Results 101 - 120 of 156
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | legal rights re: copyrights | Luke 6:31 | MJH | 138955 | ||
You only are allowed to make a copy for back-up purposes for yourself only. You can give your original away, but then must destroy or give the back up away to the same owner as well. Or, you can ask the owner of the material for permission to copy. The copyrite owner must provide this in writting. Even copying songs from live radio is technically illegal. I would suggest that you simply buy what you want. In the past, I have copied something with the purpose of learning if I wanted to purchase or not and then erased the copy; but this too is not technically not legal. To be sure yourself, check out the actual law at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html God bless, MJH |
||||||
102 | John's baptism | Luke 7:29 | MJH | 213819 | ||
John's baptism was for repentance, a return to the Law and Teachings of God. It was purposefully for those Israelites who had wondered away from the True Faith to return; to turn back. What did it do for a person? It was a testimony to the person, to witnesses and before God that the person has repented and turned back to God. The act was something done to show what had already taken place. Baptisms occurred after a change in status took place. For example, when those who were ritually unclean for what ever reason, became ritually clean again, they would go through baptism (Mikvah in Hebrew). Archeologists have dug up wealthy homes in Jerusalem with Mikvot in them. Some pious Jews would go through a baptism every day. John’s baptism and ministry prepared the way for the Messiah. By leading people back to living out the commands of God as they were intended, with love, mercy, compassion, and justice, John prepared a large number of people ready to hear Jesus’ message, and ultimately to receive Him as Messiah (Acts 2:41). Today, we practice the same principle, which finds its original teaching in Exodus and Leviticus and is commanded in Matt 28:19. When a person has a change of status from non-believer to being a believer, we perform a baptism. In this case, the change of status is far more extreme and permanent. The person has gone from the Kingdom of death to the Kingdom of eternal Life found in God through faith in Jesus the Messiah. Were they, in John’s baptism, forgiven for their sin but not unto salvation? Yes and no. Only God knows the heart, but anytime a person places their faith in the Messiah, whether before he came or after he came, that person has eternal life in Him. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. Salvation before and after the cross came about the same way, through True Faith in the One True God and His Messiah. MJH |
||||||
103 | Risen Saints who appeared to Many | Luke 16:31 | MJH | 213223 | ||
kam, The person with whom you are discussing these things is not open to hearing. Not based on this letter you copied here. I do think that everyone of his points is a good question to ask and worthy of treatment, but the attitude he brings with his comments (not really questions) is hostile. I have found that it is best not to get into specific issues such as these when the main issue is far more important. These issues are merely for the sake of avoiding the primary concern, and that is an open heart. Unfortunately, at least from my theological understanding, only the Holy Spirit can open and soften someone's heart. Rather than engaging in what amounts to a meaningless and endless discussion on secondary issues, I'd pray for his heart. Again, I think that each issue he has is valid to address, and certainly many here on this forum can do so, but going to that much detail is pointless when the person rejects the foundation. That being said: The Bible is exceedingly pro-women, as is of course the God who made them. The Bible is not pro-slavery as in actively promoting it, and certainly not in the way we understand it today. The Bible is not anti-disabled or against bastards, but quite the contrary. Solomon is chastised severely for his many wives and there is not doubt that the Bible claims it to be a sin in his life. And of course Samuel did not (nor did Nathan) threaten David with having his wives raped, but rather said it would happen as a result. The only way this man will have peace with these issues is if he studies the Text with a good community and is open to the Holy Spirit. Sorry I can't simply answer away like you may want, but the logic he uses may sound strong on the service, but it's based on faulty understanding and sometimes it is simply in error. MJH |
||||||
104 | Business and following Lord | Luke 18:22 | MJH | 215126 | ||
All work is sacred. There is no such thing as a profession or business that is better or best. Not even full time ministry or missionary service is "better" than any so-called secular job. Adam was created to do work, even before the fall in Genesis 1-3. God has given you gifts and talents, and what ever you feel "called" to or have a passion for, do it with all your passion as to the Lord. If you work for someone else, do it with conviction, ambition and gratitude. If you work your own business, do it with integrity. If you care for your own children as in a stay-at-home mom/dad, then do it well and with purpose and forethought. But the idea that there is a better job is simply not correct. There may be a better job for you personally, but that is based on your gifts, talents, and passions. Please note: I assume you know that jobs which promote sin are not good in anyway. MJH Col 3:23-24 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. |
||||||
105 | Why did Jesus speak these words? | Luke 23:31 | MJH | 138956 | ||
Check out a book entitled: "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" by David Bivin, Roy Blizzard. This verse and many others explained. |
||||||
106 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211597 | ||
Robbert, It is rather unfortunate that there is a division between the pre-Jesus scriptures and the post. As if the "old" means no longer applicable or worthy. OR that the "new" means better and different. Deut. 12:32 - 13:18 clearly state that no laws are to be added or subtracted from the Law God gave Moses. It then says that even if a miracle worker tells you something that doesn't agree with this, he is a false prophet. Also, Numbers 15:16 "There is to be one Law and one ordinance for you [Israel] and for the alien [gentile] who sojourns with you." If we make Jesus or Paul teach a different Law than God taught through Moses, then we make them false prophets. There is no two ways to salvation. One before the cross and one after. All who are in the World to Come arrive the same way, through the Faith of Abraham, the faith in the Messiah who would be/has been the ultimate sacrifice, the sacrifice that effects us for the world to come, the new heaven and the new earth. MJH too much to write exhaustively on. See Tim Hegg, "The Letter Writer: Paul's Background and Torah Perspective" I am just about finished and it is very excellent. Very well documented book with primary sources and careful logic. |
||||||
107 | John's death | John 1:1 | MJH | 213829 | ||
According to Tertullian (in The Prescription of Heretics) John was banished (presumably to Patmos) after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and suffering nothing from it. It is said that the entire coliseum were converted to Christianity upon witnessing this miracle. Josephus wrote too early to have included this event. I am NOT suggesting that this is an historically accurate statement, just answering your question without additional comment. MJH |
||||||
108 | what is a bible mansion | John 14:2 | MJH | 173822 | ||
The Greek word translated as Mansion in the KJV is incorrectly translated. As DocT has said, it refers to a room added to the father’s household. The idea that we are to forgo materialism here on Earth, so that in Heaven we can have our own personal "mansion" is inconsistent. If one expects to find a personal mansion in the world to come, he or she will be disappointed (if that were possible) when he or she arrives to find, not a mansion, but a community of people living together, not with glorious things, but with glorious relationships. This is the point of the scripture at hand, living with the Father and His family. MJH |
||||||
109 | The Spirit and the Seventy | John 16:7 | MJH | 223381 | ||
Mr. Levin, 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? MJH |
||||||
110 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140036 | ||
Act 2:37-38 “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the emissaries, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (HNT) The term, shubh (Hebrew), is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. TO TURN BACK – implies to turn back to something. This is most likely the word John the Baptist used in the desert when immersing people. (Or the Greek or Arabic equivalent). The same for Acts when Peter says the people need to repent and be immersed. (Baptism was a very common practice in those days and they would have all known what it was a picture of in relation to repentance.) So what is required for Salvation? Simple answer, “Repentance.” Although repenting implies the following: 1. you believe in the One true God; 2. you believe you have fallen short of what God requires. 3) Jesus is the Messiah; 4) His death and resurrection are sufficient to redeem you. Since you are “turning back” it might also be helpful to know to what you are turning back to. MJH |
||||||
111 | 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. MJH |
||||||
112 | Discontinued Account? | John 19:14 | MJH | 226808 | ||
Sorry, I fixed that. When I get time I will get a bit more detailed. | ||||||
113 | Why did Jesus fold His burial napkin? | John 20:7 | MJH | 211965 | ||
I suppose the real reason is somewhat speculative in nature unless someone can find a custom that has merit. I heard a pastor relate the servant/master custom in the early 1990's but couldn't find verification then. Now it is an e-mail phenomena being passed on as fact, but it is actually a myth. "We have checked numerous Bible study sources and have found nothing about this alleged Jewish custom of the folded napkins. We did not find any Bible scholars who have used this story and illustration about the meaning of the folded napkin. Additionally we talked with a Jewish rabbi friend of TruthOrFiction.com's who has been a life-long Orthodox Jew, a Jewish scholar, and lives in Jerusalem, Israel, and he said he'd never heard of it" from the site: www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/folded-napkin.htm MJH |
||||||
114 | 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 |
||||||
115 | 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.... :-) |
||||||
116 | 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 |
||||||
117 | OT/NT | Acts 26:14 | MJH | 212242 | ||
Without trying to stir up needless debate, I believe strongly that Jesus spoke Hebrew, though it is an ongoing debate. 1) The earliest sources (referred to as secondary) say Hebrew. 2) Archeology is more and more leaning toward Hebrew for the common tongue. 3) The dead sea scrolls give more evidence for Hebrew than Aramaic. 4) It's the language of the Bible and the Jews were only gone 70 years in an Aramaic speaking land. But since the late second century they were gone for more than 1800 years and when the got their land back they went back to Hebrew as the common tongue. Why wouldn’t they have done so after only 70 years. Everything I know about the Jewish people of the first century tells me that they would cling to their native language and teach it to their children from birth. This argument is base solely on inferences. 5) Jesus would have spoken Aramaic because many Jews coming into the area for the festivals would be Aramaic and Greek speakers. It would be reasonable to assume Jesus knew Aramaic very well and Greek enough to get by. These are my assumptions, but the majority of "scholars" still say Aramaic, though they are wrong :-) MJH |
||||||
118 | salvation for unbelievers? | Rom 1:20 | MJH | 212444 | ||
The question you ask is a large debate in the Christian community. You will find from the extreme Universalism that everyone who lives will eventually be in heaven all the way to the extreme dogmatic who believes that anyone not in their denomination will not go to heaven. The Scriptures deal with how mankind can draw near to a Holy God. They generally do not deal with this hypothetical question straight on. One comes to conclusions based on inferences. One thing we can be certain of is that God is holy AND just and will deal with each person according to His character and purpose. Why does this specific question interest you at this time? MJH |
||||||
119 | When did Jesus violate any law? | Rom 7:6 | MJH | 150094 | ||
According to some, Mark 7 says that Jesus did away with the food laws, permitting anyone to eat any animal, clean or unclean. If Jesus revoked a law of Moses, then that would be a violation of the law. What do you think Jesus did in Mark 7? MJH |
||||||
120 | Are we free from the Law? | Rom 7:6 | MJH | 150100 | ||
I am so glad you asked this question. I have been searching this out for the last three and a half years. If you are a reader, I can give you some good books to read. They will not give you a clear cut answer, but they will help in your search. Personally I have found the search for an answer far more rewarding than an eventual answer. In short, the covenant with Noah plays a large part in this discussion. In the first century the "God Fearers" were those who believed in the One true God, but did not want to have certain parts of their anatomy cut off (circumcision). They worshiped in the court of the Gentiles, but were not converts in the fullest sense. These people were expected to follow the Noah covenant. The Jews found 7 laws in this covenant. This all was practiced during the time of Paul. The Acts 15 counsel listed 4 things that the Gentile believers in Jesus needed to abide by. All four are a part of the covenant with Noah and fit in with how the first century Jew viewed these things. Paul did not want to force all of the Law on the Gentiles as it was lived out by Jews in Jerusalem. That being said, others say.... Read Acts 21 and on. There are thousands of Christians ZELOUS for the law, and Paul not only performs a sacrifice, but pays for others to be able to perform the sacrifice (Nazarite covenant sacrifice.) Paul calls himself a Pharisee in the present tense. In Acts 15, the 4 "rules" are laid out, but they end by noting that Moses is taught every week in the synagogues in every city, possibly implying that Gentiles know where to go to learn what else the laws say. Did Jesus do away with not eating unclean animals in Mark 7? Or is that a miss understanding of what He was saying. Could the Messiah do away with any commands of the Torah (Law of Moses) and still be the Messiah. Especially when in Matt 5, He says that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to place it on a firmer footing. Many think that in Galatians 2, Paul, when he says “works of the law” (ergos numos) he means “legalistic observance to the law”, but in the Greek in the first century there was no word for legalistic, and “works of the law” was the closest he could come. …. By now I am either boring you, or perking your interest. I do not have your answer, but I have been studying this for some time and read much about it. If you want to discuss it more, or want book recommendations, or have questions about statements above, let me know. KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS…… They are they key to wisdom…… MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |