Results 1 - 20 of 325
|Results from: Notes
Author: MJH Ordered by Verse
|1||Tyndale gave us our English Bible||Bible general Archive 4||MJH||211968|
|Interesting. Something I did not know about William Tyndale. Thanks for sharing.
|2||Buddha statue in a house of a christian.||Bible general Archive 4||MJH||214575|
|Exo 20:4-6. Do not make an image out of anything from heaven, earth/land, or sea.
It would be wrong for a Christian to display an engraved image such as a buddah regardless of their reasons.
My most direct answer.
|3||are we born into a sinnful world||Bible general Archive 4||MJH||215842|
|Good answer to whomever at gotquestions wrote this one.
The only thing I would add would be that sin infected not only all mankind, but also all creation.
Romans 8:19 "For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God.
For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.
For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."
|4||doing a trivia questionaire||Bible general Archive 4||MJH||215972|
|O' shucks. I put Paul for the last one.... He rather said, For me to live is Christ and to die is gain.
|5||Call from God!||Bible general Archive 4||MJH||217478|
You have my sympathies in your loss.
When you get the time, please update your profile.
You are being prayed for still.
|6||who was the first person jesus saved?||Bible general Archive 4||MJH||230697|
|Saved from what. Many were saved from illness etc... Salvation in the Biblical text can mean more than just eternal life.
|7||can I eat shellfish?||Bible general Archive 3||MJH||166084|
|Neither of your scriptures is saying that it is okay to eat "unclean" food.
Particularly the Mark 7 passage, but the Acts passage also is not intended to say it is okay to eat unclean food.
Your argument can be better made based on other passages, but not these.
and your argument may be wrong, but that is for another day.....
|8||can I eat shellfish?||Bible general Archive 3||MJH||166096|
|The Acts 15 council did not mention stealing, murder, loving your neighbor and a hundred other things.
Peter did not eat any of the animals after the vision, and in fact stood there and pondered, "What could the vision mean?" Because eating unclean animals wasn't a viable answer...after all, the law is quite clear on that...so what was the answer to the vision?
The answer arrives at the door at that moment. Gentiles wanted him to come to the home of a God fearing Gentile and eat with him. Jews did not do this, and they did not do it for Kosher reasons. The law did not say they couldn't eat with a Gentile, but the legalists had so ingrained this in their minds that it took a vision to convince Peter who walked with Jesus for 3 plus years that it was okay.
There is a lot of history here that I don't have time to go into that pertains to this passage, but you might look into it yourself. It is quite fascinating.
There are a number of thoughts on the food laws that people have:
1) Some say that the food laws are void and Jews or Gentiles can eat whatever. Matt 5 seems to disagree since it would change the law which is impossible.
2) Some say that Gentiles can eat anything because Noah was told this, but Israelites and any who convert to become an Israelite must follow the food laws still today.
3) Some say the same as two, but that the laws of Hospitality are greater than the laws of Unclean foods, so a Jew can eat unclean (or food not known to be cooked correctly) in order to not offend a host.
4) Others say that both Jews and Gentiles believers ought to follow the food laws and any other law that we can follow. With no temple most Mosaic laws are not possible for anyone to follow and without the court of elders (Sanhedrin in the first century), many more are not possible to follow.
Books have been written on each side.
I am not arguing one position over another in this post, but I don't like to see people use these passages to make point that the writer didn't originally intend.
"The text can never mean what it never meant."
|9||can I eat shellfish?||Bible general Archive 3||MJH||166098|
|Mark 7 is Jesus discussing washing hands before you eat. The Oral Law of the time said you had to do this or you would contaminate the food. Jesus disagrees with adding this burden that the Torah did not intend.
When he mentions "food" he is speaking of "clean" food. Anything that was "unclean" would not have fit the category of "food."
Deut 4:2 says "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
READ Deut 13. Jews memorize this book, and then we tell them to follow Jesus, and they should do this because he proved himself by miracles and signs (sound familiar?) and then we add, o' by the way, you don't need to follow that silly "OLD" law anymore. In light of Deut 13, Jesus would be a false prophet.
As the Messiah, Jesus could not have sinned by even breaking the least of the commandments. What people suggest, however, is that not only did Jesus break the laws of eating "clean", but that he violated Deut 4:2 and said such law was no longer applicable, and he did this before his death. If so, he can't be the Messiah. I
The NIV adds the words, "In saying this, Jesus declared all food clean." This is not in the text. To make the Greek makes sense, a translator has to re-word this in some way, which means they have to interpret what Jesus meant.
Even if Jesus "declared all food clean", the word "foods" would apply only to "clean" foods in context. Jesus wouldn't have referred to something unclean as being "food." Remember his audience is Jewish and the topic is cleaning hands. All “clean” foods are “clean” and can not be made otherwise by unwashed hands.
In all of this let’s not forget the larger principle that Jesus is teaching…it is what comes from the heart the truly matters and the Pharisees in this passage have some big problems there.
For my response to the Acts passage, see my response in this thread entitled "The Acts 15 council..."
|10||can I eat shellfish?||Bible general Archive 3||MJH||166099|
|Hey Doc, always a pleasure.
Acts 15 mentions 4 things: 1) food sacrificed to idols; 2) blood; 3) strangled animals; 4) sexual immorality.
75 percent of these have to do with food. Yet most Christians do not follow the 75 percent (some don't follow the 25 percent unfortunately.) They say the Apostles put these in because of the idol worship practices of the day, so since that is no longer the case, we can ignore the 3 "laws" on food in Acts 15.
Acts 15:21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath."
This passage follows the 4 laws. It is saying that here are 4 things you ought to do, and Moses is taught in every town and you know where and when, so go and learn and study…after all, this was the whole Bible at the time. And don’t forget, there were many many other laws that they could have added but were not such as stealing, murder, love your neighbor, take care of widows and orphans…but they are not in the list. Only 3 food laws, and 1 sex law. Obviously they were not giving a complete list.
Now, we know that Paul was an amazing “good” Pharisee with an unbelievable grasp of the Scriptures of his day. He spends a great deal of effort in Galatians discussing many of these issues. Even Paul in Acts 21-23 goes to great length to prove that he still followed the Mosaic law and never told Jews in the Diaspora not to follow the Mosaic law. For many friends of mine, they are shocked to read this.
I hope that helps. I could go on and on and on… but you may not want me to. ;-)
|11||can I eat shellfish?||Bible general Archive 3||MJH||166130|
I'll have to respond more in depth when I am not caring for my 8 month old, but to clarify some questions I have of your post. What is WWCG?
I hope I do not interpret any doctrine in isolation. You are right that this would be wrong. My contention in the previous posts are to show that the two passages mentioned (Mark 7 and Peter's vision) are poor passages to use to make the point that the food laws have changed.
Your passages are much much better choices.
My personal believe is still that Gentile believers are not held to the dietary laws of Moses. I am uncertain about where I stand with Jews, but in recent days side with their following them.
If ever I change my thinking on any doctrine or understanding of scripture, it is always a long and thoughtful process. I don't believe in flipping back and fourth everytime you hear a good argument on one side or the other.
Sometimes on this forum I test some of the things I have been pondering in the back of my brain (I work and live a life that unfortunatly does not allow for me to progress as quickly as I wish with study.)
In the future I will show where historically the church has held a contrary view on such matters several times and I will show how the Gentile believers in the first 200 years followed much of the Mosaic Law.
I will also discuss the passage you list, but that is a big task.
Galations of course is a whole book, but I've read it so many times I about have it to memory and my understanding has shifted some.
Look forward to the time.
|12||can I eat shellfish?||Bible general Archive 3||MJH||166142|
|No problem, I did lead one to believe that with my arguments, and when I reply in depth later, I will attempt to make that argument; however, I thought it only fair to let you know where I actually stand on the issue. That being said, I do eat according to the Biblical food laws (not Kosher which is MUCH more rules based) but I do not do so to earn any points. At some point I would like to write a one page paper on why I eat the way I do, and when I do I will certainly let you know.
But do not confuse my eating habits and my arguments-to-come with my doctrinal stand. I wouldn't "teach" this in my church.
So why make the argument? Because it helps me a lot and forces others to have a firmer understanding of why they believe what they believe. And this is a safe place to test things out. I was surpirsed when I first joined to find such knowledgable people here and am greatful for the opportunity this forum provides.
|13||concerningthe in-between writings of God||Bible general Archive 3||MJH||173936|
The value of the pseudopygraphal works are primarily in helping us understand what some people in history were thinking. So some books written near the time of Paul's writting, might help us know what Paul was confronting. The same is true for Jesus and the early church fathers, etc...
But you are right, to read it all is for most of us not the best way to use your study time. Maybe if you are a professor of that time period or a scholor like many I admire, but I certainly do not have the time to pour over every one of those books.
|14||Confused?||Bible general Archive 3||MJH||192289|
"Subsequently, the laws of Moses which the scribes and the Pharisees insisted that people follow, was replaced by the teachings of Jesus"
How can the teachings of Jesus replace the laws of Moses when the teachings of Jesus were the laws of Moses?
|15||Confused?||Bible general Archive 3||MJH||192299|
|Jesus did not change the "letter" of the law because if he did he couldn't be the Messiah. Deut. 13 warns of a prophet that would come even doing miracles but if that prophet tried to take Israel away from the commands of Moses, then that was a false prophet. Too many Christians turn Jesus into someone he was not.
Jesus also did not "spiritualize" the commands.
What he did do, however, (to help you with your argument) was to correctly interpret the commands in both how they were originally intended to be understood and how they ought to be applied in their current situation. The Pharisees (not all of them) were heaping on mounds of oral tradition (oral law) and put all of the focus on those laws, most of which had to do with "holiness" commands (ie. clean and unclean) and neglected the mercy and justice laws that Jesus (and some other 1st century Rabbis) taught were "greater."
Nowhere do we see Jesus ending any laws (like the food laws) or adding to the laws (like the Law to Love each other.)
Until Christians see Jesus in his own context and among His own people they will continue to miss his point and teaching (or at least many of them...most Christians do get the heart of the teaching). But even the teaching on the "Kingdom of God/Heaven" that He spent most of his time on is still misunderstood by us today as if it has to do with "going to Heaven."
It is very important, however, to understand the Living Walking in the Flesh Torah Logos of God did not change, end, nor supplant the very Word that He was. Everything in the Torah and the Prophets and the New Testament tells us this.
|16||Confused?||Bible general Archive 3||MJH||192309|
Yes, Jesus is the living fulfillment of the Torah. You are correct that he is much more than a teacher.
When I wrote that Jesus did not add to the laws, I had in mind first and foremost the command in Deut. 12:32 that says, "See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it."
But yes, Lev 19:18 is relevant as well. Jesus is obviously alluding to this commandment. It is new in as much as it is Jesus himself, the Messiah, who tells us that to love ones neighbor as oneself is fulfilled by loving as he as loved. Love for oneself can be unhealthy at times and loving ones neighbor as oneself is a very open ended command. Jesus is putting a finer point on this command by saying, "I have showed you how to love and you being my disciples should do likewise." And of course his love was sacrificial, servant like, and absolute.
It's new in the sense that we have a new picture to relate the command of love to, but it is not new in that the Torah did not already command us to love our neighbors.
Of course if Jesus did add a totally new commandment, he would have broken a commandment nullifying his ability to be the unblemished perfect sacrifice for our sins.
Thanks for giving me an opportunity to flesh out that statement in my pervious post. I was wondering if someone might catch that…
|17||Does God have wings?||Bible general Archive 2||MJH||150199|
|The Hebrew word for wing is kaw-naf'. This word can mean either "wing" in Hebrew, or "corner".
The Hebrews were told in Numbers 15:38 to tie tassels on the kaw-naf' of their robes (so we say corner). This was to remind them of the Laws of God which were to protect them.
When the priest blessed the people, when lifting the robe with the tassels tied to it, he appeared to have wings. So the visual wings were seen when the corners were lifted to bless. (kaw-naf' was seen when the kaw-naf' was lifted).
They equated these tassels as a symbol of God's protection.
When David cut off the kaw-naf' (corner) of Saul's robe in the cave, David was saying by doing this that God's protection was no longer on Saul. Saul says this same thing when he learns of it.
The Hebrews were very visual, and when they heard the psalmist say God had kaw-naf' (wings), they connected this to Num. 15:38, and saw the protection from God found in the symbol of the Tassels which represented the Law.
NOW FOR A REALLY COOL TIDBIT WE OFTEN MISS...
Malachi 4:2 "But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in His (kaw-naf') wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall."
Mattew 9:20-21 " And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well."
Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well.”
Remember that the "fringe" or "tassel" was tied to the corner of the robes of all Jews. She didn't just touch him, she reached out and grabbed the tassel which was on the kaw-naf'(corner OR wing) of Jesus robe.
We do not see Malachi's powerful prophesy and Jesus’ fulfillment, because we do not know that in Malachi, the word is kaw-naf'.
Does God have wings? Yes, as it relates to the word kaw-naf'. It makes very perfect sense that the Hebrews would have pictured God with a robe and tassels held out to bless His people. Of course it's much easier to say, God covers me with His kaw-naf'.
What was God's wing to the Hebrew? His wing was the Torah, or the Law given to Israel. What is God's wing to us now? The Salvation from sin and death through the Messiah Jesus, but more than that…
|18||New Wine vs. Fermented||Bible general Archive 2||MJH||153498|
Hello again Doc,
According to my favorite Archeology book, "Life in Biblical Israel" by Philip King, and Lowrence Stager, wine was fermented and "wine culture was well developed in the period of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the first half of the first millennium B.C."
Also, "The pomace of the grape was 'distilled' into grappa, a brandy. The simple technology for its production was available in the Bronze Age...20 to 60 percent alcoholic content."
Hos. 4:11 "Wine (yayin) and new wine (tiros) take away the understanding."
Isa 5:11 Isaiah denounces those "who rise early in the morning in pursuit of strong wine(sekar) who linger in the evening to be inflamed by wine (yayin)."
See also, "The Origins and Ancient History of Wine", by Patrick McGovern
New Wine: (tiros) is “newly fermented wine, or simply wine”. (asis) is “juice”. (Yayin) is simply “wine.” There are nine words in the Hebrew text for wine, but not necessarily meaning a different kind of wine, but rather distinguishing its origin.
Given this understanding, “New Wine” was still fermented, and since there is a Hebrew word for “Juice,” I doubt that TIROS would mean juice as well.
I got most of this information from the book listed at the top. I never knew this morning that I was going to delve so deeply into the Hebrew and Archeology of wine…..
It’s always good to discuss things with you, Doc!
|19||Can you prove 'a' god exists?||Bible general Archive 2||MJH||154796|
|That is evidence, not proof. GOOD evidence, but this is not what I mean.
|20||Can you prove 'a' god exists?||Bible general Archive 2||MJH||154820|
|see my post further up this thread. ID# 154819
Evidence is not proof. It is support of a possible truth, but as any court case showes, there is evidence on both sides, yet only one side can be true. If you show you evidence contrary to God's existance, that does not prove that God does not exist. Either he does or he does not. Both can not be true. So evidence builds your case, but does not proof it as I attempted to do in post ID# 154819.
|Result pages: [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last  >>|