Results 121 - 140 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
121 | Israel the promise land? | Gen 17:8 | MJH | 150095 | ||
"the army from the north attack Israel..." If you look closely at the geography, all armies in the ancient world would have to attack from the north of south (or possibly from the west by way of the sea.) I can not think of a time that an army attacked from any other direction than north or south. Babylon may be more East, but to attack, they would have to come from the North. Just a thought. MJH |
||||||
122 | What was the purpose of circumcision? | Gen 17:10 | MJH | 223383 | ||
Gen 12 - Abram is given the Promise. I will bless you, make you into a great nation, all nations on earth will be blessed through you, and the Land will be yours. No Sign of this covenant Promise given. Gen 15 - Abram is given the covenant Promise in covenant form. God "cuts" a covenant with Abram and repeats the promises. No sign of the covenant is given. Gen. 16 - Abram has Ishmael with Hagar. He attempts to make God's promise come true in his own strength. If Abram does not have a child, God is proved to be a liar. Abram solves the problem, so he thinks for the next 13 years. He assumes the blessing is reckoned through Ishmael. Gen. 17 - Abram believes God and it is credited as righteousness. God promises a son, the Promised son, through Sarah. God gives the sign of the covenant Promise--circumcision. Why not given until now? Because Abraham needed to understand that God's Promise (all of it) will come about in God's time and way. Circumcision is a physical reminder of that fact. It is neither by Abram’s works nor ours that the Promise of God will come to all nations. By cutting the very part of the body that attempted to secure the Promise in his own strength; the part of the body that signified a man’s power and strength, the People of God would be reminded of this Promise and that it would not come about by their (or their child’s) ability, strength, cunning, or wisdom, but by God's alone. Joshua 5. All the people who were born in the wilderness wanderings were not circumcised. Why? When the first generation refused to trust God's promise of the land by entering; and then trying to conquer it on their own strength, they proved themselves to be faithless. They did not trust in the Promise of God and therefore they were forbidden to participate in the sign of the promise. They were faithless so they can not perform the covenant sign of faith in the Promise. When the next generation is ready to enter the land, and they do trust God, they get circumcision. (This is a further proof of trust, because it made them extremely vulnerable at the door step of their enemies.) The prophets repeatedly say that one should be “circumcised of heart.” Having a surgery performed on you at eight days old did not demonstrate your own acceptance of the Promise. Circumcised of heart is true Faith in the Promise which is by far more important than an outward physical sign. In Paul’s day and some time earlier, circumcision was seen as a way for Gentiles to join the community. Rather than an outward sign of true faith, it became the means to join God’s people and therefore was a “work of the law” to get saved. That’s turning the original meaning Abraham was shown upside down. If circumcision is seen as a way to get saved, then better to stay uncircumcised. Circumcision of the heart (as spoken of by the Prophets) was and is the main issue. Yet, Paul does not toss out the commandment as is seen in circumcising Titus (or was that Timothy?) and proving in Acts 21-22 that he was not teaching against the Jews circumcising their children. I hope that helps. Please note: you should do due diligence in seeking answers to your questions. My answer may not be that common, but I am certain that gifted teachers here will comment should they feel I am off base…which I welcome. |
||||||
123 | Looking for ref to ID Jacob's opponent | Gen 32:24 | MJH | 173825 | ||
How about I just give you the answer, He was the messiah. The "Angel of the Lord." There are however, a ton of references. If you want some very interesting ones, check out some Jewish commentaries too. But if you want an iron clad 100 percent answer, you won't find it. No one knows. MJH |
||||||
124 | belly of a whore? | Gen 38:9 | MJH | 214222 | ||
I think you may be a bit confused. The only place your question could be connected to is Gen 38 where Onan refuses to produce a child with his dead brothers wife by "spilling his semen on the ground." The act was tantamount to attempting to prevent the birth of the Messiah. It was through Tamar that Jesus was ultimately born. Judah sends Tamar to live with her own family as a widow until the younger son was old enough. Since Judah was afraid of loosing his last remaining son (all the other with this women had died), he never intended on giving his son to her to fulfill the duty of a brother. Tamar learns that Judah is coming to town, so she dresses as a prostitute and gets Judah to sleep with her. She becomes pregnant and you can read the rest of the tale in Gen 38. MJH |
||||||
125 | Good study guide for Exodus? | Exodus | MJH | 140374 | ||
The following is a Jewish commentary on the book of Exodus, but shows many of the types of things taught during the time of Jesus, thus things He would have been aware. Also, comments by latter Jewish sages. I find it very interesting, but it is not a sole source since it is not written by those who accept Jesus as the Messiah. JPS Torah Commentary: Exodus: Shemot: The Traditional Hebrew Text with the New JPS Translation Sarna, Nahum M. (Author) ISBN: 0827603274 It is 65 dollars retail, but at www.karis.spreadtheword.com it is 45.00 MJH |
||||||
126 | Resurrection Day, not easter! | Exodus | MJH | 215258 | ||
justme, This issue has irritated me for some time. It's a nearly futile research project unless you have a lot of time and can weed through language issues. Not only that, but most people who do research this area have a conclusion in mind before they begin…and they often find that their assumptions are correct regardless of what they are. Here is what I've gleaned. Easter is an English word! The German word connection is there due to missionary connections within the Anglo-Saxon world. The word may or may not have connection to a pagan goddess, but there are no other languages in our day that use a spring goddess name to refer to the resurrection. Almost all are derived from the Hebrew word Passover. And during the second to fourth centuries when a debate over dates was heated, English wasn't the language used! In the second century, the Roman and Jerusalem branches argued over how to celebrate Passover and the Lord’s resurrection. The Roman church wanted the resurrection to always fall on the first day of the week while the Jerusalem church wanted it to fall on first fruits. (Jesus rose on both, but the first day of the week is based on the sun, and First Fruits is based on the moon, so it changes days of the week every year.) Even though the Jerusalem side could argue that they were the living disciples of the Apostle John…they knew him personally and how he did it, they still lost the argument (split between East and West), but the Lord’s resurrection was still connected to God’s festival of Passover. In short, they observed the Passover followed by a day of fast followed by the Resurrection celebration of our Lord. The festival season was still referred to by the Greek word derived from the Hebrew festivals. In the fourth century the split between anything looking “Jewish” was at its breaking point. When the Christian Church became the political church, they had the opportunity to make some definitive statements about doctrine and Holy Days. Up until then, the Christians were at least somewhat dependant on the Jews for determining when Passover began and not all Christians followed the same calendar. There was quite a bit of confusion that needed to be dealt with in the now organizing church. Therefore, a calculation was invented based on both the lunar cycle and the solar cycle. This calculation puts the Lord’s Resurrection Holy Day, almost always near the Passover. The fourth century is where people like to connect the English Easter to a pagan goddess. My personal view is that I find it very hard to apply negative intent to the fourth century church fathers. It’s simply historically not the right time for this behavior. My belief is that the gentile/Jewish separation caused the church leaders to find a good opportunity to make a clean break. They couldn’t jettison the Resurrection, and since the Resurrection is intricately connected to Passover and First Fruits, they needed to find a way to keep the days without remaining “Jewish” in appearance. Any negative intent applied to these Church leaders is in regards to anti-Judaism rather than pro pagan goddess. In other words, they wanted to separate from anything appearing Jewish, but did not want to marry themselves to anything pagan. If in fact they were attempting to borrow the pagan goddess, then why do all languages on Earth today, except English and German, use a word coming from Passover rather than a word coming from a pagan goddess? And why can we not find any fourth century Church fathers writing anything that would make you believe they were in truth, pagan mixing Aster lovers? In fact you can not. But there is ample writings showing their hatred for anything appearing Jewish! In fact the link provided by nickmostly does a good job with the etymology of the Anglo-Saxon word Easter. The case if far stronger against a pagan connection than there is for one. Now to get personal: It is enormously unfortunate that the Christian Church does not celebrate Passover! There is simply no other Festival instituted by God that more profoundly professes the Grace of God through the redemption of his children both through the Exodus and through the crucifixion/resurrection. The Christian church has no idea what it is missing. MJH |
||||||
127 | Resurrection Day, not easter! | Exodus | MJH | 215259 | ||
Thanks for that link. I really appreciated it. MJH |
||||||
128 | when did moses send his wife and sons | Exodus | MJH | 215489 | ||
The answer is traditionally found in these verses, but you will note the odd construction: "went back to Egypt." Ex 4:20 "So Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the staff of God in his hand. And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, . . . [Pharaoh] will not let the people go. "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, 'Let my son go that he may serve me.' If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.'" "At a lodging place on the way" Ex 4:24 At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put [him] to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched [his] feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision. "At the mountain of the Lord"- opposite direction. The LORD said to Aaron, "Go into the wilderness to meet Moses." So he went and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him. Ex 4:28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD with which he had sent him to speak, and all the signs that he had commanded him to do. "Now in Egypt and apparently without family." Exo 4:29 Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the people of Israel. Did Moses decide that this was too dangerous for his family to go with him? Also, while many English Text say God was about to kill Moses, the pronouns do not have a noun they are attached to. One is left not knowing if Moses was the target, or his firstborn son? Likewise, we are not 100 percent certain whose feet were touched with the foreskin, the Angel of the LORD or Moses or the Son's. Probably more than you asked, but I have found this passage very interesting for some time. MJH |
||||||
129 | Book of Exodus | Ex 1:1 | MJH | 213961 | ||
Good job in this answer. MJH |
||||||
130 | What NAME do we call our GOD? Ex 3:14 | Ex 3:15 | MJH | 164743 | ||
The name of God is spelt using the four Hebrew letters, Yod, He, Vav, He. These four letters of God's name are also called the HEBREW TETRAGRAMMATON. I can not type Hebrew in the answer here, but you can find it by googling the word Tetragrammaton. The way the word if pronounced is lost to antiquity since the Jews, wanting to honor the 3rd commandment, would not utter the name out loud. It is NOT pronounced Jehovah, this we now know. The best guess is Yahweh. Some simply say the Hebrew letters (which sounds a lot like breathing in and out...so with each breath we take, we are speaking the name of God.) Some translations use LORD in all caps to replace the four letters. Others use Yahweh, or ADONI in all caps (Adoni is the word Lord in Hebrew.) I hope this helps, but I feel it may only complicate. Oh, and by the way, Jesus name is not Jesus but rather Yeshua. Yeshua means "God Saves or Salvation" And thus the passage where the angel tells Joseph to name the boy "Yeshua because he will save his peole from their sins."makes since in Hebrew. Also when Jesus says to Zacheus that he will be coming to his house he says, "Today salvation has come to your house." There is a play on words using Jesus' own name. Some people reject outright the name Jesus and claim it has pagan roots. The use of Jesus comes from translating the Hebrew name of Yeshua into the Greek and then into Latin and then to English. There are no pagan roots, but translation roots to the English name Jesus. MJH - |
||||||
131 | What NAME do we call our GOD? Ex 3:14 | Ex 3:15 | MJH | 164879 | ||
I did not read word for word the site either. It is very long. However, speed reading most of it and reading parts carefully, the author agrees with my standing. However, I hesitate to indorse it in total. I have studied in the Hebrew roots for some time and I have run across a few who seem to make the pronunciation of Jesus’ name almost a salvation issue. They wouldn’t all claim it was a salvation issue, but you wouldn’t know that when you listen to them. YAHshua is not a pronunciation that matches the times of Jesus. (www.jeruselemperspective.com and search for “Hebrew Nuggets”. One of the options is an article on Jesus’ name. These people are experts that the experts consult on Hebrew pronunciation.) Your site quoted the following: “I find the prohibition against saying the name of Jesus a little absurd, considering that the people who have imposed this prohibition, are calling the Messiah by a name that is not found anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures. Most of their reasoning, is that Jesus is an English rendering from a Greek name, and since all things Greek are pagan, this name should not be spoken, and that no self respecting Jew would have ever uttered a Greek name, and surely would not have written any scripture in Greek.” Quoted from the site you mentioned. www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm All said, I almost always use Jesus when speaking to most of my friends, family, and church members. I use Yeshua when it either is understood by those I am speaking to, or when using the Hebrew pronunciation adds to the point. An example is when Joseph is told to name Jesus “Yeshua” because he will save his people from their sins. Yeshua means “salvation.” As far as those who insist on never saying Jesus, but only Yeshua, or YAHshua… to each his own, and if I had friends who were stuck on that, I’d use the name they wanted when I was around them. These are of course my opinions. I like studying such things, but what matters most is how we treat widows and orphans…. MJH |
||||||
132 | Who was God going to kill? | Ex 4:24 | MJH | 138573 | ||
Who was God going to kill? Had anyone else seen this verse translated differently? That God sought to kill Gershom (Moses first born son.) and that Zipporah touched Gershom’s feet with the foreskin, and that she said, "Surly you are a bride groom of blood to me" to the LORD God (as apposed to Moses)? The Hebrew is not specific. Just curious if anyone else has seen anything similar. I am still studying this one. MJH |
||||||
133 | Song of Moses the first passage written? | Ex 15:1 | MJH | 213270 | ||
Exodus 15 begins with the song that Moses taught the people after God rescued them from Egypt. It struck me while going over this again, that this was likely the first passage that we have in our Bible that was actually written. Moses wouldn't have written the rest of the “Books of Moses” until after his time on the mountain. A quick glance at the commentaries I have don’t mention this, while only one states it was absolutely written down the same day it was sung. Can anyone confirm this, or just as good, show this to not be true? MJH |
||||||
134 | Song of Moses the first passage written? | Ex 15:1 | MJH | 213297 | ||
Thanks for your response. I'm hoping for more feedback. Since Moses wrote much of the books of Genesis and Exodus only a few months after this event, there is no reason why he wouldn't have written down the song the day it was sung and then included it in Exodus later. I understand it’s speculation, but at the least, they did memorize the song. It's almost certain that Moses had not written anything as of yet, right? Also, as far as literacy, that’s a non-issue since we do see Moses writing soon after this. As far as for Job, chronologically, Job would have occurred during the days of Abraham (possibly). But there is no evidence that it was written until after even the days of King David. But that's a separate discussion. MJH |
||||||
135 | Song of Moses the first passage written? | Ex 15:1 | MJH | 213313 | ||
I shall not repeat that error. I only did it so that the question would be placed for all to see again, since I was hoping for someone else to comment on the original question. Sorry. |
||||||
136 | Why worship on resurrection day? | Ex 20:10 | MJH | 140402 | ||
Jesus instituted the Holy Communion during Passover and said to do "this" in remembrance of me. The question is, what does "this" refer to? If it refers to Passover, then possibly we have been getting it wrong. I will allow others to debate this with you and me, but I believe that we ought to celebrate Passover and do it in remembrance of Jesus. It's quite amazing how much of Passover reflects Jesus, even the way the Jews do it today. The early church DID celebrate Passover, and debated in the 180's AD whether it should be done on the traditional Passover day, or the Sunday following. Rome said Sunday, and Jerusalem said the traditional day. Rome almost excommunicated Jerusalem, but cooler heads prevailed, and they lived in peace for a while. But they both seem to have celebrated Passover in connection with the Lords resurrection. Certainly the Apostles celebrated Passover and connected it with the Lord's Resurrection. To believe otherwise is absurd. They were Jewish and Acts shows Paul eager to return to Jerusalem before Shavuot (Pentecost) to celebrate it in Jerusalem. Celebrating Jesus birth is man made; though I think a good man made tradition. Celebrating his Resurrection was not man made, but commanded by Jesus Himself. Easter was not a word even used, nor imagined to be used in connection with Jesus Resurrection until the 4th century when that pagan spring fertility celebration was mixed with the Holy Passover. I believe one of the greatest tragedies in church history. My family celebrates "resurrection day" and have a separate God honoring "spring celebration" for our girls that we try to tie into the first really nice sunny day to honor God for the seasons and new agricultural season. Our Resurrection Day happens two days (3 if your Jewish) after Passover when ever Passover happens. Then of course we do go to church on "Easter." God Bless you in your search for truth. MJH |
||||||
137 | Why worship on resurrection day? | Ex 20:10 | MJH | 140469 | ||
Point well taken. I did not spend near enough time on the last post and should have been more careful. I had to shovel snow from 4:30 am until 7 am and then had to wait to do Christmas Eve breakfast with my family. Soooo, I was tired and killing time reading the forum; but no excuse. Anyway, my reason behind the "this" referring to Passover, was when Jesus (not Paul) said, Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. So the “Do this” would refer to what Jesus was actually doing at the time with the Bread and the Wine. And we know that the first church and Apostles also broke bread “in remembrance” on a regular bases, and not just during the Passover. But, I still think that Jesus may have been refereeing to both the “communion” sacrament, as well as the Passover. I will not stand firm on that since I do not have time to spend analyzing the Greek text right now, being that it is only 3 minutes from Christmas day and I will be shoveling snow again at 4:00 am and rushing home to be there before the kids wake up! Thanks for putting me in my place in such a humorous way. I certainly plan to study the liturgical year and have been planning to do so. Any good book or starting point would be appreciated. MJH |
||||||
138 | Who is the Lord of the 10 commandments? | Ex 20:11 | MJH | 140401 | ||
The sabbath day is Saturday (as you apparently know.) During the first century the Christians, both Jewish and Gentile, continued to honor the Sabbath and usually attended the synagogue. On the first day of the week they honored the Lord's Ressurection day, meeting in homes. During the 4th century (300's) AD, the Church fathers adapted the Sunday celebration because Constantine wanted the whole empire to be consistent in their worship. They choose Sunday as the day of worship. No small reason for this was the fact that the Sun god was worhshiped on this day. This also began another persecusion of the Jews. (I believe) The day a person rests is one of contraversy. Whole denominations center around this one commandment. You need to come to your own conclusions both on the day, and how you honor it. But like the rabbis of old, you need to interpert what it means to "work" while avoiding the temptation to be legalistic, or worse, to honor the sabbath above loving your neighbor as yourself. I'm sure some on the forum, should they read my answer, will correct some errors in my history, but I know that I am close. I honor Saturday, imperfectly I am sure; but then attend church on Sunday. We realised that our Sunday was anything but restful, but it is not easy to go against the grain of the rest of your Brothers, particularly when they assume you are legalistic simply by honoring Saturday as the Sabbath. I often wonder who is being legalistic. Your question seemed to be more of a statement, but I hope that I have helped some. MJH |
||||||
139 | ... | Ex 31:16 | MJH | 212838 | ||
1Corinthians 16:1,2: 1 Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. -In the first century they did not handle any money on the Sabbath and waited until nightfall to take any collections. (The next day started at sunset.) Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. - to break bread was the traditional way for a community to end the Sabbath. The breaking of bread always occured after sunset Saturday evening, which was therefore the first day of the week. This also means that Paul spoke for a few hours, not all day and night. I don't mention this to disagree with your assumptions nor the Westminster Confessions, only to add some historical understanding, something I fear can get me into some trouble. :-( MJH |
||||||
140 | ... | Ex 31:16 | MJH | 212843 | ||
First, not all protestants call Sunday the new Sabbath, but they observe a day of rest in honor of the rest we have in Christ. They do so on Sunday in honor of the day he rose and defeated death. The second century church fathers explain much of this in detail. They explicitly state that the seventh day Sabbath was fulfilled in Jesus. Col.2:14-17; Romans 14 are just two scriptures used to support them. Celebrating days in remembrance of events in religious history was also done by Ester and the Maccabees. Jesus follows the event created after the Maccabean revolt, so there is no reason to assume that the later church could not choose to remember certain days such as the resurrection, ascension, birth, and others . MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ] Next > Last [29] >> |