Results 41 - 60 of 70
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: rabban Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | exodus 33;23 | Exodus | rabban | 191543 | ||
Hi, My view on this is that we need to see what it was that God was going to reveal. Moses had asked to 'see His ways that he might know Him'. He wanted to know what God was going to do. Then he grew bolder and asked, 'Show me your glory.' God's reply was, 'I will make all My goodness pass before you and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you.' There is no promise of a bodily presence. He is to see His glory and goodness. Up to this point Moses had always 'seen' God in the cloud. Now the promise was that he would be able to see the glory of God unveiled, but only as it were the tail end. For no man could see Him in the fullness of His glory and live. The language is anthropomorphic. We can compare how Isaiah saw the glory of the LORD 'high and lifted up', although in His case the Temple was filled with smoke (Isaiah 6). Note that with all the descriptiveness there is no attempt to describe God. And compare how Ezekiel saw the glory of the LORD, 'on the likeness of the throne was the likeness of the appearance of a man on it above, and I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire within it round about, from the appearance of His loins and upwards, and from the appearance of His loins and downwards I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness round about Him. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.' It will be noted that while powerful the description is vague. He was describing the indescribable.'The likeness of' indicates how difficult he is finding it to discover the exact words with which to describe Him, and note also the repetition of 'the appearance of'. He gained the impression of a man and yet not a man. Rather the appearance of fire, and glory, spoken of in terms of a heavenly storm (note the rainbow). We need not speculate on exactly what of God was revealed in either case, only to recognise His utter glory. To speak of a pre-incarnate spiritual body of Christ appears to me almost to suggest that God is not One being. I think that it is to tread on dangerous ground. Can we so separate God? (It was a different matter once Christ had become man, then He did have a separate body in His manhood). Because God sometimes chose to take the appearance of a man e.g. with Abraham before His dealings with Lot (Genesis 18-19) and with Jacob at Peniel (Genesis 32), and in the appearance of 'the Angel of the LORD' this does not justify us in thinking that God is normally so limited. (Remember they are not considered to have 'seen His face'even though Jacob thought of it in that way, otherwise they would not have been alive). As Jesus declared so clearly, 'God is Spirit' (John 4.24). But He manifests Himself in different ways. |
||||||
42 | where do animals go when they expire? | Rev 22:15 | rabban | 191524 | ||
I am likely to be very unpopular when I suggest that they simply cease to exist. Revelation 22:15 certainly puts the dogs outside. It would seem to me going to absurd lengths to have in the new Heaven and the new earth every single living creature that has ever lived. Think of the flies who die and reproduce constantly and the ants!! And none of them ever dying. And this is especially so when this would be in contrast to the remnant of the human race. The only Scripture that might give positive hope is Isaiah 11.5-9 (compare 65.25). But it is doubtful if we can stretch these that far. I wait with baited breath. |
||||||
43 | silent prayer | Matt 6:5 | rabban | 191520 | ||
Hi,May I suggest 1 Thessalonians 5.17 Now I do not know about you but I think that if I went everywhere praying aloud unceasingly I suggest that it would make life very difficult. This would have been even moreso for 1st century Christian slaves. Consider also Psalm 4.4; 63.6; 97.6 in relation to this. When I was in the armed forces and we slept in nissen huts, 24 to a hut, I would probably not have got out alive if I had prayed aloud. I shudder to think of it. This must have been true in ancient homes when everyone lived in one room. It would have meant that they could only pray when they all wanted to pray. So it is quite clear that 'silent' prayer must have been a norm. |
||||||
44 | Bible lesson for nosy neighbor | Prov 15:1 | rabban | 191515 | ||
I wonder if this story might answer your question. A man was being tailgated by a stressed-out woman on a busy boulevard. Suddenly, the light turned yellow, just in front of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection. The tailgating woman hit the roof--and the horn--screaming in frustration as she missed her chance to get through the intersection. As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up. He took her to the police station where she was searched, finger printed, photographed and placed in a holding cell. After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal effects. He said, "I'm very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping off the guy in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him. I noticed the 'Choose Life' license plate holder, the 'What Would Jesus Do' bumper sticker, the 'Follow Me to Sunday School' bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian fish emblem on the trunk. Naturally, I assumed you had stolen the car." Beware of stickers which do not tell the truth about you. |
||||||
45 | about (ph) mohammed in bible? | Matt 24:11 | rabban | 191514 | ||
Yes Mohammed is mentioned in the Bible, although not by name. For example: Jesus said, 'And many false prophets shall arise and shall lead many astray' (Matthew 24.11; Mark 13.22). 'There will arise false Christs and false prophets, --- so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect' (Matthew 24.24). |
||||||
46 | Should we sell domestic pets? | 2 Sam 12:3 | rabban | 191476 | ||
I must confess I know of nowhere in Scripture that forbids the selling of animals raised at home. It sounds like an 'old wives tale', although with some truth in it. Indeed many Jews raised animals in their home on the ground floor, and would then sell their offspring. The possible objection would be that it is ungrateful and is to treat a 'friend' too lightly. (Perhaps the 'little ewe lamb' of Nathan is in mind? - 2 Sam 12.3) But my feeling is that people are far more likely to care for their pets properly if they have to pay for them, rather than if they are given them. Why not pass them on lovingly in return for a suitable donation to charity? And you could then give the money to the needy and everyone would benefit :)))). (Just a thought. You are of course quite entitled to give them away :-)))) ). |
||||||
47 | ... | John 16:31 | rabban | 191472 | ||
May I gently suggest that there is no 'alternate rendering'. The Greek is in fact quite clear. It is 'do you then (or 'now' - arti can be either and it makes little difference) believe?'It is their faith that is in question, not what they have been saying. | ||||||
48 | ... | John 16:28 | rabban | 191471 | ||
I presume I am unidentified responder, although as far as I am aware my name is clearly shown (see heading). In John 16.27 Jesus speaks of the disciples as believing that He had come from the Father, and in John 16.28 He says that He had come from the Father. Then in 16.30 in reply to this the disciples declared, 'By this we believe that you came from God.' It is surely quite clear that the Father is being described by the disciples as God. The terms are indeed often interchangeable, although clearly having a different emphasis. I am not sure why you should equate the Father in the New Testament with Jesus. That application only occurs in Isaiah 9.6 where the idea is that He is Father to His people in the same way as David would have been seen as being. As has also been pointed out John 5.18 clearly parallels the Father with God. Where then is the difficulty? I am also not quite sure what you mean by the difference in spelling. Are not 'God' and 'Father' usually spelled differently? It does not appear to me that there is a difference in definition. Just an indication that the disciples were still hesitant about speaking of 'the Father' in the way that Jesus did. They possibly recognised even at this stage the huge difference between themselvess and Jesus. Your other two 'questions' do not appear to be questions at all, so I am not sure what their purpose is. Are you just playing games?. |
||||||
49 | What's Pastor's Responsibility? | NT general Archive 1 | rabban | 191458 | ||
Hi May I just add to the excellent advice given 1 Corinthians 3.6-15; 4.1-5; 9.16-23; 13; 2 Corinthians 4.1-2, 7-15; 10.12-13. |
||||||
50 | Only God can make a promise? | Deut 23:22 | rabban | 191443 | ||
God leaves the question of whether we should make promises an open one (Deuteronomy 23.22). What He does however insist on is that if we make promises we will keep them. (Deuteronomy 23.21; Ecclesiastes 5.4-6; Psalms 15.4; 24.4) See also Proverbs 20.25. |
||||||
51 | Nehemiah 4 | Nehemiah | rabban | 191440 | ||
Like Joseph and Moses, Nehemiah was raised by God to high office in a foreign court in order that he might be ready to carry forward God's purpose for God's people, in his case for Jerusalem. As the king's cupbearer he was one of the most powerful men in Persia. (Compare the Rabshakeh who held a similar position in Assyria - 2 Kings 18.17, 19 ff). It was a position that could only be held by someone who was totally trusted by the king. When the servants brought the king's wine the Cupbearer would take it from them and taste it before passing it to the King. Thus he was the one man who could poison the king. He held high office and would also have great responsibilities. (Becoming governor of Judah would be a demotion). So Nehemiah was a powerful and trusted servant of the king of Persia. Indeed only one who was as trusted as he was would have been allowed to do what he did. Jerusalem had been resettled after the exile by Sheshbazzar (Ezra 1.8)and those who returned with them, and a small temple had been built. But it was little more than a huddle of buildings, unprotected and vulnerable. Most of the returnees probably settled outside Jerusaelm. Jerusalem seemingly came within the province of Samaria, which would be ruled by a governor appointed by the Persians. It was in his interests to prevent Jerusalem from becoming important as a rival to Samaria. And Jerusalem had a reputation for being rebellious. Sanballat was probably at this time the governor of Samaria (he certainly was later).He was probably a syncretistic Yahwist (as we know from his sons' names). Tobiah's name suggests that he also was a syncretistic Yahwist. He was clearly a powerful aristocrat and held high office (as 'the servant') possibly in Ammon. The arrival of Nehemiah with the king's authority would have infuriated them. They dared not openly oppose him, but along with other neighbouring groups (Ammonites, Ashdodites and Arabs) they determined to undermine what Nehemiah was doing. This was why no army is involved. Anything that happened had to be portrayable as performed by bandits. It was after all rebellion against the king's commands. This explains why such a powerful coalition were unable to directly prevent the work. It had to be done surreptitiously as far as the outside world were concerned. Nehemiah the new governor of Judah and Jerusalem set about rebuilding the walls in accordance with the authority given to him by the king. The first attempt against them was one of ridicule. They tried to discourage the local returnee Jews who were supporting Nehemiah Did they not recognise that they were wasting their time. Their walls were pathetic and would only fall down (4.2-3). Nehemiah combated that with prayer (probably public in order to encourage the builders). When that failed Sanballat and his cronies decided that the next thing was to use unofficial armed bands to disrupt the work. The effect of their double efforts was that many men of Judah did become discouraged (4.10). But Nehemiah would not be discouraged and simply arranged that the builders must double up as builders and guards. He also arranged that they would all sleep in Jerusalem so as to protect it at nights. And they slept with their clothes on and their arms ready to hand. The lessons are clear. Ridicule must be combated with prayer. Active interference must be combated by self-sacrifice, wisdom and courage and a readiness for self-defence. This is a very abbreviated account which you will clearly need to fill out, especially with regard to the lessons to be learned from it. . |
||||||
52 | What is hatred? When is it ok to hate? | Matt 5:44 | rabban | 191434 | ||
Hi, it is never OK to hate people (Matthew 5.42-48; 1 John 3.15). It is always OK to hate sin (Romans 7.15; Hebrews 1.9; Revelation 2.6). The Old Testament regularly speaks about abhorring sin. One problem with the verb to 'hate' as found in our translations of Scripture is that in the Hebrew and Greek the word often meant 'love less'. It covered a wide spectrum of hatred, dislike and 'loving less'. This comes out in the story of Jacob. 'And he went in also to Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah.' (Gen 29.30). The position is clear, he loved Rachel more than Leah. Then it says, 'And the LORD saw that Leah was hated.' Here the word should really be translated 'loved less', according to the information found in the previous verse. When Jesus spoke of us 'hating' our father and mother, He was really speaking of 'loving less' than God. When God says of Esau, 'Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated' He then also says, 'the elder will serve the younger' (Romans 9.12-13). It was a matter of degrees of love, not of actual hatred. |
||||||
53 | why suffer in pain | 2 Cor 4:17 | rabban | 191425 | ||
May I say first that I understand fully how you feel. I have a loved one who has suffered continually over the last sixteen years until my heart is almost broken, so I do not speak lightly. But I recognise that pain is the common lot of man (Romans 8.22). And it is of great benefit. It is because they are without pain that many lepers lose parts of their body. But should God interfere especially on behalf of Christians? Would it indeed be just? And besides God uses pain. For many a non-Christian the pain helps them to think of eternity. 'When God's judgments are on the earth the people learn righteouseness.' And on the Christian it can have a sanctifying influence 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my strength is made perfect in weakness.' (2 Corinthians 12.9; Psalm 25.18; Romans 5.2-5). Through the way in which a Christian bears pain a testimony can go out to the world. It was the blood of the martyrs which was the seed of the church. And who knows what good effect pain at the end may have on a person's preparedness to go to the other side? (1 Peter 1.6-7). In all this we have to trust in the love of the One Who Himself died in excruciating pain for us, and would take nothing to alleviate His own pain. He knows and He suffers with us and He understands and He cares. |
||||||
54 | ... | John 16:31 | rabban | 191408 | ||
Jesus made clear throughout the Gospels that He was fulfilling the Old Testament Scriptures. See e.g. Matthew 5.17; Matthew 11.4-5 compare Isaiah 35.5-6. Thus He would have been disappointed had they NOT believed that He was sent as an emissary of the God of the Old Testament, Who was the God of Judaism. And no, John 16.31 says simply 'arti pisteuete', that is, 'Do you now believe?' There is nothing in the Greek that suggests 'that'. And it would be inconsistent with the whole context. The very point is the contrast of their present confidence with their future failure. |
||||||
55 | ... | John 16:28 | rabban | 191406 | ||
In John 16.27 Jesus speaks of them as believing that He had come from the Father. In John 16.28 He says that He had come from the Father. In 16.30 the disciples replied, 'By this we believe that you came from God.' Note that the change from Father to God is because the speakers are different, but all three refer to the same fact that Jesus came from the Father, that is, from God, and two refer to the disciples' belief in the fact. Clearly therefore God and the Father are the same. |
||||||
56 | Those that was in Prison! | 1 Pet 3:20 | rabban | 191383 | ||
Hi, Whenever the term 'spirits' is used in the plural in the Bible in an unqualified way without a genitive it always refers to angels. Thus this is referring to the angels who fell in the time of Noah (Genesis 6.1-4). They are 'in prison' waiting their final day of judgment. This is confirmed in that Peter again refers to them in 2 Peter 2.4. Compare also Jude 1.6. After His resurrection (made alive in the spirit) Jesus went and proclaimed to them His great victory at the cross where He had defeated all the powers of evil and had led them in triumph (Colossians 2.15). Then He went into Heaven with angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him (1 Peter 3.22). Note the parallels 'went and proclaimed --' '---going into Heaven'. Both occurred in close connection. This idea of the defeat of the heavenly powers was an important one for the people to whom Peter was writing, for they had false teachers among them who were encouraging them to gain 'gnosis', special mystical knowledge through contact with such heavenly powers. Look, says Peter, recognise that any such powers have been deal with by Christ (compare 1 Peter 5.8; 2 Peter 2.10-12). They are defeated and therefore irrelevant. Furthermore it is very probable that one of the reasons that they were being persecuted by their masters (1 Peter 3.18-20) was precisely because they would not worship their masters' false gods. They would thus be specifically discriminated against, and even beaten. It would be hugely comforting to know that such demonic gods (1 Corinthians 10.20-21) had suffered defeat by Christ, thus justifying their refusal to worship them. |
||||||
57 | Why divorce at this juncture? | Jer 3:8 | rabban | 191368 | ||
Surely because Josiah was God's last attempt to plead with His people. Once they had failed to respond in the long run to his reforms their fate was sealed. They would be offered no more chances. It was now not just separation, it was final divorce because of their adultery with idols. See the whole passage |
||||||
58 | Holy of Holies | Heb 10:19 | rabban | 191367 | ||
The point is that while the High Priest could only enter into the Holy of Holies once a year, we are privileged through the blood of Jesus to enter whenever we wish as long as our hearts are properly prepared. This is due to the perfection and all pervasiveness of the sacrifice that has been offered on our behalf. |
||||||
59 | forgiveness | Matt 18:1 | rabban | 191351 | ||
The first thing to note about forgiveness from our point of view is that we can only forgive an offence against ourselves (even if it is sometimes indirect). I cannot forgive someone who offends against society or another. Only society as a whole or that other can do that. Thus due punishment may be required in that case. Having established that there are different levels of forgiveness. There is the total forgiveness that I should give to the one who has come to me saying 'I am sorry, and will not do it again' and means it. For such a person my forgiveness should mean that I reinstate them into the same position as if they had never sinned. That is the forgiveness that Jesus had mainly in mind in the Lord's prayer. It is the forgiveness that God gives us. He treats us as though we had never sinned. Then there is the lesser forgiveness that I give to those who have sinned against me but have not repented. I seek not to be bitter against them and to show a Christlike spirit towards them, but I have to take into account their previous behaviour. This would seem to be the situation in your case. Forgiveness does not mean being foolish. Sometimes you have to forgive from behind a protecting wall. Thus with a violent husband or wife forgiveness does not mean making yourself open to further abuse. You have no responsibility to do that. Unless there is a dramatic change e.g. through Christian conversion, a wife or husband beater will remain a wife or husband beater. But for your own sake it is good to be rid of any bitterness that may be in your heart, and to wish them well and pray for them. Nor does forgiveness mean that you should forego justified compensation. It simply means revealing Christlikeness towards them in your general attitude towards them, while keeping them out of your life. |
||||||
60 | Is marking or piercing our bodies wrong? | Lev 19:28 | rabban | 191350 | ||
Hi Leviticus 19.28 does say, 'You shall not --- print any marks upon you.' But the main question is, why you want to do so? And the only answer must be either peer pressure or vanity. Either way it is a bad witness for Christ. The Scripture makes clear that to adorn ourselves for a vain purpose or ostentatiously is not to behave as a true Christian woman should (1 Timothy 2.9-10). Rather our lives should give our testimony for us by their wholesomeness and beauty of behaviour. To mark or pierce the body is to misuse what God has given us and to declare to the world that we are just like them and that we are no different. And we are supposed to be different. It really all depends on how dedicated to Christ you are and what kind of a witness you want to give. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |