Results 21 - 40 of 154
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Trinity Doctrine? | Bible general Archive 2 | stjones | 107650 | ||
Hi, Norm; I'm confused. You cited Matthew 28:19; what does this passage mean to you? If "the Father", "the Son", and "the Holy Ghost" are not the three persons who make up the Trinity, who are they? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
22 | in english | 2 Tim 3:16 | stjones | 106855 | ||
Greetings, davidup2u; If the Bible is not the inspired Word of God, it has no value, now or in the past. If it is (and I am certain that it is), it is not "a product of the ancient world", it is a product of the eternal God. The most valuable thing it has for anybody at any time is God's testimony to his son Jesus. 2 Tim 3:15 says that the Scriptures are "are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.". Previously, in John 5:39, Jesus himself had said "You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me". Jesus was foretold throughout the Old Testament and identified in the New. Everything else in the Bible is secondary to that central saving message. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
23 | Child or child? Boy or boy? | Is 7:15 | stjones | 106833 | ||
Hi, Ray; I'm not sure what to make of it. The NIV and NASB, among others, leave it lower case. - Indy |
||||||
24 | Some people believe it's Mouhammad(pbuh) | John 16:13 | stjones | 106798 | ||
Greetings, afro; I would say that they are wrong. Such a belief can only be based on the disortions of the Bible found in the Qur'an. It cannot be supported by what the Bible actually says. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
25 | Two Christmases? | Is 9:6 | stjones | 106373 | ||
Hi, Hank; I'm inclined to think that the second (secular) Christmas was inevitable. There are really two aspects of this second Christmas. One is the obvious gross commercialization that has grown up around it. But I don't think that would be as pervasive if it were not for the emotional - even spiritual - dimension of this second Christmas: People who don't know the origin of the words speak longingly of "peace on Earth" and universal goodwill. Even the Coca-Cola company would like to "teach the world to sing in perfect harmony". I think this emotionalism arises out of our nature, created in the likeness of God. C. S. Lewis once observed that there are many religions with tales and myths that resemble events described in the Bible. There are resurrection myths and incarnation myths that preceded the birth of Christ. Critics point to these myths and claim that Christianity borrowed them. Lewis said that these myths arose out of the deepest longings of the human heart; it's no surprise that God, who knows the human heart best, satisfied those longings perfectly in his son, Jesus. Those myths don't undermine the truth of Christianity; they testify to it. I think the secular Christmas continues to speak to these deep desires - even while it fails to know or acknowledge the truth of Jesus' birth. So, yes, they are compatible in some ways. It is the only time of the year that I can think of where the universal desire for peace and hope is universally expressed. When all the beggars in the world are openly starving for bread, we have an opportunity to tell them that it can be found right under their noses. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
26 | What makes Christianity different | John 14:6 | stjones | 106349 | ||
Hi, Dr. X; That's somewhat akin to saying that all roads lead to Key West. In the midst of Winter we may wish it were true, but it isn't. To get around the dificulty by saying that all religions share the same god is somewhat akin to saying that every city and village is named Key West and therefore every road will get you to Key West. That's not true either. To say that all religions lead to "God" is to say that "God" has no identity, no name, no character, no expectations, and no consistency. The God revealed in the Bible is not Allah, not Shiva, not Ram, not Zeus, not anyone but the God of the Bible. There's only one Key West and most roads won't get you there; there's only one road that will get you to Key West. Likewise, there's only one God and only one road that will get you there. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
27 | What is slain in the spirit? | Acts 3:6 | stjones | 105638 | ||
The imagination of men. There is no example in the Bible of healing being accomplished by smacking someone on the head. Makes for good TV, though. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
28 | The Bible the only guide for USA law | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 104984 | ||
Hi, kalos; Disagree. The Mosaic Law was given to a nation chosen by God with a king of God's choosing (Deut 17:14-15). The laws of that nation were to be adjudicated by judges chosen for each tribe (Deut 16:18) in courts that included the Levitical priesthood (Deut. 17:8-9). That nation no longer exists as a political entity, so there is no longer a civil society for it to govern. Jesus distinguished between the Kingdom of God and the civil authorities (Matthew 22:16-21), as did Paul (Romans 13:1-6). Paul wrote that the civil authorities were God's servants and exercised power instituted by God, but neither Jesus nor Paul asserted that the Roman Senate or Emperor were subject to the Mosaic Law. In Romans 1, Paul condemned the pagan religion of Rome, but not the exercise of political power by the Roman civil authorities, pagan or otherwise. I think American Christians should accept the historical reality that ours is a secular nation established by the Constitution. The Constitution reflects the values and beliefs primarily of Christians, Deists, and a handful of Enlightenment philosophers. It is a political document with no mention of Jesus or even God. There is a great deal that could be said about the role of religion - any religion - in American society and politics and about what part Christians should play. But that's a different discussion. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
29 | Is "Israel" actually Jacob's descendents | Gen 32:28 | stjones | 104938 | ||
Jacob was given the name Israel by God. The Israel of the Bible consist of his descendants. As for Jacob's deceitfulness, he was no worse than his grandfather Abraham before him or King David after him. Rahab was a prostitute, Samson was a lustful doofuss. They were far from perfect, but they had two things in common. They had uncommon faith in God and they were chosen by god to do extraordinary things. I take two lessons from this - God is sovereign and chooses whomever he wishes and God can use anyone, however flawed, to do his will. Men throw away cracked vessels; God fills them with the Holy Spirit and uses them, cracks and all. That gives me hope. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
30 | Who do you believe about Jesus? | Matt 22:42 | stjones | 104936 | ||
Hi, kalos; There is only one authoritative source of information about Jesus - the Bible. Within the Bible, all sources - Isaiah, Jeremaiah, John, Paul, Luke, others - are equally authoritative since all were inspired by the same God. This is true even though John, for example, was much closer to Jesus in time, space, and personal relationship than Isaiah. Apparent differenece among the Biblical sources must be harmonized. Differences between the Bible and extra-Biblical sources render these other sources irrelevant. Josephus, Origen, and spurious gospels such as Thomas and Mary may make for interesting reading, but there is no need to harmonize the Bible with them. The same can be said of any modern writer, whether the great apologist C. S. Lewis or the Jesus Seminar charlatan John Crossan. But you knew all that. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
31 | Searching for the truth | Is 45:21 | stjones | 104881 | ||
Hi, FytRobert; This is purely my opinion, not without basis in Scripture, but nothing I believe I can "prove". I think God allows us to do things so we can learn about him and about ourselves. Speaking as a father, there were certainly plenty of times when my kids were younger that I just knew one of them was going to disobey. Rather than stand guard and force them to obey, I sometimes left the room, allowing them to choose to turn on the light after bedtime or snatch a cookie when I wasn't looking. They needed to learn about consequences. It's a lot easier to internalize a rule when you break it and pay the penalty. These lessons must be learned in order to handle freedom responsibly - i.e. when the kids go off to college. God warned Adam and Eve; indeed Eve admitted that "God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" (Genesis 3:3) But knowing a rule - and even knowing the consequences of breaking it - don't necessarily produce an obedient heart. I think the New Covenant shows that God values an obedient heart over mere observance of rules. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
32 | Searching for the truth | Is 45:21 | stjones | 104879 | ||
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I could have assumed Lucifer, but given some of the weird ideas that turn up here from time to time ... well, you never know. - Indy |
||||||
33 | Sexual orientation determined at birth | Prov 3:13 | stjones | 104873 | ||
Hi, kalos; Disagree. But not on any Scriptural basis. I have to agree with the liberals who say that the Bible does not specifically address sexual orientation. Scientists have studied this question, however. Despite the best efforts of some to spin it otherwise, science has shown that sexual orientation is not genetically determined. Note that I am citing science rather than Scripture only because the Bible does not specifically address sexual orientation. Don't get me wrong - homosexual behavior is specifically forbidden in the passages you cited. The prohibition is real; the Bible's silence on sexual orientation in particular provides no excuse. Scripture does deal with sinful desires in general - they are the result of our fallen nature and our inclination toward sin. Since homosexual behavior is a sin, we can safely say that the desire to indulge in it is a consequence of the sinful nature. Whether or not sexual orientation is determined genetically at birth is an interestinq question, but the answer doesn't lead to the acceptance of homosexual behavior by the church. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
34 | Searching for the truth | Is 45:21 | stjones | 104872 | ||
Hi, FytRobert; I can only find two mentions of Gabriel in the Bible - helping Daniel interpret visions in chapters 8 and 9 and announcing Jesus' birth to Zacharias and Mary in Luke 1. Where does it say that Gabriel is now opposed to God? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
35 | Why Is Leviticus11 Ignored by Christians | Rom 10:4 | stjones | 104871 | ||
Hi, TomBrooklyn; I think that Christians don't abide by the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 for the same reason that Christian women don't present themselves for purification after giving birth (Leviticus 12) or go to a priest instead of a dermatologist when they have a skin disorder (Leviticus 13). For a discussion of this topic search for ID# 103732 in the "Quick Search" box. I think the passages referenced in that thread make it pretty clear that for the Christian, there is no longer a distinction between "clean" and "unclean" animals. For those who choose to live under the Law, of course, the distinction is critical. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
36 | Was Judas truly repentent? | Matt 27:3 | stjones | 104686 | ||
Greetings, Chusarcik I think he might have been; I don't know for sure. If you have LOTS of time on your hands, search for message # 3132. You will find a long, often impassioned discussion on this subject. Happy reading! Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
37 | The First created Being? | Rev 3:14 | stjones | 104607 | ||
Hi, Leox; No, Jesus was not created by God. As the Amplified passage shows, Jesus was referring to himself as the one who originated creation (see John 1:3). He preceded creation (John 1:1-2); he was not a part of it. Jesus was begotten of God - God's son. God didn't create his son any more than I created my children. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
38 | Kathy, Is "Lifting His name" Biblical? | John 12:32 | stjones | 103918 | ||
Hi, Searcher; I don't see any direct connection between "Lord, I lift your name on high" and Jesus being lifted up on the cross either. But words have a generic meaning too. In this case, I think they make an indirect connection - we lift up Jesus' name because of what he did in being lifted up on the cross. "Lift" means to raise or elevate. We are called to praise Jesus by name. To lift his name on high is to elevate it and praise it. It is an acknowledgement and celebration of this truth: "... God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." (Phillipians 2:9-11) At least, that's what I mean when I sing that chorus. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
39 | How would you apply Deuteronomy 29:29? | Numbers | stjones | 103828 | ||
Greetings, Aixen7z4; To be honest, much of what we have said to one another has consisted of quibbling over words. I had thought that we might agree that while we might use different words differently, at the end of the day we are expressing similar ideas. Maybe; maybe not. I seem not to have make myself clear. The answer to the question "What did Jesus teach about divorce?" can be found by looking it up in the Bible. In contrast, the answer to the question "What is God saying to us?" will not be found by simply looking it up. It will be found only by reading and studying the whole Bible with that question in mind. The question itself is not disingenuous; it is the only question that matters when we approach the Bible. Further, it is a qustion that is likely to have a different answer every time we pursue it, since we can never exhaust the riches of God's word. Be assured that I have seen (and participated in) much Bible study that began with that question. The fact that many scholars, theologians, and even pastors of the last century have started with different questions ("handling the sword by the blade", as you so succintly put it) hardly means that everyone does. Richard Foster, C. S. Lewis, R. C. Sproul, Philip Yancey, and Jack Hayford come to mind as examples of professionals who certainly seem to have started with the right question. It is true that computer science students tend to be very concrete, not given to abstract thinking. Eventually, many of them came to understand that a computer program is a mental artifact; everything else is just notation. I even managed to teach a unit on ethics once or twice. It gave me the opportunity to point out the flaws in every human ethical system we studied. In the end, I was able to tell them where my ethical system came from. I remain hopeful that we have more in common than not. Most importantly, we seem to have Jesus in common. Nonetheless, something tells me we are drifting away from the forum's charter.... Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
40 | It isn't right to eat pig is it? | 1 Tim 4:4 | stjones | 103798 | ||
Greetings, Sissy; I say eat and enjoy! To the passages Makarios cited, I would add Peter's vision in Acts 10:9-15: "... Peter went up on the roof to pray. He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. Then a voice told him, 'Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.' 'Surely not, Lord!' Peter replied. 'I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.' The voice spoke to him a second time, 'Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.'" Following Jesus' teaching in Matthew that Makarios cited and immediately preceding Peter's visit to the gentile centurion Cornelius, the meaning is unmistakable. My wife makes outstanding BBQ pork ribs. And I cook an Italian breaded pork chop that people seem to enjoy. Just two of the less important reasons I'm thankful for God's grace. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |