Results 61 - 80 of 93
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: Jalek Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | When fasting can I drink coffee? | Matt 6:16 | Jalek | 240182 | ||
Greetings, The idea of a fast is to go without luxuries, and contemplate on your stance with God. Traditionally, the only thing consumed during a fast is bread and water. Everything else, like coffee, would be an unnecessary luxury. Jalek |
||||||
62 | danger of small sins lead to larger sins | Matt 15:18 | Jalek | 240615 | ||
Greetings, One problem with this question is the assumption that there are different categories of sins. The Bible makes no such claims about degrees of severity when it comes to sin. Sin is sin, and all sin is an act of disobedience against God's will. It is man's need to justify his sin that classifies sin into greater sins like the so called "Seven Deadly Sins" and lesser sins like the "Little White Lie". The so called "Seven Deadly Sins" are not found in the Bible, but is actually a misinterpretation of Proverbs 6:16-19. However, when you look at the context, Lying and Murder are both viewed as equal in the eyes of God. With that said, there are passages that hint to a progression of sins leading to more sinning. Psalms 14, Habakkuk chapter 2, Matthew 15:15-20, and Romans 1:18-32 all hint to this. Jesus in Matthew 15 clearly teaches that it is what comes out of the mouth of man that defiles him. In the following verse, he lists several sins in no real certain order, nor does he indicate any particular hierarchy. Paul and Habakkuk both claim that one sin leads to another as a result of Man's lack of faith and willful disobedience against God. Like Jesus, David in Psalms comes right out and describes man as corrupt to the core, and do not even consider doing good. Hope this helps, Jalek |
||||||
63 | MAT. 18:8? | Matt 18:8 | Jalek | 240451 | ||
Greetings, There's another interpretation to this passage than the vanity of clinging to temporal things. Jesus is speaking of things that cause us to stumble, or sin. He's saying that one should be willing to go to extremes to prevent himself from sinning. He's using these analogies as a way of getting his point across. If removing one of your eyes, hands, or feet will help prevent you from falling into the sin, then what is the loss of those parts and entering heaven in comparison to losing your body intact and soul in hell? Jalek |
||||||
64 | Matthew 26:29 | Matt 26:29 | Jalek | 239166 | ||
Greetings, He's administering the Passover supper to his disciples, which would be known as the Lord's Supper. What he's saying to them is that this would be his last meal. So, he's preparing his disciples once again for his coming death. Jalek |
||||||
65 | What Cup was Jesus talking about? | Matt 26:39 | Jalek | 240476 | ||
Greetings, It's an idiom. Basically, Jesus is asking God the Father if it is at all possible for the coming events to not take place. He's distressed and nervous over the coming beatings and crucifixion. In Dr. Luke's account of this prayer, he describes Jesus as praying with drops of blood, which is a medical condition brought on by severe stress where the blood vessels and sweat glands touch each other. It makes the skin very sensitive. Basically, the Cup represents all that is about to happen to Jesus. This is eluded to earlier in Matthew 20:20-23. The same basic meaning applies in both passages. Jalek |
||||||
66 | please interpret significance | Mark 4:11 | Jalek | 239606 | ||
Greetings, In the case of Mark 4:11-12, Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 to explain why he uses parables to teach with. Now, while Jesus is known for using parables to teach with, he wasn't the only one in the Bible. Many of the old testament prophets used parables. His reasoning, as he explains, is to reveal the mysteries of God and Heaven to everyone. However, those who are closest to Christ will understand the meaning. Those who aren't will hear nothing but nonsense and riddles. This is why many people, both during the time of Christ and even now, have a hard time getting to the root meaning of parables. In Isaiah 6:9-10, this is a part of Isaiah's calling to becoming a prophet. His message from God was designed to harden the hearts of rebellious and ungodly while also instructing and guiding the faithful. This is similar to Jesus's purpose for speaking in parables, which is why he chose it as scriptural support for his method of teaching. Jalek |
||||||
67 | Mark 14:33 | Mark 14:33 | Jalek | 239078 | ||
Greetings, Peter, James, and John were known as the Inner Circle. They were basically his best friends. His time in the garden was a very personal and deeply troubling time for him. He asked them along for added support, and to keep watch. After all, people were out to get him. So, that is my take on why he brought only them. Basically, he wanted the added company, and so he brought his three best friends. Jalek |
||||||
68 | Did it start as a legal brief? | Luke | Jalek | 232400 | ||
Greetings, Theophilus was more than likely a roman official, and someone very wealthy. He apparently hired Dr. Luke to provide a history of christianity. I doubt that his works were for a legal brief due to the work and effort he went into writing them. Dr. Luke specifially mentions in one place that he visited the actual places, and spoke to eye witnesses, as well as being an eye witness himself for many of the events in Acts. Jalek |
||||||
69 | Luke 1:32-33 | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240489 | ||
Greetings, Check out Luke 3:23-38. This is believed to be the lineage you are asking for. Although it doesn't list Mary, but Joseph, Luke uses different language than Matthew does in Matthew 1:1-17. First thing to point out is that Matthew uses a term translated as "begat". Meaning that he's tracing through the genetic line. However when Matthew comes to Joseph and Jesus, he calls Joseph "The husband of Mary". He doesn't follow the pattern and say "Joseph begat Jesus". Thus meaning that the genetic line stops at Joseph, who is Jesus's adopted and legal father through the eyes of the Law and the Jews of his day. Luke, however, refers to Jesus as "the son of Joseph". Joseph was the adopted father, or earthly caregiver, of Jesus. Legally, Jesus would have been seen as his son. So, it is believed that Luke is following through Mary's lineage, but is instead referencing the heads of the house. So in summary, Matthew is following Jesus's line through his adopted father, using the genetic father and son. Luke is following through Mary's line, but he's listing the heads of the house. Second, as for Jesus's connection to David, look at both lists. Matthew, through the line of Joseph, his adopted father, was connected to David through Solomon. However, the throne was taken away from Solomon's line due to the actions of several of his descendants. However, through Mary, Jesus was connected to David through Solomon's brother, Nathan. Jalek |
||||||
70 | Jesus lineage through Mary!!! | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240491 | ||
Greetings, The explanation of Luke using the heads of houses was the one given to me by my New Testament professor when I asked a similar question when in College. However, for some references, here's an excerpt from the Biblical Illustrator which might explain it better than I am able to. The double genealogies of Christ as the Son of David The general facts are these— 1. The genealogy in St. Matthew descends from Abraham to Jesus, in accordance with his object in writing mainly for the Jews; whereas St. Luke’s ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, in accordance with his object in writing for the world in general. 2. The generations are introduced in St. Matthew by the word “begat”; in St. Luke by the genitive with the ellipse of “son.” 3. Between David and Zerubbabel St. Matthew gives only fifteen names, but St. Luke twenty-one; and they are all different except that of Shealtiel (Salathiel). 4. Between Zerubbabel and Joseph St. Matthew gives only nine generations, but St. Luke seventeen; and all the names are different. The difficulty as to the number of the generations is not serious. It is a matter of daily experience that the number of generations in one line often increases far more rapidly than that in another. Moreover the discrepancies in these two lists may all be accounted for by noticing that Matthew adopts the common Jewish plan of an arbitrary numerical division into tesseradecads. When this system was adopted, whole’ generations were freely omitted, for the sake of preserving the symmetry, provided that the fact of the succession remained undoubted (cf. Ezr_7:1-5 with 1Ch_6:3-15). The difficulty as to the dissimilarity of names will of course only affect the two steps of the genealogies at which they begin to diverge, before they again coalesce in the names of Shealtiel and of Joseph. A single adoption, and a single levirate marriage, account for the apparent discrepancies. St. Matthew gives the legal descent through a line of kings descended from Solomon—the jus successionis; St. Luke the natural descent—the jus sanguinis. St. Matthew’s is a royal, St. Luke’s a natural pedigree. Here's another excerpt from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary: Have we in this genealogy, as well as in Matthew’s, the line of Joseph? or is this the line of Mary? - a point on which there has been great difference of opinion and much acute discussion. Those who take the former opinion contend that it is the natural sense of this verse, and that no other would have been thought of but for its supposed improbability and the uncertainty which it seems to throw over our Lord’s real descent. But it is liable to another difficulty; namely, that in this case Matthew makes Jacob, while Luke makes “Heli,” to be Joseph’s father; and though the same man had often more than one name, we ought not to resort to that supposition, in such a case as this, without necessity. And then, though the descent of Mary from David would be liable to no real doubt, even though we had no table of her line preserved to us (see, for example, Luk_1:2-32, and see on Luk_2:5), still it does seem unlikely - we say not incredible - that two genealogies of our Lord should be preserved to us, neither of which gives his real descent. Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph - here His real, there His reputed line - explain the statement about Joseph, that he was “the son of Hell,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Rth_1:11, Rth_1:12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported. However we decide, it is a satisfaction to know that not a doubt was thrown out by the bitterest of the early enemies of Christianity as to our Lord’s real descent from David. On comparing the two genealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Savior was sprung from Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human family, thus showing Him to be the promised “Seed of the woman.” Jalek |
||||||
71 | Is Mary anyhow related to King David???? | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240493 | ||
Greetings, As I stated in my previous post, both of those were excerpts from two different sources that comments on the genealogies. As far as a Bible passage that states the genealogy in Luke is through Mary, there isn't one. However, I'm confused as to why you seem hesitant to extrapolate from Scripture, yet at the same time admit that the Bible is subject to individual interpretation. After all, Extrapolation and Interpretation go hand in hand with one another, especially when done through proper exegesis and hermeneutics. Now, as far as your primary question, "Is Mary anyhow related to King David?", the answer is obvious, and I'm surprised that it even needs to be asked. "Yes, she is." Why do we know this? The answer is equally simple, and the Bible does tell us. In Revelations 2:16, Jesus says it plainly, "I am the Root and Offspring of David." Now, since he's not born to Joseph, but born only to Mary, then we can EXTRAPOLATE that Mary was also an "Offspring" or a descendant of King David. Jalek |
||||||
72 | SEE ABOVE | Luke 9:23 | Jalek | 240314 | ||
Greetings, I'd encourage your pastor to be careful of the context. Jesus isn't saying for the person to take up the Cross of Jesus, but his own cross. This is an analogy. Basically, Jesus is saying that who ever is going to follow him should be willing to follow him to the death. Jalek |
||||||
73 | divorced-remarry makes one an adulterer? | Luke 16:18 | Jalek | 240472 | ||
Greetings, You're pretty much on the mark, but let me clarify. Recall your wedding vows ... "Till death do we part ...". It's not "Until we get sick and tired of each other ...". Biblical Marriage is until death, not until both parties get tired of being together. So, that's the primary reason why remarrying after divorce is the same as Adultery. Because the divorced person is still married in the eyes of God. Now, I realize this sounds harsh, but as God hates divorce, so do I. People in today's world treat marriage as something like a toaster oven they get on Christmas. If they don't like it, they can return it. Love isn't viewed as the most powerful of all emotions, but is viewed as something like their sunglasses and car keys, as if love is something that can be lost. Love never fails. Love never fades away. There's one last thing I want to point out is the reason behind divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses explains that divorce is allowed if the woman is found to be unclean or indecent in some manner. Jesus, in Matthew 19:1-12, clarifies that a person who remarries after divorce commits adultery unless the reason for the divorce is because the spouse was immoral. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, first recommends reconciliation. However, he goes on to say that if the divorce happens because one is an unbeliever and leaves, then to let that one leave. Jalek |
||||||
74 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240785 | ||
Greetings, According to his promise to the thief on the cross, Jesus was in paradise. I'm not sure where the idea of Jesus going to Hell came from, but I think it's a misinterpretation of a passage in 1 Peter where it says that Jesus visited spirits which were locked up. Jalek |
||||||
75 | what verses show that Jesus is God | John | Jalek | 240464 | ||
Greetings, I'd turn to the Gospel of John. John the Beloved's motivation to writing his gospel was to combat Docetism, which was an early Christian heresy that denied Christ's humanity. Look at the "I am" statements of Christ. If you look at these "I am" statements, there are two primary things, among others, that stand out. 1. The phrase "I am" is the same identity God gave to Moses at the Burning Bush. 2. There are Old Testament verses that parallel these statements. Since January, I've been going through the Gospel of John in the Sunday School class I teach. Let me show you what I mean. "I am the bread of Life." John 6:35 Now, compare this with Psalms 63:1-5. David speaks about how he longs for spiritual satisfaction, which mirrors the message that Jesus gives in John 6:35. David is saying that it is God who satisfies him, and Jesus is saying that he, himself, is the one who satisfies. In his own way, Jesus is claiming to be God. "I am the light of the World." John 9:5 Compare with Psalms 27:1. Of all the "I am" statements, this is the one that most clearly points to Christ being God. David calls Jehovah, specifically by name, as his light and his salvation. Jesus says the same thing, almost verbatim. I could go through each one and explain, but I'll provide the verses instead. Almost all of them are self explanatory. John 10:9 and Psalms 3:3 John 10:11 and Psalms 23:1 John 11:25 and Psalms 119:107 John 14:6 and Psalms 33:4 John 15:1 and Psalms 80:8 John 18:37 and Psalms 29:10 Now, for the second part, showing that Jesus was equal with God. The best passage for that is John 5:1-47 This is where Jesus heals the invalid at the Pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath. The Jews get up in arms about this, and confront Jesus. They even wish to kill him because they view Jesus as a Sabbath breaker. In verse 17, Jesus says this "My father has been working until now, and I have been working." Notice the following verse. The Jews wish to kill Jesus because he not only broke the Sabbath in their mind, but because he also claimed to be God's son. Now, John the Beloved explains this. It is a jewish idiom. In the Jewish mindset, claiming to be the Son of God is the same as claiming to be God's equal. The final point of Jesus being human, I'd turn to John 4:7. Notice, he's thirsty. This is one of three times where Jesus is shown to be thirsty or hungry. The other two are John 19:28 and Matthew 4:2. If he wasn't human, then why did he get hungry and thirsty? Now, this may be more complicated than intended, but it gets the point across in the simplest way I can show. Jesus claimed to be God with his "I am" statements. He claimed to be equal to God by claiming to be his Son, and he was still human because he got Hungry and Thirsty. Jalek |
||||||
76 | parable in John 4:35-38 | John 4:38 | Jalek | 240342 | ||
Greetings, Basically, he's telling his disciples that they are going to be finishing the work that others have started. The process of salvation, the death and resurrection of Christ, and the preparations to start the Church didn't begin with Jesus being born. It began centuries before at creation. John the Baptist, The old testament prophets, David, Elijah, Samuel, Moses, Abraham, and others all played a part in preparing the World for the Messiah and the Church. He's telling the Disciples that they are going to receive the rewards and praise for things that others have done. However, it doesn't stop there. This is an ongoing process. There were things the Disciples started that the Church continued to do after they passed on. It continues today, especially in bringing someone to salvation. The Christian who prays with the lost person to bring that person to Christ isn't the only person involved. Before that lost person knelt to pray, there were others involved in telling him or her about the Gospel in one form or another. To boil down what Jesus is saying, that our work for Christ is not a solo act, but a group effort. Jalek |
||||||
77 | explain john 4:44 | John 4:44 | Jalek | 239527 | ||
Greetings, The passages Doc listed will help clarify the meaning. However, I do want to add some insight from some personal experience. I was 16 when my dad finally stopped arguing with God and finally went into the ministry. He was very surprised when people told him that it was about time. His mother, my grandma, said that she knew he was going to be a preacher when he was little. She told about how he would take the Bible verses he learned in Sunday School and teach them to his friends and cousins who were close to his age at the time. The church he grew up in was called "Brown Street Baptist Church". He left the church when he went into the Army and was sent to Vietnam. Reflecting back on those years, Dad once told me that he learned a lot while at that church, and many of his beliefs were shaped by his mentors from the church. However, he later learned how a person can change, but a church can remain the same. When I was 12, my family moved back to the town Dad grew up in, and we joined that same church he grew up in. During his years of absence, he had survived Vietnam, married, started a family, and was active in his prior churches as a Sunday School teacher and Music leader. He got a rude awakening when this church that once supported him and educated him in his youth refused to utilize his experience and train him further. I had never seen my dad so distraught and upset before. There was a look of sadness in his eyes that I had only seen one other time, and that was several years later when my mom passed away. Dad, mom, and I started searching for a new church and settled on one called "Meadowbrook First Southern Baptist Church". The church we joined would be the one which would be my home during my high school years. A year after my dad surrendered into the ministry, I felt the same calling. I quickly learned the same lesson. I had gone to a bible college in St. Louis, Missouri. When I came back after being away for a year, the church that had been my home and so supportive of my calling, and helped guide my dad during his early ministry, suddenly changed. One person came right out and told me that I was nothing more that a child still, despite the fact that I was 22 at the time. I was so angry and upset. I couldn't understand why my home people would treat me this way. My dad sat down with me, opened his bible, and read me John 4:44. It was then that this verse became clear to me. I hope the lessons my Dad and I both learned the hard way helps to clarify the meaning of what Jesus was trying to say. Jalek |
||||||
78 | Jesus is Jewish, | John 5:18 | Jalek | 239728 | ||
Greetings, The jews who sought to kill Jesus didn't see him as the Messiah. 1) They saw him as a Sabbath breaker. In John 5:1-17, Jesus healed the man at the pool of Bethesda on the Sabbath day, and told the Man to carry his pallet away. The jews saw this as a direct violation of the mosaic laws on honoring the Sabbath. 2) They saw him as a blasphemer. Later in the same chapter, Jesus makes the claim of being the Son of God. In the Jewish belief system, Jesus's claim of being the Son of God, true or not, was blasphemous. That's why they tried to stone him nearly every time he tried to claim to be the Son of God. 3) They feared how influential he would become. John 11:48 talk about one of the final plots to kill Jesus, and one reasoning given is that they feared how the Romans would react to Jesus's growing influence and power. Jalek |
||||||
79 | Did Christ die only for the elect? | John 10:15 | Jalek | 239864 | ||
Greetings, Normally, I agree with much of what Doc says. However, Doc seems to imply that Christ died for the Elect only. This I disagree with, and here's why. 1 John 2:2 "And He Himself is the propitiation for out sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world." John makes it clear that Jesus's death was the propitiation (ie: Appeasement or Satisfaction) of our sins as well as the sins of the whole world. Now, he doesn't limit it to the sins of just those who would become Christians around the world. Another place is in Titus 2:15 Titus 2:15 "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men," As Paul shows here, Salvation is available to all. However, the Bible is clear that not everyone will be saved, despite God's will as expressed in 1 Timothy 2:4 1 Timothy 2:4 "Who (God) desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of Truth," and a couple verses later, Paul says this about Christ's sacrifice. 1 Timothy 2:6 "Who (Jesus) gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time." Even in John 3:17, Jesus tells Nicodemus "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." Many who claim that Christ died only for the elect will twist these passages to say that the writers meant that it was for the elect only, but the passages don't say that. They say "whole world", "All Men", "for all", and "the world". Even in the greek, to imply that these passages are referring to only the elect would be reading into the text what isn't there. Now, please don't misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm not advocating that everyone will be saved, but that the option to be saved is possible if everyone chooses to be saved. God created hell for those who would reject Christ and salvation. Jalek |
||||||
80 | Who was Jesus referring to in John 19:11 | John 19:11 | Jalek | 240118 | ||
Greetings, Jesus was sent to Pilate by High Priest Caiaphas. The jewish leaders wanted Jesus dead, but they had no authority to kill him. So, they sent him to the one man who did: Pilate. Pilate has heard the accusers, faced the people, and was now speaking to Jesus on a one on one point. He informs Jesus that he has the authority to release him or kill him. Jesus reminds Pilate that what power he has was given to him by God. Basically, Jesus is saying that Pilate is simply put into the position to declare Jesus's fate because God appointed him. However, Pilate's not innocent. He's just doing his job. It's the ones who sent Jesus to him that are the true sinners. This includes Caiaphas, but also Annas, Judas, as well as the Sanhedrin. They used and twisted God's law into a means to murder a man who was innocent of the crimes they wanted to kill him for. Hence, that is why Jesus is saying that their sins are greater. Jalek |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 ] Next > Last [5] >> |