Results 121 - 140 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | What does judgement look like | 2 Cor 5:10 | MJH | 214096 | ||
Bill, I'm not sure if you are here still or not, but there are good reasons why I'd rather have a private discussion should you desire. I'm not even sure if this thread is active anymore, but in either case, I still offer an email discussion. If that is at all of interest, then let me know and one of us can share an email address. I think for the forum, this discussion is pretty well worn out. As I said earlier, trying to debate so many people at one time gets too confusing. MJH |
||||||
122 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 214095 | ||
John, Fair question. I do have an email that I occasionally use for such occasions. It's an email that is seperate from my personal use email of course. If Bill was intersted he could simple ask. I doubt anything would come of it. As far as knowing him. No. And no, I've only been MJH here too. MJH |
||||||
123 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 214071 | ||
This is rather unfortunate. I am sorry that you should leave so soon, before you even get a chance to get to know anyone. Should it be your desire, you can email me for a more civil discussion. After all, trying to debate 10 different people at one time is like trying to hit a target with a shot gun. It's a bit messy. MJH |
||||||
124 | What does judgement look like | 2 Cor 5:10 | MJH | 214056 | ||
John, To be honest with you, if I were to throw my two cents in at this point it would only serve to make matters worse. We are discussing with a new member who is very strong in some views that are outside the main. This, of course, I kind of like personally. It gives a chance to force someone to defend such understandings. If I jump in right now, you and I both know that it would make this discussion get a bit out of hand. I don't hold to the "main" on how to interpret the Law and what is applicable to Christians today and bringing this up right now may not be helpful. You'll notice I have stepped back from most of those discussions for awhile, because based on my past posts, one might think that the Law is the only thing I can discuss. Plus, I'm here to learn as much as share and beating one drum isn’t being helpful I don't think. MJH PS- Between you and me and those looking in. Bill0624 needs to be pressed on why he thinks the Messiah would or could disagree with or overturn Moses and still be the Messiah. After all, the most often repeated phrase in the entire Bible is, “and God told Moses to say….” |
||||||
125 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 214048 | ||
Okay.... Some of your posts would qualify as outside the rules. But I'd still love to have you stick around. It might be nice to discuss somethings. Like, how could Jesus disagree with Moses......That's quite an impossibility unless he isn't the Messiah. Look forward to where this could go? MJH |
||||||
126 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 214047 | ||
bill, I've read a good number of your posts, though not all, and I have to say that you are, I believe, following the rules of the forum. While I'm not going to agree with all of your conclusions, you've made your argument from scripture and tried to do that well. Your approach is one of sincerity, I believe, and you've attempted to be gracious most the time. This is probably why you have, unlike others, not been deleted. I have found that the forum is open to different views and even sometimes those that are a bit far outside of the main stream as long as the person is gracious and attempts as best as they can to back up what they believe with good hermeneutics. I hope that you stick around awhile. I've been here for a number of years now, on and off, and I can assure you that I have not always held to the normative theology of our day, yet I have almost always felt welcome and even appreciated. I'm guessing you would be too. God bless in your studies. MJH |
||||||
127 | What does judgement look like | 2 Cor 5:10 | MJH | 214032 | ||
Do I dare to interject? Hmmmm it is tempting. MJH |
||||||
128 | Seating at the Last Supper | Matt 26:23 | MJH | 213973 | ||
You're going to have to supply evidence for the Jewish customs that you state. I've heard of none of them. Knowing that this supper was a Passover would enlighten the events, but not the seating so much. Any sources for these? MJH |
||||||
129 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 213972 | ||
John, Well now this sounds much better. I didn't think we were as far apart on this as it seemed. Thanks for clarifying. I will stipulate that you may be correct. I do agree with you on the "many rooms" analogy although I'd put the "rooms" on Earth, if not in Jerusalem itself. Any differences we have would be rather minor in the end. The main reason I'm not going to pursue those right now is because I am time pressed. I just got a new book I need to devour. God bless and again, thanks for clarifying. MJH ps. I have a real love for astronomy, and I'd LOVE to visit many of God's marvelous creations out there some day...I'm hoping eternal life will give me that opportunity:-) |
||||||
130 | Reason 4 "6" Cities of Refuge? | Num 35:6 | MJH | 213964 | ||
You are on the right track. It can be a lot of fun discovering the life and times of Jesus and the Apostles. I agree with you that young men pursued marriage and a young age, but probably not as young as the women. I disagree with the History and Discovery Channel depicting the 30 something men marrying 13 year olds. There is more evidence that in Jesus world men married closer to 20 and girls a bit younger. Girls also had a say to some extent. It would be an exception for a girl to marry a man she did not agree with. While that may not be true for all places and times in the Jewish world, it most likely was in the first century Galilee. Anyway, enjoy learning and reading. It's a long journey with many "flowers" to smell along the way. MJH |
||||||
131 | Book of Exodus | Ex 1:1 | MJH | 213961 | ||
Good job in this answer. MJH |
||||||
132 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 213960 | ||
John, I have to admit that I am a bit stupefied as to why you would ask this question. I'm struggling to understand it. "our mobility for Earth to Heaven..."? "gates of Heaven will be closed..."? I am not sure what you’re really even asking. I'll still try to sum up, but forgive me if I am not answering what you are asking. Rev. 21 is a good place to start, although the teaching in Rev. 21 runs through the Bible. God's dwelling will be with mankind. If by Heaven you mean some place "up" in the sky, then no, people will not be there in the End Times (or the World to Come.) We were created to live on Earth (or if you will, a New Earth.) God comes down to dwell with us here. If by Heaven you mean the "holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God" (Rev 21:10) where "its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb." (Rev 21:22) Then yes, the gates of that city will be open to all who are "written in the Lamb's book of life." (Rev 21:27) But again, I am not sure if I am interpreting your question correctly. I know that many of the other religions and particularly the Greek religions of the 1st-3rd century believed that after death, peoples’ spirits would travel to the heavens with the gods, but they also didn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead. They did believed the body to be the jail house of the soul. Once the soul was released, it would never wish to be confined to the flesh again. That is contrary to everything in Scriptures which teaches a physical resurrection of the body and a reuniting of the body and soul. I know that many Christians adopt this sort of “pagan” view of living in heaven as an Angel or spirit for eternity, but that’s because they lack any good teaching. Plus pastors are always using phrases such as “living with God in heaven for eternity” which given the general publics understanding of what heaven is, a place out in space somewhere, it propagates a misunderstanding and even a false idea. We will not live in that idea of heaven for eternity. We will live in a physical body on a physical Earth. Gravity still holds us in place…no floating around with harps on clouds. I’m not trying to be condescending. I must be reading you wrong because based on your posts here; I would not expect a question like this from you. MJH |
||||||
133 | Reason 4 "6" Cities of Refuge? | Num 35:6 | MJH | 213949 | ||
Angela, I used to be a children's pastor and I loved Ms. Pattycake. I met her at a conference once and got to know the person behind the character some. Anyway.... A good book would be "Life in Biblical Israel" by Philip King and Lawrence Stager. It's a bit more like a text book, but great to reference. Beyond that, you can search books with similar titles or get a Bible Encyclopedia. As far as the wives are concerned. The only known disciple to be married was Peter who was the only one to be over the age of 20 at Jesus' death (most likely). It would have been common for men in their teen years to become a disciple. In would be rather improbable for them to have been married with children already. It simply was not the custom to become a traveling disciple of a Rabbi that late in life. Peter's wife most likely stayed with his family. A wife typically lived within the household of her husband. They would have added on to the husband's father's house and shared a courtyard and chores as an extended family. This was more often true in the north in Galilee where Peter was from. There is quite a bit of interesting information about Jesus' world and the first century. A good teacher might be Ray VanderLaan with "In The Dust of the Rabbi" and "That the World May Know." He did some work with Focus on the Family a few years back and has been a blessing to me personally. MJH |
||||||
134 | Actual bodies in heaven? | 1 John 3:2 | MJH | 213918 | ||
live4jc316 Thanks for your question. I think that DocTrinsograce did a great job answering your question, but since it's not linked to your question directly, I thought you may have missed it. Put 213874 in the box under Search Word(s) or ID and you will go right to his answer, which is spot on. To sum up. Heaven is not our ultimate destination. We will be with the Lord in an intermediary state while we wait eagerly for the resurrection of our earthly bodies and to live ON EARTH with the Lord eternally. Our ultimate destination is for God to dwell with us on a physical Earth that has been restored to its pure state. MJH |
||||||
135 | Blessing or Judgment | Ps 144:15 | MJH | 213845 | ||
Wonderful quote! Awesome. | ||||||
136 | 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 |
||||||
137 | 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 |
||||||
138 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213811 | ||
Thanks for the kind comments. Certainly my post isn't the end of the discussion. I made some statements that ought to be backed up with more evidence and sources. What I posted here is more accurately my hypothesis based on the bit of research I did do, but could change after deeper digging. Your questions are exactly the questions needing more clarification. The time needed to go further will mean I won't be adding much for a while. I do hope to get a couple books from some universities (our library is connected to the colleges now...Yeah!)that have done some of this research already. Finding out if the Jews, who wrote Hebrew or Aramaic mostly in their first century writings, used 'koinos' in this way when speaking Greek may be impossible to proove. There are some Greek texts, but that's pretty much out of my league. MJH |
||||||
139 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213795 | ||
Part 2 of 2 To backtrack, we see in Acts 10, our Lord Jesus teaching Peter that Gentiles are not to be considered as unclean or as common. They, like he, could also be in the covenant family of God. While the Law states very clearly that the Gentile who sojourns with Israel, is not only allowed covenant fellowship, but also the Temple worship (Lev 17:8), in the days of the Apostles, all Gentiles were considered common. Jesus says, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” Pre Exile Years: During the years of the Judges and Prophets the people adulterated themselves after false gods and were sent into exile. This idolatry was mainly due to contact with pagan Gentiles. The remnant who returned eventually set up laws to separate themselves from ALL Gentiles, pagan or not, in order to prevent a repeat of the sins of their fathers. Around the year 20 B.C. a counsel convened that wrote Eighteen Measures that cemented the dividing wall between Jews and any Gentile. This was a period of high Gentile interest in the faith of Israel (see Josephus, et. al.) Certain strict Pharisees, who determined to build this wall between Jews and Gentiles, ended up killing dozens of the followers of the more lenient school and enacted the measures despite them. Many years latter, this event was considered by some as more grievous than the day of the Golden Calf. Either way, by the mid first century A.D. these measures were well entrenched into the Jewish life. The word common is littered throughout these measures. Back to Romans 14:14 While this may seem a bit of a rabbit trail, how this connects to Romans 14:14 is important. These measures made food bought from a Gentile Market “common.” Pius Jews would not eat such meat. Since the ruling Paul gives in this chapter is about “disputable matters” it would seem unlikely that he would be referring to Lev. 11, since that passage is quite clear. It’s hard to dispute plain language. But, this issue of what meat could be eaten being a disputable matter fits the historical events. Paul has no problem eating this meat (which might even have been used in the pagan Temple) because he will not add to what the Law says (Deut 4:1-2; 12:32). Yet, if some have strong convictions that eating such meat would be a transgression of the Law, they ought to follow their convictions. As for Paul, he has no issue with eating “common” meat. There is no such thing as “common” for Paul, primarily because the Hebrew Scriptures (the only Scriptures he has) say nothing about it. Furthermore, we see in Ephesians 2:14 that Paul has declared the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles to be destroyed. Paul, being the Apostle to the Gentiles, fought hard against the 20 BC ruling – the Eighteen Measures – as well as other things. So what is the best word to use to translate koinos in Romans 14:14? The most obvious choice would be to use “common” each time koinos is used. We are not helping the average English reader by using the wrong English word regardless of its connection to another. While I understand the need to “interpret” at times when doing a translation, my view is that the translator should do more translating and less interpreting. By translating what the author meant to convey instead of what the author said, we cheapen the Text and assume an ignorant audience. This verse, as translated in English wrong, prevents the English reader from asking the question, “What is meant by ‘common’?” Without the question the reader can not find the answer. MJH |
||||||
140 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213794 | ||
Part 1 of 2 Sorry for the length. Also, this is mainly about the final two paragraphs, not the interpretation I take, but you can respond to whatever. Tim, this is what I found. I wrote it as an essay and copied it here, so excuse the more formal approach. In Romans 14:14 we read, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” The word translated into English as “unclean” is koinos (Strong’s 839). However, the word koinos literally means “common.” Why then do the translators use “unclean” and is that the best word to use? The use of “unclean” is chosen for two main reasons. 1) the obvious connection to impermissible foods which links it to Lev. 11; 2) the connection that common (koinos) has to unclean (akathartos Strong’s 169) found in Acts 10 and Mark 7. It is quite certain that “common” and “unclean” have a connection in the New Testament Scriptures. In Acts 10:14, after Peter sees all kinds of animals (we assume clean and unclean) descend in a sheet he hears a voice say, “Kill and eat.” Peter replies, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common (koinos) or unclean (akathartos)” Here Peter insists that he has never eaten anything common or unclean. Therefore, we must assume there is some connection to the two words; yet, they are distinct. Unless we assume Peter to be redundant, there must be something different between something that is common (koinos) and unclean (akathartos). Another example from the New Testament is Mark 7:2, “…and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.” Here koinos is translated as impure, and impure due to unwashed hands. Now we know for a fact that the Old Testament has nothing to say about the common Israelite needing to wash his hands for them to be pure for eating. Yet, the Pharisaic rules of the day found a way to render unwashed hands, not as unclean (akathartos), but as common or impure (koinos.) So here again the word common is obviously connected to, but different from unclean. In the LXX translation of the Old Testament, unclean animals and other items found unclean are always translated with akathartos, and never with koinos. And again, koinos literally means common, not impure in classical Greek. So, why is it connected to impurity and things unclean? What are we to make of this? Hebrew Scriptures: There was an offering for the Temple that only the Levites and there families could eat. It is often referred to as the heave offering, but the Hebrew word is terumah. This basically was something that was “clean” – but because it was reserved for only the priestly caste, it was forbidden to the common man. Hence, terumah that was outside of the Temple environs became “common” and inedible – and the reverse is true as well – those things “common” were not permitted in the sanctified areas of the Temple. Also, the priests were required to wash their hands when performing in the Temple. (Ex. 30:18) Pharisaic law: These concepts were extended from the Temple environs to the every day life of Pius Jews (by man-made law). If someone “unsanctified” (i.e. Gentile) touched bread, it became “common” or unfit to eat, even though it conformed to the clean/unclean laws of the Torah. Likewise, the person that could render bread “common” was also referred to as “common.” Therefore we see a link between things common and things unclean. continued..... |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [29] >> |