Results 21 - 40 of 45
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Suede67 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | 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. |
||||||
22 | Jesus is the Son of Man? | Dan 7:13 | Suede67 | 116059 | ||
Renovate Me, Son of Man, despite what it sounds like, is actually a divine title. Daniel uses it best in Daniel 7:13,14 about the Son of Man that comes with clouds of heaven and has a Kingdom that will never end. Jesus using this term leaves no doubt that he was referring to Daniel and little doubt that he was claiming divinity. The Jews of the day would have known what Jesus was saying by applying this title to himself. He uses this in the court, Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 22:69. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
23 | What's the abomination of desolation? | Dan 9:27 | Suede67 | 117599 | ||
Jilliebbean, Good question, though there is not a definitive answer to it. I'll present a rough sketch of ideas and thoughts on the topic. There are Jewish scholars that believe that the abomination took place 186 BC when Antiochus Epiphanes, the king of Syria, sacrificed a pig in the Holy of Holies. Though horrific it didn't seem to leave the Jewish nation desolate per say. As Christians we do not accept this since Jesus spoke of it happening in a future based on his present. A very popular belief, and probably the most correct one, is that it had something to do with Jerusalem being sacked by the Romans in 70 AD. Both Futurists and Preterists scholars agree on this, though timing of this is the only thing for certian. Unfortunately, no one is exactly sure what the abomination was. We know that Jewish Zealots murdered many preists in the Temple and this might have been the abomination spoken of. In turn though, if one does accept the 70 AD view, then one admits that at that time it would have been apparent as to what the abomination was. A full futurist view holds that the man of sin, or the 'AntiChrist' will enter a Third temple in Jerusalem and declare that he is God. Since this is a future view it is infalsifiable and can't be disproven out right. But, the Bible, the NT anyways, does support the 70 AD view above the others. Hope that helps, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
24 | 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 |
||||||
25 | 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 |
||||||
26 | 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 |
||||||
27 | 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." |
||||||
28 | Has the Great Tribulation taken place ? | Matt 24:34 | Suede67 | 115736 | ||
Ken John, Yes, you are correct in your view. Though most Christians are known as Futurists when it comes to End Times, there's a group called Preterists which believe in past fulfillment,not future fulfillment. I'm one that holds this belief. Though it's small, it's gaining adherents rapidly. The basic view is that 70 AD marks the end. This still though leaves the great commission as well as the healing of nations. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
29 | 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 |
||||||
30 | 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. |
||||||
31 | What does this mean? | Luke 14:26 | Suede67 | 116063 | ||
RealMenLuvJesus, Well it's best understood not as a literal hating of your family. Honoring your Mother and Father were part of the 10 Commandments, so Jesus wouldn't be saying something counter to that. Verse 33 sheds some light on this. "In the same way, any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple." Jesus is showing in verse 26 just how serious it was to be a disciple of him, especially at that time when persecution and execution were very, very, real. You had to be able to set your family aside to be a disciple for Jesus. In Matthew Jesus noted this too, Matthew 10:33-37 "But whoever denies Me before men, him I will also deny before My Father who is in heaven. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to 'set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; and 'a man's enemies will be those of his own household.' He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me." We shouldn't take this to hate our families, or think they get in between us and God. Jesus was just stating the very serious business of being a disciple, something that many couldn't hack. Think of it as a sort of 'weeding out' process, so that only the cream of the crop remained. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
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 | How long did Paul persecute the church | Acts 9:1 | Suede67 | 116022 | ||
I don't think it's possible to know an exact time frame, but it probably was not too long at all. Perhaps just a few months at the longest, I personally doubt it rolls over even into one year. Another to note is that it's not necessarily the length of time, but the passion in which he went after the early church. In short, he shows up in Acts 7 and it's not too long after that that he is on the road to Damascus where he is converted. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
34 | why did Saul change his name to Paul | Acts 13:9 | Suede67 | 116024 | ||
Ministermay, It's actually a misconception that Saul changed his name completely to Paul. We can note in Acts 13:9 that Luke records that Saul is also known as Paul, but not that Saul completely dropped his Hebrew name. Paul was most likely still known as Saul among the Jews. According to Zondervan's Bible Dictionary, having a Jewish and non Jewish name was a common practice among Jews of the dispersion. Our information on Paul comes from Luke who wrote mostly to Gentiles it seems, and to Paul who almost preached exclusively to Gentiles. So in turn, Paul is the name that is used in more frequency. |
||||||
35 | Can christian be reprobate | Rom 1:28 | Suede67 | 117601 | ||
WG10, That will ultimately depend on one's view of whether or not one can lose one's salvation, i.e. the preservation of saints. We find reprobated mind (or depraved mind) in Romans 1, verse 28 specific. Paul starts off in verse 18 and notes that mankind in general is aware of God. Sort of, God Concious. He notes in verse 21 that they are aware of God's existance, they still chose to reject him. Paul however does not note that these people are Christians, or ever were Christians. John notes in 1 John 2:19 that people that truly leave the faith were actually never a part of it truly. So in turn, I do not believe someone who is truly a Christian can have reprobated mind. Christians can fall, we can fail at times, but as children of God reprobated mind isn't for us. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
36 | Abiding with Lockmans rules? | Rom 13:1 | Suede67 | 114075 | ||
Hey JustMe!! Just saying hello! SUEDE |
||||||
37 | 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. | ||||||
38 | what are the ot citations for Galations | Galatians | Suede67 | 117603 | ||
MinisterMay, This may not be exactly what you are looking for, but these are themes that Paul refers to in Galatians. The first set is the Gal chapter and verse, followed by the OT book/chapter/verse. If you want a more detailed list, you'll need to get a study Bible or a cross reference of some sorts. But the below list should be a good overview. 3:6 Ge 15:6 3:8 Ge 12:3 3:8 Ge 18:18 3:10 Dt 27:26 3:11 Hab 2:4 3:12 Lev 18:5 3:13 Dt 21:23 3:16 Ge 13:15 3:16 Ge 24:7 4:27 Isa 54:1 4:30 Ge 21:10 5:14 Lev 19:18 Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
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 | Why God's RIGHT Hand ? | Col 3:1 | Suede67 | 116057 | ||
Ken John, Paul is saying symbolically that Jesus has authority and power given to him by God. The right hand is symbolic for a position of authority and power. This is where we get the saying "his right hand man". It was common for kings and rulers to have someone at their right hand. If a king had a chief advisor, he would be to his right. SUEDE |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |