Results 241 - 260 of 657
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
241 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72058 | ||
Hi, EdB; Hmmm. I don't see how the Bible can be interpreted in any other way. As I said, there's nothing anbiguous in Isaiah's words. Matthew says that Jesus' birth "fulfills" Isaiah's prophecy. But "fulfill" is not limited to the idea of a prediction coming true; it also means to bring to completion or perfection. The basic idea of what Matthew meant by his reference to Isaiah came from Dr. Marion Soards, Professor of New Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary. Unlike many faculty there, Dr. Soards is solidly evangelical and committed to the authority, inspiration, and authenticity of Scripture. This topic came up in a short class he taught on the nativity narratives. Having gone over Isaiah's words and their context several times since that class, I don't understand how any other interpretation is possible. I would draw this analogy: The law was real, the tabernacle was real, the boy Immanuel was real. According to the writer of Hebrews, the law was "shadow of the good things that are coming" (10:1) and the tabernacle was a "shadow of what is in heaven." (8:5) With his reference to Isaiah's prophecy, Matthew implied that Immanuel and his extraordinary birth were a shadow of the Christ who had now come. Too bad this thread got bumped off the home page; I'd be interested in others' opinions. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
242 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72056 | ||
Hi, aften1; I have indeed read Matthew in addition to Isaiah. I don't believe that any book of the Bible is deliberately hidden, requiring a code. The Bible is the revelation of God, intended to educate and guide us and point us to Jesus. And I don't think I have ever presumed to say what Jesus is or isn't entitled to; it looks to me as though he's entitled to everything. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
243 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72025 | ||
Hi, EdB; "I simply can not/will not buy into this theory that there were two virgin births." It's not a theory; the Bible clearly states that there were two virgin births: Immanuel and Jesus. I simply reiterated what the Bible says, adding nothing of my own. The passages in Isaiah 7 are not ambiguous: "the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (v.14-16) Before the boy named Immanuel is old enough to know right from wrong, the kings opposing Ahaz will be defeated. This cannot possibly be Jesus. I'm not certain that Jesus ever had to reach an age where he could "reject the wrong and choose the right", but if he did, he did it long after the historical events that Isaiah said would precede it. The purpose of the sign is not ambiguous either: "Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son [Pekah] have plotted your ruin, saying, 'Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.' Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: '"It will not take place, it will not happen, for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all."' Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 'Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.'" (v.5-11) The purpose of the sign (the virgein birth) is to strengthen Ahaz to stand firm in his faith in that time and place. Finally, the context makes it clear that God is warning Judah about the invasion by Assyria that is soon to take place. The prophecies in these early chapters don't point to Jesus; they point to Assyria. Both the prophecy of the virgin birth and the stated purpose for it clearly indicate that the boy named Immanuel was born and lived during the reign of Ahaz. So why shouldn't we take Isaiah at his word? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
244 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71996 | ||
Hi, Debbie; I have a gift for sowing confusion - just ask my kids. The whole story is in Isaiah 7. Ahaz (king of Judah) was under attack from King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel. This made Ahaz nervous. Speaking through Isaiah, God told him to relax, that the attack would fail, but "If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all." (v.9). God then invited Ahaz to ask him for a sign. But Ahaz declined, saying "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." (v.12) "Then Isaiah said, 'Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign'". (v.13-14) The sign was the one Matthew referred to: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (v.14-16) For the boy Immanuel to be a sign to Ahaz that Judah would stand against Rezin and Pekah, he would have to be born and known to Ahaz before the two kings were defeated. So Immanuel was born, lived, and died long before Jesus was born. Mathew said, in effect, that while Isaiah's prophecy conerning Immanuel was fulfilled in the sense that a foretold event had already happened, Jesus' birth was a further fulfillment of it. The boy that Isaiah spoke of was named Immanuel because he was proof to Ahaz that God was with him in his fight. Jesus - also born of a virgin - was more entitled to the name Immanuel because he wasn't just a sign from God, he was God. You can't get any more "with us" than that. Hope this clears things up - or at least doesn't muddy them further. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
245 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71993 | ||
Hi, debbie; Not to speak for aften1, but this could possibly be a reference to Isaiah 7:10-16: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (v. 14). But this is not a reference to Jesus; this virgin birth was a sign intended for King Ahaz to see in his lifetime. The fact that Matthew refers to Isaiah's prophecy in 1:22-23 can be confusing: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel'--which means, 'God with us.'" A Professor of New Testament whom I respect has said that "fulfillment" of a prophecy has two possible meanings. We usually think of it as meaning that an event foretold by a prophet has taken place. But "fulfillment" can also mean the perfection or purest example of a prophecy. With this reference to Isaiah, Matthew is saying that there was a virgin birth before, but this one is the purest, most perfect example of a virgin birth. This child named Jesus can also be called Immanuel because he is more than just an illustration of "God with us" - a sign from God to Ahaz - he is the embodiment of "God with us"; he is God and he is with us. Hope this helpful, or interesting, or something. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
246 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71623 | ||
Hi, graceful; You didn't sound argumentative; I probably did. So I apologize as well. I agree with you completely; I have seen both attitudes too. As my post may have revealed, I am passionate about both sides - the Bible IS the revealed word of God, but it is NOT an idol or an object of faith in and of itself. I have conversed with Christians who seem a little confused about who or what is most important, the Bible or Jesus. Sad. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
247 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71402 | ||
Hi, graceful; Oh, well; at least you know what I meant. ;-) Indy |
||||||
248 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71313 | ||
Hi, graceful; God and the Bible are not the same. The Bible is a book - the most important book, a priceless book, a book whose authors were uniquely inspired by God, a book provided by God for our guidance and edification, a book that is the standard for spiritual truth, a book that is the only reliable witness to Jesus, but it's still a book. Neither is it God's truth; it is a representation of God's truth. God's truth is bigger than the Bible; it exists outside the Bible and existed before there was a Bible. The Bible is a book whose original manuscripts are long lost, a book that has been copied and translated countless times. Not one word in my NIV (or KJV, or NASB, or Latin Vulgate, or Textus Receptus, or any other existing version) was actually spoken by Moses, or David, or Jesus. The book that we have represents the work of legions of human scribes, scholars, and translators doing their best to preserve these words and more over a period of three or four thousand years. I don't believe that God would allow the preservation of his inspired words to drift very far astray during this long handing-down process. I believe that God has always provided the people and tools to keep the Bible close to what the original authors wrote. Indeed, I think that the Bible as we know it is an accurate representation of God's truth, even if it may not be a perfectly accurate representation of the original manuscripts. I think God would see to that. So I read and study the Bible with confidence that the Holy Spirit will take those imperfect patterns of ink on paper and transform them into the truth of God that my mind and spirit can absorb and feed on. But the Bible is still a book, a representation. Just as the tabernacle was but "a copy and shadow of what is in heaven" (Heb 8:5), so the Bible is but a copy and a shadow of God's truth. "The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming – not the realities themselves." (Heb 10:1) I hope you don't find my views too shocking.... Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
249 | John 9:1-12 and Job1-2 | John 9:1 | stjones | 71237 | ||
Hi, Pastor Paul; Thanks for the reply. What you say is true, but from what I've learned from parents who have lost a child, that child can never be replaced; the loss is permanent. I can't imagine, even given a different attitude toward children, what the loss of ten would have been like for Job, a man who obviously oved his children. I suspect, however, that there was a glorious reunion when Job finally did die. I can't prove that Job's children went to Heaven, but God showed in chapter 42 that he could honor Job's sacrifices made on hehalf of others. Given his new family, Job might have more descendants in Heaven than Abraham.... Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
250 | John 9:1-12 and Job1-2 | John 9:1 | stjones | 71211 | ||
Hi, sweet; I'd like to just address Job. The reasons for Job's suffering are clearly laid out in Job 1-2. God pronounced Job righteous: "There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." (Job 1:8) This seems very much like the righteousness of Abraham: "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6) Like Abraham, Job was obedient and faithful and God pronounced him righteous. This was despite the fact that both men were stained by original sin and unable to live a perfect, righteous life. In chapter 1, Satan responded by asserting that Job was faithful only because of his worldly wealth. In chapter 2, Satan claimed that it was because Job himself was healthy. So God let Satan do whatever he wanted to Job, short of killing him. We can see that Jobs trials were not the result of his own sin. One thing that is instructive to Christians is the reaction of Job's friends and God's response to them. They assumed that Job was suffering because God was punishing him for his sins. Their arguments were very logical, just wrong (a lesson worth noting). At the end, God told Job's friends that they were wrong to accuse Job and told them to have Job offer a sacrifice for them - what a delicious irony! Christians can never assume that this problem or that pain - our or someone else's - is punishment for sin. Further, we should not obsess on finding a reason. Job found peace and restoration only when he turned away from his troubles and stopped demanding to know why they happened. His healing began after a stern lecture from God when Job confessed: "You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know." (Job 42:3) Having humbled imself, Job was finally ready to be healed. - healed, that is, by God's definition. Although his wealth was restored, Job's ten children were not. By that time, however, I think Job was ready to gratefully accept anything that God chose to provide - a very healthy attitude. Hope this is useful. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
251 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71160 | ||
Hi, One; This whole discussion started with Emmaus telling us that praying to Mary is nothing more than Caleb Catholic asking Mary to pray for him. We could have a lively discussion about whether or not Mary is in a position to hear and respond to such requests, but I don't think we would find a conclusive answer in the Bible. So I don't know if such requests are effective or not. Likewise, I might ask Peter Protestant to pray for me. He may do it; he may not. I don't know if my request was effective or not. Is God offended that I didn't just speak for myself? No. Can we show that Mary neither hears nor honors such requests? No. Can we show that God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit would be offended if she did hear and honor such requests? No. Can we show that such requests offend God? No. I suggest that we have the grace to allow Catholics to ask whomever they like to pray for them if we can't show that the person they choose is unacceptable to God. Maybe the problem is in the phrase "praying to Mary". Praying to God means speaking to God; praying to Mary means speaking to Mary. The "Hail Mary" (the only prayer to Mary I know of) doesn't say "forgive my sins" or "admit me to Heaven" or "heal me". It says "pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death". It asks for nothing more than a prayer to God on behalf of "us sinners". I can find no harm in that. Do some Catholics go too far? Of course. And there are Protestants who go overboard and focus on the Bible or spiritual gifts or prophecy or prosperity and so lose sight of God. The mere fact that some Christians misuse something doesn't make that thing bad; it's the misuse that's bad. So it is with praying to Mary. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
252 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71154 | ||
Hi, Romans; I seem to have mistaken your intentions; if so, please accept my apologies. I have Catholic friends who show Christ in their lives much more lovingly and more completely than I or most of my Protestant friends do. And I know Protestants who think Catholics aren't Christians - the very embodiment of focusing on the mote in their brothers' eyes. By "taking Mary out of context" I meant attaching more importance or ascribing more power and authority to her than the Bible says she has. If Mary is the focus of your faith, that would be wrong. If you think it is Mary who forgives your sins, that would be wrong. If you think you can't talk directly to God the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit but only through Mary, that would be wrong. If you give Mary the praise and glory for God's acts of grace and providence, that would be wrong. If you think that it is only Mary's prayer at the hour of your death that gains you admission to the Kingdom, that would be wrong. My understanding (and I'm no expert) is that none of these is "official" Catholic theology. If priests or parishoners teach or assume these things, then that is wrong. It sounds as if the situation in the Philippines is such a case. (But I don't have to go any further than my TV to see erroneous teaching that borders on heresy.) Now, if you revere Mary as the very important woman that Luke 1 says she was, if you believe she has eternal life, if you feel drawn to her as a friend, if you believe she can hear your prayers, if praying to her is just one aspect of a healthy relationship with God through Christ, then I still don't see a problem. For example, I can see nothing objectionable in the "Hail Mary". Most of it is straight out of Luke 1. The request, "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death." looks a little strange to my reformed eyes. It could certainly produce some interesting theological discussions, but I would hardly brand it as heresy. There is no doubt that praying to Mary could be a symptom of a grevious underlying error. I just don't see that it is an error in and of itself. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
253 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71130 | ||
Hi, Romans; You have given examples of Catholics taking Mary out of context and losing perspective. This is a bad thing. But Christians of any denomination can be so taken by the things of God that they lose sight of God himself. I know Christians who revere the Bible more than they do God. I know Christians who worship works, who worship spiritual gifts, who worship prosperity. Shall we take away Bibles, works, gifts, prosperity? No one is lost or saved based on whether or not they pray to Mary. It is only one's relationship with God through Jesus that matters. The enemy has enough wedges to drive Christians apart. I see no need to wield one myself. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
254 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71099 | ||
Hi, graceful; As I said, I don't think praying to Mary is harmful IF one keeps her in the proper perspective. I assume that any Christian knows who Jesus is and what his role is in both our daily and our eternal lives. I would never advocate (nor do I think Emmaus did) praying exclusively to Mary or mistaking her for our savior. Anyone - Catholic or otherwise - who puts his or her faith in Mary is making an eternal mistake. But that's not what Emmaus described. I would never criticize someone for praying to Mary, but I would try to help them see their error if they did not confess Christ and pray to God the Father as Jesus taught us. Too many times I have seen people use Catholics' reverence for Mary as a wedge to try to split them out of the body of Christ. (I am NOT accusing you or Steve of doing that!) I would be offended if someone told me I wasn't a Christian because in my church we frequently recite the Apostles' Creed. The creed is not found in the Bible and we are not told to use it. I see nothing wrong with it because we don't use it as a substitute for worshipping God but as an adjunct. And, in fact, it serves as a reminder of what the essential facts of the faith really are. Likewise I am offended when my Catholic brothers and sisters are criticized for adding a rather unique dimension to their faith walk. As I said, if it's the sole or most important ingredient, that's a problem. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
255 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71090 | ||
Hi, Steve; "Asking a dead person to pray for me is completely unreasonable" I'm inclined to agree. But the Gospel is pretty unreasonable too. Besides, I'd guess most Christians do lots of things in worship and prayer that are not specifically mentioned in Scripture. If reciting the Apostles' Creed or the Westminster Confession offends God, I'll be mighty surprised. Penitent too. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
256 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71083 | ||
Hi, Steve; Emmaus' explanation - that Catholics simply ask Mary to pray for them as most of us ask our friends on earth to pray for us - seems reasonable enough. Intercessory prayer is both common and biblical; it doesn't displace Christ as our single mediator. I don't see any particular advantage in asking Mary or the departed saints to pray for me. But if Mary's extraordinary position ("blessed ... among women" and "the mother of my Lord", Luke 1:42-43) is rightly understood, I don't see any harm in it either. I don't believe that Jesus is offended when Catholics honor his mother. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
257 | Jesus God. Grasping equality? | Phil 2:6 | stjones | 71078 | ||
Greetings, consider; I'm no Greek scholar (Tim? others?) but Strong's includes these meanings for "grasped": "to deem anything a prize", "a thing to be ... held fast, retained". Jesus had equality with God in that he was a person of the Trinity, not a created being, but rather the obedient son of God. He occupied a position alongside God at the top of the heavenly hierarchy, above both angels and men. Rather than consider this position something to be prized or held onto, he was willing to give it up and become a servant in human form. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
258 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 71029 | ||
Hi, AO; I'm sure there is no instance of a healing ordained by God failing his intention. We might think of Jesus' healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-26 as "failing" the first time, but I'm sure things went as Jesus intended and the man was ultimately healed. There is the instance in Matthew 17:14-20[21] of the disciples failing to cast out a demon but, again, the demon was ultimately cast out. So perhaps God's intention was briefly thwarted but it was finally achieved. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
259 | Adam and Eve the first people created? | Luke 17:1 | stjones | 70781 | ||
Greeting and welcome, All-Cing-I; Methinks your handle is inaccurate; there seem to be things you don't "C". ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
260 | what is speaking in tongues? | 1 Corinthians | stjones | 70780 | ||
Hi, AO; You've provided some well-reasoned speculation with many appeals to logic but few to Scripture. But let me focus on this statement: "the silence position does not explain why miraculous healing can not be conducted with 100 percent success today". I don't know what you mean by "success". If you mean that a healing is accomplished every time a human wills it to be so, then, no, it is not 100 percent successful now nor has it ever been. If you mean a healing is accomplished every time God ordains it then, yes, the success rate is no less than 100 percent. To answer your followup question 'Are sick children in our hospitals in the same basket as an "imagined Pharisee" demanding healing as a sign?' Ultimately, yes. They like we are fallen creatures in a fallen world. They have no guarantee of health and no hope for Heaven apart from Jesus. And if God wills any of them, Pharisee or hospitalized child, to be healed, they will be healed - 100 percent of the time. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [33] >> |