Results 6821 - 6840 of 6970
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Hank Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
6821 | curious questions concerning crucifying | Matt 27:22 | Hank | 4415 | ||
Crucifixion was the most painful and degradng form of capital punishment in the ancient world. So cruel and horrendous was it that the Roman government exempted their own citizens from this method of execution. A person crucified in Jesus' day was first of all scourged (beaten with a whip consisting of thongs or at least flogged until the bloodflowed. This was not just done out of cruelty but was designed to hasten death and lessen the terrible ordeal. After the beating, the victim was forced to bear the crossbeam to the execution site in order to signify that life was already over and to break the will to live. A tablet detailing the crime(s) was often placed around the criminal's neck and then fastened to the cross. At the site the prisoner was often tied (the normal method) or nailed to the crossbeam. The nail would be driven through the wrist rather than the palm, since the smaller bones of the hand could not support the weight of the body. The beam with the body was then lifted and tied to the already affixed upright pole. Pins or a small wooden block were placed halfway up to provide a seat for the body lest the nails tear open the wounds or the ropes force the arms from their sockets. Finally the feet were tied or nailed to the post. Death was caused by the loss of blood circulation and coronary failure. Especially if the victims were tied, it could take days of hideous pain as the extremities turned slowly gangrenous; so often the soldiers would break the victim's legs with a club, causing massive shock and quick death. Such executions were usually done in public places, and the body was left to rot for days, with carrion birds allowed to peck at and degrade the corpse further. The above description was excerpted from Holman Bible Dictionary. The Gospels and other accounts in the New Testament writings give us all the Biblical details we have of Jesus' crucifixion, although the Old Testament contains a number of prophetic passages concerning the Suffering Servant who "was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed." (Isaiah 53:5). How could anyone be so hardened that he would not be moved by the unspeakable suffering that the Lord Jesus endured on the cross. And Pilate's question in Matthew 27:22, "Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?" has echoed in the hearts and minds of men and women for centuries, and echoes still. "What shall I do with Jesus?" One's eternal destiny pivots on these six words. --Hank | ||||||
6822 | DINOSURES OR ALIENS IN BIBLE ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4413 | ||
Please forgive my oversight. Your question concerned aliens in addition to dinosaurs. Save for angels, which are not aliens from another planet but from heaven, the subject of extra-terrestrial aliens as we usually define the term, is alien to the Bible. --Hank | ||||||
6823 | DINOSURES OR ALIENS IN BIBLE ? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4411 | ||
Please use the "Search" feature at the top left of your screen. Type in "dinosaur" and also "dinosour". You will find more than 20 entries regarding these creatures. The word "dinosaur" -- the correct spelling -- has been misspelled on this Forum in a number of innovative ways. -- Hank | ||||||
6824 | Are 'we' there, yet? | Matt 16:18 | Hank | 4396 | ||
Charis, in the New Testament the Greek word, ekklesia, translated church is used 114 times, but only three times in the Gospels, all in Matthew, once in 16:18 and twice in 18:17 In the former passage Jesus used ekklesia in a corporate sense (all believers) and in the latter passage in the local sense (believers in a specific assembly). The Greek noun ekklesia is from a preposition meaning "out" and a verb meaning "to call"; thus ekklesia literally means "called out ones." Despite the origin of the term, its emphasis is not on a people called out but on a people gathered together, that is an assembly or congregation. In secular Greek the common usage for the word was for the assembled citizens of a city. (See Acts 19:32) So, there are two ways ekklesia is used in the New Testament, in reference to a corporate church or a local church, or congregation. The latter use is more common.Having established, it is hoped, a fair idea of what the New Testament writers are saying when they use the term ekklesia, or church, I am prepared to answer your question with a qualified yes and no. Yes, some churches (in the sense of a congregation, a local assembly of believers) are "there yet". They are doctrinally sound; they accurately handle the word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15); they are diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph.4:3). They are a paradigm of what Christ's church ought to be. But there are hosts of other churches in our time, as in Paul's time (the Corinthian church is an example) that are splintered by all kinds of schism; that are teaching for commandmants the doctrines of men (human secularism); that are, many of them, hardly identifiable at all as a church, and much less as an assembly patterned after the New Testament example. Therefore the answer would be no, in the sense of the corporate church, no, not only are we are by any means "there yet" but it would appear we are not headed in that direction. I truly believe that the most formidable enemy of the church is not the world but the pharisaic bigotry and bitter divisiveness that enshrouds the church itself. The clouds of disunity hang today over the church, heavy and dark, and block out the very Light that we ourselves should be taking to a lost world. --Hank | ||||||
6825 | What teacher read Isaiah? | Luke 4:18 | Hank | 4384 | ||
Joe, someone may try to nail me for this, but I think God gave His children a sense of humor for their mutual pleasure and enjoyment, and I thank Him for letting mine prevail for 66 years. So here goes. The Trinity is as simple as One, Two, Three. And divine elections are held on Sundays. It's obvious I have spent far too much time on the Forum today! --Hank | ||||||
6826 | What teacher read Isaiah? | Luke 4:18 | Hank | 4378 | ||
Reformer Joe, your answer rates a five-star review in my book! In few words you have given a complete and accurate answer. It is a model to which all of us on the Forum would do well to pay close attention. --Hank | ||||||
6827 | Are Jesus' Two Commandments Easy? | Matt 22:40 | Hank | 4376 | ||
Of course the sense of this passage, as well as the content and context of the remaining text of Holy Scripture, clearly indicate that there is additional teaching, but it is exposition of these two basic commandments laid down by our Lord. All the other teaching is encompassed by these two commandments. I did not imply, neither should one infer, that Jesus kicked everything else in Scripture out the door when he issued these two commandments. But they are the two on which hang the law and the prophets as He clearly stated. The Ten Commandments were, in the same sense, not the only commandments in the Old Testament. God gave a number of commands about other things, dietary laws, for example. You asked where did man get the idea that Jesus reduced His teaching to two commandments. I cannot answer for "man" but if you are asking me, I'll be happy to tell you. I used 'reduced' in the sense defined by Merriam-Webster as "to change the denominations or form of without changing the value." That's precisely what Jesus did. And I got the idea from the very same Scripture that you quote in your answer. --Hank | ||||||
6828 | Are Jesus' Two Commandments Easy? | Matt 22:40 | Hank | 4360 | ||
God gave Moses the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. By Jesus' time on earth the Jews had expanded these to a total of 613 laws. Jesus reduced the number to two. What are they, and is keeping them easy -- a piece of cake, to use a modern faddish term? | ||||||
6829 | What teacher read Isaiah? | Not Specified | Hank | 4359 | ||
What teacher in a synagogue was handed a book written by the prophet Isaiah to read, what passage did he read, and what was its special significance? | ||||||
6830 | What teacher read Isaiah? | Luke 4:18 | Hank | 4371 | ||
What teacher in a synagogue was handed a book written by the prophet Isaiah to read, what passage did he read, and what was its special significance? | ||||||
6831 | When were angels created? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4355 | ||
Uncle Charlie, I have no better answer, and can offer no more specific a time frame, than Genesis 1:1 We may have ideas or a private interpretation of some kind, but will they wash in light of revealed truth? That the angels are created beings is a given. Precisely when God chose to create them, that is a mystery. The time and place of origin of the serpent in the garden of Eden, for instance, is ample food for thought. All manner of views have been advanced; is any the absolutely correct, definitive one? I wonder -- and I am not in the least being critical of your question -- but I wonder if we all of us at times, allow the indvidual trees to obscure our overall view of God's abundant orchard of eternal truth. I've seen preachers allot the better part of their sermon time to the attempt to explain some minor background detail of one of Jesus' parables at the expense of utterly missing the point that the parable sought to make. --Hank | ||||||
6832 | Wow! Where did that come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4353 | ||
Apparently the King James Version translators fell into the trap set by Tyndale in giving us "Jehovah" for the tetragrammation YHWH. Jehovah is a hybrid linguistic contrivance that is the result of an "ignorance gap" by the translators, both Tyndale and the King James committee, of the Hebrew language and customs. They did well with what they had, but much more has been added to the lore of the ancient languages and customs since 1611. YHWH, the name itself, was considered by the Hebrews as too holy to utter so the Hebrew word adonai (Lord) was substituted when the text was read. Most modern translations have set Lord in upper-case type, LORD, to indicate YHWH is meant. The designation "tetragrammaton" is from the Greek, meaning "four letters". --Hank | ||||||
6833 | significance of the number forty | Matt 4:2 | Hank | 4352 | ||
The number "forty" could well be tied in with purification or cleansing periods in the examples you cite, or even with times of testing, such as Jesus' forty days and nights in the wilderness. Your interpretation makes as good a sense as any if one presumes any symbolic significance to the number. It does not seem to be in serious conflict with John MacArthur's view -- that forty simply means forty, or that forty is a Hebrew figure of speech to indicate a period of time longer than a month. Whatever the specific meaning may be, we can be sure from the internal evidence that Noah's Flood was considerably more than a rain shower and that Jesus' fast involved significantly more than going without lunch for a day. At all events, the time frames are subordinate in importance to the stirring dramas that took place within them. --Hank | ||||||
6834 | Communion, how often? | 1 Cor 11:25 | Hank | 4276 | ||
Charis, since Jesus said only "as often as you do this" it should be in remembrance of Him, one would be hard pressed, it seems to me, to attach any mandatory time schedule to the sacred ordinance. There are those communions who observe the Lord's Supper weekly or even more frequently. There are others who observe it less frequently, perhaps monthly or quarterly. In the church I attend, it is the view that too frequent an observance runs the risk of causing it to become merely a routine observance, mechanical and diluted in meaning. When we observe the Lord's Supper, the entire service -- the music, the pastor's message, everything -- is dedicated to this one ordinance of our Lord. It is beautiful and truly meaningful. --Hank | ||||||
6835 | Does this explain Trinity? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4221 | ||
The creed of the venerable Saint Athanasius is stated with great beauty and felicity. A good deal of the language is reminiscent of the Apostles' Creed and the Nicene Creed. I'm in basic agreement with this creed except for the statement, "And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting." This statement mirrors a tenet of Roman Catholicism, a view not shared by many Protestants. It clashes sharply with the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, exclusive of works. A seminal passage to support this doctrine is Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as the result of works, so that no one may boast." His creedal statements regarding the Trinity are eloquently phrased, enlightening, and seem to be thorougly based on scriptural teaching. Thanks for posting. --Hank | ||||||
6836 | Where is "accept Christ" in the Bible? | Acts 24:3 | Hank | 4213 | ||
In deference to my fine colleagues on the Forum, I believe the key issue under consideration is a semantic, not a theological, one. The first definition of "accept" in Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is "to receive willingly." To receive and to accept mean virtually the same thing; I see no merit of one term over the other. Paul in 2 Cor. 6:2 uses a word that the NASB and other translators rendered as "acceptable" in this passage: "Behold, now is the acceptable time, behold now is the day of salvation." Webster's first definition of "acceptable" is "capable or worthy of being accepted." I'm as conservative a creature as just about anyone who ever came down the pike, but I fail to see anything instrinsically non-scriptural with accept in the context of "to accept Christ." It is a monument to the richness and scope of the English language to have synonyms such as "receive" available for those whose orientation leads them feel more comfortable with an alternate term. There are far more serious threats to sound teaching, with vastly greater potential to do harm, being promulgated by some modern theologians than the issue of accept versus receive. --Hank. | ||||||
6837 | Do you believe once save, always saved. | Luke 23:43 | Hank | 4207 | ||
Your answer is a fine one, well stated. I think much of the misunderstanding regarding the teaching on the eternal security of the believer stems from a misunderstanding of what grace really is, an outpouring of God's "agape" love that is unconditional and has nothing whatever to do with our good works. But at the same time we are not exempted from walking in the same manner as Christ walked (1 John 2:6) nor from making disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19). We are not to continue in sin so that grace may increase (Romans 6:1). Clearly the Bible teaches that we are not to accept the generous offer of salvation by grace through faith and be done with it. Dietrich Bonhoeffer calls this "cheap grace." --Hank | ||||||
6838 | Three different heavens in the Bible? | 2 Cor 12:2 | Hank | 4183 | ||
In my happy life I have made three sound and satisfying decisions (1) To accept Jesus as my Savior and Lord at age 14; (2) to marry the woman I fell in love with 42 years ago; and (3) to purchase the MacArthur Study Bible. How frequently he comes to my rescue when I come across a passage or locution in the Bible on which I need more light. Of Paul's difficult passage in 2 Cor. 12:2, John MacArthur says: "Paul was not describing two separate visions; the 'third heaven' and 'Paradise' are the same place (cf. Rev.2:7 which says the tree of life is in Paradise, with Rev.22:14, which says it is in heaven). The first heaven is the earth's atmosphere (Gen.8:2; Deut.11:11; 1 Kings 8:35); the second is interplanetary and interstellar space (Gen.15:5; Ps.8:3; Is.13:10); and the third the abode of God (1 Kings 8:30; 2 Chr.30:27; Ps.123:1" The "man in Christ" was Paul himself, as MacArthur points out in another footnote. --Hank | ||||||
6839 | Is God responsible for evil? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 4168 | ||
Lionstrong, I have read your postings and I do not remotely believe, or suggest, that you are anything less than sincere, or that your motives are base, or anything else of the kind. I, therefore, do not impugn your motives; I patently disagree with your conclusions about God being responsible for evil in the world. I truly believe your method of arriving at this conclusion is the major culprit. I will address that promptly, but first I will tell you that I did indeed look at how JVH defined "responsible" and at how my Merriam-Webster Collegiate dictionary defined it, and there is absolutely no difference between the way JVH used the word and the way the dictionary defines it. "Responsibile" is not really too difficult a concept for most of us to grasp. I think it fair to say that the average fourth-grade student has a working knowledge of what the word means.The Bible verses which you claim support your hypotheses are John 1:3 and 1 Cor. 8:6. The former merely states that "all things came into being through Him" -- Him being the antecedent of the Word in verse 1. The Word (logos) was, of course, Christ. The latter is a Christian affirmation of the Shema in Deut. 6:4; both are strong foundational statements that Judaism and Christianity are, both of them, monotheistic. From those two verses you were able to postulate that (1) God is the primary cause of evil (2) God is not liable to be called on to answer for evil (3) God is to blame for evil (4) Evil is all God's fault. Have you ever studied logic? Let's use a couple of examples.EXAMPLE 1 -- A car maker makes a car. A careless driver runs the car into a bridge abutment, destroys the car and kills himself. Therefore, the car maker is responsible for the driver's death, because if the car had never been made (or created, so to speak) the driver never would have had the accident. EXAMPLE 2 -- A carpenter builds a house. An airplane crashes into the house, destroying it and inflicting serious injury to the occupants of the house. Therefore, the carpenter is responsible for the injuries, because had he never built the house, the airplane could not have crashed into it, and obviously there would have been no occupants in a house that did not exist.What it is wrong with these examples? They have assigned the effect to the wrong causation. In the first example, the creator of the car had nothing to do with the car wreck. The driver did, by not obeying the rules. In the secod example, the carpenter (creator of the house) had nothing to do with its distruction and the injuries that ensued. The airplane (possibly the pilot) was the responsible agent in the destruction of the house.Let's put one of your hypothoses in a formula of logic. God created the world. There is evil in the world as the result of man's disobedience to God's laws. Therefore, God is responsible for evil. You see, the "logic" to your argument is not logical.Lionstrong, I do not blast you. I don't even know your name, and I bear no personal ill will against you in any manner. I echo your call to pray for each other, and I do pray. What I "blast" if that is a word you feel befits my former posting, is any statement, suggestion, or innuendo that says, in effect, that our pure and holy God is responsible for evil in this world. He is the God who sent His precious Son to die so that we, having our evils and sins cast on Him, might live eternally. Blessing and peace to you in Jesus' name. --Hank | ||||||
6840 | Did Hezekiah make the right choice? | 2 Kin 20:3 | Hank | 4138 | ||
Nolan, in my many years of reading and study, I have discovered in the Bible many things that I do not understand completely, if at all. I'm like Job. I just don't get it all. And God is still the God who spoke to Job, beginning in Job 38, in which He employed a series of more than 70 questions to Job directly to show Job his ignorance and God His greatness. Yes, there are a large number of imponderables and mysteries in the Bible, but there is at least an equal number of things that are as clear as crystal. There is no doubt that God loves us so much that he gave us His only Son so that, believing on Him, we may have eternal life. And Nolan, I am assured that you know about Jesus, and I am equally assured that you know Him. Your zeal for Him comes through in your writing.As for the mysteries? My mother was so fond of the old hymn that has the line, "We'll understand it better bye and bye." My pastor once remarked that perhaps he should keep a notebook of all the questions he wanted to ask God when he got to heaven, and to take the notebook with him when he died so he wouldn't forget any of them! God bless you and keep you, my young friend. --Hank | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 ] Next > Last [349] >> |