Results 61 - 80 of 114
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: rabban Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | Refer to Romans 11:28-29 | Romans | rabban | 191627 | ||
Sadly the Jews in 1st and 2nd century became very bitter against the Christian church. Paul as Saul represented the Jewish leaders as a persecutor of the hellenistic part of the church in Jerusalem. The whole people turned on the Christians in Acts 12. Paul was oonstantly dogged by Jewish enemies (Acts 13.50; 14.5, 19) and was in the end delivered to the Romans by them. Later on James the Lord's brother was martyred by the Jews in Jerusalem. After the destruction of Jerusalem the Rabbis began the restoration of Judaism which had been shaken to the core, and this too caused friction with Christians. When Christianity became a proscribed religion the Jews were the main informants against Christians giving them up to torture and death (compare Revelation 2.9; etc.). This continued on into the second century. Unfortunately the later church, which had become apathetic and was partly paganised by Constantine, turned against the Jews which resulted in the shameful anti-Semitism that followed. However there is hope for the Jews for it may well be that the Scriptures indicate that towards the end there will be a great turning to Jesus Christ among them (much depends on interpretation). There can be no restoration of the Jews without it. Best wishes |
||||||
62 | third temple built before Jesus returns? | John 2:19 | rabban | 191626 | ||
My view is that the Scriptures make quite clear that the third Temple is in Heaven. That is the message of the Book of Revelation. Its presence on earth was transferred to Jesus and the church. John 2.29-21 makes clear that Jesus had come to replace the Temple, and the result is that the church became the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3.16; 6.19; 2 Corinthians 6.16-18; Ephesians 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.4-6). In the same way the true Jerusalem is also now in Heaven (Galatians 4.25-26; Hebrews 12.22). There are verses which superficially can be made to look as though a Temple will be built on earth but on examination they are clearly talking about the church (e.g. Revelation 11.1-13 which is talking about the church in the Sodomic Jerusalem). The Temple in Ezekiel 40 onwards was a heavenly Temple which proved that God had returned to His people, and was available to His returned people through the altar (which was the only part that they were told to build) and its final fulfilment is again in the church (chapter 47.1ff) and in Heaven. No doubt others will see it differently. It is one of the secondary matters on which thee is much controversy (hopefully friendly). |
||||||
63 | third temple built before Jesus returns? | John 2:19 | rabban | 191624 | ||
My view is that the Scriptures make quite clear that the third Temple is in Heaven. That is the message of the Book of Revelation. Its presence on earth was transferred to Jesus and the church. John 2.29-21 makes clear that Jesus had come to replace the Temple, and the result is that the church became the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3.16; 6.19; 2 Corinthians 6.16-18; Ephesians 2.11-22; 1 Peter 2.4-6). In the same way the true Jerusalem is also now in Heaven (Galatians 4.25-26; Hebrews 12.22). There are verses which superficially can be made to look as though a Temple will be built on earth but on examination they are clearly talking about the church (e.g. Revelation 11.1-13 which is talking about the church in the Sodomic Jerusalem). The Temple in Ezekiel 40 onwards was a heavenly Temple which proved that God had returned to His people, and was available to His returned people through the altar (which was the only part that they were told to build) and its final fulfilment is again in the church (chapter 47.1ff) and in Heaven. No doubt others will see it differently. It is one of the secondary matters on which thee is much controversy (hopefully friendly). |
||||||
64 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191622 | ||
People must be wondering what all this has to do with where animals go when they expire :-)))). To Steve Humbled By His Grace. You say. Note again your statement/question "Who are you going to make the arbiter of truth? A failing church which has distorted God's truth through the centuries? And which part of the church? Are we to look to Apollos? or Paul? or Peter? (1 Corinthians 1.12)." The latter part of the sentence was following Paul's pattern As he points out in 1 Corinthians 4.6, 'I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written'. I could have said Tom, Dick and Harry. However I preferred a Scriptural pattern. And Paul said, do not look to Peter, Apollos and myself. Look to the Scriptures. My concern is that we also should not go beyond what is written. Paul was, of course, referring to the Old Testament Scriptures, and possibly The Testimony of Jesus. I include the New. There is only one arbiter of truth and that is the Scriptures, which of course includes Peter and Paul (but not Apollos) when they were speaking under inspiration. But they did not always speak under inspiration as Galatians 2.11 ff makes clear. In fact the church was a failing church from the beginning. We only have to read Paul's, Peter's, James',and John's letters to recognise this, as well as Revelation 1-3, and indeed the whole of Revelation. Once the Apostles died the church sank into even greater spiritual formalism. We only have to read Clement and Ignatius to recognise this (we tend to read them in terms of Scriptural ideas and can therefore see them as saying more than they actually did). The spiritual power and message of Paul is mainly absent. Where is justification by faith alone in Clement and Ignatius? The only thing (apart from God's power) that enabled the church to survive with any element of truth was because they so rigidly insisted on looking back to Apostolic authority and to the Scriptures. These kept the church alive. In fact to anyone who has studied church history in the first 500 years the miracle is that the church did not collapse under a weight of extravagant teaching. It was only due to the adherence to the Scriptures in spite of it that the church did survive. You mentioned looking to the Spirit guided teachers of the church. But that was precisely the problem that the Corinthians had. They thought that they were looking to the Spirit guided teachers of the church. It was by the word of God that Paul called them back to the truth, and emphasised looking for individual spiritual illumination. |
||||||
65 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191592 | ||
Steve. I have actually done nothing of the sort. I suggest you read my answer again and think about it more carefully. If you then have any more questions I suggest you email me. Your question raises issues that I feel would be better dealt with in private. In Him |
||||||
66 | Did God really speak the Ten commandment | Exodus | rabban | 191591 | ||
Hi In Exodus 20.1 you will find that it says "And God spoke all these words saying." And then he gave them the essence of the Sinaitic covenant which included the ten words from God, what you call the ten commandments. Thus it is clear that God did 'speak the ten commandments'. This covenant in Exodus 20.1-17 is in the format of a Suzerainty treaty similar to those which were made in the time of Moses. A suzerainty treaty was a treaty between an overlord and the people whom he had 'come to help' because they were in bondage. That was always how conquerors described their activities. But in God's case it was genuinely so It begins with a description of the Overlord 'I am the LORD (YHWH) your God'. That is then followed by what He has done for them, 'Who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage'. That is then followed by the Overlord's requirements, in this case the 'ten words'. You will note that once the ten words have been given the accompanying phenomena terrify the people as His words have also clearly done and they ask that they might not have to listen to Him again (verse 19). In future they want Moses to receive God's words rather than receiving them themselves. In verse 22 God confirms to the people through Moses, 'You have seen yourselves that I have talked with you from Heaven.' In Deuteronomy 4.12 we read, 'then the LORD spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form. There was only a voice, and He declared to you His covenant,which He commanded you to perform, even the ten words'. Compare Deuteronomy 5.4, 'Moses said to them, " The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain ". Again in Deuteronomy 5.22 says, 'These words the LORD spoke to all your assembly at the mountain out of the midst of the fire, the cloud and the thick darkness, with a loud voice, and He added no more" And it was when they had heard His voice that they asked that they might be spared from hearing it again (Deuteronomy 5.23-27). Thus it is constantly emphasised that they actually hear His words for themselves In Him |
||||||
67 | What are some ex. of glimpes of heaven. | Ps 16:11 | rabban | 191579 | ||
Hi Many will see them in different ways, but omitting Revelation you could try e.g. Psalm 16.11; 23.6; Isaiah 4.2-3, 5-6; 11.1-9; 33.20-21; 35.10; 57.15; 62.2-5; 65.17-25; 66.22-23; Ezekiel 34.22-31; 36.8-12; 37.21-28; Daniel 12.3; Matthew 5.3-9; 8.11; 13.43; Luke 12.37; John 14.2-3; Hebrews 12.22-24; climaxing in Revelation 21-22. There are of course many other fleeting glimpses and no doubt one or two glaring ones that have not come to mind. But these should give you something to meditate on. They are not, however, to be hurried or their glory will be missed. Best wishes. |
||||||
68 | Bible lesson for nosy neighbor | Prov 15:1 | rabban | 191577 | ||
Hi The point behind the story is that if we put up signs declaring that we belong to Christ, if we fail then to live up to them we bring Him into open disrepute. For example should you put in your window, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself' you are setting a standard for yourself which you may well be unable to maintain. You are declaring 'this is how I live, and by this I wish to be judged'. I certainly believe that we should all be living in that way. But I would hesitate to display myself continually under such a banner because I am too much aware how often I fall short. By making it the measure by which people judge me I would constantly be bringing myself under its judgment in the eyes of all. And I would at the same time by any failure be bringing Christ into disrepute. From the moment I put up the notice much better things would be expected of me. Your neighbour will indeed then be in the unusually strong position of being able to point out that you are not loving him/her as you love yourself, and are therefore a hypocrite. The likelihood that he will think that it is he who is at fault is minimal. That could then remove any shame that he/she feels about his/her own actions. Indeed he/she might become even more extreme on the grounds that you have declared that you will put up with anything. Of course if you are sure that you can totally live up to that standard then by all means do so. But from that moment on all your neighbours will rightly expect you to be an exemplary neighbour, more than the norm. Thinking back to the illustration I have never known a car driver who drove in such a way that they never caused offence to anyone. I have often driven behind a car driver who had 'Trust in the Lord' in his window, and have realised that with his driving I will certainly need to. Best wishes. |
||||||
69 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191575 | ||
I think that the problem lies in what we mean by decide. We are each using a different definition. You are using the term 'to decide' as meaning 'to determine (although even that has two meanings), to fix in stone'. I am using it to mean 'to discern, work out what it means, and come to a decision about.' If it does not matter how we explain God's word, why do we do it? I think it matters very much how we explain God's word. Of course we do not decide what is there, or what words God (and the translators if we use a translation) caused to be written, but we certainly decide what in our view it means. You are very good at citing a text and saying 'its meaning is clear', but I notice that you do not give its meaning. You simply say, 'it's obvious'. In other words you are saying, 'I have interpreted it this way and I am completely right'. If that isn't 'deciding' what is? But if we want to help people we do have to explain the meaning of texts. Robertson in his Word Pictures (and many others) says of 1 Peter 1.20-21, 'It is the prophet’s grasp of the prophecy, not that of the readers that is here presented, as the next verse shows.' In other words it is not talking about how WE interpret Scripture at all, but on how the prophets themselves understood it in ordsr to pass it on. Is that what you understand by the verse? If we study, and research and do our best to get it right, we then have to come to a final decision on what it means. So we are deciding what it means. The truth I suspect is that we are simply discussing at cross purposes because we are using words with different meanings. I wish I could be sure that I always decided what God has decided about the meaning of Scripture, but sadly I cannot. While my central doctrine has not changed over fifty years, my understanding of it certainly has. Thus decisions I now make about the meaning of Scripture are very different from those I made fifty years ago. I used to be a premillennialist until I recognised how often I had to twist the meaning of words and passages in order to make them fit in. I became uneasy and then began to see things from a different view. That is why I am an amillennialist. So actually in my youth I was deciding what the Scriptures said in the wrong way, because I was unconsciously manipulating it to fit in with the theories of Dr Scofield. Now I think I am deciding them in the right way, because my decisions are based on taking them to mean what they say. If we are responsible before God for what we teach and what we tell people then we have to come to a decision first as to what we do tell them. You see our argument arises because we are using the idea of making a decision in a different way, It is all an argument over nothing. And I never waste my time arguing over nothing. So I will close the discussion here. We will agree to disagree, although the funny thing is that I do not think that we disagree at all (except about the meaning of 1 Peter 1.20). Best wishes. |
||||||
70 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191567 | ||
You have given two references, but you clearly explain them differently from me. So how can they be self explanatory? Thus in your interpretation you are deciding what God's word says :-)))) You really cannot avoid the fact. If you do so you are not being realistic, in which case there is no point in discussing further. 'Study to show yourself approved to God, rightly dividing the word of truth.' If you are righly dividing the word of truth you are making decisions about what the word of God means :-))) Of course we compare Scripture with Scripture. That is the main method we use in deciding what the word of God is saying. But it is in fact WE who compare Scripture with Scripture, and decide which Scriptures to compare. That is the method which, hopefully guided by the Holy Spirit we use, but we still have to decide what God's word is saying. Or do you have a divine commentary which tells you exactly what it means without your having to think or research anything, and which bleeps when you fail to understand it correctly? In Him |
||||||
71 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191561 | ||
'We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God' (1 Corinthians 2.12). 'He who is spiritual discerns all things, and he himself is judged of no man' (2 Corinthians 2.15). 'We have the mind of Christ' (2 Corinthians 2.16). These are but three Scriptures which make clear that through the Holy Spirit we receive God's direct illumination. Who are you going to make the arbiter of truth? A failing church which has distorted God's truth through the centuries? And which part of the church? Are we to look to Apollos? or Paul? or Peter? (1 Corinthians 1.12). Whose interpretation are we to follow? It was because we must look to the Holy Spirit to illuminate our own minds that 1 Corinthians 2 was written. Of course we seek the help of those who understand the Scriptures, (who all to some extent disagree), and learn from them, but each of us is in the end responsible for our own souls, and through the Holy Spirit, are responsible for our own understanding of Scripture. 2 Peter 1.20-21 is talking about the fact that what the prophets spoke was not 'privately interpreted' by them but was given to them by the Holy Spirit with the consequence that we can know it is the truth. We also then receive it through the illumination of the Holy Spirit Who interprets it to our hearts. 2 Timothy 2.15 says precisely that we are to rightly handle the word of truth, not leave someone else to handle it for us. We are in other words with the help of the Holy Spirit to ensure that we take it in context and not give it a meaning other than it has. And then pass it on in the same form. 'Your word (not the church) is a light to my way, and a lamp to my path' (Psalm 119.105). And in the end even the most ardent believer in the authority of the church interprets what he/she is taught in his own mind. It is the way in which we receive understanding. There is no other way. In Him |
||||||
72 | Is it okay for women to teach men, such | 1 Cor 11:5 | rabban | 191558 | ||
Titus 2.3-5 might be seen as giving the impression that a woman's ministry was to women (Titus 2.3-5). However 1 Timothy 5.4 lays a responsibility on women to teach their grandchildren, and they would be both boys and girls. That the ministry is not wider is to be explained by the restrictions on women in those days. They were not free to come and go as they pleased. But it seems to me that 1 Corinthians 11.5 is speaking of a woman 'prophesying' in the public assembly. That is why she has to wear her covering. Thus it is clear that public ministry by women to both men and women was anticipated. What she had not to do was take overall authority in teaching and oversight(1 Tim 2.12). We must also keep in mind women like Priscilla (Prisca), Deborah, Huldah and Anna. This is clearly a very brief treatment but should answer the question. |
||||||
73 | Explain in more detail Esther 2: 12 | Esth 2:12 | rabban | 191554 | ||
Hi, Being a pedantic kind of person I actually think that it is describing the actual Persian custom for preparing the king's women for their royal duties. However if I was preaching on it I would turn to Ephesians 5.21-27 and use it as an illustration of our practical sanctification. In Him |
||||||
74 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191553 | ||
Hi RC Thank you for your more detailed explanation. I cannot see how when the animals were made comes into the reckoning. Sin affected the whole creation. That is why it groans. I am pleased that you think dogs means Samaritans. At least you will not take the over-literalist line. (Although I would have thought Gentiles more likely than Samaritans) But I do not believe that Samaritans will all be excluded. It might be intended to be an expression covering all the sinners that are then described. But I actually do think that it is referring to dogs. The packs of dogs that roamed the streets of cities could be a nuisance and a curse (except when they licked your sores). Thus the point is that all that is a nuisance and a curse will be outside the city. I had an idea that the horses might come up. Do you really think that Jesus will come on a horse? Has it not struck you that John is writing in terms of the transport of that day. I do not think he would have spoken of a warhorse today. I must admit that I am not expecting Jesus to come on a horse. Elijah saw horses and chariots. I can't help feeling that if he had been alive today he would have seen tanks and armoured cars manned by angels. However it is not relevant. Heavenly horses would not come from earth. I do not agree with your interpretation of the 100 year old child, but we will leave that at present as it is not relevant. I also agree that the 'heavenly' (new heaven and new earth) state is in mind. But if there are animals there, and it is not just a picture of serenity and security, then there is no reason why they should include our pets. That was hardly in Isaiah's mind. So you want literal animals because it suits your case, but not literal dogs because it suits mine? Hmmmm.:-))) Well that is fine. But as you have heavenly horses, why not heavenly animals? Yes it is God's word. So we have to find out what He is saying and not what we would like Him to say. I would like to be able to prove that pets go to Heaven. It would sometimes be very useful pastorally. The trouble is that I cannot find it in Scripture. I intend to drop this subject now as I hope my position is clear. I do not want this to become a dispute. After all, a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still. In the end each of us must decide what the Scripure says for ourselves. (That is a good reformation principle :-))) ) In Him |
||||||
75 | where do animals go when they expire? | Eccl 3:21 | rabban | 191545 | ||
Hi RC You say, " Well here is another thought on this topic. In the Garden animals existed before man being created on the 5th Day. Sin has given us all a termination of life ( Death), then we must re think for just a moment.Now just as Paradise was lost that Day so long ago in the Garden, we also know that paradise will be regained (restored)as well. Now since there is no regeneration in Heaven because there is no male or Female wouldnt it be possible that the animals would indeed be there as well(like the Garden). Joni Erickson Tada said once that , wouldn't it be just like our Heavenly Father to give back those animals that we loved so much in this place. " I have looked for the Book of Tada in my Bible but am unable to find it :-))) I have waited patiently for further replies but as none have come I feel that I must respond, because I do feel it is important because of the impression that it gives.. The only logic in your argument that I can see is that a lady preacher suggested that it would be 'just like God'. But I search the Scriptures to find any such suggestion that it would be and discover that animals are nowhere given such a place. Indeed apart from as sacrifices and offerings or as wild beasts they are largely ignored apart from a very occasional reference. Jesus never even hinted that they entered into the eternal plan. It is true of course that the Scriptures tell us that they must be properly treated. But that is as far as it goes. As has been pointed out we do have the hint in Ecclesiastes 3.21 that the spirit of a man goes to a different place than the spirit of a beast which returns to the dust. It is confirmed more certainly in Ecclesiastes 12.7. We also have the reference concerning the exclusion of dogs from the eternal city (Revelation 22.15). Now I know that it is sentimentally nice in the West to see our animals as having souls and being 'friends', but they actually respond to us by instinct, seeing us as the leader of the pack. That is why the harmless family dog can suddenly kill a baby because it has usurped his place. The view that animals go to Heaven might seem at first to be a harmless belief. But it is in fact a dangerous one. It makes entry into Heaven appear sentimental. It gives people an idea of hope who have no hope. We who believe will live again because of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no such promise for our pets, nor for unbelievers. The danger of sentimentality is that it gives quite the wrong impression. Once we have all animals going to Heaven why not all humans? And where do we draw the line. Pet frogs? Pet snakes? Pet beetles? Pet flies? Non-pet flies? (there would be trillions and trillions of them)? They are of the earth, earthy. And of course it leads on to funerals for pets. Now it is one thing for little children to do such a thing because they are copying what they have seen with regard to humans. But for us to suggest it to them and teach it to them is to sow seeds which are misleading. Not everyone who dies goes to Heaven. I know dealing with children and death is ticklish but we must beware of sowing seed which may reap a bitter harvest If the righteous scarcely be saved where and why will all the animals appear? And why are they never described in pictures of Heaven? I do not know what God intends us to enjoy on the new earth. But I see no grounds in Scripture for thinking that it will be our pets from this earth. Are you really going to have the ones alive at His coming raptured? Or are we to leave them to judgment? That is the kind of absurdity that we find ourselves involved in. |
||||||
76 | exodus 33;23 | Exodus | rabban | 191543 | ||
Hi, My view on this is that we need to see what it was that God was going to reveal. Moses had asked to 'see His ways that he might know Him'. He wanted to know what God was going to do. Then he grew bolder and asked, 'Show me your glory.' God's reply was, 'I will make all My goodness pass before you and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you.' There is no promise of a bodily presence. He is to see His glory and goodness. Up to this point Moses had always 'seen' God in the cloud. Now the promise was that he would be able to see the glory of God unveiled, but only as it were the tail end. For no man could see Him in the fullness of His glory and live. The language is anthropomorphic. We can compare how Isaiah saw the glory of the LORD 'high and lifted up', although in His case the Temple was filled with smoke (Isaiah 6). Note that with all the descriptiveness there is no attempt to describe God. And compare how Ezekiel saw the glory of the LORD, 'on the likeness of the throne was the likeness of the appearance of a man on it above, and I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire within it round about, from the appearance of His loins and upwards, and from the appearance of His loins and downwards I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and there was brightness round about Him. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud on the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD.' It will be noted that while powerful the description is vague. He was describing the indescribable.'The likeness of' indicates how difficult he is finding it to discover the exact words with which to describe Him, and note also the repetition of 'the appearance of'. He gained the impression of a man and yet not a man. Rather the appearance of fire, and glory, spoken of in terms of a heavenly storm (note the rainbow). We need not speculate on exactly what of God was revealed in either case, only to recognise His utter glory. To speak of a pre-incarnate spiritual body of Christ appears to me almost to suggest that God is not One being. I think that it is to tread on dangerous ground. Can we so separate God? (It was a different matter once Christ had become man, then He did have a separate body in His manhood). Because God sometimes chose to take the appearance of a man e.g. with Abraham before His dealings with Lot (Genesis 18-19) and with Jacob at Peniel (Genesis 32), and in the appearance of 'the Angel of the LORD' this does not justify us in thinking that God is normally so limited. (Remember they are not considered to have 'seen His face'even though Jacob thought of it in that way, otherwise they would not have been alive). As Jesus declared so clearly, 'God is Spirit' (John 4.24). But He manifests Himself in different ways. |
||||||
77 | where do animals go when they expire? | Rev 22:15 | rabban | 191524 | ||
I am likely to be very unpopular when I suggest that they simply cease to exist. Revelation 22:15 certainly puts the dogs outside. It would seem to me going to absurd lengths to have in the new Heaven and the new earth every single living creature that has ever lived. Think of the flies who die and reproduce constantly and the ants!! And none of them ever dying. And this is especially so when this would be in contrast to the remnant of the human race. The only Scripture that might give positive hope is Isaiah 11.5-9 (compare 65.25). But it is doubtful if we can stretch these that far. I wait with baited breath. |
||||||
78 | silent prayer | Matt 6:5 | rabban | 191520 | ||
Hi,May I suggest 1 Thessalonians 5.17 Now I do not know about you but I think that if I went everywhere praying aloud unceasingly I suggest that it would make life very difficult. This would have been even moreso for 1st century Christian slaves. Consider also Psalm 4.4; 63.6; 97.6 in relation to this. When I was in the armed forces and we slept in nissen huts, 24 to a hut, I would probably not have got out alive if I had prayed aloud. I shudder to think of it. This must have been true in ancient homes when everyone lived in one room. It would have meant that they could only pray when they all wanted to pray. So it is quite clear that 'silent' prayer must have been a norm. |
||||||
79 | Bible lesson for nosy neighbor | Prov 15:1 | rabban | 191515 | ||
I wonder if this story might answer your question. A man was being tailgated by a stressed-out woman on a busy boulevard. Suddenly, the light turned yellow, just in front of him. He did the right thing, stopping at the crosswalk, even though he could have beaten the red light by accelerating through the intersection. The tailgating woman hit the roof--and the horn--screaming in frustration as she missed her chance to get through the intersection. As she was still in mid-rant, she heard a tap on her window and looked up into the face of a very serious police officer. The officer ordered her to exit her car with her hands up. He took her to the police station where she was searched, finger printed, photographed and placed in a holding cell. After a couple of hours, a policeman approached the cell and opened the door. She was escorted back to the booking desk where the arresting officer was waiting with her personal effects. He said, "I'm very sorry for this mistake. You see, I pulled up behind your car while you were blowing your horn, flipping off the guy in front of you, and cussing a blue streak at him. I noticed the 'Choose Life' license plate holder, the 'What Would Jesus Do' bumper sticker, the 'Follow Me to Sunday School' bumper sticker, and the chrome-plated Christian fish emblem on the trunk. Naturally, I assumed you had stolen the car." Beware of stickers which do not tell the truth about you. |
||||||
80 | about (ph) mohammed in bible? | Matt 24:11 | rabban | 191514 | ||
Yes Mohammed is mentioned in the Bible, although not by name. For example: Jesus said, 'And many false prophets shall arise and shall lead many astray' (Matthew 24.11; Mark 13.22). 'There will arise false Christs and false prophets, --- so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect' (Matthew 24.24). |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Next > Last [6] >> |