Results 41 - 60 of 253
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Beja Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | sexual toys | 1 Thessalonians | Beja | 232856 | ||
Magie, Given that you have stated in another question that you are not married, yes. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
42 | Is it wrong to self-please (masturbate) | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232854 | ||
Magie, I think using the search function on this topic would be helpful of for you. I think this question has been asked many times before. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
43 | What is the law? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232823 | ||
elder4yhwh, Scripture is not always referring to the same thing when it uses the term "law." What passage do you have in mind? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
44 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232788 | ||
Dear Jenny, This is part two of my reply. I hope that all will read part 1 first. I would like to answer the natural question of, "Why would God permit slavery?" We have seen that he does permit it, but now I ask WHY. Now the most common answer I have heard regarding this is to point to the social function of slavery as ultimately something needed and good. What I mean is that the natural way in which one became a slave was extreme poverty. The slave was going to starve to death due to poverty and as a result the choice was between death and slavery. Slavery is surely a mercy compared with death. God's appointment of such a system provided people with an opportunity to live and one day be free again standing on their own two feet. I think we are right to say these things. I do not think it goes far enough in explaining the good intentions which God had with regards to slavery. Slavery served a gospel purpose. Almost everything in their culture was designed by God to prepare for and point to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The priesthood is one example. Through being very familiar with the priesthood, the jewish people were able to easily understand the notions of Christ coming and functioning as a priest to attone for their sins by sacrifice. Now I would argue that slavery also formed a similiar function. I believe that God allowed slavery not merely for some social good, but so that Israel could understand what it meant to be enslaved, to long for freedom, to emotionally and mentally grasp the notion of a redeemer, to long for the seventh year when they would be set free, and to look forward to the day of Jubilee when all captives would be set free from their bonds and receive an inheritance and a place in the people of God. These are gospel hopes! All of these things which could not have been taught so clearly without slavery, served to teach what was coming on a spiritual level. I think that is why God "permited" what he was ultimately going deliver from. For all things are from Him, and through Him, and for Him. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
45 | Does God approve of slavery? | Lev 25:44 | Beja | 232787 | ||
Dear Jenny, It has occured to me that perhaps instead of discussing slavery with those who have attempted to answer you, perhaps I should give you my own thoughts on God's view of slavery. I pray you excuse the length, but a simple answer probably wouldn't ease your mind even if it was accurate. First, you ask does God "approve" slavery. Now that is quite a hard phrasing to answer. You might perhaps mean does he think it is a good thing. I'm not sure how I would answer that. However, let's begin with that when we look to scripture, God "permits" slavery in Old Testament Israel. He gives multiple guidelines concerning it, but at the end of the day we must acknowledge that he does permit it. Now if I understand EdB correctly (I may not) the thrust of his arguement is that we must not take God's permitting slavery and import all the horrible ideas of slavery which we have seen outside the biblical picture of it. If that is his thrust then he is quite right. That is exactly how we must approach this. We admit that God permitted slavery and then we must make sure we understand the exact nature of the slavery which God permitted. If we do not carefully do that we will end up saying that God permitted horrible things such as murder, rape, maiming, and other attrocities that have gone hand in hand with wicked instances of slavery in history. However, as we begin to seperate these wicked things from the biblical picture of slavery we must be careful that we don't rule out some of the things which biblical slavery does permit. For example. I do think in scripture that there is a clear notion of owndership over the slave. I do think that Exodus 21:20 is getting at the idea of the slave being property. There is owndership that does actually seem to alter some of the slaves rights. What I mean is, a normal Israelite would have to be brought before a judge, an elder, a king, or something in order to be beaten. Why? Because no offended man had the right to simply assert himself as the judge, jury, and executioner of the one who offended him. It would be sin to simply say to another Israelite, "You have offended me and now I will punish you for it." With slaves we see a different picture. In Exodus 21:20,21 we see that there is no grounds to punish a master who has beaten his slave. I believe what we are seeing here is that there is a clear recognition that the master DOES have the right to be the judge, jury, and executioner over the slave. And it seems to me that verse 21 says that the grounds for his right to do so is that he is the authority over his slave based upon the fact that he owns the slave. Now, before anybody accuses me of something I don't affirm. We must acknowledge that scripture sets very specific limits on this. Should he even cause the slave to loose a tooth in disciplining him then the slave becomes a free man on account of it. This is in the same passage! Exodus 21:27. Other similiar statements are made. So we see it is simply permission to have his slave punished in a similiar way the elders would punish another Israelite. Not license for whatever cruel torture he desires. I would articulate it like this. "While biblical slavery acknowledges the ownership of the slave and affirms him as the property of the master, it constantly remembers that what is owned is a human being with a certain God-given dignity." As we protect the scriptural notion of slavery from wicked practices that has accompanied worldly slavery, we must still be carefull not to misrepresent it as something better than it actually was. I will address this further in a second post. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
46 | Can anyone explain Mat 24:15? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232775 | ||
elder4yhwh, My opinion is that Luke interprets that passage for us in Luke 21:20. However, the full answer must be a deep one as Doc has suggested. This is because as CDBJ has pointed out, the same notion is taken up again in 2 Thessalonians. So I think that in that particular passage Jesus was applying the language to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, but there must be a deeper fulfillment of Daniel with regards to this yet to come. In fact, you could pick a intertestemental event which we would almost swear fulfilled Daniel's prophecy had Christ not come along and told us to continue looking for its fulfillment. So there must be some way in which these things are types leading up to the ultimate expression of the prophecy which we would expect is what Paul points to in 2 Thess. But short answer. Luke 21:20 In Christ, Beja |
||||||
47 | insest | Lev 18:10 | Beja | 232665 | ||
Lindasue, Leviticus 18 is the most significant chapter on sexual regulations. However, let me just say that if you live in America and the granddaughter is under the age of 18 then you have a serious legal obligation to report such a thing as it is a crime. In such a case this would not merely be about sexual relations between relatives but is sexually abusing a minor. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
48 | my future wife hits me. What do i do? | Matt 5:44 | Beja | 232661 | ||
Mingo, Perhaps you shouldn't marry her? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
49 | Suicide Stop going to Heaven? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232391 | ||
Toylady, The way one answers this question is usually dependant on other theological convictions. I give a very brief explination of that in post 231575. It might or might not be helpful to you. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
50 | Noah's flood ended curse on the land? | Gen 5:29 | Beja | 232339 | ||
Loavesnfish, Here is something John Gill wrote on it. I have no clue how much value to place in the answer but as this is the time of question that is likely to sit for a long time with no response, perhaps this extended quote will be of at least more benefit to you than nothing. Gill: "Gen 5:29 And he called his name Noah,.... Which signifies rest and comfort; for rest gives comfort, and comfort flows from rest, see 2Sa_14:17, where a word from the same root is rendered "comfortable", and agrees with the reason of the name, as follows: saying, this same shall comfort us, concerning our work and toil of our hands, because of the ground, which the Lord hath cursed; this he spake by a spirit of prophecy, foreseeing what his son would be, and of what advantage to him and his family, and to the world, both in things temporal and spiritual. In things temporal: the earth was cursed for the sin of man immediately after the fall, and continued under it to this time, bringing forth thorns and thistles in great abundance of itself, which occasioned much trouble to root and pluck them up, and nothing else, without digging, and planting, and sowing; and being barren through the curse, it was with great difficulty men got a livelihood: now Noah eased them in a good measure of their toil and trouble, by inventing instruments of ploughing, as Jarchi suggests, which they had not before, but threw up the ground with their hands, and by the use of spades, or such like things, which was very laborious; but now, by the use of the plough, and beasts to draw it, their lives were made much more easy and comfortable; hence he is said to begin to be an "husbandman", or a "man of the earth", that brought agriculture to a greater perfection, having found out an easier and quicker manner of tilling the earth: and as he was the first that is said to plant a vineyard, if he was the inventor of wine, this was another way in which he was an instrument of giving refreshment and comfort to men, that being what cheers the heart of God and men, see Gen_9:20 and if the antediluvians were restrained from eating of flesh, and their diet was confined to the fruits of the earth; Noah, as Dr. Lightfoot (d) observes, would be a comfort in reference to this, because to him, and in him to all the world, God would give liberty to eat flesh; so that they were not obliged to get their whole livelihood with their hands out of the ground: and moreover, as Lamech might be apprised of the flood by the name of his father, and the prediction of his grandfather, he might foresee that he and his family would be saved, and be the restorer of the world, and repeople it, after the destruction of it by the flood. And he may have respect to comfort in spiritual things, either at first taking him to be the promised seed, the Messiah, in whom all comfort is; or however a type of him, and from whom he should spring, who would deliver them from the curse of the law, and from the bondage of it, and from toiling and seeking for a righteousness by the works of it; or he might foresee that he would be a good man, and a preacher of righteousness, and be a public good in his day and generation." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
51 | Is practicing homosexuality wrong? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232321 | ||
Diego, The truth of the matter is that somebody with this disposition will more than likely not listen no matter how well you answer him. This is even more true based on the answer to the question, which is quite easy to for scoffers to accuse us of merely picking and choosing what applies. However, because God is able to grant repentance and for the sake of giving you truth personally I will lay out for you the basis of the historical answer Christianity has given to this dilemma. I myself think this answer is biblically sound. The basis of the answer lies in the division of the law. The law was in three parts, though it is often given all mixed together. The three parts are moral, ceremonial, and civil. The civil law, which is what your friend brings up to mock you, was limited to how Israel was to govern their nation. These things can not be applied merely to individuals or the church. We argue that the civil laws no longer apply, simply because we are no longer a worldly nation. The civil law had to do with the priesthood, clensings, sabbaths, festivals, sacrifices and such. All these things were pictures of Christ and fulfilled by Christ. The ended upon the finished work of Christ in his death, ressurection, and ascension because what they pointed to had been fulfilled. See Colossians 2:16,17 for this. The moral law remains both now and forever as the standard of righteousness. See Matthew 5:17,18 for Jesus' claim that this aspect of the law shall never pass away. We know that is what part he was referring to by his exposition of the moral law that follows. Homosexuality and the laws regarding it fall within this abiding moral law. When scripture says we are no longer under the law if we are in Christ we must grasp two things. 1. It does not mean that we God defines as right and wrong has changed. The moral law remains. 2. It means that if we are in Christ, we are no longer accepted or condemned based upon our keeping of that law. For example. Just because I am no longer going to heaven or hell based upon whether or not I resist coveting, does not mean that I now have permission to covet. I hope this helps. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
52 | marry for sake of child? | Matt 19:1 | Beja | 232220 | ||
TAG, This passage may be helpful to you. Mat 19:3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?" Mat 19:4 He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, Mat 19:5 and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? Mat 19:6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." Mat 19:7 They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" Mat 19:8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery." Mat 19:10 The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry." Mat 19:11 But he said to them, "Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. Mat 19:12 For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." In Christ, Beja |
||||||
53 | Is cremation wrong? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232200 | ||
CarlaLeo, Since you received two contradictory answers let me just through in my voice with one to help tip the balance. There is nothing in scripture to my knowledge that indicates cremation is wrong. You will also notice no scripture was given to show it was wrong. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
54 | Question on Hymn of Invitation tradition | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232118 | ||
rustic1959, I also dissaprove of the invitations system as I have seen it done in my area. There are some ways of doing it which I might not object to. However, I think I'd boil down my objection to two points. 1. The act of lending musical accompanyment to us pressing people to "do something" is a good way to create false conversions. Also I do not think there is anyway that Paul, or Jesus Christ for that matter, would ask a lady to play a piano while he spoke in order to create more impact. 2. Pressing people to walk an isle or say a prayer is not what we are to call people to. We are to press for faith and repentance because that is what the gospel presses us to. Sinners in love with their sins will gladly walk down front if they think it is a substitute for repentance. That being said, there are bigger issues and currently I do attend a church which practices the invitation system. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
55 | KJ Version | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232102 | ||
Gadrifter58, At first I hesitated to answer your question. Reason being that this question has so much potential to turn into an arguement over superiority of translations. This would neither be edifying nor could I imagine it in line with the purposes of this forum. However, there is a real question there and with real answers. So I'll attempt to do so. Here are some thoughts. 1. There are a variety of Bibles because there are a variety of goals in translations. There is an ongoing question of how literal of translation is best. When the literal words fail to capture the actual idea in English what does one do? When a Hebrew writers says that he feels something in his kidneys, intestines or bowels do we translate that exactly and leave english readers wondering what on earth he means? Or shall we go ahead and translate the word as "heart" in english? Which is really more of what that would have meant to a Hebrew. This is just the tip of the ice berg in a huge amount of questions when it comes to translations. 2. Language changes. Words continual change their meaning. Words used in the KJV no longer mean what they use to in the common usage of today. Study the change in the word "gay" for example. The KJV itself has gone through numerous revisions even. For this reason we will always need repeated translations if we wish the scriptures to be in the common speech. And we do want that. 3. We have continually made progress in understanding Koine Greek, which is what the new testament is written in. This increase in knowledge allows for better translations. Certain places in the king james scripture are translated with a vagueness due simply to this reason. 4. The one thing universal among almost, if not all, translators of scriptures is the conviction that we are to keep growing in understanding the original texts. No translator has ever finished their work on translating scripture and then said, "There, now this translation buisness is resolved. We can all just read this." Just about the ONLY thing all translators of all versions have in common is a recognition that having lots of translations is a very good thing. The translators of the KJV in a preface to their original work affirmed that having multiple translations of scriptures was desirable for getting the sense of a text. 5. I must make a remark with regards to asserting that the KJV is on a 6th grade level. I won't speak to harshly to that idea because you are the second person that I have heard that some. So the two of you must be getting that idea from some place. I have no idea where though. I will just say this. I have a college degree, and a graduate degree, and I routinely read works of the puritans. Yet I very often find places in the KJV where I can not begin to understand what they are saying until I consult another translation or even the greek. I may not be the smartest man, but I feel quite confident in saying that an average sixth grader is not up to the task. The source I have read says that the KJV is grade 12 and higher. All this said, the KJV is a valuable asset to a study library. But I hope this helps people believe that multiple translations are a good thing. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
56 | Help me understand how do the parts fit? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232097 | ||
Loavesnfishes, I wouldn't reduce the vision to a picture of the attonement if that's what you mean. I think it is pointing to a future temple. I just believe that temple is fulfilled in Christ and His Church. Keep in mind, the key to understanding what I'm saying is to remember that the temple always has been centrally about the presence of God with His people. Therefore God in our midst as Christ, then as the Spirit in the Church, and ultimately the fulness of God in our midst unmediated is a very logical and greater fulfillment of what the temple was always about. As far as helping you understand the minor details of Ezekiel's temple, I can't do that. I don't believe they are all meant to be individual nuggets of truth. As I was saying, I don't believe in prophecies that every detail is meant to be analized. For example in Zechariah's scroll when we are told it measured 20 cubits (if I recall correctly) to ask what the 20 cubits meant would be to totally focus on the wrong point, missing what he is trying to say. What I centrally what to know is how did Jesus and his apostles handle the old testament text in question. In the New Testament, we have a divinely inspired and authoritative interpretation of the Old Testament. That's how I approach the issue. P.S. Its best to use "note" when replying. I will still be alerted via e-mail that you have responded. In Chrst, Beja |
||||||
57 | Ezekiel 40-44 measurements? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232094 | ||
Loavesnfishes, One further thought. Let me tell you what convinces me. I am not convinced of this interpretation because I can go and show how every little measurement represents some spiritual truth. I know a lot of end time preachers tend to see old testament prophecy this way and glory in their ability to make something of every little detail. What pursuades me is that I am thoroughly convinced that when Christ showed up claiming to be a greater temple with a unquenchable flow of living giving water coming from Himself, He did not do so in ignorance of what Ezekiel wrote concerning an eschatological temple. I simply can not help but to believe that Christ was in fact interpreting Ezekiel vision. Are we really to suggest that Christ was unfamiliar with Ezekiel's writings? And if He was familiar with it, are we really going to suggest that Christ was reaching back, grabbing hold of Ezekiel imagery on purpose, then applying those things directly to himself and yet suggest He was not claiming himself as the greater temple? Are we really to think that the apostles weren't following this train of thought? That they did not see the redifining of the meeting place between God in his people when they claimed the church was now the temple of God? Did John not intend to weigh in on the concept of where we are heading in terms of an eschatological temple when he affirmed that in eternity to come there was no physical building as a temple but rather the temple theme was specifically fulfilled by the unmediated presence of God? Rev 21:22 And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. In the end. I was not pursuaded simply by reading Ezekiel. I was pursuaded by what Christ and his apostles did with what Ezekiel said. I believe they got the right of it. Why would we read the new testament continually affirming these things yet continue to look for a mound of bricks to call a temple? I personally have more trouble getting past that issue than I do some unexplained details in Ezekial. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
58 | Ezekiel 40-44 measurements? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232093 | ||
Loavesnfish, I think you are pressing details too far. In every vision and prophecy we see a tendancy to provide details that are simply filling out the vision. Usually, not always but usually, prophecies tend to have one central point. However, here is what I think we should get from the measurements. First, the scope of the temple is huge. It is a "greater" temple than solomon's. Hence we are looking to something bigger and better than what had come before. Second, the entire thing is a square. The only other two places we see this in scripture is the most holy place, and the new Jerusalem. In both the later cases the square measurments are meant to draw on the significance of the first occurance. The "Holy of Holies" the very presence of God has filled the entire temple in Ezekiel's vision just as we now have direct access to the very presence of God through Christ. And ultimate in the new Jerusalem, John is not trying to tell us we are going to eternally dwell in a giant cube but rather it is meant to show that the direct presence of God has filled the entirity of the new Jerusalem. In the end, this is my view. I did not invent it, and it is well represented through the history of Christianity. But I leave it to your own prayerful consideration. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
59 | Ezekiel's Temple vision-when, why, who? | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232089 | ||
Loavesnfishes, The answer is Christ and His church. Really understanding why I feel so confident in this requires to think through the entire theology of the "temple" throughout scripture. I'll chart some beginning things to study. 1. Creation. No temple, God's presence unhindered walking in the midst of the garden with Adam and Eve. 2. The fall. Man removed from God's presence. Cherubim guards the entrance to the garden. 3. Tabernacle built. Especially note the garden imagry. The candlestick looks essentially like a tree of light in the midst of the dark tabernacle. Parallels to the tree of life. It constantly shines upon the showbread which represents God's convenant people. Key thought: Tabernacle from the beginning was meant to depict the "presence of God with His people." The tabernacle is now where God meets fallen man. Enabled through sacrifice. 4. Temple continues this exact theme. Garden imagery. Presence of God with His People. 5. Time of Ezekiel. Temple is destroyed but another greater temple is being promised. This temple is also notable in that a river is going to flow from it that gives life wherever it goes. 6. People return from exile and rebuild solomon's temple. However, the people who actually saw solomon's temple weep over how insignificant this temple is compared to the previous one. In other words, the rebuilding of the temple at this time most certainly did not fulfill Ezekiel's prophecy. Greater temple still expected. 7. Jesus Christ comes. John's gospel tells us that he "tabernacled" with us. Jesus comes claiming three things. First, his body is a temple. Keep in mind the entire point of the temple is the presence of God with His people. Christ is now the temple in the most literal sense in that He is where God meets with His people. Second, Christ claims that He is greater than Solomon's temple. Third, Christ claims that water flows from Him that whomever drinks it shall live forever. This he said refers to the Holy Spirit which He gives. Christ has become the next progression in the temple story throughout the biblical narrative. 8. Christ dies, is ressurected, ascends, and poors out the Spirit upon the Church. God now dwells in the midst of His church via the Spirit. New Testament writers repeatedly refer to the church as the temple. Christ in us has become the new dwelling place of God with His people (temple). 9. Rev 20-22. John tells us that ultimately in his vision of the new heaven and the new earth that there is no temple there because finally God walks unmediated in the midst of his people. And a river that gives life everywhere it goes flows from not a literal temple building, but the throne where the lamb of God sits, Jesus Christ who is the ultimate fulfillment of God's presence with His people, the true greater temple. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
60 | satan's activities | Bible general Archive 4 | Beja | 232087 | ||
begbie, I can not think of any sense in which he is "destroyed." What passage says that he is? In Christ, Beja |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [13] >> |