Results 81 - 100 of 132
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Jalek Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | When fasting can I drink coffee? | Matt 6:16 | Jalek | 240186 | ||
Greetings Doc, I believe the Bible does provide enough insight to give an answer. Fasting is mentioned several times throughout the Bible, and lasts for varying durations up to 40 days. Now, given that the human body can't go without food and water that long, it's reasonable to assume that water and bread were acceptable. In many cases throughout scripture, people who fasted abstained from even bread and water. According to Leviticus 23, people fasted at certain times through the year, such as the Day of Atonement, in order to humble themselves and atone for their sins before God. Isaiah 58 and Zachariah 7 speak of what is proper for a fast. It's the motive. Are you fasting because it's required or expected? Are you fasting because you want people to see how pious you are? Or are you fasting because you wish to correct your relationship with God and come closer to him? Now, to readdress the issue from the original question of drinking coffee in the middle of a fast. The idea of a fast is to abstain or go without. If one drinks coffee all the time, and continue through the Fast, is that person really fasting for the right motives? No, its more like a coffee only diet than fasting. Jalek |
||||||
82 | danger of small sins lead to larger sins | Matt 15:18 | Jalek | 240615 | ||
Greetings, One problem with this question is the assumption that there are different categories of sins. The Bible makes no such claims about degrees of severity when it comes to sin. Sin is sin, and all sin is an act of disobedience against God's will. It is man's need to justify his sin that classifies sin into greater sins like the so called "Seven Deadly Sins" and lesser sins like the "Little White Lie". The so called "Seven Deadly Sins" are not found in the Bible, but is actually a misinterpretation of Proverbs 6:16-19. However, when you look at the context, Lying and Murder are both viewed as equal in the eyes of God. With that said, there are passages that hint to a progression of sins leading to more sinning. Psalms 14, Habakkuk chapter 2, Matthew 15:15-20, and Romans 1:18-32 all hint to this. Jesus in Matthew 15 clearly teaches that it is what comes out of the mouth of man that defiles him. In the following verse, he lists several sins in no real certain order, nor does he indicate any particular hierarchy. Paul and Habakkuk both claim that one sin leads to another as a result of Man's lack of faith and willful disobedience against God. Like Jesus, David in Psalms comes right out and describes man as corrupt to the core, and do not even consider doing good. Hope this helps, Jalek |
||||||
83 | danger of small sins lead to larger sins | Matt 15:18 | Jalek | 240617 | ||
Greetings Doc, It's ironic you bring up John 19, because I taught a lesson from that passage just this morning in church. Let me ask you this. Is Jesus referring to the severity of the sin or the quantity of sin? Think on this a moment before you answer and look at the context. Jesus spoke those words to Pilate after Pilate informed him of his authority to release Jesus. When you look at the triad of debates between Pilate, Jesus, and the Jews, you see that Pilate was really only guilty of one thing: cowardice. One could also make a strong case of murder in addition to cowardice since he pronounced Jesus innocent three times, but still sentenced him to death due to peer pressure from the Jews. Now, look at the Jews. Not only did they try to murder Jesus on more than one occasion, but they fabricated evidence, lied about his true message on several occasions, they allowed their pride and religious fanaticism cloud their judgment, and they did this in the hypocritical belief that they were following God's law which they were really breaking. Do you see where I'm coming from, Doc? I hope so. Pilate was one man in one place at one time. His sin was inconsequential in comparison to the multitude of sins of the Jews who handed Jesus over to him. So, I see this passage as referring to "greater" in terms of quantity rather than quality or severity. Jalek |
||||||
84 | danger of small sins lead to larger sins | Matt 15:18 | Jalek | 240620 | ||
thanks Doc. I appreciate that. I would have enjoyed having you in class. | ||||||
85 | MAT. 18:8? | Matt 18:8 | Jalek | 240451 | ||
Greetings, There's another interpretation to this passage than the vanity of clinging to temporal things. Jesus is speaking of things that cause us to stumble, or sin. He's saying that one should be willing to go to extremes to prevent himself from sinning. He's using these analogies as a way of getting his point across. If removing one of your eyes, hands, or feet will help prevent you from falling into the sin, then what is the loss of those parts and entering heaven in comparison to losing your body intact and soul in hell? Jalek |
||||||
86 | 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 |
||||||
87 | What Cup was Jesus talking about? | Matt 26:39 | Jalek | 240476 | ||
Greetings, It's an idiom. Basically, Jesus is asking God the Father if it is at all possible for the coming events to not take place. He's distressed and nervous over the coming beatings and crucifixion. In Dr. Luke's account of this prayer, he describes Jesus as praying with drops of blood, which is a medical condition brought on by severe stress where the blood vessels and sweat glands touch each other. It makes the skin very sensitive. Basically, the Cup represents all that is about to happen to Jesus. This is eluded to earlier in Matthew 20:20-23. The same basic meaning applies in both passages. Jalek |
||||||
88 | please interpret significance | Mark 4:11 | Jalek | 239606 | ||
Greetings, In the case of Mark 4:11-12, Jesus quotes Isaiah 6:9-10 to explain why he uses parables to teach with. Now, while Jesus is known for using parables to teach with, he wasn't the only one in the Bible. Many of the old testament prophets used parables. His reasoning, as he explains, is to reveal the mysteries of God and Heaven to everyone. However, those who are closest to Christ will understand the meaning. Those who aren't will hear nothing but nonsense and riddles. This is why many people, both during the time of Christ and even now, have a hard time getting to the root meaning of parables. In Isaiah 6:9-10, this is a part of Isaiah's calling to becoming a prophet. His message from God was designed to harden the hearts of rebellious and ungodly while also instructing and guiding the faithful. This is similar to Jesus's purpose for speaking in parables, which is why he chose it as scriptural support for his method of teaching. Jalek |
||||||
89 | 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 |
||||||
90 | Did it start as a legal brief? | Luke | Jalek | 232400 | ||
Greetings, Theophilus was more than likely a roman official, and someone very wealthy. He apparently hired Dr. Luke to provide a history of christianity. I doubt that his works were for a legal brief due to the work and effort he went into writing them. Dr. Luke specifially mentions in one place that he visited the actual places, and spoke to eye witnesses, as well as being an eye witness himself for many of the events in Acts. Jalek |
||||||
91 | 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 |
||||||
92 | Luke 1:32-33 | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240489 | ||
Greetings, Check out Luke 3:23-38. This is believed to be the lineage you are asking for. Although it doesn't list Mary, but Joseph, Luke uses different language than Matthew does in Matthew 1:1-17. First thing to point out is that Matthew uses a term translated as "begat". Meaning that he's tracing through the genetic line. However when Matthew comes to Joseph and Jesus, he calls Joseph "The husband of Mary". He doesn't follow the pattern and say "Joseph begat Jesus". Thus meaning that the genetic line stops at Joseph, who is Jesus's adopted and legal father through the eyes of the Law and the Jews of his day. Luke, however, refers to Jesus as "the son of Joseph". Joseph was the adopted father, or earthly caregiver, of Jesus. Legally, Jesus would have been seen as his son. So, it is believed that Luke is following through Mary's lineage, but is instead referencing the heads of the house. So in summary, Matthew is following Jesus's line through his adopted father, using the genetic father and son. Luke is following through Mary's line, but he's listing the heads of the house. Second, as for Jesus's connection to David, look at both lists. Matthew, through the line of Joseph, his adopted father, was connected to David through Solomon. However, the throne was taken away from Solomon's line due to the actions of several of his descendants. However, through Mary, Jesus was connected to David through Solomon's brother, Nathan. Jalek |
||||||
93 | Jesus lineage through Mary!!! | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240491 | ||
Greetings, The explanation of Luke using the heads of houses was the one given to me by my New Testament professor when I asked a similar question when in College. However, for some references, here's an excerpt from the Biblical Illustrator which might explain it better than I am able to. The double genealogies of Christ as the Son of David The general facts are these— 1. The genealogy in St. Matthew descends from Abraham to Jesus, in accordance with his object in writing mainly for the Jews; whereas St. Luke’s ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, in accordance with his object in writing for the world in general. 2. The generations are introduced in St. Matthew by the word “begat”; in St. Luke by the genitive with the ellipse of “son.” 3. Between David and Zerubbabel St. Matthew gives only fifteen names, but St. Luke twenty-one; and they are all different except that of Shealtiel (Salathiel). 4. Between Zerubbabel and Joseph St. Matthew gives only nine generations, but St. Luke seventeen; and all the names are different. The difficulty as to the number of the generations is not serious. It is a matter of daily experience that the number of generations in one line often increases far more rapidly than that in another. Moreover the discrepancies in these two lists may all be accounted for by noticing that Matthew adopts the common Jewish plan of an arbitrary numerical division into tesseradecads. When this system was adopted, whole’ generations were freely omitted, for the sake of preserving the symmetry, provided that the fact of the succession remained undoubted (cf. Ezr_7:1-5 with 1Ch_6:3-15). The difficulty as to the dissimilarity of names will of course only affect the two steps of the genealogies at which they begin to diverge, before they again coalesce in the names of Shealtiel and of Joseph. A single adoption, and a single levirate marriage, account for the apparent discrepancies. St. Matthew gives the legal descent through a line of kings descended from Solomon—the jus successionis; St. Luke the natural descent—the jus sanguinis. St. Matthew’s is a royal, St. Luke’s a natural pedigree. Here's another excerpt from Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary: Have we in this genealogy, as well as in Matthew’s, the line of Joseph? or is this the line of Mary? - a point on which there has been great difference of opinion and much acute discussion. Those who take the former opinion contend that it is the natural sense of this verse, and that no other would have been thought of but for its supposed improbability and the uncertainty which it seems to throw over our Lord’s real descent. But it is liable to another difficulty; namely, that in this case Matthew makes Jacob, while Luke makes “Heli,” to be Joseph’s father; and though the same man had often more than one name, we ought not to resort to that supposition, in such a case as this, without necessity. And then, though the descent of Mary from David would be liable to no real doubt, even though we had no table of her line preserved to us (see, for example, Luk_1:2-32, and see on Luk_2:5), still it does seem unlikely - we say not incredible - that two genealogies of our Lord should be preserved to us, neither of which gives his real descent. Those who take the latter opinion, that we have here the line of Mary, as in Matthew that of Joseph - here His real, there His reputed line - explain the statement about Joseph, that he was “the son of Hell,” to mean that he was his son-in-law, as the husband of his daughter Mary (as in Rth_1:11, Rth_1:12), and believe that Joseph’s name is only introduced instead of Mary’s, in conformity with the Jewish custom in such tables. Perhaps this view is attended with fewest difficulties, as it certainly is the best supported. However we decide, it is a satisfaction to know that not a doubt was thrown out by the bitterest of the early enemies of Christianity as to our Lord’s real descent from David. On comparing the two genealogies, it will be found that Matthew, writing more immediately for Jews, deemed it enough to show that the Savior was sprung from Abraham and David; whereas Luke, writing more immediately for Gentiles, traces the descent back to Adam, the parent stock of the whole human family, thus showing Him to be the promised “Seed of the woman.” Jalek |
||||||
94 | Is Mary anyhow related to King David???? | Luke 3:23 | Jalek | 240493 | ||
Greetings, As I stated in my previous post, both of those were excerpts from two different sources that comments on the genealogies. As far as a Bible passage that states the genealogy in Luke is through Mary, there isn't one. However, I'm confused as to why you seem hesitant to extrapolate from Scripture, yet at the same time admit that the Bible is subject to individual interpretation. After all, Extrapolation and Interpretation go hand in hand with one another, especially when done through proper exegesis and hermeneutics. Now, as far as your primary question, "Is Mary anyhow related to King David?", the answer is obvious, and I'm surprised that it even needs to be asked. "Yes, she is." Why do we know this? The answer is equally simple, and the Bible does tell us. In Revelations 2:16, Jesus says it plainly, "I am the Root and Offspring of David." Now, since he's not born to Joseph, but born only to Mary, then we can EXTRAPOLATE that Mary was also an "Offspring" or a descendant of King David. Jalek |
||||||
95 | SEE ABOVE | Luke 9:23 | Jalek | 240314 | ||
Greetings, I'd encourage your pastor to be careful of the context. Jesus isn't saying for the person to take up the Cross of Jesus, but his own cross. This is an analogy. Basically, Jesus is saying that who ever is going to follow him should be willing to follow him to the death. Jalek |
||||||
96 | divorced-remarry makes one an adulterer? | Luke 16:18 | Jalek | 240472 | ||
Greetings, You're pretty much on the mark, but let me clarify. Recall your wedding vows ... "Till death do we part ...". It's not "Until we get sick and tired of each other ...". Biblical Marriage is until death, not until both parties get tired of being together. So, that's the primary reason why remarrying after divorce is the same as Adultery. Because the divorced person is still married in the eyes of God. Now, I realize this sounds harsh, but as God hates divorce, so do I. People in today's world treat marriage as something like a toaster oven they get on Christmas. If they don't like it, they can return it. Love isn't viewed as the most powerful of all emotions, but is viewed as something like their sunglasses and car keys, as if love is something that can be lost. Love never fails. Love never fades away. There's one last thing I want to point out is the reason behind divorce. In Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Moses explains that divorce is allowed if the woman is found to be unclean or indecent in some manner. Jesus, in Matthew 19:1-12, clarifies that a person who remarries after divorce commits adultery unless the reason for the divorce is because the spouse was immoral. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:10-16, first recommends reconciliation. However, he goes on to say that if the divorce happens because one is an unbeliever and leaves, then to let that one leave. Jalek |
||||||
97 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240785 | ||
Greetings, According to his promise to the thief on the cross, Jesus was in paradise. I'm not sure where the idea of Jesus going to Hell came from, but I think it's a misinterpretation of a passage in 1 Peter where it says that Jesus visited spirits which were locked up. Jalek |
||||||
98 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240791 | ||
Greetings, With all due respect, Doc, I do not believe that Jesus's spirit went to hell during the time his body was in the grave, and for a good reason. First, none of those verses state that Jesus went to hell. The only one that even comes close to saying that is Ephesians 4:9 which states that Jesus descended into the earth, which can be interpreted as being put into the grave. Second, if Jesus was in hell for those three days, then why did he lie to the thief on the cross? He told the thief, "Today you shall be with Me in paradise." To say he was in hell makes him to be a liar. So, it's not out of disrespect I say this. Its because it's biblical. If the Lockman foundation teaches that Christ went to hell, they need to change their doctrine, cause the Bible doesn't teach that. Oh, and by the way, Psalms 23 only has 6 verses. Jalek |
||||||
99 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240795 | ||
Greetings, Doc, again, with all due respect, where are these attacks against me about forum policy coming from? On several occasions, you've singled me out. All I did is what I have been doing from the beginning, and that is offer a valid interpretation of scripture, and backed up my claims with scripture as well as refuted other claims with scripture. If you have a problem with that, come right out and say so. Now, if this is about my comment that the Foundation needs to change their beliefs, then so be it, but my point stands. I'm not going to bend on what I believe just because some person comes along and tells me I have to. If I believe someone is teaching something contrary to the Bible, I'm going to speak up and say so, and that's exactly what I did. Jalek |
||||||
100 | what happened to Jesus in the grave? | Luke 23:43 | Jalek | 240796 | ||
Greetings, Actually, the term for the place of the dead was Sheol, not hades/hell. Hades/Hell was reserved for the wicked and unjust, but Sheol was for all the dead. Abraham's bosom or Paradise was the place for those who were faithful to God. Jalek |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Next > Last [7] >> |