Results 21 - 40 of 75
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Brent Douglass Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Different fathers of Joseph. | NT general | Brent Douglass | 229349 | ||
I would agree with Tim. The best answer, which follows the context, is that Matthew gave the genealogy of Jesus through his adopted father Joseph whereas Luke followed the genealogy through Mary. Perhaps more clarification would be helpful. The context of Matthew focuses upon the experience and involvement of Joseph, whereas Luke focuses on Mary and treats Mary as the primary source. Matthew says nothing directly of Mary's encounter with the angel or of Mary's travel to visit Elizabeth, but it includes Joseph's decisions, his encounter with an angel in his dream, his decision to take Mary as his wife but remain celebate until after the child's birth, the visit of the Magi and Joseph's dream after they left, etc. It is also more directly connected to establish Jesus as the Messiah who would inherit the kingdom of David -- which passes through Jehoiachin (Jeconiah), the last king assigned by the Jews rather than by a conquering power. However, although this would be the natural expected line of descent of kingship, Jeremiah had also prophesied that no blood descendant of Jehoiachin would ever sit on the throne (Jer 22:30). Thus prophecies regarding the re-establishment of the progression of the throne of David through a permanent future king (through the lineage under which the kingship passed down) would have seemed impossible -- until we see Jesus come as the adopted descendant of Jeconiah with all rights of inheritance, but not a blood descendant. Nevertheless, Jesus was also a true blood descendant of David's son Nathan through his mother Mary and her father Eli. I believe that adding parenthesis to the Luke 3:23 description would better fit the intent of the text -- "being (as was supposed the son of Joseph) the son of Eli..." Since Luke explicitly points out that Jesus was not really Joseph's son, but only supposed/thought to be so, it would be quite illogical to then immediately give the genealogy through Joseph. In addition, Jewish genealogies were very carefully recorded, particularly for descendants of David, and the writer of Matthew and/or Luke (whichever wrote later) likely had access to the other's writing as well. Therefore, the blood father of Jesus is Mary's father Eli, who is descended through David through his son Nathan, not through the kingly line of Solomon. Thus he meets the test of being a blood descendant of David (through Nathan, Eli, and Mary) and also receiving the passing of the kingship itself directly through Solomon and Jehoiachin/Jeconiah through adoption as Joseph's oldest son (adopted and treated as a son and heir before any other children were conceived). |
||||||
22 | Who else besides Cain, Adam, and Eve? | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 714 | ||
It is pure speculation to consider how many other people may have been around, but there are a number of indications that there were others. There are many people whose existence is indicated in Scripture but whom we know little or nothing about. For example, King David had a son named Nathan, who was identified as an ancestor of Jesus in Luke's genealogy, but I don't think there is any mention of him in the Old Testament. Likewise, it is apparent that Adam and Even (as well as their descendents) probably had many children who are not mentioned by name. Those whose lineage has significance for other Biblically related events are listed. God was selective in what he included in the Scriptures. | ||||||
23 | WAS THE ANGEL JESUS | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 731 | ||
This is the most commonly held view of the Angel of the Lord -- that he was the Preincarnate form of our Lord Jesus. There are several reasons for this. One is that there is no mention of the appearance of the Son prior to his incarnation, and so the assumption that he was the Angel of the Lord answers the question, "Then what was his involvement prior to the incarnation?" Secondly, there are numerous references identifying "The Angel of the Lord" as being "The Lord" himself. It is hard to come away from an honest reading of the following verses wtih any other conclusion -- Gen. 16:1-13; 22:11f; Ex. 3:1-4:17; Judges 13:17-22; Zechariah 3:3. He is repeatedly referred to as, "The Lord, and seeing him is repeatedly equated with seeing God -- yet those who see him do not immediately die. The Angel of the Lord appears only in the Old Testament, and the Son appears only in the new (although he is mentioned in the Old). If they are separate, it is odd that they are never mentioned together; this would also add a fourth person to what we call the Trinity, and it would seem odd that the fourth person be left out in Matthew 28:19 while the other Three are all mentioned. For these and other reasons, the most logical and widely accepted conclusion is that the Angel of the Lord is indeed the preincarnate Christ. |
||||||
24 | How long did Adam and Eve live in Eden | Genesis | Brent Douglass | 734 | ||
This is a fascinating question for fantasy, but there is really nothing clear about it in Scripture. Since any other story one may find is simply a story, we have no way of knowing. If Adam and Eve were there a long time, however, it brings up all sorts of difficulties that the Scriptures do not address. For example, the command to be fruitful and multiply was given from the beginning, so what became of the children born before the fall. They would not have inherited original sin (so would presumably remain sinless unless they foolishly ate of the fruit as well). What would have become of them? Are the males the "Sons of God" (adopted by God since they couldn't be under Adam's authority)? You see how this leads to complete abiblical fantasy. If left without recognition of its lack of root in any direct truth, this kind of speculation could open the way to all sorts of gruesome heresy (Christ merely a "Son of God" rather than the one who "was with God in the beginning" and "through whom all things were made". I do not suggest it is forbidden to fantasize on the possibilities of this or other such questions (as I obviously have), but such fantasy should never be mistaken as theology, doctrine, or an actual answer to such a question. The real answer is, "We don't know how long they were there." It was either a very short time, or God decided that it was not important for us to know in this earthly life about the interim. |
||||||
25 | How old is the earth scripturally? | Gen 1:1 | Brent Douglass | 4549 | ||
There have been a number of responses to this question that seem to me to be stating that anyone who does not recognize the 6 days of creation to be 24-hour periods is refusing to honor the Scripture. There is clearly room for a view that the 6 days were 24-hour periods. However, there is ample room (and significant Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence, I believe) for an understanding of the creation days to be unspecified periods of time that took place in sequence, each one ending (evening) and the next beginning (morning) -- with us now living in the seventh day. This is simply another readily defensible view, not some radical abdication of Scriptural authority in order to pursue peace with the pagan world (as it seems to be sometimes painted). Dr. Hugh Ross is probably one of the more prolific, solidly reasoned and Scriptural modern authors who presents this point of view in his books and essays. I would recommend the writings of Ross and his "Old Earth Creationist" associates from "Reasons to Believe" -- alongside those of the "Young Earth Creastionists" at CRI supported elsewhere in these responses -- for a more balanced opportunity to examine both of these views. Reasons to Believe can be found at http:\\www.reasons.org\, which has links to their materials. Ross has appeared on "The Bible Answer Man," and in other well-respected forums on Biblical truth. |
||||||
26 | Spiritual beings procreate? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1890 | ||
Were the sons of God angels? This is one theory. However, to take such a vague reference as this and expand it with several layers of (potential, not definite) logic to arrive at a point of declaring that demons can procreate with humans is WAY BEYOND anything indicated in the Scriptures and is very poor hermeneutics. The idea that the "sons of God" here were angels is complete speculation -- as are other theories about the origin of the Nephilim. The most logical speculation, based on the evidence available to us, is that the "sons of God" is simply a reference to powerful lords of great strength and-or cunning who gave themselves that term in order to advance and raise themselves above the people; Nimrod could easily have become one of these later, as well, if it hadn't been for God's intervention at Babel. This would be a corrupting influence and would fit with the context. There are also MANY examples of leaders in more recent history that have declared themselves to have (or have been treated as having) divine ancestry. For example, the Japanese Emperor was considered divine until he officially declared himself otherwise in 1945 -- and only when his military was left with absolutely no other choice. The Antichrist will, likewise, claim divinity. This makes much more sense than starting a slide down a hill (with no real evidence of corresponding parrallels in other written history) leading to sensational (and completely speculative) stories of demons procreating with humans. Another purely speculative idea is that Adam and Eve had other children before the fall, who were then removed from them when their parents sinned. If there had been such children, who didn't fall into sin as their parents had, they could have been adopted by God -- thus "sons of God" -- and the males may have (unsuccessfully) tried to help limit the spread of evil by marrying with the women prior to the flood, then returned to the garden and left to be with God in heaven when the garden was destroyed. This is interesting fantasy but is also completely without any Biblical support and is thus purely speculative with no evidence of anything parrallel in other times. Once again, the most logical speculation, which fits best with other recorded historical experience, is that the "sons of God" were simply very powerful men who took (or were given) that term falsely as a claim or indication of their earthly greatness. |
||||||
27 | Nephilim Humans? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1925 | ||
The bad hermeneutic is to take a passage with an obscure meaning, choose a speculative interpretation and then build additional expanded theories upon it. This can hardly be called Biblical interpretation at all. It's more a matter of reverse deduction. Most of us, including myself, have probably done this at one time or another, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous or meaningless. The idea for this kind of hermeneutical sequence might flow something along the lines of, "I think this (e.g. demons having sex with women) might be able to happen, and this is the closest thing in the Bible I can find to even vaguely and minimally support its existence; therefore, I'll use this as my verse for it." This is kind of like building a reverse pyramid, with a very narrow base and a wide top. The foundation is completely incapable of holding up anything, yet an expansive building rests upon it. |
||||||
28 | Whose bad hermeneutics? | Gen 6:4 | Brent Douglass | 1992 | ||
-- | ||||||
29 | what is "pass the place of repentance" | Gen 27:38 | Brent Douglass | 2623 | ||
I'm not sure if there are any references at all to a point of beyond "beyond repentance" -- unless that is the meaning of the blasphemy of the Spirit. This passage is not referring to this, however. This passage is not at all talking about Esau not being able to repent. It is talking about his father being unwilling to change the blessing he had proclaimed to Jacob. This passage is referring to Esau's selling of his birthright (as the elder son) to his younger brother. Jacob then stole his blessing, as well, and Esau tearfully asked for his father Isaac to give him the blessing. Isaac refused to take back (repent of) the blessing he had given to Jacob and give it to Esau. Jacob was thus blessed by his father with dominion over Esau. |
||||||
30 | Significance to the tents' locations? | Gen 31:33 | Brent Douglass | 230605 | ||
The care with which the narration describes Laban's process gives the impression that there was something significant to it that would be understood by people of the time -- presumably recorded in Moses' time. Are there any indications of practices of the time that could shed light on this, or are only unsupported speculations available (such as the three potential, mutually exclusive, and completely unsubstantiated interpretations I offered in the initial question)? | ||||||
31 | Why are the Midianites called Ishmaelite | Gen 37:28 | Brent Douglass | 4368 | ||
Another possible explanation is that the term "Ishmaelites" referred only to descendants of Ishmael (who were apparently wandering traders); I don't believe there is a "land of Ishmael" mentioned anywhere in Scripture. In contrast, the term "Midianites" appears to have a broader meaning referring to people living in the land of the descendants of Midian -- just as the "Canaanites" lived in the land of Canaan. This seems supported by the fact that Moses father-in-law Jethro-Reuel was "Midianite" yet not offensive to God (Numbers 10:29). Moses married his daughter Zipporah (Exodus 2:21), and invited his son Hobab to come with the Israelites (Numbers 10:29). Yet an Israelite was later slain for having relations with a Midianite and the Midianites were considered enemies of Israel (Numbers 25:6-18). There were clearly 2 working definitions for "Midianite". Since there's no indication of sufficient relationship between Joseph's brothers and the traders to indicate actual knowledge of their ancestry, it appears that they were dressed and-or spoke like Ishmaelites and were coming from Midian and-or spoke like Midianites. The exact identity of the traders does not appear to be of particular importance. Rather it is their function-vocation as traders traveling to Egypt who would be willing to purchase and sell slaves. |
||||||
32 | Beginning of Bondage | Gen 47:20 | Brent Douglass | 1513 | ||
Joseph's brothers did not have to sell themselves for their food. They brought payment each time, and it was returned to them. They were given land apart from the Egyptians in which to live and raise their livestock. All the land of Egypt had reverted to Pharaoh, and all Egypt was taxed at a 20 percent flat tax (Gen 47:26), but this was not slavery and was not specific to the Hebrews; it's even arguable that they didn't have to pay this tax (at least at first), since their land was apparently given TO them (rather than being sold BY them TO Pharaoh). Joseph brought great honor upon his family from the Egyptian leaders of his time, as demonstrated by their representation at Jacob's funeral (Gen 50:7). The slavery of the Hebrews didn't start until a Pharaoh arose who was not acquainted with Joseph and the great service he had rendered to the power of Egypt and to the line of the Pharaohs (See Exodus 1:6-14). They became increasingly harsh until Pharaoh finally issued progressive edicts requiring the killing of the Hebrews' newborn boys (Exodus 1:15-22). This is the setting into which Moses was born. |
||||||
33 | Saved by Grace or Acts? | Lev 6:2 | Brent Douglass | 230600 | ||
Our relationship with God was broken by our sin and our sinfulness. For the one who trusts Christ, the debt has been paid with God by Christ, the barrier to relationship with God has been removed through Christ's sacrifice, and our relationship has been restored through the merit of Christ's perfect life. However, this does not remove the barriers that our sins have placed between us and others or the barriers that others' treatment of us has caused. We can forgive others their sins, and we can show repentance (including restitution when possible) for our sins against others. This is the heart of God toward us -- providing for us the restitution for our sins. As we seek to honor God, and as He develops His heart in us, we will want to restore relationships with others - so far as it depends on us. Therefore, we should show restitution and repentance -- valuing the others we have hurt as much as we value ourselves. See also Romans 12:17-21. |
||||||
34 | Saved by Grace or Acts? | Lev 6:2 | Brent Douglass | 230621 | ||
Hi Rhonda, Bill responded to my post, but I wanted to answer to you, so that you can see this directly. I think Bill had a lot good to say about the importance of obedience -- which should be a natural result of our salvation, since the Holy Spirit indwells us and empowers us to be able to obey once our relationship with God has been restored through faith. (John 1:12,13; John 7:37-39) However, I can not fully agree with the following statement by Bill, and I think it important for you to see the distinction: 'Now on the other question about repentance as one of the steps in getting salvation. Throughout the Bible the concept of repentance has always included the attempt of restoration. Thus a theif must return the stolen goods to their rightful owners or do his best to do so. A murderer should feel obligated to ask forgiveness from the family and attempt to restore the manpower as represented by his victim to that family, again as best he/she can within his/her ability. Why is this necessary? God's basic Principle of "Reaping what we've sown in life."' I believe Bill has gone too far in applying demonstration of repentance toward others (through restitution) as being potentially necessary to salvation. Salvation is the restoration of our relationship with God, not others; only Christ can and does provide our restitution before God. Once saved, God desires us to do all that we can to restore our relationship with others, and He can/will convict us of areas in our lives where He wants to continually make us more like Him -- this being one of them. This is much of the point of James (and 1 John for that matter.) Our lives should be transformed, and this is part of the outward testimony to others that Christ has come into our lives and made us alive. Without increasing obedience, our testimony is minimal. However, this is a result of salvation, not a part of it. As I said, salvation restores our relationship with God through Christ. As David said to God after his sin with Bathsheba (which included adultery, deception, and murder against others), "Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is in Your sight, so that You are justified when You speak and blameless when You judge" (Psalm 51:4). Repentance and trust before God brings us to dependence upon Christ and restores our relationship with Him. All that we owed and all of our guilt has thus been removed from before Him by the payment and merit of Christ alone. Once that has been done, but not as pre-condition, He will begin to show you how He wants you to act toward others. This obedience of demonstrating repentance to others (including restitution) is done from a response to what Christ has done and as a witness to others of His work in you. It is not part of the repentance and faith that leads to salvation. It is a resulting good work that comes afterward. (See Ephesians 2:8-10.) Do not let someone tell you that you are not saved if you have not reimbursed someone. The question of your faith and salvation is between you and God, and it can not be judged on the basis of one action -- since we all continue to have a sin nature but also now have the Spirit. Nevertheless, ask God what He would have you do as His beloved child -- for His glory and because of His grace (and even for greater riches in Heaven for your faithfulness)-- but not to merit His approval or salvation. Salvation is between you and God, and Christ is your full and only possilbe restitution. Restitution toward others is a separate and later issue, initiated by God but between you and the other person/people involved. |
||||||
35 | Seething a kid in its mother's milk? | Deut 14:21 | Brent Douglass | 241625 | ||
Most commentators I have read suggest that there was likely a pagan ritual associated with this use of a mother's milk to boil its young, since the context is consistently associated with the commands of the festival sacrifices. However, I do not believe the specific ritual has ever been verified in any writings currently available, so this is to a large degree speculative. On the face of it, however, the image itself is also repulsive, and any such ritual by the pagans would no doubt add to this repulsion. In the animal kingdom especially (and with humans as well), a mother's milk is the dearest form of caring for her helpless infant suckling, providing its most basic nourishment in the most intimate and endearing way imaginable from her own breast. (Consider the tender imagery of Isaiah 66:10-13, Psalm 22:9, and Matthew 23:37.) Therefore, to take a mother's milk and use it as the means of boiling her own child to tenderize it for the consumption of the priests (or the morbid appeasement of a false god) is to take that which God has given by design as a means of sustenance and intimacy between a mother and her young and turn it into an abominable celebration of abuse of power over another. If this was done in pagan worship, this would seem to be the symbolism invoked. I do not believe it is a significant stretch to apply this personally to forbid the abuse of another's tenderness or maleability (due to concern for others) evilly against them to lead them into sin, to draw them to ourselves selfishly and separate them from others whom they love, and/or to otherwise use their vulnerability for our own benefit or sport. However, this command, although repeated three separate times, remains quite obscure as to any significant application beyond basic obedience to the command itself and the image of corrupting the beauty of mother-child intimacy (and tender care of the mother for her helpless infant) into something hideous. To go further in exploiting such a currently non-contextual command with illustrations or application toward other doctrines of personal interest would seem similarly inappropriate. |
||||||
36 | TV Show "Crossing Over" - Dead Speaks? | Deut 18:11 | Brent Douglass | 773 | ||
It's interesting that you picked out Deuteronomy 18:11 in asking this question. The surrounding passage is clear that we are not to pursue or dabble in these things. The reason is given in verse 12: "For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you." While we are now under a "testament" of grace, God's attitudes have not changed, for he does NOT change. If something was detestable to him then, it is detestable to him now, no matter how appealingly presented. The effect is to replace the need for God with something else. While we want to encourage people and bring relief to those weighed down, evil means ("detestable" before God) can not be justified by temporary ends or apparent harmlessness. |
||||||
37 | why is Barak cited in Hebrews 11:32? | Judg 5:12 | Brent Douglass | 38497 | ||
Those listed in Hebrews 11:32 are those who performed the actions in Heb 11:33-34. Barak put armies to flight by faith. Deborah may have had greater faith than Barak, but she did not put armies to flight or conquer enemies. Those mentioned are those who performed the acts listed. Faith, whether that of the people mentioned or that of others associated with them, was the power behind the acts committed in Hebrews 11. Another example of this is Hebrews 11:23; it was not the baby Moses' faith that caused him to be protected from Pharaoh and hidden along the Nile. We have come to associate this passage with "heroes" of the faith, but it is more accurately a chronicling of the power of faith. Those who exercise faith are heroes, but faith itself is the point, not the heroes themselves. They are simply witnesses of the effective power of faith. |
||||||
38 | Does Satan have free will? | Job 2:6 | Brent Douglass | 4579 | ||
Thanks for a thought-provoking question, Charis. God has sovereign power and enters into the affairs of man whenever He chooses to do so. (See Romans 8:23ff.) He may place a hedge of protection, as he did for all of Job's life. Even at the time when Satan was given freedom to attack Job, God set the limitations. And when it was time for the trial to end, God intervened. Satan goes as far as God permits in his (Satan's) hateful destruction but no farther. God shows, in Job's history, varying degrees of exercising the sovereign power that he has. He can control completely; He sometimes exercises this power and sometimes doesn't. God is active and engaged in the affairs of man. However, it is also noteworthy that neither Satan nor God indicate any perception or suggestion whatsoever that Job's responses are being controlled. Events are controlled and manipulated to reveal his responses (or for Satan to attempt to reveal the responses he erroneously expected); yet Job himself is not controlled. God knew how Job would respond, and Job proved not only his faithfulness but also his final receptivity to God's correction and rebuke. Job 1:10-12 ""Have You not made a hedge about him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. ""But put forth Your hand now and touch all that he has; he will surely curse You to Your face.''Then the LORD said to Satan, ""Behold, all that he has is in your power, only do not put forth your hand on him.'' So Satan departed from the presence of the LORD. |
||||||
39 | Who has the opportunity to be saved? | Job 38:1 | Brent Douglass | 1026 | ||
There is significant disagreement about this secondary issue between fully orthodox branches of Christianity. If, after examining the creed and explanations of your church, you can not be reconciled to their beliefs on this issue, it may or may not be cause for concern. Most congregations do not require and/or pressure for individualized adherence to every secondary doctrine. If you have come to respect and trust your leadership, there is probably no reason to leave over such a disagreement. However, if you are (or plan to be) teaching, I would expect most evangelical congregations to desire teaching that did not contradict their doctrine. You need to take this into consideration -- in your responsibility to honor and represent your leadership, as well as in any decisions about what leadership to put yourself under. In certain cases, secondary doctrines may well be important for your choice of denomination or congregation with which you choose to affiliate (and thus place yourself under their authority). However, I believe they should not be used to judge the salvation of a believer or the orthodoxy of a denomination or congregation; the Scriptures leave room for disagreement. Is there someone on the list who assumes/expects that either John Calvin or John Wesley will not be in heaven when you get there because of his views on this doctrine? These are probably the most well-known proponents of the 2 most common opposing views. |
||||||
40 | Married apostles | Matt 8:14 | Brent Douglass | 39062 | ||
Peter, Jesus' brothers (presumably the epistle writers James and Jude), as well as "the other apostles" had wives. Paul (and probably Barnabas) did not. It is not clear exactly which apostles were or were not married, but Paul's wording in 1 Corinthians 9 appears to indicate that marriage was the norm among most of the apostles. (1Co 9:3-6 "My defense to those who examine me is this: Do we not have a right ... to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas? Or do only Barnabas and I not have a right..?" We don't know with exact certainty by name which apostles were married or which were single -- with 2 exceptions: Peter(Cephas) was married, and Paul was not. I think that's about the only reference we have one way or the other as to the marital status of any of the specific apostles. I would be very careful of any assumptions that only Peter was married simply because there is no direct statement about any other specific apostles. Such an argument would be based on LACK of specific evidence rather than being based on any real evidence. The letters and histories of the New Testament were written at a time when the marital status of the apostles was probably well known, so there was no reason to deliberately describe it. It would also be contrary to Paul's indication in the passage above. Paul is simply making a general statement here, not declaring all the other apostles to be married, so we can't draw that conclusion either. (Paul's point was that Barnabas and he had given up a number of normal "rights" and practices for the sake of their special calling; he was not setting out to differentiate which apostles were and were not married.) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |