Results 41 - 60 of 131
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Suede67 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115233 | ||
Kalos, ""Suede, I am not against you. What I write is not intended as a personal attack.""" Understood, you and I disagree, but we can still act civil about it all. """Anyone who says that they "don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT" is in need of eye salve, "that you may see" (Revelation 3:18).""" How so? Did not Christ fulfill the things of the OT? """To say that the OT, the Word of God, is legalistic is absurd. To say that the Law is legalistic is to display a lack of knowledge and understanding of both the Law and legalism (two different things). Legalism is not obeying the written Law of God; it is the attempt to keep man-made rules and regulations, man-made interpretations of the Law. Jesus illustrated the difference in the Sermon on the Mount.""" Well, that's certianly one man's take on it all, I of course disagree with your take of Legalism and the Law and see it as a bit of semantics. The OT is legalistic in that it does in fact have written laws. And where there are written laws, there will be interpretations of them. Jesus and the Apostles did this; Christians still do this. """According to Paul, "All Scripture...is profitable for doctrine." To claim that the OT is NOT profitable for doctrine is to claim that it is not inspired Scripture."" Let me correct the above. The NT supercedes the OT. Also, saying that the OT is no longer valid in no way indicates that it is not inspired. That's a bad conclusion on your part. We can still draw things from the OT, but I don't put it on par with the NT. The bulk of the prophecies in the OT which make up the later half point to Jesus who fulfilled them. The first half of the OT is mainly historical and has little to do with doctrine aside from more generalized things like, God is faithful. All in all, Christians do need to know both the OT and the NT. That's my two cents, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
42 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115168 | ||
Hi Ischus, ""If you mean that the OT is more historical than theological I would disagree. None of the Old Testament is primarily meant to be history."" Well, this is where you and I differ then. I don't see any more outstanding doctrine in the OT. The overall message is that God is faithful, but a lot of the doctrine in the OT is the Law, legalistic in nature. But, we aren't under that, so I fail to see where the doctrine of the OT has much bearing on the present. The OT is in fact a lot of history, starting with Genesis and easily going to Psalms. Even then, books such as Daniel contain bits of history. One only need ask, what is quoted more or turned to more for guidance, the NT or the OT? Well, the NT of course, especially if we remove Psalms and Proverbs from the picture. I personally think statements such as "who God is, who his people are, how they are saved" are way too generalized. But, I agree that we shouldn't ignore the OT. That's my thoughts, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
43 | CAIN'S WIFE | Gen 3:20 | Suede67 | 115023 | ||
On a side note, according to Jewish legend and non Biblical writings, Cain married his sister Âwân who was born after Abel. Seems weird, but incest had not yet been condemned and therefore it was not a 'sin' to do so. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
44 | why don't people study the old testmant | OT general | Suede67 | 115018 | ||
That's a good question indeed, here's my thoughts. One, the OT is a larger volume and covers thousands of years and several individuals and groups. The NT is a slimer volume, covers roughly 70 years and has much fewer people in it. I think people start off with Genesis, but then once they hit the later chapters, they sort of trail off. Exodus is the same. A lot of the OT is history, not doctrine, and a lot of people aren't into that. I for one would recommend people read the Psalms, Proverbs and the works of the Prophets and Daniel in the OT. That's a good 'starting point' and those tend to have more immediate bearing on the NT. That's my thoughts anyways, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
45 | THE FLOOD-FACT OR MYTH? | Gen 6:1 | Suede67 | 114297 | ||
HappyHappyFaith, Great topic! Please look at the Answers in Genesis website. It is very scientific, and has a ton of articles on the flood. Below is the specific link that you can copy to your browser or just search Answersingenesis. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/flood.asp Take Care, SUEDE |
||||||
46 | Is it sin to smoke a cigarette? | Is 44:1 | Suede67 | 114296 | ||
Rowdy, Thanks for your generosity, but I guess you and I know there will never be a last word on this or many other issues. However, for our topic the last word is that no smoking is not a sin. Thanks, take care, may God bless, SUEDE |
||||||
47 | Is it sin to smoke a cigarette? | Is 44:1 | Suede67 | 114261 | ||
Hey Rowdy, Sorry about all the confusion, Greatfullydead seemed to be the start of the post, I didn't mean to link to you, but no harm no foul. I still maintain that smoking is not a sin, fornication is the only clearly defined sin against the body. I'm very, very strongly against the use and abuse of legalism. I think it is incorrect to list smoking as a sin, but agree that we should not smoke purely for our own health reasons. Listing undefined things as sins too often leads to madness and a breakdown of Christendom. That's my take anyways, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
48 | Question about timeline | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 114126 | ||
MrHearing, Good question, here's a very brief answer, hope it helps. The adoption of the birth of Christ as the initial epoch of the Christian calendar. This epoch was established by the sixth century scholar Dionysius Exiguus, who was compiling a table of dates of Easter. An existing table covered the nineteen-year period denoted 228-247, where years were counted from the beginning of the reign of the Roman emperor Diocletian. Dionysius continued the table for a nineteen-year period, which he designated Anni Domini Nostri Jesu Christi 532-550. Thus, Dionysius' Anno Domini 532 is equivalent to Anno Diocletian 248. In this way a correspondence was established between the new Christian Era and an existing system associated with historical records. What Dionysius did not do is establish an accurate date for the birth of Christ. Although scholars generally believe that Christ was born some years before A.D. 1, the historical evidence is too sketchy to allow a definitive dating. Given an initial epoch, one must consider how to record preceding dates. Bede, the eighth-century English historian, began the practice of counting years backward from A.D. 1. In this system, the year A.D. 1 is preceded by the year 1 B.C., without an intervening year 0. Because of the numerical discontinuity, this "historical" system is cumbersome for comparing ancient and modern dates. Today, astronomers use plus 1 to designate A.D. 1. Then plus 1 is naturally preceded by year 0, which is preceded by year minus 1. Since the use of negative numbers developed slowly in Europe, this "astronomical" system of dating was delayed until the eighteenth century, when it was introduced by the astronomer Jacques Cassini, 1740. Even as use of Dionysius' Christian Era became common in ecclesiastical writings of the Middle Ages, traditional dating from regnal years continued in civil use. In the sixteenth century, Joseph Justus Scaliger tried to resolve the patchwork of historical eras by placing everything on a single system ,Scaliger, 1583. Instead of introducing negative year counts, he sought an initial epoch in advance of any historical record. His numerological approach utilized three calendrical cycles: the 28-year solar cycle, the nineteen-year cycle of Golden Numbers, and the fifteen-year indiction cycle. The solar cycle is the period after which weekdays and calendar dates repeat in the Julian calendar. The cycle of Golden Numbers is the period after which moon phases repeat approximately on the same calendar dates. The indiction cycle was a Roman tax cycle. Scaliger could therefore characterize a year by the combination of numbers S,G,I, where S runs from 1 through 28, G from 1 through 19, and I from 1 through 15. Scaliger noted that a given combination would recur after 7980 (equals 28 X 19 X 15) years. He called this a Julian Period, because it was based on the Julian calendar year. For his initial epoch Scaliger chose the year in which S, G, and I were all equal to 1. He knew that the year 1 B.C. was characterized by the number 9 of the solar cycle, by the Golden Number 1, and by the number 3 of the indiction cycle, i.e., (9,1,3). He found that the combination (1,1,1) occurred in 4713 B.C. or, as astronomers now say, -4712. This serves as year 1 of Scaliger's Julian Period. It was later adopted as the initial epoch for the Julian day numbers. |
||||||
49 | Is it sin to smoke a cigarette? | Is 44:1 | Suede67 | 114112 | ||
GreatfullyDead I see Paul’s statement to the Corinthians as more specific, noting that he says “All OTHER sins man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.” We should note that adulterery is one of the 10 Commandments. I therefore think it is incorrect to use the “body as a temple defense”. Really, we have to ask ourselves, where does it end? Ok smoking is bad, what else? Well, alcohol is bad, so that too must be a sin. Caffeine alters your ‘temple’; therefore it is a sin too. In fact, all drugs alter your body, so we should let our child die instead of taking medication. Do you see the snowballing that legalism gets into? “”If you'll check with any reformed ex-smoker or ex-drug user, they'll all tell you the same thing. That "stuff" in the human body becomes a monster, controlling your every waking moment.”” Yes, I know. Not only am I an ex smoker, I’m also an ex drug user. But, I didn’t use the body as a temple statement. That carries way too many legalistic aspects as noted above. “”Please, I would beg you, DON'T give encouragement to anyone who is hooked on this junk and let him think God won't hold them accountable. We need to help educate people like this and love their souls enough to tell them the truth. I do hope you'll reconsider. There are far more damaging, long term effects than just the image you mentioned. God bless you in your study.”” Don’t get me wrong now. I certainly don’t give encouragement to anyone. In fact, I know that I can use my own testimony to help out others. I’ve been there with the smoking, I’ve been there with the drugs; I know. You should not do this, make no mistake. However we need to be careful what we condemn as a sin, we must avoid the Holier than thou mode of thinking. Cults do that, not Christians. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
50 | The law cannot be altogether invalid... | Matt 5:19 | Suede67 | 114107 | ||
Kalos, Excellent quotes!!! Take care, ADD |
||||||
51 | Is it sin to smoke a cigarette? | Is 44:1 | Suede67 | 114080 | ||
GreatfullyDead, I don't believe it is, that's a legalistic issue in my opinion. There was sort of a similar issue which Jesus dealt with only it was in regards to meat, but I think it can be applied here. Look at Matthew 15:10,11 "Jesus called the crowd to him and said, 'Listen and understand. What goes into a man's mouth does not make him unclean, but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him unclean." Jesus elaborates further in verse 18 that it's things of the heart that make a man unclean. Now, I would however be cautious when it comes to smoking around other Christians, and here's why. Romans 14:21 "It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak." I know back when I smoked, I did not smoke at Church functions, and I only smoked around my fellow Church members that I knew were 'ok' with it. So, if you think you're smoking will honestly offend your brother, or cause them to question matters of the faith, you need to refrain from smoking or smoke out of their sight. Love for your neighbor is the second most important commandment. Well, and last of course is smoking is in fact bad for you health wise. That's my 2 cents, God loves you, take care SUEDE |
||||||
52 | The law cannot be altogether invalid... | Matt 5:19 | Suede67 | 114077 | ||
Hey Kalos, This is an interesting topic, one that’s quite valid, and actually one that’s not that difficult to answer in my opinion. Allow me to throw out another way of looking at this. As far as “End Times” go, I’m a Preterist; that is I believe all “End Times” events including the Second Coming have already happened. Though this might sound odd, hear me out as you yourself weren’t that far off from it with this statement. “Obviously civil laws applied to the people of Israel when they were in the land of Israel, from the time of Moses until 70 A.D.” You’re right in noting that in 70 AD, civil laws ended. But why? Well, because that was the consummation of the Ages, that was when the fulfillment of prophecy happened. You are also very correct to divide up civil and moral laws as you did in this manner, “Does the moral law contained in the Ten Commandments still apply? All but one of them are repeated in the New Testament. Jesus places much emphasis on them. Paul in his writings speaks of them, as does James in his. If they did not apply today, then we would be "free" to commit adultery, lie, steal, murder, etc. Without the Law people would be either in idolatry or doing things that harm others.” Well said. Moral laws exist, but the written laws do not. God ALWAYS intended for mankind to be quite free, and in Christ, we are. Legalism nowadays is quite man made, and VERY man motivated. It’s the number one red flag of a wrong faith. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
53 | Abiding with Lockmans rules? | Rom 13:1 | Suede67 | 114075 | ||
Hey JustMe!! Just saying hello! SUEDE |
||||||
54 | What would this sound like? | Daniel | Suede67 | 114074 | ||
Hey CDBJ, Well, sounding like is certainly up for 'artistic' interpretation. However, I believe that this is just a poetic way of speaking, metaphorically that is, and is not literal in meaning. Look at the surrounding verses. You have eyes like flames of fire, or feet as bright as bronze. Look at Daniel's account of the Son of Man as well. So personally I think it's just a metaphor. The Greek here is often meant as rivers or fountains, however it can literally just mean water and is used in such a manner. If you are looking for more of what a literal sound might be like, check out Revelation 14:2 "And I heard a voice from heaven, like the sound of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder, and the voice which I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps." Here we have a heavenly voice that's like the sound of many waters, and thunder and harps. So, that might help to get a literal audio idea. Now, an interesting "alternate" way of looking at this is that 'waters' sometimes refers to groups of people. Check out Revelation 17:15 "And he said to me, "The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues." This might be a bit of a stretch as 17:15 is focusing on a specific body of 'water', but it is a possibility. Hope this helps, take care, SUEDE |
||||||
55 | The meaning of Psalm 21 in its entirety? | Psalm | Suede67 | 114032 | ||
Don't know about a verse by verse breakdown, but here's some commentary on it from NIV. "This psalm, in contrast to Ps 20 which pleads for victory, contains elements of thanksgiving and confidence." |
||||||
56 | What would this sound like? | Daniel | Suede67 | 114030 | ||
That's a throw back to the OldTestament language in reference to the Son of Man. Look in Daniel for help on this. Check out Daniel 7:9-14 and 10:5-11. |
||||||
57 | women can wear makeup (where found) | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 113913 | ||
Well, that's going to kind of be a legalistic issue. Typically in the Bible, OVER ornamentation is often associated with 'loose' women. 2 Kings 9:30 Eze 23:40 Jer 4:30 In 1 Tim 2:9,10 Paul states that he wants women to be modest. I wouldn't twist this though in a cultic manner to say women can not wear make up. I think there is an appropriateness to all things. SUEDE |
||||||
58 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107404 | ||
8788, This is true, no man knew the day or hour. Preterism is consistent in this fact; it doesn’t claim to know the exact day or hour. At best we know it was around 70 AD, but as far as specifics, Jesus was right, we don’t know, for it was like a thief in the night. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
59 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107403 | ||
Part II cont’d ””””””””3) And -- if what you say is true -- what do we have to look forward to? Actually think about that in terms of Futurism. What is that Futurism has us looking forward to? Pretty awful stuff. We live in the Age that the OT saints truly desired. "For truly I say to you that many prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it.” Matt. 13:17 The OT saints knew that the Messiah would come and redeem them, free them. We now days have forgotten that. The Messiah was set to do all things, Jesus stated this many times, that he was to fulfill ALL things, not just some. The OT saints, and the NT saints did not separate ALL things by thousands of years. They knew that once the Messiah showed up that all things would be fulfilled. “Not for (Abraham's) sake only was it written, that (faith) was reckoned to him as (righteousness), but for our sake also, to whom it is about to be reckoned.” (Rom. 4:23-24) See people think that Jesus was born at the beginning of an Age, he wasn’t; he was born at the END of the Age. ” Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.” (I Cor. 10:11) We are truly free and we are to spread that message, the Good News. We are to be the light of the world, the salt of the earth, we are God’s children, there’s still plenty to do! Well, that’s just the tip of the iceberg, but I’m glad you asked about them. I hope I answered your questions, even if just on a very basic level. If you are interested in this I do hope you will study more, here’s some websites I recommend you look into Preteristplanet - includes forums where you can ask questions until you’re blue! Preteristarchive - perhaps the most comprehensive Preterist site on the web. Preterist.org - simple and thought provoking. And lastly I also recommend you study the Bible with a Literal translation such as Young’s or Green’s. Sadly, NASB and even NKJV touted as great literal translations still fall short. Too often Preterism is misunderstood because of passages that are ‘theologically’ translated instead of literally translated. Take care, SUEDE |
||||||
60 | when will jesus christ return | Bible general Archive 2 | Suede67 | 107402 | ||
Hi Just Read Mark, Thanks for asking, I’ll answer you in parts. This is going to be a bit long. “”””“Hi. It has always been clear to me that the NT writers EXPECTED Jesus to return very soon.” Yes you are correct. Not only that, but they expected him to return within their lifetimes. “””””I have just thought that they were mistaken (seeing through the glass darkly)” Looking through the mirror darkly indeed. As it’s already been noted, no one knew the exact day or hour of his return, but Christ did give them a 40 year time frame. If we notice in the Gospels Christ states that “THIS generation shall not pass”, meaning that one, that specific generation in the 1st century was the so called terminal generation, and that two a generation as the Hebrews knew it was 40 years. ‘’’’’’’’I have never heard of your interpretation before. You are saying that Christ already did return? This makes my mind reel with questions:’’’’’’ It’s been around since Christendom, but Futurism is obviously far more popular. However, people are finally focusing on Eschatology or “End Times” issues now and noticing a LOT of problems with Futurism. Preterism is fortunately rapidly spreading through Christendom. ’’’’’’’’1) Why wouldn't the NT writers have mentioned something about that? The canon wasn't set til later anyway.’’’’’’ Actually the NT is chock full of passages that mention it. Too often we get our mind locked into a certain way of thinking, we have ‘set our minds’ and therefore when we do things we do things with that sort of mind set. You most likely read the NT with Futurism as your mind set, so when you come across a passage, you interpret it with that Futurist thinking. Too often we expect things to happen in a certain way, and when they don’t happen that way we are either consciously or unconsciously ignorant of the event taking place. Such as, you probably think a European super leader will rise, perhaps Catholicism is the Great Harlot (it was actually Jerusalem), China will come across a dried up Euphrates river, and there will be some sort of an implant or tattoo where you can’t buy or sell goods. Sound familiar? I too had that same “mode” of thinking. But the more you sit down and let the Bible explain the Bible, instead of the 5 o’clock news, you realize that Futurism doesn’t make Biblical sense. I would highly recommend you, at least just once, read the NT with a ‘past fulfilled’ frame of mind, it will help. Check out some of these verses and you’ll understand what I mean. "But I say to you truthfully, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God." Luke 9:27 "THIS generation will not pass away until ALL these things take place." (Matt. 24:34) “THESE are days of vengeance, in order that ALL things which are written may be fulfilled.” (Lk. 21:22) “This is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: 'And it shall be in the last days…'” (Acts 2:16-17) “Not for [Abraham's] sake only was it written, that [faith] was reckoned to him [as righteousness], but for our sake also, to whom it is about to be reckoned.” (Rom. 4:23-24) “We shall not all fall sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.” (I Cor. 15:51-52) “The end of all things is at hand; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.” (I Peter 4:7) ””””””””2) And why didn't anything change upon his return (for Revelation and Thessalonians would certainly cause us to expect radical change)? Things DID in fact change, however this is what I was referring to with “mindsets”. We get our mind stuck on something, and when it doesn’t happen that way, we often dismiss the actual happening because it wasn’t a ‘custom fit’. Going off what my mind frame used to be, I remember thinking that the ‘end’ would involve no more wicked people and basically a physical restoration of the earth. BUT, is this what the Bible says? No it isn’t. Sadly Futurism has taught this, but it doesn’t match up with the Bible. Things were very much changing in the 1st century, but they were on the Spiritual level, not the fleshy one. People put too much value in flesh, forgetting that God the Father is spirit. cont'd SUEDE |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |