Results 161 - 180 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
161 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211710 | ||
God has never changed a covenant. Paul even states in Galatians, “A later covenant can not do away with an earlier one.” That would be to lie. He can have a conversation with Abraham and Moses. Because He says, "step back so I can destroy them." is not the same as saying, "I declare that this is going to happen." A promise and a conversation are two separate things. God “ta’shuva”ing [repenting] is not the same as him changing. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Deut 12:32 and Deut 4:2 are very clear. By the way, these discussions God has with Abraham and Moses over what he will do are essential to understanding how he can reconcile his justice and mercy at the same time. They teach us a lot about the character of God. The talk with Moses after the Golden Calf is monumental in his revealing his attributes. It's an awesome portion of scripture! It's a huge picture of Jesus work on our behalf. MJH |
||||||
162 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211711 | ||
I like your analogy, the only problem with it is that your lease had an end. Once it was over, you either go month to month or the lease itself states that you can stop, leave, and get your deposit back (if you've been neat.) The "lease" that God made didn't have an end, so to make the analogy work, it would be like this: I have a lease for x years. One month into the lease, I decide that I will not pay to have the lawn mowed as we agreed to. Now you, the owner are stuck with the bill. So you say, “but we have a lease.” You say, "I blacked that out of my lease, so it no longer applies." Okay, that is weak too, but it's much closer. Anyone knows that a judge would side with the owner who would get a money judgment and then never actually get his money. (I work in the apt leasing field :-) ) Here is how the Bible works: 1) the books are Moses, known as the Torah, are the foundation. 2) The History books (Joshua, Ruth, Kings, etc..) and the Prophets and the Writings(Psalms, Proverbs, etc...) are the pillars that stand on the foundation. The Apostolic Scriptures (New Testament) rest on the pillars as a roof. If you remove the foundation it all crumbles. Also, proper hermeneutics state that later revelation can not contradict nor over turn earlier revelation. The Torah came first and stands forever. I'm not J.W. or a Seventh Day Adventist either. (Just to clarify.) MJH |
||||||
163 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211718 | ||
Okay, maybe it would help if you give me an actual verse where God is said to repent. Then I will explain. But honestly, I don't see one in the Books of Moses, but maybe that's because my Bible translations use a different word. Otherwise I will be explaining something that will make little since outside of a specific verse, I fear. MJH |
||||||
164 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211719 | ||
Some of your posts are posts that link to your own earlier post. I almost missed these. If you think of listing things God changed, don't bother to spend the time to do them all, just one or two would suffice. MJH Have a good nap? I'm sick today, that's mainly why I am here so much. Normally I actually work during the day. |
||||||
165 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211759 | ||
Rom 10:4: For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. Jesus is the [telos] of the Law for righteousness. Telos [greek] is the goal or that which it points toward. The Law pointed to the Messiah who is the goal. But to say it ceases to have purpose is to deny Matthew 5:17-19. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Hebrews 10:4 "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." The Day of Atonement was not intended to "take away" sin. Only Messiah can do that. Remember, I am not claiming that following any law brings you into salvation, nor am I saying failure to apply it perfectly damns you. It is the same faith of Abraham that saves. It is faith in the One Messiah Jesus our Lord and Savior who leads us to God in the world to come. It is not by works that no one can boast. MJH |
||||||
166 | Gospels are OT books? | John 1:1 | MJH | 211788 | ||
Thanks for the quotes. Very good indeed. I agree completely with the A.W. Pink quote and the John RW Stott quote as given. So nice when we agree. The John Armstrong quote I do not have anything striking against, I'd just have to digest it a little more to see for sure. If anything, I'd disagree on rather minor points. Thanks for digging these up. MJH |
||||||
167 | Was Jesus married? | John 1:38 | MJH | 156778 | ||
If I am right, Jewish oral law said that a member of the Sanhedrin had to be married with children. (Or latter to be a "judge" of the Law.)(1) I do not know of a tradition that stated a Rabbi had to be married. Is there one? and if so when did such a tradition begin? and if there was one at the time of Jesus, why does this not come up in the Gospels? Even Jesus' detractors called him "Rabbi." (1) - Mishnah Fourth Division: Nezikin, Horayoth I. 4. |
||||||
168 | Where's rapture - zeal of the revolution | John 2:1 | MJH | 140046 | ||
Okay people, we have got to learn that when someone joins simply to cause problems, the best thing to do is to not respond to their posts anymore. We look foolish falling into these set-ups. | ||||||
169 | Where's rapture - zeal of the revolution | John 2:1 | MJH | 140047 | ||
Okay people, we have got to learn that when someone joins simply to cause problems, the best thing to do is to not respond to their posts anymore. We look foolish falling into these set-ups. | ||||||
170 | Where's rapture - zeal of the revolution | John 2:1 | MJH | 140048 | ||
Okay people, we have got to learn that when someone joins simply to cause problems, the best thing to do is to not respond to their posts anymore. We look foolish falling into these set-ups. | ||||||
171 | fishing for comments, on these scripture | John 2:1 | MJH | 140049 | ||
In retrospect, on this thread, He-man might actually have gotten it right all along. :-) | ||||||
172 | fishing for comments, on these scripture | John 2:1 | MJH | 140053 | ||
Hank. I'm wondering if this diasperio guy, and the other guy a couple of days ago who swore and is now gone, isn't a double for one of the regular new posters to the Forum. This guy, who is undoubtably the same guy/gal who posted rude statements earlier, seems to follow an interesting pattern. Maybe you or others see similarities, or maybe not. Post 139997 made me wonder. MJH |
||||||
173 | what is a bible mansion | John 14:2 | MJH | 173829 | ||
Doc, YES YES YES! It is a pet peeve of mine that so many people speak of spending eternity in heaven when that is not accurate. I kept to the "heaven" term because I didn't want to deal with two misunderstandings in one post. But it is nice to see I am not the only one who is bugged by this. (I think I used the term "The world to come" in my post as well which is what I usually do instead of saying heaven?) MJH |
||||||
174 | what is a bible mansion | John 14:2 | MJH | 173935 | ||
Doc, I'd like to see the post on the Interim State. Do you know the ID? I personally don't know. I figure either you are in "heaven", or that when you die, you are no longer bound by the fourth dimension of time and are immediately at the second coming/judgment. I do not give credence to purgatory nor to un-conscious sleep. But from scripture, I have had little to go on. Since I have not "studied" this in depth personally, I'd love to read your thoughts. MJH |
||||||
175 | What did Jesus mean, "obey My commands?" | John 14:21 | MJH | 162306 | ||
I think MacArthur is correct, but I just don't think that most Evangelical Christians (of which I am one) actually walk it. When the discussion gets down to the specifics, there is so much rationalizing and qualifiers as to WHY we don't have to obey THAT command. Even MacArthur (I hope I am not confusing him with another guy) on his churches web site gives these reasons for some of the commands, none of which I agree with. If Jesus said to obey all the commands, even the little ones, then why don’t we? MJH |
||||||
176 | Why did Jesus need to leave first? | John 16:7 | MJH | 215799 | ||
Thanks Doc. It's good to hear from you again. In light of the question then, Jesus needed to bodily ascend before the Spirit could come because we are His body, the Church? I understand the Theology of Christ's finished work as our only means of redemption, and I know that as he said, he needed to leave before the counselor could come, but I just can't quite put into words why the Spirit (who was present with Him at baptism for sure) could not come upon the disciples before he left them. If I understand Jesus words right, if he stayed through Pentecost, then the Spirit wouldn't have come. But why? What did the ascension do that wasn't already done? I'd look this up in some books for the thoughts of commentaries, but I am absent from them at this time. Thanks, MJH |
||||||
177 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212501 | ||
John, Your conclusions are correct, but John 14:6b is an allusion to drawing near to God in the world to come. It's more than simply getting saved. It's the way to approach the Father, and that is through the High Priest, of which Jesus is in the world to come. Therefore it is natural that no one can approach the Father but through the son. (see note 1) John 3:3 is a response to a Jewish Pharisee. The predominate teaching on how a Gentile was to enter the covenant (Kingdom of God) according to the Pharisees was for them to be "born again as a Jew." (see notes 2 and 3) They are said to go into the Mikvah (baptismal) a Gentile and emerge born again as a Jew. For Nicodemus to hear his own words (we can assume they were also his words or those of his colleges) gains more interest because Nicodemus was already a Jew and in his mind, he was already secure in the covenant and therefore the Word to Come. (see note 4) Notice Nicodemus was not asking how he could get saved. He was simply saying Jesus must be from God. Jesus takes the conversation to being born again. The only reaction Nicodemus has is, “How can these things be?” Jesus’ argument is between the flesh and Spirit. Are you in the New Covenant of the spirit, or the Old Covenant of the flesh? If you follow the law from the flesh, you are not born anew and have no place in the new. Being born again in the spirit is to have a heart of flesh with the law written there. Being from Abraham by flesh is genealogy, but to be of Abraham’s faith is of the Spirit. Paul draws out these arguments in detail. I mention this, because Christians may be shocked to know that one of their favorite verses to quote has an historical context which comes from the Jewish Pharisaic teachings of Jesus’ day. MJH 1. For more on why this is true, just ask :-) 2. cf. b. Yevamot 47a-b; cf. n. 178 3. b. Yevamot 47b 4. cf. m. Sanhedrin 10:1; b. Sanhedrin 90a “All Israel has a place in the world to come….” |
||||||
178 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212511 | ||
... | ||||||
179 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212513 | ||
I apologize, but for some reason my post response to you was deleted. I did not save it and since it took considerable time to write, I can't re-write it. I'm curious as to why it got deleted since there certainly wasn't anything in it that was provocative in nature. MJH |
||||||
180 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212520 | ||
The terms of use are clear here, and if someone at Lockman chooses to delete my note, then so be it. I have found that over the years this forum has been a wonderful help to me in my learning. I've in the past had many questions relating to the Law specifically had I have enjoyed learning from others, Doc especially. (Who is missing as of late.) My recent post dealt only with historical context for the first century. If we accept that the Text can never mean what it never meant, then historical context in hermeneutics is necessary. If I am mistaken, then I'd like clarification so that I can avoid this same error in the future. I am not attempting to cause trouble. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ] Next > Last [17] >> |