Results 41 - 60 of 150
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: atdcross Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166817 | ||
Again, I do not find in the Bible that God created Satan and neither do the verses you cite affirm it. They may read that God created Lucifer. That he became evil and, changed in name and character, turned into Satan is not by virtue of his being created. If the scholars are correct that Ezek 28:11ff (along with Isa 11) refers to Satan, then notice what is written: "You ["Lucifer"] were once an example of perfection...your conduct was perfect from the day you were created" (cf.1-15a TEV). This is the description of the angel who is "Bright Morning Star" (i.e. Lucifer; cf. Isa 14:12) as created. God created him for good and not for evil; he was endowed with free will to choose what is good. At this point there is no evil. This angel maintained right conduct before God but only for an unknown amount of time; he maintained the very purpose for which he was created "until [he] began to do evil" (Ezk 28:15b). Satan created evil. There was no evil until "Lucifer" acted in rebellion against God (Isa 14:13-14 TEV). It seems to me that evil is not so much a thing that is created; it is an act that a free will being commits. Without the existence of evil beings there is no evil. As such, evil began with this rebellious angel; if one wants to say evil was created, then it was "created," not by God, but by "Lucifer". Therefore, to say, "God created Satan," is to say God created an evil being. God does not create evil beings; he may have allowed them to exist but he has not created them. Therefore, one may say, God created "Lucifer" but "Lucifer" created evil. |
||||||
42 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166804 | ||
It is not in the Bible that God created Satan so I am unmable to show it. However, God did not create an evil being. If he did, then he would be the Creator and author of evil. Scholars seem to acknowledge that there is a hint in the Bible that God created an angel who was perfect and beautiful. This particular angel, in turn, rebelled against God and was thereafter given the name "Satan". It can be said that God created an angel who, it seems, was innocent and morally good by his obedience to God for a time until he turned against God. However, to say that God created Satan would be misconstrued to suggest that God created and is thereby the author of evil; the term "Satan" suggests his evil nature. God did not create a being with an evil nature, at least, I do not see the chapter and verse where it states he did. From my perspective, I think its more correct to say that God created an angel(s) who later rebelled against God. |
||||||
43 | Why does Satan believe he can win? | Bible general Archive 3 | atdcross | 166797 | ||
To answer the first question: God did not create Satan. To answer the second question: I will speculate that Satan really believes he will win. |
||||||
44 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166683 | ||
Hi Searcher, Love and hate are emotive and decisive. Ever been angry without deciding to be like when someone steps on your foot? Ever make the decision to remain in that angry posture? |
||||||
45 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166682 | ||
John 5:1-8. If no one else was there and not all were healed when he was on the earth, even so, it is irrelevant; it proves absolutely nothing concerning God’s will to heal. It is God’s will to heal; whether or not one or all are healed is another thing. The fact that God wills certain things does not necessarily mean it will occur. 1 Corinthians 11:28-30. It is God’s will to judge the unrighteous, especially of the "household of faith". Those in the Corinthian church were sick because they sinned and God executed judgment against them. Regarding Job: (1) although God allowed it, it was Satan who made him sick, and (2) in any case, Job’s experience is unique and should not be applied to every believer who becomes sick (that is, not unless they can claim to be blameless and avoids evil over and above every other believer, cf. Job 1:8; 2:3). God did promise disease if Israel was unfaithful. However, what does the Bible say if Israel, as a nation, was obedient? Would they still experience diseases or would God heal them? Timothy’s ailment did not require a miracle of healing to remove it. The Bible doesn’t read that Trophimus was not healed but only that when Paul left, he was still sick. Could he not have been healed sometime afterwards? Let it be clear that I am not arguing Christians do not get sick. I am asserting that (1) it is God’s will that His people be healthy, therefore, (2) it is God’s desire to heal all who are sick. If someone close to you were racked with pain from cancer, would you tell him or her they are being blessed with cancer? Would you pray, “Lord, I thank you that they have cancer and it is painful for them. Their pain is a blessing and shows how good you are to them. Jesus, don’t heal them. Don’t take away such a wonderful blessing. Thank you, Good Lord, for cancer”? Or, with respect to suffering, why don’t we thank God for all the children being raped, mutilated, and murdered? Maybe we should pray God would put it into the hearts of evil men to rape more children since suffering is such a blessing. (My statements above are not meant to reflect any disrespect). Job did not thank God that he lost everything, especially his children. What we have in 1:21 and 2:10 (cf. TEV) is Job’s affirmation of God’s goodness despite the tragedies he experienced. Ps. 103:3. Then the first portion of this verse should be interpreted in the same way, that is, all that is said is that God is the one who forgives, as well as other things; it does not necessarily mean that it is God’s will to forgive all believers (those following Him). 3 Jn 2. So you are, in essence, saying John’s prayer and desire here does not reflect God’s will. If that is the case, then verses 4,11, and 15a seem not to reflect God’s will either. Actually, it can be said, if you are correct, that this epistle was not written under divine inspiration but was merely John's view of things. Mal 4:2. If you are correct and this verse has no reference for us now, then verse 5-6 is with reference to a future fulfillment also and has no reference to anytime before or at present. Matt 7:11. No mention is made of forgiveness either, or eternal life. Besides, when is someone healing another not a “good gift” (or, “good thing”, TEV)? Please search the Bible and let me know where it says or demonstrates that God’s will is to make those who are faithful (i.e. believing and following) to Him sick. To date, I have not found any. |
||||||
46 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166681 | ||
You’re correct I would be accusing God of wrongdoing but only if “hate” is used by Luke according to it’s usual and primary definition as defined by such scholars as Robertson. In any case, have you read the rest of Vine’s as I cited it? Also, see my citation of Evans and Liefeld. In Luke, Jesus did not mean that one is to literally hate their parents; he is saying something other than how the definition of the word is normally understood. Maybe I’m not making myself clear. In some respects, it seems to me that we are not really disagreeing with each other. I think the misunderstanding lies in my saying that the Greek word for “hate” is defined in a very strong way, whereas you’re saying, as defined, it can also mean something less strong. If my understanding is correct, in the former, I consider it the normal usage, it’s literal meaning; while, for the latter, I see it not as the definition of the word itself, but a “playing” with the word to emphasize a point. Maybe this is something akin to what Kalos refres to when he cites, “the culture gap gives you…idioms”. It any case, it may not be that we disagree but more rather that I am unable to properly explain myself having not been educated in a college or seminary. If you read “Israel’s Divine Healer” by Dr. Michael L. Brown, I’ll certainly read the book you have suggested. Let me know if it's a deal. |
||||||
47 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166460 | ||
Thanks for the encouraging word. Job 2:10: (1) We know from the prologue that it is Satan who is buffeting Job, not God (although God allowed it). (2) Job’s experience is unique. It does not reflect the answer as to why believers, in general, suffer. With respect to your comment, God “can and does heal all whom he desires” and all whom he desires to heal are his people through their faith and obedience. This is clearly demonstrated in Jesus’ ministry. As far as examples outside of the Bible, Jim Elliot was martyred, as is the way of every believer who follows Jesus; it is also a promised experience for all who seriously take up their Cross. As someone said, the call of the Gospel is the call to die. However, Elliot is not an example of the idea that God wants his children to be sick. Joni Erickson’s condition does not necessarily support any scriptural truth; the fact that she (or anyone else) is a paraplegic does not necessarily warrant the idea that such is God’s will. Please find in the Bible where it says or clear instances that show God (a) blesses by making his chosen people sick, (b) desires believers to be sick, (c) promises or, at least, warns he will not heal those who believe and are obedient to him. Timothy’s sickness or weakness was healed by proper diet; divine intervention was not necessary. The idea that the apostle Paul had a sickness that was not healed is conjecture. Throughout Church history it is recorded that God has been healing. Eusebius asserts that idolaters “were now liberated by the power of Christ through the teaching and miracles of his messengers.” Origen (c.200) stated that Christians practiced casting out demons. Tertullian claimed, “the noblest Christian life is ‘to exorcise evil spirits – to perform cures – to live to God’.” “2000 years of scholarship and exegesis” apparently missed a lot! I agree it is not God’s desire that His people be sick. Sickness is permitted primarily as the consequence of sin and the judgment of God against it. As far as “numerous examples” of God not healing: Job 2:10 is covered above. It is mere conjecture to interpret 2 Cor 12:8-9 as referring to sickness. I agree he was sick, but where in 2 Timothy does it say Erastus was not healed? Heb 11:36 speak of persecution, not sickness. Deut. 28:22: I am not arguing sickness as judgment for disobedience. That is a given. I am arguing sickness as something God desires for His people. Note also God’s promises to heal should Israel obey (v.1-14). If Israel disobeys, they become sick; if they obey, they will be healthy. Pretty straightforward. In any case, God did not desire or want the people of Israel to be sick. |
||||||
48 | What it means to BELIEVE in Jesus Christ | John 3:16 | atdcross | 166455 | ||
Hi Kalos, I was not disagreeing with the Biblical concept of salvation by faith. I was only adding to your description of what "faith" is. The subject was "What it means to believe in Jesus." To believe in Jesus means to walk faithfully in God's will. I did not say that works save, although, I will say - in accordance with the scriptures I already cited (cf. ID#166398) - it is the faith that works (not "faith and works"; there is a difference), which saves. |
||||||
49 | What it means to BELIEVE in Jesus Christ | John 3:16 | atdcross | 166398 | ||
To believe in Jesus also means living a life that is faithful to God's will (cf. John 14:12; James 2:26; 1 John 5:1-5). | ||||||
50 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166013 | ||
Hi Kalos. Please forgive me for commenting that I did not know what you were attempting to show by your response. Anyway, I'm cut-pasting your post for future reference. Thanks and, I am so sorry for the mix-up. In the first place, I didn't even notice you were responding to Mark (I need glasses for my glasses), and in the second place, I was reading quite fast just to pick out what I wanted to cut-paste to Word and respond later (way too much coffee). |
||||||
51 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 166011 | ||
I don't quite get what you're attempting to say by your response... | ||||||
52 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165922 | ||
Not being a scholar of the language, allow me to explain my point of view, which does not necessarily disagree with your view except in your definition of hatred as "a strong dislike" or "not emotional hatred." It seems a correct understanding of this verse may center on the word translated "hate". Robertson: "Hateth...An old and very strong verb...to hate, detest. The orientals use strong language..." (Word Pictures). Evans: "This may be an example of the Semitic expression of preference," however, "it may also express Luke's rigorous outlook" (Saint Luke). Liefeld: "It is important to understand the ancient Near Eastern expression without blunting its force" (Expositor's Bible Commentary). The word translated "hate" is the same used in Matt 5:43; 24:10; Luke 6:22,27; John 3:20; 7:7; 15:23; Rom 9:13; Rev 2:6,15 (cf. Young, Strong). Vine: "to hate...(a) of malicious and unjustifiable feelings...(c) of relative preference..." (Dictionary) Lenski: "Instead of leaving [the Greek word] in its true sense 'to hate' it is generally reduced, even 'watered down till the point is gone'." (St. Luke's Gospel; his further remarks are quite interesting, which is somewhat a different perspective than what we are discussing but it makes good sense to me). The point is that, according to above references, Luke chose to use a very strong Greek word (as it seems the English translation rightly conveys) to express Jesus' teaching. I concede that Luke's readers may have recognized that the verse spoke of preference but that just proves the point; they knew not to take it literally. There was an intended meaning in the word "hate" other than as stated. Therefore, it seems, Luke did not intend for his readers to understand Jesus "exactly" from what was stated via the normal meaning of the Greek word "hate" but some other meaning is intended. A mere conjecture is offered with reference to Jesus' use of the Aramaic since I do not know what word he used (only because I don't know Aramaic). However, if it was equivalent to the strength of the Greek word, the same can be said: Jesus knew exactly what he was saying but exactly what he meant was something different from what was exactly stated. The fact that his hearers readily knew he took the word to mean something other than what its literal meaning might suggest only supports this view. Please note, Mark, with all due respect, you apprehended the text not on the basis of the word itself but on the basis of (1) a form of teaching understood within the culture; (2) other relevant verses that bring light Luke's understanding of Jesus' statement; (3) in relation to other texts about the command to love, which I am not against doing. However, as far as I can tell, you did not come to understand what Jesus meant by the "plain reading" of the word "hate," which is, as Robertson states, in Greek is a "very strong verb...to hate, detest." One last point. Again, I think we make the Western mistake of dichotomizing persons, a thing it seems unheard of in the Eastern world like "emotional" hatred; if one "hated" or "loved" it was understood as being done with one's whole person. I hope I explained my point clearly. |
||||||
53 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165914 | ||
Thanks for your response, Mark. Please allow me to leave a response also for "other readers to ponder". Please note, although we may know where each other stands, there is no problem (on my part, at least), since no one is trying to convince the other, to exchange views on the different texts that support each other's position. 1. In accordance to Eph 5:20, does anyone ever thank God that children are being raped, that the cancer patient is going through pain? 2.If (1) sickness is God's will for believers and (2) sickness brings God glory, why (1) pray for healing in the first place, and (2) if we do get healed, why not pray we get sick again? 3. The good things that come out of affliction (1) do not come out automatically, (2) depend on the person's response. Suffering can either bring a person nearer or further from God. Believing that God's intention is that his children be healthy is not a matter of "humanity" but a matter of God's word (Psalm 103:3; 3 John 2; Malachi 4:2; Matthew 7:11). From my perspective, believing God's desire is to heal all who are sick (Jesus' practice in the Gospels) and for us to be healthy is, at least, one thing that "the Sovereign Lord has determined will make me like Jesus". There are many verses in the Bible where God grants healing. In all seriousness (there is no sarcasm intended at all), (1) I have not yet found a verse in the Bible where God promises sickness. (2) Matt 4:23 does not read that Jesus went making people sick. |
||||||
54 | did Jesus die for our sins or sickness | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165908 | ||
Hi Shythiyl, I apologize, but I don't understand your comment. |
||||||
55 | Sickness Brings God Glory? - 2 | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165881 | ||
Unfortunately, I neglected to post that I was answering (see ID#165880) in response to Mark D Seyler's post ID#164082, Tue 12/13/05, 8:09pm. I could not edit it in so...sorry about that. |
||||||
56 | Sickness Brings God Glory? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165880 | ||
Your purpose for being on the forum is commendable. I apologize if my views have caused you distress. Unfortunately, I do not agree that (1) I am leading others astray, and (2) that my views, at this point, are not Biblical. As best I know, the doctrine of healing, in its basic formulation, is in agreement with the whole of revelation. I encourage you, and anyone else who feels that what I believe in is not Biblical, to buy the scholarly book, "Israel's Divine Healer," by Dr. Michael L. Brown; it is part of the "Studies in Old Testament Biblical Theology" series edited by Willem A. VanGemeren and Tremper Longman, III. Although I have not yet read the book, I am listening to a tape series based on the book (afterwards, I plan to read it). A few basics that I have learned (and have tried to point out as I see it from the texts without reference to Dr. Brown's thoughts): 1. The idea of healing, in OT thought, included both spiritual and physical healing; there was never a dichotomy then as we have in modern times. 2. The word root used for "healing", which is "rapha", should mean to "restore" or "make whole", not "heal" (although it may be included in the meaning, it is not the basic meaning). 3. In ancient OT times, any god that was unable to heal physically, by that inability proved themselves not a god. Now just a few questions to stimulate thinking: 1. If sickness is for the purpose of bring God glory and the believer is obligated to give God glory, why do Christians:(a) Pray for God to heal them when they are sick? (b) Pray for God to make them sick when they are healthy? 2. If a believer being sick is God’s will, is not the one praying for their healing praying against God’s will? 3. Concerning Isaiah 53:4. (a) When does it say Jesus carried our “sicknesses” and “weaknesses”? (b)When was Jesus “stricken, smitten of God”? Of course, I would not want to distress you or anyone else by furthering these discussions. If you would rather not continue the discussion, I will respect that and post no further. If anyone else wishes to take up the discussion, please be my guest. Again, I want to remind everyone that my purpose here also is not to prove but to share. |
||||||
57 | Plain or Intended Meaning? | 1 Pet 2:24 | atdcross | 165879 | ||
Mark, regarding your comment on ID#164080, if you don't mind, let's try something... Read Luke 14:26. The "plain reading" of Jesus' words suggests that unless one hates their parents, they cannot be his followers. Now, what would you think of the person who, taking the "plain reading" of the text, practiced and taught Christians to hate their parents? Or, did Jesus mean something other than what the "plain reading" suggests? Is there a meaning intended by what Jesus actually said other than what he actually said? |
||||||
58 | "the law is spiritual, but I am carnal" | Rom 7:14 | atdcross | 165520 | ||
Hi Tim, I'm sort of slow myself in answering. I can agree with your comment regarding Rom 7 although I do not think Paul intended to be understood as describing in particular his own experience. Phil. 3:6. Unless I slipped, I did not assert that the apostle was “perfect.” I did say he was “blameless,” but as a believer. Before conversion and as a Pharisee, the apostle saw himself as righteous according to the Law. Phi 3:12-14. It seems here that the apostle’s mention of perfection is not with reference to his moral character but to his resurrection; at least, that is what it seems when context is considered. 1 Tim. 1:13,15-16. I think v.16 highlights the suggestion that the apostle’s reference to himself as the worst sinner is within the context of his acts, specifically against the Church, as a Pharisee before his dramatic conversion. It is not what he thought of himself at the time but only in hindsight. It does not describe his present experience as a believer, unless it is suggested that the apostle, as a believer in Messiah Yeshua, is engaged in sins that are worst than the worst offences of the ungodly? In hindsight Paul saw he did not keep Torah, at least, not in the spirit although in the letter he may have. I repeat, I did not say that the apostle claimed to be perfect as a believer, however, he did not claim to be in the habit of sinning; he claims to be blameless. Rom. 3:20; Gal 2:21; 3:10. There is no denial of this. This fact makes it all the more glaring for Paul since he claims to have kept Torah, seeking life by its observance. Also in summary, the apostle claims in hindsight as a believer that (1) he was a sinner, (2) his life as a believer is blameless before God and man, (3) the righteousness he attained as a Pharisee according to Torah was to no avail since it was unacceptable before God. To clarify Phil. 3:6, (1) There seems to be confusion between being “perfect” and being “blameless.” Paul claims to be blameless, not perfect; and (2) There seems to be no contradiction with the other verses because his reference to “perfection” is with respect to the divine act of being resurrected from the dead, not moral character. Just a couple of more pennies for the tin... |
||||||
59 | "the law is spiritual, but I am carnal" | Rom 7:14 | atdcross | 165270 | ||
Hey Doc, For clarification, let me just add that I am not sayong Paul was righteous before conversion; only that he thought himself to be righteous according to Torah. |
||||||
60 | Paul's physical description | Matt 11:28 | atdcross | 165260 | ||
...just seeking clarity. | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |