Results 41 - 60 of 77
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: jonp Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | the conflict between Baalism And Yahwism | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184262 | ||
Hi The conflict was between the true and living God and the fantastic absurdities that man had invented about a world of gods. The One was worshipped from the heart and required righteous living. The others were 'worshipped' by indulging in illicit sexual activity, and even occasionally offering human sacrifices, and paid little heed to how you lived. They were too busy (in theory) sinning themselves. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
42 | Test the spirits | Luke 8:28 | jonp | 184261 | ||
Hi, 1 John 4.2 is referring to testing the spirits of the prophets. The point is that when a prophet speaks you can test his spirit by what he says about Jesus Christ. That is a very different thing from a testimony wrung out from a tormented spirit face to face with the Master and unable to deny Him. Behind His back he would almost certainly have denied Him. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
43 | what are the 5 crowns and scripture? | James 1:12 | jonp | 184260 | ||
Hi Perhaps the incorruptible crown (1 Cor. 9.25), the crown of rejoicing (1 Thess 2.19; the crown of righteousness (2 Tim 4.8); the crown of life (James 1.12; Rev 2.10); the crown of glory (1 Pet 5.4). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
44 | How does one eat wihout a face? | Ex 33:23 | jonp | 184183 | ||
Hi The elders ate in the presence of God. There is no suggestion that God ate with them. They would probably see God in the form of the appearance of fire (compare Ezekiel 1.26-27). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
45 | How does one eat wihout a face? | Ex 33:23 | jonp | 184182 | ||
Hi The elders ate in the presence of God. There is no suggestion that God ate with them. They would probably see God in the form of the appearance of fire (compare Ezekiel 1.26-27). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
46 | Exodus 24 and Exodus 33 | Ex 33:23 | jonp | 184169 | ||
Hi Perhaps I may be able to add a little to what has already been said. 'Seeing God' can signify a number of types of experience. Abraham talked and ate with God face to face (Genesis 18) but he was not strictly 'seeing God' like Moses did in Exodus 33. (Compare Abraham's much more awesome experience in Genesis 15). Jacob met God face to face at Peniel. But as with Abraham He saw God when He had taken the form of a man. It was not strictly 'face to face'. (Even though he was in awe at the experience that he had had). The elders saw Him at a distance and 'ate and drank BEFORE Him'. But as stjohn has already well pointed out they did not see Him fully face to face. All Israel had seen His revelation of Himself in the form of fire (Exodus 19, 24). Both Isaiah and Ezekiel had awesome (in the true sense) visions of God, and so we could go on. But in none of these was it 'face to face'. For it is doubtful if the human body could cope with seeing His glory. This is why smoke and cloud are regularly associated with His appearances. Moses came closest but only after special precautions had been taken. For the truth is that 'He dwells in unapproachable light which no man has seen or can see' (1 Timothy 6.1). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
47 | Rapid conquest??? | Joshua | jonp | 184168 | ||
Hi Sarah, What you have to consider is the difficulty of conquering and then settling a country when the inhabitants are more familiar with the terrain than you are and there are many great forests to hide in, (Canaan was covered with forests), to say nothing of mountains in which to find shelter. Joshua undoubtedly swept victoriously through the land, aided by the fact that during his first movements the Philistines had not yet arrived from the Aegean. But what he did was capture cities and kill kings, persuading them to leave Israel alone, and then move on, and we should note that killing a king and defeating an army was not the same thing as capturing the city. Furthermore he did not have sufficient force to settle all the cities and hold them against the return of the inhabitants. That is why he had to capture some cities more than once. As soon as his forces moved on the inhabitants would creep back and resettle a city. Meanhwile what his conquests did was enable the Israelites to settle in various places and establish themselves in places where they would be left alone. Their opponents did not want to attract Joshua's attention. The cities in the plains of Esdraelon, Jezreel etc (e.g. Megiddo) were very powerful, and with their chariots were more difficult to deal with. And they were well populated. Thus their conquest was more gradual. Then the Philistines arrived and carved out lands for themselves along the Coastal Plain. Thus when Joshua died Israel were settled in conclaves throughout the land alongside Canaanites and as they grew stronger were able to weed out the Canaanites. But unfortunately for them instead of driving out the Canaanites they took advantage of them for forced labour. The arrival of the powerful Philistines in waves around 1200 BC caused a new problem to which Saul had no answer. It was left to David to subdue the Philistines. But that was roughly 200-400 years or so later (dating depends on a number of questions and is hotly disputed in this period). The actual period of the conquest would have been very complicated. It is one thing to defeat an army (of which many escape) it is quite another to make the country safe (especially when there is a tendency to be disobedient). Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
48 | Did Jesus clean the temple twice | NT general Archive 1 | jonp | 184164 | ||
Hi The Scriptures make clear that Jesus did cleanse the Temple twice but in very different ways. The first was when as a young prophet having just commenced His ministry He was incensed at the noisy trading that was taking place which was affecting the possibility of reverent worship. In this case he drove out the cattle, overturned the tables of the money changers, and told those who sold pigeons and doves to take them out of the Temple. His main purpose was to stop the Temple being used as a shop. His cry was, 'Do not make my Father's house into a shop'. It was a temporary disturbance and was probably looked on as the action of a young hothead. Some years passed and the fears that He might do it again had died down. But this time His act was deliberately thought out and was a part of His proclamation of His Messiahsip. This time He surveyed the scene carefully before doing anything (Mark 11.11). This time He did not make the cattle His aim, but concentrated His actions on the traders involved in the activity. He drove out both buyers and sellers, and again overturned the tables of the money-changers, and this time he tipped over the seats of those who sold pigeons and doves as they had not heeded His previous warning. This time it was His own authority that was being extablished. And His accusation went deeper, for now He was more aware of what was going on. And He accused them of turning a house of prayer into a den of brigands. It will be noted that this time He ignored the cattle. The remarkable differences between the two accounts in spite of the venue and the cast being the same is quite remarkable. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
49 | What resource identifys Gospl chronolgy | Matt 1:1 | jonp | 184136 | ||
Hi The question of the chronological sequence of the Gospels is a much debated one, moreso now than it was fifty years ago when it was felt that it was almost settled. The large majority, apart mainly from Roman Catholic writers, view Mark as the first Gospel to be written. Some would argue that it was Matthew. The question that is most often asked is whether Matthew and Luke used Mark's Gospel or a draft of it in writing their own Gospels. A good and detailed treatment by an evangelical is Dr Donald Guthrie's New Testament Introduction. It is an expansion of his lecture notes when he used to lecture at London Bible College (now the London School of Theology) Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
50 | Further to previous question. | 1 Corinthians | jonp | 184134 | ||
Hi ceebee7 It is doubtful whether a practising homosexual who continues permanently in such a relationship can be a born again Christian. If he/her had truly been born again and had become a new creation in Christ his/her conscience would not allow him/her to continue in a relationship so clearly condemned as shameful by God in Romans 1.26-27. I must stress here that we must differentiate between those with such tendencies, who are to be loved in Christ, and those who put it into practise in sinful relationships, who if they claim to be Christians are to be loved but should be disciplined by the church as in 1 Corinthians 5, (even if they are bishops). As you may be aware this issue is so serious that it may well cause the Anglican/Episcopalian church to divide up in the not too distant future. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
51 | origin of the devil | Ezek 28:13 | jonp | 184133 | ||
Hi It is not strictly true to say that the majority of scholars see Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28 as referring to Satan. The majority opinion among leading scholars is actually that those Scriptures refer to ancient kings who made grandiose claims for themselves, claims which the prophets derided. That Satan was a created spiritual being is necessarily so. But he appears from 'nowhere' in the Fruitful Plain of Eden where he is seen to be in opposition to God (just as the angelic court are assumed in God's words 'Let us make man in OUR image' (Genesis 1.26). We are given a recognition that such spiritual beings exist but not given the details. They came before the creation of heaven (sky) and earth. (Although some would see them as included in Genesis 1.1). His minions crop up in Genesis 6.1-4 and he suddenly appears in Job 1-2, as an angelic being, a son of the elohim, and having to submit to God's authority. In 1 Chronicles 21 he leads David astray. In Zechariah 3 he is once again seen as in opposition to God. In Daniel 10 we again see something of his minions. It is in the New Testament that his opposition to God's ways comes out more emphatically. But his origin is never explained. Jesus tells us that he 'fell from Heaven' and Revelation 12 indicates that he dragged others with him. We must beware of seeing him as almost on a par with God. Powerful though he is he is no match for God and he knows it. Why does God allow Satan to continue in action? As well ask why God allows us still to be in action. It is all within His overall plan. But when Jesus came he was in a sense bound because the Kingly Rule of God had come (Mark 3.27; Matthew 12.28-29 compare Luke 11.22). This binding of Satan is also referred to in Revelation 20.1-3. For his release for a little while compare Revelation 9.1-13. We must recognise that when speaking of details dealing with Satan they cannot be taken too literally. Satan is a spiritual being. He cannot be bound with a chain, be put in prison, or indeed be affected by a literal lake of fire. These are all pictures illustrating how God deals with him in His own way. Job makes clear that he is under God's authority. He cannot do just what he wants. But he is exceedingly powerful (Jude 9). Jesus claims a putting of him under further restraint. He has him under restraint even now. If he had not had him under restraint the church would not have survived for five minutes. And yet his influence is continually felt by the church (1 Peter 5.8). That is why we need to be clothed in the armour of God for our weapons against him are faith, the word of God, a knowledge of the truth, And prayer. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
52 | Place in Church | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184117 | ||
Hi Does a woman have the right to be an elder or a bishop? Forgive my seeming to criticise the question but the strict answer is of course no, nor does any man. Before God we have privileges not rights when it comes to serving Him. And it is important that we remember this. It was because the church forgot this that it went into a dark history. 'GOD IS IN HEAVEN AND WE ARE ON THE EARTH, THEREFORE OUR WORDS SHOULD BE FEW. (Ecclesiastes 5.2)' and this is true for both men and women. A woman certainly has the right to be made president of the US of A but not to become an elder or bishop. So let us rephrase the question, 'does a woman have the inestimable privilege of being open to consideration for God to call her to be an elder or a bishop.' I suspect you may have stirred a hornets' nest :-))) But first we do have to ask how we define an elder or bishop. For the functions that are seen as adhering to the title have in my view an important bearing on the answer. Certainly exceptional women did in the past have positions of high importance. Deborah was a judge of Israel and a prophetess. Huldah was a prophetess consulted by the highest in the land. Priscilla (Prisca) was prominent with her husband in helping Aquila and in ministering. But Paul puts the position quite clearly when he says, 'I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men, she is to keep silent.' And this would appear to have in mind authoritative teaching, as he relates it to the woman having been deceived in Eden (1 Timothy 2.12-15). And that is the point. At the risk of offending half the world it should be pointed out that women think differently from men. Men are more logical in their thinking, women more intuitive. Thus they can give different perspectives. Of course this does not deny that many women can train themselves to be very logical, (and many men are very illogical) but whatever their training the basic difference is there, and can come out at any time to affect the position, both for good and for bad. It is significant that Jesus had both male and female disciples who followed Him about (Luke 8.2-3) but He only appointed male Apostles. (He did not even officially appoint leaders over the women's section). Thus it would seem that the Scriptures are saying that overall the authority must lie with men, both in teaching and in church government. For the divine order from the point of view of authority is the Godhead, Christ, the man, the woman (1 Corinthians 11.1-16). Yet that some women have an important part to play comes out above, and on the mission field where there has been many a Deborah and Huldah. Many a tribe would not have been evangelised had it not been for women. But in most cases those very women arranged for the appointment under God of men to have authority in the church. They acknowleged the important principle that God had laid down through Paul. It is therefore I suggest on the basis of these principles that we must come to our answer. Certainly Paul did not visualise women bishops/elders as authoritative leaders of the local church for he said that they were to be the husband of one wife. But in all this it must be emphasised that this was not so that men could lord it over women. It was a matter of each having their proper function in the purposes of God. As Timothy pointed out in the same context women had a vital function which men have little part in. It is in child-bearing and rearing that she will be able to ‘work out her salvation’, the salvation that God has worked within her (1 Timothy 2.15; Philippians 2.12-13). In other words that is her major function in the purposes of God. She is given the prime responsibility to lay the foundations of all future church leaders. It was Moses’ godly mother who laid the foundation for his future ministry. The vital importance of this comes out in the fact that Muslims are reproducing rapidly while in certain countries Christians are only doing so in very limited fashion. It has been estimated that if the present birth rate goes on in the UK it will become a Muslim nation within fifty years. And the US will be next in line. That is how important it is. Best wishes. Jonp | ||||||
53 | bible verses for a suicidal teen! | Prov 3:5 | jonp | 184092 | ||
Hi In such circumstance we all have to bow our heads and be silent. But if he is a Christian or ready to become a Christian there is One Who can speak. He too was laid on His back in critical condition, His body wrecked by the activities of man, and in His critical condition, having seemingly gone through the depths of despair (My God, My God why have you forsaken Me?) He cried Father into Your hands I commend My Spirit. He can reach out to help your friend. Perhaps without being glib you can also give him as from the Lord Himself the words of Proverbs 3.5. 'Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding, in all your ways acknowledge Him and He will direct your paths'. For that is what your friend needs right now, to know that the One Who has been through what he is going through, and worse, will direct His paths and lead him slowly along it. It will need much grace on your part to help him, for he will feel that you do not understand. And of course he is right. But Jesus Christ will be with you and He understands exactly. So take courage from Him. You might also consider the word, 'I will never fail you nor forsake you' (Hebrews 13.5). But they will have to be spoken after much prayer and with gentle understanding. I know it sounds so inadequate but our eyes are on Him not ourselves. For with Him behind them the words are not inadequate. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
54 | Age of those entering Promise Land | Bible general Archive 3 | jonp | 184069 | ||
Hi After Israel had sinned by refusing to go forward in order to possess the promised land God determined that none of them should enter the promised land apart from Caleb and Joshua. Thus they wandered around the wilderness region near the mountains of Edom until all that generation had died out. We are not told at what age they were seen as being disobedient (the children had no choice in the matter). It may have been the age for battle (20), or it may have been the age of maturity (12-13). In view of the crime possibly it was the former. That would mean that the oldest who entered the promised land apart from Joshua and Caleb was fifty eight. The remainder would cover all ages below that. Life in the wilderness was hard on the old. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
55 | What do 10 signify? | Gen 8:5 | jonp | 184051 | ||
Hi, The number ten can mean 'a number of times'. For example Jacob said, 'you have changed my wages ten times' (Genesis 31.41). It can also indicate a complete series. Thus in Genesis 5 and Genesis 11 we have two series of ten patriarchs which are intended to sum up the whole line of patriarchs. This last is the most common usage. In fact the ancients used numbers as adjectives in order to give an impression. Seven was used to indicate divine perfection and completeness. Numbers were first invented (in primitive form) in the area around Babylonia around 3500 BC. But their use was limited to a few experts. For long centuries most people had a limit of counting of three, and even today among a number of tribes three is still the limit of their use of numbers. (It was not a question of spiritualising them. It was the way that they used them). This comes out in 1 Kings 17.12 where the widow woman was collecting 'two sticks' i.e. a few. 'Three' would have indicated 'a lot'. That is why the hieroglyph for the number three in Egyptian also meant the universe. It went back to their thinking in terms of a man, his woman and the rest of the universe. The Sumerian symbol for one meant 'man', for two meant 'woman. and for three meant also 'many'. We have another example of this in 1 Samuel 13.1 where the Hebrew text reads. 'Saul was one year old when he began to reign and he reigned two years over Israel'. Saul was a primitive king and had no recorder and thus the later writers had no statistics for his reign. So they used the common people's conventions. 'One' indicated the first stage of life. He became king before he reached maturity. 'Two' indicated the first and middle stages of life. He never reached old age (which would have been 'three'). Even today among primitive tribes old men will proudly tell you that they are three years old. Our own number system indicates a time when ten was the limit of counting. Thus eleph en (eleven) mean ten and one more. two eleph (twelve) meant ten and two more. That may well be why thirteen originally became an unlucky number. It was originally the one outside the count. It is doubtful if in Jesus day the majority of Gentile Christians (and other Gentiles) could count beyond say twenty, even if that. They could probably also not read. That is why the Scriptures were read aloud in the churches. A number of the so-called number contradictions that some people claim today are easily resolved by recognising these facts. I realise this may seem strange to us. We have been brought up to count. But it is nevertheless true. To most ancient people numbers were a mystery. In the Egyptian texts a king who was able to number his fingers was counted as 'a great magician'. Such was the awe in which numbers were held. So ten was a significant number for it was the number of fingers on both hands indicating a complete series. Any good book on the history of mathematics will tell you these facts. Best wishes Jonp. | ||||||
56 | can someone make Mark 2:21 more clear? | Mark 2:21 | jonp | 184044 | ||
Hi The point is that the Pharisees and the disciples of John asked why Jesus' disciples were not fasting. Presumably this must have been because it was a regular feast when fasting was expected by the pious in order to encourage the arrival of the day of the Messiah. Jesus is pointing out that with His coming everything has changed. The fasting was aimed at bringing in the age of the Messiah. But as the Messiah had come the old ways no longer applied. So the old ways were incompatible with the new, just as an old cloth was incompatble with a new patch. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
57 | John 10.3The sheep hears his voice | John 10:3 | jonp | 184020 | ||
Hi Sorry for my lack of clarity. YHWH is the name of God in the Old Testament (Yahweh; Jahweh; Jehovah). The four letters which represent His Name are in fact unpronounceable. The Jews consider it blasphemy to speak the Name, thus the Hebrew text represents it with the four letters together with indicators that when read another word should be used, either LORD or GOD. So when in such translations as AV, RV, RSV etc you see GOD or LORD in capital letters it is an indication that they are translating the sacred Name of YHWH. The reason why it is unpronounceable is because as it was never pronounced eventually everyone forgot how it should be pronounced. So now no one knows!. It is often called the Tetragrammaton. Hope this clarifies the situation. Best wishes Jonp |
||||||
58 | Cont radiction??? | Luke 2:11 | jonp | 184006 | ||
Hi If you refer to Philippians 2.8-11 you will discover that Jesus was given the Name above every Name. This is the name of YHWH. In Matthew 28.18-20 Jesus told His disciples to baptise in 'the Name' of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the Nme of YHWH. Thus the Name of the Son is YHWH. In Isaiah 43.11 it is YHWH Who is the Saviour. Thus there is no contradiction. The name Jesus in fact means 'YHWH is salvation. Best wishes Jonp | ||||||
59 | philippians 3 | Phil 3:10 | jonp | 183986 | ||
Hi, Paul had sacrificed all that he had previously believed in and all the efforts that he had made to attain righteousness through the law, so that he might 'gain Christ'. He had had to choose between holding on to his own life or losing his old life and receiving Christ, and he chose to receive Christ (because Christ had chosen him). Having received Christ all his efforts were now being put into knowing Christ more and more. The verb for to know is ginosko which means to know by experience. He was growing in his knowledge of Christ day by day (Ephesians 3.17-19). And through knowing Christ he also knew and experienced more of the power of His resurrection, and of being made conformable to his death, dying to himself and living to Christ (compare Galatians 2.20; Romans 6.3 ff). And all this with his final goal in mind to attain the resurrection from the dead in response to God's upward call in Christ. He did not attain it himself. He attained it by receiving the gift of Christ Jesus and by persevering in Him. That was his side of it. But that perseverance was guaranteed by the grace and working of God (Philippians 2.13; 1 Corinthians 1.8-9; Philippians 1.6). Best wishes jonp | ||||||
60 | what does ephesians 4:9 mean-"descended" | Eph 4:9 | jonp | 183984 | ||
Hi Minerva Paul's point is that Jesus descended into the grave, the world of the dead, before rising from the dead having broken the power of Satan (Colossians 2.15)and breaking the power of death for all believers (Hebrews 2.14) by rising far above all (compare Ephesians 1.19-22). Best wishes jonp. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |