Results 2241 - 2260 of 2277
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
2241 | Who's talking? | John 5:37 | Hank | 3737 | ||
This verse is part of a lengthy discourse between Jesus and the Jewish leaders who were persecuting Him for healing on the Sabbath (verse 16 of John 5).Clearly their hearts were hardened against Jesus and all He claimed to be. Now let's parse the two sentences that comprise verse 37. The first statement is: "And the Father who sent Me, He has born witness of Me." Jesus is clearly saying that it was the Father who, at His baptism for example, said "This is my beloved Son in Whom I am well pleased." Now the second statement, apart from the first, would seem to say that at no time has God's voice been heard by human ears. But we know that this cannot be the right way to view this second statement of Jesus. God spoke many times and in many ways to the Old Testament prophets and Jesus is not saying that the Father did not. What is being said is that the self-righteous Jews are so spiritually deaf and spiritually blinded that they "have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form." And then Jesus continues to develop his case against their hypocrisy and spiritual poverty when he says in the next sentence (verse 38), "You do not have His word abiding in you, for you do not believe Him whom He sent." Jesus was so fond of using the expression, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." In this passage Jesus makes it quite clear that these Jewish leaders had never heard the voice of God, even though their Creator had provided them with ears to hear. And what a lesson that is for us to ponder in our own hearts! --Hank | ||||||
2242 | For or against? | Gal 3:28 | Hank | 3732 | ||
JVH, I read for a third time Cyberbob's reference to Aimee Semple MacPherson's having started the foursquare church and he does not appear to look with disfavor upon this event. Mary Baker Eddy, also a woman, founded a church too. So did Joseph Smith, a man. And, for that matter, so did a lowly carpenter from Nazareth. Isn't the crucial question that begs an answer, "Whose church do I want to be a part of?" --Hank | ||||||
2243 | Woman head covering valid for today? | 1 Cor 11:10 | Hank | 3724 | ||
Dear Dave, your Christian humility that so clearly comes through in your question should be the envy of us all who call ourselves Christian. My heart is touched by it. Now, to your question. The clear point the apostle Paul is making in these verses to the church at Corinth embraces a theme far more extensive that wearing or not wearing head covers. In the culture of Corinth the covered head of the woman during worship was a symbol of her subordinate relationship to her husband. The apostle is not laying down an absolute law for women to wear head coverings in all churches for all time. In the Corinthian church of Paul's time, it would have been a sign of a wife's rebellion against her husband's divinely directed role in the marriage relationship for her to show up at a worship service with her head unadorned by a veil or other covering. The issue then is not head coverings per se. The broader issue is obedience to God's commands. In other cultures of Paul's day wearing head coverings or not would have been a moot issue because it held no symbolism for them. The same holds true today. A wife wearing a hat in a church in Chicago may have a good relationship with her husband, but a wife sitting bare-headed in the next pew may have an even better one. In our culture, the hat has no symbolic meaning; it says nothing. But it did to the Corinthians at the time Paul wrote this letter to them. It is the symbolic meaning, not the hat, that Paul is addressing. Hank. | ||||||
2244 | Is old testament of KJV same as Jewish | OT general | Hank | 3721 | ||
The original King James Version included a group of writings called the Apocrypha, a group of fifteen books which were never accepted in the Hebrew canon and not accepted by most Prostestants. Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches include them however. The Hebrew Old Testament canon is similiar to the Protestant canon, but the order of the books is different and some books are combined as well. There are English renderings of the Old Testament written from a Jewish perspective. You ask "was it the same during the life of Jesus on earth?" I'm not sure what the antecedent of "it" is, but I assume it to be referring to the books of the Old Testament that were considered Scripture in Jesus' time. If that is your question, the answer is no, the Jews of that day were not in agreement on what constituted Scripture and what did not. The religious sects of the time, the Sadducees, Pharisees and Essenes were not in unanimity about which of the Hebrew writings were the inspired word of God. To complicate things still further, the Hellenists (Jews who had adopted the Greek culture and language) had their own "Bible" called the Septuagint, which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew writings. No official canon was established for either the Old or New Testaments until some years after Jesus' ascension. The King James Version, although we hear the joke about its being the one Jesus and His disciples read, came along much later, in 1611. Hank. | ||||||
2245 | What is the Holy Spirit? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 3662 | ||
Al, in orthodox Christian theology the Holy Spirit is the third Person of the Trinity, and being a Person, not a thing, personal pronouns like Who (not what) and He (not it) are used in reference to Him. It is through the Holy Spirit that God acts, reveals, empowers and discloses His presence. The Holy Spirit was present at creation (Gen. 1:2), at Jesus' baptism (Lk.3:22), on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:4) that marked the birth of the church. These are but three of numerous accounts throughout the Bible of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. All of the apostolic writers bear clear witness to the reality of the Holy Spirit in the church. The apostle Paul, above all others, gives us the most profound theological insights on the nature and function of the Holy Spirit. See Romans 8; 1 Corinthians 2, 12, 13, 14); 2 Corinthians 3; and Galatians 5. .... Closely allied to and part of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is the distinctive Christian doctrine of the Trinity, a theological term used to define God as being in His nature threefold -- God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Attempts have been made to explain this concept in terms that the finite human mind can grasp. None have been quite adequate nor can they be, because God is transcendent, meaning that there is none like Him and therefore we can never say with definitiveness, God is like this or like that." God is God. He Himself said in response to Moses' request for the name of the God of the patriarchs "I AM WHO I AM." (Exodus 3:14). One illustration that has been offered in an attempt to help us understand the nature of the Trinity is this: A man is a father to his children. He is a son to his parents. He is a husband to his wife. He is the same man, he is one person, but he is viewed differently by, and plays different roles in the lives of, his children, his parents and his wife. This illustration falls far short of explanation of the Trinity, but perhaps it serves to open a small window to give us a pale, dim view into the mysteries of the Trinity. Paul's fine words in 1 Corinthians 13:12 reflect the human condition in which we all of us find ourselves, "For now we see in a mirror dimly...now I know in part, but then I will know fully..." ... The "nenowned theologian" to whom you refer as stating that the three (persons of the Godhead) are separate and distinct appears as if he may be espousing tritheism, one of two (unitarianism being the other) doctrines of the Trinity that are viewed as flawed and unorthodox. The orthodox view of the Trinity attempts to balance the concepts of unity and distinctiveness, that is, that God is one as the Shema affirms in Deut. 6:4: "Hear, O Israel! the LORD is our God, the LORD is one!" While that is true, God is one, he nonetheless manifests Himself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit -- three in one, three yet one, the triune God. Tritheism, on the other hand, stresses the distinctive nature of the Godhead to the point at which the Trinity is seen as three separate Gods, which amounts to a Christian polytheism. Unitarianism by contrast focuses exclusively on the concept of God the Father, thus relegating the Son and Holy Spirit to a lower category and made less than divine. Hank. | ||||||
2246 | Is it ok to hunt Easter eggs at church? | Eph 4:3 | Hank | 3636 | ||
There is no book, chapter, or verse in the Bible that speaks of hunting Easter eggs on church grounds or off. You say that your church does not believe in hunting Easter eggs and add that for the past three years you have watched your children look forward to this pastime. Have they hunted eggs at church for the past three years? If the activity has taken place at church, has the church changed its mind on the issue or have you changed churches?Have you talked with your pastor? No doubt he will be able to explain the church's thinking about church-sponsored Easter egg hunts. This is one of a great number of relatively minor issues that church leaders are called upon to set church policy for. Argument can be advanced pro and con for virtually any issue, of course, including this one. Proponents could argue that this is a harmless activity for children in the church which provides them an opportunity for fellowship in a wholesome church environment. Opponents could easily argue the question, "What does hiding eggs have to do with the Lord's resurrection?" And so the debate goes on. The central issue, it seems to me, is not about hiding or not hiding Easter eggs on church property. The central issue of all these minor issues on which there is hardly clear-cut Bible authority one way or the other is in how the church leadership deals with them in order to maintain harmony and unity within the church. Churches have been torn apart over petty issues no more weighty than Easter egg hunts. The Bible may indeed be silent about hunting eggs but it is far from silent about preserving unity in the church, the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:3). Hank. | ||||||
2247 | Jesus condemn soldier to life on Earth? | Amos 1:1 | Hank | 3615 | ||
JVH has responded to your question with the correct Biblical reference: There is none. Is the movie to which you refer a Hollywood production or a private production under the auspices of some religious or special-interest group? In either case, of course, it would appear to have its basis in fantasy and not fact. Some plays and movies about Biblical themes contain just enough factual material to give them a hint of truth, but are in reality dangerously misleading for one who is not sufficiently versed in the Scriptures. Some are nakedly blasphemous, e.g., Jesus Christ, Superstar. There's a lot of wild stuff out there, and Christians must ever be on guard. We are not immune to being deceived. Hank | ||||||
2248 | Allowed to wish all a Happy Easter? | Acts 12:4 | Hank | 3586 | ||
The Japanese term for what we call Easter which you kindly translate for us who flunked Japanese 101 as "Resurrection Celebration" comes much closer to the real meaning of of what the occasion is all about than the word "Easter" does. One wonders what we'd call it had the KJV translators rendered the word in Acts 12:4 as "Passover" the way modern English translations do. The Hebrew for Passover is "pesech" and the Greek is "pascha" -- hence the term "paschal Lamb" referring to Christ. The name "Easter" derives from the Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring (Eostre). Easter was originally observed on the day following the end of the Passover fast (which was the 14th of Nisan according to the Jewish calendar) regardless of the day of the week on which it fell. It is also interesting to note that the date of December 25, our Christmas, may well have had its origin in paganism. The most widely accepted theory is that December 25 had already been a major pagan festival, that of Sol Invictus, the "birth" of the "Unconquerable Sun." With the triumph of Christianity, Christians replaced the pagan festival with Christmas, thus the "Unconquerable Sun" became the "Victorious Son" or perhaps the "Sun of Righteousness" (Malachi 4:2) Isn't it interesting that neither word -- Christmas nor Easter -- is mentioned in the Bible (except "Easter" once in KJV which means "Passover"? Furthermore, the Bible gives no instruction to observe them as church ordinances, as it does for baptism and the Lord's Supper, for example. It's hard to find real fault with the custom of setting aside a special day on which to center our thought on the birth of our Lord and another on which to pause and reflect on His resurrection. But in a real sense every day in the life of a Christian is, or indeed ought to be, a celebration of the true meaning of both Christmas and Easter. Hank. | ||||||
2249 | Whatever happened to Joseph?? | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 3388 | ||
Bible scholars and historians are generally agreed that Joseph likely died before Jesus' public ministry. Our information about him is indeed sketchy, but then he is not the focal figure of the gospels. | ||||||
2250 | Verses pertaining to moral and religous | Ex 20:3 | Hank | 3386 | ||
The Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:2-17 and Deut.5:6-21) form a summary statement for what the Hebrews called the Law or Torah. God gave them to his servant Moses on Mount Sinai some 1,500 years before the Advent of Christ. For some 35 centuries they have formed the backbone of moral and ehtical standards, not only for the ancient Hebrews but for the church as well. Jesus expanded and elaborated on these principles in His Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7). The Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are two places in the Bible that are well known for their teachings on moral and ethical standards and values. By today's "politically correct" standards, the Bible is unequivocally intolerant of other religions, understood to mean any other religion that worships a diety besides Yahweh, the God of the Bible. It is in fact more than intolerant of the practice; it outright condemns it. The very first of the Ten Commandments says in plain language, "You shall have no others gods before Me." (Ex. 20:3). The latter part of your question deals in a general way with Christian faith and ethics and it is impossible to encapsulate so broad an area in a brief response such as this. Whole books, literally hundreds of them, have been written on this very subject of Christian faith and ethics (moral philosophy or moral values mean generally the same thing as ethics). While I lay no claim to possession of any physic powers whatever, speaking as a father and a grandfather, I somehow sense that you may be a young person who is seeking God's will in your life amidst a sea of the conflicting philosophies of today's pluralistic society. We live in a world in which moral absolutes are no longer viewed as existing, much less something to be believed and incorporated into one's behavior. One way to get to know what the Bible teaches about the issues mentioned in your question is to begin with the New Testament, and go through it verse by verse with a marking pen in hand and mark every passage that seems to speak to the various points in your question. Go back and review what you have marked, perhaps several times. In time, I assure you, you will have a firm grasp of what the Christian is to believe and of what God teaches about moral standards. This is no quick-fix. It is by no means easy. But the blessings you will incur will be enormous and will continue to bless you your whole life through. God be with you, Monica ... always. Hank | ||||||
2251 | Intimidated by the word "doctrine"? | 2 Tim 3:16 | Hank | 3370 | ||
When I was a young boy I used to sit in the church pew between my parents, miserable in a white shirt saturated in Faultless Starch, and hear the preacher talk about doctrine, doctrine, nothing but doctrine, or so it seemed to me. I had no idea of what he meant by doctrine, of course, and by the time the service was ended I was so glad to get home and get out of that wretched starched shirt that I never thought about asking my parents what doctrine was all about. So I invented a definition of my own. The word sounded to my young ears a lot like doctor so I figured it must have something to do with people being sick and going to a doctor. Little did I dream then that I had stumbled upon as good as definition as there is of doctrine. As JVH has pointed out, it means nothing but teaching. That's all. In the New Testament, it is the teaching of Christ Jesus and is intended to heal a spiritually sick world. He is the Doctor (Great Physician) and the doctrine is for sick people. An eight-year old boy in a starched shirt had it right after all. Hank | ||||||
2252 | real presence? | 1 Cor 11:29 | Hank | 3369 | ||
The widely held view among Protestants is that the elements of communion, the bread and the cup, are symbols of Christ's body and blood, thus the view that neither the Corinthian passagenor any other Scripture supports the literal-body view. The dogma known as transubstantation, endemic to Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communions, teaches that the eucharistic elements at their consecration become the body and blood of Christ while keeping only the appearance of bread and wine. A strong argument for the Protestant point of view is given by Christ Himself at His institution of the Lord's Supper. The account recorded in Matthew 26:26-29 with parallel passages in the other two synopic gospels.Verse 26 reads as follows: "While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, "Take, eat, this is My body." He did the same thing with the cup, calling it His blood. The evidence is overwhelming that the disciples ate bread and drank the fruit of the vine. They did not physically partake of His body nor drink any of His blood. The view that virtually all Protestant faiths have taken for centuries is that this is symbolism and nothing else. A reading of the entire 1 Corinthian letter, by the way, may lead one to interpret this passage on the Lord's Supper in the light that some members of the Corinthian church were profaning the sanctity of the church by holding secular feasts and exhibiting behavior unbecoming to believers. Some New Testament scholars, by the way, see "body" in your reference as being the church, the body of Christ. Hank | ||||||
2253 | Do we always have to debate? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 3321 | ||
Mr. EdB, before I attempt to post a response to anyone's question or concern, I always examine the previous postings (if any) of that person and read his or her profile if it exists. I have looked at your postings (would you consider doing a profile?) and you strike me as an honest, conscientious Christian (it should suffice to say Christian and leave off the adjectives, but these days perhaps the qualifiers are warranted) and someone worth knowing. What you have to say shows the earmarks of having been well thought out before you post it on the Forum. It is clear from your writings that you have concerns about the Forum and you are by no means alone. It can be improved and I believe in time it will be. This is an experimental enterprise for Lockman and for us, the users. The Forum is in but its second month and we are all of us trying to grope our way and find our stride, as it were. Some sort of monitoring may indeed be the way we should go. One does have the tendency on occasion to ask "Who's in charge here?" But a monitor, or leader, or moderator -- take you pick -- would face a serious problem of logistics, it seems to me. What I mean by that is this: We can never quite hope to duplicate on the Web the warm, close and immediate inter-action between human beings that is possible in a classroom or seminar setting. There may, for example, be a lapse time of several hours or even a couple of days between the asking of a question and a response to it. Moreover, we know next to nothing about each other on this Forum. There is little way to divine what may be behind a question, for example. Is the questioner posing an honest question or he is trying to be cute or funny or tricky. Is he seeking the truth of God's word or merely playing games? Similiar questions could be asked of the respondents. Do they know what they are talking about? Are their answers soundly based on Scripture and is their response a reasonable exegesis of the Biblical text, or is it indeed based on nothing more than their own "spin"? Is this Forum being used by some, not to promote the understanding of God's word, but to promote instead one's own bias or private agenda of some sort? These are tough questions but they need to be addressed and dealt with if this Forum matures to the status of becoming a source for sound, reliable information and exegesis on the Bible. The Lockman Foundation is a paradigm for accuracy in translating the Bible and for showing deep reverence for its Author. In like manner, all we say here should be as accurate as we can make it -- and as reverent. EdB, I am in your debt, sir. Your thought has indeed been a catalyst for mine. Hank. | ||||||
2254 | Which Bible versions to stay away from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 3268 | ||
Nolen, I think you are right that it would probably be imprudent to list by name some of the more, shall we say?, non-orthodox renderings of the sacred text. However, some broad-spectrum guidelines that I follow and have outlined elsewhere on the Forum are these: Is this a translation or merely a paraphrased version? Has the translation been made mainly by one person? Is the translation made by and largely for a definable sect or cult? What philosophy of translating Scripture did (or do) the translators subscribe to? Are the translators on record as believers that the sacred text is the plenary, verbal and infallible word of God? Is the product of what they have done rendered in accordance with standard English usage, and is it grammatically correct? Does it honor and revere God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit? If a version can pass muster on all these points, I applaud it. If it can't I walk away from it. | ||||||
2255 | Jesus Crowned Lord of All | Is 62:3 | Hank | 3192 | ||
Isaiah 62:3 has the phrase "royal diadem." Fredonia, are you possibly thinking of the hymn "All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name?" The opening stanza is: "All hail the power of Jesus' name!Let angels prostrate fall;Bring forth the royal diadem,And crown Him Lord of all."Those words were written by Edward Perronet in 1779. | ||||||
2256 | What does "world" mean? | John 17:11 | Hank | 3178 | ||
I fail to read anything into the meaning of "world" besides just plain "earth". This passage is part of Jesus' high priestly prayer not long before he was led to the cross. He knew he was destined soon to be "no longer in the world." | ||||||
2257 | Adultery Sexual or Covenant Breaking | NT general Archive 1 | Hank | 3177 | ||
Your question is complex, involving a number of related but different issues. In all honesty I'm not sure it can be dealt with in a specific, detailed manner on the Forum. I won't attempt it. And I can offer no quick-fix answers. I've no idea who these "some people" in your question are, but I can't subscribe to their views. If you are earnestly seeking a Bible answer to the questions raised, and it's assumed you are, may I suggest you read, with the help of a good study Bible or commentary, all the references you can find to the issues you raise in your question. Read and study them several times -- as many times as necessary to soak up what that really are saying. I believe you will come away with God's answers to your questions. I wish you well. Good reading! | ||||||
2258 | What happens to Non-Christians? | John 14:6 | Hank | 3166 | ||
The language Jesus uses in John 14:6 is plain, clear, forthright and leaves little wiggle room. But we are disciples of the King, ambassadors for the gospel; nothing more, nothing less. God never appointed us to judge the world. That fearful and awesome responsiblity rests upon His shoulders, and His alone. We are in sales. He is in management. In his first letter to Corinth Paul addresses the subject of spiritual gifts and in 12:31 says this, "I show you a still more excellent way." Read in context the meaning is clear. He is saying that the right way to exercise all spiritual gifts is the way of love. Thus when the Christian's approach to all non-Christians -- believers in something or believers in nothing -- is with a loving heart and a sincere and humble attitude that says quietly, "Please, if I may, let me show you what I have found and have come to believe is a more excellent way." No bigotry. No assertions that my God is better than your God. No condemnation. No judgment ... But it could be asked, "Isn't the Bible often judgmental?" The answer, of course, is Yes, it is. Does that give us the authority to be judgmental also? No, it doesn't. We have every right and reason to condemn sin, in ourselves and others. We have no right to condemn sinners. Hank | ||||||
2259 | Is it considered wrong to wear shorts? | Lev 9:22 | Hank | 3121 | ||
Dear waterlily, I don't suggest you reveal the name of the magazine to which you refer, but I must say my curiosity jumped into high gear! From your account it's not so much that the verses were taken out of context as it is that the writer of the article missed the meaning of the text. The Leviticus account is talking about incest, not nakedness. The phrase "to uncover the nakedness" is a Hebrew euphemism for having sexual relations. What this has to do with wearing shorts or seeing our children naked is beyond my comprehension. Are we to make sure our children are fully clothed before we bathe them? If your magazine is by subscription, you might want to consider letting it quietly expire. May God richly bless. Hank. | ||||||
2260 | Did you know we did it? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 3082 | ||
JVH, I hereby nominate you Official Statistician for the Forum! Thanks for the good news; I feel certain many other users join in on the Hallelujah Chorus. Now let's prepare for a quantum leap from one thousand to one million. The possibilities of this Forum are vast. Who knows but that something someone says here will bring a precious soul to a saving knowledge of our Lord. I pray that this will happen. ... By the way, would you mind making my grape juice purple? Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 ] Next > Last [114] >> |