Results 21 - 40 of 96
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: flinkywood Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | What did the cherubim look like...? | Num 17:8 | flinkywood | 140655 | ||
Danoman, here's a handy weblink: http://www.domini.org/tabern/ Colin |
||||||
22 | heal me oh Lord | Ps 41:3 | flinkywood | 140653 | ||
Shariff, My friend Hugh told me Psalm 41 consoled him in his long fight against cancer: "How blessed is he who considers the helpless; The LORD will deliver him in a day of trouble. The LORD will protect him and keep him alive, And he shall be called blessed upon the earth; And do not give him over to the desire of his enemies. The LORD will sustain him upon his sickbed; In his illness, You restore him to health. (Psa 41:1-3 NASB) Colin |
||||||
23 | Pictorial presentation of temple | Ezek 40:17 | flinkywood | 138834 | ||
Antti, here's a start, http://www.pauljab.net/temple/index.html Colin |
||||||
24 | Is the Bible Alone Sufficient? | Matt 15:3 | flinkywood | 137314 | ||
Kalos, It's easy to defend the Catholics on this point. The Bible the Bereans scoured was the Septuagint. The New Testament didn't yet exist (the 1st word was probably writtten about AD50, the last between AD90-100). The Bereans would have been scouring scripture in order to qualify the new traditions emerging from the church of the New Covenant, checking to see whether they were so. The Bible had to have emerged organically from Sacred Tradition; as you know, Luke could not have written his gospel and the Book of Acts without diligent, Spiritual compilation of oral tradition (Luke 1:1). Until the canon was "oficially" determined in the 4th century by Catholic Councils and Catholic popes, there was tons of debate. Utlimately, the canon of the Bible was established, among other means, by prayer and meticulous, Berean-esque checking of the texts against Sacred Tradition, without which the authority of any NT scripture could not have been established. Without the decisions of the Church we couldn't have known which Bible books were inspired. Simply put, the Bible emerged from the Church, not vice-versa. Also, by whose authority did Luther extirpate the "Apocrypha" from the canon, especially in view of the fact that Paul himself quotes widely from some of these? Colin |
||||||
25 | Tradition Or The Bible? | Matt 15:3 | flinkywood | 137301 | ||
Kalos, I've been studying Catholic theology a lot in the last year. Some notes on your citation from carm.org: 1) 2 Tim 3:16 says "profitable", not "necessary" or "essential" "for teaching, for correction..." I also thought this verse substantiated sola scriptura, but I can't say that it does anymore. 2) I've learned that the veneration of Mary goes way back to the very beginning. She is, after all, the Mother of God, of our Lord and Savior, and worthy of veneration (not worship). Surprisingly, Luther Calvin and Zwingli all accepted Marian doctrine full-on. 3) Catholics counter that the "Apocryhal" books aren't "additions", but are integral parts of the Bible accepted universally until Luther excised them 1500 years down the line. From the Catholic vantage, the Lutheran bible is a "subtraction". You're right, it is dumb to judge Protestant or Catholic theology on the bias, especially in light of all the amazing theology emerging from both camps lately. Colin |
||||||
26 | Scripture, Tradition - Are They Equal? | Matt 15:3 | flinkywood | 137289 | ||
Kalos, Is it possible that Jesus' critique of Old Covenant oral traditions (ceremonial washings, the custom of dedication, stuff added on to the Mosaic Law) was that these traditions had been overstressed at the expense of the Law? Works vs. righteousness? If so, Jesus' admonition accords with both Col 2.8, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." and also with 2Th 2:15, So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. These verses are complementary, not contradictory. You make a strong point, but I don't think you demonstrate either that Matt 15:1-6 undermines the Catholic "Tradition" thing or that the only valid Traditions are those recorded (in part) in the NT letters. Colin |
||||||
27 | Perfection? | John | flinkywood | 136575 | ||
Hello, G.H., This is a good question. Have you read Matthew 25:31-46? If so, what do you make of it? Colin |
||||||
28 | Did Jesus, have sisters and brothers | Matt 13:55 | flinkywood | 135263 | ||
It is not Biblically conclusive that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Even though the NT often mentions Jesus' brethren (MT 13:55; Mk 3:31; 6:3; Lk 8:19; Jn 2:12; 7:3; Acts 1:14; Gal 1:19), these were his relatives. Four points: 1) None of these is ever called the children of Mary, although Jesus Himself is (Jn 2:1, 19:25; Acts 1:14. 2) 2 names mentioned are sons of a different "Mary" (MT 27:56; Mk 15:40). 3) It's doubtful Jesus would entrust His mother to John at His crucifixtion if she had other natural sons to look after her (Jn 19:26-27). 4) The Greek word for "Brethren" (adelphoi) has a broader meaning than blood brothers. Because Ancient Hebrew had no word for "cousin", it was customary to to use "brethren" in the Bible for relationships other than blood brothers. In the Greek OT, a "brother" can be a nearly related cousin (1 Cron 23:21-22), a more remote kinsman (Deut 23:7; 2 Kings 10:13-14), an uncle or a nephew (Gen 13:8), or the realtion between men bound by covenant (2 Sam 1:26). The NT continues this tradition. Paul uses it as a synonym for for his Israelite kinsmen in Rom 9:3. (Attribution: Ignatius Catholic Study Bible) Note that we also call one another brethren in the New Covenant family of God, even though we're not blood relatives. This is a point of contention between Catholic and Protestant teaching. I favor the Catholic position on this one. Colin |
||||||
29 | Is the Bible itself evil? | 2 Tim 3:16 | flinkywood | 135058 | ||
Nevermind, you are asking good questions. I used to think that God, if he or it existed, had to be indifferent because of the nastiness of his creation, all that death, suffering, hypocrisy and degredation. A loving god couldn't make something so atrocious, and if he did, he certainly wasn't perfect. I had far more respect for those who courageously endured this lousy world than for the disinterested deity who supposedly created it. I also envied the simple, reverential faith of the "true" Christians I met and the soldier-like quality self-sacrifice I sensed in them. What turned me around was trouble in my life and asking the kinds of questions you are now asking. Keep on being boldly blunt; you might be surprised in a big way. Colin |
||||||
30 | Who is the Son of God? John 3:8 | John 1:1 | flinkywood | 134635 | ||
Agape, I've read Jehovah Witness literature saying that Jesus is the Archangel Michael. Since Satan was an angel, it seemed to follow that Jesus is his spirit-brother. Thanks for the clarification. Colin |
||||||
31 | How does mercy triumph over judgment? | James 2:13 | flinkywood | 133838 | ||
Mommabps, Are you referring to the Final Judgment or to judgment this side of Heaven? Colin |
||||||
32 | what passage is it? | Phil 1:21 | flinkywood | 133767 | ||
Does Phillipians 1:18-30 ring a bell? Colin |
||||||
33 | let this cup pass | Matt 26:39 | flinkywood | 133765 | ||
You're right on the first point. Jesus is both God and man, divine nature in human form (the "hypostatic union"), thus He suffers, loves, cries, fears as we do. He fears His crucifixion, His passion; His suffering is physical (the cross) and spiritual (bearing the world's sins). He likely had the power to suppress His agony, but chose not to. Amazing, really. The cup is also an image of bitter suffering (Isaiah 51:17; Ezekiel 23:33). Hope this answers your question. Colin |
||||||
34 | CHRISTIAN SUFFERING | Heb 5:8 | flinkywood | 120400 | ||
To suffer is both unavoidable and central to our growth as Christians. Our lord learned obedience through suffering (Heb 5:8) and it was through His redemptive, suffering sacrifice that we both live and walk (1 John 2:6). If we endure suffering in faith, we shall not be disappointed (Romans 5:1-5). Indeed, it is, according to Paul, through suffering that we are made like Christ(Romans 8:17), by the help of the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:26). This is a hard teaching, but it is intrinsic to the Christian life. Thanks for your good question. Colin |
||||||
35 | The unproductive vine? | 1 Cor 11:30 | flinkywood | 120397 | ||
Mommabps, Possibly; however the NIV places the origin of Romans as c. 57 A.D. and the fourth Gospel's as c. 50-70 A.D. Could Paul have read John? Possibly. More likely is that this verse attests to the importance of confession prior to receiving Holy Communion. Paul's admonition, therefore, is to first cleanse the temple of our body, as it were, of our sin before receiving the sinless body and blood of Christ. This verse is in context of the Mass, one of the earliest and most developed traditions of the nascent Church. The vine, if you are right, may relate to the wine. This is a good question (at last!), and this will be my final posting in the Forum. I've enjoyed my stay; your posts were part of that enjoyment, Mommabps. Adios, Colin |
||||||
36 | What about Uriah? | 1 Cor 1:25 | flinkywood | 119322 | ||
Garywiffler, Your question is about God's overlooking apparent injustice. I've just read Elie Wiesel's "Night", the story of the destruction of his family in Aushwitz and Birkenau. A devout Jew in childhood, he survived the camps to become an atheist. The book has caused me no mean examination of my faith in the Faith. I think it's a good thing to fire away at the Faith, to not be afraid to hammer every doubt you have on it; if you don't, it seems to me, your faith can devolve into superstition. I think you are right to consider Uriah a righteous man. I don't think God overlooked Uriah's faithful obedience. Here's from Homily 52 on the Gospel of Matthew, by John Chrysostom: "But that I may give you another demonstration of what I have said, greater than this, let us again in the instance of David himself try the reasoning on the opposite side. For this man who being injured was so strong, afterwards upon committing an injury became on the contrary the weaker party. At least, when he had wronged Uriah, his position was changed again, and the weakness passed to the wrong doer, and the might to the injured; for he being dead laid waste the other's house. And the one being a king, and alive, could do nothing, but the other, being but a soldier, and slain, turned upside down all that pertained to his adversary. Would ye that in another way also I should make what I say plainer? Let us look into their case, who avenge themselves even justly. For as to the wrong doers, that they are the most worthless of all men, warring against their own soul; this is surely plain to every one. "But who avenged himself justly, yet kindled innumerable ills, and pierced himself through with many calamities and sorrows? The captain of David's host. For he both stirred up a grievous war, and suffered unnumbered evils; not one whereof would have happened, had he but known how to command himself." Colin |
||||||
37 | textual evidence | Mark 9:49 | flinkywood | 118635 | ||
Because this is a so-called “difficult passage”, this may be a so-called “scribal gloss”. In the days before the photocopier (pre-1950’s), and printing press (1450), scribes (hume beans who copied by hand) made occasional mistakes and would often put corrections in the page margins. Difficulty arose when the margin was also used for explanatory notes or comments (glosses) on the text. You can imagine how a subsequent scribe, charged with re-copying such a glossed text, and thinking it part of the text, might be disinclined to risk omitting it. Mark 9:49 is one in a number of longer “textual variants” that may have germinated in this manner. The example, “...and every sacrifice shall be salted with salt”, seems to expand or explain the meaning of “For every one shall be salted with fire,” and may indeed be such a gloss in light of its cross-reference: “And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt. (Lev 2:13) Here’s a textual note on this passage from “The Jewish New Testament Commentary”: "Salt is used to season (Co 4:5-6) and as a preservative, producing permanence (Matthew 5:13-14). 'It is forbidden to offer any sacrifice without salt' (Rambam, The Commandments, Negative Commandment number 99; see Lev. 2:13); hence it is appropriate for talmidim, who are to offer themselves as living sacrifices (Romans 12:1-2), to be salted with fire. Observant Jews sprinkle salt on bread before reciting the b’rakhah over it (Mt. 14:9); this follows from the rabbinic equating of the home dining table with the temple altar (7:2-4). See Luke 14:34-35." The KJV, LITV, MKJV, NKJV and other translations based on the Textus Receptus (TR) include the second part of Mark 9:49. Colin |
||||||
38 | unbelievers "saved" what do you think? | Heb 11:1 | flinkywood | 118430 | ||
Fletch, This is a hard one, for sure. Let me quote 2 heavies then hazard a conclusion: “At First God Deemed It Sufficient to Inscribe the Natural Law, or the Decalogue, Upon the Hearts of Men; But Afterwards He Found It Necessary to Bridle, with the Yoke of the Mosaic Law, the Desires of the Jews, Who Were Abusing Their Liberty; And Even to Add Some Special Commands, Because of the Hardness of Their Hearts.” (Iraneus, Against Heretics, Book 3, Ch 15) Recall that Noah, Enoch and Abraham were before the Decalogue. So those were righteous who trusted God and who did what God by grace had inscribed on the hearts of men. “Nor ought it to disturb us that the apostle described them as doing that which is contained in the law "by nature,"--not by the Spirit of God, not by faith, not by grace. For it is the Spirit of grace that does it, in order to restore in us the image of God, in which we were naturally created. Sin, indeed, is contrary to nature, and it is grace that heals it,--on which account the prayer is offered to God, "Be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against Thee." Therefore it is by nature that men do the things which are contained in the law; for they who do not, fail to do so by reason of their sinful defect. In consequence of this sinfulness, the law of God is erased out of their hearts; and therefore, when, the sin being healed, it is written there, the prescriptions of the law are done "by nature,"--not that by nature grace is denied, but rather by grace nature is repaired. For "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men; in which all have sinned;" wherefore "there is no difference: they all come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace." By this grace there is written on the renewed inner man that righteousness which sin had blotted out; and this mercy comes upon the human race through our Lord Jesus Christ. "For there is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus." (St Augustine, A Treatise On The Spirit And The Letter, Chapter 47) Augustine observes that Paul is talking about gentiles who do the Law by nature, not apart from grace, but by nature that is “ restored” and “healed” by God’s grace, His active agency within their responsive hearts. Jesus taught, “If you would enter into life, keep the commandments.” Matthew 19:16-17). The Commandments stand; break one, you break all (James:10-11); therefore it follows that we must follow Christ because he is both the “end of the Law” (Rom 10:14), the Law itself (John 14.6), and also the one who enables us to do it (John 15.5). It seems to follow, therefore, that if one never hears of Christ or the Law yet by God’s grace he follows what God has written on his heart, then he has a solid shot at righteousness and heaven. Colin |
||||||
39 | But can we answer the question? | Eph 2:22 | flinkywood | 118021 | ||
Aixen, I've read your post twice. What are you asking? Colin |
||||||
40 | Why did Mary recognize Jesus | John 20:11 | flinkywood | 117824 | ||
Great question. Jesus was not recognized immediately in 2 other instances: "But when the day was now breaking, Jesus stood on the beach; yet the disciples did not know that it was Jesus." (John 21:4). And on the road to Emmaus, "But their eyes were prevented from recognizing Him." (Luke 24:16) Why should Jesus not be, or want to be instantly recognized? Initially, Mary Magdalene thinks Jesus is a gardener, indicating that the physical evidence of His ordeal was either limited in scope, healed entirely, or veiled from her sight. Recognition comes upon hearing Him speak her name, as though a wall of sight had first to be breached for her heart to hear her master’s voice. This kind of sensory and cognitive circuit jamming is vintage Jesus, but it also causes His listener to deploy her heart antennae to catch a signal from the divine. Jesus has always been the infinite master of this kind of drama. Jesus takes similarly dramatic license on the road to Emmaus when, “…beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” And later in the town itself, “When He had reclined at the table with them, He took the bread and blessed it, and breaking it, He began giving it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him; and He vanished from their sight.” (Luke 24:27, 30-31) Could you find a jazzier exit in Shakespeare? It’s not clear whether Jesus opened their eyes or whether something about Him, His new physical nature perhaps, required that they be brought to some breaking point of insight. This breaking point also seems to follow physical exertion, as in John 21.4, where Jesus’ identity is concealed until after the Apostles heed His advice and land a huge catch after a long day of fishless fishing: “Jesus said to them, ‘Come and have breakfast.’ None of the disciples ventured to question Him, ‘Who are You?’ knowing that it was the Lord.” (Joh 21:12) In each of the 3 scenes the cast shared an intense longing for our Lord which He exploited (almost comically) to maximize the effect and teaching of His individualized, custom-tailored revelation. In each case Jesus had a specific lesson to impart with a mode of delivery uniquely geared to the scene and characters in question. For Mary He was revealed after hearing; in Emmaus after meditating on His word; by the Sea of Tiberias, after physically performing His command. Jesus was revealed through hearing, meditating and doing. It sounds familiar, so maybe there’s a lesson here. Other than that, it’s a mystery to me. And that Thomas, what a pip! He had to see, hear and touch, all at once. I love Jesus’ reply, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” Hope this helps. Colin |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |