Results 161 - 180 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200847 | ||
Romans 2:6 “God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’” Romans 2:13 “It is not those who hear the Law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the Law who will be declared righteous.” Romans 2:27 “The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the Law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a Law-breaker.” Romans 3:31 “Do we, then, nullify the Law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the Law.” Romans 6:1 “What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” Romans 6:15 “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” Romans 7:12 “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” Romans 7:22 “For in my inner being I delight in God’s Law” Romans 8:3b “And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met is us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.” Romans 8:7 “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s Law, nor can it do so.” |
||||||
162 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200839 | ||
Hey Doc, Thanks for the links! Also, yes I know the doctrines and most the people you site and yes I could argue and discuss any side of this issue very well. I'm honestly not seeking to prove my thinking or understanding, I just can't/couldn't find available online a good argument that addressed this issue specifically. MJH |
||||||
163 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200831 | ||
Sorry, but that really isn't helpful. Sending me to Romans and asking me to refrain from finding out how different Theologies interpret it is the same as condemning this whole forum. You could as easy answer every question the same way. Covenant Theology and Dispensational theology disagree but both read Romans just to name two. Others say we ought to follow all of the Mosaic Law, and still others say we ought not to follow any. Both are reading Romans and neither is preaching works salvation. If you know of any quality thesis papers or articles of substance, I’d love to read them! MJH |
||||||
164 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | MJH | 200737 | ||
Doc, Granted you can (see further on the shoulders of giants)...and I have...and I value them for their theology and mostly of course their courage in light of the times they lived. Forever indebted are we to them! Calvin was always a preferred favorite in my upbringing. That being said, I've of recent come to see that Paul was not teaching that the Law of Moses was no longer applicable (or not applicable) to the lives of both Jews and Gentiles (ie. so I do see him saying "do the Law." Granted, I have not plowed these text (In Romans 2) like I should, but rather have been tilling the good soil of Galatians and ended up here on an excursion. So, I hold these "truths?" to be non-self evident and shall continue to work them over. It's been nearly 7 years now where I started this trek, allowing myself to ask the questions in search of the truth while holding so very tightly to the doctrine and teachings of the giants of the faith, some times too tightly. After all, beliefs that have been held for hundreds of years have been held that way for a reason. Either way, we all agree that salvation is through faith and faith in Jesus the Messiah alone both now, in the first century, and before the Messiah was born. MJH |
||||||
165 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | MJH | 200716 | ||
Tim, Thanks so much for your confirmation that more than just one person found this. I like Cranfield's comment. I'm not sure how much work you went into for this, but it seems like a lot and I appreciate it. I responded more fully under Docs response only because it came second, so see there for why I was thinking about this. This is still something that is running around in my head while I drive and have time to think. I have not had time to put meat on it at all, so it may go nowhere. Thanks so much, MJH |
||||||
166 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | MJH | 200715 | ||
Hey, Doc It's been a long time. Good to see you are still around these parts. I do not dislike the NASB nor the Amplified translations. The amplified of course is more interpretation, but is real nice for reading and an additional resource. When reading Romans 2 recently, I noticed while crossing over this familiar passage a pause that made me wonder if there shouldn't be at least a look at changing the translation. My reason was because in many other parts of scripture it seems obvious that "no one seeks God and no one does good, not even one." So why would Paul attempt to say that non-regenerate Gentiles would "do what the Law requires." Second, I have am not currently in favor of assuming that Paul is dividing the Law up here into only "common" law (do not murder, do not steal) or even a so called Noahidic Law common to all peoples. So in re-reading the English text (since I don't read Greek unfortunately) I put in mind that these were Gentiles who were "regenerate" (ie. Christians to use our term). Then the Text made some sense: the Jews, who were "in the flesh" born into the covenant and grew up with the Law and heard it read weekly or more, were in reality not "doing it"; but, the Gentiles who were not "in the flesh" born into the covenant, but grafted into Israel through the faith of Abraham, were now actually hearing and doing the Law. “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Furthermore, the Law is “written on their hearts” still speaking of Gentiles. This is drawing back on Jeremiah 31, which speaks of the whole Law and also speaks only of Israel, therefore in Romans 11 Paul speaks of how the Gentiles are grafted into Israel. If the Law is written on their hearts, it must be the Holy Spirit that does this, and this also means they must be regenerate Gentiles, not random pagans in any culture. Therefore: “…when Gentiles, who do not have by nature the Law [of Moses], do the things required by the Law [of Moses], they are …” Also, this change (not in the Greek, but in the translation) that I propose does not in anyway change the argument that Paul is making. The only real practical change is that a lot of sermons based on “all cultures” having a common law because we were all created in the Image of God, etc… will need to find a different passage to preach from. Doc, I was waiting to reply until I had more time, but when your response also came, I couldn’t resist. Then I remembered that on this forum, I like to test some of my thinking out even before I have had time to really organize and confirm or not confirm my thinking. It’s nice to have a place where a person can think out loud. MJH |
||||||
167 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 193525 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the response. I have only touched the very service of the writings of NT Wright and that being the case, can not comment on whether or not I see myself along side him. In response to your statement then, I would say that historically speaking, there were more than on type of Pharisee. Many many were quite legalistic, particularly those in Judea. That being said, there were many who were most defiantly not. I do believe that Jesus lined up theologically more closely with the Pharisees than any other sect (and by that I do not intend to diminish Jesus.) This is probably why He is seen talking with them the most. The Sadducees were a lost sect so far from reality that there was little point in discussion. The same is true of the others to a lesser degree. It may be possible that some (okay it is more than possible) have swung the pendulum of opinion about the Pharisees too far in their favor. That being said, there were most defiantly many Godly Pharisees in His day, and even this can be seen in the Gospels and Acts. And as far as Legalism is concerned, I do think that many on this forum either do not know what the word means, or at the very least miss use it. Legalism is the belief that certain acts or deeds (mostly outward) were required for salvation. You know that I am not of this camp, and nothing I have written would lead one to think this way. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. MJH |
||||||
168 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193494 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the response. See my other note about the Acts verses. Colossians 2:16 and on. (I have my Bible now). vs. 16 says “Therefore”, and proceeds to mention four things prescribed by the Torah and says that they ought not to let others Judge them on these things because they are a shadow of things to come, the reality being Jesus. (ie. this isn't a Plato shadow theory. Paul is using the shadow in the since that Jesus casts a shadow, and these things are that shadow.) THEN Paul mentions two things that are taught against in the Torah (worshiping Angels and false humility) and claims these things are "based on human commands and teachings" as opposed to God's commands and teachings. Then he ends it in Chapter 3:2 with, "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." The two are here again, heavenly things (ie things from God0 and Earthly things (ie things form man--which would include the "works of the law" that Paul mentions in Galatians") I see the two as separate and not a part of the same line of thinking. Paul is contrasting. I do not see Paul saying that both worship of Angels is bad and following God's appointed times is bad. What do you think? (please disregard my original question that started all of this.) MJH |
||||||
169 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 193490 | ||
Doc, but what about the original question. I have never heard someone who thinks the Law is done away with explain this episode. This is late in the period. Neither Paul, James, nor the Bible says Paul was wrong to do this. The Text claims that Paul has been Torah observant. It claims "myriads" of believers are zealous for the Law. And then they set up a plan to prove Paul is observant. What say you? What is the "erroneous interpretation of Pharisaic soteriology.?" God bless, MJH |
||||||
170 | Followers of "The Way" - meaning? | Acts 9:2 | MJH | 193465 | ||
Cheri, THANKS! This is the answer I was hoping someone would confirm to me. Do you remember where you heard this? Maybe our source is the same? God bless....I'm so excited! Notice: The Cherubim were on the curtain separating us from the Holy of Holies and it was over the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. (These were in the Temple even though the Law said, No Image from Heaven above or the Earth below for the sea.) Cherubim are from heaven above, and yet here they are. Must be important right? Then the curtain rips and they "way" to God through the blood (you can't get into the Holy of Holies without blood) of Jesus is made. Again, thanks, and I'd love to hear where you heard this. MJH |
||||||
171 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193464 | ||
Cheri, You said you are doing a study on Hebrews. Is this through your local church or something available on line through MP3 or Commentary? Just curious. I am also in a Hebrews study and the more info the better. MJH |
||||||
172 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193463 | ||
Doc, How do you view: 1) Jesus Zeal for the House of God; both the prophesy and the act of clearing the temple of money changers? 2) The Apostles participating in "The Prayers" in Acts 2, and their "continually" going to the Temple? 3) Paul eager to get back to Jerusalem to participate in the Temple and the feast? 4) Paul participating in sacrificing at the Temple in Acts 21-23. 5) The Text (I am without my Bible right now so I forget the exact reference) where Paul says, "Do not let anyone judge you on account of feasts, new moon, Sabbaths, etc... These things ARE the shadow of Messiah who is the reality." (Some translations add "mere" or place this is the past tense erroneously.) I always appreciate your dedication to knowing God and serving Him on this forum. MJH |
||||||
173 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193462 | ||
First, thank you for your well thought out response. I do appreciate it any time someone seriously provides an answer to a question concerning Scripture. Curious, however, how you might view Paul in light of Acts 21 and on. James (the Righteous/Just) and Paul seem to be hatching a plan to prove something to the Jewish believers in Jesus as the Messiah who are all “zealous for the Law." What is it that they are trying to prove to the "Hebrews" or the Messianic Jews in Jerusalem? MJH |
||||||
174 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193414 | ||
the "we" includes any who call Jesus Lord and Savior. This would include both Jews and Gentiles in our current period. MJH |
||||||
175 | Confused? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 192309 | ||
Doc, Yes, Jesus is the living fulfillment of the Torah. You are correct that he is much more than a teacher. When I wrote that Jesus did not add to the laws, I had in mind first and foremost the command in Deut. 12:32 that says, "See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it." But yes, Lev 19:18 is relevant as well. Jesus is obviously alluding to this commandment. It is new in as much as it is Jesus himself, the Messiah, who tells us that to love ones neighbor as oneself is fulfilled by loving as he as loved. Love for oneself can be unhealthy at times and loving ones neighbor as oneself is a very open ended command. Jesus is putting a finer point on this command by saying, "I have showed you how to love and you being my disciples should do likewise." And of course his love was sacrificial, servant like, and absolute. It's new in the sense that we have a new picture to relate the command of love to, but it is not new in that the Torah did not already command us to love our neighbors. Of course if Jesus did add a totally new commandment, he would have broken a commandment nullifying his ability to be the unblemished perfect sacrifice for our sins. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to flesh out that statement in my pervious post. I was wondering if someone might catch that… MJH |
||||||
176 | Confused? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 192299 | ||
Jesus did not change the "letter" of the law because if he did he couldn't be the Messiah. Deut. 13 warns of a prophet that would come even doing miracles but if that prophet tried to take Israel away from the commands of Moses, then that was a false prophet. Too many Christians turn Jesus into someone he was not. Jesus also did not "spiritualize" the commands. What he did do, however, (to help you with your argument) was to correctly interpret the commands in both how they were originally intended to be understood and how they ought to be applied in their current situation. The Pharisees (not all of them) were heaping on mounds of oral tradition (oral law) and put all of the focus on those laws, most of which had to do with "holiness" commands (ie. clean and unclean) and neglected the mercy and justice laws that Jesus (and some other 1st century Rabbis) taught were "greater." Nowhere do we see Jesus ending any laws (like the food laws) or adding to the laws (like the Law to Love each other.) Until Christians see Jesus in his own context and among His own people they will continue to miss his point and teaching (or at least many of them...most Christians do get the heart of the teaching). But even the teaching on the "Kingdom of God/Heaven" that He spent most of his time on is still misunderstood by us today as if it has to do with "going to Heaven." It is very important, however, to understand the Living Walking in the Flesh Torah Logos of God did not change, end, nor supplant the very Word that He was. Everything in the Torah and the Prophets and the New Testament tells us this. MJH |
||||||
177 | Confused? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 192289 | ||
You said, "Subsequently, the laws of Moses which the scribes and the Pharisees insisted that people follow, was replaced by the teachings of Jesus" How can the teachings of Jesus replace the laws of Moses when the teachings of Jesus were the laws of Moses? MJH |
||||||
178 | 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 |
||||||
179 | Abstaining from things strangled, blood? | Acts 15:20 | MJH | 192276 | ||
Jews in Jesus day believed that "God fearers", those Gentiles who believed in the One true God but were not circumsised into Israel, were to follow the Noahic covenant in which they found 7 laws. You can do a search of my name "mjh" and "noah" to find many more details on this. Acts 15 requirements are all found in what the Jews saw in the Noah covenant which was given to all peoples. Those that were not included in Acts 15 were not necessary because they were already a part of the rule of law among the Gentiles. Sorry that this is so scant, but it's late and I did post a lot on this in the past. MJH |
||||||
180 | Help Bible study to accept differences? | Acts 20:7 | MJH | 185333 | ||
Hey Hank. Thanks for the quote. That was good. I also printed up a long history of the change from Saturday to Sunday that, surprisingly, did not include the often biased misinterpretations. I'll print your response too and include it when or if necessary. The "Torah Club" is studying the Bible in the same way Jesus did following the yearly Torah and Haftarah portions that all Jews do today and did back in the first century. (Actually Jesus probably followed the three year cycle.) The Torah Club includes 2 years in the first five books, 1 year of the Haftarah (the rest of the Old Testament), 1 year in the Gospels, and 1 year in Acts-Revelations. It is written from a Jewish believer in Jesus as Messiah. I avoid using terms like "Messianic Jew" and "Hebrew roots" because they carry different meanings to different people. This has been by far the best study I have been in and continue in personally. I do not agree with everything in the study, but then I don't agree with everything others say either. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [17] >> |