Results 261 - 280 of 380
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | Herod and Pilate Letters non-canonical? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228383 | ||
Hi The so-called letters of Herod and Pilate were unknown to the early church for over 500 years. The British Museum has a copy in Syriac dated 7th century AD. Their accuracy can be assessed by the fact that according to the letters Herod thought that his daughter's name was Herodias. Herodias was in fact the name of his wife. Best wishes |
||||||
262 | Can you explain Proverbs 9:9 | Prov 9:9 | biblicalman | 228382 | ||
'Give to a wise man, and he will be still wiser, teach a righteous man and he will increase in learnihg.' 'Give' parallels 'teach' and therefore indicates giving instruction or giving wisdom. The point is that a truly wise man will pay heed to instruction.And that a righteous man will listen to teaching, and learn from it. The pigheaded man and the foolish and the unrighteous go their own way and do not listen to anyone unless it suits them. They do not want to know anything that disagrees with their views. |
||||||
263 | Theology and ethics in Pauls letters | NT general | biblicalman | 228367 | ||
Why does Paul have of two main sections in many of his letters? Because to Paul the whole purpose of God in salvation was to restore man and make him holy. You shall be holy for I am holy. Thus Paul described that salvation, encouraged response to it and then gave guidance in the way of holiness. To him it was inconceivable that a man could be saved and yet not seek holiness. |
||||||
264 | I would like an explination of Geneis 6. | Gen 6:1 | biblicalman | 228365 | ||
The 'sons of the elohim' (God/angelic beings) were fallen angels, evil spirits with whom women involved themselves in demonic marriage. They were 'the angels who kept not their first estate' (Jude 6). They cannot be 'the godly line of Seth'. Otherwise why were they all destroyed? Their progeny were powerful asnd evil beyond the norm and had to be destroyed. Thus the flood to wipe them out. |
||||||
265 | What is sin that leads to death? | 1 John 5:16 | biblicalman | 228356 | ||
One sin which can lead to death is the partaking of the bread and wine at the Lord's Supper in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthians 11.27, 30). Another is to continually refuse to do something which God strongly impresses on the heart over a long period e.g. Mark 3.29. |
||||||
266 | hell | 2 Pet 3:9 | biblicalman | 228355 | ||
you have only to read the teaching of Jesus which came before the church was founded to discover how foolish such claims are. see for example on Gehenna Matthew 10.28; Mark 9.42-48. on Hades Luke 16.23 | ||||||
267 | I BEEN SEEING A SPIRIT LIKE FACE | Heb 9:27 | biblicalman | 228350 | ||
The basic answer to your question is that no, people do not come back as spirits when they die. Supposed contact with the dead through mediums is a fake, in many cases brought about through the activity of evil spirite. Attempts to contact the dead through these means are condemned in Scripture (e.g. Isaiah 8.19; Leviticus 19.31; 20.6; Deuteronomy 18.10-11). The idea that the dead are watching over us is mere sentiment. If we are Christians it is angels who watch over us. The appearance of apparitions and ghosts probably has a physical explanation althougb we have not yet fully understood it. But you will notice that such things do not interfere with people physically. Poltergeists are probably evil spirits. We must not discount the activities of such. In 1 Samuel 28 we have the description of how Saul went to a medium to raise up Samuel. She set about raising her familiar spirit to pose as Samuel. But God chose to intervene. He physically sent Samuel to the woman's horror and surprise. But this was because God had a message of His own to give to Saul. It was not a norm. You will note he appeared as a physical human being not as a face or a ghost. Best wishes |
||||||
268 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228346 | ||
Hi Doc Thank you for your 'correction'. My statement that obesity from non-medicsl causes was a sin was a little careless, seeing the end process in terms of what caused it, but as you will note below I was in process of correcting it when you wrote. It is as you rightly say sin that results in obesity. Although in my view to continue in obesity and not to be doing something about it is sin although possibly not the worst of sins. Anything that comes short of the glory of God is sin Thank you for taking the trouble to write. Best wishes |
||||||
269 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228345 | ||
First let me make clear that I do not think the obese person is somehow more sinful than other Christians. We all sin daily, and come short of God's glory. As you will appreciate I answered a question about a sin, I did not raise an issue about obese people. I will speak against laziness, but I do not go round telling people they are lazy. I leave the Holy Spirit to do His work. All of us are starting from a base of imperfection and wrong attitudes and are hopefully being transformed by the Holy Spirit 'from glory to glory' (2 Corinthians 3.18). What are not sins for us today, might well be sins for us tomorrow as we grow closer to our Lord Jesus Christ. There are times when we make great leaps forward, such as at times of dedicating ourselves again to His service. There are times when due to our indolent natures we allow ourselves to drift back into different sins. As Paul made clear, 'I AM fleshly -- it is sin that dwells in me'. It has to be constantly watched and overcome. And that is true for all of us. And we have a 'low' view of sin. Jesus must have been appalled at the sinfulness of His Apostles, for He had a high view of sin. But we would not be able to tell that He was appalled by what He said. He understood their weakness, as He understands ours. His words do, however, make clear that He was appalled at sin. What we can only do therefore is deal with the sins as they arise and are brought to our attention by the Holy Spirit. Obesity and being overweight, result from sin, the sin of overindulgence. But that does not mean that the obese person is at the present stage sinning, although yes i do think he/she should be trying to deal with the matter. The overweight or obese person is suffering for past sin. But I have no intention of targetting obese persons. I want to help them, as I hope they want to help me with my failings. I am not obese, but I certainly have to watch myself. And sometimes I have to take myself in hand and say, 'watch it'. The line is actually not easy to draw as with much sin. But the sin is in the attitude and failings that produce such a condition, and sometimes it can be upon us before we are aware. As we grow in Christ we become aware of things as sinful which previously we would not have seen as sinful. Paul saw sin as so powerful within him that he was ashamed. When we read his description we think, surely he couldn't have been as bad as that! Had we been watching him we would in fact probably have seen him as nearly perfect. We would have admired his spirituality. But he knew his inner self. He knew how sometimes he indulged himself by failing to pray as he should have done (something we might not even have considered). He knew of times when had he been a little more aware, rather than being taken up with other things, he would have been able to help a struggling Christian or church. He bore the burden of all the churches, and he was aware that sometimes he fell short. To him that was a gross sin. We on the other hand would have been commending his efforts, watching in silent admiration. It is not for me to draw lines. I leave that to the Holy Spirit. And remember that sin is to fail to love God with heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbour as ourselves. It is to come short of God's glory. So we are all sinners seeking to rise above what we are, while at the same time we are all saints, being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.. We must never be judgmental of the sinner, for we too are sinners who will have to give account, but we must be judgmental of the sin. And we must help each other, coming alongside to help. Best wishes. |
||||||
270 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228343 | ||
Hi justme, thank you for your apology which is gladly accepted. We both share the same dilemma. How to be tough on sin and yet compassionaten with the sinner, a word that includes ourselves. We have to be aware of our own failures first. Best wishes |
||||||
271 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228339 | ||
Hi Holmes, I will deal with this one last question but I feel the forum will have had enough of this argument. If you are determined to believe in a future Temple you may of course do so. But as I have shown none of your verses say that there will be. If you wish to discuss it with me further give me your email address and i will contact you. I wrote: “But all that is by the way because Haggai was not referring to Solomon’s Temple at all. He was comparing the Second Temple to the one that was coming, that is, to Herod’s Temple. Solomon’s Temple had nothing to do with it.” Holmes says: See Haggai 2:3 “Who is left among you who saw this temple in its former glory? There was only one “former temple.” If God had been referring to the 2nd temple He would have said, “The latter glory of this house will be greater than the present (the one you are currently working on).” my reply. So you are now telling God how He should have written the Scriptures? You are a brave man indeed. Verse 2 does not use the