Results 21 - 40 of 105
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: RWC Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | if a son is rebellious should he be sto | Deut 21:1 | RWC | 232555 | ||
Hi Jenny, The verses your question should be attached to are Deut. 21:18-21. The short answer to your question is "yes." That is exactly what God is saying. Of course we, in our culture, see ourselves as being somehow above such things and much too 'advanced' for that. But the reality is that *every* sin is in fact a capitol crime; a crime worthy of and punishable by death - not just physical death, but spiritual death meaning eternal separation from God and everything that is holy. The sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden was, by our modern standards I think, even less of a crime (sin) than rebellion, but even it was punishable by death. Something else died physically in their place that day, but they died spiritually that day and then later on physically as well. From God's point of view, the sin of rebellion is comparable to the sin witchcraft or divination (1Sa. 15:23), also punishable by death. I don't think the problem is that God takes sin too seriously. I think the problem is that we do not take sin nearly seriously enough. Having said that, we do not take our rebellious children to the edge of our towns and stone them to death any more (not that the people of Israel probably obeyed this law very often in the first place), nor are we required to do so. But that does *not* mean that it is any less of a sin. |
||||||
22 | if a son is rebellious should he be sto | Deut 21:1 | RWC | 232554 | ||
Hi Hoth, I am assuming you did not see her plea for help: question id 219669. She is not violating the rules of the forum or any other rules of decorum, but rather pleading for your help. Grace. Live ready! Bob |
||||||
23 | How does one explain the above steps? | Bible general Archive 4 | RWC | 232551 | ||
oops, correction (sorry): middle of the first paragraph should read "They do NOT earn it or deserve it" (emphasis added). ['Not' is not a good word to forget in a sentence!] | ||||||
24 | How does one explain the above steps? | Bible general Archive 4 | RWC | 232550 | ||
There are loads of do's and don'ts in the Bible. This long list was summed up rather well by Jesus as 2 commandments: Love God with everything you are, and; 2) love your neighbours as much as you love yourself (Mt. 22:34-40). The whole point of the Old Covenant(s) was/were to teach us beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are not - and indeed cannot! - be good enough to impress God or to earn our own right of passage into His presence (Gal 3:23-25). His standard really is absolute perfection. His standard is Himself. The only other way possible for anyone to be able to come to God is by Him simply *giving* that privilege to people. And that is in fact what He has done and continues to do. He *gives* that privilege to those that will simply *trust* Him. They do earn it or deserve it. It is totally a gift. And that is not something totally new in the New Covenant. This issue of trust (or, by another word, faith) has always been the requirement (the basis) for a right relationship with God. Even Abraham could *earn* righteousness. It was given to him - *credited* to him - for no other reason than that he believed (trusted, had faith in - Ro. 4:3; Ga. 3:6; Jms 2:23) his Creator, the Maker of Heaven and Earth, the One and Only God that has revealed Himself throughout history and through the collection of writings that He inspired (breathed out) and which we now call the Bible. Is God's standard still perfection? Yes, absolutely. Are you or I ever going to meet that standard? No, absolutely not. Do we still aim for it? yes, but now it is not to try and *earn* God's favor, but rather because he has already given it. We do it as an expression of love and gratitude because of the incredible gift that God gives us (eternal life - actually getting to *know* God - Jn 17:3). All those things you list there (the things that the 'new atheists' love to list) are to be found in the Bible. But when taken in their own context, they do actually make some sense. But the 'new atheists' don't care too much for context. |
||||||
25 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:23 | RWC | 231545 | ||
Again, to my question about whether this song is more about David or about Jesus, how could David possibly say this about himself? The same question could be asked about the next verse (v. 24). Surely David would never suggest that he was sinless (that he had never departed from God's statutes)! Would this passage (and large portions of this whole song) not be better understood as being about Jesus rather than about David? | ||||||
26 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:16 | RWC | 231544 | ||
Further to my questions about this song being more about David or about Jesus, when did David see or experience anything like this? Would this not perhaps be better understood as having application (fulfillment) at the end of time (as we know it)? | ||||||
27 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:12 | RWC | 231541 | ||
When did David experience this? Could this more legitimately be interpreted as a prediction of the darkness that occurred during the last three hours of the crucifixion? | ||||||
28 | God riding on an angel? | 2 Sam 22:11 | RWC | 231540 | ||
Why is God pictured here as riding on a cherub (an angel)? I can't think of anywhere else in the Scripture where this kind of language (description) is used. What is the significance of this (if any)? | ||||||
29 | Is this more about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:8 | RWC | 231538 | ||
When did this happen in David's life? Could this be more a predictive prophecy of the earthquake that occurred at the death of Jesus? | ||||||
30 | Is this about David or about Jesus? | 2 Sam 22:1 | RWC | 231537 | ||
Is this song really so much about David, or at least _just_ about him? I wonder if it isn't as much or more about Jesus than it is about David. For example, how could David say (about himself!) the words found in verses 21-25? It would be incredibly arrogant for any human besides Jesus to utter these words about themself, would it not? | ||||||
31 | Does 'veiled' mean 'not used'? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173852 | ||
You quote Barret as writing: "The danger comes when it is concluded that in the incarnation, the second person of the Trinity took on human nature AND gave up or lost some of the divine attributes -- such that Jesus was not fully divine." I would absolutely agree with that statement. But is it not possible for Jesus to have set aside *the use* of His attributes of divine nature? Is that not what Barret means when he writes (as you quoted him): "Christianity maintains that Jesus did not 'empty' himself of any of his divinity in the incarnation, although it is true that his divine attributes were veiled"? I would agree that these attributes were at all times in His possession, but that they were veiled (hidden) and that Jesus willing chose not to make use of them (with perhaps a very few purposeful exceptions) from the point of His conception until His resurrection. I am further suggesting that this is what this verse is talking about when it speaks of His humility in emptying Himself. |
||||||
32 | Glory not an attribute of divine nature? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173850 | ||
Is His divine and eternal glory not an attribute of His nature? I have not given it careful thought and study, but upon first reflection it seems to me that it is. And if it is, how is it that it is ok to say that He can "surrender" His glory without it affecting His full and complete diety, but not any of His other attributes of divine nature? (BTW, I think the word "surrender" would convey something different than "set aside" [the phrase I used in my post from several years ago] or "veiled" or "laid aside" [both used elsewhere in the article you quoted].) I hope I made it very clear in my original post and in the follow-up discussion that I am firmly convinced of the diety of Jesus: that He was, is, and always will be fully divine. The thought that I was trying to put forward for discussion was that He had "set aside (not used) most if not all of His" attributes of divine 'nature' (to be distinguished from 'character'). In making that suggestion, I would not for one second wish to imply that such action would somehow diminish our view of who Jesus really is. I am suggesting that Jesus set aside the use of the attributes of His divine nature (not character!) and made Himself wholly dependant upon the Holy Spirit from the time of His conception until the resurrection. I am further suggesting that His action of setting aside the use of those attributes does not mean that He was anything less than fully divine. So, to sum up, I suppose I am struggling most with this statement from the article you quoted: "To say that Jesus surrendered even one divine attribute is to say that Jesus is less than God, and therefore not God at all! See, if God is deprived of even one attribute, then He is not fully deity." If 'surrendered' and 'deprived' mean that these attributes were no longer in His possession, then I would agree with that statement. However, if that is what those words mean, this statement would not be fairly representing (or responding to) what I am suggesting. My suggestion is that Jesus *set aside* the use or function of those attributes (and this is what this verse is talking about by saying that He emptied Himself), not that these attributes were not His to be used had He at any moment chosen to do so. |
||||||
33 | Have I plagiarized someone? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173849 | ||
No problem; thanks for clearing that up. | ||||||
34 | Have I plagiarized someone? | Phil 2:7 | RWC | 173840 | ||
I'm sorry, I don't understand why you have replied to my message with this post. Have I plagiarized someone? If so, please explain. | ||||||
35 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154312 | ||
Good day! My apologies that it has taken so long to reply. If I may sir, I would like to press you a little more for your thoughts here. Yes, you are right in saying, "Humans have a penchant for simple answers," and I am, no doubt, as guilty of that as anyone. I am not deliberately trying to _over_simplify this question (or my proposed answer), but perhaps that is, in effect, what I am doing. If that is so, please be patient with me. You wrote: "Finally, I do not think that the answer lies entirely in kind or degree." I would agree that there are (sometimes great!) differences of "degree" in many of the attributes that we share with the rest of the animal kingdom, including intellectual and affective (emotional) abilities. But the _only_ attribute that I have been able to come up with so far that seems to be distinctly different (that is, different in "kind") between us and the rest of the animal kingdom is that quality of volition (the ability to choose something other than that which is the strongest or greatest immediate desire). Is there anything else specifically that you can think of that: 1. would distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom and; 2. which would be part of that image of God that we were designed to reflect? You also wrote, "I guess what I'm saying is that unless the Scripture gives a clear, definitive answer, the answer is probably either beyond our ability to understand or God has chosen not to reveal it to us." Would you not agree that the Scriptures teach us that we are responsible (accountable) for our actions (and that animals are not) because we have at least some ability choose (that animals do not have)? I must say too that it seems to me that this thread has moved away from the question of animal intelligence (rationality) and migrated to the subject of the image of God. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to move this discussion to Ge. 1.26 Thank you again for your time and thought. Bob BTW: what are "platonic solids" and what do they have to do with the orbits of the planets? Sorry, but that paragraph was lost on me. |
||||||
36 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154129 | ||
Hey Doc! Man, how do keep all that history in your head?! That's awesome! I must admit, I am guilty of coveting a mind like that. You didn't put me to sleep anyway. I found that to be a very helpful post. I was sure that many other people in history have considered this question, but I had no clue as to who, or as to how they answered it. Thanks! From your concluding paragraph: "Aren't their many ways in which God and man are similar? ... Why not affirm all of those in the question of the Imago Dei. Those things, clearly, also make us quite distinctive from beasts." Yes, there are many ways in which we are a reflection of the image of God (intellect, emotion, relational capacity, etc.). I guess the question I am trying to raise (and propose an answer for) is whether or not any of those "ways" (qualities, characteristics) are entirely unique or distinctive to humans. The question is important (or so it seems to me) because of what God said in Ge. 1.26 _after_ having created all of the other animals: "Let Us make man in Our image...." That says that there was something _different_ that was going to happen, doesn't it? Or would you suggest that it is just differences of "degree" rather than some differnce of "kind?" Thanks again for your most informative repsonse. have a good day. Bob |
||||||
37 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154128 | ||
Perhaps I need to clarify what I mean when I talk about volitional ability, or at least what makes it distinct for humans. Yes, I agree with you that animals make choices: (lay in the sun or lay in the shade; fetch the ball or not; climb on the furniture or not, etc. etc). But those kinds of choices that animals make (including whether to obey a master's directive or not) have to do with simply following their desires. Unfortunately, we humans usually make our choices in exactly the same way. *But* we have the ability not to do that, and animals, as I understand it, do not have that ability. For example, humans have the ability to choose to go on a hunger strike (a popular form of protest from a generation ago). We can choose to deny ourselves food. An animal cannot do that. If an animal is hungry (and healthy!), it will go hunting for food until it finds it or it will die trying to find it. Now, having said that, I have heard of animals starving themselves to death. But it was not because of "a choice" that they were making, it was because of a physical problem (ie. disease) or an emotional problem (ie. broken heart). Animals have many and varied characteristics and qualities built into them by God that we would call instinctive repsonses. When we train animals (or try to!), we are trying shape those characteristics so that they get expressed in ways that are acceptable to us. We do that by creating (or using) a desire in the animal that is (hopefully) greater than its natural unfettered desire. A simple example might be seen in paper training a puppy. Its desire is to relieve itself. We try to shape that desire so that the animal has a greater desire to _avoid_ punishment and _receive_ affection by relieving itself in the appropriate place. I guess my point was (and is) that it seems to me that animals do have emotions (although not the full range of emotions as do humans), and that they do have an ability to think (and yes, even rational thinking in some cases, although certainly not to the same degree as humans can), but that they do not have a volitional ability (an ability to choose something other than what they desire). I hope this helps to clarify what I mean. And as for Scriptural support for this view, I do not have a nice systematic list of verses. But it does not seem to me to be contrary to the Word of God. (I do still have to go back and consider a couple of verses quoted by Lionstrong earlier in this discussion.) Have a good day. Bob |
||||||
38 | Adam and Eve ashamed of their nakedness? | Gen 3:7 | RWC | 154081 | ||
I know that this question and discussion is now a few years old, but I would like to offer an answer and any responses would be much appreciated. (I am working on Genesis 3 currently.) The only thing that we really know for sure about this situation is that something changed, and that the change was substantial. Sin entered into the picture and the picture was suddenly different! The point of view for Adam and Eve was changed. We cannot say with any certainty that anything about their appearance changed (although someone has suggested that they had been clothed in light and that this was removed when they sinned). But there was certainly something different about how they viewed themselves and each other (and about how they viewed God!). I guess the answer that I would offer (and I think it is the answer that the Bible offers) to this question is, "Because sin separates (divides)!" There are at least 2 and probably 3 immediate separations or divisions that occured when they sinned. 1. They are separated from each other. 2. They are separated from their Creator. 3. They are separated from themselves. (This not intended to be chronological list. I think they all happened simultaneously. It is the order in which the become expressed within Scripture.) SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER Their immediate reaction is to cover themselves. They were trying to hide themself from the other. No, not totally. But they were now instantly and keenly aware that there was a relational separation or division between them that had not been there before. SEPARATED FROM GOD In the next verse (Ge. 3.8), the separation between them and God becomes immediately apparent. As soon as they sensed God's presence, they tried to hid from Him. They were now instantly and keenly aware that there was a relational separation or division between them and God that had not been there before. SEPARATED FROM THEMSELF This one is less obvious, but I think it is just as true. The first separation is between human and human. The second separation is between human and God. This third separation is _within_ the human: we are separated from ourself. FULFILLMENT OF GOD'S WARNING It seems to me that this separation is the fulfillment of God's warning that in the very day in which you eat of it, you shall surely _die_. Death, as I have come understand it, is separation. Physical death is the separation of the immaterial (soul-spirit) from the material (our physical body). Spiritual death is the separation of soul-spirit from God. Your thoughts and constructive criticisms of my understanding on this are welcome. Looking forward to your repsonses. Bob |
||||||
39 | Distiction in "will" not "rationality" | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154078 | ||
Yes. That is my point. (I would also suggest that angels have this same ability.) What think you? |
||||||
40 | Isn't the main point volition | Gen 3:1 | RWC | 154077 | ||
Correcting myself! I wrote: "The whole point being made in each case is not that the humans had (or did not have) knowledge, but that they did _act_ (choose) correctly based on that knowledge." I meant: "...but that they did *not* _act_ (choose) correctly..." Such a small word... such a big change in meaning. Sorry everybody. Bob |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |