Results 341 - 360 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
341 | The Spirit and the Seventy | John 16:7 | MJH | 223381 | ||
Mr. Levin, I asked this question some time ago as well. It perplexed me as to why is was necessary for Jesus to ascend before the Spirit could come. Since then, the best I could reason is that since Jesus is the High Priest in the Heavenly Tabernacle (and not the Earthly one), He needed to ascend and serve as High Priest before the Spirit would be able to come and write the Law on the hearts of the Believers. That's still a bit less than a full answer, but the best I could conceive. If you find out more, let me know. Tim's quote of Barnes is also helpful but also opens up a few more questions as to how and why the Spirit could then come even for a short time prior to the Ascension? MJH |
||||||
342 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212501 | ||
John, Your conclusions are correct, but John 14:6b is an allusion to drawing near to God in the world to come. It's more than simply getting saved. It's the way to approach the Father, and that is through the High Priest, of which Jesus is in the world to come. Therefore it is natural that no one can approach the Father but through the son. (see note 1) John 3:3 is a response to a Jewish Pharisee. The predominate teaching on how a Gentile was to enter the covenant (Kingdom of God) according to the Pharisees was for them to be "born again as a Jew." (see notes 2 and 3) They are said to go into the Mikvah (baptismal) a Gentile and emerge born again as a Jew. For Nicodemus to hear his own words (we can assume they were also his words or those of his colleges) gains more interest because Nicodemus was already a Jew and in his mind, he was already secure in the covenant and therefore the Word to Come. (see note 4) Notice Nicodemus was not asking how he could get saved. He was simply saying Jesus must be from God. Jesus takes the conversation to being born again. The only reaction Nicodemus has is, “How can these things be?” Jesus’ argument is between the flesh and Spirit. Are you in the New Covenant of the spirit, or the Old Covenant of the flesh? If you follow the law from the flesh, you are not born anew and have no place in the new. Being born again in the spirit is to have a heart of flesh with the law written there. Being from Abraham by flesh is genealogy, but to be of Abraham’s faith is of the Spirit. Paul draws out these arguments in detail. I mention this, because Christians may be shocked to know that one of their favorite verses to quote has an historical context which comes from the Jewish Pharisaic teachings of Jesus’ day. MJH 1. For more on why this is true, just ask :-) 2. cf. b. Yevamot 47a-b; cf. n. 178 3. b. Yevamot 47b 4. cf. m. Sanhedrin 10:1; b. Sanhedrin 90a “All Israel has a place in the world to come….” |
||||||
343 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212511 | ||
... | ||||||
344 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212513 | ||
I apologize, but for some reason my post response to you was deleted. I did not save it and since it took considerable time to write, I can't re-write it. I'm curious as to why it got deleted since there certainly wasn't anything in it that was provocative in nature. MJH |
||||||
345 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212520 | ||
The terms of use are clear here, and if someone at Lockman chooses to delete my note, then so be it. I have found that over the years this forum has been a wonderful help to me in my learning. I've in the past had many questions relating to the Law specifically had I have enjoyed learning from others, Doc especially. (Who is missing as of late.) My recent post dealt only with historical context for the first century. If we accept that the Text can never mean what it never meant, then historical context in hermeneutics is necessary. If I am mistaken, then I'd like clarification so that I can avoid this same error in the future. I am not attempting to cause trouble. MJH |
||||||
346 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212523 | ||
Until I read your post, I did not know who Carol Valentine was or anything about her; however, I posted a link to a site that she oversees. Therefore, you may be correct. Had I realized this site was linked in this way, I'd never have used it. So much for failing to do my "homework." May I ask how you knew the connection since my post is deleted? MJH |
||||||
347 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212539 | ||
I suppose I can try this again. :-) The Oral Law is the traditions handed down by sages of old and passed from disciple to disciple down through the ages. One of the Oral Laws was that it was not to be written down. But, around the year 200AD there was a growing fear that much of this information would be lost, so it was written down as the Mishna. The Talmud is a collection of commentary on the Mishna and while the Mishna is about the size of a Bible (maybe less) the Tamud is volumes and there are two, the Jerusalem (less used) and the Babylonian (most popular.) The Jewish tradition is that the Oral Law originated with Moses, who passed it to the Judges who passed it to the Prophets who passed it to the great Assembly etc.. The Pharisees in Jesus day and the "sages" can be traced back to Ezra who set up a system for making sure the people knew the Law. So, much of the beginnings of what the Jews have today can, at the least, be traced back that far. But, most of the added laws came years after Ezra. I am not saying Ezra made up the Oral Law, but he either passed parts along, or helped begin it. (Daniel in Babylon also is seen observing some of the Oral Law by praying three times in conjunction with the Temple sacrifices.) Since the Talmud contains what was taught over the course of some 1500 years, one can not simply pull something out and attribute it to the first century. I’m a strong believer in Historical context, and so learning what the theological beliefs in the first century were is important. It’s these beliefs that the first Christians would have been discussing as well. So practicing a careful study of the many sources to define with an acceptable level of probability what was accepted in the first century has been a course of study for me. It’s not easy. In defensive of the Talmud, Christians have the same things. We have commentary on the Bible. We discuss and disagree on what certain things in the Bible mean. The Bible does require interpretation, and the good in the Oral Law attempts to do this. Example: If we are to not work on the Sabbath, then what is work and what isn't? If we are to help a donkey that falls in a pit, then what are we to do if that happens on the Sabbath? Work, or wait? Also in defense, the Jews were sent into Babylon because they disobeyed God; they participated in Idolatry and broke the Sabbath. When they returned they attempted to fix this problem by putting “fences” around the written Law. You will find A LOT to do with Idolatry and the Sabbath in the Mishna. Like most things, the intention is good, but the result isn’t always. As Christians we need to be careful what additional laws we put on the congregations, because while we may intend well, the result may not be so good. And yes, Christians put additional laws on top of the Bible too, it’s just not as easy to see because it’s our tradition and it’s what we grew up knowing. Not that these as guides are bad, but they can become bad quickly. I do not live my life based on the Oral Law. I do not believe it to be authoritative. But the New Testament wasn’t written in a vacuum. There is a context of geography, Roman laws, Jewish laws and traditions, and Pagan deities, etc… All of this was a real life current situation for the first believers, and knowing it well helps us understand better. MJH |
||||||
348 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212556 | ||
Doc, You're back. Good to see you again! I had a feeling I might get some feed back like this. Had I been writing to people who actually read the Talmud/Mishnah I'd probably write a lot differently. Don't forget, I said it was helpful as another source in knowing what the first Christians would have been dealing with. What did their contemporaries think, etc.. Have a great 2009. MJH |
||||||
349 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212558 | ||
Paul didn't use the Talmud because it didn't exist in his day. And I didn't tell anyone to study the Talmud. I'm sorry if I led anyone to think that my answer to Val's question meant that I think Christians should take up study of Talmud. MJH |
||||||
350 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212570 | ||
John, I think you're missing my point. Do you read, or have you ever read Josephus? Or have you studied ancient Greek mythology, read Plato, or learned about Roman society? MJH ps - the Mishnah wasn't around when Paul was alive either. ;-) |
||||||
351 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212583 | ||
John, But this is my point. The Greek mythologies are more than just historical writing too. So is Plato. We don't studying them because we are going to follow them, but to understand the historical times. Since Christianity grew out of Judaism, and was a sect of Judaism for a period of time, I feel that knowing what first century Judaism was like and what they taught in regards to Gentiles, et al. is helpful in understanding the history. And history is a key part of the historical hermeneutic, and the historical hermeneutic is just one of many hermeneutical tools we use when studying the Bible, which is what this is all about. The only place to learn what early first century Judaism taught is by reading what they wrote. The Mishna/Talmud is only one source. The Dead Sea Scrolls is another, as are the Apocryphal and Pseudopigraphical works. Then Philo and Josephus also add to our understanding. I am not suggesting that every Christian ought to become Talmudic experts any more than I expect them to become experts in Hebrew and Greek. But there are people out there who are Christians and are experts in this area. They usually are professors at universities. I believe that their specialty can add to the discussion and understanding of the New Testament. Val asked a simple question and I tried my best to provide a simple answer. I am getting the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, but I get the sense that if I had made the same points earlier, but instead I used a non-Jewish source, then you would be alright with it. I can’t imagine that you would be apposed to the historical hermeneutic when studying the Bible. For example: if I made a point that Dionysius was the local deity in Cana where Jesus turned the water into wine, and that Dionysius happened to be the god of wine, that would be an acceptable connection to make to add to our understanding some. It is okay, not because I am using a religious writing that is not Christian, but because I am using one that didn’t come from the Jews. It’s the same point. I learned about the Greek myths and gods and culture and put the two together. (Side note: Don’t quote me on the Cana thing, I didn’t fact check.) MJH |
||||||
352 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140036 | ||
Act 2:37-38 “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the emissaries, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (HNT) The term, shubh (Hebrew), is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. TO TURN BACK – implies to turn back to something. This is most likely the word John the Baptist used in the desert when immersing people. (Or the Greek or Arabic equivalent). The same for Acts when Peter says the people need to repent and be immersed. (Baptism was a very common practice in those days and they would have all known what it was a picture of in relation to repentance.) So what is required for Salvation? Simple answer, “Repentance.” Although repenting implies the following: 1. you believe in the One true God; 2. you believe you have fallen short of what God requires. 3) Jesus is the Messiah; 4) His death and resurrection are sufficient to redeem you. Since you are “turning back” it might also be helpful to know to what you are turning back to. MJH |
||||||
353 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140052 | ||
Your answer is misleading. Under your answer Hitler is saved. Or, those who flew planes into the World Trade center are saved. They after all did nothing. It is said, “Salvation is a free gift.” But that implies that we can not “pay” the price required for the forgiveness of our own sins. It does not imply that we can live intentionally apart from God, neither believing in Him, nor accepting His forgiveness through Jesus’ sacrifice. And, welcome to the forum. It's fun and challenging. MJH |
||||||
354 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140065 | ||
Wait a minute. You said that "if hiltler asked." But that is not what you said in your first post. Your first post made it clear that hitler wouldn't NEED to ask or desire a relationship. You said "nothing" was required. I agree, one can never "pay" for salvation as my post stated. Your original post said you need to do "nothing" (which includes not needing to "seek" nor "ask" for salvation.) I responded that one must "repent" and that doing so required a trusting belief. Note: I did not say "pay" for your sins or anything else. Now your post is restating what I said. So in the end, we seem to agree. After all, if Hitler repented and asked, then yup, saved! MJH |
||||||
355 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140066 | ||
Opps, I left 2 posts to the same question. One to you, and one to the original poster. My answer to the question was in post 140036, and since it is short, I will re-post below. Sorry for the confussion. In short: Salvation is a free gift of forgiveness since we can never pay the price for our sin. Jesus freely paid that price and we have total forgiveness in Him. Yet, we must accept Him and repent of our sin. This is where I disagreed with you. "Nothing" would mean just that, "nothing" which would mean, no belief, no repentance, no acceptance, nothing. post 140036 . . . Act 2:37-38 “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the emissaries, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (HNT) The term, shubh (Hebrew), is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. TO TURN BACK – implies to turn back to something. This is most likely the word John the Baptist used in the desert when immersing people. (Or the Greek or Arabic equivalent). The same for Acts when Peter says the people need to repent and be immersed. (Baptism was a very common practice in those days and they would have all known what it was a picture of in relation to repentance.) So what is required for Salvation? Simple answer, “Repentance.” Although repenting implies the following: 1. you believe in the One true God; 2. you believe you have fallen short of what God requires. 3) Jesus is the Messiah; 4) His death and resurrection are sufficient to redeem you. Since you are “turning back” it might also be helpful to know to what you are turning back to. MJH |
||||||
356 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140170 | ||
You are mistaken about the Jewish view of Repentance. The Hebrew "shooba" or "ta-shooba" means to "turn back." It was seen by the first century Jewish people of returning back to the Torah. Certainly "seeking the face of God" was a part of this, because that was a part of the Torah. Another way to explain their Eastern way of seeing repentance was to return to God and to "take up the yoke of the Kingdom of God." This was done twice a day in Jesus time by reciting the "Shema." which is, "Hear 'O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord Alone. . ." This is a short note about, but I found long posts often don't get read. :-( You are right; however, that looking at the scriptures through the eyes of the original authors would help a lot. MJH |
||||||
357 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140171 | ||
It isn't poor taste to ask someone to sidebar. You are right to have causion. I don't "sidebar" by self. |
||||||
358 | Is Nisan 14 in any version of bible? | John 19:14 | MJH | 226799 | ||
Nisan is the Babylonian name for the first month of the Hebrew's religious year. This is the month of the Exodus from Egypt and the 14th of that month was the first Passover (Exodus 12.) Neh 2:1 and Ester 3:7 both record that Nisan is the first month of the Jewish (Hebrew) year. Nisan 14 is not found in the Bible, but the Passover is eaten on the 14th of the first month of Israel's year. Ex 12. The first month of their year is called Abib. Ex 13:4. Neh 2:1 and Ester 3:7, both written during the exile to Babylon refer to this month by it's Babylonian name Nisan. Therefore, by connecting these verses, we know that the Passover meal is slain on Nisan 14 and eaten that evening. Since Jesus clearly ate the Passover and was crucified the next day, he died on Nisan 15. I hope that is helpful. I'm not sure why John 19 was used since Nisan 14 isn't listed and one would need to assume a knowledge of when Passover was prepared to connect John 19 to a particular day of the month. MJH |
||||||
359 | Discontinued Account? | John 19:14 | MJH | 226808 | ||
Sorry, I fixed that. When I get time I will get a bit more detailed. | ||||||
360 | Why did Jesus fold His burial napkin? | John 20:7 | MJH | 211965 | ||
I suppose the real reason is somewhat speculative in nature unless someone can find a custom that has merit. I heard a pastor relate the servant/master custom in the early 1990's but couldn't find verification then. Now it is an e-mail phenomena being passed on as fact, but it is actually a myth. "We have checked numerous Bible study sources and have found nothing about this alleged Jewish custom of the folded napkins. We did not find any Bible scholars who have used this story and illustration about the meaning of the folded napkin. Additionally we talked with a Jewish rabbi friend of TruthOrFiction.com's who has been a life-long Orthodox Jew, a Jewish scholar, and lives in Jerusalem, Israel, and he said he'd never heard of it" from the site: www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/folded-napkin.htm MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 ] Next > Last [29] >> |