Results 61 - 80 of 380
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Is Amoz also Amos? | Is 1:1 | biblicalman | 229420 | ||
Hi Renewingmind, welcome to the forum. The short answer is that he almost certainly was not. The names are in fact different (Amos and Amotz). Amos was a herdsman and fig-farmer from Tekoah in Judah, prophesying around 760 BC. He prophesied in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. Isaiah was a Jerusalemite, and possibly (according to Jewish tradition) connected to the royal house. He commenced prophesying about 740 BC in Jerusalem. Best wishes |
||||||
62 | Are Messianic Jews saved? | Acts 4:12 | biblicalman | 229408 | ||
Hi Ismaila, It is not possible for any of us to say of another that they have definitely been saved. All we can do is confirm the requirements for them to be saved. Whether Messianic Jews are saved will depend on one thing. Have they fully trusted in the Lord Jesus Christ and the fact that He died for them and rose again, for their salvation? Are they confessing Him before men? If they are then they are and will be saved, if they are not then they are not saved. Best wishes |
||||||
63 | bible say about interracial marriages? | 2 Cor 6:14 | biblicalman | 229402 | ||
Hi Madison, Welcome to the Forum. There are many examples of inter-racial marriage in the Bible, and there is no suggestion that they are wrong. What the Bible does condemn is inter-religious marriage. When Ezra sought to break up marriages with foreign women (Ezra 9-10) it was because the women worshipped other gods and would have led some of God's people astray. When God banned marriages with the Canaanites it was again for religious reasons. 'Do not be unequally yoked with an unbeliever' still applies (2 Cor 6.14). Remember that what your children grow up to believe may well be affected by such a choice. On the practical level however it is necessary to seriously consider whether living together you will be able to cope with each other's lifestyle. You may well find that differing customs amd lifestyles can grate after a while when the initial love has died down. That is something to seriously consider. But of course that is true of all marriages. Best wishes |
||||||
64 | God sees us through the blood of Jesus | NT general | biblicalman | 229398 | ||
Hi Cyndig, Welcome to the Forum. There is no actual verse that says that God sees us through the blood of Jesus, but a numberthat say something similar. Jesus 'Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through His blood to be received by faith' (Rom 3.25). 'Therefore we are now accounted as righteous through His blood' (Rom 5.9). 'Through Whom we have redemption through His blood even the forgiveness of sins' (Eph 1.8). 'The blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleanses us from all sins' (1 John 1.7). 'To Him Who loves us and freed us from our sins in His own blood' (Rev 1.7). 'So Jesus suffered without the gate in order to set apart His people as holy through His own blood' (Heb 10.12). Best wishes |
||||||
65 | What is your view on the Rapture? | NT general | biblicalman | 229397 | ||
What is my view on the Rapture? I think it wll be the most wonderful event in history. 'For the Lord Himself will descend from Heaven, with a shout of command, with the Archangel's voice, and with the trumpet-blast of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive and remain will be caught up with them to meet the Lord in the air and so we wll ever be with the Lord.' (1 Thess 4.16-17). Imagine the picture, the graves opening, the resurrected saints in their new spiritual bodies rising to meet the Lord in the air, the living saints being instantly transformed and joining them in their triumphant progress, and all together meeting the Lord and seing Him face to face, and going in with Him to the marriage feast of the Lamb. What a day that will be. I don't want to spoil its impact by clogging it up with a lot of uncertain detail. 'We will not all sleep (die) but we will all be changed. In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet, for the dead will be raised incorruptible and we will all be changed' (1 Cor 15.52). Thats what I want to turn people's attention on so that they will be ready. It is the one certain eschatological fact. What happens afterwards I will leave to God. Best wishes |
||||||
66 | REV.21 VS 8 ARENT THEY SAVED TOO? | Luke 23:39 | biblicalman | 229390 | ||
Hi Alalexnikki, Welcome to the Forum. We are saved by faith alone as the channel (Gen 15.6; John 3.16; Romans 3.24; Ephesians 2.8-9) We are saved by the Triune God alone as the Instrument and Means of our salvation, through the cross (Eph 2.8-9; 2 Tim 1.9; Tit 2.11; 3.4-5). All who are saved will finally be overcomers (1 John 5.4-5), for that is what salvation is in the end all about, producing fruit unto eternal life ('by their fruits you will know them'). An overcomer is one who confesses Christ to the end. 'He who endures to the end will be saved'. Concerning verse 8, Paul says, 'and such were some of you, but you have been washed, you have been accounted as holy, you have been accounted as righteous, in the Name of our Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God' (1 Cor 6.11). The dying thief who turned to Jesus was a thief, but when he was about to die he was no longer a thief, he was one of God's sanctified ones. Many to whom Paul preached were idolaters, but those who responded ceased to be idolaters and became God's sanctified ones. In other words verse 8 is saying that all who are still like this at the end, will experience the second death. If a man came to me and said, 'I am an unbeliever, i live vilely, I am a murderer, I live a sexually immoral life, I practise magic arts, I am an idolater, and I am a continual liar, but forty years ago I professed to believe in Jesus Chrst, am I saved? I would have no hesitation in saying 'no'. For Jesus said, 'by their fruits you will know them'. If Jesus Christ was saving him he would not be like that. Best wishes |
||||||
67 | Who are the 3 women in the linage of Chr | Matt 1:18 | biblicalman | 229385 | ||
Hi Lonna, Welcome to the Forum. There are in fact five women in the lineage of Christ in Matthew 1. These are Tamar (v.3), wife of a wicked man whom God slew; Rahab the Canaanite (v.5); Ruth the Moabitess (v.5); 'her of Uriah', the adulteress (v.6), and Mary the Galilean (v.16). But in spite of their 'tainted' lineage all were accepted by God through faith and were privileged to be ancestresses of the Messiah. Best wishes. |
||||||
68 | will people be saved during tribulation? | Rev 7:14 | biblicalman | 229384 | ||
Hi Bob, Welcome to the Forum. Throughout history from Adam onwards men and women have been saved in the same way, through faith in the God provided means of salvation. That is indeed the lesson of Hebrews 11. All come to God on the same basis, though faith. In the Old Testament they accepted God's offer of mercy through His covenants, responded to Him in faith, and trusted to Him for forgiveness through the shedding of blood, in circumcision and sacrifices. Today we accept God's offer of mercy through His covnenant offered in Jesus Christ, respond to Him in faith, and trust Him for forgiveness through the offering up of Jesus Christ by the shedding of blood on our behalf once and for all. Whatever the future holds that will be God's basis of salvation. He is the unchangeable One. There are of course those of us who believe that men and women are being saved out of great tribulation today through the blood of Christ, and have been for the 1900 years, and that that is what Revelation 7 teaches. But, however that may be, God's way of salvation through faith never changes, and men will be saved in that way right through to the end. Best wishes. |
||||||
69 | male nor female? galatians 3:27 | Gal 3:28 | biblicalman | 229383 | ||
Hi Lamarchester, Welcome to the Forum. What Paul is bringing out in Galatians 3.28 is that in Christ God treats all Christians on an equal basis. All are 'sons of God'. He does not see freemen as superior to slaves, He does not see men as superior to women, He does not see Jews as superior to Gentiles. And this is because having been united with Christ they are one with Him, they are members of His body. Therefore before God they share equal status with Jesus Christ. The Pharisee would pray, 'I thank God you have not made me a woman'. He believed that women were inferior in the sight of God, and had lesser rights of approach. So Paul is emphasising that once a woman is 'in Christ' she is of equal status to a man in God's eyes, and can expect her prayers to be answered on the same basis. She can approach God in the same way, and with the same confidence that she will be fully accepted. Best wishes |
||||||
70 | What is meant by anointed? | 1 Sam 10:1 | biblicalman | 229361 | ||
To be 'born of water' does not refer to baptism as such. It refers to the new life that springs up through rain. The coming of the Holy Spirit on men is often likened by the prophets to rain. See Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5; 55.10-13. it was this experience that Jesus wanted Nicodemus to have. It is in Isaiah 55.10-13, where he speaks of 'bringing to birth' through rain, that the idea of new birth is specifically introduced, which is why Jesus expected Nicodemus to know about it. At this stage, as far as we know, baptisms in water were not being carried out. They ceased when John was put in prison and commenced again after Jesus' resurrection. But cerainly once we have been born of water and the Spirit we should be baptised. But it is the 'baptism in the Spirit' (1 Cor 12.13; Romans 6.3) that saves us. |
||||||
71 | In Christ | 1 Pet 2:24 | biblicalman | 229360 | ||
Hi Penni The simple answer is, by truly believing in the Lord Jesus Christ. Fist you must acknowledge to Him your sinfulness, and that you are deserving of His judgment (1 John 1.8) Then you must recognise that He died on the cross to take the punishment for your sins (1 Peter 2.24). Then you must open your life to Him and ask Him to be your Saviour because of what He did for you on the cross. Then you must trust Him to fulfil His promise to forgive you and save you. Once you are forgiven and 'saved' you are in Christ. Best wishes |
||||||
72 | What is meant by anointed? | 1 Sam 10:1 | biblicalman | 229352 | ||
Hi Ms NO Welcome to the Forum. There are only two references in the New Testament to Christians being anointed. The first is in 2 Cor 1.21-22, 'He Who --- anointed us is God, Who also sealed us and gave us the guarantee of the Spirit in our hearts.' Here the anointing clearly comes when we first believe and are sealed by the Holy Spirit. We know that we are anointed because of God's promise and because of the change that He has wrought in our hearts. The second reference is in 1 John 2.20 where we read, 'and you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you know all things.' This is in contrast to those who have proved themselves to be false. The point is that God's anointing of us by His Spirit is the cause of our spiritual understanding and certainty whereby we know the truth. 'All things' refers to all things necessary for our spiritual wellbeing. The other references to anointing refer to Jesus and speak of when He received the Holy Spirit after His baptism. Best wishes |
||||||
73 | Different fathers of Joseph. | NT general | biblicalman | 229351 | ||
Hi Penn, Welcome to the Forum. As has been explained one possibility is that the genealogy in Matthew is that of Joseph, and that in the genealogy in Luke we have the genealogy of Mary. An equal possibility is that the genealogy in Matthew is indicating the line of heirs to the throne, whilst the genealogy in Luke is Joseph's bloodline. Where a king died without a direct heir the throne right would pass to a brother or a nephew, and they would in Jewish terms then be described as being 'begotten' by the deceased. Even an adopted child was descrinbed in terms of being 'begotten' by his new father. Thus in Matth 1.16 Jacob as Joseph's uncle may have died without an heir, resulting in Joseph becoming his heir by right of inheritancve, and thus being 'begotten' by him. The whole question is dealt with in depth in The Virgin Birth of Christ by J Machen. Best wishes |
||||||
74 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229350 | ||
Hi Tim, The question that I dealt with originally was not what was to be seen as the ideal, but what was actually countenanced and not seen as an open breach of the Law by the majority of people having the consequence of bringing the couple and the baby into disrepute, (apart, as I constantly stated, in the eyes of the high sticklers). We are all agreed that the Old Testament says nothing against sexual relations between a betrothed couple (who were seen as man and wife). Had it been seen as needing to be legislated against, it would have been mentioned, for it would certainly have occurred. And this is especially so in view of the fact that if it was totally forbidden it would have required the death penalty. Had that been so it would hardly have been overlooked. And this is especially so as in betrothal all the ritual requirements for marriage had been completed, and were binding, and all that was required was consummation of the marriage. This in fact is brought out rather vividly by Deuteronomy 20.7 where the husband is to race home to consummate the betrothal. In Ketuboth 1.5 it says, 'He who eats with his father-in-law in Judea without a witness cannot bring a complaint for the cause of non-virginity because he was alone with her.' This suggests that this was a fairly common occurrence as it is being legislated about. And there is no indication of disapproval, only a removal of the right of the husband to protest against his wife not being a virgin. We also note that the concern was not seemingly concerning immorality, but concerning the rights of the couple and the security of the marriage. Indeed that is the Old Testament emphasis. The immorality lay in what its social effects were. You say : The point you made in another post about sexual relations resulting in marriage does not indicate acceptance, but protection of the woman. It is much like in the OT where if a man raped a virgin, he had to marry her. The latter is in fact a point I brought out earlier. But the very fact that it is legislated about without any criticism being made demonstrates that it was accepted as not prejudicing the couple. There is never a hint of criticism. It is treated matter-of-factedly. There would be no reflection on the child. But we should note that the Mishnah, when speaking of a betrothal occurring through sexual relations, does not assume that there had been a rape. The sexual relations could equally have been by agreement in order to bring about betrothal. It is merely being seen as one means of entering a betrothal, without further comment being made. And what is important, as I think we are agreed on, (and was the point at issue), is that no taint attached to the child as long as both parties accepted the child as theirs. With regard to the period of twelve months it would appear that that period was only a suggested period and not rigidly applied. Often betrothal would take place when the couple were young children and the period of betrothal would be a lot longer. On other occasions where the couple were mature the period would be less. Of course this situation does not arise for Christians. Engagement is not betrothal. It is not totally binding. Thus for the Christian pre-marital sex is certainly disapproved of. But that is another question. Best wishes |
||||||
75 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229335 | ||
Hi Ed, I don't quite understand your problem. I cited three Jewish sources, as follows, This is in fact stated in the Halakah where it is emphasised that the child of a premarital union where the marriage is consummated is not to be seen as a mamzer (illegitimate child). Indeed in the Mishnah it is stated that one way by which betrothal takes place is by sexual relations. 'Said Rabbi Joseph, a girl is betrothed by sexual intercourse' (M Nid 5.4). In the section headed 'Betrothal' (quiddushim) it says, A woman is acquired as a wife in one of three ways, by money, by contract, or by sexual intercourse' (1.1). In no instance is there any hint of disapproval of the sexual relations. Do you not count these as sources? In two I give chapter and verse. Referencing works in general can give an untrue impression. Edersheim does not cite any ancient Jewish preChristian source that disagrees with what I have said about betrothal and marriage. They do not exist. Best wishes |
||||||
76 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229333 | ||
Hi Ed, Let us try and avoid getting heated about this, it really is not worth it. Your sources are not based on 1st century sources (there are none) and they are therefore simply a matter of the opinions of the writers as people who live in the modern era against a background of Christian culture and read back later Jewish tradition which was revolutionised after 70 AD. They are not backed up by facts. I provided you with three sources which confirmed that betrothal could be initiated by sexual activity, but you simply ignored them. Now Tim has brought one of them up you accept it, although in my view you draw wrong conclusions from it. You have no sources which refer to Mikvah applying in 1st century AD, certainly not before the fall of Jerusalem. If you have I would be more than delighted to see them. But I do not believe that any are available, and scholars confirm the fact. So your conclusion does not follow, and furthermore no one is sure when Mikvah applied. Ritual cleanisng was something that was going on all the time, and always necessary after sexual relation. I have already cited Ellison writing in 'A New Testament Commentary'. But I cannot offhand remember which other authorities i found discussion of the subject in, but I can assure you that they were scholarly sources, not just 'popular' sources like the ones you mention. I am very careful where I obtain my information from and what I accept. It is always difficult to trace back background information of this kind because it is rarely provided in substantiated form. You cannot read later Jewish customs back to the time of Jesus, and certainly not to Galilee whose views were very different from those in Judea. Nor am I convinced that Mikvah is anything like our baptism. Mikvah, whenever it began, was a ceremony of ritual cleansing, John's baptism was never said to offer ritual cleansing. It was an indication of the coming of the Holy Spirit in terms of Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5; 55.10-13 signifying the giving of life, which would be fulfilled by the coming of the Holy Spirit. Notice that almost all John's preaching was in terms of producing fruit and other agricultural activities. Best wishes |
||||||
77 | who is the rose of sharon | Song 2:1 | biblicalman | 229332 | ||
Hi Alfred, Welcome to the Forum. There are two possible answers to your question, 1). that it refers to 'my beloved' (the male) or 2). that it refers to 'my love' the female. Song of Sol 2.2 might be seen as signifying that it refere to 'my love', verse 2 (spoken by 'my beloved') being a reply to verse 1. But I would not be overdogmatic. 5.13 may be seen as supporting the opposite postion. Best wishes |
||||||
78 | Continued slander | 1 Cor 4:13 | biblicalman | 229331 | ||
Hi searching follower, Welcome to the Forum If someone is slandering, insulting or hurting you, you could take the following steps, having prayed the matter over first: 1) First attempt to talk reasonably with the person. I realise of course that they may not be willing to do so but you should make the attempt. Make your approach gentle and loving. Remember a soft answer turns away wrath. 2) If they will not listen to you you could then discuss the situation with a mutual friend or friends, and see if they can mediate on your behalf, or even go with you to see your slanderer. Possibly even your minister or church elders. 3) If they still will not listen then there is little else that you can do except pray for them, and still love them as Christ loves you. 4) Where you are being slandered you do of course have a right to ensure that the real facts are known in a reasonable way. All this should, of course, be carried out in a spirit of love and compassion. If the person continues with their slander you would, of course be justified in cutting off relations with that person, but for your own sake, and for their soul's sake, you should first do all you can to resolve the situation. As you will note this is mainly based on Jesus words in Matt 18, slightly altered because the person is not a believer. Best wishes |
||||||
79 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229330 | ||
Hi Tim, Thank you for confirming what I said about Halakhic tradition. As it points out that having agreed sexual relations was one way of initiating a betrothal, and appears to accept it as 'normal', I fail to see how anyone can deny that such a situation was 'accepted' as I said, even if not necessarily fully approved of by all. (I made clear it was not fully approved of by all). Thank you too for confirming what I said about the child of such a relationship being accepted as legitimate. Some will still be unwilling to accept it, but when an idea is fixed in the mind it often takes time to be willing to let it go. Best wishes |
||||||
80 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229323 | ||
Ed, As you are aware you have to go to modern books for such a suggestion. It is not Scriptural. Nor is there any proof that such a tradition occurred in the times of Jesus. I am sure you are aware that the idea is taken from Deuteronomy 22.13-21 where it ONLY occurred if the husband made a public charge against his wife to the courts. The bloodstained sheets would then be produced. Thus it would not occur if the husband knew that they had had sexual relations during betrothal. With regard to the stoning, that would not have been allowed by the Romans. As far as we know it was only allowed in exceptional cases for blasphemy. We do not know what punishment would be meted out in such a case as deuteronomy speaks of. As everyone is so keen on quotations, let me quote what H L Ellison (a Jewish Christian consrvative scholar) says, 'He (Jesus) was not conceived until Mary was legally married. Betrothal was legally marriage'. Thus he sees things the way I do. I have already demonstrated that Jewish Halakhic tradition clearly states that the offspring born out of a betrothal situation was NOT seen as illegitimate. In which case there was no shame of fornication. Do you not find it interesting that the Jews never brought that particular matter up either when Jesus was alive nor after He was dead, even when the virgin birth had been publicised? Lol if I know young men and their propensities I am sure that premarital sex during betrothal happened quite frequently. And no one has yet produced a jot of Scripture which says that it was condemned, although I do not doubt that it was frowned on by many. Best wishes. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [19] >> |