Results 201 - 220 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | 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 |
||||||
202 | Wheels? Why are these important? Meaning | Ezek 1:15 | MJH | 173937 | ||
Ezekiel has to be one of the most baffling books in the cannon. MJH |
||||||
203 | concerningthe in-between writings of God | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 173936 | ||
Doc, The value of the pseudopygraphal works are primarily in helping us understand what some people in history were thinking. So some books written near the time of Paul's writting, might help us know what Paul was confronting. The same is true for Jesus and the early church fathers, etc... But you are right, to read it all is for most of us not the best way to use your study time. Maybe if you are a professor of that time period or a scholor like many I admire, but I certainly do not have the time to pour over every one of those books. MJH |
||||||
204 | 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 |
||||||
205 | 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 |
||||||
206 | Meaning of baptism | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 173827 | ||
You are correct, a very good answer. Baptism was also practiced by the Jews for hundreds of years before John the Baptist arrived. Even baptism of Repentance (turning back to the Mosaic Law) was practiced at times before John the Baptist. A study of baptism without a study of the 1st century Mikvah is unfortunate. If you have not done so, it's a worthy thing to study. Very fascinating and helpful in understanding what the Apostles did and why, and why Jesus was baptisted at the start of his ministry. MJH |
||||||
207 | Should we pray outside of God's will? | 1 Pet 2:24 | MJH | 166143 | ||
You seem to be under the assumption that the work of the Messiah is complete. Certianly Jesus' death and resurrection are far greater than that of Satan, but we are still living in a world where the Kindgom of Death and the Kingdom of Life are a war. Satan has not yet been removed from the scene, and until Jesus' return and the strat of the World to Come, we will still experience the effect of a sinful world. To say we have physical healing in Messiah right now is failing to see reality. My argument is that such a state is not the "Will of God", but it does exist until the World to Come. MJH |
||||||
208 | can I eat shellfish? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 166142 | ||
No problem, I did lead one to believe that with my arguments, and when I reply in depth later, I will attempt to make that argument; however, I thought it only fair to let you know where I actually stand on the issue. That being said, I do eat according to the Biblical food laws (not Kosher which is MUCH more rules based) but I do not do so to earn any points. At some point I would like to write a one page paper on why I eat the way I do, and when I do I will certainly let you know. But do not confuse my eating habits and my arguments-to-come with my doctrinal stand. I wouldn't "teach" this in my church. So why make the argument? Because it helps me a lot and forces others to have a firmer understanding of why they believe what they believe. And this is a safe place to test things out. I was surpirsed when I first joined to find such knowledgable people here and am greatful for the opportunity this forum provides. God Bless, MJH |
||||||
209 | can I eat shellfish? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 166130 | ||
Dear Doc, I'll have to respond more in depth when I am not caring for my 8 month old, but to clarify some questions I have of your post. What is WWCG? I hope I do not interpret any doctrine in isolation. You are right that this would be wrong. My contention in the previous posts are to show that the two passages mentioned (Mark 7 and Peter's vision) are poor passages to use to make the point that the food laws have changed. Your passages are much much better choices. My personal believe is still that Gentile believers are not held to the dietary laws of Moses. I am uncertain about where I stand with Jews, but in recent days side with their following them. If ever I change my thinking on any doctrine or understanding of scripture, it is always a long and thoughtful process. I don't believe in flipping back and fourth everytime you hear a good argument on one side or the other. Sometimes on this forum I test some of the things I have been pondering in the back of my brain (I work and live a life that unfortunatly does not allow for me to progress as quickly as I wish with study.) In the future I will show where historically the church has held a contrary view on such matters several times and I will show how the Gentile believers in the first 200 years followed much of the Mosaic Law. I will also discuss the passage you list, but that is a big task. Galations of course is a whole book, but I've read it so many times I about have it to memory and my understanding has shifted some. Look forward to the time. MJH |
||||||
210 | Should we pray outside of God's will? | 1 Pet 2:24 | MJH | 166107 | ||
Mark, Just because God causes all things to work out "for the good" of those who are called by his name, does not mean that those things that happened were good. Anything that goes against the nature and character of God is not of his kingdom. The definition of "bad" is defined by which kingdom it comes from or serves. Death and sickness do not come from the Kingdom of God where His perfect will rules all. Certainly God does work out these things for his purposes, but that doesn't make them good. MJH |
||||||
211 | can I eat shellfish? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 166099 | ||
Hey Doc, always a pleasure. Acts 15 mentions 4 things: 1) food sacrificed to idols; 2) blood; 3) strangled animals; 4) sexual immorality. 75 percent of these have to do with food. Yet most Christians do not follow the 75 percent (some don't follow the 25 percent unfortunately.) They say the Apostles put these in because of the idol worship practices of the day, so since that is no longer the case, we can ignore the 3 "laws" on food in Acts 15. Acts 15:21 "For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath." This passage follows the 4 laws. It is saying that here are 4 things you ought to do, and Moses is taught in every town and you know where and when, so go and learn and study…after all, this was the whole Bible at the time. And don’t forget, there were many many other laws that they could have added but were not such as stealing, murder, love your neighbor, take care of widows and orphans…but they are not in the list. Only 3 food laws, and 1 sex law. Obviously they were not giving a complete list. Now, we know that Paul was an amazing “good” Pharisee with an unbelievable grasp of the Scriptures of his day. He spends a great deal of effort in Galatians discussing many of these issues. Even Paul in Acts 21-23 goes to great length to prove that he still followed the Mosaic law and never told Jews in the Diaspora not to follow the Mosaic law. For many friends of mine, they are shocked to read this. I hope that helps. I could go on and on and on… but you may not want me to. ;-) MJH |
||||||
212 | can I eat shellfish? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 166098 | ||
Mark 7 is Jesus discussing washing hands before you eat. The Oral Law of the time said you had to do this or you would contaminate the food. Jesus disagrees with adding this burden that the Torah did not intend. When he mentions "food" he is speaking of "clean" food. Anything that was "unclean" would not have fit the category of "food." Deut 4:2 says "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you." READ Deut 13. Jews memorize this book, and then we tell them to follow Jesus, and they should do this because he proved himself by miracles and signs (sound familiar?) and then we add, o' by the way, you don't need to follow that silly "OLD" law anymore. In light of Deut 13, Jesus would be a false prophet. As the Messiah, Jesus could not have sinned by even breaking the least of the commandments. What people suggest, however, is that not only did Jesus break the laws of eating "clean", but that he violated Deut 4:2 and said such law was no longer applicable, and he did this before his death. If so, he can't be the Messiah. I The NIV adds the words, "In saying this, Jesus declared all food clean." This is not in the text. To make the Greek makes sense, a translator has to re-word this in some way, which means they have to interpret what Jesus meant. Even if Jesus "declared all food clean", the word "foods" would apply only to "clean" foods in context. Jesus wouldn't have referred to something unclean as being "food." Remember his audience is Jewish and the topic is cleaning hands. All “clean” foods are “clean” and can not be made otherwise by unwashed hands. In all of this let’s not forget the larger principle that Jesus is teaching…it is what comes from the heart the truly matters and the Pharisees in this passage have some big problems there. For my response to the Acts passage, see my response in this thread entitled "The Acts 15 council..." MJH |
||||||
213 | can I eat shellfish? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 166096 | ||
The Acts 15 council did not mention stealing, murder, loving your neighbor and a hundred other things. Peter did not eat any of the animals after the vision, and in fact stood there and pondered, "What could the vision mean?" Because eating unclean animals wasn't a viable answer...after all, the law is quite clear on that...so what was the answer to the vision? The answer arrives at the door at that moment. Gentiles wanted him to come to the home of a God fearing Gentile and eat with him. Jews did not do this, and they did not do it for Kosher reasons. The law did not say they couldn't eat with a Gentile, but the legalists had so ingrained this in their minds that it took a vision to convince Peter who walked with Jesus for 3 plus years that it was okay. There is a lot of history here that I don't have time to go into that pertains to this passage, but you might look into it yourself. It is quite fascinating. There are a number of thoughts on the food laws that people have: 1) Some say that the food laws are void and Jews or Gentiles can eat whatever. Matt 5 seems to disagree since it would change the law which is impossible. 2) Some say that Gentiles can eat anything because Noah was told this, but Israelites and any who convert to become an Israelite must follow the food laws still today. 3) Some say the same as two, but that the laws of Hospitality are greater than the laws of Unclean foods, so a Jew can eat unclean (or food not known to be cooked correctly) in order to not offend a host. 4) Others say that both Jews and Gentiles believers ought to follow the food laws and any other law that we can follow. With no temple most Mosaic laws are not possible for anyone to follow and without the court of elders (Sanhedrin in the first century), many more are not possible to follow. Books have been written on each side. I am not arguing one position over another in this post, but I don't like to see people use these passages to make point that the writer didn't originally intend. "The text can never mean what it never meant." MJH |
||||||
214 | can I eat shellfish? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 166084 | ||
Neither of your scriptures is saying that it is okay to eat "unclean" food. Particularly the Mark 7 passage, but the Acts passage also is not intended to say it is okay to eat unclean food. Your argument can be better made based on other passages, but not these. and your argument may be wrong, but that is for another day..... MJH |
||||||
215 | The ingathering of Israel? | Matt 24:31 | MJH | 166082 | ||
Personal thoughts only....I haven't studies it so this is somewhat of a guess. Jesus (as He almost always does) is speaking about something found in the first 39 books of the Bible. Here I think Jesus is referring to the passages you quoted, but his use of the word "elect" rather than Israel broadens the meaning to include the Gentiles who would believe. His audience would most certainly have understood him to mean the elect Israel, and they would have know of the passages he was quoting. Personally I see Israel still as a separate elect chosen group of people for whom God has plans (ie. I'm no longer a "replacement theology" adherent.) But I also believe we are all going to be with the Lord in the New Jerusalem in the World to Come. MJH |
||||||
216 | Fair multitude die without gospel? | Rom 1:20 | MJH | 165559 | ||
I agree that salvation is found in no one else than in Jesus the Messiah and by no one else and through no one else will anyone be saved. I also do not believe this women would have been saved by following the Mosaic Law nor saved by works of the Law. Which many taught even before the time of Jesus. I did not say she was saved....but lets assume I did for a momment because I believe it is quite possible. Salvation is through Jesus alone, but does that mean a person has to have a completly accurate understanding of Him to be saved through Him? (CS Lewis, by the way, did not think so...though he is not the Word of God.) I used to believe in my youth that most Catholics were not going to be saved. I was even harsh in my attitude toward Mother Teressa. My reasons were that they had an inacurrate understanding of Jesus (amoung other things). While in the ministry as an adult our largest "target" audiance to convert were Catholics. Although I still believe that church ought to reach out to the Catholics in their neighborhood because most of them were Catholic in name only, I wouldn't concern myself with "coverting" them as if they were hell bound. In the end it is in the hand of God, whome I trust with my whole being. The more I read scriptrure, however, the more I find the arguments I used to make a little harder to make and somewhat selective. Don't worry about me though. I tend to hold to my original and traditional beliefs longer than I should rather than toss them at the first sign of unrest. This forum is a safe place to explore those thoughts, however. Should I have this discussion at the family reunion, I might cause some to meet the Lord all too soon if you know what I mean. God Bless, MJH PS. If any catholics read this I would like to point out that scripture at its core speaks of redeming the word and helping orphans and widows (those in real need). I see the (Catholic) names on Hospitals and Orphanages and adomption centers all around the globe. The world can see, if they choose, who is doing what the Gospel calls "good news". |
||||||
217 | Fair multitude die without gospel? | Rom 1:20 | MJH | 165501 | ||
Kalos, I have read the web site you quoted. I many times "preached" those very points from those very scriptures. I've been in the faith for nearly 30 years and was brought up in the faith as a child. I understand all of the things that that web site has to say, only now I do not accept them any longer as stated. My understanding of Hell has changed some in the past few years. Actually it has been something that I struggled with even while teaching the very things on the site you have given. I do not believe that a Holy and Just God would find it Just to condemn for eternity those who sought to serve and Love Him, but got it wrong. My old neighbor is a good anecdotal example. She lived through the Holocaust and concentration camps. She was a Jewish believer who loved the one True God and served Him, prayed to Him, knew His Word and followed it as best she knew how. She did know about Jesus, but in her words, "He hasn't spoke to her yet." As He apparently did for her daughter. My original belief was that God would do to her what even Hitler couldn't dream up as a punishment. And not only that, God would do it to her for ever and ever and ever in conscious torment. All this for trying to serve and love the One True God. I do not find any scriptures that uphold that view. One might argue whether or not she will be "with the Lord" but to be in eternal conscious torment...no, I do not believe that based on my understanding of all of scripture. MJH |
||||||
218 | Context versus what is translated. | 1 Sam 25:22 | MJH | 165067 | ||
Abraham is the father of the Hebrews (from Jacob) also called Israelites from the name Jacob received from God when he wrestled with him at Peniel. Judah is one of Jacobs son's and one of the 12 tribes of Israel. When the kingdom split after the time of Solomon, they were referred to as the Kingdom of Israel (9 of the 12 tribes belonged to this group...some Levites as well.) The other tribe was referred to as Judah (but also as Israel at times as well...confusing?). Benjamin was apart of the southern Judah side of the split at this time, but since it was so small it was just lumped into with Judah (interesting story about how that happened). Therefore when the northern tribes, called Israel, were taken into captivity and dispersed widely they became "lost." Most scholars (I believe) claim them to still be the lost tribes, although some others claim to have found them. When Judah was later taken into captivity to Babylon, they were not separated and were aloud some freedom to continue practicing their faith (some freedom). They were now called "JEWS" from the tribe name Judah first in the Bible in Ester. Jews are often now a synonym for Israel and vise versa. Not all of the other tribes were totally lost. When Jesus was a baby a prophetess named Anna from the tribe of Asher prophesized about him to his mother. Does this help? MJH |
||||||
219 | Is "to salt" to mean "to destroy?" | Mark 9:49 | MJH | 164881 | ||
Kalos, Of course you probably understand that I completely disagree with you....see our discussions from a year ago. :-) I just can't let it slide... Jesus spoke Hebrew and all recent discoveries points to most Jews in Palestine speaking Hebrew as their common tongue. The Septuagint was not translated for Jews in Palestine but rather for a "Librarian" in Alexandria, where a large population of Jews lived. The Jews in the Diaspora used the Septuagint, and the Jews in Palestine use the Targum (Aramaic) for purposes of commentary or dynamic equivalent translation since the Hebrew copies could not contain ANY alteration to clear up changes in the language, or even footnotes/marginal notes. Jesus may have spoken Aramaic or Greek when the audience required it like during the Festivals or when in Greek areas. But among his disciples, Hebrew is a near certainty. See "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" for in depth argument. Or see my previous posts on the matter. MJH |
||||||
220 | What NAME do we call our GOD? Ex 3:14 | Ex 3:15 | MJH | 164879 | ||
I did not read word for word the site either. It is very long. However, speed reading most of it and reading parts carefully, the author agrees with my standing. However, I hesitate to indorse it in total. I have studied in the Hebrew roots for some time and I have run across a few who seem to make the pronunciation of Jesus’ name almost a salvation issue. They wouldn’t all claim it was a salvation issue, but you wouldn’t know that when you listen to them. YAHshua is not a pronunciation that matches the times of Jesus. (www.jeruselemperspective.com and search for “Hebrew Nuggets”. One of the options is an article on Jesus’ name. These people are experts that the experts consult on Hebrew pronunciation.) Your site quoted the following: “I find the prohibition against saying the name of Jesus a little absurd, considering that the people who have imposed this prohibition, are calling the Messiah by a name that is not found anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures. Most of their reasoning, is that Jesus is an English rendering from a Greek name, and since all things Greek are pagan, this name should not be spoken, and that no self respecting Jew would have ever uttered a Greek name, and surely would not have written any scripture in Greek.” Quoted from the site you mentioned. www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm All said, I almost always use Jesus when speaking to most of my friends, family, and church members. I use Yeshua when it either is understood by those I am speaking to, or when using the Hebrew pronunciation adds to the point. An example is when Joseph is told to name Jesus “Yeshua” because he will save his people from their sins. Yeshua means “salvation.” As far as those who insist on never saying Jesus, but only Yeshua, or YAHshua… to each his own, and if I had friends who were stuck on that, I’d use the name they wanted when I was around them. These are of course my opinions. I like studying such things, but what matters most is how we treat widows and orphans…. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [17] >> |