Results 141 - 160 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
141 | Take Him for His Word | Matt 24:2 | MJH | 150215 | ||
Ray, I am not speaking of Ezekiel 36:26, I am wondering about the detailed description of the Temple which Ezekeil lays out. Ezekiel 40:1 and on.... It seems that he is prophecying that a new Temple will be built in the future unlike the old. Ez 40:38-47 mention sacrafices, and Ez 42 mention Priests. I have always wondered about this... Thanks, MJH |
||||||
142 | The ingathering of Israel? | Matt 24:31 | MJH | 166082 | ||
Personal thoughts only....I haven't studies it so this is somewhat of a guess. Jesus (as He almost always does) is speaking about something found in the first 39 books of the Bible. Here I think Jesus is referring to the passages you quoted, but his use of the word "elect" rather than Israel broadens the meaning to include the Gentiles who would believe. His audience would most certainly have understood him to mean the elect Israel, and they would have know of the passages he was quoting. Personally I see Israel still as a separate elect chosen group of people for whom God has plans (ie. I'm no longer a "replacement theology" adherent.) But I also believe we are all going to be with the Lord in the New Jerusalem in the World to Come. MJH |
||||||
143 | 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 |
||||||
144 | Is "to salt" to mean "to destroy?" | Mark 9:49 | MJH | 164881 | ||
Kalos, Of course you probably understand that I completely disagree with you....see our discussions from a year ago. :-) I just can't let it slide... Jesus spoke Hebrew and all recent discoveries points to most Jews in Palestine speaking Hebrew as their common tongue. The Septuagint was not translated for Jews in Palestine but rather for a "Librarian" in Alexandria, where a large population of Jews lived. The Jews in the Diaspora used the Septuagint, and the Jews in Palestine use the Targum (Aramaic) for purposes of commentary or dynamic equivalent translation since the Hebrew copies could not contain ANY alteration to clear up changes in the language, or even footnotes/marginal notes. Jesus may have spoken Aramaic or Greek when the audience required it like during the Festivals or when in Greek areas. But among his disciples, Hebrew is a near certainty. See "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" for in depth argument. Or see my previous posts on the matter. MJH |
||||||
145 | What was in the cup, wine? | Mark 14:25 | MJH | 192278 | ||
we have to remember that in those days water was in most cases almost undrinkable - This is not true. Thus wine was the easily available cheap alternative -- This is also not true (the cheap part anyway) The water in Ephesus was particularly bitter -- This very well may be the case, but this is not in Jerusalem nor Galilee. Jesus certainly did drink wine at the Passover (as stated already in this thread) but nowhere that I have found does it say it was mixed with water or a "weak" version. These are often argument used by those who want to prohibit alcohol by their members, but it's not based in accurate history (at least that I have ever found.) If a church body wants to prohibit the stuff, they have the Biblical right to do so under the "binding and loosing" given by Jesus to his followers. Of course some read these verses differently too, but oh well. MJH |
||||||
146 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | MJH | 181514 | ||
In John 8:41, those Jesus is confronting say to him, "We are not illegitimate children..." I have heard more than one person mention that this may have been a jab at Jesus' questionable birth. It's not conclusive, but just a thought. Here is what I think.... Mary and Joseph go to the census during the feast of booths (Joseph would be going to Jerusalem anyway at that time, and Bethlehem was very close by so it “kills two birds with one stone”. The Romans usually had a window of time to register.) Since Bethlehem was Joseph's home town, many relatives would have been there. So why did they not find "room?" Really...a pregnant woman can't find room in their hometown? I figure 1 of 2 possibilities. 1) Joseph and Mary were ostracized by their family due to the questionable pregnancy, and her odd explanation. After the birth, the relatives relented and accepted them, especially after the witness of the shepherds from Migol Eder (the Temple shepherds) which would have confirmed Mary and Joseph's story from a third party. This is why later in Matthews story we see them in a home. 2) From Archeology we learn that the INN near Bethlehem was typical of the times. The people lived above and the animals. For any privacy, people could descend into the stable area below the housing (The stables below the housing served to warm the housing and give those staying close watch of their animals.) It is thought that for privacy, people could expel the animals from an area of the stable, clean it up, and find privacy. Since this time was so busy given a Festival at Jerusalem, the INN would be packed. Theory 2 does not match the history of being born in a cave, but does match archeology and inferences. As far as the people in Bethlehem NOT knowing about the questions surrounding Mary’s pregnancy assumes that the relatives from Bethlehem and Nazareth never communicated, which is hard to believe since they met at least 3 times a year at the feasts. Also, then why didn’t Mary and Joseph find accommodations with family if they had no reason to keep them apart. It is doubtful that the time of arrival and the time of birth were far removed. If not that night, then within a week would make most sense, but the text is not clear about how long they waited. MJH |
||||||
147 | Why not Elisabeths home? | Luke 2:7 | MJH | 212478 | ||
This is a sticking statement. We see this story as cute and quaint because we are overly failure with the story and the Christmas’ nativities. But the idea that this angel would come to announce the coming of the long awaited Messiah and end his pronouncement with, "You will find him in a manger" is sticking. I highly doubt that they would have questioned if they found the right baby! Also, the Lamb of God placed in a lamb’s feed box is unique. Not the place where a fabricated story would place the King of Kings! He was also born in the literal shadow of the mountain built by Herod. Bethlehem, if the time of year was right, I believe would wake up in the morning covered with the shadow of the mountain Herod built in the dessert for one of his palaces; also his ultimate burial site. The King of Kings born in the shadow of the usurper, the Edomite king ruling the Jewish people. Balaam’s fourth prophesy would have been of interest to this Herod who attempted to convert to gain acceptance by the Jewish people. MJH |
||||||
148 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211632 | ||
Doc, Tim Hegg is anything but evasive. Quite the contrary, he's very up front with what he believes and he has written a lot. No closet faith statement there :-) Anyway, we've been down this road before, but I just can't seem to let it go. Hey, I'm Dutch, it goes with the territory. Of course when you quote Scripture, I am only going to agree whole heartedly. You might even add the word MUCH before better. It is after all a MUCH better covenant! You are most certainly aware that the New Covenant is spelled out in Jeremiah. And while there are other promises which are apart of this covenant, the main one we speak of generally is the Law written on the heart. Paul speaks about it a lot. When the Spirit writes the Torah on the heart, you’re a member of the family of God, a part of the covenant assembly and assured a place in the World to Come. The Old Covenant is the Law still written on stone. Same law, different place. When something is external and not a part of you, it is simply rules and regulations. I’m guessing you’ve seen it in the churches. Members who attend, but they simply go through the motions of faith, but it isn’t there on their hearts. To them, these Christian things are simply rules to follow. Do the right things and say the right words and you’ll look spiritual. But looks are deceiving. The more you know them, the more you realize they are simply “playing by the rules.” My wife was really into the “Christian” thing. Now she is really struggling with faith. I can’t count the number of times I hear her say to me, “Oh, that’s one of those “rules” you Christians have to follow.” (This doesn’t have anything to do with Torah.) We’ve been in traditional Christian churches since we married over 12 years ago. Her beef is with these good churches. And they really are good churches despite their flaws. But right now all she sees are the flaws because she was taught the “rules.” Pray this much at these times. Read the Bible this much and volunteer that often. Smile and never admit problems or struggles, because we are Christians and we are all just fine. Oh, and those people are going to Hell to burn forever, aren’t we so much better than them.” You get the drift. The point is, even so called Christians can fail to have the Law written on their heart; love, joy, peace, etc… (My wife is struggling, but I see it as a good struggle, because on the other side is genuine faith…which see has, but when things don’t happen the way people have taught you they would, it tends to shatter false beliefs and that is always painful. God is patient.) ...so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a BETTER covenant. (Hebrews 7:22 NASB) This section of Hebrews if so fascinating when you understand why the priest needed to do what they did. and how drawing near to God in the Tabernacle occurred when God dwelt among the Israelites in the wilderness. I have absolutely fallen in love with this book. I’ve spent several months studying this book and Leviticus this past season, and find it to be truly a marvel. I’d love more than ever to teach it, but I don’t have the mastery of it quite yet. Thanks for your faithfulness to this forum. You have a gift. It would drive me nuts! MJH PS – I’m wondering why you’re opposed to following the Law. What about it is bad to do? |
||||||
149 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211652 | ||
Steve, I wouldn't expect most here to agree. You said: "1) There was never a question of whether Gentiles could become Christians. That had been answered Acts 11:1-8." -- Tim is speaking of Rabbinic theology in the first century that existed along side the Christian movement. It's fairly well established that his statement is true in that regard based on extant sources from that date. E.P. Sanders has done extensive work in this area as has NT Wright. As for the Apostles, after Peter's vision, you are correct, and here along side with Acts 11, we see them make it clear in their ruling. Your second point I will leave to his article and his other writings. Or you can email him. I think he is quite clear on what and why he thinks the way he does. Thanks for your note. MJH |
||||||
150 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211660 | ||
Thanks for the reply BradK, I agree 100 percent with your post. Of course, that is easy when it is Scripture. :-) 1. Rom. 8:3-4, "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son . . ., so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." (NASB) ---- this Text makes my original post's point very well. The Law was weak "in the flesh." We WALK, not according to the flesh, but the Spirit." Jeremiah 31:32-33: "...not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law [Torah in Hebrew] within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people." (ESV) We have the Law written on the heart through the Spirit. God writes it there. We therefore walk according to God’s ways by His strength. The walk is the same walk as Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Samuel, David, Jesus (though he did it perfectly), Peter, Paul, and many many others, yourself included. Even Enoch, Noah, and Abraham walk with God according to the same Torah that wasn’t even given in its fullest yet. Even Moses walked according to it even though for him it wasn’t fully revealed until Messiah. But they all, and we all, see the Messiah who is the goal to which it all points, and therefore since we love him, we obey his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome (Matt 11:30; Deut 30:11) 2. Gal 2:16- , "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified" (NASB) --- This one is obvious regardless of how you interpret the phrase “works or the Law.” We are justified by faith. But does that mean we live like hell? I, in these posts, am not speaking of how one is saved and how one enters the Kingdom of God, but rather, how one lives within that Kingdom. There is only one Law. You already follow the vast majority of it. Jesus came to shed his blood for a new covenant, not a new Law. --- But since you mention “works of the Law”. There is a wonderful find in the Dead Sea scrolls that sheds a lot of light on this phrase. The gentiles were not “justified” (brought into the covenant people and in right relationship with God) by following some “works of the Law.” But gentiles (or Jews) also were not justified by following the Law. It’s the same faith of Abraham that justifies. Paul mentions Abraham’s faith coming before circumcision because circumcision was the means (among 2-3 other things) for a gentile to enter the covenant family according to the teachings of the Jews in that day. But Abraham’s faith also came before the Law which was given at Mt Sinai. So our teaching that faith is apart form the Law is absolutely spot on. 3. Phil 3:9- Dito above. I appreciate the dialogue. MJH |
||||||
151 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211664 | ||
See my post to BradK.... I don't disagree with anything that you said. Most of it is Scripture so that is somewhat easy. If you are trying to be justified apart from Faith, then the curse of the Law (many many curses for those who disobey listed) would apply. But now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. The Galatians were not being yelled at by Paul because they had the gull to follow the Laws of God. They were being yelled at because they were accepting the idea that they needed to go through this ritual conversion in order to get saved...to be IN the group. If salvation comes through works of the law, then where is faith? It is gone, and then we are without hope. I desire to follow the Law because I love Jesus and want to obey His commandments. While not perfectly, I desire to live as he would desire, and trust in him that he paid the penalty for my transgressions. In the world to come I will be welcomed on his account. I think you're confusing me with someone who thinks you need to follow the Law in order to be saved. Nothing could be further from the truth. MJH |
||||||
152 | Thoughts on Hegg? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211665 | ||
You are correct. I did not think that through well enough. Thanks for not answering the question. MJH |
||||||
153 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211677 | ||
How to do you reconcile that statement with Deut 12:32? And that verse should be the first verse of Chapter 13 which goes on to state "If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, [Jesus did this] and the sign or wonder that he tells you comes to pass, [it did] . . . “ Chapter 13 describes just what you said. So if Jesus deleted 1 as you say, and added several, then we seem to have a serious problem. He would be classifies as a false prophet. Beyond that, it seems odd that any law would need to be deleted. What would the purpose be for God to change his mind about 1 or several laws? And the Mosaic Law has far more than 10 specific laws. Also, the law to love God and love thy neighbor is from the Mosaic Law which Jesus quotes, not new laws. All during the first century there has been among the sages the question, "How many laws sum up the whole of the Law?" They quote the prophets reducing the summation of the law from 613 to 10 down to 1. The last “one law” that summed up the whole was "the righteous shall live by faith." Jesus of course summed it up in the two most common in his day, and Peter and Paul summed them up to just Love. Of course one needs to ask, “What does it mean to Love?” and then you go backwards right into spelling out the Law again. In short, just because the Law can be summed up in two laws, one law, or even one word, does not mean the laws stop. (Mat 5:17-19) MJH |
||||||
154 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211683 | ||
Nope, it's all right in there in the Bible as I quoted. MJH |
||||||
155 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211684 | ||
Hmmm, can't agree with you there. I don't see anywhere that Paul says they are "trying to please God by obeying Him." The whole issue is how one enters the covenant family. MJH |
||||||
156 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211685 | ||
I'm confussed. You didn't address the question I asked. MJH |
||||||
157 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211687 | ||
hee hee hee..... yeah, I didn't include Dunn because he'd probably get nailed on this forum. Not a big fan even though he has some things right. I read half of a Wright book and had to stop. Just drove me nuts. But I know he's popular and not a stupid man, so maybe some may accept my premise more if they know Wright and Sanders do. MJH |
||||||
158 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211689 | ||
Yes on the donkey thing. Commands can contradict, and a choice has to be made. Anyway, Paul wrote Romans 14, not Jesus...but of course Paul writes from the Spirit so it may be a fine point. I know Romans 14 is used to say, stop following the Sabbath on the Sabbath, but I have yet to read any commentary (that wants to be honest) say that Paul was speaking of the 7th day Sabbath in that text. Not even those who think we don't need to follow the Sabbath make that claim in the end. They like Colossians 2 much more. If God can simply "erase anything he wants" then how can we call him faithful? Be careful about what you make God do. It is impossible for God to lie. He can not do anything. MJH |
||||||
159 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211692 | ||
By the way, welcome to the forum. (I think I noticed your new?) You'll have to find the text that says you need to wash you hands before eating..... Anyway, I never said if you fail to follow a command you go to hell. We are saved not by our ability to follow commands, but by Faith in Jesus. We follow commands because we love him. So don't quite :-) your hands are fine...I hope. MJH |
||||||
160 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211709 | ||
I choose to live under Grace and follow the commands of God. The tooth for tooth laws were laws of a gracious God. They never meant to gouge an eye out if you did that to your neighbor. How would that be helpful for your neighbor? It meant 1) don't kill a man for gouging an eye....that is not fair punishment; 2) don't neglect punishment, that isn't fair compensation. If you gouge an eye, you pay that person for their loss, no more, no less. The laws read in context seem clear since this passage follows the laws of compensation. It's a summation of judging fairly that helps the victim as much as punishes the wrong doer. The victim always has the right to no prosecute. The victim can choose to show love for the offender rather seek justice. This would be placing the command to love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus does not through out the law (he just said he didn’t in Matt 5:17-19 that precedes this statement). He is providing a clearer understanding of the law and how to live it out. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ] Next > Last [17] >> |