14
Nicodemus Should Have Known from the Old Testament
That the Old Testament is the source of the doctrine is confirmed by Christ Himself, for Nicodemus was supposed to have known these things. A slightly larger context helps see this:
Jn 3:3-10 (NKJV)
3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you,
unless one is born again [or "born ...
9
No contradiction
There is not really anything contradictory about stating it this way just because Christ is understood to be pre-existent.1 This can be understood looking at it from two perspectives.
Human Perspective
You make the statement:
I would never say "I foreknow my son" if he is sitting next to me.
Yet I believe you can imagine a scenario ...
8
What does the text say?
This verse is fairly clear: baptism now saves you. However, there are two things worth noting:
For the early church, faith and baptism were never intentionally separated. Occasionally there was a small gap between the two, but generally they were always held together. And so when we try and interpret these sorts of verses we have to ...
8
Marriage isn't 50-50. It's both parties giving 100%. Dr. Emerson Eggerichs addresses the differences in the commands extensively in his book Love and Respect and on his website, most recently in a September 4 blogpost.
This verse doesn't mean that women don't have to love and men don't have to be subject to their wives. Paul was giving instructions about ...
7
The origin of the Christian teaching of the ‘new birth’ is at most partly an outworking of the Hebrew concept of a resurrection, it uses words in Greek that can barely be traced in other literature and on the whole is therefore entirely something new.
The Greek word used in 1 Peter 1:23 (αναγεγεννημενοι) is actually quite hard to find in any other Greek ...
6
My Hebrew is basic, but I do read Greek.
Sarah refers to Abraham as her kurios in Genesis 18:12 in the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament.) Yet she does not address him directly with that word
in her commentary of 1 Peter, Karen Jobes (2005:205) notes that "This noun [kurios] is the only lexical connection between the story of Sarah and Peter’s claim.”
...
6
To answer the question I think we need to need to consider the whole verse and its context.
Our English translations begin with “therefore” (οὖν), which suggests that Peter is drawing a conclusion from the previous verses (vv.18–22), where Peter writes about Christ’s victory over hostile powers through his death and resurrection.
The connection between the ...
6
The preponderance of the evidence appears to show that this is a reference to Rome.
John AT Robinson provided a helpful summary of supporting evidence that "Babylon" is a reference to Rome. (see p. 136 here)
The 'greetings from her who dwells in Babylon, chosen by God like you'
(5.13) is almost universally agreed to be a disguise for the church in
...
6
Are the imprisoned spirits in 1 Peter 3:19 human spirits or fallen angels?
Did the demons worry about being imprisoned by Jesus? Was there a prison for demons at
Peter's time.
The apostle Peter identifies these spirits as those who had “once been disobedient when the patience of God was waiting in Noah’s days.” (1 Peter. 3:20) Clearly, Peter was referring to ...
4
The word αἵματος (blood) is in the genitive case due to its subordination to the preceding noun, ῥαντισμὸν (sprinkling), a relationship reasonably well represented by the English "of" (i.e "sprinkling of blood"). I'm not sure exactly why you think it should be in the accusative case, but I can imagine at least two approaches that might lead to such ...
4
Not exactly. The better translation is in Young's:
"20 who sometime disbelieved, when once the long-suffering of God did wait, in days of Noah -- an ark being preparing -- in which few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water;
21 also to which an antitype doth now save us -- baptism, (not a putting away of the filth of flesh, but the question ...
4
Liddell & Scott reference the Greek word makran in order to explain molis, the idea of being 'a great way off'.
Thayer translates molis as 'with difficulty' or 'not readily'.
Luke uses the word in connection with a nautical difficulty related to wind conditions when sailing under Crete, they hardly (molis) passed it.
But there is nothing in Paul's words ...
4
This question incorrectly assumes that there is a Sarah 1.0 that was meek and obedient and a Sarah 2.0 was outspoken and did not obey him.
Sarah obeyed Abraham and called him Lord throughout her married life as was the norm in that time period. But obeying Abraham does not mean that the relationship was based on slavery. She let her needs and be known, and ...
4
The word μώλωψ in 1 Peter 2:24 is a hapax legomenon, and, according to BDAG means:
welt, wale, bruise, wound, caused by blows ... from the Attic ... "the swelling from a blow"
Further, the word as we find it in the text of 1 Peter 2:24 is indeed dative singular. Thus, the text should be strictly rendered something like:
... by whose bruise you ...
4
Given that Peter starts his letter by addressing God's scattered chosen ones (the elect, vss.1-2), who have experienced the sanctifying work of the Spirit to be obedient to Jesus Christ, he and they are the ones who have been given "new birth". They are the "us" who have been given new birth.
The Companion Bible helpfully translates this ...
4
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast
crowned him with glory and honour. (Psalm 8:5, KJV)
Man was made "a little lower than the angels," and Christ was a man. The Bible's teaching is that the man Jesus was not God. God is not a man (see Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29); but Jesus was a man, and the Son of Man (see Matthew ...
3
John says in his first letter, in verses 7 and 8, "For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
It is obvious that we are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ, in that our sins are fully payed for by the act of His death, and there no longer stands any accusation or record of wrong against us (...
3
Another perspective on this issue: why should Paul have counselled "love" in each of the three cases of domestic relationship in Colossians 3:18-20 (wives to husbands, husbands to wives, children to parents)? The question assumes that this disposition -- certainly a norm in modern western nuclear families -- is also the default social configuration in Greco-...
3
In addition to 3:19, we also have 4:6:
For this is why the gospel was preached even to the dead, that though judged in the flesh like men, they might live in the spirit like God.1
The preacher is Jesus and those being preached to are those from Old Testament times who had been consigned to Sheol (Gr. Hades). I lay out my support for this below.
πνεύματα ...
3
The Hebrew Bible speaks of "new birthing" involving water, which then later carries into the Christian New Testament. Specifically, water in the Hebrew Bible removes the contamination of death, and thus emerges "new life."
To begin, the simple Hebrew verb חָטָא means to sin, but in the intensive forms of the verb (Piel, Pual, and Hithpael) the meaning ...
3
The following text was originally part of my question. But it was pointed out that I really was answering my own question. What I really want is that this answer is to be supplemented with other views that from an academic point of view argue that this might be referring to something else than Rome.
Many scholars take this as referring to Rome for a good ...
3
The question implies that that law of non-contradiction is not well-understood. The Un-begotten Only Son and the Only Begotten Son are one and the same.
John calls him the Word (Joh 1.1, 1Jo 5:7 ) and it is by the Word that God created all things. (Eph 3:9, Col 1:16)
In his incarnation, he was formed in the womb;he was begotten. (Joh 1:14 ) Everything ...
3
1 Peter 3:3 ὧν ἔστω οὐχ ὁ ἔξωθεν ἐμπλοκῆς τριχῶν καὶ περιθέσεως
χρυσίων ἢ ἐνδύσεως ἱματίων κόσμος (1Pe 3:3 BGT)
A literal translation of the Greek would be “Let not your adornment be external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on clothes.”
Peter, however, is not forbidding the wearing of any clothes at all (as a literal reading of a ...
3
This is considered a textual variation. We have no explanation as to why. It appears that his Greek text had τῆς ἀγάπης instead of τῆς ἀληθείας.
1:22 ἀληθείας {A}
After ἀληθείας the Textus Receptus, following the later uncials (K P 049 056 0142) and most minuscules, adds the phrase διὰ πνεύματος. These words, whose absence from such early and good ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible