Tag Info

It's something you probably don't think about much, but we have reason to believe that Jesus really wasn't all that distinctive in his appearance. John 8:58-59 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. 59 Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going ...

This is generally explained as two different details of the same event being the emphisis of the record. Both accounts tell of a suicide. One specifically mentions hanging, the other doesn't mention anything about cause of death but does mention his "falling". These can readily be reconciled through natural causes either by something going wrong in the ...

In many languages today there is the equivalent of the English word "acquire." Like in Russian "priobrel" means acquire - in contrast "buy" in Russian would be kupit. in Azerbaijani language for "buy" we use a word "almaq" which has many meanings like buy, take, gain. and so this word acquire in the original Greek does not necessarily mean that someone put ...

Jesus makes the same point when he is being arrested. He certainly could have been seized anytime without Judas's help. Mark 14:48-49 (ESV) 48 And Jesus said to them, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But let the Scriptures be ...

You have to remember the time period. Back then they didn't have photographs. In fact, paper and horseshoes were still new inventions. The soldiers that were sent to capture him weren't his disciples, so they wouldn't know his face, only his reputation. As to how he betrayed him: Upon coming up to Jesus with the soldiers he kissed him. Matthew ...

They both did - it just depends on perspective for application of the word "bought". It was Judas' money, and it was the priests who used the money he returned to them to buy the field. They bought the field because they could not accept blood money and return it to the temple treasury. In essence, the priests bought the field on behalf of Judas.

Luke 22:2-6 KJV And the chief priests and scribes sought how they might kill him; for they feared the people. Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve. And he went his way, and communed with the chief priests and captains, how he might betray him unto them. And they were glad, and covenanted to give ...

The ESV Study Bible includes this note about the purchase of the property in the Acts account: That is, the field was acquired indirectly by Judas, through the agency of the chief priests. As Matt. 27:3–7 records, Judas brought the 30 pieces of silver back to the chief priests and elders. The chief priests then purchased the potter’s field with Judas’s ...

Why are you assuming a one to one correspondence? The Greek here says "y'all" will judge them. The idea is that collectively you will bear witness against all of Israel. If you need a one to one correspondence, take your pick between Matthais or (my personal bet as the real 12th apostle) Paul. But there's no reason too. One person can judge multiple ...

There is good reason to believe that we will not see Judas in heaven. Jesus spoke of His betrayer with these words: The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.” Matthew 26:24 ESV As @Paul A Clayton noted in this comment, John 17:12 ...

"Predestination" It is not that Arminians argue "against" predestination - that would be silly, since the term comes from Scripture; Arminians would have to cross out a whole bunch of verses in their Bibles if that were the case. Clearly "predestination" is a reality. The question is, what does that mean, and how does that work? In general, Calvinists ...

As you already stated, Judas (Strong's g2455) is simply a variation of the name Judah. Iscariot (Strong's g2469) translates to "man of Kerioth." Kerioth is one of the cities listed in Joshua chapter 15 as the allotment of the Promised Land for the tribe of Judah. So there doesn't seem to be a literal meaning behind the name, other than likely belonging to ...

Interesting question! The Greek words used here are huois tes apoleias "houis" The Strongs number for this is G5207. Looking at the Vines entry, this definitely means "son". This can mean both "male offspring" or, more generically, "descendant". "tes" Strong G3588. This word means "of the". It's just a very simple word. "apoleias" Strong G684. ...

John Wesley, in his explanatory notes on John 17, says, "The son of perdition signifies one that deservedly perishes; as a son of death, 2 Samuel 12:5; children of hell, Matthew 23:15, and children of wrath, Ephesians 2:3, signify persons justly obnoxious to death, hell, wrath. Psalms 109:8." To say someone deserves to perish is not the same as saying they ...

Assuming Affable Geek is right about the Greek, then that would largely explain it. One thing about English, unlike ancient Greek (and many other languages, like Spanish which I know a lot of), is that in English, we use the same word for the second-person singular and second-person plural. In other words, we say "you" whether addressing one person or many. ...

Only the Holy Spirit anoints offices in the church with miraculous gifts. It is best to think of 'gifts' as temporary and associated with a calling to an office and sanctification as permanent calling to salvation'. Even those sanctified by faith may not be given unusual gifts unless called to an external office requiring those externally anointed abilities. ...

I think it will be Matthias who was chosen by the apostles to fill in the place of Judas right after the Lord's ascension in the very beginning of Acts. Number twelve was a vey important number for Jews, hence, it was the very first thing they did after the Lord commanded them to go to Jerusalem and await the infilling with the Holy Spirit.

The main doctrinal difference between the various interpretations is the one already mentioned: the question of free will. I think some perspective on the matter can be found in Luke: Luke 17:1 1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! (See also Matthew 18: 7.) This ...