Results 21 - 40 of 75
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: bstudent Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | bstudent | 119192 | ||
Just thought you might want to know. Any comments on 1 Cor 15:28? Everywhere I read, in any translation, I keep seeing the Bible writers acknowledging the Father's superior position to his Son. The Father gives Jesus any and all authority he possesses because it belongs to Him. Jesus repeatedly pointed out his position relative to his God. For the Scriptures to use the relationship of a father and son to illustrate equality and "coeternity" to the patriarchal Jews is ludicrous, "it doesn't make sense." A handful of passages translated to support the trinity, even when it may be a legimate grammatical alternative to do so, cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence supporting Jesus being the firstborn of creation, a separate and obviously inferior creature to the Creator who had no beginning. In addition to your comments on 1 Cor 15:28, I'm interested to know how you respond to the spurious verses in the KJ at 1 John 5:7 and Rev 1:11? The translation influenced a lot of people. Why the need to bolster the trinity doctrine by adding to the things written under inspiration if its so clear? The sordid history of the development of this apostate doctrine is well documented in encyclopias. That history does not sound like the way truth was discerned in the days of the apostles! |
||||||
22 | Jesus couldn't of gone up to heaven. | Luke 23:43 | bstudent | 119171 | ||
Better late than never, but hopefully you've found the truth by now. Ancient Greek did not have puncuation as in modern languages such as English. Translators must supply such consistent with the original language meaning as understood in context. As you correctly state, Jesus was in the grave, Hades, for parts of 3 days so he couldn't be in heaven. Some have fabricated a notion based on apostate Judiasm of an "abode of dead souls," half of which is hot for the sinners and half of which is cozy for the righteous. But to this criminal, the notion of paradise would have conjerred up visions of God's origin Garden of Eden. In addition, the evildoer did not meet the requirements to go to heaven even at some later time. He was not “born again”—being neither baptized in water nor begotten by God’s spirit. Holy spirit was not poured out upon Jesus’ disciples until more than 50 days after the evildoer’s death. (John 3:3, 5; Acts 2:1-4) On the day of his death, Jesus had made with those ‘who had stuck with him in his trials’ a covenant for a heavenly kingdom. The evildoer had no such record of faithfulness and was not included.—Luke 22:28-30. Thus a more correct translation would be: "Truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise." (See Mark 14:30 for similar wording.) Hope you get this. |
||||||
23 | is God and Jesus are one person? | Heb 1:8 | bstudent | 119169 | ||
Bible scholar B. F. Westcott's expertise in ancient Hebrew and Greek is fairly widely respected in the Bible community. You may find his comments regarding Hebrews 1:8, 9 which quotes from Psalm 45:6, 7, interesting: “The LXX.(Septuagint-Old Testament in Greek) admits of two renderings: [ho the·os'] can be taken as a vocative in both cases (Thy throne, O God, . . . therefore, O God, Thy God . . . ) or it can be taken as the subject (or the predicate) in the first case (God is Thy throne, or Thy throne is God . . . ), and in apposition to [ho the·os' sou] in the second case (Therefore God, even Thy God . . . ). . . . It is scarcely possible that [’Elo·him'] in the original can be addressed to the king. The presumption therefore is against the belief that [ho the·os'] is a vocative in the LXX. Thus on the whole it seems best to adopt in the first clause the rendering: God is Thy throne (or, Thy throne is God), that is ‘Thy kingdom is founded upon God, the immovable Rock.’”—The Epistle to the Hebrews (London, 1889), pp. 25, 26. Which rendering is harmonious with the context? The preceding verses say that God is speaking, not that he is being addressed; and the following verse uses the expression “God, your God has anointed you,” showing that the one addressed is not the Most High God but is a worshiper of that God. Hebrews 1:8 quotes from Psalm 45:6, which originally was addressed to a human king of Israel. Obviously, the Bible writer of this psalm did not think that this human king was Almighty God. Rather, Psalm 45:6, in RS, reads “Your divine throne.” (NE says, “Your throne is like God’s throne.” JP [verse 7]: “Thy throne given of God.”) Solomon, who was possibly the king originally addressed in Psalm 45, was said to sit “upon the throne of Jehovah.” (1 Chron. 29:23 ASV) In harmony with the fact that God is the “throne,” or Source and Upholder of Christ’s kingship, Daniel 7:13, 14 and Luke 1:32 show that God confers such authority on him. This seems consistent with the countless Scriptures that teach Jesus worshiped the Father as his God and continues doing so in his God-given role as his Messianic King. As 1 Cor 15:28 states: "And when all things have been subjected unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subjected to him that did subject all things unto him, that God may be all in all." |
||||||
24 | Did this war already occur? | Rev 12:7 | bstudent | 119103 | ||
Are these even more specific time markers? Do you have a clue?6 Rev 12:6,14: "Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. 14 But the two wings of the great eagle were given to the woman, so that she could fly into the wilderness to her place, where she was nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent." These are much more in context. |
||||||
25 | What does the verse Psalms 83:18 say? | Ps 83:18 | bstudent | 119085 | ||
Cassie: Your other response dodged your real question: Was it a cross or an upright stake? Here is proof it was a stake. The Greek word rendered “cross” in many modern Bible versions is stau·ros'. In classical Greek, this word meant merely an upright stake, or pale. Later it also came to be used for an execution stake having a crosspiece. The Imperial Bible-Dictionary acknowledges this, saying: “The Greek word for cross, [stau·ros'], properly signified a stake, an upright pole, or piece of paling, on which anything might be hung, or which might be used in impaling [fencing in] a piece of ground. . . . Even amongst the Romans the crux (from which our cross is derived) appears to have been originally an upright pole.”—Edited by P. Fairbairn (London, 1874), Vol. I, p. 376. Was that the case in connection with the execution of God’s Son? It is noteworthy that the Bible also uses the word xy'lon to identify the device used. A Greek-English Lexicon, by Liddell and Scott, defines this as meaning: “Wood cut and ready for use, firewood, timber, etc. . . . piece of wood, log, beam, post . . . cudgel, club . . . stake on which criminals were impaled . . . of live wood, tree.” It also says “in NT, of the cross,” and cites Acts 5:30 and ÞAc Ü10:39 as examples. (Oxford, 1968, pp. 1191, 1192) However, in those verses KJ, RS, JB, and Dy translate xy'lon as “tree.” (Compare this rendering with Galatians 3:13; Deuteronomy 21:22, 23.) The book The Non-Christian Cross, by J. D. Parsons (London, 1896), says: “There is not a single sentence in any of the numerous writings forming the New Testament, which, in the original Greek, bears even indirect evidence to the effect that the stauros used in the case of Jesus was other than an ordinary stauros; much less to the effect that it consisted, not of one piece of timber, but of two pieces nailed together in the form of a cross. . . . It is not a little misleading upon the part of our teachers to translate the word stauros as ‘cross’ when rendering the Greek documents of the Church into our native tongue, and to support that action by putting ‘cross’ in our lexicons as the meaning of stauros without carefully explaining that that was at any rate not the primary meaning of the word in the days of the Apostles, did not become its primary signification till long afterwards, and became so then, if at all, only because, despite the absence of corroborative evidence, it was for some reason or other assumed that the particular stauros upon which Jesus was executed had that particular shape.”—Pp. 23, 24; see also The Companion Bible (London, 1885), Appendix No. 162. Thus the weight of the evidence indicates that Jesus died on an upright stake and not on the traditional cross. As for God's name, he has only one, and most "scholars" agree that it should be pronounced Yahweh. Jehovah is the pronunciation that has been widely accepted and used for centuries in English. Jesus is how we pronounce the name of God's son in English, but not in Hebrew. To take God's name from Bible translations and replace it with titles that confuse Jesus and God's positions is of demonic origin. How would you like to write a book and then have your name expunged the over 7,000 times you originally wrote it! Any translation that follows this tradition started by the hypocritical Pharisees is woefully misleading. Hope this helps. |
||||||
26 | How does foreknowledge preclude free? | Gen 6:6 | bstudent | 118837 | ||
The gift is free, thus it cannot be earned. However, it can be rejected. I would rather be good than righteous (Rom 5:7), but faith is essential. Doing the things God requires is not earning your salvation, but is intrinsic to faith. You know the verses: "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Heb 11:6) "For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead." (James 2:26) True faith as James described requires that we accept God's training and do what the "great crowd of witnesses" did - faithful works of obedience. Notice what their actions led and our's can lead to: "All discipline for the moment seems not to be joyful, but sorrowful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterwards it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness." (Heb 12:11) As regards Provervs 16:33, in ancient times, in a number of nations, doubtful questions were determined by lot. Stones or inscribed tablets were put into a vessel, shaken and then drawn out or cast forth. God was pleased to use the lot as a means of making known his will in the early history of his chosen people. It seems that the lots were thrown into the gathered folds of a robe and then drawn out. But first an appeal was made to God to decide the matter. The outcome was accepted as his will. Even Jesus’ apostles utilized the lot to choose a successor to Judas Iscariot, but their selection was set aside by Jesus’ choice of Saul. Since Pentecost, holy spirit directs Christians, but in pre-Christian times God did approve use of the lot. |
||||||
27 | How does foreknowledge preclude free? | Gen 6:6 | bstudent | 118593 | ||
Have you ever read about the contributions that belief in evolution has made to the inhumane treatment man has heaped upon his neighbors? I feel belief in predestination has yielded similar fruitage. Might makes right - the U.S. is the greatest, so it is his instrument. I'll continue worshiping my God and I'm sure you'll continue worshiping your's. Let's leave it at that. |
||||||
28 | How does foreknowledge preclude free? | Gen 6:6 | bstudent | 118589 | ||
I certainly agree with "free will to the limits of God's will." And that means I can even murder someone, as long as that murder does not impact upon God's will. But you can't be saying that such a dispicable act would be God's will or destiny. It is not destiny when bad things happen - its reaping what we and others sow or unforeseen occurrences (chance). (Eccl 9:11; 8:9; Gal 6:7) God's original purpose for the earth was "very good" - perfect. After Adam exercised his freewill to sin, God uttered the prophecy of his intentions to crush Satan and his seed by means of the "woman's" seed. His will toward man and the earth had not changed, but now he foretold a glimse of how he would rectify the situation and vindicate his name and sovereignty. The term "founding" has to do literally with the throwing down of seed, thus Jesus clarified this founding at Luke 11:50,51: "Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all." To these same ones referred to at Rom. 8:28, 29 and Eph. 1:5, 11 , 2 Peter 1:10 says: “Do your utmost to make the calling and choosing of you sure for yourselves; for if you keep on doing these things you will by no means ever fail.” If the individuals were predestinated to salvation, they could not possibly fail, regardless of what they did. Since effort is required on the part of the individuals, it must be the class that is foreordained. God purposed that the entire class would conform to the pattern set by Jesus Christ. Those selected by God to be part of that class, however, must prove faithful if they are actually to attain the reward set before them. Isn't that more reasonable and most importantly, Scriptural? |
||||||
29 | How does foreknowledge preclude free? | Gen 6:6 | bstudent | 118586 | ||
Your comments make the ridicule worth enduring. I had been contemplating whether or not to continue using the Forum as an additional way to reach persons such as yourself with the good news. I will definitely contact you by email. Thanks again for your kind words. Bstudent |
||||||
30 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118582 | ||
Cplusstudent: You deserve at least a Cplus for making a good point. I should have put "religion" in quotes, but my statement implies your sentiment that Christianity is the truth rather than a "religion." But just as there may in reality be only one God, the fact is there our many "gods" worshiped,(1 Cor 8:5)so too, even truth must be differentiated from among the worlds "religions." I thoroughly disagree with your definition of Christianity in your last paragraph. The New Testament is replete with contradictions to the concepts of "unconditional love" and "once saved, always saved." My favorite: "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace." (Hebrews 6:4-6) If these verses do not suffice to overturn these strongly entrenched notions, then another 50 won't help either. Bstudent |
||||||
31 | How does foreknowledge preclude free? | Gen 6:6 | bstudent | 118581 | ||
Steve, I would interpret Jesus statement at Luke 10:13 as hyperbole, in the sense of Luke 18:25. My reason for saying this relates to God's ability to read hearts and his justice. If God used his foreknowledge to determine that these people would have responded positively to the works Jesus did, he would not have grounds for executing them. Likewise, when armageddon comes, God will have to determine whether each of the relatively few that have not had the opportunity to respond to the good news, repenting and dedicating their life to God on the basis of the ransom, will be destroyed or not. The following supports God's selective use of his ability to foresee the future: The Scriptures say that “God put Abraham to the test” by commanding him to sacrifice his son Isaac as a burnt offering. When Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac, God stopped him and said: “Now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.” (Genesis 22:1-12) Would God have made that statement if he knew in advance that Abraham would obey this command? Would it have been an honest test? Genesis 18:20,21 states: "Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know." Furthermore, the ancient prophets report that God repeatedly spoke of himself as ‘feeling regret’ over something he had done or was thinking of doing. For example, God said that he “regretted [from the Hebrew na·cham'] that he had made Saul king over Israel.” (1 Samuel 15:11, 35; compare Jeremiah 18:7-10; Jonah 3:10.) Because God is perfect, these verses cannot mean that God made a mistake in selecting Saul to be Israel’s first king. Rather, they must indicate that God felt sorry that Saul turned out to be faithless and disobedient. God’s using such an expression in referring to himself would be nonsensical if he had foreknown Saul’s actions. The same term appears in the most ancient of the Scriptures where, in referring to the days of Noah, it says: “The LORD felt regrets that he had made men in the earth, and he felt hurt at his heart. So Jehovah said: ‘I am going to wipe men whom I have created off the surface of the ground . . . because I do regret that I have made them.’” (Genesis 6:6, 7) Here again, this indicates that man’s actions are not predestined by God. God felt regret, grief, and even hurt, not because his own actions were mistaken, but because man’s wickedness became rife. The Creator regretted that it had become necessary to destroy all mankind except Noah and his family. God assures us: ‘I take no delight in the death of the wicked.’—Ezekiel 33:11; compare Deuteronomy 32:4, 5. Hope this proves helpful. Dan |
||||||
32 | How does foreknowledge preclude free? | Gen 6:6 | bstudent | 118484 | ||
I like how the ESV translation highlights what a purposeful God he is. All God has ever promised either has been or will be accomplished! My only concern is that people will logically conclude (if we cannot demonstrate Scripturally that God does not always choose to know the future, nor does he need to know every detail about it to accomplish his will) that God is the cause of everything that happens. On the other hand, we need to prove that no human or spirit creature could possibly prevent God from fulfilling his word. Humans can predict the future with very limited success and virtually no ability to control it. God on the other hand can accurately foretell the future, and in addition, see the heart. He knew that "stiff-necked" Israel would, as a whole, reject his son. After all he witnessed as they persecuted and killed the prophets he sent previously to bring about a change of heart. He pleaded not for the many that he knew would not listen, but for the relative few he knew that would. How did he know? He made us. He knows our capabilities. The many prophecies about specific details carefully recorded for the honest-hearted to identify the Messiah were facts he foresaw from his look at the future. 2 Peter 3:9 states: "The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." The concepts of patience and wishing can not coexist with foreknowledge of the kind that many imagine. Many of God's other awesome qualities, such as love, justice, wisdom, depend on his limiting his ability to foresee the future. Just as his love does not restrain his power, but works perfectly together, so it is with his foreknowledge. |
||||||
33 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118480 | ||
"Skirting the issue?" As you are hopefully well aware, there are only two religions - true and false. I believe I can defend "the way" Scripturally, but more importantly, the "proof is in the pudding." Speaking of "vague and flowering," - "speaking the truth in love?" I guess that depends on what "truth" is, and what "love" is. Knowledge puffs up, love builds up. Any obscuring going on is through those who will not discuss Bible truth, but prefer to debate about opinions. |
||||||
34 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118477 | ||
If you don't agree that a discussion of the Bible's counsel as it relates to a Christian's view of politics and nationalism is important, you are not obligated to participate. But, please refrain from prejudicing or intimidating other sincere persons from contributing. | ||||||
35 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118475 | ||
That's shockingly similar to the response my Lord received! | ||||||
36 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118473 | ||
Matthew 21:23-24: “Now after he (one of Jesus disciples) went into the temple (Bible Forum website), the chief priests and the older men of the people (you and other “orthodox Christians”) came up to him while he was teaching and said: “By what authority do you do (write) these things? And who gave you this authority?” In reply Jesus (the disciple) said to them: “I, also, will ask YOU one thing. If YOU tell it to me, I also will tell YOU by what authority I do (write) these things.” My question to you is: “How did it occur that the majority of Christian men in Germany during WWII took up arms with or morally supported Hitler and his Nazi regime?” (Implication – How can you be certain that you wouldn’t have done likewise?) I'll try to ignore any possible 'rudeness' (bigotry) implied by your question, and will answer it after you have answered the above. |
||||||
37 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118390 | ||
Christians have to have the courage to die for what is right; cowards will be cut off as will all other unrepentent sinners. Paul had a zeal for God, but not according to accurate knowledge. He pursecuted Christians to the point of death. Yet when he learned the truth, he repented, had a clean conscience, and was used by God as an honorable vessel. I did many things before becoming a Christian I am not proud of. My only excuse is that I was ignorant of God's will as was Paul. The difference is that Paul was more accountable because he had the opportunity to have studied God's word. Jesus came to preach to the Jews. They had the law and were God's covenant people. They were in a serious position as His "holy nation." Jesus incidental encounters with gentiles foretold blessings for them as well, but the same level of accountability did not exist yet - Jesus had not provided the "ransom for all" and they did not know the law. To say that because he did not tell soldiers to "get a new job" indicates that he approved of their occupation would mean that because he did not tell the harlot to do likewise, she could remain in her occupation and have God's approval. Not consistent with Christian doctrine. Christians are not under the Mosaic Law, but the principles that applied to the Jews to whom Jesus ministry focused also apply to Christians. See Numbers chapter 35 concerning the "cities of refuge." In particular, verse 11 highlights that even "unintentional" taking of life was grounds for loss of the accused's life. This principle even can be seen in God's words to Noah as Genesis 9:6. Satan is the ruler of this world and is a manslayer. He does not want to see true Christians united so he attempts to embroil them in political contraversies among the nations that do not uphold God's standards and view of the sanctity of life. Paul could hold his head high despite his past because he did those things in ignorance. He came to have a fine record of courageous service for righteousness sake that God would not forget, but rather reward. Many Christians today have done likewise with the same results. To be 'no part of the world and set apart for sacred service (sanctified),' we must accept God's high standards, as unpopular as this may be in our nationalistic world. Prayerfully consider this subject. Although I was never called up for military duty, I would have done as you did. I used to work at a defense manufacturer until I studied the Bible. |
||||||
38 | Can Christian's support Caesar's wars? | 2 Cor 10:3 | bstudent | 118346 | ||
Does Paul mean that Christians do not engage in carnal warfare? What other Scriptures support the correct view a Christian should have toward secular wars? | ||||||
39 | Who is this "slave"? | Matt 24:45 | bstudent | 118243 | ||
The apostle Paul claimed to be a communicator of God's will and gained many enemies within the congregation as a result. Do you suppose Billy Graham or the pope believe they are communicating God's will? Such a claim would need to be backed up by works. Do you know how Jesus said to identify those that would be communicating God's will? Good fruits - Jesus is the prince of peace and his kingdom is no part of this world. Thus his disciples should be known as peacemakers that don't put their trust in corrupt manmade governments their leader has promised to destroy. | ||||||
40 | Who is this "slave"? | Matt 24:45 | bstudent | 118242 | ||
What "code of conduct" does the "faithful slave" have that differ him from the world? It appears obvious that even the evil slave was entrusted by Jesus with responsibility, thus even he must have began as a Christian. What conduct do you feel clearly differentiates Christians from the world? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |