Results 101 - 120 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
101 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137681 | ||
I hate to disappoint, but they spoke Hebrew. It is hardly even disputed anymore. If you wish I can point to some sources making that point so I need not plagiarize here (against the rules.) Besides, it is far off the topic of Matt 5:17. Also, I will concede that the text may very well have been originally written in Greek, but that is not my personal belief. That being said, it hardly matters since they did speak Hebrew as commoners in 1st Century Judea and particularly in the Galilee (Galil). The history of the Septuagint explains why they translated that into Greek and it had nothing to do with the Jews in Palestine. In fact, it had little to do with the Jews (Hebrews) wanting it done. It was a Greek book enthusiast who desired to have them in his library at Alexandria. You can read Josephus for the whole story which is very VERY fascinating. |
||||||
102 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137682 | ||
Absolutly NONE! Thank God for that, heh? | ||||||
103 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137729 | ||
See my reply to kalos below in the thread. He responded to you and I responded to both in that post titled: "Hebrew culture; a help of not". I also look forward to answering you on Mark 7, but one thread at a time. This one has surprised me as is evident in my post stated above. Thanks, Marvin |
||||||
104 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137732 | ||
Your comments on Jesus speaking Greek were fascinating and I am thankful for the chance to read them. They educated me. I often said that in Jerusalem, Jesus would have had to speak another language other than Hebrew because of the vast numbers of people from outside the region. Greek was my third guess, but with your posts, maybe it will become my first. This does not explain how he spoke to His disciples and those in Galilee. I still firmly believe that He spoke Hebrew (you even make that point to some degree.) I am not the best source for this argument and making it would plagiarize, so see the book, “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus: New Insights From a Hebraic Perspective.” by Bivin and Blizzard. I even have an extra copy I could send you. Since you are interested in languages, then this is a MUST READ. Believe the book or not, it still provides a treasure of information and would be useful. On other notes: I was taught that Jesus built in Sepphoris, a city being built when he was a child and closer to Nazareth (building with stone.) Caesarea was a long way off, but of course we really can only speculate. You mentioned Pilot and not knowing much about him. Check out Paul Meier’s book about the man. Very fascinating and explains why he might have acted the way he did when Jesus was condemned (something that “The Passion” got right – or close). On your explanation of Jesus quoting Deut. 6:5 and adding “mind”; you are of course right in knowing that the Greek had to add “mind” to get the full meaning, but couldn’t the Gospel writers have made the change, and Jesus still teach it in Hebrew? Thanks for the lively discussion, and for not calling me names because I study Hebrew culture, language and 1st century rabbinic teachings to more fully grasp who Jesus is. (I’m sorry, did that sound sarcastic?) |
||||||
105 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137733 | ||
I like your answer and agree (My other comments on this not withstanding.) On our other thread I think I just got sarcastic and a bit upset with your comments, so in this thread I will appologize and I have noted that you certainly understand more of what I am saying than your posts to me have led on. (I read your Bio.) God bless, Marvin |
||||||
106 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137745 | ||
John chapter 21 the word Love is used in its various Greek forms. YES! I like that. Hebrew, amazingly, also has 3 words for love. Ahava, Ryah, and Dod (possibly more) but these match the Greek and are all in the Song of Solomon. Jesus would have used Ahava, and Peter use Ryah. Again, when John told this part of the story he could translate the subtleties into Greek from Hebrew. -It's neat to see how John was following Peter and Jesus. I picture Jesus taking Peter off alone to have this discussion, and then John tails behind just close enough to hear. Read it with this in mind and see if you get that feeling. - I also agree that God most definitely arranged the languages that way. I see that over and over again in studying Hebrew, and I imagine the same with Greek. God after all does plan well. :) In Him, Marvin |
||||||
107 | Hebrew culture;a help or not? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137791 | ||
Steve and John (and others?), Once I re-track down the apparently elusive source for this interpretation, I will get back to this thread and see if anything makes more sense. I think the fear is that if my interpretation is correct, that it therefore diminishes a Christian teaching or possibly a Doctrine. But I would not fear this (in case anyone has been) because the common interpretations for Matt 5:17—that Messiah Jesus was the "end of" the Law [Torah], meaning the purpose of and what the Prophets were pointing to—is made in many other places within the New Testament, not just here. But, like I said, we should get back to this once I find the source and shed some more light on the topic. Marvin |
||||||
108 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137899 | ||
Hank, please see my post in this thread under the heading "sources?" My post begins, "I've spent several hours...." and was posted on 11/20/04 at 11:53pm | ||||||
109 | Hebrew culture;a help or not? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137900 | ||
Steve, please see my post in this thread under the heading "sources?" My post begins, "I've spent several hours...." and was posted on 11/20/04 at 11:53pm The meaning may be changed, but it fits the context perfectly and the traditional meaning is made in other places in scripture, just not here. |
||||||
110 | Is the Law abolished? | Matt 5:17 | MJH | 137901 | ||
Doc, please see my post in this thread under the heading "sources?" My post begins, "I've spent several hours...." and was posted on 11/20/04 at 11:53pm I mention this to you because you seemed interested in the discussion and I didn't want you to miss what will hopefully be my final post on the matter regardless of whether my point is accepted. Hope all is well with you and your illness. God Bless, Marvin |
||||||
111 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | MJH | 163626 | ||
Doc, I would whole heartedly agree with your every word. I greatly appreciate systematic theology and all its good points of which many you mention. What I don't like is approaching God and the study of God in that manner ALONE. Taking him and his revelation apart and looking at it like a scientist can lose sight of the whole of the story or picture. After all, God does not describe Himself as Omni..., but as a Father, a Shepherd, a Rock, a fortress, etc... An example might be: A local junior high school goes to the swamp and gets frogs, cuts them up, and studies their bodies. Another approach would be to go to the swamp and watch and learn about the frogs behavior, his girl friend, his favorite lily pad, etc… It’s the same frog and neither method of study will give the whole picture, but both together will really help us understand “frogness.” So I do love and study the systematic theologies and they are much of what gave my faith roots that last. But recently, I have loved studying who God is using other approaches. (Biblical theology as one example, but others as well.) Like I said, I do agree with your every word in your post. I only want to add more too it. You are right, some like the word "wonder" rather than "mystery" for many reasons. "Wonder" is probably a better word to use given the semantics associated with a word such as "mystery." God bless, MJH |
||||||
112 | Who then is on this broad way? | Matt 7:13 | MJH | 217086 | ||
Rakpak, Welcome to the forum. You are not alone. MJH |
||||||
113 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215886 | ||
You said, "The wine at the time Jesus lived was diluted from a concentrate about 4 parts of water to one part of wine." Do you have a source for this information? Thanks, MJH |
||||||
114 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215891 | ||
THanks, I will check them out. MJH |
||||||
115 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215899 | ||
I check out the two links. They both hold very different views. The second is a perfect example of my earlier post on this thread. Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with their view of wine is "apostate." In either case, the first did not mention the mixing of wine with water and the second mentions the four parts to one mixture without any reference. It's not that I don't think this has a high probability to be true. But the quote is a specific 4-1 mixture rather than the more generic "they mixed water in with their wine" This leads me to believe that they MUST have a source. Something dating from near the first century such as Philo or Josephus or the Mishna or a Greek writer from the era speaking about the Jews. I've read many of so-called historical "facts" from the first century that turned out to be not true, but since they've been passed on so much and so many pastors reference them in sermons, they become assumed. MJH |
||||||
116 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215900 | ||
see new note to searcher56 | ||||||
117 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215971 | ||
Tim, Thanks. That was exactly what I was looking for. I love it when a specific historical statement can be backed up. Seems to me that the anceints might have used Wine more as a common beverage than as a beverage to accompany a good steak. Either way, your link was a good one. MJH |
||||||
118 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215985 | ||
Val, Yes I did catch that too. I was more interested in historical evidence than attitude. Also, I simply do not have a "dog in this fight" so-to-speak. I just don't care much about it to get into the fray. My personal impression is that if a church desires to be alcohol free, I am perfectly fine with this. I also think if you join that church you are obligated to follow what you signed up for. But they would be much better served if they didn't attempt to prove it from the Bible as being a hard and fast "law" all Christians should follow. Doing so puts them in a theological corner they can't get out of. While there is a part of me that would love to draw them into a discussion and then back them into a corner and watch them squirm, I don't think it would be profitable. As far as anyone on this forum whom I have spoken with about the issue, I have seen only grace. Maybe others I haven't spoken to (and the links provided) use terms such as "so-called Christians" or apostates, but that doesn't reflect the discourse I’ve seen from this forum. MJH |
||||||
119 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215986 | ||
Val, Forgot to mention. The link puts "so-called" in square brakets. This usually means the origianal word was replaced with a similar word. OR it wasn't in the original text but added by the editor later. MJH just trying to give the benefit of the doubt. |
||||||
120 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139539 | ||
Can anyone still believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic? The most advanced research says He spoke Hebrew. Using one verse to show He spoke Aramaic, when most of the Gospel and Acts say Hebrew, Archeology says Hebrew, Josephus says Hebrew, the early church fathers say Hebrew, Rabbinic literature says Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls say Hebrew, and coins minted in the first century BC say Hebrew. You said, “We know Jesus spoke Aramaic because he spoke it from the cross when he said: "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" which is the Aramaic, not Hebrew, version of Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Matthew records this in Hebrew (same words). The people in Mark's version are thinking that Jesus is calling Elijah which is only possible if He spoke the words as Matthew records in Hebrew since in Hebrew the term "Eli" can be either "My God" or a shortened from of Eliyahu, Hebrew for Elijah. "Eloi" in Aramaic can only mean, "My God". For Matthew; "lama" (why) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found in Mishnaic Hebrew as well as in Aramaic. Other Hebrew words in the Greek text; levonah, mammom, Wai, rabbi, Beelzebub, corban, Satan, cammom, raca, moreh, bath, kor, zuneem, Boarnerges, Mor, Sheekmah, amen. All archeological finds are 9 to 1 in favor of Hebrew over Aramaic including for those things used by the common man of the day. The Dead Sea Scrolls were in Hebrew 9 to 1 over Aramaic (the common man’s rules for the community were in Hebrew.) … and on and on and on it goes. . . Oh, and a fun one to explain: Jerome says he translated the Latin Vulgate directly from Matthew’s original Hebrew text. Jerome was the most competent Hebrew scholar of all the early church fathers, living in the Land for many years, learning Hebrew from the people who spoke it every day. Then there is the linguistic research which is beyond the scope of this forum I think. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ] Next > Last [17] >> |