same wording as verse 9. There is no mention in verse 2 of a former house and a latter house. It is therefore irrelevant. But let us take your point. You are saying that Solomon's Temple was the former house, and that the second Temple was the latter house? That's fine. Thus verse 9 does not mention a future Temple! Holmes says You wrote: I am interested to know how you know what was in Herod’s mind. From Unger’s Bible Dictionary: “Herod was not only an Idumaean in race and a Jew in religion, but he was a heathen in practice and a monster in character. During his administration as king he proved himself to be exceedingly crafty, jealous, cruel, and revengeful. He exercised his kingly power with the disposition of a very despot.” And those are just his good features! my reply All this is irrelevant. No one is suggesting that Herod's glory mattered. The physical glory of the Temple was undoubted. It was a wonder of the world at that time. As for cruelty, I would suggest you look at Solomon's behaviour when he wanted his house building. Forced labour which would have been enforced in cruel ways, sapping the country of its wealth. Solomon was nothing to write home about when it came to compassion and kindness. But all this is irrelevant. It is arguing for the sake of arguing. No one doubts the glory of Herod's Temple. And Jesus commented on it. And He never ran down the Temple merely because it had been built under Herod But as I have pointed out its glory was greater than that of any previous Temple for another reason, because in it walked and preached the Son of God. It was the place where God uniquely revealed Himself on earth. God had come to His Temple and entered into it, giving it a glory far beyond any other. It really cannot be doubted. And on that note I suggest that we draw this correspondence to an end. Best wishes |
||||||
272 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228338 | ||
Hi Holmes, Holmes says: You cite Zechariah as though you could simply apply these verses to the coming king because of the word Branch. But as we have already seen Zechariah 6.12-16 applies to Joshua the High Priest “ See Zechariah 6:13 “Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.” Joshua the High Priest never sat or ruled from a throne. He is not the “Prince of Peace,” nor did he ever serve as High Priest and King, “the two offices.” Where in scripture is the fulfillment of this prophesy that Joshua the High Priest is sitting on and ruling from his throne? My reply: The High Priests certainly ruled over Israel for a considerable period of time, and there can be no doubt that Zerubbabel and Joshua 'ruled' together, prior to Zerubbabel disappearing. That is why they are constantly mentioned together (Ezra 3.2; 5.2). Thus he was 'ruling'. The Hebrew word for 'throne' simply means any kind of seat. I presume that you will accept that he sometimes sat down when making his decision? Thus he ruled from his seat. But in fact he did more than that because after Zerubbabel the governorship passed to a Persian, as we know from the Elephantine texts. And following Persian methods he would leave detailed administration (ruling) to native leaders, that is at this time, the High Priest. And Joshua was the High Priest. Thus he ruled Israel and i suspect most would see his seat as a throne. I see no mention of a Prince of Peace. Perhaps you will direct me to the version which has that in? It is not in the Hebrew text. The two offices are not priest and king. They are priest and ruler. And Joshua combined the two offices. And the emphasis is on him being the PRIEST on his throne.The point is that religious and civic duties will be carried on in harmony. As Scripture does not deal with the period after the building of the second Temple, (there is a gap of some sixty years between Ezra 6 and Ezra 7) we would not expect to find the total fulfilment mentioned. But it tells us sufficient to see that Joshua did rule alongside Zerubbabel. Are you suggesting that no prophecy is valid if its fulfilment is not mentioned in Scripture? I would not say it too loudly if I were you :-)) It would rob teachers on prophecy of nine tenths of their material. Best wishes |
||||||
273 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228335 | ||
Hi Holmes, I wrote of Ezekiel 40.2-3: You are assuming that ‘there’ means the city. But in fact it means the high mountain. It is a repetitive phrase typical of the Old Testament. ‘So he brought me there’ is referring back to ‘he brought me into the land of Israel and set me on a very high mountain’. You replied: See Ezekiel 40:3 “So He brought me there: and behold, there was a man whose appearance was like the appearance of bronze, with a line of flax and a measuring rod in his hand; and he was standing in the gateway.” What was he standing in the “gateway” of? It was the east gate of the temple. See verse 6. The east gate was also the eastern border of the city. My reply. Yes, the Temple on the high mountain had a gateway and an east gate. That in no way indicates that it was in a city. A Gateway would be expected in a Temple wherever it was, and east simply indicates direction. There is no reason why an east gate should have any connection with a city. Best wishes |
||||||
274 | Obesity? | 1 Cor 6:19 | biblicalman | 228334 | ||
The questioner specifically asked whether we saw obesity as a sin. And yes, I do see obesity as a sin. Are you then suggesting that I should evade the truth? Are you denying that obesity is due to a lack of self-control? I am sorry but I consider that it is our responsibility as pastors and teachers to guide people aright, and that we will be called to account for not doing so. I would be wary of judging an individual, but I have no hesitation in declaring obesity to be a sin unless it is due to a medical condition. As to tattoos and ultra-fine clothes, the latter were condemned by Paul, and the former is another evidence of self indulgence, to say nothing of a sign of vanity. A Christian being tattooed also gives a wrong impression about Christianity. It suggests concern for one's own vanity rather than for the needs of others. When we are asked on the forum what our view is on such things it is our responsibility to give an honest view. I do not want to face the Master and explain why I failed to draw attention to men's besetting sins simply because I was afraid of what others would think. You may of course view things as you will. I see myself as having a responsibility to direct men's thoughts aright. They are of course quite able to disagree if they wish. I will pass no judgment on them for that. In the end I am only responsible for myself and what I teach. Best wishes. |
||||||
275 | Is there a pre-incarnate Christ? | Genesis | biblicalman | 228333 | ||
If you read the accounts where the Angel of the Lord is mentioned you will discover that he is equated with God. He was thus not just an angel. He was 'God's other self'. See Gen 16.7 ff.21.17ff. 22.11 ff Sometimes he appears separate from God. At other times he speaks as God. But especially in Zechariah 1.12 the Angel actually speaks to God. Thus there is a peersonal distinction between them In the light of New Testament revelation that has caused the belief to grow up that He was the second person of the Triune Godhead. |
||||||
276 | Why is Nebuchadnezzar spelled with an r? | 2 Kings | biblicalman | 228331 | ||
Nebuchadnezzar's name in his own language was Nabu-kudurri-usur. It transliterated into Hebrew as Nebu-chadr-ezzar. In the Hebrew text that form of the name occurs mainly in Jeremiah. But in Kings it is rendered as Nebuchadnezzar, with the r changing to an n. This was a quite normal change. Thus both forms are correct. In the Hebrew text both forms are found. |
||||||
277 | who were the two spies in joshuea 2 | Joshua | biblicalman | 228322 | ||
see previous answer | ||||||
278 | name of the 2 spies that Joshua sent to | Joshua | biblicalman | 228320 | ||
The names of the two spies are not supplied. They were simply two men of Israel. | ||||||
279 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228318 | ||
Hi Holmes I said With regard to the desirable things of the nations coming see my previous post on Isaiah 60.14 re the riches that poured in to Jerusalem. They specifically came to the Temple of which Haggai was speaking. And the latter house was greater than the former when Herod built his magnificent structure, which was the admiration of the world. People gasped when they saw its beauty.” you replied God would not allow King David to build His Temple because David was a man of war. So the Temple was built by King Solomon, chosen by God Himself. This Temple contained God’s Shekinah, the Ark of the Covenant and contents, and the Urim and Thummim. My comment Now I in fact question that statement. I do not think that God wanted the Temple to be built (2 Samuel 7.5-7), even though when it was built He graciously recognised the good intent that lay behind it. The house that Solomon was to build in 2 Samuel 7.13 was the house of David, not the house of God. See the whole context. But I will not labour that point. Your further reply Herod’s Temple was built by a non-Hebrew for his own purposes. It lacked the Shekinah, the Ark, and the Tablets of the Law. How can it be possible that Herod’s Temple is greater than Solomon’s? How did Jesus give peace in Herod’s Temple? my comment Herod was a proselyte to Judaism He WAS therefore a Hebrew by adoption as were all proselytes. Theoretically they were to be treated as to all extent equal. So you not being exactly correct. I am interested to know how you know what was in Herod’s mind. Do you have any grounds for such a statement other than your own assumption? Do you not think that he had one eye on the glory of God and another on his own? Furthermore, do you really think that Solomon solely had in mind God’s glory.? He spent twice as long on building his own house as he did on God’s house. Solomon’s Temple (a good designation) contributed as much to the glory of Solomon as it did to the glory of God. God had said that all He wanted was a tent. Remember God knew what Solomon was going to be, the man who through his extravagance and unfaithfulness would destroy Israel. He was hardly a model Temple builder. Now how do you know that Herod’s Temple lacked the Shekinah? Are you saying that God had totally deserted the Israel to which Jesus came? You make bold assumptions. Clearly it lacked the Ark and the tablets of the Law. But so did the Second Temple which WAS built at God’s direct command. Was that Temple therefore not pleasing to God? But all that is by the way because Haggai was not referring to Solomon’s Temple at all. He was comparing the Second Temple to the one that was coming, that is, to Herod’s Temple. Solomon’s Temple had nothing to do with it. But the real reason why the latter glory of the house would be greater than the former (whatever the former refers to) was because it was to Herod’s Temple would come the greatest glory of all. Through its gates would walk the Son of God, and in its courts would He preach. Could any house have greater glory than that? You say it lacked the Shekinah? He was the Shekinah. Best wishes. |
||||||
280 | Don't understand Revelation and 1 Cor 15 | 1 Cor 15:28 | biblicalman | 228317 | ||
Hi Holmes I wrote: - “Zechariah 6.12 must be read in context. We are actually TOLD who the Branch is there. It is Joshua the High Priest.” Holmes says: Note: That is incorrect, it does NOT say Branch is Joshua the High Priest. Branch is a Messianic name. Joshua the High Priest was never King, and being a Levi, was not of the House of David. The Branch is Christ, a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek. My reply: Well lets see what it does say, shall we? “Take from them silver and gold and make crowns and set them on the head of Joshua -- the High Priest, and speak to HIM saying ‘Behold the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out of his place, and he will build the Temple of the Lord.’ Notice the play on words. He is called the branch because he branches out of his place to such an extent that he builds the Temple of the Lord. That is why he is called the Branch. Now that is quite clear to me. I do not deny that Branch can be a Messianic name (it can also be many other things). And I suppose that as Joshua was a kind of ‘type’ of the Messiah, it could be said to be so here. But there really is no denying, if we take the verse to mean what it says, that the Branch was the High Priest, Joshua, the priest ruler who was the first of many. And who was it who built the Temple of the Lord? It was Joshua, the High Priest, along with Zerubbabel (Ezra 5.2). I see no mention here of ‘king’. Nor indeed of the house of David. It says ‘He will be priest upon his throne’. So it makes clear that he is a Levite. Sadly there is too much expanding of Scripture to make it fit into a prophetic straitjacket. Now we will move on to a more positive note. Yes the coming Son of David will also be called ‘the Branch. So you correctly cite the Scriptures: Jeremiah 23:5 “Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD, “When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch; And He will reign as king and act wisely And do justice and righteousness in the land. Jeremiah 33:15 In those days and at that time I will cause a righteous Branch of David to spring forth; and He shall execute justice and righteousness on the earth. Both are of course looking back to the idea of ‘the root of Jesse’ in Isaiah 11.1. Now these undoubtedly teach that the coming King will also be described as ‘the Branch’, and there it is in context. So on that I happily agree with you. But you cannot take such verses and say that anyone who is called ‘the Branch’ elsewhere in another context is the Messiah. Thus in Isaiah 4.2 we read, ‘In that Day shall the Branch of the Lord be beautiful and glorious, and the Fruit of the earth excellent and comely, for those who are escaped of Israel’ That is not speaking of the Messiah but of the God given fruit of the ground. But if you cited it out of context you could soon give the impression that it was referring to the Messiah. Jesus said ‘I am the vine, you are the branches’ On that basis there would be many Messiahs. You cite Zechariah as though you could simply apply these verses to the coming king because of the word Branch. But as we have already seen Zechariah 6.12-16 applies to Joshua the High Priest Best wishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [19] >> |