Results 181 - 200 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212523 | ||
Until I read your post, I did not know who Carol Valentine was or anything about her; however, I posted a link to a site that she oversees. Therefore, you may be correct. Had I realized this site was linked in this way, I'd never have used it. So much for failing to do my "homework." May I ask how you knew the connection since my post is deleted? MJH |
||||||
182 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212539 | ||
I suppose I can try this again. :-) The Oral Law is the traditions handed down by sages of old and passed from disciple to disciple down through the ages. One of the Oral Laws was that it was not to be written down. But, around the year 200AD there was a growing fear that much of this information would be lost, so it was written down as the Mishna. The Talmud is a collection of commentary on the Mishna and while the Mishna is about the size of a Bible (maybe less) the Tamud is volumes and there are two, the Jerusalem (less used) and the Babylonian (most popular.) The Jewish tradition is that the Oral Law originated with Moses, who passed it to the Judges who passed it to the Prophets who passed it to the great Assembly etc.. The Pharisees in Jesus day and the "sages" can be traced back to Ezra who set up a system for making sure the people knew the Law. So, much of the beginnings of what the Jews have today can, at the least, be traced back that far. But, most of the added laws came years after Ezra. I am not saying Ezra made up the Oral Law, but he either passed parts along, or helped begin it. (Daniel in Babylon also is seen observing some of the Oral Law by praying three times in conjunction with the Temple sacrifices.) Since the Talmud contains what was taught over the course of some 1500 years, one can not simply pull something out and attribute it to the first century. I’m a strong believer in Historical context, and so learning what the theological beliefs in the first century were is important. It’s these beliefs that the first Christians would have been discussing as well. So practicing a careful study of the many sources to define with an acceptable level of probability what was accepted in the first century has been a course of study for me. It’s not easy. In defensive of the Talmud, Christians have the same things. We have commentary on the Bible. We discuss and disagree on what certain things in the Bible mean. The Bible does require interpretation, and the good in the Oral Law attempts to do this. Example: If we are to not work on the Sabbath, then what is work and what isn't? If we are to help a donkey that falls in a pit, then what are we to do if that happens on the Sabbath? Work, or wait? Also in defense, the Jews were sent into Babylon because they disobeyed God; they participated in Idolatry and broke the Sabbath. When they returned they attempted to fix this problem by putting “fences” around the written Law. You will find A LOT to do with Idolatry and the Sabbath in the Mishna. Like most things, the intention is good, but the result isn’t always. As Christians we need to be careful what additional laws we put on the congregations, because while we may intend well, the result may not be so good. And yes, Christians put additional laws on top of the Bible too, it’s just not as easy to see because it’s our tradition and it’s what we grew up knowing. Not that these as guides are bad, but they can become bad quickly. I do not live my life based on the Oral Law. I do not believe it to be authoritative. But the New Testament wasn’t written in a vacuum. There is a context of geography, Roman laws, Jewish laws and traditions, and Pagan deities, etc… All of this was a real life current situation for the first believers, and knowing it well helps us understand better. MJH |
||||||
183 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212556 | ||
Doc, You're back. Good to see you again! I had a feeling I might get some feed back like this. Had I been writing to people who actually read the Talmud/Mishnah I'd probably write a lot differently. Don't forget, I said it was helpful as another source in knowing what the first Christians would have been dealing with. What did their contemporaries think, etc.. Have a great 2009. MJH |
||||||
184 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212558 | ||
Paul didn't use the Talmud because it didn't exist in his day. And I didn't tell anyone to study the Talmud. I'm sorry if I led anyone to think that my answer to Val's question meant that I think Christians should take up study of Talmud. MJH |
||||||
185 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212570 | ||
John, I think you're missing my point. Do you read, or have you ever read Josephus? Or have you studied ancient Greek mythology, read Plato, or learned about Roman society? MJH ps - the Mishnah wasn't around when Paul was alive either. ;-) |
||||||
186 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212583 | ||
John, But this is my point. The Greek mythologies are more than just historical writing too. So is Plato. We don't studying them because we are going to follow them, but to understand the historical times. Since Christianity grew out of Judaism, and was a sect of Judaism for a period of time, I feel that knowing what first century Judaism was like and what they taught in regards to Gentiles, et al. is helpful in understanding the history. And history is a key part of the historical hermeneutic, and the historical hermeneutic is just one of many hermeneutical tools we use when studying the Bible, which is what this is all about. The only place to learn what early first century Judaism taught is by reading what they wrote. The Mishna/Talmud is only one source. The Dead Sea Scrolls is another, as are the Apocryphal and Pseudopigraphical works. Then Philo and Josephus also add to our understanding. I am not suggesting that every Christian ought to become Talmudic experts any more than I expect them to become experts in Hebrew and Greek. But there are people out there who are Christians and are experts in this area. They usually are professors at universities. I believe that their specialty can add to the discussion and understanding of the New Testament. Val asked a simple question and I tried my best to provide a simple answer. I am getting the impression, and correct me if I am wrong, but I get the sense that if I had made the same points earlier, but instead I used a non-Jewish source, then you would be alright with it. I can’t imagine that you would be apposed to the historical hermeneutic when studying the Bible. For example: if I made a point that Dionysius was the local deity in Cana where Jesus turned the water into wine, and that Dionysius happened to be the god of wine, that would be an acceptable connection to make to add to our understanding some. It is okay, not because I am using a religious writing that is not Christian, but because I am using one that didn’t come from the Jews. It’s the same point. I learned about the Greek myths and gods and culture and put the two together. (Side note: Don’t quote me on the Cana thing, I didn’t fact check.) MJH |
||||||
187 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140052 | ||
Your answer is misleading. Under your answer Hitler is saved. Or, those who flew planes into the World Trade center are saved. They after all did nothing. It is said, “Salvation is a free gift.” But that implies that we can not “pay” the price required for the forgiveness of our own sins. It does not imply that we can live intentionally apart from God, neither believing in Him, nor accepting His forgiveness through Jesus’ sacrifice. And, welcome to the forum. It's fun and challenging. MJH |
||||||
188 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140065 | ||
Wait a minute. You said that "if hiltler asked." But that is not what you said in your first post. Your first post made it clear that hitler wouldn't NEED to ask or desire a relationship. You said "nothing" was required. I agree, one can never "pay" for salvation as my post stated. Your original post said you need to do "nothing" (which includes not needing to "seek" nor "ask" for salvation.) I responded that one must "repent" and that doing so required a trusting belief. Note: I did not say "pay" for your sins or anything else. Now your post is restating what I said. So in the end, we seem to agree. After all, if Hitler repented and asked, then yup, saved! MJH |
||||||
189 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140066 | ||
Opps, I left 2 posts to the same question. One to you, and one to the original poster. My answer to the question was in post 140036, and since it is short, I will re-post below. Sorry for the confussion. In short: Salvation is a free gift of forgiveness since we can never pay the price for our sin. Jesus freely paid that price and we have total forgiveness in Him. Yet, we must accept Him and repent of our sin. This is where I disagreed with you. "Nothing" would mean just that, "nothing" which would mean, no belief, no repentance, no acceptance, nothing. post 140036 . . . Act 2:37-38 “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the emissaries, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (HNT) The term, shubh (Hebrew), is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. TO TURN BACK – implies to turn back to something. This is most likely the word John the Baptist used in the desert when immersing people. (Or the Greek or Arabic equivalent). The same for Acts when Peter says the people need to repent and be immersed. (Baptism was a very common practice in those days and they would have all known what it was a picture of in relation to repentance.) So what is required for Salvation? Simple answer, “Repentance.” Although repenting implies the following: 1. you believe in the One true God; 2. you believe you have fallen short of what God requires. 3) Jesus is the Messiah; 4) His death and resurrection are sufficient to redeem you. Since you are “turning back” it might also be helpful to know to what you are turning back to. MJH |
||||||
190 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140170 | ||
You are mistaken about the Jewish view of Repentance. The Hebrew "shooba" or "ta-shooba" means to "turn back." It was seen by the first century Jewish people of returning back to the Torah. Certainly "seeking the face of God" was a part of this, because that was a part of the Torah. Another way to explain their Eastern way of seeing repentance was to return to God and to "take up the yoke of the Kingdom of God." This was done twice a day in Jesus time by reciting the "Shema." which is, "Hear 'O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord Alone. . ." This is a short note about, but I found long posts often don't get read. :-( You are right; however, that looking at the scriptures through the eyes of the original authors would help a lot. MJH |
||||||
191 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140171 | ||
It isn't poor taste to ask someone to sidebar. You are right to have causion. I don't "sidebar" by self. |
||||||
192 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | MJH | 205555 | ||
Doc, If Jesus removed a law of God he couldn't have been the Messiah. Deut 4:1-2" I am telling you everything he has commanded, so don't add anything or take anything away." Deut 12:32 "Don't add any [laws], and don't take any away." Deut 13 - the passage about a false prophet. Nullifying a Law of God is nullifying the whole thing. If Jesus is without sin, that is not possible. If Jesus is the Word in flesh, he can not nullify himself. MJH |
||||||
193 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | MJH | 205774 | ||
Doc, A pleasure as always. I wish I had more time...so I will be late in responding fully. I did read the totality of the scriptures you listed. Prov. 30:6 I agree with whole heartedly and hope to always divine the Truth of God's Word. Just a note: I am not attempting to convince you, but your grasp of the Text and willingness to discuss provides a wonderful sharpening (as iron sharpens iron....) Plus, you come from the same doctrinal back ground as I in most respects. A few notes before I find the time to address your response in full: 1) I hold to the hermeneutic that later scripture can not contradict earlier scripture (of course, no Scripture can contradict any other). So if Paul is going to argue that the everlasting covenant that God made with Israel would be cancelled, he needs to go back to the books of Moses for proof. We see him doing this a lot to root his arguments in the Scriptures. 2) If God can break a covenant he made at Sinai, then what keeps him from breaking the covenant found in Jeremiah? Where lies assurance.... for every passage you can find that seems to write off Israel and the covenant, I could find 10 that say it's eternal and God would never break it. It is His faithfulness that leads us into right relationship with Him, not our own. 3) There are no covenants in the New Testament. The "New Covenant" spoken of is of course from Jer. 31 where God makes it clear he will never abandon his people Israel. It also makes it clear that the New Covenant is the commands (ie. the stipulations of the Old) written on the heart. I contend that Abraham, Moses, David, et. al. had the Law written on their hearts and were as much a part of the New Covenant as we are, only they came before the blood of that covenant was shed and we come after. 4) Our understanding of what a covenant is may be somewhat different. I hold that a covenant agreement with the stipulations it contains is unalterable. Alter any part of it and you break the whole of it. James 2:10. It would seem superfluous for God to say that He Himself can not add or subtract to the covenant. After all, He is faithful and let everyone else be a liar. 5) It is my understanding that when, in Ex 24, the people said, “We will do everything you have said.” That was the agreement, ie. the Old agreement that they broke just a few days later with the golden calf. Deut 30 is our first picture of the New agreement where it says that “it is not too hard for you . . . it is in your heart and in your mind that you may do it.” In Romans 10, Paul uses this Text and inserts Jesus into it directly connecting Him to the covenant, yet through Jesus, the Law is written on our hearts and in our minds. In fact, in this, Jesus becomes our Law (or is our Law.) No I am wondering….so until later, God bless as always MJH |
||||||
194 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | MJH | 205779 | ||
Jim, Sorry, the note left to Doc was in context of our earlier discussion. I don't think Paul argued against the covenant made with Moses, but my statement was that when Paul did make a ruling on something, he always backed it up with earlier Scriptures primarily the book of Moses. I suppose reading my post as a stand alone; one would get your impression. Thanks for allowing me to clarify. MJH |
||||||
195 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | MJH | 205781 | ||
Yeah, sorry Jim...ahh John. MJH |
||||||
196 | when did the church go in to operation | Acts 1:14 | MJH | 229958 | ||
Israel at Mt. Sinai. The people of God agree to covenant with the LORD. After the first agreement, they disobeyed with the Golden Calf. 3,000 were killed. They re-affirm a new agreement on the intercession of Moses. Acts 2 is the giving of the Spirit to write the Teachings of God upon the heart on behalf of the intercession of Jesus. I contend that the Church began in Exodus, but certainly how we understand it now and its current formation had its origins in Acts 2. It is interesting that the same word used in Deuteronomy for "The Assembly" is also used in the New Testament for the "Church". (Using the LXX of course.) |
||||||
197 | Why the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost | Acts 2:5 | MJH | 215631 | ||
Why did the Holy Spirit come on Pentecost? Pentecost, also known as Shavuot, is the second of three festivals where all the men of Israel were to come together to celebrate. On this day Israel remembered the audible voice of God (literally seen as sparks of lightening) giving the Ten Words from the mountain. It was and is tradition that God's Voice was heard by all people on Earth in their own language; in the languages of all 70 nations found in Gen 11. God audibly gave the written covenant and Law on Shavuot. Jews today spend the night reading through all five books of Moses on this day. One of the reasons God sent the Holy Spirit to descend on the disciples as they worshiped in the Temple that Shavuot day (Pentecost), is because the Holy Spirit was writing this Law now on their hearts. Jer. 31:33, "I will put my Torah [law] within them, and I will write it on their hearts." There is no other day of the year that makes more sense then this day to send the Counselor who will put God's Word on your heart rather than just on stone. Also, just like the first Shavuot, God's voice can be "seen." And the voice spoken through the Apostles is heard again in the languages of all of the people. MJH |
||||||
198 | Which sacrifices have ended? | Acts 2:46 | MJH | 174350 | ||
Recently I heard a pastor whom I respect parching on this paragraph in the Bible, and he mentioned, sort of in passing, that he didn't think that the disciples participated in the sacrifices, but only the prayers, etc... I was wondering why he thought this. As I understand it, the only sacrifices that certainly ended after Jesus resurrection, was the Atonement day sacrifice, the once a year High Priest in the Holy of Holies. (See book of Hebrews), and also most likely the Sin Sacrifices in general. But no where do I see in the Text that any of the other sacrifices had ended (of course when the Temple was destroyed, all sacrifice ended because with no Temple, no sacrifice can be made.) Acts mentions specifically that the Apostles participated in sacrifices (Acts 21-23 most notably). I'd like some input on this from others. Did Jesus death and resurrection put an end to all sacrifices, or just the sin sacrifice, or just the Atonement Day sacrifice? - a side note: there is a quote in the Mishna (I believe it is in the Mishna) that for the last 40 years (to be taken as the last generation, not necessarily 40 exact years) of the Temple, the scarlet cord left outside the Temple did NOT turn white. All previous years, this cord was put out as a constant reminder that our scarlet sins were made white as snow as the sun bleached the cord and made it white. The theory was that if the cord turned white, then God accepted the sacrifice of atonement, and if it had not turned white, then he did not. That is a quote from a non-messianic Jewish Rabbi. Interesting point I'm adding, but not necessarily directly relevant to the question. MJH |
||||||
199 | 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 |
||||||
200 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | MJH | 215361 | ||
John, I like Gills answer. It's informed and provides good examples. But to add the phrase," but now the ceremonial law was abolished" seems unnecessary given his answer. Of course you know my thoughts on the so called abolishment of the ceremonial law...so that aside, why feel the need to add it to this answer? Of course you are not Gill, so I am just curious as to why you think Gill included it. He basically says, according to the whole law, a Levite could have owned and sold land. That answer is enough. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [17] >> |