Results 61 - 80 of 154
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Searching for the truth | Is 45:21 | stjones | 104881 | ||
Hi, FytRobert; This is purely my opinion, not without basis in Scripture, but nothing I believe I can "prove". I think God allows us to do things so we can learn about him and about ourselves. Speaking as a father, there were certainly plenty of times when my kids were younger that I just knew one of them was going to disobey. Rather than stand guard and force them to obey, I sometimes left the room, allowing them to choose to turn on the light after bedtime or snatch a cookie when I wasn't looking. They needed to learn about consequences. It's a lot easier to internalize a rule when you break it and pay the penalty. These lessons must be learned in order to handle freedom responsibly - i.e. when the kids go off to college. God warned Adam and Eve; indeed Eve admitted that "God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'" (Genesis 3:3) But knowing a rule - and even knowing the consequences of breaking it - don't necessarily produce an obedient heart. I think the New Covenant shows that God values an obedient heart over mere observance of rules. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
62 | 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 |
||||||
63 | Christian Response To Eastern Thought? | Is 55:11 | stjones | 29988 | ||
Hi, Jensen; What is your friend's attaction to this cult? Emotional? intellectual? Do you think your friend is simply missing some (any) spiritual dimension to his/her life? Why does your friend find the "master" believable? Personal charisma? the message? What button is he pushing? It may not be the eventual deity pitch that's drawn your friend in. I'm asking because I don't think there are any standard approaches. People are susceptible to this cult or that because of some un-met need. (I needed to be shown that Jesus' claims about himself were rational.) I think cults succeed because there are so many of them, every one a little different from the others. Each one has some appeal that will ensnare people who hunger for what it offers. God, on the other hand, is much less specific - he meets all needs. I suspect that it's not at all obvious to some people that a God who meets the needs of Mother Theresa or Kurt Warner can meet theirs. Look at it this way - if you crave chocolate, what will be more appealinig to you? A Fanny Mae store or a department store with a candy counter? If you know that Fanny Mae focuses on selling pretty good chocolate, you may never discover that the department store sells Godiva's (really outstanding) chocolate. I think people are reluctant to believe that God's department store simply has the best of everything - better than every specialty shop and boutique in town. And the best prices too! So they settle for a pretty good shop and ignore the department store. You have to find what your friend is shopping for, then show your friend the department in God's store that offers what he/she needs. Hope this is useful somehow. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
64 | Is 'Pneuma' really feminine? | Jer 7:18 | stjones | 80639 | ||
Hi, Tim; The Presbyterian Church (USA) has been struggling with this gross heresy for more than ten years. There is a fringe school of radical feminist theology that has been promoting the "goddess" Sophia and denigrating Jesus for a long time. Unfortunately, because some of our leaders are very "open-minded" and gullible, these folks find the dark corners of our denomination comfortable. In addition to their own novel interpretations of the Bible, they appeal to many other authorities - pagan religions, ancient heresies, bogus gospels such as Thomas and Mary, Enlightenment rationalism, sometimes just their own sexual urges - to challenge orthodox Christian belief. One of their leading lights (Rita Nakashima Bock, IIRC) once said of Jesus' atoning sacrifice "we don't need people hanging on trees and blood dripping and weird stuff". I don't know if gbennett76 is part of this crowd or not, though the mention of Sophia along with the rest of it is certainly suggestive. If he or she is an admirer of this stuff, no appeal to reputable scholarship, Christian tradition, or Biblical authority is likely to succeed. They have already abandoned those things. At a human level, I have never understood why they claim to be Christians and choose to infest Christian seminaries and churches. Then I consider that "our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Ephesians 6:12) and the driving force is clearly seen. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
65 | What scripture talks about alcohol | Hab 2:5 | stjones | 23961 | ||
Hi, B.; I believe that the only form of alcohol that the Bible speaks of is wine, the product of a natural process of fermentation. I would conclude that if the Bible "approves" of any form of alcohol or drugs, it would be wine. However, concerning all substnaces that can impair judgment or behavior, I think of Jesus' words: 'If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.' (Matthew 5:29-30) I don't think my eye or my hand can cause me to sin, but drugs and alcohol can. If they do, better to throw them away. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
66 | May we claim rewards for tithing? | Mal 3:10 | stjones | 21984 | ||
Hi, Kenpo; It depends on what's in the heart. If I give out of greed expecting a fat reward in return, I probably won't see it. If I give out of love and thanksgiving, God will indeed pour out a blessing - not necessarily guaranteed to be material wealth. If we truly seek God's blessings, we trust him to know the best blessings to give us. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
67 | 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 |
||||||
68 | Why are some ancestors not listed? | Matthew | stjones | 87373 | ||
The third list consists of only 13: (1) Abraham; (2) Isaac; (3) Jacob; (4) Judah; (5) Perez; (6) Hezron; (7) Ram; (8) Amminadab; (9) Nahshon; (10) Salmon; (11) Boaz; (12) Obed; (13) Jesse; (14) King David (1) Solomon; (2) Rehoboam; (3) Abijah; (4) Asa; (5) Jehoshaphat; (6) Jehoram; (7) Uzziah; (8) Jotham; (9) Ahaz; (10) Hezekiah; (11) Manasseh; (12) Amon; (13) Josiah; (14) Jeconiah (1) Shealtiel; (2) Zerubbabel; (3) Abiud; (4) Eliakim; (5) Azor; (6) Zadok; (7) Akim; (8) Eliud; (9) Eleazar; (10) Matthan; (11) Jacob; (12) Joseph; (13) Jesus It doesn't help to consider a "generation" to be a father-son pair either: (1) Abraham-Isaac ... (14) King David-Solomon (1) Solomon-Rehoboam ... (14) Jeconiah-Shealtiel (1) Shealtiel-Zerubbabel ... (12) Joseph-Jesus; (13) Jesus- I'm not certain why Matthew "exagerated" the third set, but it did produce a nice, symmetrical grouping of numbers significant to Jews. We can't say that he tried to fool anyone, since the names are right there to count. My assumption is that he was making a point that is somewhat lost on us modern Westerners rather than that he missed a generation in the third list or that he was trying to mislead. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
69 | Is the Virgin Birth of Jesus a myth? | Matt 1:19 | stjones | 107964 | ||
Hi, schimc; I'm not sure what "discovery" you are referring to. There is certainly no reason to believe that Matthew made anything up. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all refer to Isaiah 7. I doubt that all three misunderstood Isaiah's prophecy. I do, however, think that we may misunderstand what it means to fulfill prophecy. If you read Isaiah 7, it is pretty clear that this was not a direct reference to Jesus. The boy named Immanuel was to be a sign to King Ahaz during his lifetime. But that does not mean that Matthew and the others are wrong. A New Testament scholar and seminary professor whom I have the utmost respect for (conservative, evangelical) offered his explanation to a class I was in. In the Hebrew world, the fulfillment of prophecy meant that a prior word or event was brought to perfection. We tend to think of prophecy as a kind God-ordained forecast - the prophet says thus-and-so will happen and when it happens we say that the prophecy has been fulfilled. We can also say that the prophet's words were brought to perfection. For exmaple, if I say the drought will end because it's going to rain tomorrow, that's nice; it may remind someone to take their umbrella, but it won't water the crops. When it does indeed rain, those words are brought to perfection and the crops are in fact saved. The words have been made perfect in physical reality. But an event can also be prophecy. The birth of the boy Immanuel is an example. His name was to be Immanuel ("God with us") because his birth was a sign to King Ahaz that God would be with him in an upcoming battle. But the idea of a boy being born who would embody the promise of "God with us" was brought to perfection in the birth of Jesus. There can be no more perfect example of "God with us" than Jesus, who was God and was (and is) with us. Given the ancient Hebrew understanding of what it means to fulfill prophecy, we can see that it was proper for the three Gospel writers to refer to Isaiah 7, even though the boy named Immanuel had been born and died long before. As others have mentioned, the Hebrew word that Isaiah used to describe Immanuel's mother does not necessarily mean a virgin in the modern sense. Assuming she was just a young, unmarried woman, we can see that Mary, who truly was a virgin in the modern sense, was the perfection of the idea of a pure young woman bearing a son who would fulfill God's promise. Sorry to be so long-winded. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
70 | virgin birth | Matt 1:19 | stjones | 108010 | ||
Hi, schimc; Like love, belief is a commitment. Sometimes when the going gets tough, commitment is the only that carries you through. A closed mind isn't necessarily a bad thing; some people's minds are so open that every new breeze blows the contents away. -Indy |
||||||
71 | Denounce militant Islam? | Matt 5:44 | stjones | 131712 | ||
Hi, Norrie; Pardon me of this is well-plowed ground; I've been away. I'm not sure it's accurate to say that Muslims are zealous for God. They are zealous for Allah whom they believe is God, but Allah is not God. Christians should always remember that whoever spoke to Muhammad in his cave denied Christ. That message could hardly have come from God; that leaves only the Father of Lies as the source. "a voice came from the cloud: 'This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!'" (Mark 9:7) "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." (John 1:1-2) "Jesus is like Adam in the sight of God. He created him from dust and then said to him: 'Be,' and he was" (Qur'an 3:59) Wanting to be a good, tolerant, open-minded American, I've struggled with Allah's true identity. But I can't find any other explanation for what the Qur'an says about Jesus. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
72 | Religions, who is right???? | Matt 7:23 | stjones | 20081 | ||
Hello, Serenetime; Everything Tim said in his reply is true - Jesus said he was the only way and I'm not about to argue with him. I'd like to address your last question. If by "religion" you mean denominations or particular congregations, yes, they are man made. In the case of Christians, they are the result of groups of people trying to create the kinds of fellowship and church governance that Acts and Paul's letters describe. But if you mean "religions" in the larger sense - Judaism, Christianity, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, etc., the answer is no, not all. Two of them were created by God - Judaism and Christianity. Now you may reply that while the Bible says that, there are other holy books that make similar claims. So why take the Bible's word for it? There are many reasons to believe that the Bible is truthful and therefore reliable. For me, a helpful reason is to ask of each holy book, "who wrote it?" The Qur'an was written by Muhammad, claiming that the message was from God. The Book of Mormon was produced by Joseph Smith, claiming that the message was from God. And so on. The Bible was written by ... lots of people over a period of many centuries. Some of them were historians, recording what happened when God intervened in the lives of people and nations that they knew about. Some of them were leaders who recorded their own experiences. Some were indeed prophets who claimed that their message was from God. But there were so many of them over such a long period of time speaking to different audiences who all described the same God with the same attributes and the same will. How could so many people, separated by such great distances of time and geography come up with a consistent message if it were not inspired by God? How could Isaiah (chapter 53) describe Jesus in such detail - in manuscripts that are known to predate Jesus - if God didn't tell him? I believe the Bible because I believe in Jesus Christ, but there are many who believe in Jesus in part because the Bible by itself is just plain believable. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
73 | Is Depression of the devil? | Matt 9:12 | stjones | 20200 | ||
Greetings; Depression is an illness, sometimes purely psychological, sometiems physical, sometimes both. I would have faith in God while remembering that God might heal through a doctor. Whatever you do, don't be like Job's friends and assume that an affliction is evidence of insufficient faith. Paul's great faith didn't deliver him from the thorn in his side. You didn't specifically ask about demon posession, but you may be interested in an article in Christianity Today entitled "Obsession or Posession?" I think it was the August issue; it is also available online at http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2001/011/1.46.html. I found it balanced between skepticism and faith; you may find it helpful. I hope this is some help. Peach and grace, Steve |
||||||
74 | Who do you believe about Jesus? | Matt 22:42 | stjones | 104936 | ||
Hi, kalos; There is only one authoritative source of information about Jesus - the Bible. Within the Bible, all sources - Isaiah, Jeremaiah, John, Paul, Luke, others - are equally authoritative since all were inspired by the same God. This is true even though John, for example, was much closer to Jesus in time, space, and personal relationship than Isaiah. Apparent differenece among the Biblical sources must be harmonized. Differences between the Bible and extra-Biblical sources render these other sources irrelevant. Josephus, Origen, and spurious gospels such as Thomas and Mary may make for interesting reading, but there is no need to harmonize the Bible with them. The same can be said of any modern writer, whether the great apologist C. S. Lewis or the Jesus Seminar charlatan John Crossan. But you knew all that. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
