Results 261 - 270 of 270
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: djconklin Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | The justification of Abraham | James 2:21 | djconklin | 28708 | ||
Here's alink to a journal article that looks at the supposed contradiction between James 2:21-24 and Romans 4:1-3: http://www.dbts.edu/journal.html look for Volume 2: Fall, 1997 and the article by Compton | ||||||
262 | the Christology of 2 Peter | 2 Pet 1:1 | djconklin | 28719 | ||
Here's a study on the christology of 2 Peter: http://www.bsw.org/[insert question mark here]l[insert equal sign here]7182 in the left column click on Vol 82 (2001) and then in the right hand column scroll down to Terrance Callan | ||||||
263 | the Christology of 2 Peter | 2 Pet 1:1 | djconklin | 28765 | ||
The Christology of 2 Peter is very exalted. The author calls Jesus God and speaks of his divine power. He uses the title ‘Lord’ both for Jesus and for God; in the latter cases there is usually some ambiguity about which of them is meant. However, the author presents God as a person distinct from Jesus, and there is no suggestion that the author would affirm the existence of two Gods. The transfiguration revealed Jesus as the son of God. It may be understood as an epiphany of the divine Jesus. It was a moment when Jesus received glory from God, in virtue of which he is praised like God. 2 Peter reflects a stage in early Christian thinking when the word ‘god’ was used in two ways. Usually it was a proper noun that designated the one who revealed himself in the Hebrew scriptures. Occasionally it was used as a common noun that designated those who belonged to the category of the divine. In this way 2 Peter can call Jesus God without either identifying Jesus with God or seriously affirming the existence of two Gods. Eventually these uses were related in the doctrine of the Trinity. synopsis of the article |
||||||
264 | Original language of Revelation | Revelation | djconklin | 31880 | ||
Is there anyway to get a complete copy of the thesis? BTW, there is no doubt that Jesus and John would not or could not have known koine Greek and thus it is highly possible that Jesus did say that He was the alpha and the omega. I'll read the rest after I have had some sleep! |
||||||
265 | Original language of Revelation | Revelation | djconklin | 31922 | ||
Tim, I got the impression that the writer of the thesis was claiming that Jesus was using the Hebrew (vs. Aramaic?) alphabet and not the Greek (alpha and omega). |
||||||
266 | Original language of Revelation | Revelation | djconklin | 31926 | ||
Thanks! I look forward to seeing it! | ||||||
267 | Original language of Revelation | Revelation | djconklin | 32042 | ||
Thanks! I'll check into it! | ||||||
268 | Original language of Revelation | Revelation | djconklin | 32044 | ||
That is my understanding also. | ||||||
269 | Original language of Revelation | Revelation | djconklin | 32047 | ||
Just printed the web page (23 pages and NO sources!?!) Found one error: "Now there's other subtleties that come through in the Aramaic that don't come through in the Greek. For example, when Y'shua said He was the "Alef and the Tau", there's something hinted here that doesn't come through by translating this as "Alpha and Omega" or "A and the Z". Alef and Tau spell the word "ET" in Hebrew, which has an important grammatical usage that parallels Y'shua's atonement in a spiritual way. Genesis / Bereshit 1:1 says... "In the beginning G-d created it; the heavens and the earth"" The "ET" the author refers to is a direct object marker (i.e., it tells the reader that you have just been given the subject and verb and now you'll be given the direct object). In this verse there is another one attached to the "and" between "heavens and earth". |
||||||
270 | Original language of Revelation | Revelation | djconklin | 32200 | ||
Mind you that just about all the Hebrew I can remember! I also think that he is "off-base" about the remark by Gregory of Nazianzus. Mark writing for the Latins does not mean that he wrote in Latin; Mark was written for the Romans. Luke writing for the Greeks does not mean that he wrote in Greek--it just so happens that he did. Just like Matthew writing for the Jews does not mean that he wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic (I just happen to believe based on what evidence I have seen that he did write in Hebrew). |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] |