Theology Questions

This topic is for random questions you have that might not need an entirely new post. I have a few that I need to remember :P

I do have a question although not really important, but I still would like to know what others think.

When Jesus was taken in the Garden, was a roman cohort present at Jesus' arrest or was it solely guards from the Temple and assorted ruffians?

I heard the word "Band" = cohort in the greek. And some automatically assume that the romans are the only ones capable to muster up that many men.

But John said a couple times " A band of men and officers from the Jews"

Also, "as soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backwords and fell to the ground."

Did this happen to all that were there to arrest him or just the ones who were in closest proximity?

Not sure about the first one–I'll have to check into it when I have more time–but the second one, I think, is impossible to answer solidly, but could be either of the choices you gave.

For your first question… I am not really sure. In the movie the Passion of the Christ, Jesus was arrested by Jewish soldiers(but can we really trust Mel Gibson? :D). As to your second question… I have absolutely no idea. Lol we answered at the same time SBG :P

There really is no way for us to know, since the Bible doesn't tell us. Filmmakers and authors just imagine what must have happened, just like artists imagine what Jesus looked like. There really is no way for us to know, although we can guess.

Okay - I simply MUST reply to this.

As to the first question, I'll give the Greek words translated 'band of men/band of soldiers': (in John 18:3)

Ten speiran (tau-eta-nu sigma-pi-epsilon-iota-rho-alpha-nu)

Ten (pronounced, 'tane') is a form of the Greek definite article.

Speiran (pronounced, 'spayron') is the objective (literally, accusative) form of speira. Strong defines it, "of immediate Latin origin, but ultimately a derivative of 138 in the sense of its cognate 1507; a coil (spira, "spire"), i.e. (figuratively) a mass of men (a Roman military cohort; also (by analogy) a squad of Levitical janitors)".

Ten speiran is literally translated, as in Young's literal translation, 'the band'. NOT 'a band of men'. (Band may or may not mean cohort.)

To be fully honest, I don't know whether this was simply the temple guard, or a Roman cohort.

As to the second question, it seems to me that people here don't realize the significance of Jesus saying, "I am". (I could be wrong; perhaps you do realize it.)

Bear with me: Jesus was told that he was being sought. He said, "I am." He did NOT say, "I am he," as the phrase is often translated. However, his statement, "Ego eimi," (the literal Greek from John 18:6) is strong. The typical way to say, "I am," is "Eimi." Eimi means, 'I am'. However, when the first person pronoun, ego, is used, (Ego eimi) this is a strong, emphatic way to say, "I am." This construction, when in other words, is sometimes translated, 'I myself (verb).' So ego eimi is not simply, "I am he," it is, "I myself am."

The significance of a strong phrase? Remember what God spoke to Moses at the burning bush: "I am that I am." Remember too, the personal name for God, that was never spoken in public: YHWH. It means, "(the) self-Existent or Eternal," according to Strong.
So, Jesus said a very strong, "I myself am," and those who heard fell to the ground. They were, obviously, Jews, who were astounded at such a 'holy' statement.

Also, there is a textual variant here. "As soon then as he had said unto them," is, in some texts followed by the word, 'hoti.' In any case, it is not translated, even by the KJV, which used a text in which was the word hoti. Hmmm. Oh, yes - the meaning of hoti? "[N]euter of 3748 as conjunction; demonstrative, that[,] (sometimes redundant); causative, because," according to Strong.
"As soon then as he had said unto them, because, 'I myself am,' they went backward and fell to the ground." Interesting. Not the Greek expert people think I am, I don't know if this could be correct or not.

The objection will be raised that Jesus didn't actually say, "Ego eimi." He probably spoke in Aramaic, or even, but very unlikely, Hebrew. However, if he had truly said, a WEAK form of "I am," why would John have translated it as a STRONG form of "I am," in his gospel.

So, to directly answer the question, "Did this happen to all that were there to arrest him or just the ones who were in closest proximity?" I will say that I am quite confident that it happened to all the JEWS who HEARD Jesus. Jews who didn't hear Jesus would have no reason to fall, and Romans, whether they heard or didn't hear, most certainly wouldn't fall.

I hope this makes sense, and helps.

Thanks Guys! I would have responded sooner but my home computer is dead atm, so I am limited to the local Library. So I won't be able to stay long. but thank you for the Info !

Since I don't have my recorces here I did want to mention that the word Band was also mentioned in acts " The Italian Band" which I think was connected to a roman Cohort.. not sure now …. anyhow God Bless.

I just wanted to tell you insoloChristo, that your answer was remarkable!

I was in a hurry,and I was in a public library, so I was hasty in my reply. But I really wanted to applaud you and thank for that wonderful insight.

God bless you.

PS. I have a new computer now, thank you Jesus!

Thank you. :) I enjoy writing stuff like that.

Congratulations on the new computer!

There IS one question that has been bothering me for some time, Can a Christian have a demon?

Simply put, NO. If Jesus is indwelling a person's heart, no demon can ever enter.

ok, just wondering. Thanks for answering so fast by the way :P

@Danielle, I am not very experienced in this area, but I will try to share with you what the Lord has taught me. When you say a complete stranger to the Bible, do you mean someone that is Biblically illiterate, or someone who does not believe in the Bible at all?

As a side note, if you are looking for good information on witnessing, I would heartily recommend "Will Our Generation Speak?" by Grace Malley. It is a wonderfully written book that deals with witnessing, how to do it, strategies, and other things.

I guess I didn't really answer your question in that last comment, so I will try. If a person is Biblically illiterate, all you have to do is show them in the Scriptures how they can be saved.

If they reject the scriptures, you need to find out what their ultimate standard is; that is, what they believe is the final authority. It could be their teacher, a college professor, a statesman, or even their own minds. (By the way, this was based on a book I read by Jason Lisle entitled "The Ultimate Proof of Creation." I highly recommend it!) Now, if what they believe is truth, and it is something they formulated on their own, why do YOU have to believe it? Why can't you form your own opinions on the subject and say that THEY are the truth? If "truth" is only based on the opinions of people, it is not truth at all. Truth cannot be arbitrary; it must be absolute. That is, it cannot be opinionated unless that opinion is logically proven. Where does logic come from? The Bible! Without the Bible, there would be no place for logic, since truth would only be what you and I decide it to be. As this is clearly illogical, the need for logic would disappear. Therefore, truth must be based on an ultimate standard. Morality must be based on an ultimate standard. That ultimate standard is the Bible. Since the Bible is the ultimate standard for truth, it would not lie. Please remember, though, that telling this to them must be done humbly and kindly. If you are like me, it would be easy to rip right into them and expose their flawed thinking; however, they are people created in the image of God just like we are.

Anyhow, that's my two cents. To God be the glory!

If a person is Biblically illiterate, all you have to do is show them in the Scriptures how they can be saved.

While that is technically true, it is almost always necessary to start telling them about the Bible at its beginning. Tell them about who God is, about his creation, about our sin - those three at least are foundational to someone's understanding of the Bible. Make sure they know about all three.
We can compare Acts 2 and Acts 17 to see some of the significance of this:
Peter, in Acts 2, when preaching the gospel to Jews, did not begin at the beginning of the Scriptures. Why? The Jews already knew - they knew about the true God, his creation, and man's sin.
Paul, on the other hand, in Acts 17:22-31, was preaching to true Biblical illiterates. Yet there was one thing these philosophic Greeks understood - people aren't perfect; they do bad things. So Paul begins by telling them about God, (and touches on the creation), and then, and only then, gets to the gospel.

There are several possible objections to this, but I won't go into them here because I think you all probably agree.

Thank for that I no it seems like a simple question but diferent types of people repond to different things and sometimes a person will not be ready to receive something so 'religous' (I put quotes there on purpose) so in some cases actions can speak louder than words but if God wants u to witness to someone the holy spirit will give u the right words haha wow I just kinda answered my own question. :-)

Thomas, if I may interject: I think logic is apart from Scripture and not derived from it. If you mean that logic comes from the Logos in John 1, I'd agree :)

@ISC, very true. Thank you for correcting me on that point.

@alex, okay, let me refine that statement. Logic only makes sense in the context of Scripture. Logic makes no sense in an evolutionary worldview, since logic is constant. Thank you for bringing that up.

I find the Scripture to be completely clear on the question of who came to arrest Christ. It was a full Roman cohort and officers from the chief priests and the Pharisees. A full auxiliary Roman cohort had the potential strength of 1,000 men (i.e. 760 foot soldiers and 240 cavalry led by a chiliarch, or "leader of a thousand”). Usually, however, in practice a cohort normally numbered 600 men, but could sometimes refer to as little as 200 (i.e. a “maniple). Roman auxiliary troops were usually stationed at Caesarea, but during feast days they were garrisoned in the Antonia fortress, on the NW perimeter of the temple complex (in order to ensure against mob violence or rebellion because of the large population that filled Jerusalem). The second group designated as “officers” refers to temple police who were the primary arresting officers since Jesus’ destination after the arrest was to be brought before the High-Priest (vv. 12-14). They came ready for resistance from Jesus and His followers (“weapons”). Thus giving us a hint as to the degree to which the priests and Pharisees feared Him and being unsure of how many followers would be there with Christ.

Since InSoloCristo has already addressed so eloquently the “I am”/”I am He” issue I’ll not go there. However, I do take a different view as to who “fell to the ground”. Since the Scripture uses the all-inclusive word “they” in both the asking of Christ for “Jesus the Nazarene”, and in “they drew back and fell to the ground”, the inference is clear: All fell to the ground. John’s description in no manner invites any other interpretation than the literal, and serves to underscore both the power of Christ and his words…the same speaker who literally spoke into existence our world and all things in it, and silenced the sea and the wind with just three words…spoke to this “gang” of men before Him and they were struck down by the force of His utterance.

I like to think of this event of a rather “oops!” occasion on the part of Jesus. I view His normal conversation to be carefully controlled by Himself so as to limit the force His simple words were capable of exerting. My thinking is best exemplified by the shutter of a camera. When we press the button, the shutter opens briefly…very briefly…and then snaps shut again. In that time, light will have entered and left its impression on the film. (Admittedly a rough and oversimplified explanation but brevity demands it).

So, from my illustration, we see Christ’s “oops!” moment as that shutter…which has been keeping in His power…popping open for just the barest moment in time, as a “shutter” clicking, thus allowing on a tiny fraction of the force of His works to escape. I view it as being an accidental slip on the part of Christ, and maybe even something He would have chided Himself for during the next moment, while, all the time chuckling at the result His slip had on the men in front of Him. Remember, this is not Scripture speaking, just my creative imagination sharing a possible and very plausible answer to this interesting occurrence.

Thank you for an interesting question. Sola Scriptura

Okay - I'll pass over what I could say about your view of the cohort, and your view of those who fell, and get to the most important issue:

I don't believe Christ could ever have had any "oops" incidents.

Christ was THE SON OF GOD. He was GOD HIMSELF. He doesn't make mistakes!

"But," it may be objected, "it was not Jesus' divine nature that spoke, it was his human nature. His divine, infallible, inerrant nature doesn't have a mouth - so the human nature had to, at that point, take over. And it simply made a mistake."

To which objection I will let Jesus speak for himself:
John 14:10: "Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works."
John 12:49: "For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak."
John 8:28: "So Jesus said to them, “When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me."

Therefore, we, if we continue to accredit a 'slip of the tongue' to Jesus, are now accusing God of a 'slip of inerrancy'. So God is either a liar, or he is mistaken, and either way - he is NO LONGER God.

The only "feasible" objection I can come up with is that in these three verses, Christ was also having a slip of the tongue. His human nature was mistaken - perhaps overconfident - that the Father always told him what to speak.

I think that this objection is, at best, ridiculous. It makes the human nature of Christ either a liar, or mistaken. But if his human nature is corrupted, then so is his divine nature, and if his divine nature is corrupted, then so is the fullness of Divinity, and we come to the same conclusion - God is not God!

I hope I have misinterpreted, but not misrepresented you - because I think the implications my interpretation of your comment are heretical. Therefore I sincerely hope I have misinterpreted, in some way, what you have written.

I think Jesus said what he said purposefully. The Father wanted Jesus to say it, so Jesus said it. I agree that the power of the speech was immense and irresistible. But the whole Trinity was in full agreement that the Son should say it - and HE SAID IT!

Mr. Knight, I can tell that you are intelligent and knowledgeable, but you seem to be missing a very essential doctrine in what you said, as InSoloChristo just explained. To say that Christ could have an "oops!" moment or an "accidental slip" is to say that God could make a mistake. If this were so, as was said in the comment before mine, God would cease to be God.

To put it bluntly, I am concerned that you are believing in a Jesus other than the Jesus of the Bible–one that can make mistakes. This is quite disturbing to me, and I hope you realize how you are mistaken in your interpretation. Thank you for reading this. :)

So, here's some questions that a guy from my church asked me, I really want to help Him, but had no clue to some of these except for one and I can't find it in the Bible. And then by the way we were singing Hark the Herald Angels sing, What does Gloria in Excelsius Deo mean. I think Gloria means glory in means in Excelsius means firmament, heaven and Deo means God. So, does it mean Glory to God in the Heaven?
Here's the questions How did Lucifer rebel? if he was created good, and there was no bad externally? When did Lucifer rebel? Did God create the angels?
Thanks, guys I appreciate all answers :) I know God created the angels but can't find in the Bible where it says He did.

Well, I can't give you an answer for your question about Satan, but I can tell you what Gloria in Excelsius Deo means. At least I can tell you what it means, traditionally. I know a little bit about Latin, but I don't know if the traditional rendering is entirely accurate. It means "Glory to God in the Highest."

Unfortunately, the Bible does not give us an answer as to how Satan rebelled when there was not yet evil in the world (believe me, I know–I heard it from John MacArthur. :P) The Bible also does not say specifically that God created the angels, but it is absolutely certain that He did:

John 1:3–
"Through [the Word] all things were made; without him, nothing was made that has been made."

So that's the answer to that question; sorry I can't answer the other ones. :)

God made everything. God made everything through Jesus (as stated by SavedByGrace). God created everything good.

But neither did he create us as robots. He gave us the free will to love him and obey his commandments or not. Satan chose not to. What was his actual sin? Argh, I can't remember the reference, but some place in the Bible explains that he tried to elevate himself higher than God.

As for the other question, "In Excelsis Deo" means "to God in the highest." … or so I'm told. I can't figure out how that works with the Latin, though. "Deus" is God and "Deo" is the singular, dative or ablative ending. The "in" can mean "in" or "on." This preposition would seem to indicate an ablative ending for Deus. Excelsis is an adjective meaning "high." Thus, it would seem to say, "In (or 'on') the God.of high."
0.o That doesn't make any sense. So…I guess "Deo" is dative, meaning "to God." The endings of "excelsis" and "Deo" are not the same, though, so "excelsis" can't be an adjective of "Deo." Thus, I'm assuming that "excelsis" in this instance must just be acting as a noun, or the noun is assumed.

Would a Latin expert in the room please clarify this for me?

~Antinous

Anthony/Antinous – I'm wondering if this might be part of the answer. In the song, it says "Gloria in Excelsis Deo" – and the Bible says, "Glory to God in the highest." I think "excelsis" is a superlative noun, perhaps, meaning highest (instead of an adjective modifying God/Deo). So it's literally, "Glory in the highest to God." It wouldn't matter that the noun cases for excelsis and Deo are different, then, because neither is modifying the other.

Would that resolve the issue?

Also, the question about the devil falling… I think the latter part of Ezekiel 28 is generally thought to be referring to this.

Okay, so I have a question for y'all! :) I'd really enjoy hearing your thoughts!

So, in the Gospels, after several different miracles, Christ would tell the person that he healed, not to tell anyone. But, they would go and spread the new around the region, telling of the Christ and what great things He had done. Where those people in the wrong, to do that?

I (and my NIV Study Bible :P) would say "Yes" to your question, Bethany. Such a deliberate disobedience is definitely wrong. And of course, He could have stopped them, but He apparently had reasons not to do so. :)

@His Servant, I think SavedByGrace answered the question very well. I believe that Jesus had His reasons for commanding them not to tell anyone. It is a mystery, though, why He told the demon-possessed man to go home to his friends, and tell them about what Jesus had done for him. (Mark 5)

What do you think?

Well, I'll try to answer this one too. My NIV Study Bible (no, I don't get all of my theology from it, but it is sure helpful sometimes! :D) suggests that earlier in His ministry, Jesus did not yet want His divine identity to be revealed to everyone yet, only to a select few. But near the end of His ministry, He allowed more people to go and tell people who He was. Now, this does not give perfect answers for all the questions we could have regarding this issue, but I think it helps a little to understand the reason Jesus did these things. Many things, though, will remain a mystery until heaven. :)

Here is one to discuss:
Do we sin because we are sinners OR are we sinners because we sin?
What are some of your opinions on this topic?
Please remember to back up your responses with Scripture and to be encouraging and uplifting in your replies.

Well, I think most people would think, logically, that we are sinners because we sin. Traditionally though, the counter-response to that has been, technically, we sin because we're sinners. We inherit a sinful nature from Adam upon conception (Psalm 51:5), and are naturally inclined toward sin. Therefore, we commit sinful acts because we are already sinners by nature.

However… I would like to suggest a counter-response to that counter-response which I have been thinking about lately. Why do we inherit the sinful nature? Is it totally against our will? Biblically, the answer is no. We inherit a sinful nature because we acted with Adam in his rebellion against God in the Garden. Romans 5:19 says that by Adam we were all made sinners. And Verse 12 says that we all sinned when Adam sinned.

Therefore I would like to submit… we sin because we're sinners because we sinned. We transgress God's law because we were born with the nature that makes us want to do so, but we got that nature because we willfully sinned against God in the Garden of Eden.

So I think the answer to the question is: We're sinners because we sinned. (Note the past tense.)

@CoS I really like your response.
My opinion is that we sin because we (in Adam) first sinned. So I would say we sin because we are sinners.
Romans 5 is a good defense of this.

@Marie: I agree

Thought about that a bit, and I think that we sin because we're sinners, AND we're sinners because we sin!

Logically, I don't think you can quite separate the two!

I've been thinking about this recently, and would like to hear your thoughts, and what you've read in the Bible concerning this subject.

When we die, do we go straight to our eternal destination? If so, do we leave wherever for judgment day, then go back? Or do we sort of "wait" until Christ has returned, then go to Heaven or Hell?

Does that make sense? What do you think?

Discuss!

I have wondered about this myself at times. The verse that always comes to mind on the issue is 2 Corinthians 5:8, which says, "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

This verse would seem to indicate that when a Christian person dies, they immediately enter into God's presence in heaven. However, this text could also be interpreted to mean that we aren't truly absent from our bodies until Christ returns, so we may still remain "asleep" until that time.

I do find it interesting though that sometimes, when a Christian dies in the Bible, it is said that he "gave up his spirit" or something similar. Apparently, then, the spirit does depart from the body immediately upon death, which would mean that we are absent from the body, which means that we would then be present with the Lord. There's also the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which features souls going directly to "Abraham's bosom" and "Hades" upon death. But, many would say that that's merely a parable, so I wouldn't base a theological point on it.

That's about the only argument I have at this time. If someone else has another one, I'd love to hear it. I'm really not sure about this subject. I don't think it's all that problematic if we remain in an intermediate state of "sleep" until the final resurrection when we go to be with Christ in the clouds. But if I'm wrong about that, and some important point of theology hangs on that doctrine, someone please correct me.

At this point, however, I don't think there's an overwhelming amount of Scripture to support the traditional view that spirits go directly to heaven or hell upon death. (That doesn't mean I don't believe it though. ;])

Thanks for your thoughts!
And there are the stories of people "dying" and coming back, telling what they have seen. (Has anyone read the book, "Heaven is for Real"?)

A good book, but I know a lot of the NDEs(Near Death Experiences) out there are questionable.

Haven't read it, but the whole premise of the book is very questionable.

This is a question I've been thinking about a lot recently: What happens to those who never hear the gospel, or who die when they are incapable of comprehending it because of age or disability? It seems unjust for God to punish those with inability to believe.

I don't have much time to comment on this question now, but I thought I'd throw it out there and see the response. I'll try to delve deeper tomorrow.

All men are born in sin and thus they must be punished…and since God elects people He won't let any of His elect die and if some one does die it shows they are not one of His elect. That's my short answer.

The knowledge of God is written in the heart of every individual. (Romans 1:18-23 ) thus there is no one who has never had the inability to believe. I'm not really sure about people who can't comprehend things because of age and disability, but I think they go to heaven. Interesting question though!

We had a very disabled women who was bedridden, and had to be rolled on a stretcher into the church become a member of the church several months ago.

As for very young children (like babies, and toddlers) I think that if the parents are saved, and their child dies, the child will go to heaven. I'm not sure whether I'm right or not because no one really knows what happens when babies die.

So you're saying that the parent's faith saves the child?

I'm not sure. My pastor told the congregation something like that, but it never bothered me until Matthew answered that question. I'll ask my parents later.

Okay.

@Ian: I'm talking more about mental disability, making the person unable to perceive the message of the gospel. Which brings up another question: Is it possible for a person who is mentally sick (to the point of being senile or insane) to sin while in the condition?

Note: In the following paragraphs, I am not stating my beliefs - I am throwing out an idea that I had about this subject. I am not at all sure that it is correct. :) I hope you can follow my train of thought.

I actually got started thinking about this subject when I was memorizing one of the assigned verses for National Seniors this year, Mark 3:28-29, which says "Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith they shall blaspheme; But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation". The "unforgivable sin", blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, has been interpreted by most as the act or resisting His impulses to repent and believe the gospel. Though the Scriptures do not explicitly say, it is also usually interpreted as lifelong resistance, since in many other places the Bible makes it clear that God will always, always forgive.
So I got to thinking: If this interpretation of "the unforgivable sin" is correct, could this mean that God forgives other sins a person may commit, whether or not they repent and trust in the Savior? After all, since two levels of sin are mentioned in the passage, how else could God forgive one and not the other, if he forgives the sins of only those who repent? I do not believe that those who repent can commit lifelong blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Those who know of the gospel but do not repent and believe do commit the unforgivable sin. However, those who never hear the gospel may or may not commit it - I am not sure yet.
Therefore, I think it is possible that humans who never knew [notice I said "knew", not "accepted"; another way to say this would be "heard of"] the true gospel, but showed a will to follow God, whoever He was, and do good in their earthly lifetime, will be given a chance to accept the Father's gift of salvation after life on earth. This to me makes sense of God's justice. How will this work? I have no idea. This is just my human brain trying to make sense of it all. Please inform me if my ideas go against Scripture (except please don't give me any exclusively Calvinistic ideas, which I don't agree with. I don't care for many Armenian views either. Just give me the Bible. :)

Which goes to prove that it is election…God elected His people and if one of His people are mentally disabled God will give them the ability to understand. And yes, it is possible for someone to sin while in that condition.

Hebrews 9:27 - And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

Any who are one of God's elect will be saved in this life…there are no second chances. And if they are one of God's people God will save them in this life.