Results 361 - 380 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
361 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | MJH | 205555 | ||
Doc, If Jesus removed a law of God he couldn't have been the Messiah. Deut 4:1-2" I am telling you everything he has commanded, so don't add anything or take anything away." Deut 12:32 "Don't add any [laws], and don't take any away." Deut 13 - the passage about a false prophet. Nullifying a Law of God is nullifying the whole thing. If Jesus is without sin, that is not possible. If Jesus is the Word in flesh, he can not nullify himself. MJH |
||||||
362 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | MJH | 205774 | ||
Doc, A pleasure as always. I wish I had more time...so I will be late in responding fully. I did read the totality of the scriptures you listed. Prov. 30:6 I agree with whole heartedly and hope to always divine the Truth of God's Word. Just a note: I am not attempting to convince you, but your grasp of the Text and willingness to discuss provides a wonderful sharpening (as iron sharpens iron....) Plus, you come from the same doctrinal back ground as I in most respects. A few notes before I find the time to address your response in full: 1) I hold to the hermeneutic that later scripture can not contradict earlier scripture (of course, no Scripture can contradict any other). So if Paul is going to argue that the everlasting covenant that God made with Israel would be cancelled, he needs to go back to the books of Moses for proof. We see him doing this a lot to root his arguments in the Scriptures. 2) If God can break a covenant he made at Sinai, then what keeps him from breaking the covenant found in Jeremiah? Where lies assurance.... for every passage you can find that seems to write off Israel and the covenant, I could find 10 that say it's eternal and God would never break it. It is His faithfulness that leads us into right relationship with Him, not our own. 3) There are no covenants in the New Testament. The "New Covenant" spoken of is of course from Jer. 31 where God makes it clear he will never abandon his people Israel. It also makes it clear that the New Covenant is the commands (ie. the stipulations of the Old) written on the heart. I contend that Abraham, Moses, David, et. al. had the Law written on their hearts and were as much a part of the New Covenant as we are, only they came before the blood of that covenant was shed and we come after. 4) Our understanding of what a covenant is may be somewhat different. I hold that a covenant agreement with the stipulations it contains is unalterable. Alter any part of it and you break the whole of it. James 2:10. It would seem superfluous for God to say that He Himself can not add or subtract to the covenant. After all, He is faithful and let everyone else be a liar. 5) It is my understanding that when, in Ex 24, the people said, “We will do everything you have said.” That was the agreement, ie. the Old agreement that they broke just a few days later with the golden calf. Deut 30 is our first picture of the New agreement where it says that “it is not too hard for you . . . it is in your heart and in your mind that you may do it.” In Romans 10, Paul uses this Text and inserts Jesus into it directly connecting Him to the covenant, yet through Jesus, the Law is written on our hearts and in our minds. In fact, in this, Jesus becomes our Law (or is our Law.) No I am wondering….so until later, God bless as always MJH |
||||||
363 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | MJH | 205779 | ||
Jim, Sorry, the note left to Doc was in context of our earlier discussion. I don't think Paul argued against the covenant made with Moses, but my statement was that when Paul did make a ruling on something, he always backed it up with earlier Scriptures primarily the book of Moses. I suppose reading my post as a stand alone; one would get your impression. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. MJH |
||||||
364 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | MJH | 205781 | ||
Yeah, sorry Jim...ahh John. MJH |
||||||
365 | when did the church go in to operation | Acts 1:14 | MJH | 229958 | ||
Israel at Mt. Sinai. The people of God agree to covenant with the LORD. After the first agreement, they disobeyed with the Golden Calf. 3,000 were killed. They re-affirm a new agreement on the intercession of Moses. Acts 2 is the giving of the Spirit to write the Teachings of God upon the heart on behalf of the intercession of Jesus. I contend that the Church began in Exodus, but certainly how we understand it now and its current formation had its origins in Acts 2. It is interesting that the same word used in Deuteronomy for "The Assembly" is also used in the New Testament for the "Church". (Using the LXX of course.) |
||||||
366 | Did they meet in a house or at Temple? | Acts 2:2 | MJH | 157525 | ||
Has anyone else heard that Acts 2:2 may be speaking about them sitting in the Temple area and not in the "upper room"? The Greek word translated "house" is also the word that is used for the Temple I believe. Also, it makes sense in the context and also answers the critique that 120 people couldn't fit in one single upper room in a house. MJH |
||||||
367 | Why the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost | Acts 2:5 | MJH | 215631 | ||
Why did the Holy Spirit come on Pentecost? Pentecost, also known as Shavuot, is the second of three festivals where all the men of Israel were to come together to celebrate. On this day Israel remembered the audible voice of God (literally seen as sparks of lightening) giving the Ten Words from the mountain. It was and is tradition that God's Voice was heard by all people on Earth in their own language; in the languages of all 70 nations found in Gen 11. God audibly gave the written covenant and Law on Shavuot. Jews today spend the night reading through all five books of Moses on this day. One of the reasons God sent the Holy Spirit to descend on the disciples as they worshiped in the Temple that Shavuot day (Pentecost), is because the Holy Spirit was writing this Law now on their hearts. Jer. 31:33, "I will put my Torah [law] within them, and I will write it on their hearts." There is no other day of the year that makes more sense then this day to send the Counselor who will put God's Word on your heart rather than just on stone. Also, just like the first Shavuot, God's voice can be "seen." And the voice spoken through the Apostles is heard again in the languages of all of the people. MJH |
||||||
368 | Which sacrifices have ended? | Acts 2:46 | MJH | 174350 | ||
Recently I heard a pastor whom I respect parching on this paragraph in the Bible, and he mentioned, sort of in passing, that he didn't think that the disciples participated in the sacrifices, but only the prayers, etc... I was wondering why he thought this. As I understand it, the only sacrifices that certainly ended after Jesus resurrection, was the Atonement day sacrifice, the once a year High Priest in the Holy of Holies. (See book of Hebrews), and also most likely the Sin Sacrifices in general. But no where do I see in the Text that any of the other sacrifices had ended (of course when the Temple was destroyed, all sacrifice ended because with no Temple, no sacrifice can be made.) Acts mentions specifically that the Apostles participated in sacrifices (Acts 21-23 most notably). I'd like some input on this from others. Did Jesus death and resurrection put an end to all sacrifices, or just the sin sacrifice, or just the Atonement Day sacrifice? - a side note: there is a quote in the Mishna (I believe it is in the Mishna) that for the last 40 years (to be taken as the last generation, not necessarily 40 exact years) of the Temple, the scarlet cord left outside the Temple did NOT turn white. All previous years, this cord was put out as a constant reminder that our scarlet sins were made white as snow as the sun bleached the cord and made it white. The theory was that if the cord turned white, then God accepted the sacrifice of atonement, and if it had not turned white, then he did not. That is a quote from a non-messianic Jewish Rabbi. Interesting point I'm adding, but not necessarily directly relevant to the question. MJH |
||||||
369 | Which sacrifices have ended? | Acts 2:46 | MJH | 174572 | ||
Wow, that was venomous. No where does Paul ever say the Torah (Law) has ended, but in fact he upheld it in totality his whole life (according to his interpretation of the Torah) ...see Acts 21 - 23. It amazes me that Gentile Christians can still speak of the Jews (or Israel) with such hatred. Especially since we are grafted into them, not the other way around. And in all reality, Christianity is more of a sect of Judaism than a separate religion. It was started by Jews, with a Jewish Messiah, Jewish apostles without exception, and Jewish in its form, and their scriptures with 100 percent Jewish. MJH |
||||||
370 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | MJH | 215361 | ||
John, I like Gills answer. It's informed and provides good examples. But to add the phrase," but now the ceremonial law was abolished" seems unnecessary given his answer. Of course you know my thoughts on the so called abolishment of the ceremonial law...so that aside, why feel the need to add it to this answer? Of course you are not Gill, so I am just curious as to why you think Gill included it. He basically says, according to the whole law, a Levite could have owned and sold land. That answer is enough. MJH |
||||||
371 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | MJH | 215367 | ||
Hey John, Mind if I bring up old items? I just got back from a Bible teaching and I'm about to go nuts. I struggle with even saying anything in a class or even to a teacher; because I certainly don't desire to cause a problem...so I shut up. But here maybe I can speak.... Why do people want to say that obeying a law is the same as trying to earn merit by obeying a law? Paul obviously teaches against earning anything, particularly a right place with God in His Kingdom, by doing works or obeying any law. That's as obvious as anything in the New Testament. Then why do some further say that anyone obeying the law is in error? For example: the thousands of believing Jews in Jerusalem who were zealous for the Law. They are apparently in "error" because they were trying to "earn a place with God." But Acts never says they were trying to "earn" anything and Acts never says they were in "error." It simply says they were believers and zealous for the Law. What can possibly be wrong with this picture? Why can't people see the distinction? Is it blindness? Is it a fear of ever appearing to say anything positive about God's Law? UUUGGGHHHH. Okay... I vomited my thoughts all over. Sorry for the mess. MJH - p.s. I intentionally left the note under your name so as to not make too big of a scene. - Also, in regards to what this post is linked to; Barnabas could have owned and sold land as a Levite even before Jesus was born or died. That’s my point. The ceremonial law didn’t need to be abolished to absolve the man for selling property, so why mention it even if it’s true? I suppose he mentions it to make his point even stronger. |
||||||
372 | In Acts 8, is the eunoch a homosexual? | Acts 8:27 | MJH | 215261 | ||
A Eunuch is a male who is missing a couple essential "parts" for procreation and served a queen or other high female within a kingdom. The term was also used of high appointed officials in general without the necessary surgery. Could this man have been a homosexual? Exceedingly unlikely and completely disconnected from anything mentioned in the Text. He went to Jerusalem for the festival, so he was either Jewish or a proselyte to Judaism. If he was a true Eunuch in the surgical sense, then he couldn’t have functioned sexually in any direction. Someone is lying. How they managed to do so without laughter bursting out from the pews is the real question. And to do so on Easter Sunday…. How shameful. MJH |
||||||
373 | Followers of "The Way" - meaning? | Acts 9:2 | MJH | 193401 | ||
I was wondering if anyone had any input on the meaning of the first Jewish believers in Jesus being called "the Way?" I have had my opinion in the past and I have just heard a new one that sounds even better, but I'd like confirmation. I thought I would through this out here and see if any one confirms my thinking. Thanks for any ideas.... MJH |
||||||
374 | Followers of "The Way" - meaning? | Acts 9:2 | MJH | 193465 | ||
Cheri, THANKS! This is the answer I was hoping someone would confirm to me. Do you remember where you heard this? Maybe our source is the same? God bless....I'm so excited! Notice: The Cherubim were on the curtain separating us from the Holy of Holies and it was over the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. (These were in the Temple even though the Law said, No Image from Heaven above or the Earth below for the sea.) Cherubim are from heaven above, and yet here they are. Must be important right? Then the curtain rips and they "way" to God through the blood (you can't get into the Holy of Holies without blood) of Jesus is made. Again, thanks, and I'd love to hear where you heard this. MJH |
||||||
375 | Paul’s missionary work | Acts 9:15 | MJH | 216524 | ||
Since this question has come up maybe 100 times over such a long period of time, maybe the real project is to ask all over the internet to see what responses you get? How could one question possibly be asked this often this consistantly? MJH |
||||||
376 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213665 | ||
I have a question about the Greek word used in Rom. 14:14. Hoping not to cause trouble here, I simply want to get further clarification from someone who knows Greek more than I. I've studied some the word koinos(G839) and akathartos(G169. koinos, from what I can tell, means common. Akathartos means ritually (Levitically) unclean. The LXX uses akathartos in Lev 11 and elsewhere, but uses koinos when describing things that are made common based on their use. To explain further: If I spoke of a Cray fish, I would use akathartos every time, because this is clearly unclean by Lev. 11 standards. There is no disputable issue with that. But if I were to speak of Lamb purchased at the market, I may uses koinos (common) because the Lamb is suspect; it could have been used in Idol worship. If it were known to be used in Idol worship, then it would certainly be koinos, or common. Therefore, if I speak of something that would otherwise be perfectly fine, but something renders it otherwise, it would be koinos. Am I right in that? A search of the words in the NT shows that in each case, koinos is used like I describe above. And akathartos is used as I describe above. Why then do nearly all translations use the word "unclean" in Rom. 14:14 rather than the word "common" as would be more literal? MJH |
||||||
377 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213671 | ||
Thanks Tim. I appreciate the reply. I would like to discuss it more. I do have other uses of the two terms outside of the Biblical Text dating to the first century. I have been a bit gun shy in that area recently, but if from a purely word study understanding it helps, maybe I’ll add them? You are right about Acts 10:15. The two terms are certainly connected. But I have also found that in reference to Gentiles, the term "common" or koinos was most often used (outside of Biblical Texts). Gentiles were defiled, while not "unclean" in and of themselves. They were, by Jews, rendered "common" because of how they lived, primarily their connection to Idolatry. Acts 10:14 also uses both words, but in this statement it would seem that there is a difference. "I have not eaten anything that is common (koinos) or unclean (akathartos)." Why use both words if they were synonyms? Since Jesus repeats only "common", he would be referring to Gentiles. At least in this context since Gentile inclusion was the whole point. I know I am writing as if I am definite, but in truth I am not but seeking to ask the next question. Thanks again for the reply and let me know what you find. MJH Can you list the Proverb passages that have Koinos? I can't do a search with the LXX I have and it doesn't have strong numbers either, so I am at a disadvantage there. |
||||||
378 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213721 | ||
Tim, Our approach then to outside sources is the same. I looked up Prov 1:14, 21:9 (good one) and 25:24. I can not figure out which Hebrew word the LXX is translating with koinos. It seems that "unclean" and "common" do not fit at all. Some of my sources did come from the Apocrypha and Pseudographia, but I am having difficulty locating them now. Thanks for the help. I've run across this and while parts make sense, I have learned that doing the looking myself helps me find out if others have made poor leaps of logic or misapplied ideas. I am however highly disabled in both Greek and time. If you do have time to look into it more, great, if not, I shall continue the search more and fill you in if ever I reach a conclusion. God bless you in your understanding of Greek. It is a real gift. MJH |
||||||
379 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213794 | ||
Part 1 of 2 Sorry for the length. Also, this is mainly about the final two paragraphs, not the interpretation I take, but you can respond to whatever. Tim, this is what I found. I wrote it as an essay and copied it here, so excuse the more formal approach. In Romans 14:14 we read, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” The word translated into English as “unclean” is koinos (Strong’s 839). However, the word koinos literally means “common.” Why then do the translators use “unclean” and is that the best word to use? The use of “unclean” is chosen for two main reasons. 1) the obvious connection to impermissible foods which links it to Lev. 11; 2) the connection that common (koinos) has to unclean (akathartos Strong’s 169) found in Acts 10 and Mark 7. It is quite certain that “common” and “unclean” have a connection in the New Testament Scriptures. In Acts 10:14, after Peter sees all kinds of animals (we assume clean and unclean) descend in a sheet he hears a voice say, “Kill and eat.” Peter replies, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common (koinos) or unclean (akathartos)” Here Peter insists that he has never eaten anything common or unclean. Therefore, we must assume there is some connection to the two words; yet, they are distinct. Unless we assume Peter to be redundant, there must be something different between something that is common (koinos) and unclean (akathartos). Another example from the New Testament is Mark 7:2, “…and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.” Here koinos is translated as impure, and impure due to unwashed hands. Now we know for a fact that the Old Testament has nothing to say about the common Israelite needing to wash his hands for them to be pure for eating. Yet, the Pharisaic rules of the day found a way to render unwashed hands, not as unclean (akathartos), but as common or impure (koinos.) So here again the word common is obviously connected to, but different from unclean. In the LXX translation of the Old Testament, unclean animals and other items found unclean are always translated with akathartos, and never with koinos. And again, koinos literally means common, not impure in classical Greek. So, why is it connected to impurity and things unclean? What are we to make of this? Hebrew Scriptures: There was an offering for the Temple that only the Levites and there families could eat. It is often referred to as the heave offering, but the Hebrew word is terumah. This basically was something that was “clean” – but because it was reserved for only the priestly caste, it was forbidden to the common man. Hence, terumah that was outside of the Temple environs became “common” and inedible – and the reverse is true as well – those things “common” were not permitted in the sanctified areas of the Temple. Also, the priests were required to wash their hands when performing in the Temple. (Ex. 30:18) Pharisaic law: These concepts were extended from the Temple environs to the every day life of Pius Jews (by man-made law). If someone “unsanctified” (i.e. Gentile) touched bread, it became “common” or unfit to eat, even though it conformed to the clean/unclean laws of the Torah. Likewise, the person that could render bread “common” was also referred to as “common.” Therefore we see a link between things common and things unclean. continued..... |
||||||
380 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213795 | ||
Part 2 of 2 To backtrack, we see in Acts 10, our Lord Jesus teaching Peter that Gentiles are not to be considered as unclean or as common. They, like he, could also be in the covenant family of God. While the Law states very clearly that the Gentile who sojourns with Israel, is not only allowed covenant fellowship, but also the Temple worship (Lev 17:8), in the days of the Apostles, all Gentiles were considered common. Jesus says, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” Pre Exile Years: During the years of the Judges and Prophets the people adulterated themselves after false gods and were sent into exile. This idolatry was mainly due to contact with pagan Gentiles. The remnant who returned eventually set up laws to separate themselves from ALL Gentiles, pagan or not, in order to prevent a repeat of the sins of their fathers. Around the year 20 B.C. a counsel convened that wrote Eighteen Measures that cemented the dividing wall between Jews and any Gentile. This was a period of high Gentile interest in the faith of Israel (see Josephus, et. al.) Certain strict Pharisees, who determined to build this wall between Jews and Gentiles, ended up killing dozens of the followers of the more lenient school and enacted the measures despite them. Many years latter, this event was considered by some as more grievous than the day of the Golden Calf. Either way, by the mid first century A.D. these measures were well entrenched into the Jewish life. The word common is littered throughout these measures. Back to Romans 14:14 While this may seem a bit of a rabbit trail, how this connects to Romans 14:14 is important. These measures made food bought from a Gentile Market “common.” Pius Jews would not eat such meat. Since the ruling Paul gives in this chapter is about “disputable matters” it would seem unlikely that he would be referring to Lev. 11, since that passage is quite clear. It’s hard to dispute plain language. But, this issue of what meat could be eaten being a disputable matter fits the historical events. Paul has no problem eating this meat (which might even have been used in the pagan Temple) because he will not add to what the Law says (Deut 4:1-2; 12:32). Yet, if some have strong convictions that eating such meat would be a transgression of the Law, they ought to follow their convictions. As for Paul, he has no issue with eating “common” meat. There is no such thing as “common” for Paul, primarily because the Hebrew Scriptures (the only Scriptures he has) say nothing about it. Furthermore, we see in Ephesians 2:14 that Paul has declared the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles to be destroyed. Paul, being the Apostle to the Gentiles, fought hard against the 20 BC ruling – the Eighteen Measures – as well as other things. So what is the best word to use to translate koinos in Romans 14:14? The most obvious choice would be to use “common” each time koinos is used. We are not helping the average English reader by using the wrong English word regardless of its connection to another. While I understand the need to “interpret” at times when doing a translation, my view is that the translator should do more translating and less interpreting. By translating what the author meant to convey instead of what the author said, we cheapen the Text and assume an ignorant audience. This verse, as translated in English wrong, prevents the English reader from asking the question, “What is meant by ‘common’?” Without the question the reader can not find the answer. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ] Next > Last [29] >> |