75 | Does God uses people to prophecy anymore | Matt 23:34 | stjones | 20319 | ||
Acts 13:1 says there were prophets: "In the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen (who had been brought up with Herod the tetrarch) and Saul." Also 1 Corinthians 12:28 - "And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues" Since there is a gift of prohecy (1 Corrintians 12:10), I assume that gift is still given. Of course, a prophet is simply one who speaks a message from God; not all prophecy foretells the future. I hope this is helpful. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
76 | Why did Peter deny Jesus? | Matt 26:34 | stjones | 34791 | ||
Greetings, Barry; I think Peter denied Jesus because he was Peter - flawed, bold, impetuous, the one who wanted to camp out on the Mount of Transfiguration, the one walked briefly on water. I'm sure he meant it when he told Jesus he would never fall away but when push came to shove, his boldness failed him. I think he tended to rely on his own strength until Pentecost. I think (but can't prove) that when he discovered the power of the Holy Spirit that day, he realized that his own was insufficient. I think Jesus predicted it because he wanted Peter to know that he knew. If Jesus had not told Peter ahead of time, then when he did deny Jesus, Peter would have thought that his failure was private. Jesus' prediction enabled Peter to feel the full weight of his sin, to experience all the remorse, and to finally see that he could not rely on his own strength to do God's work. I agree that there is a parallel (3 denials, 3 opportunities to express his love for Jesus). It is interesting that what is translated as "love" all three times is actually different the third time: The first two times, the Greek word is "agape", the third it's "phileo". I've read and heard various explanations for this difference; I'm not really sure what it means. ;-) I think all this was to prepare Peter for his ministry and martyrdom. Just my two one-hundredths of a dollar. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
77 | Why was Judas' kiss needed? | Matt 26:48 | stjones | 21196 | ||
Hi, SpreadWord; Perhaps when Judas arranged to betray Jesus, they didn't know whether any Jewish officials would accompany the Roman soldiers. So they made sure that Jesus could be identified either way. Of course, as I'm sure you know, the gospels don't agree on whether or not Judas actually did kiss Jesus: 'Going at once to Jesus, Judas said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" and kissed him' (Matthew 26:35; Mark is similar) 'While he was still speaking a crowd came up, and the man who was called Judas, one of the Twelve, was leading them. He approached Jesus to kiss him, but Jesus asked him, "Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?" When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?"' (Luke 22:47-48) John makes no mention of a kiss at all. (John 18:2-8) Don't know what to make of that.... Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
78 | Was Judas truly repentent? | Matt 27:3 | stjones | 104686 | ||
Greetings, Chusarcik I think he might have been; I don't know for sure. If you have LOTS of time on your hands, search for message # 3132. You will find a long, often impassioned discussion on this subject. Happy reading! Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
79 | What are the evidences of it, and how? | Matt 28:7 | stjones | 52452 | ||
Hi, SoC; I'll take a different approach. There is only one reliable and authoritative source of information about Jesus - the Bible. [Various spurious "gospels" (Mary, Thomas, etc.) have found new favor among worldly theologians even though they were recognized as heresy by the church in the second and third centuries. But there is no reason to accept them or their fables about Jesus. So apart from the Bible, there is no where else to go.] Jesus was a either liar, a nut, or a truth-teller. The evidence in the Bible all points to him being who he said he was. He said he was divine and there's no reason to dispute his claim. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
80 | Are theregospels about Mary Magdeline? | Mark | stjones | 21011 | ||
Hi, Freespirit; Jesus cast out seven demons from her (Luke 8:2) while healing several women. And she was a witness to Jesus' crucifixion. There is a book called the "Gospel of Mary" purportedly by or about Mary Magdelene. This book was known and rejected by the early church. In the last 100 years, it has become one of the treasures of liberal (scewball?) theologians who want Jesus to be anything but the holy Son of God. Hope this is helpful. Peace and grace, Steve |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |