Results 241 - 260 of 2452
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Reformer Joe Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Reformer Joe | 80754 | ||
Okay...sorry to complicate things with Scriptural truth! :) --Joe! |
||||||
242 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Reformer Joe | 80748 | ||
'Prayerfull...someone seeking an answer of "sufferings" will realize Paul is speaking of persecutions and hardships due to our association with the person of Jesus the Messiah, and will realize one can't erase 'messenger of Satan' and write 'sickness and desease or affliction' as Paul's thorn.' When one is afflicted by demonic activity, does it not often result in physical ailment? Think of those oppressed by demons in Scripture who were mute or suffered seizures. Could Paul have been suffering physical torment from this messenger of Satan? I don't think anyone was arguing for erasing one thing and inserting another, but rather to suggest that the former could very well have manifested itself as the latter. --Joe! |
||||||
243 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Reformer Joe | 80747 | ||
"I do believe all scriptural truth can be traced back to His teachings, although in the other letters, there is often much more detail." Then show me where Jesus condemned homosexuality. This is the same argument ("Jesus never mentioned it") that the pro-"gay Christian" people use. The fact is that all Scripture is God-breathed, and if there is significant teaching outside of the gospels on any matter, it doesn't matter if Jesus himself addressed it at length or not. "Since physical healing was a MAJOR emphasis of His ministry, how do you think such a MAJOR exclusion as never telling ANYONE who asked for healing, that it was God's will for them to remain sick for awhile." 1. I don't think it was nearly as major as you seem to think it is. How many of his miracles did not involve healing at all? Compare the number of references to Jesus healing to the number of parables He told. Add in all of the teaching moments, sermons, and so on. While His healing ministry was not tiny, it certainly wasn't a MAJOR focus of why He was here. In fact, I think it is safe to reasonably conclude that His healing of people was more about Himself than it was about their maldies. 2. While Jesus did heal the man born blind, was it God's will that he be blind from birth up until that moment? Didn't Jesus say that Himself? --Joe! |
||||||
244 | Is 'Pneuma' really feminine? | Jer 7:18 | Reformer Joe | 80687 | ||
"Since it is neutrul as you say does this not mean it can also be feminine as well as masculine." Why would you draw that conclusion? "I see no reason to argue a point that does not contradict my previous statement but merely reaffirms it." Sure it contradicts it. You claimed the the Holy Spirit is female because (you claimed) the word "pneuma" is feminine. Your conclusion fails because it was founded on incorrect premises. Nothing is affirmed but your lack of knowledge of Greek gender. The word for "helper" in John 16:7, referring to the Holy Spirit, is masculine. By the same pattern of thinking you used, the Holy Spirit is therefore male, right? Now is there something wrong with your logic, or are you willing to concede the masculinity of the Holy Spirit based on the gender of "parakletos"? --Joe! |
||||||
245 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 80686 | ||
"This does not create a theological problem for me." Then which is it? Did God give the thorn in the flesh or was Satan willingly doing the sanctifying work of God? 'In context...the truth that "by His wounds we were healed" does not change. His wounds, our healing.' Yes, our spiritual healing. That is what the context suggests, and no support is found for any alternative understanding. To say that the single clause in 1 Peter 2:24 refers to physical sickness would be forcing a meaning onto the text that doesn't fit in with anything Peter is talking about this passage (or even in the whole of his epistle). You many choose to hold to that understanding, but that doesn't change the fact that, exegetically speaking, it is an unwarranted one. --Joe! |
||||||
246 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 80569 | ||
Hi again; you wrote: 'Given by God and allowed by God are totally different. Scripture says it was a messenger(angel) FROM Satan. Scripture does not say "from God". God simply did not 'remove' it AND told Paul why!' Let's look at the verse in question: 'Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself, there was given me a thorn in the flesh, a messenger of Satan to torment me--to keep me from exalting myself! Concerning this I implored the Lord three times that it might leave me. And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.' --2 Corinthians 12:7-9 We see the verb "given." The messenger is definitely of Satan, but precisely who did the giving? If we say that this was a gift of Satan, we have a theological problem: "Because of the surpassing greatness of the revelations, for this reason, to keep me from exalting myself"...Satan gave me a thorn in the flesh? Does this make sense to you? Either God did the giving or Satan is willingly doing the sanctifying work of God. Speaking of Epaphroditus, you wrote: "Paul did praise him for his Godly faith in continuing in service despite the sickness in his body and secondly God healed him." I must admit confusion on your position here. Why did FAITHFUL Epaphroditus get so sick and stay sick so long, if it was never God's will for that to happen? And, yes, God healed HIM. That was an act of His sovereign mercy, according to Paul, and not an obligation on God's part. Where do we see that He is obliged to heal everyone in the same manner? And regarding 1 Peter 2:24, let's look at the context: "For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH; and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls." --1 Peter 2:21-25 Now, reading the whole paragraph, is Peter's focus sin and spiritual healing, or illness and physical healing? Please support your answer in the context of his argument in the paragraph, chapter, and epistle. Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
247 | 2 Corinthians- What is 'suffering' | 2 Cor 1:5 | Reformer Joe | 80559 | ||
Hi. You wrote: "God inflicted me with sickness to teach me endurance...Thess scriptures tell us that because of our association with Christ Jesus, the world will hate us and persecute us and even try to kill us...And the more diligent and faithful the greater the persecutions." In many cases, yes. However, how is Paul being shipwrecked an example of persecution by Christ-haters? A more complete list is below. How many of these things come from human beings, and how many do not? "I have been on frequent journeys, in dangers from rivers, dangers from robbers, dangers from my countrymen, dangers from the Gentiles, dangers in the city, dangers in the wilderness, dangers on the sea, dangers among false brethren; I have been in labor and hardship, through many sleepless nights, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure." --2 Corinthians 11:26-27 Speaking of the "thorn in the flesh," you wrote: "Nothing here even remotely eludes to sickness or desease, much less sickness and desease GOD sent to humble!" There has been much debate on the exact nature of the thorn, of course, but there are a few things that we can be certain of: 1. While it was from Satan, it is also true to say it was given by God, since the purpose was to keep Paul from exalting Himself. Satan's purpose is never to humble us before God our Father. 2. Paul prayed for it to be removed, and God refused to do so, for a very specific purpose. So whether we are talking about sickness or not, God ordains that uncomfortable, unhappy, and dangerous things happen to His children for His glory. Why someone would simply cut sickness out of that list of uncomfortable, unhappy, and dangerous things doesn't make a lot of sense. One more note on sickness: Paul praises Epaphroditus as an example of godly faith in Philippians 2 for sacrificing himself for the cause of Christ in spite of his life-threatening illness. Not once is anything mentioned about a lack of faith or a failure to realize that sickness is not for God's people. This would have been the ideal time to mention that Epaphroditus "didn't have to be sick," but we see nothing of the sort. --Joe! |
||||||
248 | queen of heaven | Jer 7:18 | Reformer Joe | 80541 | ||
Careful...citing me as an authority isn't helping my ego! :) --Joe! |
||||||
249 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Reformer Joe | 80539 | ||
By the way, you didn't really answer my question. Did Jesus Himself have to say something in order for it to be biblical truth? Thanks! --Joe! |
||||||
250 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Reformer Joe | 80537 | ||
"I have not dialogued with you before, welcome. Alright, good, so who go to this "real place",where is it,why do they go there, and you mentioned Matt. 25:46, for how long?' Well, what adjective does Jesus use to describe the punishment? --Joe! |
||||||
251 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Reformer Joe | 80531 | ||
Hi. You wrote: "Not one time did Jesus encounter in His entire 3 years of ministry, the first person who was supposed to be sick because God wanted to teach them something" The gospels show: 'As He passed by, He saw a man blind from birth. And His disciples asked Him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he would be born blind?" Jesus answered, "It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world." When He had said this, He spat on the ground, and made clay of the spittle, and applied the clay to his eyes, and said to him, "Go, wash in the pool of Siloam" (which is translated, Sent). So he went away and washed, and came back seeing. Therefore the neighbors, and those who previously saw him as a beggar, were saying, "Is not this the one who used to sit and beg?"' --John 9:1-8 While Jesus certainly healed this man, he also specifically said there was purpose in his being born blind: "it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him." God had sovereignly decreed that this man spend the first part of his life in total darkness, specifically for the purpose of glorifying Himself in the healing of the man's blindness. Jesus used the blind man and his healing to teach his disciples that He is the Light of the world. Others saw the healing of the man born blind and could not dispute the authority of Jesus. "There was such a major part of His ministry don't you believe He would have been wise enough to teach us that God makes us sick to teach us?" So why did God make the man blind from birth? "No..I do not believe sickness is the chastening rod of God." Chastening implies sin. No one is saying that all sickness is punishment. Does suffering have purpose, however? What does 1 Peter have to say about suffering? Is it meaningless and unnecessary? --Joe! |
||||||
252 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Reformer Joe | 80505 | ||
"Tell me ONE time JESUS told someone they had to remain sick because it was God's sovereign will?" Why does Jesus have to say it in order for it to be true? There are a lot of Scriptural truths that Jesus Himself is not recorded as saying. Things that Jesus verbalized are not any more or less true than the Psalms or Pauls' teaching in 2 Corinthians. --Joe! |
||||||
253 | Did Jesus go to hell? | 1 Peter | Reformer Joe | 80504 | ||
In addition, all of Jesus' parables spoke of REALISTIC situations if not actual situations. Lost coins, prodigal sons, and virgins waiting for the bridegroom all refer to situations that really occur, in real places. Not one of Jesus' parables take place in some fantasy realm that doesn't correspond to reality. If the setting of Lazarus and the rich man is a fictitious one, then it is out-of-step with every other parable that Jesus told. Additionally, Jesus would be misleading in providing a fictitious description of the afterlife without indicating that the setting of his tale was a figment of his imagination. "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life." --Matthew 25:46 --Joe! |
||||||
254 | Is baptism a sign of the New Covenant? | Luke 22:20 | Reformer Joe | 80502 | ||
Hey again, Tim. You wrote: "Is this the way that the average Jew understood circumcision?" I don't know, but the important question is, what did God mean by it? "It seems to me that they viewed circumcision as necessary for being part of the covenant, which of course is why Paul had problems with the Judaizers" I think that the problem Paul has with the Judaizers was their refusal to understand that the people of God included those who were not part of God's covenant through Moses. Their problem was failing to understand how Christ's revelation had changed the way God works. One did not have to become a Jew in order to be a covenant member anymore. "But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity." --Ephesians 2:13-16 I also see throughout the Bible a distinction between the covenant people of God and those who are truly God's children. Obviously, there is considerable overlap, but the two groups are not completely identical. Jesus stressed this when he pointed out to the Pharisees that their ancestor may have been Abraham, but their father was the devil. Likewise, I do believe that baptism includes us in the covenant people of God, but that being part of the New Covenant and being saved are not synonymous. Just like we had the Achans and the Nadabs and Abihus and the Manassahs who were among God's covenant people but most definitely not saved, so we have those who breakers of the New Covenant as well. "They tried to take the same approach with salvation." And they were wrong to do so. Covenantal membership is not synonymous with salvation (not to mention the fact that the New Covenant represented a completely new dispensation of God's redemption). "But, more to the point, there still isn't any New Testament verse which speaks of any kind of sign of our New Covenant, so I would hesitate to apply that term to anything." Not me! You know what a rash guy I can be sometimes! :) --Joe! |
||||||
255 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Reformer Joe | 80499 | ||
"So why did we not just go on using the signs of the Old Covenant after Jesus' sacrifice if He had made them efficaious?" Several reasons: 1. The gospel in its fulness had been revealed in Jesus Christ's life, death, and resurrection. Once the atonement occurred in time and space, the foreshadowing rituals had been explained and fulfilled. 2. Circumcision and sacrifices were bloody rituals, teaching the Israelites of the need of the shedding of blood for the remission of sins. Now that Christ demonstrated that in himself, no need to be slaying Lambchop as a sign and seal. The writer of Hebrews is very instructive in this regard when he indicates that continuing the OT sacrifices will be of no benefit to the Hebrew church now that the thing signified has been revealed. This implies that prior to the Incarnation that there was indeed a benefit (although not justifying) for participating in the sacrifices and eating the covenant meals associated with them. 'Was anyone baptized into Jesus before Jesus or as Paul says were they "baptized into Moses?' By being "baptized into Moses," I think Paul is using the name of Moses to signify the Mosaic Covenant. The Israelites were not "the body of Moses," for example, in the same way that those baptized into Christ are members of His body. And I believe that the OT covenant people who were "baptized into Moses" were just as much as part of the body of Christ as I am, despite their lack of complete revelation on the matter. 'Did Jesus ever say of bulls or any other animal: "this is my body" or "this is my blood"?' No, but John the Baptist prophetically said, "Behold, the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world!" The Jewish audience knew exactly what he was referring to. And, as you said, the OT rituals were shadows of the reality, and I believe that baptism and communion are signs and seals of the reality. In neither case, in the Protestant view, are sacraments the reality themselves. Additionally, did Jesus ever refer to baptismal water as His body and blood? No, but you and I both agree that there is some efficacy in the sacrament. The same passage you cite (1 Corinthians 10:1-4) does indicate that the Israelites were spiritual partakers of Christ, though. I think that our theological difference here stems more from our respective positions on the Eucharist and what it does. In other words, I don't think we disagree so much on what the OT sacraments did as much as we disagree on what the NT sacraments confer upon the recipient. --Joe! |
||||||
256 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Reformer Joe | 80483 | ||
' If the signs instituted by Jesus are no more efficaious than the signs of the Old Covenenant, what did Jesus accomplish and what difference does He make? That would fly in the face of the major point made in Hebrews." Hebrews makes many points, so I am not absolutely sure to which one you refer. If you mean the statement that the blood of sacrificial bulls and goats can never take away sins, then I would agree and add that neither can water nor bread and wine. Still, the faithful Israelite participated in this ritual. Was it an empty symbol or was there a union between this sacrifice and the atoning work of the Lamb of God? Jesus accomplished salvation for those who died before He was born as well. The fact that he accomplished this in a specific place at a specific time does not take away from the eternality of the redemption purchased. --Joe! |
||||||
257 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Reformer Joe | 80466 | ||
Hi, Emmaus. You wrote: "When Moses sprinkled water or blood on the people it was a sign, but it was not efficaious, because the water and the blood did not flow from Moses and even if they did, his blood and water could not save only foreshadow." I think that the actions of Moses were indeed efficacious, even though I agree that they did not save. The sprinkling of blood (Exodus 24:8) did exactly what God intended it to do: ratify the covenant between Himself and the nation of Israel. In that outward act, the recipients of the sprinkling were covenantally bound. "The difference between the old signs that were not efficaious and the new signs that are is Jesus." Were the old signs not efficacious? Think back to the first Passover. There certainly was an effect there! I don't find much evidence that the old rites were any more or less efficacious than the ones instituted by Jesus. Making Passover and circumcision bare symbols is just as mistaken as doing that to baptism and communion, IMO. They didn't do everything, but they accomplished something. --Joe! |
||||||
258 | is sadaam hussien the anti-christ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Reformer Joe | 80461 | ||
No. | ||||||
259 | What or who did the rock signify/ | Luke 22:20 | Reformer Joe | 80459 | ||
"How does spiritual rock which followed them also be in paticular locations?" I don't think Paul means that Jesus was physically the rock from which the water flowed. However, Paul makes an association between the physical and the spiritual. The cloud, the sea, the food (manna), and the rock were all physical realities in the desert which pointed to Jesus Christ. Paul is saying that Jesus was spiritually with His covenant people in the wilderness, and the physical provision of God pointed to the spiritual realities. Nonetheless, the context makes it clear that Paul is connecting Christ to specific physical objects in the life of the Israelites in the wilderness years. Jesus Himself associates His life-giving existence to the manna from heaven in John 6:30-33. And in communion, there is a spiritual union between the signs and the things that they signify. --Joe! |
||||||
260 | Robots? | Gen 4:7 | Reformer Joe | 80412 | ||
"This is your evidence that lost man does only evil and every motive is suspect?" Actually, I gave at least four Scripture references. Why did you select this one instead of Romans 3? "Then you must be consistent and believe that the regenerated mind set on the things of the spirit only has pure motives." It is not inconsistent to deny this. Those who are in the flesh CANNOT please God. That does not mean that those who are born again ALWAYS please God. The two are not mutually exclusive propositions. I can please God as a Christian, but I frequently do not. "Because man is separated from God because of sin, it does not follow that everything that man does is evil. That is an improper leap." Again, if you have some Scripture that suggests the contrary (regarding the unbeliever), then let's look at it. I think the statement that "THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD, THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE" speaks for itself. "I'll close once again by saying how sad your view of man is." Well, I have never said it is a happy view. The question, however, whether it is an accurate (i.e. biblical) view. "The gifts of men, the kindnesses of men, the sacrifices of men: they are all ultimately evil, in your opinion." Anything not done for God's glory is ultimately evil. --Joe! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [123] >> |