Results 21 - 40 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: rabban Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191841 | ||
Hi Speaking as a neutral may I say that I do not agree that Doc has assailed your character or used invective. I think if you look back and see how many times you have mentioned Boyle in your postings you might be surprised. I think that what Doc is trying to say is that the purpose of the forum is not in order to promote Boyle's theology but in order to expound the Scriptures. I have no doubt that that was not your intention but that is how it has turned out. May I lovingly suggest that if you have a point to make from Scripture please do so. But we are really not interested in Boyle's Law. :-))) In Him . |
||||||
22 | 1 Peter 3:21-24 what is this meaning..? | 1 Pet 3:22 | rabban | 191840 | ||
Hi again. Now that I am more sophisticated as a result of the help of my friends may I suggest that you feed the number 191712 into Search (on the right hand side of the page). After that feed in 191738. As you read those you will note also the counter arguments. In Him Rabban. |
||||||
23 | Why do we have to go church | Heb 10:25 | rabban | 191838 | ||
Hi, You ask why you have to go to church? The answer is clear as has previously been stated, and it is 'yes' because you are not just a saved individual, but are part of a saved church, and part of Christ's own crucified and risen body (1 Corinthians 10.15-17). It is a little like my arm saying 'why should I go out along with the remainder of your body. I want to stay at home.' Result one mutilated body and one soon dead arm. Paul said, 'By (or 'in') one Spirit we have all been inundated into one body --- and were all made to drink of one Spirit' (1 Corinthians 12.13) and then he goes on to describe the oneness of the members of the body and the need each has for all the others. But this is in fact strictly parallel to 1 Corinthians 10.1-5. 'Our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were inundated into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same supernatural food, and drank the same supernatural drink, for they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ' (1 Corinthians 10.1-4). Do you see how parallel they are? And the point behind the second is that they were all in it together. The whole of Israel had been 'inundated into Moses'. They had become one with him in readiness for them all being joinerd as one in the covenant. From then on he was their great mediator. They were all one together. Individuality was out. They were committed together for God's purpose for the future. Assuming that you have been baptised (and if you have not you ought to be) then your baptism was not an individual event. It was part of one huge baptism ceremony through the ages whereby all true believers have been inundated into Jesus Christ (just as Israel were all inundated into Moses). Assuming that you are a true believer, when you believed you were inundated into the body of Christ. And as part of the body of Christ you are to go on drinking of the Spirit together. You are bound into the new covenant with all your brothers and sisters in Christ. You should therefore feel at home in Christ in all churches were Christ is truly taught, and should recognise that you are already one with them and with your local church which is one arm of the whole body. Not to go and worship with them would put you at odds with all that Christ died for. It would mean that you are closing your eyes to all that has happened to you and that you are mutilating His body and that the arm is without a finger. You will lose and so will they. And so will Christ. For you are in Him as part of His body and He wants all of His body to be one. By not worshipping with fellow-believers you would be spiritually. mutilating Christ. You have not become a Christian so that you might go to Heaven (although that is a blessed side product), you have become a Christian so that you might serve the Lord in oneness with Him in His body. Not therefore to work together as part of His body would throw doubt on whether you were a Christian. You would be denying the very thing that has happened to you. In Him Rabban |
||||||
24 | 1 Peter 3:21-24 what is this meaning..? | 1 Pet 3:22 | rabban | 191824 | ||
Thanks Parable and Cheri | ||||||
25 | 1 Peter 3:21-24 what is this meaning..? | 1 Pet 3:22 | rabban | 191813 | ||
Hi Parable, Thank you for your advice. I realise I must be a bit thick but how do I find the ID number of a note or answer I posted? Thanks Rabban |
||||||
26 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191806 | ||
Hi Statement of Fact: Christian peoples of the world claim that God's word tells them that God created the sun on the fourth day of creation. Questions? How is is possible to have three cycles of morning and evening before the creation of the sun? How is it possible that God would create light on the first day of creation when he didn't create the sun until the fourth day? Doesn't everyone know that light comes from the sun and without the sun we cannot have a morning or an evening? Since the sun is 1.3 million times larger than the earth why didn't God inform the bible writers of its importance to life on earth? ANSWER. Scroll back and see my answer on 8.8.07 at 11.08 am. |
||||||
27 | 1 Peter 3:21-24 what is this meaning..? | 1 Pet 3:22 | rabban | 191805 | ||
Hi Scroll back and see my answer on 8th August at 2.40 am. In Him. |
||||||
28 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191803 | ||
Statement of Fact: Christian peoples of the world claim that God's word tells them God's "Divine Plan" includes free will. Each and every man has the free will to choose everlasting life or everlasting hell fire. Questions? If all has been determined in the "Divine Plan" from before time began, where is the free will to change and be spared from the torment of hell fire? Answer. God has built within His overall plan the right for us to use our free will within His restraints. We are free for example not to repent and believe. We are free even to challenge Him - many do. But if we do so we must take the consequences. But of course we can only do these things within His overall plan. We cannot interfere with that. Question: If man is given two choices, eternal life through Jesus Christ or eternal hell fire by rejection, where is that person's free will to choose Buddah, Mohamed or to remain neutral? Where is that man's freedom of choice to decide not to choose? Where is his free will? If I stand on a bridge looking down into the ravine below I am free to choose whether I will jump off the bridge or not. The fact that the consequences are not very pleasant does not take away my free will. It simply demonstrates to me what the sensible thing to do is. |
||||||
29 | Stumpped by my son | Bible general Archive 3 | rabban | 191801 | ||
Hi You asked: "Statement of Fact: Christian peoples of the world claim that God's word tells them from before time began God set into motion the "Divine Plan." He knows the end from the beginning. He is all knowing, all powerful and everywhere. When praying, pray that God's will be done. Answer. We must distinguish between God's directive will and His permissive will. His directive will controls all things. His permissive will allows adjustments within His directive will. Questions? If God's will is the "Divine Plan" and has been in existence since before time began, how does praying help? Answer: Because we do not pray for God's divine plan to change, but we pray within God's divine plan as His children. God has not purposed everything we do. It is just that our lives are lived within His over all purpose. Question. What if what you're asking for in prayer is not God's will? Are christians so arrogant to want God to change his plan? Answer: If you ask for what is not within His directive will He will not respond to you. No one can change God's overall plan. It is arrogant to expect Him to do so. What they can do is seek adjustments within it. But even then they should be seeking to ensure that they only ask what is within His will. The Christian always prays, 'Your will be done'. Question: Does God enjoy hearing people whine, moan, grovel and beg for things they will not get? Answer. Actually Jesus taught that we should not pray like this 'This', He said, 'is the way the Gentiles pray (who do not know how to pray properly) See Matthew 6.7, 31-32. The Christian is to approach in faith, love and submission to Him as a child to his father in accordance with what is laid out in the Lord's prayer. Question: Does God delight in the monotonous pleadings, mumblings and cryings of people for things that he planned they would get anyway? Answer. God delights in all our prayers when we approach Him as our heavenly Father. Just as parents delight in their children's often unwise words. But what a sad world it would be if children never asked their parents for anything. Prayer is however supposed to be a means of communication, not a method of getting things out of God. Question: If the "Divine Plan" was developed by God and set in motion before time began, how can any kind of appeal through prayer alter God's will? Answer: No prayer can change God's divine plan. It can only cause changes within it. But even then we should be praying only for what we believe is His will. 'If we ask anything according to His will, He hears us,' (1 John 5.14). Thus our prayers should always be for what is in accord with His will. We can be sure that He will never act against His directive will whateve we pray for. |
||||||
30 | Does YHWH equals ELOHIM? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191800 | ||
Hi, This actually demonstrates that when Elohim is used with a singular verb it is always speaking of YHWH. YHWH is YHWH ELOHIM. YHWH is His Name. ELOHIM is His title. Compare, 'You shall say to the children of Israel, "YHWH the God of your fathers --- has sent me to you. This is My Name for ever ---' (Exodus 3.15). (You cannot say 'the YHWH of Israel' because YHWH is His Namw). YHWH was the Elohim of Israel. The Elohim of Israel was YHWH. Each is the other. |
||||||
31 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191798 | ||
Hi Mark, Thank you for your note. You will note that I said YHWH is ELOHIM. using capitals. The point was in order to indicate that it was Elohim when used of God, that is, with a singular verb. But you are of course correct. elohim used with a plural verb is used of both gods and angels (sons of the elohim) and even of an apparition. However when used with a singular verb of God He is YHWH. In Him |
||||||
32 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191797 | ||
Hi Mark, Thank you for your note. You will note that I said YHWH is ELOHIM. using capitals. The point was in order to indicate that it was Elohim when used of God, that is, with a singular verb. But you are of course correct. elohim used with a plural verb is used of both gods and angels (sons of the elohim) and even of an apparition. However when used with a singular verb of God He is YHWH. In Him |
||||||
33 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191777 | ||
Sorry about the triplication. I do not know how it happened. I only clicked once :-(( | ||||||
34 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191776 | ||
Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with. 2). In order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His incarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body. It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban |
||||||
35 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191775 | ||
Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with, and secondly in order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His icarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body. |
||||||
36 | IS ELOHEIM JESUS? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191774 | ||
Hi Talmid, The first important thing to note is that YHWH equals ELOHIM. The terms are interchangeable. The plural form elohim is a plural of intensity depicting God's greatness and majesty. It is used with a singular verb. YHWH is God's Name. As you know the watchword of Israel was, 'Hear, O Israel, YHWH our God, YHWH is One.' (Deuteronomy 6.5) YHWH is thus the One Name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28.19). It is the name given to Jesus in His manhood when He was raised and restored to the glory which He had had with the Father before the world was (John 17.5)and 'given the Name above every Name' which is of course YHWH. He was declared to be KURIOS (which is the Greek term used for YHWH). Yeshua is the name given to God's Son when He came into the world as man. Strictly it does not apply to the pre-incarnate Son although we can do so loosely. His name Yeshua was given to Him when He was born a man (Matthew 1.21). So we cannot and must not say that YHWH equals the Father. Yeshua is also YHWH. The reason from the change from YHWH to Elohim and back was for a twofold reason. 1). Because Moses wanted to bring out that it was the God of Israel that they were seeing before them and having a communion meal with, and secondly in order to bring out the difference between when YHWH was dealing with Moses, and when God was dealing with Israel (compare similarly Exod. 19.24 with 20.1; 20.20, 21 with 20.22). It is very important to be careful when dealing with the question of the Triune God With all best wishes Rabban The Spirit is both the Spirit of YHWH and the Spirit of Elohim. As I have pointed out ayth (eth) is the sign of the definite object. In English we can tell the subject from the object by word order, but in Hebrew that is not so. The object may come before the verb. So it is depicted by putting ayth in front of it. It indicates nothing more than that. It certainly does not indicate that the reference is to God the Son. Prior to His icarnation Jesus did not have a corporeal body. |
||||||
37 | What if it's just a feeling I get? | Matt 18:17 | rabban | 191758 | ||
Hi Spurgeon once said, 'if you find a perfect church, don't join it. You will only spoil it.' As I see it your choice partly depends from your point of view on your own spiritual quality and the needs of your children. Of course you also have to ask what is it like from God's point of view. If you are very much in need of spiritual sustenance yourselves because you are young in the faith, and do not feel you are getting it, or if you do not feel that the children's work will give your children a good foundation, then there may be a case for a move. On the other hand you always have to ask the alternative question, did God bring me here for a purpose? Can I help to make the children's work meaningful. Can I give support to someone who may not be saying much but is longing for support. A very godly evangelist whom I used to know used to remind us that Like a might armchair Moves the church of God Brothers you are treading Where the saints have trod. And it sometimes feels like that. But at some stage someone has to get out of the armchair and do something. And it is easier if there is more than one. From what you say 'they' are already nicely settled in their armchairs (although recognize that you may have received the wrong impression. Do you really know? Perhaps they are just discouraged). But until you get involved you will never know. Have you made any real attempt to get involved? When your church gets a new pastor he is going to need solid support. Are you able to give him it? There is never any suggestion in the New Testament that people 'looked round for a suitable church'. The impression given is that they went to their local church. Even in Revelation 2-3 they were to 'overcome' within the church. They were not told to form a new church. In the end however it is between you and God. God bless you In Him |
||||||
38 | What does "saw" mean? | Ex 24:10 | rabban | 191756 | ||
I am not convinced that ayth before a noun means that it refers to a corporeal being. There is no hint of it in any of my ancient Hebrew lexicons or ancient Hebrew grammars. In ancient Hebrew ayth simply points to a definite object, whether corporeal or not. Perhaps you could cite your authority for the statement that it always refers to a corporeal Being from a RECENT authoritative and recognised scholarly source. I would be very interested to know of it. (I am not talking about modern Hebrew usage which is irrelevant for ancient Hebrew) 'Seeing God' can cover a number of situations Abraham saw, ate and chatted with God in Genesis 18. Jacob actually wrestled with God in person (Gen 32). In both cases God had taken to Himself a human body. In neither case is there any reason for suggesting that it was with the Son of God. There is no reason to think that before He became man the Son was in any way more viewable or approachable than the Father. It is purely supposition on our part. Moses saw God in a burning bush. The Israelites saw God in the pillar of fire at nights. The whole people saw God when 'the appearance of the glory of the LORD was like a devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyse of the children of Israel' (Exodus 24.17). But note references to the cloud. Some saw God as the Angel of the LORD (Gen 16; 21; etc). The Angel of the LORD is a manifesation of the LORD. We are not told anything else. Why should He necessarily be the Son? (It is not strictly correct to speak of 'Jesus - Joshua' before the incarnation. 'Jesus' was 'God made man'). Thus 'seeing' the God of Israel was not something new. And in my Bible there is no mention of a corporeal form, any more than there was in the vision of Isaiah 6. The reference to 'under His feet as it were --' may simply indicate 'below whatever they did see of Him'. There are no grounds for necessarily taking literally references to God's arms, hands or feet. They are regularly metaphors. He may have taken on a human form but it does not say so. They may simply have seen 'the appearance of fire' But what none of them had apparently seen was 'His glory' (Exodus 33.18). That was always veiled, either by a human form or by a cloud and smoke, or by some other means (God reveals as much of Himself as He wishes). Clearly we are intended to see that this manifestation to Moses in chapter 33 was like no other. Of course seeing God is never a sin. It is God who chooses whether we see Him or not. It is just that seeing God is so everwhelming that in the fullnes of His glory no human flesh could stand the sight. Dwelling in light which no man can approach to, Whom no man has seen, nor can see' (1 Timothy 6.16). And this applies to both Father and Son in the fullness of their glory. |
||||||
39 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | rabban | 191755 | ||
Hi Jeff, I actually study the original Greek and Hebrew texts although I try to avoid citing them in forums. With so many differing translations, some of which are more reliable than others when dealing with the finer points, while others are more of a paraphrase, it is very often necessary in the case of disputed texts like 1 Peter 3.19 to go back to the exact Greek text. Strictly speaking that is the only one which is inspired. (You failed to take note of the fact that my statement was about 'disputed texts' only). I did not suggest that anyone needed to be a scholar to understand the main doctrines of Scripture. Scripture is broad based and our beliefs should not be determined by a point here or a point there. But when we are dealing with an obscure phrase like 'spirits in prison' about which there is disagreement then certainly reference to the original text is important. We have to be exact. Otherwise we are treating Scripture lightly. It is my experience that the ones who most protest about going back to the Greek text are the first to say 'the Greek text means' when arguing their own case on some disputed position on, say, the second coming, when fitting it into their own schemes. However, we have now both made our positions clear. It would seem therefore best if we leave the matter here. Others can then judge each of our positions as they will. Sincerely in Him Rabban |
||||||
40 | in Prisons | 1 Pet 3:21 | rabban | 191754 | ||
Hi Jeff I was not 'offended'. Just pointing out that it is a waste of time to argue over something that has been disputed for 2000 years and will continue to be so to the end of time, and about which people have fixed and entrenched opinions. Even the answer I gave did not deal in any depth with the points that have to be considered. But I will leave it there. (If you wish to go into it more deeply see Selwyn's detailed and scholarly treatment in his commentary on 1 Peter. But note that he is not a conservative evangelical). I know of nowhere in the Scriptures that tell us when the fall of the angels took place. We have the shadowy figure behind the snake in Genesis 3, concerning whom we are only given the briefest hint; the 'son of the elohim' in Job 1 and 2, whom most assume to be the same; the opposer of Joshua the Hight Priest (satanas - adversary) in the time of Zechariah, ditto; and the deceiver of David (1 Chronicles 21.1), again the satanas. These only indicate ONE adversary of the people of God. As far as I am concerned Isaiah 14 is speaking of the King of Babylon and Ezekiel 28 of the King of Tyre. But even then each is only speaking of ONE person. We have no real grounds for reading into them the fall of angels. The first real hint that we have of enemy heavenly powers is in Daniel 10. But we are told NOTHING about their source. Thus I fail to see where you get the idea from of a 'fall of angels'in the Old Testament which can be dated, apart from Genesis 6.1-2, where again we have 'sons of the elohim' as in Job 1-2. Otherwise we owe it to Milton not the Bible. The New Testament writers never give any hint of believing in 'a fall of angels' outside Revelation. So the same picture emerges in the New Testament until we get to Revelation, apart from the fact that there we come across evil spirits/demons. We are told nothing of their background. We are told nothing about the evil angels in Revelation 9 except that they are in the abyss. We do not know when they were imprisoned there. The scene in Revelation 12 gives the impression that it is speaking of a time around the coming of Jesus Christ. Thus your assumption about a well known 'fall of angels', which I assume that you date before Adam (for which there is no Scriptural support at all) is not obtained from the Scriptures. The only indicators we have apart from these are in 1 Peter 2.19; 2 Peter 2.4 and Jude 6, one of which directly connects with the Flood, and the other two of which are in a series looking back to the Old Testament (angels, flood, Sodom and Gomorrah). Now as the ONLY mention of a fall of angels in the Old Testamentis found in Genesis 6.1-2 (which is by the way clearly seen in this way in Jewish tradition e.g. the Book of Enoch cited by Jude), then those references would seem to be pointing to that. There is nothing else in the Old Testament for them to refer to that is not simply the invention of men's fertile minds. Thus if Scripture is our authority 2 Peter and Jude can only refer to the angels who did not keep their separate status in Genesis 6.1-2. Jewish tradition can be cited that very much links the angels who fell at the flood with those who were cast in the pit (tradition which Jude cites) but I will not go into that. All I can say is that if you think you know when the angels fell (apart from Satan) other than in Genesis 6.1-2 then demonstrate it from Scripture. And perhaps you will also indicate where in Scripture mankind are called in an unqualified way 'spirits'. I have given you a number of references where angels are called 'spirits'. God bless Rabban |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |