Results 381 - 400 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
381 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213811 | ||
Thanks for the kind comments. Certainly my post isn't the end of the discussion. I made some statements that ought to be backed up with more evidence and sources. What I posted here is more accurately my hypothesis based on the bit of research I did do, but could change after deeper digging. Your questions are exactly the questions needing more clarification. The time needed to go further will mean I won't be adding much for a while. I do hope to get a couple books from some universities (our library is connected to the colleges now...Yeah!)that have done some of this research already. Finding out if the Jews, who wrote Hebrew or Aramaic mostly in their first century writings, used 'koinos' in this way when speaking Greek may be impossible to proove. There are some Greek texts, but that's pretty much out of my league. MJH |
||||||
382 | Abstaining from things strangled, blood? | Acts 15:20 | MJH | 192275 | ||
Are these upheld today as being necessary things and if not, why? YES. Since you didn't ask "why" for a "yes" response, I will not give one.... :-) |
||||||
383 | Abstaining from things strangled, blood? | Acts 15:20 | MJH | 192276 | ||
Jews in Jesus day believed that "God fearers", those Gentiles who believed in the One true God but were not circumsised into Israel, were to follow the Noahic covenant in which they found 7 laws. You can do a search of my name "mjh" and "noah" to find many more details on this. Acts 15 requirements are all found in what the Jews saw in the Noah covenant which was given to all peoples. Those that were not included in Acts 15 were not necessary because they were already a part of the rule of law among the Gentiles. Sorry that this is so scant, but it's late and I did post a lot on this in the past. MJH |
||||||
384 | Help Bible study to accept differences? | Acts 20:7 | MJH | 185307 | ||
I am a facilitator for a new Bible study group called "Torah Club." My job was to make sure the group melded well and not to be the answer man. I left them in early January and everything seemed to be going well. Now the group has a problem. The question is about the Sabbath and when it is. One member insists the Sabbath is on Saturday and the others are unsure (apparently). Now, I know that the Sabbath is Saturday, that isn't really a debate. The seventh day has always been the seventh day. But the question is which day ought we to observe as the (or a) Sabbath. I have my own beliefs in this area, but how might I guide the group so that they can continue to function as a community equally striving to learn God's Word. And to do this while accepting others who either are not as far along as them, or maybe have a different understanding of God's Word? My own study group, we do not all agree on a lot of things, but it just doesn't seem to be a problem. Some times its fun to poke at each other based on our differences. I'd like this group to have that same acceptance of each other and Monday night I will be meeting with them to help them achieve this. Any suggestions? MJH |
||||||
385 | Help Bible study to accept differences? | Acts 20:7 | MJH | 185333 | ||
Hey Hank. Thanks for the quote. That was good. I also printed up a long history of the change from Saturday to Sunday that, surprisingly, did not include the often biased misinterpretations. I'll print your response too and include it when or if necessary. The "Torah Club" is studying the Bible in the same way Jesus did following the yearly Torah and Haftarah portions that all Jews do today and did back in the first century. (Actually Jesus probably followed the three year cycle.) The Torah Club includes 2 years in the first five books, 1 year of the Haftarah (the rest of the Old Testament), 1 year in the Gospels, and 1 year in Acts-Revelations. It is written from a Jewish believer in Jesus as Messiah. I avoid using terms like "Messianic Jew" and "Hebrew roots" because they carry different meanings to different people. This has been by far the best study I have been in and continue in personally. I do not agree with everything in the study, but then I don't agree with everything others say either. MJH |
||||||
386 | Have a Messianic Jew answer your quest.? | Acts 21:21 | MJH | 139814 | ||
Wow, this is from a long time ago. Makarios, happened upon your comment. Would you like me to get a Messianic Jew to answer your Jully 27, 2001 question? MJH |
||||||
387 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218047 | ||
Psst. That's the sound I make when the pastor says something wrong. ;-) In love, MJH |
||||||
388 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218064 | ||
So James and Paul were bluffing? Lying? or doing a head fake? Luke doesn't say they are doing this. He leads us to believe that Paul followed the Law and even participated in the Temple sacrifices intentionally because he wanted to and believed it was honoring to God. To presume that Paul was buckling to pressure on such a vital issue when his whole Christian life up to this point was one of constant persecution; yet he never wavers; but now it was okay for him to make it appear as though he was following the Law and Temple system, but “wink wink,” we all know he was just trying to fool the Believing Jews? Is it possible that Paul understood the Temple and the purpose of ritual purification from contact with a dead body before offering a sacrifice to end a Nazirite vow (or really, start it over since he touched the dead guy a couple chapters back) more than we do? Maybe our understanding of what Jesus death and resurrection accomplished is slightly off when we assume the Temple ceased to have any purpose and the sacrifices ceased to have any purpose at that moment in time? That's why I ‘thhst’ your answer. Within the scope of the whole Acts narrative, your response makes Paul and James manipulators at best, and liars at worst. Neither are acceptable conclusions, and Luke tells this as if the whole event makes complete sense. MJH With all due respect intended. |
||||||
389 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218077 | ||
Chist's sacrifice puts an end to the need for sin sacrifice in the world to come as Hebrews teachs. Again, my applogise to Doc and other offended by my psst, which was received in a manner not intended, but disrescpectful none the less as I ought to be more careful. MJH |
||||||
390 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218078 | ||
Doc, I apologizes for the disrespect. None was intended and certainly I wasn't attempting anything cultural by it. Either way, I ought to have known better than to make a condescending sounding remark to someone who, believe it or not, I respect. Please accept my apologies. MJH |
||||||
391 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218079 | ||
Like I mentioned earlier, it's because 'we' fail to understand what the Temple was for and what it accomplished that we feel any participation in it after Jesus resurrection is "going back to those old miserable ways." The Temple system was not set up by God to do away with sin. It also wasn't set up to be only a metaphor for what Jesus would some day do. It also didn't fail as some say, “the Temple didn't accomplish what it was meant to so God had to go with plan 'B'.” The Temple allowed a worshiper in This World to approach a Holy God safely. The sacrifices and cleansing purified the worshiper temporarily so they could present the Peace/Fellowship offering. Leviticus beings with, "If anyone desires to draw near (offer a sacrifice)....this is how to do it." It doesn't say, "When ever you sin, you must bring a sacrifice to cleans yourself of sin." Rather, IF YOU DESIRE TO DRAW NEAR...do it this way, and a sin sacrifice is an obvious part of that process. In the World to Come, the Temple and the whole city will be Holy. The Kingdom of Sin and Death will be gone. There is be no need to offer sin sacrifice because there will be no sin in that World which we are destined for. Jesus death made this way possible. The way past the cherubim and the flashing sword into the Kingdom of Light to once again walk with God in the cool of the day on a new Earth. In the mean time, we as a community have been given the guarantee, the Holy Spirit, so that we are in effect, mobile Temples of God. By virtue of the Holy Spirit being present, who is God, we are near God; yet the World to Come has not come fully, not yet. If you assume by my belief that Paul not only participated in the Temple in acts 21, but had planned to all along because he knew what it stood for as well as what it didn't, that I then believe that one needs to have the Temple to get forgiven, you're wrong. I don't believe that. I don't believe Paul HAD to go to the Temple. He wanted to. He, as did most of the early Christians, loved the House of God. Psalm 84 was a longing of their heart too. But, as Hebrews reminds them once they were kicked out (or it was destroyed), the Temple for all it's beauty and sanctity in helping a worshiper draw near to God, it is far from the reality in the World to Come. The real actual Temple of which Jesus is the High Priest. Just as on Earth, no one could participate in drawing near to God apart from the High Priest, so too we can not draw near to God apart from our High Priest in Heaven who is Jesus. Finally, a legalist is someone who believes you must follow certain laws or perform certain works in order to get saved. There is not one time or place where I said that, taught that, or professed that. There is no way to the Father and salvation from this world but through God's sovereign Grace through Faith, and that alone, nothing more. Nothing I do can adds to nor makes this more complete. God's gift of the Holy Spirit will work in me to sanctify me more and more in His likeness. In the end, it is all God. MJH |
||||||
392 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218081 | ||
Sorry about the miss spelled words. Forgot spell check :-( Lambs in the neighborhood are doing great. No Temple, not priesthood, not in the Land. We obey as much as we are able. I also couldn't resist. You don't have an answer either ;-) So, you did get my apologize right? That's important for me. I'd hate to start the 40 days without getting this error cleared up as much as I am able. MJH |
||||||
393 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218083 | ||
Your note is received well. Thank you for your instruction and I hold it dearly. I have not seen my actions in this light, but your willingness to shine the light on it has shown me the truth. While I meant no disrespect, the disrespect was there non-the-less. Even though only my friend heard me and she knows my admiration for my pastor, I still see my own heart for what was there. I truly have been helped in reading these past few responses to my hastily written post. I know you all and know that you mean only the best for me and others. And even though we disagree on some matters, I look forward to the day when I can put a face to the name and thank you personally for what you have added to my life and "walk" over the past number of years. MJH PS- It's the 40 days of repentance. Something I'm doing for the first time leading up to the Day of Atonement. Boy, do I get a good start on things. ;-) |
||||||
394 | New believers zealous for LAW? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139813 | ||
When I was young, I was told that the "law" (or Torah, Law of Moses) was done away with unless it was restated in the New Testament. Paul was said to have taught this. But here in Acts 21, we see Paul showing that the converts were "zealous for the law" and that he himself "walked in observance of the [Torah]". He even sacrificed to God after Jesus' atonement. AND he calls him self a Pharisee in the present tense. Any thoughts on this? A side note: one of the main questions I have been asking for the last couple of years (since I got a renewed fire for study) is, "What of the OT Laws apply to me, a Gentile, to the Jews in the Land, and to the Jews not in the Land?" Please don't answer THAT question right now, but I want to fully disclose why I am asking about Acts 21. For some reason I have missed this part of the story of Paul before. MJH – (re-born on this Forum to not be argumentative any more :-) |
||||||
395 | Zealous for the law? Sacraficed? Noah? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139870 | ||
This does not get to the heart of my question. They were said to be "zealous for the law." And Paul sacrificed. I uderstand that he was like all people to win some" but this hardly answers the question in my mind. Also, the Acts 15 counsel and Paul in Acts 21:25 state, "they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." This is right out of the Noah covenant according to the Jewish belief of the time. God fearers, those who did not get circumsiced, but stilled believed in the One True God were expected to uphold the Noahetic Covenant at the least. Some Jewish sources list 7 items in this Covenant (I can't find 7), but the Apostles list these four. Could this line of thinking make a difference in how we approach Paul in this context? Seriously just wondering here and asking the question because I do not know. MJH |
||||||
396 | Zealous for the law? Sacraficed? Noah? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139912 | ||
Yup, I concer with what you are saying. I have seen a Christian women convert to Judaism. It is a sad thing when people exchange the truth of the Gospel for the teachings of man -- Rabbis of old. There is a value to knowing what these men taught during Jesus time, but one must never forget how Jesus and Paul responded to misinterperations of the OT Text. You have been of great value to me in these discussions EdB. God Bless, MJH |
||||||
397 | Zealous for the law? Sacraficed? Noah? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139913 | ||
I'm a bit busy. I will fill you in on this today or in the near future. kalos's post you showed me was very good. MJH |
||||||
398 | Zealous for the law? Sacraficed? Noah? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139998 | ||
I apologize for not tracking down the primary source, so this secondary source will have to do. This is in regards to what the sages during Jesus time and during the times of Paul were teaching concerning non-Jewish believers who did not get circumcised; also known as “God Fearers.” ----------- From “Fruits of Zion” Torah Club Year One pages 39-40 “After God makes some promises to Noah, He then delineates to Noah … and the future generations which will come from him…some responsibilities. In fact, the rabbis see a total of seven stipulations from these verses. They call these torahs [ “teachings”, “laws”], the ‘Seven Commandments given to the descendants of Noah. They constitute what we might call Natural Religion, as they are vital to the existence of human society.’ (1) The Torah of Moses, the rabbis assert, was given to rule Israel; obedience to these seven commandments alone was, in ancient times, also required of non-Jews living among Israelites, or attaching themselves to the Jewish community. The seven are: 1. establishment of courts of justice. 2. prohibition of blasphemy 3. prohibition of idolatry 4. prohibition of incest 5. prohibition of murder 6. prohibition of robbery 7. prohibition of the eating flesh cut from a living animal (eating blood.) It is important to note the similarity between these seven laws and the four requirements of the Jewish believers placed upon the non-Jewish believers who were coming into the believing community in Acts 15:20. The non-Jews were, in essence, being asked to follow all the traditional guidelines of any Jewish community should have asked of its non-Jewish members.” ----------- Also note that after giving these commandments, the next verse says, “[Moses] is read every Sabbath in the synagogues." In other words, these are the minimal requirement to be members of the Jesus community, if you want to learn more, the leaders from Jerusalem were saying, they just had to go to the synagogue where they would learn.” There was no separation of synagogue and community of believers at this point, and even latter in Acts, the separation was among Jews and Jews, not among Gentiles and Jews. (I can not find the 7 items in the Noah covenant, but this is what they taught during first century.) (1) Hertz, op. cit., pg 33. |
||||||
399 | Acts:What was the role of Gamaliel? | Acts 22:3 | MJH | 184748 | ||
Gamaliel was a very respected and good Rabbi during the days of Jesus and Paul. Probably one of the best during Paul's day. In Paul's day, Jewish boys in there early teens would want to follow a Rabbi. They would find a Rabbi they hoped to follow and ask. The Rabbi usually did not accept them, they limited their disciples to a few, never more than 70 at a time, but usually much less. To be a diciple of Gamaliel would mean the young man had the Torah (first 5 books of the Bible) committed to memory in Hebrew, and most likely all of the Old Testament. Paul would have begun walking with Gamaliel at a young age in his teens. To be a disciple of Gamaleil was saying a huge thing. It might be like saying, “I studied under Charles Spurgeon.” Jesus disciples too would have been in their teens, with the exception of Peter who was over 20 at the end of Jesus' ministry for sure. Following a Rabbi was not just learning what they knew and taught. Following a Rabbi meant becoming like the Rabbi. It was a total immersion. Gamaliel was more lenient (some say Liberal, but that has current political connotations that confuse.) He was not in the majority in his day. After the Jewish wars of the late 60's, most of the school of Shamie was killed off and the school of Hillel (Gamaliel's Grandfather) is the teaching that lived on and does to this day. Paul, by stoning Stephen, was NOT following the advice of his Rabbi, who would do almost anything to prevent the death penalty. The Torah is for LIFE not death. When Jesus meets the woman caught in adultery and they ask if she should be stoned, Jesus is following the logic and path of Hillel. Jesus and Hillel agree most of the time except when it comes to divorce. Jesus remained very strict on the limits of divorce. So Gamaliel was a good guy. He lived during the time of the Messiah, and even though he was a shinning star of Torah teaching in his day, even he missed the Messiah. MJH |
||||||
400 | Sadducees vs Pharisees. Am I right? | Acts 23:8 | MJH | 139818 | ||
Roviear, Here is a late answer but one none the less. Sadducees believed in only the first five books of the Bible known as the Torah. They believed in a literal interpretation and therefore did not believe in those things mentioned in this verse. Acts 23:8 “. . . there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit.” They asked Jesus about marriage in Heaven and you will note that He quoted from the portion of the Bible that they accepted. Matt 22:23-33. The Sadducees were also generally wealthy. Their reward was on earth being that there was no resurrection. They also were in good with Rome. Rome put the High Priest in power. They ruled the Sanhedrin and were primarily responsible for sending Jesus to Pilot. Note that they did this the night of Passover when most people would be celebrating at home (as required) with family and most of the people who supported Jesus would be absent. Those who celebrated His triumphal entry into Jerusalem were not the same yelling “Crucify Him.” The Sadducees were fewer in number and ran the Temple and its services. This is how they made their money, requiring Jews to “buy” lambs raised in Temple fields at inflated prices. Their reasons were to streamline the approval of qualified sacrifices instead of having to inspect every lamb brought in that day. The Pharisees believed in the whole Old Testament (Tanak) and also an Oral Torah [Law] that put a “fence” around the written Law. There was more than one kind of Pharisee (contrary to popular belief.) Two main schools of thought were the Hillel and Shammai. Hillel died when Jesus was about 16. Hillel was more progressive and had a “light” yoke, where as Shammai had a very heavy yoke. There were 8 great debates among these two Rabbi’s They were: 1. Sabbath Day 2. Who is my neighbor? 3. Greatest commandment (and their order of importance.)? 4. Tithing 5. Wearing tefillin – (phylacteries) 6. Wearing tassels on corner of robe 7. Fasting 8. Divorce You may note that Jesus addressed them all. He sided with Hillel on all of them except Divorce. Hillel and Shammai disagreed on over 300 issues. Hillel is the school that won out primarily and is still around today I believe. The Pharisees get a bad rap in the Bible mostly, and for good reason (just read the Mishnah, the Oral Torah). However, there were some “good” Pharisees as well, and you meet some in the New Testament. Nichademus and Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel) come out fairly well (we know more about Gamaliel from the Talmud than from the Bible). And it was some Pharisees that tried to help Jesus: Luke 13:31 At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you." Paul was a Pharisee and claimed to still be one near the end of his ministry. Acts 23. Paul followed Gamaliel who followed Hillel. Gamaliel most likely would not have approved of Paul’s treatment of believers before his conversion. Mainly however, the Pharisees were far more concerned; it seems, with minor details of the “letter of the Law” than with mercy and justice. Being a hypocrite (which was an actor in the theaters) was applied well. They played a part, put on masks, and looked for applause. MJH Others: please confirm or correct any errors. Thanks. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ] Next > Last [29] >> |