Results 41 - 60 of 78
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: pcdarcan Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | 2 corn. 4:4 the god of this world hath b | 2 Cor 4:1 | pcdarcan | 136012 | ||
Part 2 - "exceedingly unlikely" - but not definitive and here's why: L. "is quite a parallel to the following, Isa_6:9 : Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the Heart of this People Fat, and Make their Ears Heavy, and Shut their Eyes; Lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, etc." l. Isaiah 6:9 is a prophecy of how the Jews predominantly would react to Jesus, but it also had a fulfillment in Isaiah's day. Let's go back to the initial use of this in Isaiah's time. We read in Isaiah 6:8-10 (New International Version) "Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, 'Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?' And I [Isaiah] said, 'Here am I. Send me!' He [God] said, 'Go and tell this people: 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise, they may see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.' Then I said, 'For how long, O Lord?' And he answered: 'Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant'." Isaiah didn't make their hearts unresponsive miraclously. The Jews got so turned off by his preaching that they allowed their hearts to be hardened and then they received God's judgement. Although, they had the opportunity "to understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" as the scripture states. M. "And see the parallel places, Mat_13:14, Mat_13:15; Mar_4:12; Joh_12:40; and particularly Rom_11:8-10 : God Hath Given Them the Spirit of Slumber, Eyes that they Should not See, and Ears that they Should not Hear; let their Eyes be Darkened, etc. Now all this is spoken of the same people, in the same circumstances of wilful rebellion and obstinate unbelief; and the great God of heaven and earth is he who judicially blinds their eyes; makes their hearts fat, i.e. stupid; gives them the spirit of slumber: and bows down their back, etc. On these very grounds it is exceedingly likely that the apostle means the true God by the words the god of this world. m. In each case, the context of these quotes form Isaiah reveals that the unbelieving Israelites (Jews) are the focal point of the fulfillment of this prophecy; keep in mind that individually, some Jews responded to the good news. Perhaps the most famous being the Apostle Paul himself and note what he says about God's mercy in 1 Timothy 1:13: (New International Version) "Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted with ignorance and unbelief." Similarly, God is looking for opportunities to open every person's eyes and would never "blind the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel" (2 Cor 4:4) Lastly, note the context of 2 Cor 4:4. Early in Paul's letter in 2 Cor 2:11, he uses Satan's name and gives a warning 'not to be outwitted or unaware of his schemes'. Later, Paul would reference Satan again, but by other labels. Seven paragraphs later... "The god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4) is described as one who "has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel". And still later... "The serpent", is described by Paul in 2 Cor 11:3 as a 'deceiver', 'cunning', 'misleading people's minds' ("your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ"). Paul's very similar "descriptions" of "Satan", "the god of this age", and "the serpent" would lead one to the conclusion that they are all one and the same - known and exposed by different labels (but similar tactics) throughout Biblical history, down to Eve. I believe Mr. Clarke overlooks this and other supporting Bible verses in favour of what I perceive is a misapplication of Isaiah 6:9. No ill-will intended on Clarke's part, I trust. I hope this helps. |
||||||
42 | 2 Cor 4:4 | 2 Cor 4:4 | pcdarcan | 136002 | ||
The context of 2 Cor 4:4 also helps one to draw the conclusion that Satan is "the god of this world". How so? Before chapters and verses were added to the Bible as a study aid, the book of Corinthians was one long letter to the 'congregation of God in Corinth'. Keep that in mind as you read this. Early in Paul's second letter to the Corinthians he mentions "Satan" by name in 2 Cor 2:11 (New International Version), warning: "in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes." Consequently, with Satan's name already mentioned early in the letter - 7 paragraphs later - 2 Cor 4:4 says "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God." The qualifying remarks about "the god of this world" in 2 Cor 4:4 namely, "has blinded the minds of unbelievers" relates to Satan who was introduced 7 paragraphs earlier in 2 Cor 2:11 "we are not unaware of his schemes". Supporting this thought that the apostle Paul did not have to keep re-introducing Satan's "name" everytime he referred to him by a different label, is this verse (later in the letter) in 2 Cor 11:3 "But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ". So, early in Paul's letter in 2 Cor 2:11, he uses Satan's name and gives a warning 'not to be outwitted or unaware of his schemes'. "The god of this age" (2 Cor 4:4) is described as one who "has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel". "The serpent", is described by Paul in 2 Cor 11:3 as a 'deceiver', 'cunning', 'misleading people's minds' ("your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ"). Paul's very similar "descriptions" of "Satan", "the god of this age", and "the serpent" would lead one to the conclusion that they are all one and the same - known and exposed by different labels (but similar tactics) throughout Biblical history, down to Eve. I also find it interesting that Paul didn't have to keep re-introducing Satan's name when he referred to him later as the "god of this age" and "the serpent" - leading one to the conclusion that there was no confusion about this in Paul's day. |
||||||
43 | Who is they in Job 22:28?. | Job 22:23 | pcdarcan | 135928 | ||
Further scriptural background on the first point about oral traditions .vs. the written scriptures (btw, perhaps this will answer you follow-up question). When Jesus quoted from the Hebrew Scriptures, he said: 'It is written.' (Matthew 4:4, 7, 10) But six times in the Sermon on the Mount, he introduced what sounded like statements from the Hebrew Scriptures with the words: 'It was said.' (Matthew 5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43) Why did he do this? Because he was referring to the Scriptures as interpreted in the light of Pharisaic traditions that contradicted God’s commandments. ( Compare Deuteronomy 4:2 and Matthew 15:3) This is made apparent in Jesus’ sixth and last reference in this series: 'You heard that it was said, ‘You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’' But no Mosaic law said, “Hate your enemy.” The scribes and Pharisees said it. That was their interpretation of the Law to love your neighbor — your Jewish neighbor and no others. Interesting that Jesus would later provide the parable of the Samaritan man - if it's been awhile since you read this account, its a gem!!! (Please read Luke 10:25-37) On your question about C.E. or A.D., I prefer C.E. - only because many count time from what is supposed to be the year of Jesus’ birth, anno Domini, A.D., “in the year of (our) Lord, i.e., Jesus Christ.” and I believe the chronology they use for Jesus' birth is not completely in harmony with Bible chronology. This would take pages to answer because it involves the entire chronology of the Bible and many of the points are [unfortunately] controversial. The reason is that different cultures down through history have used various means to keep track of dates. I think the questions you have been asking are excellent and it reminds me of Jesus words on the famous Sermon on the Mount, "Keep on asking and it will be given you; keep on seeking and you will find; keep on knocking [reverently] and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who keeps on asking received, and he who keeps on seeking finds, and to him who keeps on knocking it will be opened." - Mt 7:7,8 (The Amplified Bible) Also, like Jesus, we can always rest assured that the Bible will always assist us in correcting any errors of teaching, like those of the Pharisees who taught oral traditions above the written word - please see what the Bible says of itself in 2 Timothy 3:16 and its authoritative Source. |
||||||
44 | Who is they in Job 22:28?. | Job 22:23 | pcdarcan | 135912 | ||
I believe the quoted vss (specifically Mt 19:5) from The Amplied Bible contained some cross-references (namely Gen 2:24). Please read Gen 2:24 and re-read Mt 19:5 and note the similarities. The Pharisees were using "oral" traditions - which had gained popularity amongst some Jews - to trick Jesus with the question: "Is it lawful and right to dismiss and repudiate and divorce one's wife for any and every cause?" By Jesus referencing the "written" word of God (Gen 2:24), he set the matter straight that the word of God should be used to settle this question and it wasn't right "to dismiss and repudiate and divorce one's wife for any and every cause". Is B.C.E. (before our common era) the same as A.D. (Anno Domini) used to indicate a date that is a specified number of years after the birth of Jesus Christ? No. As The World Book Encyclopedia says: “Dates after that year are listed as A.D., or anno Domini (in the year of our Lord).” |
||||||
45 | Who is they in Job 22:28?. | Job 22:23 | pcdarcan | 135888 | ||
You're very welcome and thanks for the sincere reply... my wife and I play tennis, I just didn't understand how you were using that statement. :) Again, sorry for the long-winded answer however that particular account about Adam and Eve's fall is so important in understanding the Bible, God's original purpose, other verses in the Bible, etc. You'll see what I mean as you continue to examine the Bible, if you haven't already noticed. Interestingly, some accounts in Genesis are often referenced in the Christian scriptures (as you probably know). On one occasion Jesus Christ cited Genesis in order to show that religious Jewish leaders of this time were misleading people with oral traditions that went beyond the written word. Some background: Pharisaic self-righteousness was rooted in oral traditions. These had been initiated in the second century B.C.E. as “a fence around the Law” to protect it from the inroads of Hellenism (Greek culture). They had come to be viewed as a part of the Law. In fact, the scribes even rated the oral traditions above the written Law. The Mishnah says: “Greater stringency applies to the observance of the words of the Scribes [their oral traditions] than to the observance of the words of the written Law.” Hence, instead of being “a fence around the Law” to protect it, their traditions weakened the Law and made it void, just as Jesus said: 'you set aside the commandment of God in order to retain your tradition' —Mark 7:5-9; Matthew 15:1-9. Now, consider this account in Matthew 19:3-5 (The Amplified Bible) "And Pharisees came to Him [Jesus] and put Him to the test by asking, Is it lawful and right to dismiss and repudiate and divorce one's wife for any and every cause? He replied: Have you never read that He Who made them from the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be united firmly (joined inseparately) to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. [Gen 1:27; 2:24]" Just how far did these oral teachings on divorce go? Some Jews dealt treacherously with their wives and divorced them on the flimsiest of grounds. (Malachi 2:13-16; Matthew 19:3-9) Oral traditions allowed a man to divorce his wife “even if she spoiled a dish for him” or “if he found another fairer than she.”—Mishnah. No wonder Jesus had to address this issue and he corrected the view by pointing his listeners back to the first book of the Bible, Genesis. |
||||||
46 | Who is they in Job 22:28?. | Job 22:23 | pcdarcan | 135871 | ||
In what sense? Eve no doubt understood the penalty of Gen 2:17, for she repeats God's command to the serpent in Gen 3:3 "Except of the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden. God has said, You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die." The serpent opposed that by slandering God in verse 4: "You shall not surely die." Simply put, that's a lie - both Adam and Eve eventually died. First spiritually, then physically because they removed themselves from the live-giving force of the Creator. I'm not sure what is meant by 'in a sense the serpent didn't lie when he said this to Eve'. The statement by the serpent is diametrically opposed to what God said - if that isn't a lie, I don't know what is. Could you qualify your statement, perhaps I don't understand the premise for it? Let's get back to the account and my previous thread. Adam and Eve forfeited eternal life on earth (that's where they were created and placed and commanded to reproduce and to take care of the earth and all the rest of God's creation, in the Garden of Eden - right here on earth). They forfeited this privilege not for "knowledge" sake alone, but for the right to decide for themselves what was right and wrong, as the serpent put it in Genesis 3:5, "... you will be as God, knowing the difference between good and evil, and blessing and calamity." The serpent was implying that God was holding something back from them by always listening to Him. Sure, you or I may not make such a decision today because we have the benefit of 20/20 hind-sight vision - look at the mess this alienation from God has brought upon mankind (Please compare Gen. 3:16,19 and 24, and Ecclesiates 8:9 'man has dominated man to his injury'). When Adam and Eve took the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, it wasn't so much the fruit, but what it stood for (namely, independence from God's right to determine good and bad) that caused them to "chuck it" - everlasting life on earth and a peaceful relationship with God. :) They took something - the right to decide 'good from evil' - which didn't belong to them. Do you mean "couples" in this statement? "If you've ever watched husband and wife doubles, that does not compute." I'm not sure what you mean by this statement? I'm simply showing you the Biblical account and I have no reason to doubt what it says. Albeit it doesn't contain a detailed dialogue between Adam and Eve, the Author wouldn't have left out any detail if it was that important. There's enough there to deduce that Adam and Eve were telling God by their premeditated and disobedient actions, 'we want to decide for ourselves from now on what is good and evil, right and wrong'. What a major mistake that was for mankind. (Ro 5:12) We can't just simply look at couples today (who are imperfect and far removed from this pivotal event in mankind's relationship with God) and try to figure out why they did what they did. The scripture contains so many hints of which Gen 3:1-6 is key. How eloquently Jeremiah put it in Jeremiah 10:23 (NIV) "I know, oh Lord, that a man's life is not his own; it is not for man to direct his steps." |
||||||
47 | Who is they in Job 22:28?. | Job 22:23 | pcdarcan | 135864 | ||
Possibly. When Adam deliberately - remember unlike Eve his decision wasn't based on deception (1 Tim 2:14) - sinned against God, he knew that the penalty was ultimately physical death. But you raise a very interesting point. The Bible says about eating from this tree in Gen 2:17 "... for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." Of course, Adam physically lived "930 years, and then he died" (Gen. 5:5). So, he didn't physically die, as you know, in that day. What can we make of this? The first man, Adam, had a strong physical heart but a weak spiritual heart. He did not maintain strong affection for his Creator and for what is righteous and so allowed his inner desires and motives to become bad. This failure of his spiritual heart brought upon him eternal death. When Adam made that decision to eat from the tree of good and bad, he died immediately in a spiritual way, telling God in effect 'I don't care to live by your rules anymore'. So, it appears that Adam died spiritually (immediately upon disobeying God) and consequently physically, although it took 930 years because his body was so close to perfection - a body that could have partaken of the tree of life in Gen 2:9 if he obeyed the command in Gen 2:17, as we have discussed in these threads. So, Adam's spiritual death lead to his physical death. If you have ever cut the power to a smooth running fan, it runs for quite awhile before it stops. Adam's spiritual death cut him off from the life-giver, the Almighty Father and Creator of mankind, the Sovereign of the Universe. |
||||||
48 | Who is they in Job 22:28?. | Job 22:23 | pcdarcan | 135861 | ||
Eating was normal/proper, and Adam had been told to 'eat to satisfaction' of what God had given him. (Ge 2:16) But God restricted Adam [and Eve] from their eating of the fruit of this one tree (Gen 2:17); God thus causes the eating of that fruit to symbolize that the eater comes to a knowledge that enables him to decide for himself (without regard for God's direction) what is “good” or what is “bad” for man. Of course, when you re-read Gen 3:1-6, several issues stand out: Satan raises doubts about the prohibition of eating from this one tree in Gen 3:1 "... Can it really be that God has said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Eve answers in vss. 2,3 'we can eat, but not from this one tree in the middle of the garden for God said we shall die'. Then Satan immediately proceeds to slander God in vs. 4 "... You shall not surely die". No wonder Satan is called "the Father of lies and all that is false" by Jesus Christ in John 8:44. Notice how he continues with his lie to Eve in vs 5 "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be as God, knowing the difference between good and evil, and blessing and calamity." Adam [like Eve] wasn't forced to recognize God's Sovereignty - his right to rule his creation. They had free will and exercised it. Had they listened to God, they could have enjoyed everlasting life, as Gen 2:17 implies. They could have chosen to eat from 'the tree of life also in the center of the garden' (Gen 2:9), but weren't given that chance because we know they disobeyed God and eventually died. Adam chose to go along with his wife in the path that she paved by listening to Satan - deciding for himself what was right and wrong, good and bad. If only Adam knew the dire consequences this would cause to mankind in general througout history - his legacy lives on though because isn't it true that many today also try to decide for themselves what is right and wrong. Some even do this when shown from the Bible that God is the only one who can really decide what is good and bad, right and wrong for his created beings. Sorry for the long answer, but it requires some reasoning to answer this question because the Bible doesn't come right out and say why Adam acquiesced, we just know he exercised his free will and went right along with Eve in her disobedience. You might say he put family ahead of God. |
||||||
49 | Scriptural Support for you position? | 1 Cor 8:5 | pcdarcan | 135853 | ||
The Emphatic Diaglott - Interlineary Word for Word English Translation of the Original Greek Text - is a favourite of mine! It says (word-for-word): "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and a god was the Word." So, John 1:1 in the interlinear (and most importantly, without any interpretation says): The Word had a beginning, and is "with" God (capital "G"), and was called "a god". I really appreciate your sincere question Hank and honestly hope this answer helps. |
||||||
50 | Who is they in Job 22:28?. | Job 22:23 | pcdarcan | 135848 | ||
"it was not Adam who was deceived, but [the] woman who was deceived... and fell into transgression. [Gen 3:1-6]" - The Amplified Bible 1 Timothy 2:14. Adam willingly went along with his wife's transgression - eating from the tree that was forbidden to both of them in Genesis 2:16,17, thus putting his wife's wishes above God's. Of course, this resulted in his (their) death and death spread to all mankind - as imperfection can only give birth to imperfection. (Romans 5:12) |
||||||
51 | Interracial marriages? Bible says what? | 2 Cor 6:14 | pcdarcan | 135842 | ||
The "mixed marriages" comment was in the context of the question about the scriptural propriety of inter-racial marriages alone, as opposed to mixed marriages based on different religious backgrounds - which would include the scriptures you just cited. The Israelites weren't forbidden to marry a non-Isaraelite, just because their skin color was "Asian or Black". However, they were forbidden to marry non-Israelites because - to state it simply - they were not of the same religion, although some transgressed that law. So, within that context (the context that we often hear spoken about today), the Bible doesn't speak of inter-racial marriages. We see many inter-racially mixed Christian marriages today and the Bible doesn't speak one way or the other about the scriptural correctness of this - it's totally silent, and that along with Acts 10:34,35 should tell us something. Hope that clarifies things... |
||||||
52 | Who is they in Job 22:28?. | Job 22:23 | pcdarcan | 135835 | ||
Thanks for the correction - a mistype on my part. So, I appreciate your prompt reply. In answer to your question. Paul is not contradicting himself. Romans 5:14 (The Amplified Bible) states, "Yet death held sway from Adam to Moses [the Lawgiver], even over those who did not themselves transgress [a positive command] as Adam did. ..." Verse 14 shows that death continued from Adam down to Moses - as the Law's sacrifices couldn't eliminate Adamic sin's effect on mankind - and even continued to those who did not specifically commit a sin (transgression) like that of Adam - disobeying a direct command from God. So, today someone can't argue, 'God, I didn't eat the fruit from the tree that you forbade to Adam and Eve, why should I die?' Unfortunately, as Romans 5:12 indicates, we inherited sin [imperfection] from Adam and Eve who willingly transgressed God's direct command, chosing to alienate themselves from God's rightful rulership of mankind and the penalty of that direct command was death. And, that's why "death reigned... even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam", for we have all sinned, which is proved by the fact that we all die. Hope this helps... |
||||||
53 | Who is they in Job 22:28?. | Job 22:23 | pcdarcan | 135764 | ||
Just to add a thought... this situation in the book of Job - where false comforters ended up wrongly judging Job - is a good object lesson for Christians today. Rather than jumping to the conclusion that someone who is suffering greatly must have brought these things upon themselves - or even worse, is a retribution from God - is simply not for us imperfect humans to judge. While Christians realize we reap what we sow, we also realize that some misfortunes don't necessarily mean that we are personally responsible for them. We are all subject to the ill effects of inherited sin Rom 5:3 (The Amplified Bible) "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death as the result of sin, so death spread to all men [no one being able to stop it or to escape its power] because all men sinned." Certianly we would never blame someone for coming down with ALS, IBD, Parkinson's Disease, etc. May we all show true comfort to anyone we know who may be dealing with chronic illnesses or is otherwise down (perhaps from unemployment, family problems, natural disasters, etc). We can imitate the One who sets the greatest example. 2 Cor 1:3,4 (The Amplified Bible) "Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of sympathy (pity and mercies) and the God [Who is the Source] of every consolation and comfort and encouragement. Who consoles and comforts and encourages us in every trouble (calamity and affliction), so that we may also be able to console (comfort and encourage) those who are in any kind of trouble or distress, with the consolation (comfort and encouragement) with which we ourselves are consoled and comforted and encouraged by God." Amen. |
||||||
54 | Scriptural Support for you position? | 1 Cor 8:5 | pcdarcan | 135498 | ||
Another post supporting the thought that 'Satan is the god of this world' (excerpt of post below): "I personally would go with the NASB and the "lawless one" who is Satan. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 says that he is even going to display himself as being God, but of course he is not, although he is spoken of as the god of this world." - Ray |
||||||
55 | Why bother to make requests when we pray | Eccl 7:17 | pcdarcan | 135497 | ||
1 Peter 4:8 addresses the comment: "Makes me wonder if as sinful humans can we truly love our brother." You're welcome. Yes, 1 John 4:21 contains an important commandment and the reasoning found in the preceding verse is interesting: 1 John 4:20 (The Amplified Bible) "If any one says, I love God, and (detests, abominates) hates his brother [in Christ], he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God Whom he has not seen." Note how the Bible helps us to appreciate the power of love in our dealings with each other in 1 Peter 4:8 (The Amplified Bible) "Above all things have intense and unfailing love for one another, for love covers a multitude of sins - forgives and disregards the offenses of others." The latter part of this verse shows that there will be bumps in the road in our dealings with each other (due to imperfection), but the love displayed in Christ's congregations will help even us sinful humans to show at the least, agape [principle] love. |
||||||
56 | Why did God give ten commandments? | Heb 8:13 | pcdarcan | 135480 | ||
You're very welcome Reighskye... thank you for ackowledging my reply. Have a good evening! | ||||||
57 | Why did God give ten commandments? | Heb 8:13 | pcdarcan | 135472 | ||
Context of James proves otherwise and Biblical cross-references - such as the scriptures cited in the previous post - show conclusively that Christians are not under the Law [of Moses]. So, what do these scriptures mean in James 2:10-12? The context of James shows some strong denunciations of those showing favoritism toward those who were materially rich, please compare James 2:2-4. In the same chapter - a few verses later - some in the congregation were holding onto the Law covenant (this included Christianized Jews) because they thought they were better than others because of doing works of Law - even judging others because of not adhering to the Law! James also denounces them by saying: "whoever keeps the Law" if found quilty of just one thing in it "you have become quilty of the whole Law." Jesus' sacrifice and new convenant provide people with the opportunity to please God without adhering to all the 600 plus laws given to the Israelites. Notice James' counsel to those Christians who try to hold on to the Law convenant in the same context in James 2:12 (The Amplified Bible): "So speak and so act as [people should] who are to be judged under the law of liberty [the moral instructions given by Christ, especially about love]. Given that context, and the understanding that the law of liberty is Christ's instructions that free us form the Law - the verses in James should not be used to prove Christians are under the Law. And, of course, we know the Bible can't contractict itself - see previously quoted verses. With that said, the Law still benefits Christians. How? There are many Laws that contain principles that help us understand God's thinking on matters - even if we are not under the Law. Reading the unquoted scriptures - about Jesus' superior blood sacrifice - from the previous post may help further. And, as you read through the entire Christian scriptures, you'll see how this topic re-appears many times because Christianized Jews had a hard time giving up the old Law covenant. Hope this helps... |
||||||
58 | Why did God give ten commandments? | Heb 8:13 | pcdarcan | 135447 | ||
But are Christians under the Law of Moses? -which btw is a subset of all the laws given to the Israelites and all these are referred to (not suprisingly) as "the Law" in Christain sciptures. Gal 3:24,25 (The Amplified Bible) states: "So that the Law served [to us Jews] as our trainer - our guardian, our guide to Christ, to lead us - until Christ [came], that we might be justified (declared righteous, put in right standing with God) by and through faith. But now that the faith has come, we are no longer under a trainer - the quardian of our childhood." Note this cross-reference: Romans 10:4 "For Christ is the end of the Law - the limit at which it ceases to be, for the Law leads up to Him Who is the fulfillment of its types, and in Him the purpose which it was designed to accomplish is fulfilled. - That is, the purpose of the Law is fulfilled in Him - as the means of righteousness (right relationship with God) for everyone who trusts in and adheres to and relies on Him. Hope this helps. A good corresponding read is Hebrews 10 (the entire chapter). It contrasts the scacrifices necessary under the Law convenant with the superior blood sarcrifice of Jesus Christ, which supersedes the former. (Chapter 10 is a continuation of the thoughts mentioned in the quoted verse Heb 8:13.) |
||||||
59 | Jesus sisters names? | Mark 6:3 | pcdarcan | 135268 | ||
You're very welcome - I expect the same help if I mis-speak. :) Have a good evening! | ||||||
60 | Jesus sisters names? | Mark 6:3 | pcdarcan | 135255 | ||
Actually, the quoted verse (Mark 6:3) from the NASB [read above] is that record and it shows Joses, Judas and Simon as the other three brothers names. Some ancient manuscipts read "Joseph" in Mark 6:3 and this would harmonize with Mt 13:55 "Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And, are not His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?" - all rhetorical questions btw :) Hope this helps. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |