Results 181 - 200 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Biblical views on castration | Matt 19:12 | MJH | 185332 | ||
Hank, Just a clarification. I was not arguing that the Old Testament was replaced, but rather the opposite. Your quote of mine is my quote of the previous poster who stated that the New "replaced" the Old. So I agree with you in that part of your note; that the Old is not done away with. I separate from you in that the Mosaic Covenant from Sinai is done away with. I think it is not. How that all plays out in doctrine is about a 500 page book or so, but Paul and James make is quite clear that the Mosaic Covenant from Sinai was not done away with in Acts 21-23, and Jesus of course in Matt 5:17-19, and the book of James particularly where as Jews in the first century equated "good works" with "doing the commands." That's a bit of a simplified statement to something more complex, but in short, when we were created in Christ Jesus to do "good works" which were prepared in advance for us before the creation of the world. This is speaking of "Torah" which had been assumed in the first century to have been conceived before the creation of the World. (One of the seven things that the Oral Torah taught came before "In the beginning.") Also, to "repent" which consequently is absent in Paul's teaching, had a specific meaning. Repent is to turn back, but one has to have something to "turn back" too. That is why John and Jesus could say, "repent" because the Jews were to "turn back to Torah" or the right way of living in the land. Paul does not tell the Gentiles to "repent" because it would not have made any sense. "Repent" to what? My old pagan ways? Of course not. They were to convert to a whole knew life, leaving the old life behind. "Do not go back to your old ways in which you once lived." In fact, Paul taught the Gentiles to "not repent." It's also true in our evangelism efforts. Words mean something. The way of God is a specific defined Way of living. To live in this way invites the "Kingdom of God" into our lives both now and in the world to come. A little rambling..... MJH |
||||||
182 | Biblical views on castration | Matt 19:12 | MJH | 185301 | ||
You mention that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament and then quote a verse that says the very opposite. Matt 5:17-19 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus did not come to put away or do away or replace the [Old Testament] but to [Do it completely]. Jesus came and lived it perfectly. In fact He was the Torah in flesh. But He never says that it is null and void. In fact the very next verse says "whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments...will be called least in the Kingdom." What you just stated was that Jesus Himself annulled not just the least, but the whole thing. Is He least in His own Kingdom? Thankfully it will only render many Christians "least" in the Kingdom, and not left out. And by "least" Jesus does not refer to some future punishment or place in line, but that because they annul the commands, they will not experience the true fullness of the Kingdom now, here, in this life and the next. Because they ignore some of the Law, they miss out on all God has for them. As far as castration is concerned, the Bible prohibited the castrated person from entering the Temple because of this deformity. God uses such pictures to demonstrate who He is, Holy. If being castrated meant being separated from God Himself (which it did not in the Old or New Testament) then why does Philip teach and baptize the eunuch in Acts 8? Romans 8:1-3 doesn't apply to the eunuch because being a eunuch was not a sin, it was simply of state of being. MJH MJH |
||||||
183 | Jesus getting the keys to hell | Rev 1:18 | MJH | 184749 | ||
The phrase "keys to death and Hades" has nothing to do with Hell as we understand it. It's simply a pictorial way of referring to the resurrection being made real because of Jesus. MJH |
||||||
184 | Did Jesus speak Greek in this verse? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 181820 | ||
Thanks for the reply. Another good book is "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" by Bivin. But most on this forum stick stubernly to the Aramaic theory unfortunately. MJH |
||||||
185 | Did Jesus speak Greek in this verse? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 181770 | ||
What language Jesus normally spoke in is not my question. I know the answer to that, but this verse if originally spoken in any other language than Greek does not have the word play that Jesus is using. That is why when reading it this time, I was struck with a "hmmmm, that's weird, I wonder?" question. It's actually not that important to understanding the text etc... but I get inquisitive about this stuff sometimes. I don't know enough about Semitic languages to know how it would have sounded in those languages, but in English, the whole play on words is lacking. MJH |
||||||
186 | 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 |
||||||
187 | Spare the rod, spoil the child | Prov 13:24 | MJH | 178401 | ||
"Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die.You shall beat him with the rod, And deliver his soul from Sheol." (Pro 23:13-14). Again... Child should be translated "young man" and he is delivered from Sheol (death) because the command of God was that such a child be stoned to death by the community if he did not obey and became a drunkered, etc.... That command to stone the "son" was the purpose that the proverb stated was written. The other passages speaks of "the rod of disciplne" which does NOT suggest striking. MJH |
||||||
188 | Spare the rod, spoil the child | Prov 13:24 | MJH | 178400 | ||
Searcher, See my answer to her original question.... But to paraphrase, Proverbs are not commands. The word "child" in Proverbs 22 and 23 should be translated "young man" as it is everywhere else in scripture (that I found). The use of "son" in Proverbs 13 does not mean toddler, but son. And all proverbs was written to a young man, and other proverbs point to this "son" as being older. It is incorrect to read Proverbs as commands. To do so is to fail to understand the genre. To discipline does not equal “to punish.” Punishment may be a part of discipline, but they are not synonyms. To discipline is more of an act of guiding a person in the way they should go as a Shepherd guides a sheep; only in extreme cases is the instrument of guiding ever used to strike. Most Christian parents strike their toddlers and young children, but not their older children. Personally our family uses the spanking method so seldom that my children think we are “non-spankers” that is until they really cross the line. But for families that do not use this form of discipline, their children are no less well off as long as loving guiding discipline is used. And those who use corporal punishment have every right by God do to so, assuming it is never done out of anger or frustration. MJH |
||||||
189 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177235 | ||
Point conceded. MJH |
||||||
190 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177234 | ||
Thank you for allowing me the company of at least one other on the Hewbrew as common language. Also, in regard to the Greek of Matthew being the accepted book into the canon, I completely agree with you. All the other stuff is interesting at best, but in the end, it is the Greek that is what has been preserved and accepted into the canon and that is what holds authority. MJH |
||||||
191 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177187 | ||
BradK I'll quote what I posted some years ago on the Hebrew as the spoke language. ----------- "Can anyone still believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic? The most advanced research says He spoke Hebrew. Using one verse to show He spoke Aramaic, when most of the Gospel and Acts say Hebrew, Archeology says Hebrew, Josephus says Hebrew, the early church fathers say Hebrew, Rabbinic literature says Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls say Hebrew, and coins minted in the first century BC say Hebrew. You said, “We know Jesus spoke Aramaic because he spoke it from the cross when he said: "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" which is the Aramaic, not Hebrew, version of Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Matthew records this in Hebrew (same words). The people in Mark's version are thinking that Jesus is calling Elijah which is only possible if He spoke the words as Matthew records in Hebrew since in Hebrew the term "Eli" can be either "My God" or a shortened from of Eliyahu, Hebrew for Elijah. "Eloi" in Aramaic can only mean, "My God". For Matthew; "lama" (why) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found in Mishnaic Hebrew as well as in Aramaic. Other Hebrew words in the Greek text; levonah, mammom, Wai, rabbi, Beelzebub, corban, Satan, cammom, raca, moreh, bath, kor, zuneem, Boarnerges, Mor, Sheekmah, amen. All archeological finds are 9 to 1 in favor of Hebrew over Aramaic including for those things used by the common man of the day. The Dead Sea Scrolls were in Hebrew 9 to 1 over Aramaic (the common man’s rules for the community were in Hebrew.) … and on and on and on it goes. . . Oh, and a fun one to explain: Jerome says he translated the Latin Vulgate directly from Matthew’s original Hebrew text. Jerome was the most competent Hebrew scholar of all the early church fathers, living in the Land for many years, learning Hebrew from the people who spoke it every day. Then there is the linguistic research which is beyond the scope of this forum I think. MJH" ------ That was posted way back when and since that time the archeological evidence has only increased in favor of Hebrew. All of this evidence is admissible in a court of law. Some of it can be argued against with some good points, but it is the shear volume of evidence over the span of all of these scholarly fields that make the case for Hebrew. I do, however, understand that I am in the minority both on this forum and in Christendom. But I also believe that will change over time as these things often take a long time to do so. MJH |
||||||
192 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177186 | ||
John, Sorry... the Galil is [Galilee]. I should have used the more common term. MJH |
||||||
193 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177185 | ||
Well, actually "strong evidence" and "theory" are the same thing. A theory is something that can not be "proofed" but there is a lot of evidence to support the idea. I do think there is strong evidence to support a 'Q' of some sort, if not in writting, then certainly in oral transmision. But it is still just a theory. MJH |
||||||
194 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177184 | ||
The Jahovah's witnesses believe: in one God; in a round earth, in gravity, and in the necessity of water to sustain life. All of these things are true. So just because a JW believes them too does not mean they must be false because they are considered a cult. That is the point I was making. In Kalos' note, the person he quoted was making the argument that since JW believe in an original Hebrew Matthew, that therefore it must not be true. Logically, this is not a good argument as I showed above. Whether there is or is not a Hebrew Matthew originally has nothing to do with the JW. MJH |
||||||
195 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177183 | ||
You are correct and for that I appologize. I should read more closely! MJH |
||||||
196 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177174 | ||
Oh Kalos, you are reminding me of too many things. I really don't care if the Jahovah's Witnesses claim that Matthew was written in Hebrew first. The fact remains that we have the Greek, and that is what God inteneded for us to have that is our baises for interpretation. There are many things the Jahovah's Witnesses believe, some of which are true. Just because a cult which has errors in its teachings believes something, does not mean it is therefor false. "The reports of the fathers regarding a Hebrew "Gospel" must be considered as hearsay" It is very serious to call something a hearasy. Just because some believe there is evidence for a Hebrew Matthew does not mean they are Heritics. We must be careful how we use that term. (I know you were quoting someone else) MJH |
||||||
197 | Was Ham showing homosexual tendencies? | Gen 9:22 | MJH | 175972 | ||
Jewish scholars during the time both before and after Jesus have written commentaries on this passage and some of them say that Ham committed Homosexual intercourse with Noah. That does not mean it is a certainty, but it has been believed to be the case even before the time of Jesus...which is at least interesting. From schechter.edu “In the Talmud we find some tradition saying that he was castrated by his son or that Ham had sexual intercourses with his father while he was drunk (Sanhedrin 70a). But as a general rule, most Sages transmit the simple meaning of the text, teaching that it is disrespectful for sons to see their parents (or their teachers) unclothed.” MJH |
||||||
198 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | MJH | 174792 | ||
Since I did start this thread, let me jump in here. Thanks to both of you for spending so much time on this. It has benefited me greatly. Doc, your statement about the use of the Mishnah et. al. is well stated. 1)"The order of the Laws" was a very common argument among the rabbis in the time of Jesus. You see it in the question to Jesus, "Which is the greatest commandment." They actually went deeper then the fist 3 or 4, but Jesus answer is in line with the Pharisees up until the Samaritan is called a neighbor. The question I like to ask people is, "If your donkey falls into a hole on the Sabbath, do you help it out?" Either way you break one of the commandments. "Life" is the controlling standard. You save the donkey; otherwise it dies, so breaking the Sabbath is justified. 2) The woman who touches the tassel on Jesus robe is showing an amazing act of Faith. She believes in Micah 4:2 that the Son of Righteousness will come with "healing in his corners." Num 15:38 says that all Israel must wear tassels on the corners of their robes. Corners equals Kanaph; Micah says the Messiah will have healing in his (wings, corners) equals Kanaph. The woman obviously understood this passage to mean that if she touched the tassel of the Messiah, she would be made well. So her act, becoming well, superseded the unclean law because to become well was to promote life. She took a great risk in following her faith...if she were wrong she could be exposed of sinning intentionally by touching so many people as well as a respected Rabbi. If she was correct, then her actions would be justified and she would be healed. Note: the word in the Greek text about the woman touching the tassel is the same Greek word used in the LXX to translated Kanaph. 3) It is still my understanding that to become unclean, while limiting your access to the Temple worship for a time did not mean you had “sinned.” But the Lev 5 text does use the word for sin when someone becomes unclean, even unintentionally. I have since had time to study this more and every commentary I found said the following: “The sin was that the person entered the Temple in an unclean state and/or did not do the purification necessary.” Therefore the sin was not being unclean, but in not following the law of purification. Also: In the Jewish Misnah (w) it is said, the word "hidden" is twice used, to show that he is guilty, for the ignorance of uncleanness, and for the ignorance of the sanctuary. (w) Misn. Shebuot, c. 2. sect. 5. I like this explanation much more since one does not have to look at the New Testament and then back track to the old to justify an understanding of scripture. Even though this may work, it doesn’t say “why” it works. Paul and the others didn’t change the meaning or understanding the Old Testament texts. They were working from an understanding of the texts based on their scripture at the time. Not to mention that the Text must mean what it says in the original transmission. MJH |
||||||
199 | Justified by faith or His faithfullness? | Gal 2:16 | MJH | 174687 | ||
Mark, Yes that does help quite a bit. I have zero knowledge of Greek and only a little of Hebrew. Thanks so much for the reply. MJH |
||||||
200 | Which sacrifices have ended? | Acts 2:46 | MJH | 174572 | ||
Wow, that was venomous. No where does Paul ever say the Torah (Law) has ended, but in fact he upheld it in totality his whole life (according to his interpretation of the Torah) ...see Acts 21 - 23. It amazes me that Gentile Christians can still speak of the Jews (or Israel) with such hatred. Especially since we are grafted into them, not the other way around. And in all reality, Christianity is more of a sect of Judaism than a separate religion. It was started by Jews, with a Jewish Messiah, Jewish apostles without exception, and Jewish in its form, and their scriptures with 100 percent Jewish. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [17] >> |