Results 121 - 140 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | What was Caesarea Philippi like? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139551 | ||
I don't think I am making the place too important. I know that can be done, but knowing the place can add to ones understanding. The Gospel writers mentioned Caesarea Philippi for a reason. And it was no mistake that Jesus says, "Gates of Hades" while there. After learning some of the history behind this city and what was going on in front of the "gates of Hades" (or underworld), it gave me a fuller picture of what Jesus was doing. It didn't change the meaning, but helped me see Jesus and His dicsiples better. Just ask, would your pastor still be a pastor if he took the youth of the church to a place like this? For many pastors, this act would have ended their ministry. And then Jesus says, "Who am I?" "On this rock I'll build by church." "The Gates of Hades (you see before you, and all that is associated with it) will not prevail." The contrasts and images are powerful and ADD to the readers understanding. They don't change it, or detract from it. MJH |
||||||
122 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139552 | ||
I've had this discussion too many times on this forum to bother with it much more, but should you interested in correting your thinking :-) I'd be happy to suggest a resource by the leading scholors (not some slub like me and many of us). God Bless, MJH |
||||||
123 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139555 | ||
Oh, one more point. You quote David H. Stern a lot. He believes in a Hebrew speaking Jesus and Hebrew as the common language in the first century Israel too. MJH |
||||||
124 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139560 | ||
I am so very sorry. I should have said, "Shlub." My bad. Please please forgive. :-) You mentioned Norman Willis. I am not familure with his argument. Since you are familure with David Stern and Hebrew roots (judging from your posts) I really think you would like the book "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard. If you should read it (short book) let me know. It isn't the only book that makes my point, but it is the book that lays out the argument clearly with all the effidence on all three sides (some say Jesus spoke Greek the majority of the time). Shlubs in the Lord, MJH |
||||||
125 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139568 | ||
If you are willing to read the book "Understanding the Difficult Word of Jesus" by David Bivin and Roy Blizzard then we can continue this portion of the discussion. Every point you make is discussed in the book. Many of your points are true, but do not support your conclusion. Bivin and Blizzard are not a couple of uneducated authors. They have great authority to write on this topic. Once someone on the Forum will be willing to read current scholarship on this topic, I see no point in continuing to debate among ourselves. After all, we are mostly going to quote commentaries, books, and articles we agree with and none of us have the background to speak with authority. If this is the case, then we aught to look to true experts in language, archeology, history and Biblical study. Most people quoted in this forum on this issue are experts in Biblical study, but not in the other areas of study. I would rather actually STUDY the issue and how it impacts our understanding of Jesus and His teachings. I believe that once the true conclusion is reached, it does impact our understanding of Jesus teachings. Others disagree with me, which is fine, but they also never ventured to find out either. In might be noted that some of the major Aramaic proponents have altered their views in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. M. Wilcox writes: “…the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls . . . The non-Biblical texts show us a free, living language, and attest to the fact that in NT times, . . . Hebrew was not confined to Rabbinical circles by any means, but appeared as a normal vehicle of expression.” Note he used the word “fact” and he preciously argued for an Aramaic source and was a student of Matthew Black who himself in his third edition to “An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts” remarks on this issue. Again, current study has overturned the Aramaic idea, but unfortunately it may take a generation of scholars to filter the new understanding down to the common lay scholar. Should you or anyone on the forum be willing to read a short book I’ll gladly continue the discussion and gladly read any book suggested as well. (I LOVE BOOKS) MJH |
||||||
126 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139572 | ||
I am familiar with all but one of these books, although I do not have them all yet. The Chumash is very interesting and it’s great to get a new perspective on the Torah. Friends in my Bible study group have it, but not me. I have the complete Jewish Bible and Jewish New Testament Commentary. I have not heard of Kingdom Relationships. I loved reading the Historical Fiction books, "First Light" and "Second Touch" by the Thoene's. They are very knowledgeable about the times and the characters in these books meet Jesus. They provide insights that are fascinating. They make the Text come alive in many ways. I would recommend them highly. Marvin Wilison’s “Our Father Abraham” is also very good. It is some what like a text book, but I thought it was an easy read. “The Bible as it Was” by James L Kugel is also very interesting showing many ancient interpretations. Similar, I think, to the Chumash, but not in commentary form. Is Kingdom Relationships a good read? I like to add books to my wish list. It’s quite long. MJH |
||||||
127 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139595 | ||
Let me know where on the site you find this disturbing information. And I agree, it sounds disturbing. The site is not totally represetative of Bivin's beliefs which is stated at the end of every article that may appear in the magazine (of which many articles are online). To say I agree 100 percent with any author would not be accurate, but I believe that Bivin and his co-author in the book mentioned earlier make a strong case for the evidance for the Hebrew spoken language. MJH |
||||||
128 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139819 | ||
Tim, I checked out Jerusalem Perspective again, and I can not find what you found. "For instance, the site advocates the view that Judas did not in fact betray Jesus. In response to the many challenges that this statement generated, the remark was made that 'Matthew CHANGED Mark's account' of the story." Help me out here. I'd like to know. I have read many articles, and where I don't subscribe to all of them, I haven't found anything outrages like you have. God bless, MJH |
||||||
129 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139821 | ||
Ahh I found it. You were looking in the Forum. But what is written there is no more a reflection of Bivin than what others on this Forum say is a reflection of you. Are we not all glad of that. The forum is "watched" but not controlled. And, even though I am not discussing Hebrew being spoken by Jesus in the Galalie for reasons earlier stated, don't forget we are talking about an historical issue. An athiet could just as well make the point. But no more on that . . . Thanks for checking the JP site. I appreciate your care. MJH |
||||||
130 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139822 | ||
So you're up late too. I think I am addicted. |
||||||
131 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139867 | ||
You said,“In this article, he takes a very low few of the gospels. He accepts triple source theory and states that Luke was wrong in his chronology.” Concerning Lindsey’s article “Four Keys for Better Understanding Jesus”. Robert Lindsey (the late) was a Jew who translated the Gospels into Hebrew. This apparently was one thing that sent him on course to spend the majority of his life studying the “Synoptic Gospels”. A note: Lindsey and David Flusser (also passed away I believe) are held in very high regard for their knowledge of all the Biblical Languages, as well as modern Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, modern Greek, and German, English, and who knows what else. I mention this to provide them with the appropriate respect for the immense study they both achieved. But they are not infallible of course. I did not see that Lindsey took a “very low few of the Gospels.” After all he spent his whole life studying them. The article in question, while fascinating, was quite hard for me to follow at times. 1) Lindsey advocated a 1 source theory. This 1 source called by him the “Anthology” was used to also produce a short source that divided up the first into narrative, teaching, parables. Then Luke, Mark, and Matt, according to Lindsey, had knowledge of different versions, not to mention some knowing the other’s Gospel. He put Luke first, then Mark and then Matt. (See how convoluted and odd this is getting? But, Lindsey should be given at least some examination by those, who study the Synoptic “problem”). 2) Obviously the synoptic Gospels pose a so called “problem.” Even first time readers can see this when reading. I myself spent minimal time on this issue. I don’t think it’s a “problem” in the normal sense of the word. 3) The three synoptic Gospels do not always agree on chronology. This cannot be disputed, I assume. Therefore one has to either always have a tension, or try to determine which chronology is correct. If you decide that one is accurate, then the other is not. After all, both can not be correct. Does this give a “low few of the Gospels?” I don’t think so. They are all divinely inspired and without error; however, that does not preclude that chronology HAS to agree and that one of the Gospel writers could not have gotten it wrong. Getting the chronology right does not change the Truth at all. 4) I personally think Matt was first; but I am not an authority on the issue. Also, Lindsey betrays the theory that all the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew when he states, “I encountered certain repeated words and expressions that resisted translation into Hebrew.” Okay, this is about the article that you found disturbing. I don’t think it is disturbing, but I also do not have the same understanding of languages and the synoptic problem that you may have. Thanks, by the way, for following this with me. I think I am learning and it helps to have people walk through things with you so you keep your feet on solid ground! My own uneducated thinking is this: Matt. wrote first and wrote in Hebrew. Jesus taught in Hebrew when in the Galilee, but did not when in the Decapolis, Caesariea Phillipi (when speaking to “the crowd”), and I am unsure when in Symaria, and on the way to Tyre and Sidon. In Jerusalem he may have spoken Aramaic or Greek during the festivals since the Jews and Gentiles from outside the Land were present, and particularly when facing Pilot and while hanging on the cross (hmmm, not sure about that?) However, He very well could have said many things in Hebrew as well in Jerusalem, particularly when telling a parable, but who knows? Judging from the pure historical evidence, it seems very likely, though not conclusive, that the commoner spoke Hebrew. Be it Mishnaic, Ancient, or some variant, the evidence uncovered by archeology and the Dead Sea scrolls all point to this besides the text itself. The Sermon on the Mount is classic Hebrew and in our current article of discussion you will note the mention of a Jewish scholar who said, “If you listen carefully, you can hear Jesus speaking Hebrew!” And some strong Aramaic theorists have recently admitted that Jews in Jesus time spoke Hebrew as a common tongue. This is what I think about spoken languages only (and Matt writing in Hebrew). But as far as their being a ‘Q’ source, or a Hebrew source, or that all the Gospel writers wrote in Hebrew first; these things I have no strong opinions on, and would assume that at least Luke would have written in Greek, and probably Mark as well. I see no reason to think otherwise, but Bivin thinks they all wrote in Hebrew. The reason I push Bivin’s book is because he gives all the evidence for the Jews in Jesus’ time speaking Hebrew as a common language. And even if Bivin was a womanizing atheist who hated God, the case wouldn’t change since it is historical and scientific, and does not have a barring on my, nor anyone else’s, faith I hope. God bless thanks for the great discussion. MJH |
||||||
132 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139868 | ||
I can't stop . . . I need help. :-) | ||||||
133 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139869 | ||
Yes, Bivin and others make the mistake in my opinion of going a bit too far with the Hebrew (or “pet theory” as you called it.) Bivin in his book even states something to the effect that you can not understand the Gospels apart from putting them back into their Hebrew context. This statement could have been stated better, such as; "Understanding the Hebrew language, idioms, and Hebraic culture and teachings common during Jesus time adds considerably to our understanding of Jesus words as I (Bivin) will show in this book. In fact, many of our inabilities to understand difficult words of Jesus can be solved from this study." That way of stating things may not be agreed upon by all, but it doesn't make it seem as though one can not understand the Gospels apart from knowing Hebrew which is just not true. You are right in saying we must examine the text as we have it. I'm not sure that the theory states that they could not "think" in Greek; but if they spoke Hebrew as their main language, then use of another language will be effected (usually). And yes, God is more than able to convey His message in any language. Even apart from any knowledge of Hebraic culture, the full force of the message is clear. And finally you state that the JP site says, ". . . the most effective way to approach a passage from the synoptic gospels is, first, to put its Greek text into Hebrew, . . ." This is their opinion, not doctrine. Also they say “most effective way” and not “only way.” People may have serious problems with the approach, but then others have problems with Calvin's approach and still others with Armenian’s approach. All in all, I think their study adds considerably to a continued discussion and search for an accurate knowledge and understanding of God. MJH |
||||||
134 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139880 | ||
Dr Bivin was not a womanizer!!!! I simply wanted to make a strong point that whether Hebrew was spoken in Israel in Jesus time or not had nothing to do with knowing God. You said, "If something is in error, how can it be without error? :-)" How do you deal with differences in the synopic Gospels? MJH |
||||||
135 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139881 | ||
Point well taken. | ||||||
136 | Did Jesus speak Greek in this verse? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 181770 | ||
What language Jesus normally spoke in is not my question. I know the answer to that, but this verse if originally spoken in any other language than Greek does not have the word play that Jesus is using. That is why when reading it this time, I was struck with a "hmmmm, that's weird, I wonder?" question. It's actually not that important to understanding the text etc... but I get inquisitive about this stuff sometimes. I don't know enough about Semitic languages to know how it would have sounded in those languages, but in English, the whole play on words is lacking. MJH |
||||||
137 | Did Jesus speak Greek in this verse? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 181820 | ||
Thanks for the reply. Another good book is "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" by Bivin. But most on this forum stick stubernly to the Aramaic theory unfortunately. MJH |
||||||
138 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144412 | ||
Searcher, I am still waiting to hear why you feel that a woman should stay married to a husband who is grossly abusive. This is the whole bases of our discussion of which I have provided much to think about, but which you have said nothing other than that you don't agree. Ex. 21 forbids gross abuse of SLAVES, but I am to assume that a married woman is lower than a slave and should not be defended in such a case? The scripture also forbids that a man allow another man's animal to be abused or put under a load that is too heavy. And, oh yeah, it was an ENEMIES animal that was under the heavy load, fell down, or fell into a hole. Yet, we are to treat our enemy’s animal with more respect than a man's wife? Is that what Jesus taught? To be literal in the very strictest way, as you suggest would be impossible at times. Let me show. The Sabbath laws forbid work on the Sabbath. The laws about property require that a man helps another man's donkey if it falls into a pit. What happens if the donkey falls into a pit on the Sabbath. Which law do you break? The rabbis in Jesus time said you break the Sabbath laws and help the donkey. Even they, those strict den of vipers, cared enough for an animal to break their beloved Sabbath. But I am to understand that Jesus was more of a viper by allowing women to be abused? Please, please provide an argument for your case. I am afraid that I may be getting sarcastic and I certainly do not wish to break the rules of the forum. MJH |
||||||
139 | Biblical views on castration | Matt 19:12 | MJH | 185301 | ||
You mention that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament and then quote a verse that says the very opposite. Matt 5:17-19 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus did not come to put away or do away or replace the [Old Testament] but to [Do it completely]. Jesus came and lived it perfectly. In fact He was the Torah in flesh. But He never says that it is null and void. In fact the very next verse says "whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments...will be called least in the Kingdom." What you just stated was that Jesus Himself annulled not just the least, but the whole thing. Is He least in His own Kingdom? Thankfully it will only render many Christians "least" in the Kingdom, and not left out. And by "least" Jesus does not refer to some future punishment or place in line, but that because they annul the commands, they will not experience the true fullness of the Kingdom now, here, in this life and the next. Because they ignore some of the Law, they miss out on all God has for them. As far as castration is concerned, the Bible prohibited the castrated person from entering the Temple because of this deformity. God uses such pictures to demonstrate who He is, Holy. If being castrated meant being separated from God Himself (which it did not in the Old or New Testament) then why does Philip teach and baptize the eunuch in Acts 8? Romans 8:1-3 doesn't apply to the eunuch because being a eunuch was not a sin, it was simply of state of being. MJH MJH |
||||||
140 | Biblical views on castration | Matt 19:12 | MJH | 185332 | ||
Hank, Just a clarification. I was not arguing that the Old Testament was replaced, but rather the opposite. Your quote of mine is my quote of the previous poster who stated that the New "replaced" the Old. So I agree with you in that part of your note; that the Old is not done away with. I separate from you in that the Mosaic Covenant from Sinai is done away with. I think it is not. How that all plays out in doctrine is about a 500 page book or so, but Paul and James make is quite clear that the Mosaic Covenant from Sinai was not done away with in Acts 21-23, and Jesus of course in Matt 5:17-19, and the book of James particularly where as Jews in the first century equated "good works" with "doing the commands." That's a bit of a simplified statement to something more complex, but in short, when we were created in Christ Jesus to do "good works" which were prepared in advance for us before the creation of the world. This is speaking of "Torah" which had been assumed in the first century to have been conceived before the creation of the World. (One of the seven things that the Oral Torah taught came before "In the beginning.") Also, to "repent" which consequently is absent in Paul's teaching, had a specific meaning. Repent is to turn back, but one has to have something to "turn back" too. That is why John and Jesus could say, "repent" because the Jews were to "turn back to Torah" or the right way of living in the land. Paul does not tell the Gentiles to "repent" because it would not have made any sense. "Repent" to what? My old pagan ways? Of course not. They were to convert to a whole knew life, leaving the old life behind. "Do not go back to your old ways in which you once lived." In fact, Paul taught the Gentiles to "not repent." It's also true in our evangelism efforts. Words mean something. The way of God is a specific defined Way of living. To live in this way invites the "Kingdom of God" into our lives both now and in the world to come. A little rambling..... MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [17] >> |