Results 61 - 80 of 154
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: stjones Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | what is spiritual bondage | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75299 | ||
Greetings, mellow; Let me offer a different perspective. We are all in bondage to someone or something - Satan, the Law, or Christ. Jesus just gave us a better alternative than the first two. Jesus said "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Matthew 11:29-30) Paul referred to himself as "Paul, a prisoner of [not "for"] Christ Jesus" (Philemon 1:1) This title is consistent with Romans 6:17-19: "But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness. I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness." I have heard prisoners (both believers and non-believers) talk about prison as a liberating experience. Prison is only prison if it deprives you of things that matter. The message from these men was that prison freed them from trivial daily concerns - where to sleep, what to eat, when to exercise, and so on. They were then completely free to focus their minds on things that mattered, typically prayer, meditation, study, or writing. So it is with the Christian. Freedom in Christ is not license; it is freedom from the grasp of sin, feedom that allows us to focus on what matters - Jesus. A life of perfect bondage to Christ would be a life of perfect freedom. Alas, I speak only from flawed experience; my own life falls somewhat short. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
62 | Is Practicing homosexual Behavior a Sin? | Rom 1:24 | stjones | 75285 | ||
Greetings, footprints; My denomination has the same problem - clergy teaching that homosexual behavior is not a sin. Their argument hangs on three hooks: 1) Sexual preference was unknown to the writers of Scripture, so none of the Bible's prohibitions against homosexual behavior take this into account. Answer: The writers didn't have to know; God knew. Paul knew (and wrote) that we are subject to all kinds of sinful urges; the Bible need not (and does not) spell out every one of them. 2) We are no longer subject to the Old Testament prohibtions of homosexuality. The language of the New Testament wasn't properly translated, so we didn't really know what it meant. It really just means that heterosexuals should not engage in homosexual behavior. Answer: The Bible says what it says; it has been well understood for 2000 years. New and novel interpretations and translations must rely on something other than popular culture for their validation. 3) God made homosexuals to be homosexual and he loves them the way they are. Answer: Man is fallen; God no more made homosexuals than he made pyromaniacs or pedophiles. He does indeed love them, just as he loves all sinners. But he doesn't excuse anybody's sin. Look at Romans 1:18-32. Paul describes God's wrath and says that men are without excuse because God's nature and will can be seen in what he created. Paul goes on to give the most blatant and disobedient example he can - same-gender sex. When it comes to sex, God's intent is obvious just by looking at the way that men and women are constructed. And it is willful defiance of the designer's intent to engage in behavior contrary to that obvious intent. I don't know what the ELCA will do. The Presbyterian Church (USA) has prohibited the ordination of practicing, unrepentant homosexuals and also prohibits same-sex "marriages". But the liberals keep trying. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
63 | Governmental Authority? | Rom 13:1 | stjones | 74616 | ||
Hi, Montag; My reply won't be entirely scriptural because I think we need to have a clear understanding of the events in question. Like most human endeavors, the American Revolution was not motivated by a single idea or principle. There were strong financial and political forces at work that might have been sufficient to start the War for Independence (in strictest political science terminology, it was a rebellion, not a revolution). But there was a strong intellectual and moral force at work too. Note the language of the Declaration of Independence - a statement that Christians, Deists, and admirers of British philosopher John Locke could all subscribe to: "We hold these truths to be self-evident [not revealed in the Bible], that all men are created equal [Paul says that equality is in Christ], that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights [John Locke], that among these are Life, Liberty [freedom in Christ] and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men [Romans 13, John Locke]". The growth of the Colonies always had a strong religious component - from evangelizing the heathens to fleeing religious oppression. It is easy to see how a thoughtful Christian of the time, balancing Romans 13 against Acts 4:19-20, could conclude that independence was justified. Hope this useful. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
64 | Question re: Job | Job | stjones | 72431 | ||
Hi, boowig; I'll take a swing at the first one; I love Job. If you think about it, God first "incited" Satan. It was God who, out of the blue, said "have you considered my servant Job?" He then very pointedly told Satan that Job feared him (God) and shunned evil (Satan). I don't believe that Satan's response came as a surprise to God; he knew that Satan would respond by challenging Job's righteousness. I think God's remark about Satan "inciting" him is the key to understanding the entire book. God had expressed his pleasure with Job and his righteousness, implying that he (God) was worthy of Job's love and obedience. Satan challenged God by saying, in effect, that God was not worthy, it was only God's providence that had earned Job's allegiance. God responded by allowing Satan to take away all that God had provided. It was Satan's denial of God's worthiness that "incited" God to allow Satan to mistreat Job. As I said, I'm sure God knew all of this would happen when he first mentioned Job. But he knew something else too. This whole conversation took place "in public" in Heaven. In a sense, God took a terrible chance by bringing up Job. Suppose Job had followed his wife's advice to "curse God and die". Can't you just imagine Satan dancing around in Heaven going "neener, neener, neener; I got Job"? But God knew Job's heart and knew that he would not fail. From the very start, I think God chose the fight and chose Job to be his champion, to carry his colors in a battle waged before Heaven and - through the Bible - before us. What this story reveals is not just Job's faith in God but God's faith in Job – Job strengthened and sustained by his faith in God. Hope this is useful or interesting or something. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
65 | To learn the truth | OT general | stjones | 72306 | ||
Hi, FytRobert; Christians do indeed worship the God of Abraham. Muslims, however, worship Allah, a made-up god. Muslims consider themselves, Jews, and Christians to be "People of the Book". However, the "Bible" they refer to is an edited version, altered to suit the claims of Islam. The test is very simple: the prophet Muhammad claimed that Allah revealed the Qur'an to him. The Qur'an denies Jesus' divinity, death, and resurrection. Therefore, whoever revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, it was not the God of the Bible. Hope this helps. Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
66 | virgin birth | Is 7:14 | stjones | 72109 | ||
Hi, consider; I assume your question is about Jesus' deity. Simple answer: The implication is that the person does not believe what the Bible says about Jesus. Since the Bible is the only authoritative source of information about Jesus, this person would have no reason to believe anything about Jesus. More complicated answer: As I have explained in another thread, I don't think Isaiah 7:14 is a prophecy about Jesus. But that doesn't matter; both Matthew and Luke make it clear that God - not Joseph or any other man - is Jesus' father. Luke says "The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.'" (1:35) I suppose that the Holy Spirit could have come upon Mary even if she weren't a virgin. But there are two problems with that. First, the passage in Isaiah establishes virgin birth as an extraordinary sign from God (even if it didn't directly foretell Jesus' birth). Second, there would always be room to question Jesus' paternity. Like any woman who sleeps around, it might be difficult to establish who the father of Mary's baby really was. Mary's virginity leaves no room for doubt. The angel's words sum up the dilemma: if this person believes that Jesus was the son of a man, then he or she cannot simultaneously believe that he is the Son of God - except in some vague, symbolic sense. The rest of the NT leaves little doubt that a vague, symbolic son would be an inadequate savior. Ultimately, if there is no virgin birth, there is no savior. Further, I think it's completely irrational to assume that God could not accomplish a virgin birth. I think it's entirely reasonable to believe that God would choose a virgin birth to bring his son into our world of space and time. So if this person can believe anything about Jesus, I can't imagine why the virgin birth would be a problem. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
67 | John 9:1-12 and Job1-2 | John 9:1 | stjones | 71211 | ||
Hi, sweet; I'd like to just address Job. The reasons for Job's suffering are clearly laid out in Job 1-2. God pronounced Job righteous: "There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." (Job 1:8) This seems very much like the righteousness of Abraham: "Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6) Like Abraham, Job was obedient and faithful and God pronounced him righteous. This was despite the fact that both men were stained by original sin and unable to live a perfect, righteous life. In chapter 1, Satan responded by asserting that Job was faithful only because of his worldly wealth. In chapter 2, Satan claimed that it was because Job himself was healthy. So God let Satan do whatever he wanted to Job, short of killing him. We can see that Jobs trials were not the result of his own sin. One thing that is instructive to Christians is the reaction of Job's friends and God's response to them. They assumed that Job was suffering because God was punishing him for his sins. Their arguments were very logical, just wrong (a lesson worth noting). At the end, God told Job's friends that they were wrong to accuse Job and told them to have Job offer a sacrifice for them - what a delicious irony! Christians can never assume that this problem or that pain - our or someone else's - is punishment for sin. Further, we should not obsess on finding a reason. Job found peace and restoration only when he turned away from his troubles and stopped demanding to know why they happened. His healing began after a stern lecture from God when Job confessed: "You asked, 'Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know." (Job 42:3) Having humbled imself, Job was finally ready to be healed. - healed, that is, by God's definition. Although his wealth was restored, Job's ten children were not. By that time, however, I think Job was ready to gratefully accept anything that God chose to provide - a very healthy attitude. Hope this is useful. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
68 | Jesus God. Grasping equality? | Phil 2:6 | stjones | 71078 | ||
Greetings, consider; I'm no Greek scholar (Tim? others?) but Strong's includes these meanings for "grasped": "to deem anything a prize", "a thing to be ... held fast, retained". Jesus had equality with God in that he was a person of the Trinity, not a created being, but rather the obedient son of God. He occupied a position alongside God at the top of the heavenly hierarchy, above both angels and men. Rather than consider this position something to be prized or held onto, he was willing to give it up and become a servant in human form. Hope this helps. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
69 | Adam and Eve the first people created? | Luke 17:1 | stjones | 70781 | ||
Greeting and welcome, All-Cing-I; Methinks your handle is inaccurate; there seem to be things you don't "C". ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
70 | Is the request of Christ Granted? | NT general Archive 1 | stjones | 70627 | ||
Hi, Johnny; With respect to Judas himself, search for message # 3132 and read the thread it generated - if you have time! I contended then (and I do now) that Judas' fate is unknown, a view that was forcefully and repeatedly challenged. My own opinion is that the immediate sin of those who participated was forgiven - no doubt leaving them all with plenty of unforgiven sins. But it flies in the face of everything the Bible teaches about salvation to say that they were all forgiven without repentance and without placing their faith in Christ. If it is true that "all character in that said events was forgiven because they only fulfill thier role in that scripted way of salvation", then I would expect to meet Pharoah when I get to Heaven - which I don't. But this is just an opinion; I would not care to place limits on God's grace. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
71 | what was the | Matthew | stjones | 69885 | ||
Greetings, dltlshines; I am taking a short (three classes) study of the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke. The instructor is Dr. Marion Soards who is Professor of New Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Among many insights he has provided is Matthew's understanding of what it means to "fulfill prophecy". I have always thought of fulfillment as simply an example of an event that had previously been foretold actually taking place. But Dr. Soards pointed out that some of the prophesies that Matthew says were fulfilled were not of that kind. Rather, "fulfillment" means that the prophecy was made perfect. For example, in 1:22-23, Matthew refers to Isaiah's prophecy (7:14) of a virgin giving birth. This is not a Messianic prophecy; the virgin birth that Isaiah referred to in this passage is to be a sign to King Ahaz, to be witnessed in his lifetime. Matthew's purpose, according to Dr. Soards, is say that the birth of Jesus is another example of that prophecy coming to pass. But it is not just another example; it is the most perfect possible example. He told us that the word Nazarene is not the proper form to refer to a person from Nazareth. And besides, Jesus' city of birth and his ancestral city was Bethlehem, not Nazareth. "Nazarene" is a word that refers both to Nazareth and to the Old Testament Nazirite - one totally devoted to God (Samson, for example). Jesus is the perfection of that idea, of one totally devoted to God. Made sense to me. I hope it helps you too. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
72 | Does God endorse polygamy? | 1 Kin 11:3 | stjones | 68903 | ||
No. ;-) |
||||||
73 | Mercy can only go so far... right? | Eph 5:5 | stjones | 67719 | ||
Greetings; This is a very interesting question. My first thought was, does anyone "own" God's word anyway? The Bible was freely given; how can I say that I "own" my Bible? Furthermore, as an American, wealthy in relation to most of the world, am I too attached to worldy things? My Bible is a book made of paper and ink; it doesn't hold God's word captive. If this physical posession disappears, I can easily get another. In America, I could probably walk into any church and ask for a Bible and get one free. So part of me says that I should be grateful that the thief has spread one particular manifestation of God's word beyond me. And yet, as I consider the NLT (great for reading aloud) on my desk, I have to assume that it would not exist if it were not financially feasible to produce it. If bookstores can't afford to stock it, the publisher to publish it, the translators to translate it, it won't be produced. Theft interferes with that orderly process. So I have no answer, but thanks for giving me something more worthy than football to think about before going to church. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
74 | Biblical location of ISRAEL | OT general | stjones | 67004 | ||
Greetings, MEW1008; The general location is the same although the borders are different. For example, much of ancient Israel is now the occupied West Bank, which, in theory, is not part of modern Israel. Any study Bible or Bible dictionary would have a map of ancient Israel to compare with modern maps. HTH Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
75 | When I say the creed this bothers me. | 1 Pet 4:6 | stjones | 66484 | ||
Some say that Peter is referring to Jesus during the three days between crucifixion and resurrection. Here is the view of an official of my denomination (Clifton Kirkpatrick, Stated Clerk): 'Not always understood, and even rejected by some steadfast Christians, is the phrase "descended into hell." This phrase states the conviction that Jesus, being fully human, truly died after His crucifixion and entered into the death of all other persons. "Hell" here is not understood as the location of evil persons, but as the place of the dead. An early view was that Christ liberated those who had died, while others also believed that He conquered the realm of Satan, a victory over death and evil.' [The Presbyterian Layman Volume 34, Number 4, Posted May 30, 2001] HTH Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
76 | why cant we understand all of god? | Is 55:8 | stjones | 66482 | ||
'"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.' HTH Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
77 | Jesus' existance | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 66463 | ||
Greetings, tetelestai46, Most modern historical scholars agree that there was, during the first century, a man named Jesus who was noteworthy or important. Secular history, however, is of little value in knowing or evaluating the claims that he made about himself, because the Bible is the only known source for this kind of information. While this makes it very convenient for skeptics to dismiss the evidence contained in the Bible, it makes sense. The early church made a conscious effort to gather, authenticate, and preserve accounts of Jesus' life (the Gospels) and letters written by those who knew him (the Epistles). That historical evidence became the New Testament. With all the interest in the ossuary recently revealed in Jerusalem and the story (in Popular Mechanics, of all places!) purporting to show what Jesus looked like, it shouldn't be hard to find references to some of the non-Biblical evidence. As inmyhart pointed out, this really isn't an appropriate forum for delving into such matters. Hope this is useful. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
78 | Two, Three, or Forensic Evidence | Deut 17:6 | stjones | 65068 | ||
Hi, Lionstrong; I did indeed notice and I don't disregard the OT. But I don't see any reason to believe that the judicial and legistlative standards for Israel are normative for any civil government including ours (USA, many others). If they are, then I would expect God to appoint a king for us as he did for Israel. But the fact is that if those standards are normative, then every government other than ancient (not contemporary) Israel is hopelessly lost. Ancient Israel was the only nation created by God with him as its king. No nation created by men (the only kind on Earth just now) can conform to that standard. So I'll ask you a question. Since God did not ordain elected legislatures for ancient Israel, is representative democracy an abomination in God's eyes? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
79 | Two, Three of Forensic Evidence | Deut 17:6 | stjones | 64976 | ||
Hi, Lionstrong; It should be the standard if we be ruled by Judges or a King of God's choosing. Of course, we would have to throw out our legislatures too. :-) IOW, I don't think the political and judicial forms instituted by God for his chosen people prior to the advent of Jesus are commanded for civil government today. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
80 | a righteous man | Job 1:8 | stjones | 58204 | ||
Hi, STRIVING; I am preaching Job 1-2 in two weeks myself. Two things that I have noticed about this pasage: 1) Job is a sinner just the like the rest of us. It seems to me that Job's righteousness must be similar to Abraham's: "Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6) In effect, Job was righteous because God said he was, not because he was perfect. 2) God started the whole thing, a very loving thing to do. God had everything to lose and nothing to gain by this contest between Job and Satan. God made himself vulnerable by the confidence he placed in Job. If Job failed, God would have lost to Satan; Job was God's champion. God also loves us, so he ensured that the story would be recorded and preserved. In some ways, God's willingness to become vulnerable in this instance prefigures Jesus' willingness to make himself vulnerable to the cross. Hope this is useful to you. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |