Results 41 - 48 of 48
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: ischus Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | help! | Bible general Archive 2 | ischus | 115088 | ||
Being single myself, I know that I would be interested in a study of accepting my singleness and giving God my whole heart in this period of my life when I have no familial resposibilities. How can I learn to trust God in my search for a partner instead of worrying about it? What things does God expect from me as a single- spiritually, physically, emotionally? What things are unique about my singleness in the Kingdom, and how can I serve God in this way? How can I prepare myself for my future mate; what things should I be working on in order to be the best husband/wife in the future? How did Jesus live as a single person? What struggles and temptations does he have in common with me? Maybe this will give you some more insights into your class! God Bless! ischus |
||||||
42 | Reincarnation, near death experiences? | Bible general Archive 2 | ischus | 115082 | ||
Kathy, You ask a very important question here. The bible is very clear about reincarnation: There is no such thing. Paul speaks of being with the Lord when one is absent from the body. Moses and Elijah are seen with Jesus at his transfiguration and they are recognized by the disciples; they are the same people, not reicarnated. God always refers to himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the present tense. Not that he used to be, but that he still is, because they have never become anyone or anything else, and they are with him. I apologize for not giving scripture references... if you want them please ask and I will post them for you. As far as near death expereinces, I am not clear as to your meaning, but I assume you mean either a "bright light, out of body experience," or a "should have died but didn't" experience. I am not sure that the bible ever addresses this, even indirectly, but perhaps some others can be of some assistence here. I do know that the bible is full of visions, but not when people were about to die. If, however, by "near death" you mean a divine assistence in the event of saving or protecting someone from certain death, I think one can attribute many of these type of mysteries to God or angels. God is portrayed several times in the bible as one who is working behind the scenes and causing things to happen. Again, if you would like scriptures for this please ask. It is a pleasure to speak with you. ischus |
||||||
43 | What does Deut. Lev. and Numbers mean? | OT general | ischus | 115072 | ||
mokeefe: "Levitcus" comes to us from the LXX (septuagint-the greek translation of the OT) and through the Vulgate (the latin translation). Literally it means "levitical," or the Levitical book. This is because the book features Aaron and the Levitical (Priestly) duties of his tribe, the Levites, under the OT Law. The Hebrew title to the book, like many other books, is the first phrase of the book, "and he called," ("Vayikra" or "Wayyiqra"). "Numbers" also comes from the LXX and is bases on chapters 1 and 26 where they take the "numbers" of the people. The Hebrew title is more appropriate for the book as it is called "in the wilderness," ("bemidbar"). "Deuteronomy" means "second law" or "another law," and comes from the greek (deutero-second, or another; nomos-law). Incidently, this is actually a mistranslation by a copyist, who incorrectly took the phrase "copy of the law" found in Duet.17:18 to mean "second law," and translated it as such. THe Hebrew title occurs as both "words" (devarim)and "these are the words" ('elleh haddevarim). I hope this helps you out! ischus |
||||||
44 | Does the Holy Spirit work differently? | Bible general Archive 2 | ischus | 115050 | ||
I think that your question is really a matter of semantics. Your arguments from english are the reason that there is confusion here. Whether or not the Spirit is ever "in" us is purely speculative. Perhaps the Spirit is "around" us or "next" to us. Whatever word we use to describe his presence is beside the point. You are correct in your conclusions, but the real difference between the OT and NT is not the "coming" of the Spirit, but the "remaining" of the Spirit. In the OT the Spirit comes and goes as it is needed to perform the works of God for his purposes. It is always a temporary event. Even David, the man after God's own heart, realized that God's spirit was not a guaranteed gift. That's is why he pleads with God to not take it away from him when he needed God the most. God's glory was fading from Moses, not remaining. The scriptures you mentioned are for the most part a general comment or observation (mostly by other people, not God) about the fact that the Spirit was working with a particular person. On the other hand, we have the "gift" of the Spirit, the eternal, indwelling of the Spirit. It does not come and go as God sees fit. It is always present. Always helping, comforting, encouraging, sanctifying, and stretching us. I hope this gives you what you are looking for. ischus |
||||||
45 | why don't people study the old testmant | Bible general Archive 2 | ischus | 115044 | ||
Amen, kalos! When we neglect the old testament, we miss out on some extremely important theological insights into God and his gospel. The Pentateuch is rich with statements about God's nature and will for all people. Jesus, as you know, does not abolish the law but fulfills it. He perfects it and gives us life through him. The OT has much to say about how God reconciles people to himself, how he deals with sin, how he views the poor and marginalized, how he cares for Gentiles, what he values in worship, relationships, and much, much more! The people who either neglect the OT all together, or make it into some ancient fortune teller for us today truly miss out on the beauty of the bible that was used by Jesus and the first century Christians. I encourage you to study and teach the Old Testament as much as possible! ischus |
||||||
46 | I am looking for a study bible.... | Bible general Archive 2 | ischus | 115009 | ||
Thanks to both of you. I will check out all of your suggestions. I appreciate your willingness to help, as well as your honest critiques of each bible. That was exactly what I was looking for! Thanks again, and if anyone else has some ideas that would be great. ischus |
||||||
47 | Hell in the Bible: Literal or Figurative | Heb 11:40 | ischus | 114913 | ||
Hello everyone, I might begin by asking if, in light of a literal interpretation, you (the literalist) would also agree with a literal view of the eternity of Hell. My point is this: If one is given to literal flames, he cannot last for an eternity in such a physically literal situation. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I gather that you are vouching for a literal, physical Hell, right? I am not sure how this can be reconciled against scripture, for serveral different reasons: 1) The biblical writers never intended their words to be taken literally. Take Jude for example. In verse 7 he desribes Hell as an eternal fire, and then three verses later, in verse 10, he calls it the blackest darkness. Matthew uses the same two images of Fire and Darkness at different times as well. Surely these can not be coexistent in a literal hell. 2) A physical fire would only be effective on physical beings with physical nerve endings. If we look to Mt. 25:41 however, we see an eternal fire created for... Satan and his angels. This certainly cannot be a physical fire made for a spiritual being. It is rather a sort of "spiritual fire," the common metaphor for God's punishment upon the wicked. 3) Every New Testament description of both heaven and hell are symbolic accounts, not literal snapshots of furniture and living quarters. Take any verse in Revelation and this can be applied. John never intended to communicate that the great and aweful things that he was describing were literal, as if he could comprehend all that he was seeing. The NT writers did exactly what any of us would do when asked to describe hell; they picked the worst thing they could think of and described it exponentially. Steven King could make heaven a lot better sounding and hell a lot worse sounding than what the bible makes it out to be, because he would take what is meaningful to us and what would impact us to descibed it. 4) In ancient times, writers often used strong words, symbolically to underscore their point. Take Jesus: does he really want us to literlly hate our families, gouge out our eyes, and let someone else bury our family memebers when they die, or were these symbols used in order to prove his point? The majority of people (except for one rabbinic school) understood sybolism, hyperbole, and allegory as the most popular forms of communication in the first century. Whether one was speaking of discipleship, the church, Jesus, or heaven/hell, symbolism and metaphor were the way to go if they wanted to effectively express their point. As you might have noticed, I believe that the bible speaks metaphorically about heaven and hell, and I think that Peter falls in line with all other NT authors and should be taken as metiphorical. I know that I am the minority here, but I will do my best to answer any questions that this may raise. Ischus |
||||||
48 | Explaination of 1 Cor 11:10 | 1 Cor 11:10 | ischus | 114901 | ||
rsmith77: First of all, although Paul uses a theological argument here, the majority of this passage must be interpreted from a very cultural point of view; in other words, this statement is a result of Paul's first century theology. When we understand that, it may become slightly easier to interpret this. 1)v10 begins with "for this reason." This clause should be taken as pointing backwards to the previous verses, not forward to the subsequent remarks. Paul speaks about women with "authority" on their heads in light of creation- God, man, women...the line of authority. Therefore, women need to have a covering to show their submission to the authority to both man and more importantly to God. 2) "on account of the angels" is were it gets tricky. Hooker, in "New Testament Studies," has a good explanation here. Since angels were believed to be watching over and/or participating in the assembly, the rightful respect for the order of creation must be upheld. An alternative view is that Paul is seen as refering to Gen.6 where the sons of God and daughters of men are described as bearing offspring. Paul, as well as most other Christians in the first century, saw the sons of God as being angels. But, since they have sinned against God in this act, they are now bad angels...of Satan. Women need protection from these type of assaults, according to Paul, and so they need to be under the veil (authority) of God and men at this time of vulnerabiblty. 3) Contrary to contemporary views of sexism on the part of Paul, he is actually showing the equality of men and women before God in this context, as the next two verses show. The women must also wear this authority so that the men will respect her as God's creation and not as a sexual being for pleasure. Whereas woman came from man, so also, man is born from woman. There is a circle of equality that Paul is expressing here. The Glory of man must be kept pure in worship. She is not to disract man's heart from God with her beauty. 4) Finally, this authority can also be seen not as a curse, but as a blessing from God. This is a sign of the womens' new authority given to her in these final days, as she is now able to freely prophesy along with the men, as seen in this context as well. Hopefully, this will shed some light on the subject for you. May your walk with Him be a blessed one! |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] |