Results 241 - 260 of 380
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | Bible verses' to suport how we are known | Luke | biblicalman | 228496 | ||
the truth is that we are given no information about recognition in heaven nor of how old we will appear. indeed as we will have spiritual bodies the latter questiion is a non-starter. The rich man in Luke 16 recognised Abraham but that may have been parabolic. Indeed how would he know what Abraham looked like? We must recognise that we will know the Lord and He will know us. That is what will really matter. Best wishes |
||||||
242 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228494 | ||
The Scriptures say of Jesus Christ: 'By Him all things were made that were made' (John 1.3). 'By a Son by Whom also God made the world' (Hebrews 1.3). 'Through Him God created everything in heaven and earth --' (Colossians 1.16). 'He was already in existence before all things, and by Him all things hold together' (Colossians 1.17). Did not Jesus Christ then, like the Father, know the end of this creation from the beginning? The distinctions within the God head are not just distinctions of operations, if you mean by that what I think your mean, they are personal distinctions. 'The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world'. 'The Father has committed all judgment to His Son'. The distinction is real between Father and Son. It is the Son Who will save, and not the Father. It is the Son Who will judge and not the Father. And yet they work in total harmony. 'The Son does nothing on His own, He does only what He sees the Father do.' (Jn 5.19). Thus He observes the Father's doings, and Himself does the same. There are two distinct personal entities. The Son is given equal honour with the Father (John 5.23). Both are co-equal. 'All that My Father has is mine' (John 16.19). They co-own the universe, but in distinction. These are just a few Scriptures which bring out the relationship between Father and Son. The reason Jesus is called 'the Son' is in order to indicate His sameness of nature with the Father. |
||||||
243 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228491 | ||
The problem here is that you are giving your own definition to the word 'person' Person does not necessarily mean 'individual' or 'human being'. Our problem is always in finding human language which can be used to describe God. Certainly God is not three individuals, nor is He three human beings. In fact strictly the word used throughout history has been 'persona' which is not as strong as person. True the Father is Spirit, the Son is Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is Spirit. And the Spirit of the Son became man. This latter fact empohasises the distinctions within the Godhead. God is One and yet within Him is a threeness, and this threeness is intercomunicating and inter-personal. Thus Father communicates with Son, and Son with Father, and both communicate with the Spirit. Their relationship is inter-personal. For convenience we speak of three persons. We have no other word to use. But we must put the in proviso that God is not three separate individuals. Jesus clearly revealed this when He said, 'He who has seen Me has seen the Father'. In other words so close is the relationship between Father and Son that to see One is to see the other. Nevertheless the fact is that the Son became man and the Father did not. Thus they are not simply modes of the same Being. There is a separateness between them. |
||||||
244 | Take up another's offense or not? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228489 | ||
I am not sure if this has been answered, so if not, try Matthew 5.23-25; 18.15-17 for both sides of the picture with regard to putting right sin. As you will see the second verses specifically indicate a way in which we should take up another's offence. If we love one another we will certianly be concerned for their hurt. I am not aware of a verse which says what you say. Best wishes |
||||||
245 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228486 | ||
you said: If Jesus was with God eternally why would he deny him in these verses in Isaiah if he was there and coequal. Reply. The verses do not deny that the Son was an essentisl part of God. They only declare that God is One. There is only One God, revealed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, The Son was with the Father eternally, both being part of the Godhead. Jesus was the eternal God become man. There are distinctions WITHIN the Godhead. We only know this because that is how God has revealed Himself. So all the verses you cite simply indicate the Oneness of the Triune God The further verses, along with others, reveal that the One Who became flesh was God become man. The Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. That is why Jesus is constantly declared to be 'the LORD', there is one God, the Father, and one LORD, the Son. Both are God and LORD. They are, along with the Holy Spirit, the one God and one LORD. |
||||||
246 | where does it talk bout insest being bad | Lev 18:9 | biblicalman | 228483 | ||
leviticus 18.9 | ||||||
247 | romans ch1 v.7 no Holy Spirit why? | Rom 1:4 | biblicalman | 228471 | ||
The aim was to focus the attention on God the Father and on His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit was to be relied on and experienced but attention was not to be focussed on Him. Such a focus often leads to extremism. God the Father was very much seen as the God of the Old Testament Jesus Christ was the new revelation of God as LORD. Both were seen as acting towards God's people, as Creator, Redeemer. and Shepherd. The people were, however, very much aware of the work of the Holy Spirit among them. But worship was to be directed towards Father and Son, with the Holy Spirit's encouragement and inspiration. He was, however, included in Jesus' baptismal statement (Matthew 28.19) and in Paul's epilogue in 2 Corinthians 13.4. |
||||||
248 | is there anywhere in the bible that says | Mark 7:19 | biblicalman | 228469 | ||
In the Old Testament it was forbidden to eat animals unless they 'parted the hoof and chewed the cud'. Only animals within that description could be guaranteed to both eat wholesome food and graze in healthy areas. Other animals ate food from places were death was common, or went to places where death prevailed. It was an object lesson to Israel about healthy and wholesome living, and the necessity of avoiding places of death. It undoubtdly saved them from many health problems, especially while they were in the wilderness. But once Jesus came, the epitome of holy living, the object lesson became unnecessary, and He declared all foods clean. As with all the other ordinances it was fulfilled in Jesus. |
||||||
249 | who was nicodemus | John 3:1 | biblicalman | 228467 | ||
Nicodemus was a leading Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish body that ruled Judea. He came secretly to Jesus to find an answer to his questions (John 3). He also sought to defend Jesus before the Pharisees (John 7.50) and helped Joseph of Arimathea to bury Jesus' body(John 19.39). | ||||||
250 | How can the Son at the end be subject be | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228454 | ||
Christ Jesus was sent into the world as God Who humbled Himself by becoming man. It was through His manhood in association with His Godhood that He brought about the redemption from the world, rose again from the dead and was seated at the right hand of God. All these phrases refer to the manward aspect of His Being. His Godhood could not die, nor therefore could He as God rise from the dead. In His Godhood He sat on His Father's throne (i.e. reigned jointly with the Father - God is Spirit, He does not actually sit in a throne except when revealing His majesty to men). In the manifeatation of His manhood He sat at the Father's right hand. In the mmanifestation of His Godhood He was One with God. Part of His task as the God-man is the subjection of evil, the defeat of death and the bringing in of the everlasting kingdom. As the God-man He must reign until this is accomplished. Once all is subdued He in His manhood will subject Himself to the Godhead,(including His own Godhood), at which point He along with the Father and the Holy Spirit will be all in all. |
||||||
251 | Gen 6: Schofield notes | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228450 | ||
While I have great respect for Dr Scofield (as a newborn Christian with no evangelical church known to me I seized on his notes as a Godsend, although I have subsequently discovered their many flaws). But he tends to be inaccurate in his general statements. To say that 'the uniform Hebrew and Christian interpretation has been that Gen 6.2 marks the breaking down of the godly line of Seth and the godless line of Cain' is simply untrue. It is the worst kind of misstatement taking advantage of people's ignorance. The 1st century Jewish philosopher Philo following LXX as known to him translated bene elohim (sons of God) as aggeloi tou theou (angels of God). And he was hugely influential among the Jews. And this translation is found in Eusebius and Ambrose. Josephus states that Gen 6.2 referred to angels. Enoch 6.2 refers it to 'the angels, the children of heaven'. Jubilees 5.1 refers it to 'angels of God'. The Genesis Apocryphon sees it as a union between angels and earthly women. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Athenagoras and Commodianus all held this view. Delitzsch in his commentary says 'it is most obvious to think here of angels' and cites many sources. Taking bene elohim as 'sons of princes' (many ancient kings were seen as sons of the gods) is the traditional one in orthodox Rabbinical Judaism, and was established in order to counter the prevailing view that the passage referred to angels. But they too did not see it as referring to the line of Seth. Thus Scofield's statement is not only misleading, it is false. But in the Old Testament bene elohim always means angels (Job 1.6; 2.1; 38.7; Psalm 29.1 in Hebrew; 89.6 in Hebrew; Daniel 3.25). In contrast Isaiah 43.6 does not use the phrase bene elohim and reference to it is thus misleading. With regard to Daniel 3.25 the ben elohim mentioned there is in verse 28 specifically called 'His angel'. The fact that angels are spoken of as neither marrying nor giving in marriage indicates the norm. But that is the point. These angels had 'left their first estate' (Jude 6). The 'godly line of Seth' did not exist and is an invention of Bible students (I will not say scholars). Seth and his son were godly. Note that in Genesis 4.25 it was men in general who began to call on the Name of YHWH, not just Sethites. There is no indication that Sethites were generally more godly, apart from Enoch. To me the most obvious interpretation explains why the Flood was necessary and why man had become so totally evil (including the line of Seth). I am still waiting to learn why the lines of the other sons of Adam are not mentioned in arguments. Did they not exist? |
||||||
252 | Subsequent process | 1 Cor 1:2 | biblicalman | 228447 | ||
Well of course you may use 2 Thessalonians 2.13 as you like. That is your privilege. But the point is that 'sanctification of the Spirit' comes before 'belief in the truth'. Thus it would appear to be prior. Had Paul meant what you say he would have put sanctification of the Spirit after belief of the truth. Incidentally are you denying that the Spirit works in men to bring them to Christ? How then do they come to Him? They come to Him through the work that He does in their lives by His Spirit. What is that if it is not 'sanctifying', separating out in order to make holy. Would you say that children could be sanctified at birth? Or that an unbelieving man could be sanctified? (Although not by the Spirit). Paul does. (1 Corinthians 7.14). The term has a variety of meanings to be determined in context. I really do not mind how you take 'from the beginning'. But what does happen 'from the beginning'? Certainly not belief of the truth. It is God's choice that is from the beginning and that results in His commencing His sanctifying work on those chosen in order to bring them to belief of the truth. Why should what is in the eternal mind of God be described only as justification? Do you not think that He had in His mind the making of us holy as well as the declaring of us as righteous? I fail to see why the fact that being made holy is distinct from being declared righteous means that it has to be a 'subsequent process' (if we can speak of subsequent when speaking of non-time) as opposed to justification. Clearly both are the result of a subsequent processs by which God brings men to Himself. And I have in fact already previously indicated that Scripture teaches that sanctification is both a status and a process. I notice you do not mention 1 Peter 1.2. There also we have God's election, then sanctification of the Spirit, and this leads to (is 'unto') the obedience of Jesus Christ and the sprinkling of His blood'. Now whether the obedience of Jesus Christ is His obedience put to our account, or is our subsequent obedience through Jesus Christ, makes no difference to the fact that it is subsequent to sanctification of the Spirit. And more importantly from the point of view of the question, the 'sprinkling of the blood of Jesus' which takes place at conversion is also subsequent to sanctification of the Spirit. Thus salvation follows sanctification of the Spirit in this case. Need I say more? Best wishes |
||||||
253 | I would like an explination of Geneis 6. | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228446 | ||
Hi Holmes, Genesis 4.26 depicts when men began to worship YHWH. Two people does not constitute a 'line'. So there were some godly people in the days of Seth and his son? That does not explain the calling of people hundreds of years later by the title 'sons of God'. They were not 'sons of God'. They were particularly sinful men. As far as we know the godly line of Seth ceases at his son Enosh (which incidentally means man in his frailty). Indeed you will notice it was 'men' who began to call on the Name of YHWH (not sons of God). Then in 6.1 it was 'men' who had daughters born to them. Thus the same people are in mind. You say does it make sense that demons (evil angels) are called sons of the elohim? Yes it does. Satan is called a son of the elohim in Job 1-2. Does that make sense? 'Elohim' can equally indicate the spirit world. (Thus in Psalm 8 man was made a little lower than the elohim which AV translates as angels). Angels are therefore called 'sons of the elohim'. The witch of Endor said, 'I saw elohim arising out of the earth'.(1 Sam 28.13). She was thinking of disembodied spirits. So it is very apposite that fallen angels be called 'sons of the elohim'. Goliath was just a large men. He was not some exceptional being. The Anakim were famous for their size. Compare the Zulus. But they have no connection with Genesis 6. All described in Genesis 6 were wiped out by the Flood. Yes I have read the passage very carefully. So there were large men on the earth? Now why should that be mentioned if there is no connection? And certainly the 'men of renown' were borne by the daughters of men who had relations (whether physical or demonic) with the angels. You still have not explained why the whole of the line of Seth apart from one family was wiped out by the Flood if they were 'the godly line of Seth'. They were wiped out precisely because they were ungodly. Who suggested that God would strive (or abide)with demons? It was man in his association with demons who would be rejected by God. Have you never heard of demonic intercourse? It even takes place today. This is therefore probably describing such intercourse. Remember the writer is trying to describe in simple terminology something profoundly evil. What other terminology had he for the idea of evil angels becoming one with earthly women? It was in the early days of language, when language was limited. In fact of course we do not know whether fallen angels could have intercourse with earthly women. Are you an expert on angels? Have you ever met any? How then can you say what they could do? If they can appear as men, as they regularly do, then they could have intercourse with women. The fact that it is unnatural for them is precisely the point. They were the 'angels who left their first estate'. They went against God's ordinance. Best wishes |
||||||
254 | I would like an explination of Geneis 6. | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228429 | ||
What has to be recognised is that there was no 'godly line of Seth'. Seth's descendants were as ungodly as Cain's. That is why thousands of them perished in the Flood and only one family survived. Some godly line lol. Why on earth should a line which was to be largely destroyed for sin be called 'sons of God'?And why should their subsequent offspring have been so unique as to be 'men of renown'? In fact of course many of Cain's descendants worshipped Elohim. Why were they then different? We cannot condemn them all because of the sin of Lamech and the folly of Cain. And what about the descendants of the other sons of Adam? Did they not worship YHWH also? And notice 6.1. 'Men (not Cainites) began to multiply on the face of the earth.' Why should that description be restricted to half the population? Why should it mean Cainites? Were the Sethites not men. And what about the children of all the other sons of Adam? They too were 'men'. And it was the daughters of these men in general who are referred to. Indeed the phrase the bene elohim (sons of God) was elsewhere only used in the Old Testament of angels (see Job 1-2). Thus sound exegesis demands that we see here the angels leaving their first estate (Jude 6). It explains why their offspring were so exceptional, and also why God had to take such drastic action. The only way to remove the effects of these unions was total destruction. Men had become possessed by evil beyond their understanding. |
||||||
255 | Sanctification Process? | 1 Cor 1:2 | biblicalman | 228428 | ||
Sanctification is not just 'setting apart', it is setting apart for a holy purpose, and when it is by God it results in being acceptable as holy in His eyes through Christ, and in His work of continually sanctifying us by His Spirit, with a view to our becoming holy in practise. We can see sanctifiction as God's side of it and consecration as man's side. In that sense man consecrates hoping that God will sanctify. Many a building is consecrated but not sanctified. But it is a matter of definition. Thus 'sanctify yourselves' is an Old Testament command, indicatng putting oneself in a position physically to be able to approach God(e.g. by washing our clothes and abstaining from sexual activity). Compare 2 Timothy 2.21. Consecration can indicate consecration by God, the equivalent of God sanctifying. The process of sanctification actually commences before we become Christians. 'God has from the beginning chosen you unto salvation through sanctificaton of the Spirit and belief of the truth' (2Thessalonians 2.13). The Spirit begins to set us apart to holiness resulting in our believing the truth and being saved. Thus we can be guided by the Spirit before we are born frm above. We must not limit what God can do by our definitions. I suspect that you are using the term consecration to signify your activity of submitting yourelf to God so that He will bless you and hopefully sanctify you continually. Thus consecration by you and sanctifying by God goes on hand in hand, indeed your consecrating of yourself, assuming it is genuine, will be a result of His sanctifying work. Thus one form of sanctification commences before we become Christians, as God works towards making real in us His choice of us before the foundaion of the world (2 Thessalonians 2.13; 1 Peter 1.2). Then as we respond to Christ for salvation God sanctifies us once for all as His (Acts 20.32; 26.18; 1 Corinthians 1.2; 1.30; 6.11; Hebrews 10.10; Jude 1.1). Then He commences His process of sanctification, the making of us holy in practise (Ephesians 5.26; 1 Thessalonians 5.23; Hebrews 10.14). And finally we will be presented to Him as fully sanctified, made holy in status and in reality, 'holy and without blemish' (Ephesians 5.27). |
||||||
256 | Is to bill or murder the same | Ex 20:13 | biblicalman | 228426 | ||
Broadly speaking murder in the ten commandments was killing which was not in self-defence, was not in the furtherance of justice (capital penalty), and was not in war. A different Hebrew word was used for killing in battle. Of course it is not quite as simple as that, as you will appreciate. Unjustified wars are in themselves multiple murders. But that raises huge questions. |
||||||
257 | other like 2sam 13:11,12 | 2 Samuel | biblicalman | 228408 | ||
forgive me for saying so but you appear to be obsessed with this question. I am not sure it is healthy. |
||||||
258 | 2 sam 13:1 | 2 Sam 13:1 | biblicalman | 228405 | ||
It was in fact Amnon who lusted after his half-sister Tamar (2 Samuel 3.1-2). Absolom was her full brother and slew Amnon, which was why he then fled to his father-in-law. Taking your sister or half-sister sexually is forbidden in Levitcus 20.17. The penalty was seemingly death. Seth and Cain clearly married their sisters, as did all the sons of Adam (Genesis 4-5) Abraham married his half-sister (Genesis 20.12). But that was before it was forbidden. There are known cases today of people who cohabit with their sisters. It is not usually illegal in the Western world but is frowned on by the church, and forbidden by God |
||||||
259 | Asking satan to leave a person alone | James 4:7 | biblicalman | 228404 | ||
One thing you may be sure of and that is that God will not allow Satan to tempt you beyond what you are able to stand (1 Corinthians 10.13). And it is in fact questionable whether you are being tempted by Satan himself, more probably you have been left to his minions (Ephesians 6.11-12). But this is still seen as being tempted 'by the wiles of the Devil' (6.11). Thus the command to resist him (James 4.7). We do this by submitting to God, being strong in the Lord, and putting on the armour of God (James 4.7; Ephesians 6.10 ff). But we do not resist him directly, we say 'the Lord rebuke you' (Jude 9). While he is powerful, we must not see Satan as being omnipresent (Job 1.7). And he is restrained (Matthew 12.29; Mark 3.27; Luke 10.18; 11.22; 2 Thessalonians 2.6; Revelation 9.11; 20.2). Nevertheless he is out to cause problems for God's people (1 Peter 5.8). He is probably to be associated with the Wild Beast of Revelation 17.8-14, who mimicked God by being the one who 'was and is not and will ascend from the bottomless pit and will go into perdition' (Revelation 17.8, 11; contrast 1.8, 17). He is to be allowed 'one hour' (a short time) in which to make his final attempt against God (as also in Revelation 20.3). Jesus is in contrast 'the One Who lives, Who died and Who rose again' and ascended into Heaven (1.17). The way to defeat Satan is to submit to God and thus be under His protection (James 4.7). Then we will be able to resist him from under the shelter of God's wings. We defeat him by being 'strong in the Lord and in the power of His might' and by 'putting on the whole armour of God' (Ephesians 6.10 ff), that is by using and appropriating the word of God. Martin Luther was so conscious of the Devil's activities that he threw an inkwell at him, but he was one of Gods champions. But Satan is subject to God's restraint. Nevertheless his minions wll not leave us alone. That is why we must be immersed in the word of God, and learn to cite Scriptures against him (Matthew 4.1-11). |
||||||
260 | Sanctification Process? | 1 Cor 1:2 | biblicalman | 228400 | ||
Like salvation, sanctification is spoken of in a number of ways, as something that has taken place, as something that is taking place, and as something which will finally take place. In 1 Corinthians 1.2 the Corinthians, in spite of their spiritual weakness, are described as those who have been 'sanctified in Christ Jesus'. They have been made holy in God's eyes through the work of the cross, and are in a permanent state of being 'sanctified ones (saints). They are holy to God. Compare 1 Corinthians 6.11, where sancrtification precedes justification (although not timewise) as something that has taken place. Like justification this is a once for all blessing. But the more regular application of the term sanctification is to the process by which God's people are being made holy. Thus in Hebrews 10.14 'By a SINGLE OFFERING He has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified.' 'For this is the will of God, even our sanctification' (1 Thessalonians 4.3). The idea here is of those who are being made holy through the work of the Holy Spirit, and will therefore finally be made holy. 2 Corinthians 3.18 is a description of that process. We can compare Ephesians 5.26 where Christ's purpose is to 'sanctify' (make holy) His people, having first cleansed them through His word, with the purpose of presenting them to Himself holy and without blemish. So we are sancrtified once for all when we come to Christ, and that begins a process of sanctification by the Spirit which will result in our final perfection. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [19] >> |