Results 181 - 200 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
181 | Can a woman divorce man: Ongoing porn? | Matthew | MJH | 212620 | ||
Bandaid, I've been reading several of your posts and I see your dilemma and I respect it. You are earnest about keeping to God's Word regardless of how difficult. Your heart is strong and your willingness to press on in difficult times (5 years) is evident. You're asking about women divorcing a man when scriptures speak the other way around. You are right that the scriptures speak in only one direction. I'll leave it to others to debate it, but your situation isn't hypothetical, it is real. If your children, or you, are not physically and sexually safe, then you need to leave. Separation isn't divorce and I don't think anyone can find any place in scripture that would force a woman and her young children to remain in an unsafe environment. Any law in the Bible is about life and peace (wholeness), not about forcing people into physical or sexual harm. In other words, if your children are abused, you have the obligation to protect them. My wife's mom did not, and it was dreadful. MJH |
||||||
182 | Porn in spouse overcome thru fasting? | Galatians | MJH | 212619 | ||
Bandaid, My heart really goes out to you! I am so sorry for your suffering on account of this. Your husband’s struggle is very common among us men and seeing the pain it causes just one wife is motivation for many others to stay pure. I can't offer more than the others Biblically; they have done so well, so I thought I'd tell you what we have done practically. I have bsafeonline (b-safe online) installed on my home and office computer. At the office I do not know the password so when I am alone I have no access. At home the temptation is far less with children around, and our computer is in the family room. I like this software because all others I tried I could “get around” easily, but with all my computer knowledge I have not been able to break this one or get around it. Your husband may not be willing at other places, but for the safety of your children and yourself, you can put something like this (and I recommend this one) on your home computers and retain the password for only yourself. Also, if your husband will not go to marriage counseling, then I'd suggest going alone, but find a really good one. Get references from couples who had success. There are good and not so good counselors just like any other thing. I truly hope you find respite from this suffering. God bless, MJH |
||||||
183 | 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 |
||||||
184 | 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. ;-) |
||||||
185 | 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 |
||||||
186 | 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 |
||||||
187 | 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 |
||||||
188 | 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 |
||||||
189 | 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 |
||||||
190 | 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 |
||||||
191 | Iam having some questions | John 17:1 | MJH | 212511 | ||
... | ||||||
192 | 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….” |
||||||
193 | 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 |
||||||
194 | salvation for unbelievers? | Rom 1:20 | MJH | 212444 | ||
The question you ask is a large debate in the Christian community. You will find from the extreme Universalism that everyone who lives will eventually be in heaven all the way to the extreme dogmatic who believes that anyone not in their denomination will not go to heaven. The Scriptures deal with how mankind can draw near to a Holy God. They generally do not deal with this hypothetical question straight on. One comes to conclusions based on inferences. One thing we can be certain of is that God is holy AND just and will deal with each person according to His character and purpose. Why does this specific question interest you at this time? MJH |
||||||
195 | Why not Elisabeths home? | Luke 2:7 | MJH | 212442 | ||
Why did Joseph and Mary not stay with relatives? This is a very good question, though it ultimately it is speculative. First, Elizabeth and Zachariah lived in Judea, but this was a large region and they may not have lived near Bethlehem, at least not close enough to go to when labor began. However, one would assume that Joseph and Mary had other relatives that were in Bethlehem and who after all would refuse a pregnant relative? One reason may be that her pregnancy was under suspicion. Who would buy the story that an Angel visited her and she became with child by the Holy Spirit. Any couple who lived in an observant family in this region at this time may have trouble with relatives. They may have turned them away. This issue may have been resolved after the local shepherds came to town spreading their message which corroborated the story Mary and Joseph would have told. In Matthew, they are located in a home. It is also possible that they visited Bethlehem right before a major festival when they would have been in the area anyway, therefore killing two birds with one stone (visit); going there for the census and festival. This has a lot of credence. There was a local Inn in the area of Bethlehem that would have been full in this case. Mary and Joseph may have assumed they had more time before the birth, but when the birthing came they needed something right away. They found the best place they could. Then, one more option, like the above one, they may have gone to the Inn. These Inns had the humans living above the ground with animals living below. There was not privacy where the humans lived, but if one cleared an animal area out, they could have found some room for birthing in this area. This case again assumes the onset of birth prevented them from reaching relatives that would have allowed them the needed space. That is my limited ideas. MJH |
||||||
196 | was Bathsheba a levite? | 2 Sam 11:3 | MJH | 212401 | ||
Why are you wondering if Bathsheba was a Levite? MJH |
||||||
197 | Trees | Jer 6:6 | MJH | 212400 | ||
The verse you are looking for was in Jer 10 and is NOT speaking of Christmas Trees, but rather in cutting down trees and carving them into idols and decorating the idol with gold and metals, et. al. as a worship item. This verse is often used by those who believe that having a Christmas tree in your home is against God's law. The only way this could be true is if you are some how worshiping the tree. But in most traditions the tree is a symbol of life in a cold dead part of the winter months. It has been a symbol in nearly every culture whether pagan or Christian and is not bad simply because pagans also happened to use it. This is my opinion on the matter. MJH |
||||||
198 | OT/NT | OT general | MJH | 212244 | ||
Cheri. The Jews don't use the Shema to prove God is One because Ehad can also mean a group of one, or a man and woman become one(Ehad). I forget the exact place where it's more emphatic, sorry. MJH |
||||||
199 | ?? | OT general | MJH | 212243 | ||
Cheri did well. One addition. The Jews use the Masoretic Text which they do not alter based on textual criticism and new discoveries. What the Masoretic Text says is what they use; period. There are some rather minor differences and some are of interest, but I don't know them by heart. There are many things in the Jewish religion that causes them to reject Christ, but most have to do with what certain Christians claim Jesus and Paul are teaching as well as disagreements about certain prophesies. If they openly and seriously searched the scriptures for the answer about Jesus, they would find him to be True. MJH |
||||||
200 | OT/NT | Acts 26:14 | MJH | 212242 | ||
Without trying to stir up needless debate, I believe strongly that Jesus spoke Hebrew, though it is an ongoing debate. 1) The earliest sources (referred to as secondary) say Hebrew. 2) Archeology is more and more leaning toward Hebrew for the common tongue. 3) The dead sea scrolls give more evidence for Hebrew than Aramaic. 4) It's the language of the Bible and the Jews were only gone 70 years in an Aramaic speaking land. But since the late second century they were gone for more than 1800 years and when the got their land back they went back to Hebrew as the common tongue. Why wouldn’t they have done so after only 70 years. Everything I know about the Jewish people of the first century tells me that they would cling to their native language and teach it to their children from birth. This argument is base solely on inferences. 5) Jesus would have spoken Aramaic because many Jews coming into the area for the festivals would be Aramaic and Greek speakers. It would be reasonable to assume Jesus knew Aramaic very well and Greek enough to get by. These are my assumptions, but the majority of "scholars" still say Aramaic, though they are wrong :-) MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ] Next > Last [29] >> |