ's incarnation. However, that's a different question. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar enough with the church fathers to know how this particular idea has been considered, and I want to be careful not to hold this view if there are hidden stumbling blocks associated with it. This is why I brought the question to the forum. Once again, thank you, Segerstrale, for helping me to clarify that the question was NOT related to the eternality of Jesus Christ the eternal Word or the unchangeable nature of the essence of the triune God. The question assumes these eternal attributes as givens. |
||||||
25 | Can fallen angels repent? | Jude 1:6 | Brent Douglass | 4862 | ||
What passages in the Scriptures give clear indication as to whether or not any fallen angels are capable of repentance? It seems fairly obvious to me that they can not repent, but I'm confident that the Bible speaks more clearly on this than my "confidence" does? What do the Scriptures say on this? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |