Results 41 - 60 of 819
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: flinkywood Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | flinkywood | 216668 | ||
CDBJ, you're right. Good call. | ||||||
42 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | flinkywood | 216667 | ||
CDBJ, I don't understand. Could you rephrase? | ||||||
43 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | flinkywood | 216657 | ||
Tim, If rendered His (God's) church and his own Blood (humanity) we have an assertion of the full humanity and divinity of Christ. Your point is clear, to render it the "church of God" and then, "blood of his own son" can bring this divine union into question. The fullest reading, it seems, should be "Church of the Lord...with His own blood." Colin |
||||||
44 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | flinkywood | 216652 | ||
Tim, With the NWT (the JW bible), these translations also render Acts 20:28 thus: (NET): ...with the blood of his own Son. (NRSV): ...with the blood of his own Son. (RSV): ...with the blood of his own Son. Your thoughts? |
||||||
45 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | flinkywood | 216648 | ||
Makarios, The JW's did send a varsity crew to our door. When they confronted my wife with the Jesus question she replied, "If Jesus is God's Son, then He must be God, just as your son is human." I would have made a mess of it, frankly. It's great to see you back.(I also hear from Ed Blough and Steve Pohl on the random occasion). You answered my first question herein, btw. I also understand you are a family now. Blessings to you double. Colin |
||||||
46 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | flinkywood | 216647 | ||
Tim, I’ve followed your exchange with Makarios. Great stuff. As you likely know, the JW bible emends Acts 20:28 to read “…which he purchased with the blood of his own son,” implying that the son’s blood is distinct, because this son, saith the Watchtower, is in truth the archangel Michael, a created being. Here’s a neat progression leading to Christ as God: Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. (Isa 41:4 ESV) Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (Isa 44:6 ESV, which refutes the “…was a god” mangling of John 1.1 in the JW bible) Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god. (Isa 44:6 ESV) "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty." (Rev 1:8 ESV) And he said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. (Rev 21:6 ESV) "And to the angel of the church in Smyrna write: 'The words of the first and the last, who died and came to life. (Rev 2:8 ESV) If you follow “ the first and the last” through scripture until Rev 2.8, you come to the truth of Christ. Colin |
||||||
47 | and you will be like God | Gen 3:5 | flinkywood | 216637 | ||
Doc, I know the guidelines, as I've haunted SBF for a good while. Also, no need to apologize for my "angst", since I had none. |
||||||
48 | Christologically Pregnant Passages | Titus 2:13 | flinkywood | 216636 | ||
That's really well done, Makarios. I'll note these to deploy on the JW's. | ||||||
49 | and you will be like God | Gen 3:5 | flinkywood | 216625 | ||
Doc Thanks for posting these Trentian "anathemas". I was struck by how much sense they make against Calvin's theology, which I find harsh (dungpiles and filthy rags) and at variance with our Father's character as revealed in both testaments. (Did Calvin ever read 2Ki 20:1-6)? I say Father because a Judge--though He is also a Judge--loves His prodigal son far more than any judge can. And like the prodigal, when we turn back we come to our Father's house, to our Holy Family, not simply to a courtroom. To have "anathematized the gospels", if I understand your formulation, means that the RCC essentially disagreed with Calvin's--and your--NT perspective. Whoa. Now I don't know whether the RCC condemned Calvin or any other Reformer to hell for having instructed others in the "lost doctrines"(?) of the universal church, but I do think the RCC were within their rights to condemn his theology as they saw fit and to fling whatever arrows they had in his direction. The Reformers had equal right to shoot back. And shoot back they did. |
||||||
50 | and you will be like God | Gen 3:5 | flinkywood | 216576 | ||
Doc, I thought JPII's paragraph pretty well done. As for the RCC anathematizing the Gospel, that is a pretty sweeping statement. Anyway, that one will stay corked. | ||||||
51 | and you will be like God | Gen 3:5 | flinkywood | 216566 | ||
St John, here also is a commentary by Iraneus on this verse: “Why also did it not prefer to make its attack upon the man instead of the woman? And if you say that it attacked her as being the weaker of the two,--I reply that--, on the contrary, she was the stronger, since she appears to have been the helper of the man in the transgression of the commandment. For she did by herself alone resist the serpent, and it was after holding out for a while and making opposition that she ate of the tree, being circumvented by craft; whereas Adam, making no fight whatever, nor refusal, partook of the fruit handed to him by the woman, which is an indication of the utmost imbecility and effeminacy of mind. And the woman indeed, having been vanquished in the contest by a demon, is deserving of pardon; but Adam shall deserve none, for he was worsted by a woman—he who, in his own person, had received the command from God.” Was Adam a coward for failing to defend his wife; for failing, perhaps, to sacrifice his life for her against the serpent? |
||||||
52 | and you will be like God | Gen 3:5 | flinkywood | 216565 | ||
St John, I found this in answer to your piece on pride. "Cutting off What Keeps Us from God" I was led back to the opening pages of the Book of Genesis, to the event known as "original sin." Saint Augustine, with extraordinary perceptiveness, described the nature of this sin as follows:.amor sui usque ad contemptum Dei-.self-love to the point of contempt for God. It was amor sui (self love) which drove our first parents toward that initial rebellion and then gave rise to the spread of sin throughout human history. The Book of Genesis speaks of this: "You will be like God, knowing good and evil" (Gn 3:5), in other words, you yourselves will decide what is good and what is evil. The only way to overcome this dimension of original sin is through a corresponding amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui- love for God to the point of contempt of self. This brings us face to face with the mystery of man's redemption, and here the Holy Spirit is our guide. It is he who allows us to penetrate deeply into the mysterium Crucis and at the same time to plumb the depths of the evil perpetrated by man and suffered by man from the very beginning of his history. That is what the expression "convince the world about sin" means, and the purpose of this "convincing" is not to condemn the world. If the Church, through the power of the Holy Spirit, can call evil by its name, it does so only in order to demonstrate that evil can be overcome if we open ourselves to amor Dei usque ad contemptum sui. This is the fruit of Divine Mercy. In Jesus Christ, God bends down over man to hold out a hand to him, to raise him up, and to help him continue his journey with renewed strength. Man cannot get back onto his feet unaided: he needs the help of the Holy Spirit. Pope John Paul II |
||||||
53 | We were about to take communion and the | 1 Cor 11:27 | flinkywood | 216458 | ||
If, on the other hand, you friend has acted immorally with or towards this fellow parishioner, then the pastor's admonition is biblical, irrespective of Christian denomination or form of communion. | ||||||
54 | We were about to take communion and the | 1 Cor 11:27 | flinkywood | 216457 | ||
Dear TFTennis, Paul's urging that a "self-examination" precede the eating and drinking of the communion bread and wine, lest one be guilty of the "body and blood", presupposes that these elements are actually the Body and Blood of our Lord. Outside the Catholic Church, which teaches the "Real Presence" of Jesus Christ under the "aspects" of bread and wine, communion is a symbolic remembrance of Christ's death until he comes; and though self-examination prior to this remembrance is a beneficial Christian practice, it is not requisite to partake of a symbolic communion of the type I think you refer to. It may be that the pastor has conflated another verse with 1 Cor 11:27: So if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. (Mat 5:23-24 ESV) In this verse, Jesus refers to a gift offered at an altar; He is not referring to the communion of the type in 1 cor 11:27. Matt 5:25-27 does, however, speak of a need to reconcile with a brother so that this particular gift be given in a worthy manner, in a state of grace, if you will. Under the circumstances you describe, has your friend been biblically short-changed by the pastor's teaching? Apparently she has; it isn't biblical to teach that your friend is unworthy to receive communion because of difficulty with a fellow believer. Oswald Chambers has commented beautifully on Matt 5: 23-27 in "My Utmost for His Highest" in a sermon entitled, "The 'Go' of Preparation". You can find it on the web. |
||||||
55 | Where is this Information Located? | John 20:7 | flinkywood | 214194 | ||
Dear Pattycake: http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-John20.php | ||||||
56 | Why did Jesus fold His Napkin/Facecloth? | John 20:7 | flinkywood | 214160 | ||
Dear Pattycake, Perhaps John, who knew Christ intimately, recognized his Friend's customary morning ritual of folding his sleeping cloth, evidence deliberately placed indicating that He had risen of his own power. Here are other ancient opinions: St. Gregory: "The napkin about our Lord's head is not found with the linen clothes, i.e. God, the Head of Christ, and the incomprehensible mysteries of the Godhead are removed from our poor knowledge; His power transcends the nature of the creature. And it is found not only apart, but also wrapped together; because of the linen wrapped together, neither beginning nor end is seen; and the height of the Divine nature had neither beginning nor end. And it is into one place: for where there is division, God is not; and they merit His grace, who do not occasion scandal by dividing themselves into sects. "But as a napkin is what is used in laboring to wipe the sweat of the brow, by the napkin here we may understand the labor of God: which napkin is found apart, because the suffering of our Redeemer is far removed from ours; inasmuch as He suffered innocently, that which we suffer justly; He submitted Himself to death voluntarily, we by necessity. But after Peter entered, John entered too; for at the end of the world even Judea shall be gathered in to the true faith." St. John Chrysostom: "...and the napkin, that was about His head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Which circumstances were proof of His resurrection. For had they carried Him away, they would not have stripped Him; nor, if any had stolen Him, would they have taken the trouble to wrap up the napkin, and put it in a place by itself, apart from the linen clothes; but would have taken away the body as it was. John mentioned the myrrh first of all, for this reason, i.e. to show you that He could not have been stolen away. For myrrh would make the linen adhere to the body, and so caused trouble to the thieves, and they would never have been so senseless as to have taken this unnecessary pains about the matter." |
||||||
57 | Why do I want to speak in tongues? | 1 Cor 13:1 | flinkywood | 212374 | ||
Tough news for Helen Keller. | ||||||
58 | What is "prophet's reward" in Matt. 10? | Matt 25:45 | flinkywood | 211974 | ||
Dear Taysr, Jesus has just told his apostles that following Him will require poverty, self-abnegation and likely entail suffering, even death (10:38,39). A "Prophet's reward" is for those who receive these impoverished "little ones" (the Disciples), because in receiving them they receive Jesus Himself (11:40; 25:34-36;45). Our kindness to the little ones of this world is our kindness to Christ. | ||||||
59 | Who is the Bride of Christ? | Bible general Archive 4 | flinkywood | 206277 | ||
The expression “Bride of Christ” is figurative and is found only once, in so many words, in the NT: For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. (2Co 11:2) As a Church we are a betrothed to Christ insofar as we have become “one flesh” in Christ: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (Eph 5:31) Which is cited from: Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24) If, as Paul states, we are betrothed to Christ, then in a sense we have been formed from Christ, the New Adam, as Eve was bride-formed from the rib of the First Adam. This is a function of the Cross, when Christ merged 2 men into one: …by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Eph 2:15-16). This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Eph 5:32) |
||||||
60 | water to wine? | John 2:1 | flinkywood | 205668 | ||
Dear Tamara, Vincent’s Word Studies translates the phrase literally as “what is there to me and to thee?” and also notes that “Woman” implies “…no severity or disrespect,” which surely is the case since Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law and the infinite exponent of the 4th commandment to “honor thy father and mother”. We have 2 options: Option 1: A term expressing disagreement or a mild rebuke: But the king said, "What have I to do with you, you sons of Zeruiah? If he is cursing because the LORD has said to him, 'Curse David,' who then shall say, 'Why have you done so?'" (2Sa 16:10) And Elisha said to the king of Israel, "What have I to do with you? Go to the prophets of your father and to the prophets of your mother." But the king of Israel said to him, "No; it is the LORD who has called these three kings to give them into the hand of Moab." (2Ki 3:13) Option 2: The free acceptance of the will of another whether reluctantly or not: "What have you to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are--the Holy One of God." (Mar 1:24) And crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me." (Mar 5:7) Option 2 fits the context since Jesus immediately accedes to His mother’s wish and she recognizes instantly His intention to do no otherwise (v2.5). The expression, therefore, is idiomatic to be used either positively or negatively. In Mary's comprehension of her Son's mission and Jesus' obedient deference to His mother's will we have a portrait of the most profound love, respect and understanding. This isn't a story of separation but of unity. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [41] >> |