Results 81 - 100 of 132
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Jalek Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | OT saints went Paradise when they died | Bible general Archive 4 | Jalek | 239218 | ||
Greetings, It was explained to me once that salvation begins with belief in Christ and repentance of sin. After the coming of the Christ, it's belief in his saving work on the cross. However, before the Christ, it was faithfulness to the Law and belief in the future work of the coming messiah. It still boiled down to faith and belief in Christ. The Old Testament prophets called for repentance time and time again, prophesied the saving work of the messiah, and taught the spiritual necessity of adhering to the Law. The Old Testament saints who rested in Abraham's Bosom were those who did such. Jalek |
||||||
82 | How does it make them ashamed? | Ezek 43:10 | Jalek | 239191 | ||
Greetings, Prophecy comes in two forms: Fore-telling and Forth-telling. But first, what is the role of the Prophet? The role is, simply put, to bring God's message and judgment to the People. Fore-telling is what we commonly think of when it comes to prophecy. As the name suggests, it's focus is on the future. In the Fore-telling aspect, the Prophet declares the warning of God's pending judgment or future blessings to the people so they can either repent or strive harder. Forth-telling brings God's current message to the people, be it a message of judgment or blessing. An example of this is comparing Jonah to Nahum. Both prophets spoke against Nineveh. However, they were separated by at least 100 years. Jonah presented the "fore-telling" message of Nineveh's doom. The people of Nineveh repented for a while, but fell back into their old ways. Nahum comes along a 100 years later to "forth-tell" or bring forth the message of God's dissatisfaction. God was willing to spare them, but they fell back into their old ways. So, God sent his prophet to make good on his warning. The message in Ezekiel 43:10 isn't necessarily predictive, but it is an analogy used by the prophet to help the jews understand how far they have fallen from God's intended path. He uses the Temple because that, at the time, was the center of Jewish worship. It would have struck a cord, as it were, with every Jew who read or heard Ezekiel's message. Jalek |
||||||
83 | How does it make them ashamed? | Ezek 43:10 | Jalek | 239170 | ||
Greetings, I've already covered this. There is God's standard of what he considers to be good and righteous living. That is spelled out in the Law. He sent his prophets prior to the coming of the Christ as messengers to show the people how far away from God's standard they are. Each prophet at different times used different methods to show that. Ezekiel often uses building and construction metaphors. Hosea married a prostitute, which was to be descriptive of how God sees idolatry. He views it the same as adultery. There are other prophets who used different metaphors, but the intended purpose was to bring the people back in line with God's standard. Jalek |
||||||
84 | Matthew 26:29 | Matt 26:29 | Jalek | 239166 | ||
Greetings, He's administering the Passover supper to his disciples, which would be known as the Lord's Supper. What he's saying to them is that this would be his last meal. So, he's preparing his disciples once again for his coming death. Jalek |
||||||
85 | How does it make them ashamed? | Ezek 43:10 | Jalek | 239148 | ||
Greetings, As I said, God, through his prophet, is using an analogy. A cubit is a unit of measure that is about 18 inches. He's saying basically, "You have defiled my temple. You've fallen far from grace. This is how my holy temple should be, and this is how you should behave. This is what you should be doing, but you're not doing it." Jalek |
||||||
86 | How does it make them ashamed? | Ezek 43:10 | Jalek | 239144 | ||
Greetings, They were obedient enough to enter the Promised Land as opposed to the original generation that came out of Egypt. After that, things went downhill. Jalek |
||||||
87 | How does it make them ashamed? | Ezek 43:10 | Jalek | 239138 | ||
Greetings, Wow, you sure are dusting off the old ones. LOL. Okay, an example of what I'm referring to. The Jews, in their history, go from one extreme to the other. They go from being obedient to the Law, to rebelling against God's Law, and then back to obeying God's law to the extreme. If I were to choose an example out of the Bible for such things, I would say that the Adulterous woman in John 8 is a good example. Jesus is approached by a group of Jews who bring him a woman who committed adultery and got caught. Now, they wanted to stone her for committing the act. The Law does teach that in Leviticus 20:10. However, they fail to add that the one she slept with should also be put to death as well. This law is repeated in Deuteronomy 22:22, and it says that the reason is to purge the nation of evil. So, their interpretation and execution of God's given Law in this matter was deficient. Further more, Jesus writes something in the dirt of the ground that convicts and shames them. What he writes is unknown, but it could be their sins in which they should be stoned for, or it could be the names of the woman's lovers who was in the crowd, or their mistresses. The possibilities are limitless. Why did I use this as an example? The Jews had the Law available, but instead of following it measure by measure, they instead slipped on a couple things. This is an example. If they were to be truly in line with the law, they would have brought forth both the Woman and the Man together. Now, here's another example, probably one that will hit closer to home. In metal work, there is a measuring device called a "Micrometer" that is used to gauge the thickness of metals. This is a very precise instrument, some of them measuring down to a thousandths of an inch. With continued use and normal wear, this device can get out of sync, and become imprecise. Therefore, to recalibrate the instrument, a standard is used. This standard is a known thickness, and the micrometer is set to it, and adjusted appropriately until it reads the correct thickness. This is an analogy of what I'm talking about. God's word is our standard. During the days of the Old Testament, specifically in the time of Ezekiel, that standard consisted of the Mosaic Law. By describing the details of what the Temple should be in comparison to how it was then, God is using Ezekiel to show the Jews how far away from God's standard they had fallen, and how far they needed to come to be recalibrated. Jalek |
||||||
88 | Did it start as a legal brief? | Luke | Jalek | 239124 | ||
Greetings, An investigative reporter trying to prepare a news article on a major event would do the same. Is he writing a legal brief? No, he's making sure that he's taking down precise information before relaying it to the public. A publisher wanting a book on a historical event will hire appropriate people to not only write the book, but investigate the accounts. Point being, a lawyer wouldn't be the only one to pursue eyewitness accounts. Acts doesn't focus entirely on Paul. Paul is a major player in the early church, and the book of Acts relays his importance. However, the first half is about Peter and the other Apostles. The major leaders of the early church were Peter and John. Almost all of the Apostles are mentioned at least once in Acts. As far as who Theophilus is, as I mentioned before, he's more than likely some kind of Roman Official, or very wealthy, given that he's addressed as "Most Excellent". Jalek |
||||||
89 | who were the twelve disciples, what were | Acts | Jalek | 239114 | ||
Greetings, Why not read the first chapter as a whole, and you'll be able to answer those on your own. Jalek |
||||||
90 | Question from the story of Job | Job | Jalek | 239102 | ||
Greetings, My advice when it comes to getting back into the Bible is to begin with 1st John. John's writings were written to counter a 1st century heresy called Gnosticism. A lot of what he says applies to the Christian who has questions as well. Don't stop at just 1st John, but read 2nd and 3rd John as well as the Gospel of John. Read them, study them, and when you're done, read them again. Jalek |
||||||
91 | Question from the story of Job | Job | Jalek | 239095 | ||
Greetings, I can understand your confusion, and many Christians have asked similar questions. Let me see if I can help you with some clarity. First off, the interaction between God and Satan at the beginning of Job wasn't actually a temptation. God actually starts the conversation by gloating to Satan about the faithfulness of Job. Satan makes a simple, yet obvious statement in that Job is faithful for a reason. It's Satan's belief that if God stops protecting Job, then Job will curse God. God doesn't believe Satan. So, these two make a wager, if you will. Basically, the entire story of Job is all about a cosmic bet between God and Satan with poor Job stuck in the middle. So, while on the surface, it seems like Satan is tempting God when in actuality, Satan was responding to God's gloating. God told Satan that he can do anything he wanted to Job, but to not kill him. Satan put Job through the proverbial wringer, but Job remained faithful to God. Thanks to Job's faith, God won the bet. Secondly, God doesn't tempt us, but he does test or try us. It's a way of helping us grow stronger. Remember, God won't put you through any more than what he knows you can deal with. Thirdly, God is described as jealous in that he wants to be the one worshipped. Let me ask you this. How would you feel if you found out if your spouse was unfaithful and sleeping with others? Anyone in that situation would be very upset. God is no different when it comes to worshipping him or worshipping something else. In fact, you'll find all through the Old Testament where Idolatry is described as a form of divine adultery. His prophet Hosea uses this symbolism. As for his wrath and vengeance, It's a righteous wrath. He's angry at sin and sinners for a reason. He punishes them righteously. Even Jesus got mad, and started whipping people with a make shift whip. However, he was still sinless. Being angry isn't a sin. Being angry for the wrong reasons, and acting sinfully while angry is what makes anger so dangerous. In conclusion, God doesn't give us more to handle than he knows we can deal with. Sometimes, it seems like there is no end, but God sees over the next hill. Remember the words of the Prophet Isaiah. It helps me to get through and trust in the Lord. "Those who wait for the Lord will gain new strength; they will mount up with wings like eagles, they will run and not get tired, they will walk and not become weary." God doesn't say when he'll bless us. He just promises that we will be blessed beyond our wildest dreams. Trust in God, Pray without ceasing, and read his word. Jalek |
||||||
92 | generational curses and the bible | Ezek 18:4 | Jalek | 239093 | ||
Greetings, Actually, I don't hold stock in generational curses due to the words of Ezekiel. In Ezekiel 18, God tells his prophet that the sins of one person won't carry over to future generations, but that the person who sins will be held accountable for his own sins. This prophecy is also reflected in Habakkuk chapter 2, Romans chapter 1, and Romans chapter 6. So, I would say that generational curses ended with the coming of the Christ. Jalek |
||||||
93 | Songs Of Songs | Song of Solomon | Jalek | 239091 | ||
Greetings, It's a love song, and it's included with the poetry and wisdom section of the Old Testament. The Bible has a few common themes that carry throughout all 66 books. Love and marriage are two of those themes. The Song of Solomon is about a young man and a young woman professing their love for each other. Jalek |
||||||
94 | bible verse as church in male venacular | NT general | Jalek | 239089 | ||
Greetings, Actually, there aren't any. The Church is described as a woman for two very good reasons. First, the church is referred to as "The Bride of Christ", and the relationship between Jesus and the Church is to be as close as a married couple should be, meaning they should be as one entity if you will. The second, and most important, reason why the Church is referred to as a female is due to the language. Unlike English, Greek and Hebrew words also have gender in addition to number, person, and so forth. This is a strange concept for people who only speak English, but if you've studied other foreign languages, then it's not as strange. There are many modern day languages that have a gender component to their terms as well. The term for church in the greek is ekklessia, which is feminine in the greek. Jalek |
||||||
95 | Mark 14:33 | Mark 14:33 | Jalek | 239078 | ||
Greetings, Peter, James, and John were known as the Inner Circle. They were basically his best friends. His time in the garden was a very personal and deeply troubling time for him. He asked them along for added support, and to keep watch. After all, people were out to get him. So, that is my take on why he brought only them. Basically, he wanted the added company, and so he brought his three best friends. Jalek |
||||||
96 | how many brothers and sisters did Jesus | OT general | Jalek | 239074 | ||
Greetings, We're not sure, but since there is mentioned "Brothers" and "Sisters" plural, then we can assume he had at least two half-brothers and two half-sisters. We do know that the New Testament authors James and Jude were his half-brothers. Jalek |
||||||
97 | explain Genesis 6:2-4 | 2 Pet 2:4 | Jalek | 239059 | ||
Greetings, First off, my reply wasn't to Doc nor to you, but to the original poster. Secondly, I find the notion that you believe me to be some secular troublemaker disturbing since there is absolutely zero proof of such accusations in anything I have written in my short time here. For that, I would like an apology. Thirdly, I didn't turn to any secular sources at all. I provided an interpretation of the passage based on the grammar, hermeneutics, and simple common sense. As for Mark 12, yes, read the context. The topic is a question of who's wife will she be? Jesus answers that at the time, there will be no marriage, but that it will be for them as it is for the angels now. Meaning, that there will be no marriage. Now, to imply that Angels neither marry nor are given in marriage is not a great stretch of the context, but is plain in the text. My point in using this passage is to discredit the notion that the identity of the Sons of God in Genesis 6 is angels. This is based partly on the fact that the "Sons of God" took wives. As for Hebrews 1, again, the topic is comparing Jesus to Angels, and the rhetorical question is made of which angel did God declare to be his child? The answer, which I stated before, is obvious. None of them. Again, this also applies to discredit the identity of the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6 as being angels because, as Hebrews implies, no angel has been called "a son of God". Now, my use of Romans 8:14 and 1 John 3:1 is to help support my main belief that the identity of the Sons of God in Genesis 6 is the line of Seth, who appeared to have been obedient to God's will, which carries a similar meaning to the usage in Romans and 1 John. A broader definition would "Human believers" As for the explanation of the Trinity, if you had read what I said, it should be clear. The only obscure use of the phrase "Sons of God" is found in Job. I was providing an alternative interpretation of the use of that phrase in Job as a pre-emptive explanation as to one of the more popular support passages that people will use to say that the Sons of God in Genesis 6 are angels. They will often use Job. My theory on the dinosaurs is just a simple explanation on who the nephilim really are. They can't be the offspring of the Sons and Daughters because they were already living when the two groups mated. Therefore, it means something else, as I explained before. Now, I have given my explanation on the passage, and I have provided this added bit of clarity. For the record, I did stick to the topic at hand, which was identifying the Sons of God and the Nephilim in Genesis 6. I pulled from resources found elsewhere in the Bible to support my claims. Never did I cite a resource outside the Bible. If you wish to believe in the myth of angels mating with humans, and creating demigods straight out of the tales of Greek Mythology, go ahead. Personally, I'll believe what I've supported, that this was a time when the godly line of Seth intermarried with the ungodly line of Cain, and it happened when the nephilim still walked the earth. Jalek |
||||||
98 | explain Genesis 6:2-4 | 2 Pet 2:4 | Jalek | 239043 | ||
Greetings, As Doc mentioned before, there are a lot of posts on this topic. However, understanding this passage is a lot simpler than you might imagine. First off, forget the idea of angels coming down and doing the dirty with humans. That's straight out of mythology and doesn't have any support Biblically. In fact, the Bible in other places teaches against this theory. The strongest is in Mark 12:25. Jesus says that Angels "neither marry nor are given in marriage." Now, Genesis 6:2 specifically says that the "Sons of God" took "wives" from among the "Daughters of Men". Now, another place is in Hebrews 1:5. The writer asks a rhetorical question "To which of the angels did He ever say 'You are my son, today I have begotten you'?" The answer is obvious. None of them. In fact, no where in the Bible do you read that Angels are the Sons of God. Now, some will bring up Job 1:6 and Job 38:7 where the term "Sons of God" is used and seems to imply "angels". However, there is another interpretation that also fits in the context, and one that very few seem to suggest. The phrase "sons of God" comes from two Hebrew words: "Bene" for "Sons" and "Elohim" for "God". Now, "Bene" does mean a biological male offspring, but it can also mean "a member of or one who is loyal to a group or an organization". "Elohim" is plural in Hebrew, which means "three or more". There's a separate number for two called "Dual". The singular form is "El" or "Elah". Also, Elohim takes most of it's verbs and modifiers in the singular and is often treated as singular instead of plural. Now, put those two together in the context of Job, and you have people who are members of a group called "God", and the group is composed of at least three members, but treated as one entity. What does that sound like? To me, it's almost a text book definition of the Trinity, and it's found in the Old Testament. So, now that the passages in Job are explained, what does "Sons of God" mean in Genesis? There's another definition for the phrase. Jesus is called the Son of God, but so are human believers. 1 John 3:1 comes right out and says it, as does Romans 8:14. Now, remember this. "bene" has an implied meaning of loyalty as well as "offspring". With that perspective, and given that the context is actually speaking about males and females coming together, then the strongest support is that the "Sons of God" in Genesis are humans believers who have up until that point been obedient to God, which would point to Seth's lineage given how one of Seth's descendants is described as having "walked with God". Conversely, "Daughters of Men" would be those women who followed the footsteps of man, or Adam, and were disobedient. This points, obviously, to Cain's line. That explains both the "Sons of God" and the "Daughters of Men". So, how about the Nephilim or Giants? For that, pay close attention to how verse 4 begins. It's so obvious, that everyone seems to miss it. "The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterwards, when the Sons of God came in to the daughters of Men ...". Did you catch it? When the Sons and the Daughters came together, the Nephilim were already in existence!!! How can the Nephilim be the offspring if they were already living when the sons and daughters mated?? It is so blatantly obvious that it sticks out like a sore thumb, but a lot of people miss it for some reason. So, if the Nephilim aren't the offspring, then who are they? That is also a given. It's a time reference. This took place at a time when this group of "creatures", for lack of a better term, walked the earth. The term of Nephilim is used in only one other place, and that's in Numbers to describe how big the canaanites were. The Nephilim in Numbers cannot be the descendants of the ones in Genesis. Why? Because there's a big "WET" event that separates the two called "The Great Flood". That changes the meaning of Nephilim from identifying a race of people to being a term to describe stature. Now, put that into perspective and what do you get? Here's a hint. What group has science proven that existed, but the Bible seems suspiciously silent about? Perhaps Dinosaurs? Could "nephilim" be a term to describe the size of a dinosaur and that the use in Genesis 6 is telling us that this happened when they still walked the earth while the use in Numbers is saying that the people the spies encountered where as big as dinosaurs? It fits. The simplest explanation is the one I just described. The context doesn't support "Angels" being the "Sons of God". All you have in the chapter's prior and following are God dealing with humans and hardly any serious mention of Angels until much later when you get into the stories of Abraham. Jalek |
||||||
99 | evanglical hermeneutical approach mean | Bible general Archive 4 | Jalek | 238995 | ||
Greetings, Basically, hermeneutics is the field of proper interpretation of the Bible. This includes exegesis, or getting the meaning out of the passage. It's a big and complicated series of terms that basically mean to study in context. I had a class at bible college where I got my religion degree called "Religious Authority and Biblical Interpretation", or "RABI" for short. It was all about hermeneutics. Hermeneutics basically gives principles on identifying the parts of the context, how to study the context, applying the context, and organizing the information in a workable outline. The context basically includes two primary parts: Greater and Immediate. Others might have different terms for them, but the basic definition is that the Greater Context is the background information. This includes the locations mentioned in the passage, the author of the passage, the people focused on in the passage, as well as the culture of the people in the passage. It also refers to the intended audience. The Greater Context also includes the passages immediately before and after the focus passage. The immediate context is the passage itself, and what it says. It also includes the grammar, language, theology taught, and literary style. Having a basic understanding of Hebrew and Greek is often helpful in hermeneutics. Now, apart from getting a degree from a major university in the field, you can accomplish much of the same thing by keeping in mind four simple phrases, which also coincide with the basic tenants of Hermeneutics. 1) Context is king! Basically, don't take a passage out of context. It's like reading the verse that says "Judas went out and hanged himself" and believing that suicide by hanging is permissible. Many false religions/denominations/teachings have come about because people didn't pay attention to the context, and yanked a verse out to apply their own meaning to it. Read the series of verses before and after the focus verse. Read the entire chapter if you have to, or even the entire book if you need to in order to get a proper understanding of that verse. 2) Scripture interprets Scripture! Are you confused about the meaning of a certain phrase or word? Look it up in the concordance, and read how it is used elsewhere in the Bible. More often than not, a similar meaning for the word or phrase is carried throughout the Bible. 3) The Simplest explanation is usually correct! As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 14, God is not the author of confusion. When you have multiple options for what a passage means, and you'll have that come up quite often, lay them out as it were and approach from which is the simplest to wrap your mind around. Nine times out of ten, the simplest explanation will be on the mark. 4) You're studying History, not mythology! This is a major mistake done by most secular readers. They approach the Bible from the belief that it's just like Homer's Illiad or the stories of Hercules's trials. The Bible is the recorded history of Israel and the Early Church, not a collection of myths and legends like some secular skeptics like to claim. As for why it matters, well, it should be obvious. It's important to study the Bible properly. It's our guide into the will of God. Many people have been led astray by false teachers who ignored the basic guidelines of proper biblical interpretation, and warped the Bible into supporting their own weird ideas. Many of those false teachings are listed as heresies. Proper interpretation helps steer you away from them. Jalek |
||||||
100 | does someone know what it means. | 2 John | Jalek | 238993 | ||
Greetings, This is a standard greeting used by John, Jude, Paul, and Peter at the start of most of their writings. The promotion of Grace, Mercy, and Peace is unique in the New Testament, and it is a mainstay of Christian Theology. While the Old Testament does speak of a coming peace, most of the prophecies it contains are about judgment. So, this teaching that Grace, Mercy, and Peace comes from God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit was a radical teaching at the time. There's also something else to consider as well when it comes to John's addition of "in truth and love". Most of his writings, especially his epistles, was written to counter a heretical movement within the early church called Gnosticism. Gnosticism basically taught that Man's body was evil and that only the spirit is good. They also taught that salvation was in the form separation from the physical body. They also denied that Jesus the man was God and denied that God could come in the flesh. Rather, they believed that Jesus was a man who was possessed by the spirit of God. Because of their views on the body being evil, they treated the body harshly as well. When you read John's epistles in light of what Gnosticism taught, much of it makes a lot of sense. Jesus's teachings "I am the way, the truth, and the life ..." was directly opposite of gnostic teachings, as was his teachings on love. John, in his first epistle, places a heavy emphasis on Christian love. In fact, he goes so far to say that a person who does not love is not saved. Again, this counters how Gnosticism viewed the physical world. They didn't act out of love, but hatred because they viewed matter as evil and spirit as good. So, this message of grace, mercy, and peace is intended to remind people the basic beliefs and behavior of Christianity, and to remind people that it was brought to us in love and in truth by God and Jesus Christ. Jalek |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |