Results 21 - 40 of 45
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Suede67 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Abiding with Lockmans rules? | Rom 13:1 | Suede67 | 114075 | ||
Hey JustMe!! Just saying hello! SUEDE |
||||||
22 | The meaning of Psalm 21 in its entirety? | Psalm | Suede67 | 114032 | ||
Don't know about a verse by verse breakdown, but here's some commentary on it from NIV. "This psalm, in contrast to Ps 20 which pleads for victory, contains elements of thanksgiving and confidence." |
||||||
23 | What would this sound like? | Daniel | Suede67 | 114030 | ||
That's a throw back to the OldTestament language in reference to the Son of Man. Look in Daniel for help on this. Check out Daniel 7:9-14 and 10:5-11. |
||||||
24 | women can wear makeup (where found) | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 113913 | ||
Well, that's going to kind of be a legalistic issue. Typically in the Bible, OVER ornamentation is often associated with 'loose' women. 2 Kings 9:30 Eze 23:40 Jer 4:30 In 1 Tim 2:9,10 Paul states that he wants women to be modest. I wouldn't twist this though in a cultic manner to say women can not wear make up. I think there is an appropriateness to all things. SUEDE |
||||||
25 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107349 | ||
Depends on what view you hold. Most of Christendom holds a Futurist view, that is Christ still has yet to come, but will come in the future. However, not all Christians hold this view. I do not, I hold what's known as the Preterist view which means "past fullfillment" and believe that the NT and the OT even point to Christ coming back within 40 years of his ascension. Though this sounds very odd at first, it did to me, careful and attentive study of the NT as well as 1st Century History shows that this is most likely the correct view. Look at what Jesus told his disciples, "You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes." (Matt. 10:23) Take care, Suede |
||||||
26 | Doesn't Revelation pose difficulties? | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 96086 | ||
Radioman, …I am curious- there are many passages in Revelation that I would think would be difficult… Agreed. There are very tricky passages out there, no doubt. But, the answer is there. One thing we must never do is look at the Bible, and then seek out answer in say Time, or Newsweek, or the World News. That is a devastating error that has lead most astray. With that said, let’s have a look Rev 8:12 This is similar to the ninth Egyptian plague of “thick Darkness” in Ex 10:21-23. This is prophetic imagery, and is often used by prophets to depict the fall of nations and ruler. Is 13:9-11, 19; 24:19-23; 34:4,5; Ezek 32:7,8,11,12; Joel 2:10, 28-32; Acts 2:16-21. Rev 9:15 To understand this, you have to understand that the context of Revelation is going to be about Israel and the Roman Empire. People too often feel that Revelation is about “Kosmocide” or the physical end of the world. It’s not. It was going to be confined to only a part of it, i.e. the Roman Empire. In this verse God allowed the Euphrates River to dry up, which allows Israel former foes to wage war on them. We must remember, that when Rome would sack Jerusalem, it was not just Italians outside the city. The Roman Empire was comprised of several countries, countries that were allowed to keep local rulers and there own national identity. So the “Angels” that were allowed to wage war, did so by allowing Israel’s former enemies to kill off a third of her. Rev 9:16 Unfortunately most people get caught up in a literal numbers game. But remember, this is a prophetic work, there’s quite a bit of imagery going on. Look at Psalms 68:17 “The chariots of God are double myriads, thousands of thousands.” John here is simple referring to a REALLY big army, not a literal number, and no it’s not China for the record. Rev 11:3 The two witness are also not to be taken literal, they aren’t two people. The sack cloth is a typical symbolic statement of prophets mourning over apostasy. John the Baptist and Elijah wore these. Without getting too in depth to it, this is a long explanation; there are seven lamps on the lampstand in Revelation. These are connected to two olive trees Jer 11:16 which flow an unceasing supply of oil, which symbolizes the work of the Holy Spirit. In short, the two witness are the royal priesthood of God, i.e. both Jewish and Gentile believers. Rev 11:9 and 10 The early Church was terribly persecuted almost the point of extinction. There was no great focus of persecution then in Israel. The Church, believers, were literally wiped out there. No doubt there was much joy in doing this. Remember, the early church was quite prophetic in nature, and no doubt much of its warnings were directed at the Jews, that the warth of God was upon them, that the Day of Vengeance was upon them. To not bury the dead was terrible, specifically among Jews. This would probably be symbolic and literal. One, symbolic of what the Jews truly thought of the Church, and two, the Jews probably did not literally bury dead believers. Rev 11:11 But the Church didn’t die out, did it? The horrendous persecutions didn’t stop the church. We just kept coming and coming! This no doubt frustrated, and horrified the non believers. The mark? Little more then a parody on the seal of God. Radioman, let me tell you were I got these answers from. I’ve studied Revelation for YEARS, read tons of books and commentaries on it, and hands down the most Biblically based is “Days of Vengeance” by David Chilton. Though he wrote it when he was only a Partial Preterist, and sadly it was never updated by him before he died, but it is still the best one currently out there. I and I’m sure Mr. Chilton disagree with the later chapters in that book, Rev20-22, but the bulk of it is apt. The beauty too is you can find this book FREE online. I personally have a PDF version of it on my Hard drive. Here’s the short of it though, Revelation and the Olivet Discourse were all about the first century. I HIGHLY urge you to read the NT from a 1st century perspective, it will help out TONS! Thanks, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
27 | The second coming of Jesus | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 95620 | ||
Your answer lies in Preterism. Christ meant what he said, in 40 years, a Jewish Generation, he did come back. He made that statement around 30 AD, funny how Jerusalem was wiped out 40 years later. Something to consider. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
28 | The truth in Revelation? | Rev 1:1 | Suede67 | 94721 | ||
The very short answer is John is saying that Jerusalem will be destroyed in a few years. Many in the church believe Revelation to be written in 90 or 95 AD. New research shows this to be incorrect. A better date is before 70 AD, sometime in the 60's. Note in 1:1 that the things listed in Revelation must SOON take place. And they did indeed! Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
29 | follow up to blasphemy question | Matt 12:31 | Suede67 | 93617 | ||
Good question, sorry this late in coming, but hopefully it will be better late then never. It is acceptable to blaspheme the Son and God because people were and still are ignorant of who both of them are. Christ acknowledged this fact. Many saw (and still do see) Jesus as just a man and did not acknowledge him as the Son of God. However, his demonstration or "proof" of his sonship and divinity was through the power of the Holy Spirit. There was no way to fake ingnorance of Christ's works and miracles. So even though Christ did demonstrate just who he is, the Pharisees and the like still denied Christ, and therefore were denying God in like turn. Hope that helps, sorry it may be difficult to understand. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
30 | Why little sign of power in our churches | Mark 16:17 | Suede67 | 92758 | ||
Good question and you've gotten some good answers, but let me offer a little bit of a different view. I think your question is why aren't gifts like casting out demons and speaking tongues not evident today. Well, I'm a preterist and also a ceassionist, so let me give you an alternate take. I believe the things listed in Mark 16:17 and 18 were for a very specific time, namely til the end of the age. Now the question is, when was the end of the Age? Being a preterist I believe it was 70 AD ,that's another topic though. Another interesting verse is ACTS 2:17. This was an OT prophecy that would come true, most cite the day of Pentacost as the fulfillment of it. IF we understand that the Last Days were the passing out of the OT Laws into the Age of Grace, then this makes sense. If we see it as that, then 1 Corinthians 13:8 starts to make sense as well, "Love never fails; but if there are gifts of prophecy, they will be done away; if there are tongues, they will cease; if there is knowledge, it will be done away." It seems that the "gifts" of the early church, were just that, gifts for the early church. They are not needed anymore, and are therefore not abound. Things that are stated Biblically to last forever are things like, love, the word of God and Jesus. Gifts are never, ever stated as lasting forever. The people of the church, their love, and the word of God, THIS is the power of the church. We just ignore its reality. Something to think about. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
31 | John used the Book of Enoch? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Suede67 | 92245 | ||
Yes, the hands down best commentary is available on line, and in book form as well if you would rather have it on paper. It's "Days of Vengeance" by David Chilton. The best I've seen, and believe me, I've see a lot. See link below. Though not impossible that John saw and read the Book of Enoch, the only one that actually quotes it is Jude. Take care http://freebooks.entrewave.com/freebooks/docs/2226_47e.htm |
||||||
32 | Eccl. 9:2-10 | Luke 23:43 | Suede67 | 92244 | ||
I'll be brief and then leave a link that will go more in depth if you wish to study this further, which I urge you to do. In short, the book of Ecclesiastes is a discourse told from the point of view of a man living without God. This is sometimes also known as proverbial literature, not too far off from what a parable is! Take care, http://www.tektonics.org/nopass.html |
||||||
33 | in ezra what was the law of moses?? | Ezra 3:2 | Suede67 | 92243 | ||
This is refering to what we sometimes call Levitical Law. In Ezra 3:2 we read that two sons and their brothers are building an altar and are giving an offering to God. This is no doubt done in accordance with the written "law" about offerings found in Leviticus, which was written down by Moses. Other sources list Deuteronomy 12:6 as a statement about Ezra 3:2 . Take care, | ||||||
34 | John the Baptist and Elijah | Matt 17:10 | Suede67 | 92239 | ||
There actually is a relationship there between Elijah and John the Baptist. We read this in Matthew 17:10-13 "10 And His disciples asked Him, "Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?" 11 And He answered and said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; 12 but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13 Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist." |
||||||
35 | Why should women cover their heads? | 1 Cor 11:1 | Suede67 | 92032 | ||
Well Paul was perhaps the only author to expound on this somewhat. Covering a woman's head, during worship only, seems to be a respect thing. But we must remember too that Paul was noted in Galatians as being quite against legalisms. Personally I believe that we need to be humble and respectful at all times, but especially in worship. If this means head covering, so be it. If this means removing one's head covering, so be it as well. I think it's important that we worship God, not if our head is covered or not. Here's the verses, 1 Cor 11:13-16 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. | ||||||
36 | Just one more question on Matthew 10:23 | Matt 10:23 | Suede67 | 90985 | ||
Chusarcik Christ meant what he meant. He meant the cities of Israel alone, not all the world. Try to view this, and really all of the New Testament within a 1st century context, it will help greatly. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
37 | Question on Matthew 10:23 | Matt 10:23 | Suede67 | 90604 | ||
Well this is actually a great reason why you should look into Preterism, whether in Full or in Part. If you opt for Partial Preterism, Jesus meant that he would be coming to Judge Israel, which did happen in 70 AD. So with that, his coming could have been a judgement upon the "Terminal Generation". (See Matthew 23 and 24) A Full Preterist view is that the Second coming has already happened, but not with the assumptions that many hold. The popular belief is that the Second Coming will be a physical one, but Full Preterists see it as a spiritual one. So with that, Jesus is to be taken literally in that before the disciples could get out of Israel in full, Christ would be coming again. To me, only Preterism in one form or the other can correctly answer this as well as other things; particualarly those things noted in the Olivet Discourse. I recommend you look into on your own, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
38 | Are all people our neighbors? | Luke 10:29 | Suede67 | 90601 | ||
Well using Luke chapter 10, you'd have to answer that as verse 37 "And he said, "The one who showed mercy toward him." Then Jesus said to him, "Go and do the same." Basically, in the story of the good Samaritan, despite differences or flat out oppositions, we should still consder ALL people our neighbors and act as such. |
||||||
39 | ????? | Ephesians | Suede67 | 90596 | ||
This site may help in your studies. Also, you should look up ephesus in a Bible dictionary too. Most will give a brief background or historical information. http://www.ephesusguide.com/history_of_ephesus.html |
||||||
40 | Disciples Killed Hung Upside Down Cross? | Bible general Archive 1 | Suede67 | 85596 | ||
It was supposedly Peter, but it should be noted that this is merely legend. There is no proof of this. We do know that both he and Paul were killed prior to 70 A.D. It is also rumored that Paul was probably not crucified since he did hold Roman citizenship. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |