Results 1 - 20 of 156
|Results from: Answers
On or After: Thu 12/31/70
Author: MJH Ordered by Date
|1||Sabbath Saturday change to Sunday||Matt 5:18||MJH||231798|
|God did not nor could not change the Law. It's a binding covenant for all time, both in this life and the life to come; however, given the changes in our status before God, certain elements of the Law would be applied differently, or all together irrelevant. (Where there is no unclean, there is no need for cleansing rituals.)
Some time between 70 AD and 114 AD this change occurred. More likely after 90 AD.
The why? is far too long of an answer for here, but historically it was inevitable.
The New Testament doesn't answer the question for us because the writing of the New Testament, with the exception of possibly John's Revelation, was written before anyone even thought such a thing could occur.
While some point to obscure Texts to show it was an Apostolic change, this is impossible when one understands first century Judaism. One of the primary reasons the Jews are said to be exiled in Babylon was for ignoring the Sabbath. They knew this, and because of this they turned the Sabbath into a heavy burden of rules to guard against it's desecration. Had the Apostles "changed" this day from Saturday to Sunday, it would have been as big of a fight and discussion as Gentile inclusion was. But nothing is said in the New Testament! Nothing. This fact alone aught to be proof enough that it never changed during the writing of the New Testament.
That all being said, should you worship on Sunday or Saturday is your call. God has OBVIOUSLY blessed the church and many many devout Christians who have not only believed, but taught passionately that Sunday was the day of worship. To fail to take this into account is a massive error.
So I am not telling you, nor anyone, what is right in this matter; only what is to me obvious knowing now what I know.
|2||Abraham lying?||Heb 11:17||MJH||230762|
|I agree with Searcher. Even if Abraham had succeeded in the sacrifice, Isaac would have rose from the dead as he was the promised child. If Isaac did die, and stayed dead, then God would be a liar, and all would be lost of them and us.
This is the 10th and final test of Abraham. He'd been through a lot. The mere fact that Isaac was born of a woman who's womb had died is really no less than a resurrection itself.
Of course, Hebrews 11 confirms all this to be the case.
Love to learn . . . MJH
|3||why id paul oppose circusission||NT general||MJH||230281|
|The previous answer was good, only Paul wasn't opposed to circumcision (he circumcised Timothy who was according to first century Jewish law, a gentile), rather he was opposed to how it was being applied/used to be a mandate for inclusion into the Body of Christ.
Originally, circumcision was the sign of the Promise given to Abraham, only the sign wasn't given until Abraham realized and accepted that God's promise wouldn't come about by his (Abraham's) strength, but by God's. (Abraham tried to make the promise come about by having Ishmael.) It's interesting that a covenant is given in Genesis 12, again in Genesis 15, but no sign of the covenant promise is provided. Not until Genesis 17 when God says Sarah will have a son is the sign given. It's no mistake that it's that part of the body that Abraham used to try and make God's promise come about that gets cut.
Therefore, the original meaning of circumcision was to be a sign/reminder that the ultimate Promise will not come about by our deeds, strength, or works, but by God alone.
By the first century the Jewish religious authority had ruled that non Israelites (non-Jews) would not have a place in the world-to-come unless they first went through ritual conversion which included 1) baptism, 2) saying the Shema (which also meant taking on the full yoke of the Law as interpreted by the Sanhedrin), 3) give (or pay for) a sacrifice at the Temple, and 4) become circumcised.
Of course, making circumcision the act that earned you salvation was turning the sign on its head. The rule of the day did, however, accomplish its desired goal which was to keep the Judaism of the day pure.
Paul obviously stood apposed to this understanding which placed a wall of separation between Gentile believers and Jewish believers in Jesus. (Jews can't eat with non Jews...not a good thing for a mixed community). But in relationship to Timothy, Paul did not oppose circumcision. Why? Because it removed an obvious impediment to the ministry task (hard to minister if you can't eat together or be in the same home). Also, Paul, and therefor Timothy, had a proper Biblical understanding of the meaning and purpose of the sign. It was not performed in order to earn anything, but a response of Faith that God would see to it. (Genesis 22:8)
|4||Who was the first person to be saved?||Gen 15:6||MJH||229961|
|While Abraham may not be your first thought, given he was born centuries before Jesus, the Promise of the Messiah was first articulated clearly to him in Genesis 12, 15, 17. It was in chapter 15 where the Text clearly states that Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness." All of the Bible hangs upon this Capital 'P' promise which Paul in the book of Galatians refers to as "The Good News."
Jesus is the Messiah who, through his death and resurrection, is the guarantee of that Promise.
This is not to say that those before Abraham were not saved through trusting belief, but following the Narrative of the Scriptures, this is where we find that language first.
Others: "Enoch walked with God..." Gen. 5:24. "Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD." Gen 6:8.
As far as those who believed first after Jesus' physical resurrection? It was most likely one of the women who went to the tomb.
|5||why bible says the body is the temple||1 Cor 6:19||MJH||229896|
|The Temple or Tabernacle was the place where God’s special Presence was. It was highly protected because for man to get too close he would die. God is Holy and we are not.
The reason for the Temple was for people to have the ability to draw near to God safely. Also, God desires to dwell among His people. In the first verses of Leviticus we learn that “if a man desires” to draw near to God this is how…. It is up to us to desire to draw near and Psalm 84 is a good Psalm to read about what that experience may have been like. “My soul yearns and even faints for your courts.”
“Now a people who were once far off are now brought near.” The apostle Paul (Eph 2:13). Even Gentiles are able to draw near to God, but how if they are nowhere near the Temple, and what about us in our day with no Temple?
On the day of Pentecost the Spirit came with power as a symbol of a flame, the symbol of God’s presence. Remember in Exodus, God’s presence led them by fire at night and a cloud by day. Pentecost was a festival that particularly remembered the giving of the Ten Commandments where the people saw God’s voice (yes, “saw His voice”). This was the time and place when, not only did they receive the Ten Commandments, but the Law and the Tabernacle instructions.
In Acts, at the very start of that Festival that remembers the time God’s Presence descended on the mountain and the giving of the Law, the Spirit comes as a flame onto each disciple. This is significant in that the dwelling of God is now present within the children of God. Even though we are still in This World of sin and death, we have a place in the Age to Come on account of Jesus actively serving as the High Priest in that venue. Prior to his sacrifice and service, the Spirit could not come in this manner (I wish I could explain why more clearly, but Jesus does say that the Spirit ‘cannot come’ unless He ascends.)
Therefore, with the Spirit dwelling in us (in some mystical way) we are collectively the Temple of God. Would you bring shrine prostitutes into the Temple on earth? NO!, Then do not with your own body. Would you contaminate the Temple by treating it poorly, harshly, disrespectfully? No! Then treat your body well.
I’m sure in years to come I will understand better. Maybe others can elaborate or know more clearly?
|6||When did the hebrew become jew and why||Gen 11:16||MJH||229801|
|A Hebrew is from Eber, Gen 11:16, or at least it is believed. The Hebrews, of which Abraham is one, led to the Tribe of Israel (Jacob). After Israel was split into two groups (Israel and Judah) the northern tribes were dispersed by Assyria. They are the lost tribes of Israel. Judah (the southern main tribe) and anyone who happened to be living among them, were taken by Babylon. The Babylonians and subsequently the Persians, allowed the tribe of Judah to remain as Judeans, or “Jews” as we come to call them.
Since Judah was the main tribe left and the vast majority were of that tribe, all Israelites were referred to as Jews (from Judah). Paul, however, was of the tribe of Benjamin (The Benjamites were located inside the land of Judah). Several Levites obviously survived, and Anna in the New Testament was from the tribe of Asher.
But Hebrew became Jew by way of the process listed above.
|7||Discontinued Account?||John 19:14||MJH||226808|
|Sorry, I fixed that. When I get time I will get a bit more detailed.|
|8||pray before each meal||NT general||MJH||226800|
|There are no commandments in the Bible about praying BEFORE we eat.
There is a commandment in the Bible to bless God "after you eat and are satisfied." Deut. 8:10
It was Jewish tradition to also bless God before eating. I can not remember the rationale for it but I remember it made sense, and since Jesus practiced that tradition it follows that we would do as He did.
The common blessing said during the days of the Messiah was a version of: "Blessed are you Lord our God, King of the universe, who has brought forth bread from the Land (Earth)." There is no textual evidence that this was the actual blessing Jesus said, but he certainly said some type of Blessing of God before he broke the bread.
An aside: They did not ask God to bless the food. It was assumed that since the food was there, good, and ready to be eaten, that it was already blessed. To "bless God" may sound strange to our unfamiliar ears, so thanking God or praising God are certainly good options.
|9||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.
|10||Lying justified?||Josh 2:5||MJH||225072|
|It would have been morally wrong for Rahab to not lie for it would have certainly resulted in the death of the spies.
Those good people risking all to hide Jews during WW2, to fail to lie to the German Nazi's, would have been morally wrong.
When one is faced with the unfortunate situation where by keeping one law you break another, he must know which is greater.
"Life" trumps most things.
In Jesus day this question was asked in many ways and Jesus is asked it as well. Will Jesus "work" on the Sabbath to bring wholeness to a hurting sick person or not? Is "to do good" greater than to "not work on the Sabbath?"
One group said it this way: All commands can be broken to preserve life but these three: 1) to take a life, 2) to commit adultery, 3) to commit idolatry; for the Law was given so that "you might have life" and not death. Death is the antagonist of God's Law and Kingdom.
A long way to say, Rahab was considered righteous because she lied. That being said, I agree with previous answers, it is technically speculation, but the results of Rahab's blessed life and the comments in Scripture concerning her lead me to be quite certain of that statement.
|11||What was the purpose of circumcision?||Gen 17:10||MJH||223383|
Gen 12 - Abram is given the Promise. I will bless you, make you into a great nation, all nations on earth will be blessed through you, and the Land will be yours.
No Sign of this covenant Promise given.
Gen 15 - Abram is given the covenant Promise in covenant form. God "cuts" a covenant with Abram and repeats the promises.
No sign of the covenant is given.
Gen. 16 - Abram has Ishmael with Hagar. He attempts to make God's promise come true in his own strength. If Abram does not have a child, God is proved to be a liar. Abram solves the problem, so he thinks for the next 13 years. He assumes the blessing is reckoned through Ishmael.
Gen. 17 - Abram believes God and it is credited as righteousness. God promises a son, the Promised son, through Sarah. God gives the sign of the covenant Promise--circumcision. Why not given until now? Because Abraham needed to understand that God's Promise (all of it) will come about in God's time and way. Circumcision is a physical reminder of that fact. It is neither by Abram’s works nor ours that the Promise of God will come to all nations. By cutting the very part of the body that attempted to secure the Promise in his own strength; the part of the body that signified a man’s power and strength, the People of God would be reminded of this Promise and that it would not come about by their (or their child’s) ability, strength, cunning, or wisdom, but by God's alone.
Joshua 5. All the people who were born in the wilderness wanderings were not circumcised. Why? When the first generation refused to trust God's promise of the land by entering; and then trying to conquer it on their own strength, they proved themselves to be faithless. They did not trust in the Promise of God and therefore they were forbidden to participate in the sign of the promise. They were faithless so they can not perform the covenant sign of faith in the Promise. When the next generation is ready to enter the land, and they do trust God, they get circumcision. (This is a further proof of trust, because it made them extremely vulnerable at the door step of their enemies.)
The prophets repeatedly say that one should be “circumcised of heart.” Having a surgery performed on you at eight days old did not demonstrate your own acceptance of the Promise. Circumcised of heart is true Faith in the Promise which is by far more important than an outward physical sign.
In Paul’s day and some time earlier, circumcision was seen as a way for Gentiles to join the community. Rather than an outward sign of true faith, it became the means to join God’s people and therefore was a “work of the law” to get saved. That’s turning the original meaning Abraham was shown upside down. If circumcision is seen as a way to get saved, then better to stay uncircumcised. Circumcision of the heart (as spoken of by the Prophets) was and is the main issue. Yet, Paul does not toss out the commandment as is seen in circumcising Titus (or was that Timothy?) and proving in Acts 21-22 that he was not teaching against the Jews circumcising their children.
I hope that helps. Please note: you should do due diligence in seeking answers to your questions. My answer may not be that common, but I am certain that gifted teachers here will comment should they feel I am off base…which I welcome.
|12||The Spirit and the Seventy||John 16:7||MJH||223381|
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?
|13||Is this law still binding? If so, how?||Bible general Archive 4||MJH||218046|
To be unclean is not a sin, though sin does make one unclean. Unclean is a "state of being" that renders one unable to approach God safely in the Temple. Evening was the start of a new day. I'm not sure the greater significance, but I do know that a day begins a sunset in the Bible.
Washing with water (ie. baptism) was to demonstrate that a change in status from unclean to clean had occurred. Much the same way our Baptism practiced in Christianity signifies a change in status from alienated from God, to be near God and a part of His family. The true nearness occurs when Rev. 21 happens, but until then we know we have been cleansed (made clean) from our sin.
I've practiced this "law" in our marriage out of respect for both my wife and for life. The menstrual cycle is a reminder that a life that might have happened, had things lined up right, did not and the blood is a picture of life being lost (the life is in the blood). All of this, all of uncleanness, is a picture of what sin did not only to our souls but to the whole physical world and created order at large. It's a physical picture and reminder that things are not as they are suppose to be.
Furthermore, the woman's cycle and subsequent pains in childbirth (and pain during PMS not to mention the man's pain during that time...) is a result of the original sin.
This is how I understand it. It's probably more complicated and odd than what you expected...sorry. I come from the starting point that God's Law is perfect and complete, not to be added to or subtracted from as He says in Deut 4 and 12. How that Law applies when we have no Temple, are not in the Land, and are not Priests, and are living after the resurrection of Jesus is constantly being debated. In the end, I try to keep as much of the command as I am able living in this day and in his place. And that I do poorly at best.
This note does not necessarily reflect the majority opinion.
|14||animal that can't be killed||Leviticus||MJH||217458|
|The Bible does not restrict raising any animals. It also does not restrict slaughtering them with the exception previously noted.
It does restrict which can be used as a sacrifice and where a sacrifice could be made as well as which can be eaten by a member of the Assembly of God.
If you are interested in which can be "eaten" see Leviticus 11. This may be what you were seeking.
|15||Noah putting God first in his life||Gen 6:8||MJH||217457|
"Noah walked with God."
|16||Putting God 1st in our lives?||Deut 6:4||MJH||217455|
|Deut 6:4-6 is the primary Text for this idea.|
|17||causes of persecution in century church||Bible general Archive 4||MJH||216979|
|In short there were two streams of persecutions in the First Century Church.
One came from the non-believing Jews. Paul was one of these early persecutors.
The other came from Rome. Christians were deemed to be Atheists and were imprisoned, enslaved, or tortured as such.
The book of Acts details much of both of these streams of persecutions as do Paul's letters.
Also, all Jews (of which Christians were lumped in with) were persecuted particularly after 67-70 C.E. Gentile Christians begin to distinguish themselves form the Jewish population at this time. By the 90's C.E. the Jews enact benedictions that prohibit Believers from participating in the synagogue furthering this seperation.
The history of the persecution is not able to be summarized in a short note. It took place over several decades and there were short periods of localized persecutions which were very severe as well as longer periods of "softer" persecutions.
Into the second century, however, the trouble got far worse and lasted until the fourth century.
Church history can actually be a very interesting study. It's a shame that too few endeavor to learn it; and I have a ways to go myself!
|18||What is love?||Matt 22:37||MJH||216977|
|Love isn't a feeling, but an action. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. It's that simple.
Why did Jesus say, when asked the greatest commandment, quote Deut 6, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind." and then add the second? "Love your neighbor as yourself?"
Why did Jesus need to include the second greatest command when giving the first?
Why does Paul say the greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself? Is he disagreeing with Jesus?
No. He isn't. No one can Love God with "special feelings." They can only love God by showing love to His people. And since Love is the fulfillment (purpose) of the commandments, when we Love Jesus we obey his commandments.
|19||Did Jesus ever drink wine?||Matt 11:19||MJH||215868|
|John the Baptist did not drink wine because he was a Nazarite for life and no grape product (wine or juice or simply a grape) could be eaten.
Jesus did drink wine and it was the real thing...with alcohol in it fully fermented. He also changed water into wine, and again, it was the real thing. The master of the household declared it the best, and wine that isn't fermented isn't close to the best. (This miracle was performed in a town that worshiped Dionysius, the god of wine.)
Some have tried to convince themselves that Jesus only drank what they refer to as “new wine” that did not contain alcohol. But historically and religiously this simply is not true. In fact, it is so obviously shown to be untrue that only one thing can cause a person to hold firmly to such a belief. Pure dogmatism. A strict belief in something because their “teachings” say so. No proof needed and all evidence to the contrary is dismissed outright.
The fact of the matter is that God actually created grapes to be used as wine. It's use in the worship at the Temple was prescribed by God Himself. The Passover celebration (in the first century) required four glasses of wine to be drunk by the participants (probably small glasses or all from a common cup.)
Drinking red wine with a meal is in no way bad in-and-of-itself. Only when it causes offense to another, or temps a person with a drinking problem. Most churches now use grape juice for the Lord's Supper (Eucharist, Communion, et. al.) to protect those who are alcoholics.
I hope this helps. Biblical references are so numerous it would be cumbersome to include, but if you do not have a good concordance or e-sword.org, or can't access “blue letter Bible” on the Internet, I could gather them for you.
|20||WHAT WAS CIRCUMCISION?||Genesis||MJH||215565|
|Circumcision was a covenant sign.
The promise God made was to bless Abraham and cause him to be a great nation (Gen. 15). Abraham attempts to make this promise come true by having a child Ishmael with Hagar. He thinks that this was the plan until Gen 17 when God says no, Ishmael will not be the promised child, but rather one from Sarah who is past child bearing years.
Abraham tried to make the covenant promise a reality in his own strength. Then God confirms the promise and institutes circumcision. The part of the body Abraham used to try to make God's promise a reality was cut. The symbol of his strength is cut.
It is a visual and physical reminder that 1) God's ultimate promise of the Seed (Gen 3) will not come about by man's righteousness or strength. 2) Ultimate salvation is not by works.
When you circumcise your 8 day old child, you will be reminded that God's promised Seed will come by God’s righteousness to the covenant and not by this child's righteousness or strength.
It's a bit of a quick answer. There is more there.
BTW, in the first century, circumcision was seen as a way into the covenant. Its purpose was turned on its head. A Gentile couldn't be a covenant member unless he circumcised himself (among a few other things). Paul argued that no “work” can gain you covenant status. Abraham is a perfect example, so Paul uses him in Galatians and Romans.
|Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last  >>|