Results 61 - 80 of 494
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: stjones Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71402 | ||
Hi, graceful; Oh, well; at least you know what I meant. ;-) Indy |
||||||
62 | Praying to Mary isn't worship? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71623 | ||
Hi, graceful; You didn't sound argumentative; I probably did. So I apologize as well. I agree with you completely; I have seen both attitudes too. As my post may have revealed, I am passionate about both sides - the Bible IS the revealed word of God, but it is NOT an idol or an object of faith in and of itself. I have conversed with Christians who seem a little confused about who or what is most important, the Bible or Jesus. Sad. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
63 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71993 | ||
Hi, debbie; Not to speak for aften1, but this could possibly be a reference to Isaiah 7:10-16: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." (v. 14). But this is not a reference to Jesus; this virgin birth was a sign intended for King Ahaz to see in his lifetime. The fact that Matthew refers to Isaiah's prophecy in 1:22-23 can be confusing: "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel'--which means, 'God with us.'" A Professor of New Testament whom I respect has said that "fulfillment" of a prophecy has two possible meanings. We usually think of it as meaning that an event foretold by a prophet has taken place. But "fulfillment" can also mean the perfection or purest example of a prophecy. With this reference to Isaiah, Matthew is saying that there was a virgin birth before, but this one is the purest, most perfect example of a virgin birth. This child named Jesus can also be called Immanuel because he is more than just an illustration of "God with us" - a sign from God to Ahaz - he is the embodiment of "God with us"; he is God and he is with us. Hope this helpful, or interesting, or something. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
64 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 71996 | ||
Hi, Debbie; I have a gift for sowing confusion - just ask my kids. The whole story is in Isaiah 7. Ahaz (king of Judah) was under attack from King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, king of Israel. This made Ahaz nervous. Speaking through Isaiah, God told him to relax, that the attack would fail, but "If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all." (v.9). God then invited Ahaz to ask him for a sign. But Ahaz declined, saying "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test." (v.12) "Then Isaiah said, 'Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign'". (v.13-14) The sign was the one Matthew referred to: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (v.14-16) For the boy Immanuel to be a sign to Ahaz that Judah would stand against Rezin and Pekah, he would have to be born and known to Ahaz before the two kings were defeated. So Immanuel was born, lived, and died long before Jesus was born. Mathew said, in effect, that while Isaiah's prophecy conerning Immanuel was fulfilled in the sense that a foretold event had already happened, Jesus' birth was a further fulfillment of it. The boy that Isaiah spoke of was named Immanuel because he was proof to Ahaz that God was with him in his fight. Jesus - also born of a virgin - was more entitled to the name Immanuel because he wasn't just a sign from God, he was God. You can't get any more "with us" than that. Hope this clears things up - or at least doesn't muddy them further. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
65 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72025 | ||
Hi, EdB; "I simply can not/will not buy into this theory that there were two virgin births." It's not a theory; the Bible clearly states that there were two virgin births: Immanuel and Jesus. I simply reiterated what the Bible says, adding nothing of my own. The passages in Isaiah 7 are not ambiguous: "the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste." (v.14-16) Before the boy named Immanuel is old enough to know right from wrong, the kings opposing Ahaz will be defeated. This cannot possibly be Jesus. I'm not certain that Jesus ever had to reach an age where he could "reject the wrong and choose the right", but if he did, he did it long after the historical events that Isaiah said would precede it. The purpose of the sign is not ambiguous either: "Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son [Pekah] have plotted your ruin, saying, 'Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it.' Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says: '"It will not take place, it will not happen, for the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. The head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son. If you do not stand firm in your faith, you will not stand at all."' Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 'Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.'" (v.5-11) The purpose of the sign (the virgein birth) is to strengthen Ahaz to stand firm in his faith in that time and place. Finally, the context makes it clear that God is warning Judah about the invasion by Assyria that is soon to take place. The prophecies in these early chapters don't point to Jesus; they point to Assyria. Both the prophecy of the virgin birth and the stated purpose for it clearly indicate that the boy named Immanuel was born and lived during the reign of Ahaz. So why shouldn't we take Isaiah at his word? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
66 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72056 | ||
Hi, aften1; I have indeed read Matthew in addition to Isaiah. I don't believe that any book of the Bible is deliberately hidden, requiring a code. The Bible is the revelation of God, intended to educate and guide us and point us to Jesus. And I don't think I have ever presumed to say what Jesus is or isn't entitled to; it looks to me as though he's entitled to everything. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
67 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72058 | ||
Hi, EdB; Hmmm. I don't see how the Bible can be interpreted in any other way. As I said, there's nothing anbiguous in Isaiah's words. Matthew says that Jesus' birth "fulfills" Isaiah's prophecy. But "fulfill" is not limited to the idea of a prediction coming true; it also means to bring to completion or perfection. The basic idea of what Matthew meant by his reference to Isaiah came from Dr. Marion Soards, Professor of New Testament at Louisville Presbyterian Seminary. Unlike many faculty there, Dr. Soards is solidly evangelical and committed to the authority, inspiration, and authenticity of Scripture. This topic came up in a short class he taught on the nativity narratives. Having gone over Isaiah's words and their context several times since that class, I don't understand how any other interpretation is possible. I would draw this analogy: The law was real, the tabernacle was real, the boy Immanuel was real. According to the writer of Hebrews, the law was "shadow of the good things that are coming" (10:1) and the tabernacle was a "shadow of what is in heaven." (8:5) With his reference to Isaiah's prophecy, Matthew implied that Immanuel and his extraordinary birth were a shadow of the Christ who had now come. Too bad this thread got bumped off the home page; I'd be interested in others' opinions. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
68 | Finding 'Act as though you have faith' | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72112 | ||
Hi, aften1; You said "All the great religions of the world say the same thing - it is better to be a good person than a bad one." But only one says being "a good person" will not get you to Heaven/Paradise/Nirvana/whatever. Only one says that the only way to get to Heaven is through a savior. Only one teaches that salvation is a free gift of God. Only one has it right. Does this make Christians narrow-minded bigots? If we made it up ourselves, it would. But as others have pointed out, it was Jesus himself who said so. There's no middle ground. Either Jesus is the exclusive way to God or he's a liar not worth listening to. If you make him out to be a liar, then he is not your savior and you'll have to stand on your own - as all the other "great religions" teach. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
69 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72126 | ||
Hi, EdB; Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I'll see Dr. Soards again next week and will ask him how he responds to what I've posted and to the objections that have been raised. I do wish someone would address the very specific words of Isaiah and the context - which concerns judgment on Israel, not the future deliverance is Israel. To my eye, there is simply nothing in Isaiah's words to suggest that this event was anything but what he said it was - a sign to Ahaz. If Matthew had not referred to it, would anyone assume that this was a messianic prophecy? I don't know. Well, it's an interesting discussion. I would hate to think that taking Isaiah at his word would be a stumbling block to anyone. Jesus was born of a virgin; he's no less the Son of God even if it turns out that God did choose to re-use that particular sign. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
70 | HOW COULD JESUS BE A DESCENDANT OF DAVID | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72139 | ||
Hi, EdB; Good illustration. I imagine Matthew going through a similar process, recalling a past event and saying "wow, that takes on an entirely new meaning in light of what we've seen." But I'm certainly willing to admit that the traditional understanding might be correct. I'm sure that when I get to Heaven, I'll be humbled to learn how many things I got wrong. I'll feel badly until I see all my brothers and sisters in Christ in the same pickle. How can anyone live without grace? Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
71 | Finding 'Act as though you have faith' | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72298 | ||
aften1; Jesus said "none come to the Father but through me." That is unambiguous and leaves no middle ground. You say there are many roads to God; Jesus says there is one. One of you is wrong. I think I'm within the Lockman Foundation's rules to say that you are welcome discuss your New Age philosophy here, but you have to have some Biblical authority for what you say. Unsupported personal opinions and appeals to man-made authorities are not really appropriate. This is, after all, a Bible study forum. As for "getting out and meeting a few", I'm a computer geek; I work with Muslims and Hindus every day. Many of them are indeed kind, generous, devout, and humble - and condemned by their refusal to accept Jesus on his terms. As, perhaps, are you. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
72 | Finding 'Act as though you have faith' | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72309 | ||
Hello, aften1; No offense, but I'm just wondering if you ever back up your assertions with real Biblical references. Do you find this "food chain" idea in the Bible or is it a synthesis of some passages here and there combined with your own philosophy? Inquiring minds want to know. Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
73 | Finding 'Act as though you have faith' | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 72405 | ||
Hi, Debbie; Thanks for the reply. I can't disagree with anything you say. But I continue to engage people who seem to find some value in the Bible. After all, why would non-believers (and aften1 certainly appears to be one) appeal to the Bible as authoritative in some way? I know it could just be a clever ploy to try to turn our own "weapon" against us - but maybe they do have a sense that the Bible reveals something important. I believe that Christianity is "a reasonable faith". Part of my mission in life is to show people that the Bible only makes sense if you take it at its word and take it as a whole. If someone believes that some part of the Bible is truthful, perhaps they can be shown that the Bible as a whole is truthful. Then there's no way out. ;-) Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
74 | Is the Sabbath on Saturday? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 74608 | ||
Hi, Brother Billy Joe; Although I personally think your definition of what it means to "keep the Sabbath" is a little legalistic, I have no interest in debating that with you. I do tend to question folks who come along and announce that most of Christendom is mired in sin and error. So I have a couple of questions about your insistence that the Sabbath must be Saturday. First, where does the Bible say that the Sabbath day is named "Saturday"? The OT definitely refers to the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. If we apply God's example in Genesis to the modern English-language calendar, it seems that Sunday is the Sabbath. By convention, we begin our work on Monday; the seventh day is Sunday. Keeping the Sabbath on Sunday does not violate the Fourth Commandment. It may contradict a point of the Mosaic Law, but that does not greatly concern me. Second, what do you do with Mark 2:23-27? "One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain. The Pharisees said to him, 'Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?' He answered, 'Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions. Then he said to them, 'The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.'" Apparently, Jesus found it acceptable to feed oneself and one's companions on the Sabbath, which sounds like work to me. In the similar account in Mark 12, he went on to heal a man with a shriveled hand - more work. Jesus made it clear that the focus of the Sabbath is not the Mosaic Law, the focus of the Sabbath is the Lord of the Sabbath himself. What's important is not that we condemn other believers over the day they set aside for the Lord, what's important is that believers set aside a day for worship and reflection. That's "keeping the Sabbath." Peace and grace Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
75 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75286 | ||
Hi, sisterkath; Pardon my jumping in here, but I am curious about one thing. As far as I know, the NWT's rendering of John 1:1 is unique. Why choose to accept the translation found in that lone version over all others? Put another way, why do you believe that the Word was "a god" (NWT) and not God (every other reputable translation)? Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
76 | Is the first resurrection, the rapture? | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 75297 | ||
Hi, sisterkath; Thanks for the reply. If you don't mind a little persistence, I still don't understand why someone would accept this teaching. There must have been some authority for it before the original 1950 NWT was published; do you know what it was? The following chain of events is very suggestive to me: 1) Jehovah's Witnesses proclaim a novel theology that they say is Biblical. 2) Theologians and Bible teachers show that the theology is inconsistent with translations of the Bible produced by hundreds of scholars whose names and credentials are made public. This includes Bibles that are not associated with any particular denomination. 3) The New World Translation is produced in secret by a group of unidentified Jehovah's Witnesses. This translation brings the Bible into conformance with their theology. If their theology could not be derived from Bibles extant before 1950, it could not have come from God's word. So the question remains. Why believe that this one recent translation - which proclamins a "truth" significantly different from all others - correctly reveals God's word? I just can't imagine that God would allow this "error" to persist for nearly 2000 years.... Thanks. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
77 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 79863 | ||
Hi, Searcher; I agree that there are many people people living in the geopolitical entity named Israel who are also part of the people named Israel. I think the the key is to distinguish between the people and the state. (I know you know the history of Israel, I'm just summarizing to explain my point. Besides other reader may be less familiar with it.) The people get the name Israel from their ancestor Jacob, whom God renamed Israel. They are heirs to the promise made to Abraham, Jacob's grandfather. Thus the people named Israel existed before they, with God's help, subdued Canaan and established a state named for them - Israel. The authority of that state lay in the Law of Moses. That state had boundaries set by God and was ruled by a king - first God himself, later Saul, David, and Solomon. After Solomon, the state named Israel split in two and eventually disappeared. But the people named Israel, while dispersed, were still the descendants of Abraham, still heirs, still chosen by God. For roughly 2500 years, there was a people named Israel but no state by that name - no king, no fixed boundaries, nothing that makes a state. Then, in 1948, in response to the horror of the Holocaust, the U.N. created a new state to be a safe haven for the people still known as Israel. There was no Moses, no Joshua. The U.N., not God, established the boundaries. The U.N., not God, established the government. The U.N., not God, helped subdue the inhabitants. The U.N., not God, chose the name. The authority of this new state lies in a man-made constitution, not in the Law of Moses. That was the long answer - my favorite kind, I guess. :-) The short answer is that I think the Biblical prophecies concerning Israel speak of the people named Israel, created and set aside by God. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
78 | Does the Bible say protect Israel | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 79918 | ||
Hi, Truthfinder; I don't know if "common knowledge" is historically accurate or not, but God knows who Abraham's descendants are. It's not necessary that we know. Whatever role Israel (the people, not the modern state, IMHO) has yet to play in the fulfillment of prophecy will be played. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
79 | Biblical support for your statements | Bible general Archive 1 | stjones | 86162 | ||
Greetings; You said: "... it is hard to understand how Christian people who claim to be civilized to such an extent that they would not tolerate parents roasting their children in an oven, or roasting or otherwise practicing cruelty to dumb animals, and who claim to have too much love in their own hearts to torture their own children in fire, no matter what the children would do, can truly worship, reverence and love a God who they claim is not even up to their own standards of civilization and love and compassion, and who they claim will eternally torture and torment the great bulk of His human creatures." Very smooth; very glib. But this distortion of God's character reveals more about your beliefs than anything else you've posted. You reduce God to the level of humans and then judge him by human standards. If by "Christian people" you mean Christians, I can assure that this Christian does no such thing. Christians accept God's absolute sovereignty, his perfect righteousness, and his perfect love. In faith, they seek to understand God's wrath within the context of his sovereignty, righteousness, and love. They don't put him in a box and judge him as you have done. Peace and grace, Steve aka Indiana Jones |
||||||
80 | If He came today would He turn away fro | OT general | stjones | 23895 | ||
Explanation of infant baptism [LONG] Hi, Bob. You said "The closest thing that can be compared to baptism in my understanding is the circumsision of the Old Testament. It is an outward sign of an inward covenant. Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ plus nothing". This is the view of the Presbyterian church - baptism does not save, faith does. Baptism is the sign of a covenetal relationship between God and his chosen people. The Sacrament of Baptism is practiced according to the theology that guides the Presbyterian church. Therefore, Presbyterians only baptize members' children and only during a worship service. When presenting an infant or child for baptism, the parents make a public profession of faith in Christ. As part of the sacrament, the congregation affirms its intention to welcome the child and help grow the child in the faith. As good Calvinists, Presbyterians focus on God's sovereign act of choosing. 'Just as Jesus had said to his disciples, "You did not choose me but I chose you . . . .", one can see in the Sacrament of Baptism God's act of choosing. Whatever the age of the person being baptized, it's God's choosing that is the crucial action. Adults, as well as infants, will have to decide many times after their baptism whether or not to choose God back!'* 'When the parents make a profession of faith, they do so not on behalf of their child, but as a statement of their identity as members of the covenanted community, and their intention to form the child's faith as best they can within that community. Under those circumstances, there is at least a reasonable prospect that a baptized person will grow into her baptism in due time, making a profession of faith and choosing back the God who first chose her.' 'Infant baptism [is] about the status of the children of believers - members of the covenant community - and not about children in general! Baptism [is] meant neither to save the child from some peril in this world or the next, nor as a sentimental blessing upon newborns, nor as a way for the parents to profess the child's supposed "implicit" faith by proxy. It [is] an act which incorporate[s] into the body of Christ the children of persons who [are] already a part of that body.' This is consistent with 1 Corinthians 7. There is no assumption that the act of baptizing with prevent the child from later deciding to leave the covenant community by choosing not to accept Christ for herself. *All quotes are from an article in the Office of Theology and Worship section of the Presbyterian Church (USA) web site. I don't intend to start a dispute over baptism, infant or otherwise; I'm posting this purely as information. Peace and grace, Steve "Indy" Jones |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [25] >> |