Results 61 - 80 of 219
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Did Jesus exist? No writings at His time | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229180 | ||
Hi Welcome to the forum, You can always find scholars who will support any outlandish position. You must remember that many scholars are militant atheists. But there are very few scholars who deny the actual existence of Jesus (even atheistic ones) for very good reasons. If you get rid of Jesus you then have to explain the source of the greatest moral teaching that the world has ever known, a teaching admired by men of all religions, and who it was who totally exposed the weaknesses of the teaching of the scribes in the way that we find in the Gospels. These are facts because we can still read and appreciate them today. You have to explain the source of some of the most beautiful parables known to man. You have to explain who it was who gave answers to questions that previously no one had been able to answer. And when four reliable men testify as to who it was, you have to acknowledge that they must be right. They were not clever enough to have invented it No one of the day ever denied the historicity of the man spoken of in the Gospels, not even the Rabbis after the fall of Jerusalem. Furthermore your date of 'forty years' after the death of Jesus as the date for the Gospels is probably an exaggerated one. There are good grounds for thinking that they were written earlier. And certainly we know that Paul's letters were written earlier, and that he testified to Jesus within ten years of His death. It is not really surprising that books were not written immediately. The Apostles and their followers were busy reaching the world for Christ, and books were difficult to write with the material available, and would require long abstinence from active service. And then they had to be copied individually, an arduous task, and even then they would reach few hands (they were very expensive). But the living voice could go anywhere and immediately be heard by many, and could be recognised to be that of an eyewitness. The Gospels were written when the large churches looked for people who could write down what was known about Jesus, much of which had been memorised as men had listened to the Apostles. Matthew and John had been there, and we should remember that Matthew was used to recording things in writing and had no doubt done so while listening to Jesus. Mark wrote down what he had learned fom Peter. Luke had every opportunity to consult eyewitesses especially during the years he spent in Palestine with Paul. So the existence of Jesus is not really in doubt. If you are feeling shaken, read the Gospels. And ask yourself, was this the One Who was coming as prophesied by the Old Testament, or should we look for another? And my advice is to remember that anyone can wrte what they like in wikipedia. What it says is only as reliable as the person who wrote it. And you do not know who that was. |
||||||
62 | god's mercy why is there hell | John 3:16 | biblicalman | 229179 | ||
Hi again. Hell was not prepared for man. It was prepared for the Devil and his angels, the demon world (Matt 25.41). Unredeemed man participates in it because he has taken sides with the Devil. God is not willing that any should perish. He wants all to come to repentance (2 Peter 3.9). It is against His urgent entreaties that men opt to go to Hell. He even went to a cross in order to redeem us from sin. But men refuse to submit to God. They refuse to accept the awfulness of their condition as sinners and as evil (Luke 11.13). They refuse treatment. What would you say of a man with a highly contagious disease who deliberately went into a children's nursery and passed his deadly disease on to the children? And yet this is what we as sinners do all the time. We pass our sin on to our children, not only by birth, but by our bad example. Thus God has to keep heaven free from sin, and there is only one way to do that, and that is by excluding untreated sinners. You must not, however, see Hell simply as a place of deliberate torture. There are no toasting forks in Hell. It is a place of outer darkness, exclusion from the light which, if they ever experienced it, would in itself in their sinful condition be extreme torture.It is a place of loss. It is a place of burning remorse. But even there some are 'beaten with many stripes' and others are 'beaten with few stripes' (Luke 12.47-48). Thus God behaves justly in all His dealings. I am not sure why dying in the Holocaust should entitle people to special treatment. It was an awful fate. But men through the centuries have suffered awful fates. It is the consequence of man's inhumanity to man. Like all of us they will be judged on the basis of whether they sought treatment from the Great Physician, our Lord Jesus Christ. Best wishes |
||||||
63 | jesus...2year old-30.where was he? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229178 | ||
Hi, Welcome to the forum We know that as an infant He was taken to Egypt by His family and remained there for some time. Later He returned with them to Nazareth. We do know what is important in Jesus childhood, that He 'grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom and the grace of God was upon Him' (Luke 2.40), and that 'He increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man' (Luke 2.52). We also know that when He was twelve He demonstrated His knowledge of the Scriptures and ability to ask searching questions even from the great Scribes (Luke 2.42-50). And also that, when the other children were enjoying a riotous holiday at the Feast, He saw the Temple as the place for Him to be, interesting Himself in 'the things of His Father'. But the Gospels were not 'a life-story of Jesus'. They were a presentation of Jesus, revealing Who He was and what He had come to do. Best wishes |
||||||
64 | King lost mind grazed with cattle | Dan 4:31 | biblicalman | 229156 | ||
Hi sdlaney, Welcome to the forum. The King was Nebuchadnezzar. The account is found in Daniel 4. It is a warning against pride. Best wishes |
||||||
65 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229136 | ||
Hi Prov, Welcome to the Forum. It is not easy to answer your question because the concept changed over the centuries. Thus in Genesis 15 a generation was 100 years. We know this because they would be strangers in the land of Egypt for 400 years, and would return in the fourth generation (Gen 15.13, 16). But forty years was the period in which the wilderness generation would be wiped out, which suggests that by then a generation was seen as forty years. The genealogy of Joshua confirms this for it went as follows (1 Chron 7.22-27): Joseph, Ephraim, Beriah, Rephah, Resheph (Telah), Tahan, Ladan, Ammihud, Elishama, Nun, Joshua. So from Joseph to Joshua there were 11 generations inclusive. At 40 years per generation that would give us 400 years, agreeing with Genesis 15. This would serve to confirm that a generation came to be seen as 40 years. This idea was the used to indicate periods of time, as reference was made of 'to a thousand generations' (e.g. Deut 7.9), which was not of course literal but indicated a long period of time. Moses and Aaron's genealogy was clearly foreshortened giving tribal patriarch (Levi), head of sub-tribe (Kohath), head of clan (Amram), head of family (Aaron). Best wishes. |
||||||
66 | Pharisees and Saducees | Matthew | biblicalman | 229135 | ||
Hi Aileen, The Sadducees were mainly chief priests and priests and their adherents. They mainly died out with the destruction of the Temple. The Pharisees continued on in the Rabbis and their adherents, and to that extent survive today. Best wishes |
||||||
67 | how do you explain 1 corithians 6:11 | 1 Cor 6:11 | biblicalman | 229108 | ||
Hi Pammy, Welcome to the Forum. 1 Cor 6.11. is informing us that when a person becomes a true Christian through saving faith in Jesus Christ three things happen to them: Firstly they are washed clean from all sin (compare John 13.10; 1 John 1.7) and made pure in God's sight. Secondly they beoome 'sanctifed ones' (1.Cor 1.2), set apart and made holy in God's eyes in Christ. Thirdly they are accounted as righteous before God in Christ (Rom 3.24-25). And all this by the working of the Spirit of God. Best wishes |
||||||
68 | how is satan and lucifer diffrent? | Isaiah | biblicalman | 229099 | ||
Hi In Biblical terms they were different because Satan was God's constant adversary throughout Scripture as a powerful spiritual being, whilst Lucifer was merely a human king over-exalting himself in ritual terms. In modern popular thought Satan and Lucifer are identical. |
||||||
69 | is lucifer and satan the same? | Is 14:12 | biblicalman | 229095 | ||
Hi Welcome to the forum. If you mean Biblically the answer is No. The name Lucifer (Latin for light-bearer) comes from the mistranslation of the Hebrew word for 'shining one' in Isaiah 14.12. NASB translates as 'star of the morning'. RSV translates as 'Day Star'. NIV translates as 'Morning Star'. It is spoken to the King of Babylon who like all kings in those days was exalted in myths which were acted out at their New Year festivals. In this case he was seen as exalting himself above the stars of God and becoming the chief god (the most high). But God tells him that instead of achieving that position he will be brought down to the grave, to the depths of the underworld. There those who are present will stare at him with derision, and cry out, 'Is this the MAN who made the earth to tremble, who shook kingdoms -- who did not let his prisoners go home.' -- you will not be joined with them (the kings of the earth) in burial, because you have destroyed your land, you have slain your people.' This makes it quite clear that in context it is the King of Babylon who is being referred to. In their eagerness to find an explanation for Satan's fall some Bible students have tried to refer this to Satan. But in doing so they have to ignore the context, which is quite clear. However popularly Lucifer and Satan are seen as the same, mainly arising from the above misconception. Best wishes |
||||||
70 | divorce-effect on family | Mal 2:16 | biblicalman | 229088 | ||
The answer is that it is usually catastrophic, which is one reason why Jesus forbade divorce (Mark 10.1-12). We talk glibly of children being 'adaptable'. Sadly they have to be. But if we mean by that they are only slightly affected we would be wholly off the mark. When two parents break up it almost always has a deep and unhelpful psychological impact on the children. It is also looked on very seriously by God. |
||||||
71 | rev.7:4 | Revelation | biblicalman | 229053 | ||
Hi Dyke, Welcome to the Forum. This is a highly controversial subject and you will receive many answers. You will notice that it does not say that John saw the 144,000, who were sealed, he only heard 'the number of them'. Thus the number was important. In my view the 12 x 12 x 1000 represents the whole people of God, 12 for the 12 tribes of Israel, and 12 for the 12 Apostles. Compare for this Rev 21 where the city of God which is the bride of Christ (the church of the Messiah) has 12 gates representing Israel and 12 foundations representing the Apostles. In the New Testament the true Israel are those who believe in the Messiah (whether ex-Jew or ex-Gentile). See Rom 11.16-24; Gal 3.29; 6.16; Ephe 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.9; James 1.1; John 15.1-6; Matt. 21 43. Furthermore those whom Scripture shows to be sealed by God are the whole church of Jesus Christ (Eph 1.13). Having heard the numbering John then saw those who were numbered. They were a multititude which no man could number (only God could number them). In Rev 6 the whole of history has been outlined in terms of Matt 24; Mark 13. False Messiahs, war, famine; earthquake and pestilence, the persecuted saints, Christ's coming. So now John is demonstrating that through all this God's people are sealed and are safe. Notice how the same description is given of the multitude as was given of the dead saints awaiting resurrection in Rev 6.11. Through history God's people have experienced great tribulation, and are still doing so. But their final security is guaranteed by the seal of God. Best wishes |
||||||
72 | islam/Christians | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229042 | ||
Theoretically, if they followed the teaching of Muhammad Muslims would welcome Christians as the people of the word and would acknowledge the Gospels. Muhammad accepted the Gospels of his day as the word of God, and bade his people to welcome Christians and Jews and not interfere with them. Although they were required to pay a poll tax. In practise Muslims make the excuse that the Gospels have been interfered with and that they can no longer be relied on (even though we have papyri and MS from long before the ones accepted by Muhammad). They have to do this because the Gospels contradict the Hadith (Islamic later tradition). As the Gospels as we have them were accepted by Muhammad this is clearly s deliberate refusal to follow what Muhammad and the Quran taught. But that does not seem to worry them. In theory they believe the Quran. In practise they put the Hadith (later traditions) above the Quran. They also believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but refuse to believe that He died on the cross. The latter on the authority, not of the Quran, but of the Hadith, which says that somehow Judas replaced Jesus on the cross, Jesus being raised to Heaven. The Quran is vague on the subject of the cross and never hints at any part played by Judas. The Hadith also teach that Jesus is coming back again, but will die in battle fighting for Islam. They also reject the fact that Jesus was the son of God (i.e. the son of Allah and Mariam). But that was because Muhammad had a very strange view about the Triunity of God. He had only met heretical Christians and believed that in Christian eyes the Trinity was composed of Allah, Mariam (Mary) and Isa (Jesus). Thus Muhammad never rejected the Trinity as we know it. (He also mixed up Mariam, Moses' sister, and Mary). In fact the Quran exalts Jesus well above Muhammad. It states that He was virginally born, was able to argue and dispute from birth, and turned clay birds into living birds. And that finally He was exalted to Heaven without dying. It is clear from all this last that its ideas are based on the later heretical so-called gospels. |
||||||
73 | Where was Pergamos located? | Deuteronomy | biblicalman | 229036 | ||
Hi Chrissy, welcome to the forum. Pergamos was one of the seven churches in Asia Minor mentioned in Rev 2-3. It was in the west of what is now Asiatic Turkey (in ancient Lydia). It is to the seaward end of the valley of Caicus. It was the northernmost of the seven churches which were clustered in a group. It was the site of the first Temple of theos (God) which celebrated the worship of the emperor. Revelation said of it that it was where Satan's throne is (Rev 2.13). This was probably the Temple of theos mentioned in 2 Thess 2.4. It only became important in 282 BC and there are no good grounds for linking it with the priests of Babylon who actually welcomed Cyrus into Babylon, for he restored to them their ancient cultic rites. BEST WISHES |
||||||
74 | Does the Spirit leave during fornication | Eph 4:30 | biblicalman | 229035 | ||
Hi Karel, Welcome to the forum. The sealing of the Holy Spirit is permanent once accomplished, and is the guarantee of our inheritance (eph 1.13-14). If we are true Christians we are sealed unto the day of redemption. We are thereby Temples of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 6.19-20). We are limbs of Christ (1 Cor 6.15). To commit fornication is a heinous offence for it makes the limbs of Christ sin. It defiles the Temple of the HOLY Spirit. However if we are truly Christ's then the Holy Spirit will not leave us. But He will be deeply grieved. We must not underestimate that grief (eph 4.30). Fornication is the gravest sin we can commit for it is a sin against our own body (1 Cor 6.18), and against Christ's body (1 Cor 6.17). We may lapse through weakness, but anyone who continues in such sin must question whether they are truly Christians at all. It is no light matter. The Holy Spirit comes to us personally to bring about our continuing salvation (2 Cor 3.18). If we are truly God's He will never desert us. But He will chasten us, sometimes very severely (Heb 12.4-11; 1 Cor 11.30-32). If we escape chastening in such crcumstances, unless there has been deep repentance, it must raise the question as to whether we are truly sons and daughters of God (Heb 12.8). When David prayed, 'do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your Holy Spirit from me' (Psalm 51.11) he was recognising the heinousness of his sin. But he did not really think that God would do it. He was aware of God's great mercy. He was simply expressing what he knew he deserved. But if we are His God never leaves us or forsakes us (Heb 13.5). Best wishes. |
||||||
75 | Samuel 1 - the Ark of the LORD | Ex 25:10 | biblicalman | 229033 | ||
Hi Aileen, The Ark (or Chest) of the Lord was a wooden (acacia wood) box overlaid with gold, which contained within it the tablets containing the basic covenant of Exodus 20.2-17.(The tablets of Testimony). The lid of the chest was of pure gold, and two cherubim of gold were on the lid and spread their wings over the Ark, lookng inwards towards each other. The space between was probably seen as the throne of the invisible God (Ezekiel 1.26). It was the place from which God met with His people (Exod 25.22). For its construction see Exod 25.10-22. It was not to be touched by the hand of man under any circumstances and was carried on poles which went through rings on the side of the Ark. It was situated in the Holy of Holies, hidden behind the veil. When being borne by the Levites on its travels it was covered with curtains. But the priests would carry it before Israel uncovered when there was possible danger of attack (Numbers 10.33-36) or during battle (1 Sam 4.3-9). But for it to be effective the hearts of the people had to be right. It symbolised the presence of God among His people. The vision of Ezekiel in Ezekiel 1 pictured it in terms of God's travelling throne. |
||||||
76 | Old Testament punishment for fornication | Deut 22:22 | biblicalman | 229015 | ||
hi michael, Your question is answered in Deut 22.22-29. If a man lies with a married or betrothed woman he will be put to death. The woman also unless she was forced. In the case of an unbetrothed woman (whether forced or not)the punishment is a fine and a sentence to marry the girl (giving her her dowry) with no rights of divorce. This was for the woman's protection. She would be unmarriageable. If she or her family is unwilling for a marriage to take place he must pay her her dowry (Exod 22.16-17). Best wishes. |
||||||
77 | Can the devil read your thoughts or mind | 2 Tim 2:15 | biblicalman | 229013 | ||
Hi Michael, Welcome to the forum. There is no certain answer to your question, but it is probable that your friends are correct. Satan does not seem to have been able to read Job's mind. Rather he surmised how he would behave if treated in a certain way. He was wrong. He could not discern how deeply Job loved God. He was wrong again when he sought to accuse Joshua the High Priest before God and was rebuked for his pains (Zechariah 3.1-2). He finds God difficult to understand. True love is something outside his sphere. We gain the impression that Satan could not read Jesus' mind in the Temptation narratives. As with Job he thought that Jesus would succumb to pressure and be tempted to carry out His Messiahship the easy way. He was wrong again. It is even questionable whether at that stage he even realised precisely Who Jesus was ('son of God' was an ambiguous phrase and could indicate a number of things). How else could he have hoped to be able to tempt Him? And the same applies at the end of Jesus' life. Satan hurried Jesus on to His death (Luke 22.3), not recognising what the consequences would be for himself. He knew that somehow Jesus was sent in order to thwart his plans. He did not know how God intended to do it. He also thought that he could bring Peter down, not realising that he would make him only stronger (Luke 22.31-32). And as Jesus prayed for Peter so does He pray for us. For He is omnipresent. You must not make the mistake of thinking that Satan is omnipresent or omniscient. It is very possible that in fact Satan has never taken much notice of you. He has probably left you to his numerous minions. (Jesus calls them Satan as well - Mark 3.23). See Ephesians 6.10-18. He does, of course, have a very good idea of what will cause people to succumb to temptation, and he and his minions can soon observe us in order to discover our weaknesses, but it is probably not by reading our minds. And we should remember that if we are Christians we come under the protection of the blood of Jesus. It may well be good advice not to speak your thoughts aloud, even though it is probable that at least some of the time you are not under observation. Best wishes |
||||||
78 | Are we Under Mosiac Law? or Jesus Law? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229004 | ||
We are under the Law of Christ. Basically this is summed up in 'you shall love the Lord your God with heart, soul, mind and strength and your neighbour as yourself' (Galatians 5.14 6.2). Jesus reinterpreted the Mosaic Law in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). We seek to live it out in Christ's strength because we are counted as righteous in God's eyes through the cross and through the blood of Christ. If we are true Christians the Law of Moses can no more condemn us, because it was fulfilled on our behalf by Jesus Christ. Through Him we have been given the gift of righteousnss. His righteusness has been set to our account (Rom 3.24-25). But the whole law (Old and New Testaments) is like a mirror into which we can look and see what kind of people we are, so that we can then let Christ put us right (James 1.22-25) and live it out in order to please Him.. |
||||||
79 | Dreams ... Genesis-Revelation | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 228988 | ||
... | ||||||
80 | Did Daniel bow when the 3 did not? | Daniel | biblicalman | 228985 | ||
hi Morley, Jeremiah,and Habakkuk would not have been invited to Babylon. They were not public officials. Nor would any of the prophets. Zechariah was probably not yet born. As has been said we can be sure that Daniel was not around. Inevitably, even when there was such a great assembly, some officials would be required to regulate the empire while it was going on. Best wishes |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [11] >> |