Results 201 - 220 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
201 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | MJH | 215367 | ||
Hey John, Mind if I bring up old items? I just got back from a Bible teaching and I'm about to go nuts. I struggle with even saying anything in a class or even to a teacher; because I certainly don't desire to cause a problem...so I shut up. But here maybe I can speak.... Why do people want to say that obeying a law is the same as trying to earn merit by obeying a law? Paul obviously teaches against earning anything, particularly a right place with God in His Kingdom, by doing works or obeying any law. That's as obvious as anything in the New Testament. Then why do some further say that anyone obeying the law is in error? For example: the thousands of believing Jews in Jerusalem who were zealous for the Law. They are apparently in "error" because they were trying to "earn a place with God." But Acts never says they were trying to "earn" anything and Acts never says they were in "error." It simply says they were believers and zealous for the Law. What can possibly be wrong with this picture? Why can't people see the distinction? Is it blindness? Is it a fear of ever appearing to say anything positive about God's Law? UUUGGGHHHH. Okay... I vomited my thoughts all over. Sorry for the mess. MJH - p.s. I intentionally left the note under your name so as to not make too big of a scene. - Also, in regards to what this post is linked to; Barnabas could have owned and sold land as a Levite even before Jesus was born or died. That’s my point. The ceremonial law didn’t need to be abolished to absolve the man for selling property, so why mention it even if it’s true? I suppose he mentions it to make his point even stronger. |
||||||
202 | Followers of "The Way" - meaning? | Acts 9:2 | MJH | 193465 | ||
Cheri, THANKS! This is the answer I was hoping someone would confirm to me. Do you remember where you heard this? Maybe our source is the same? God bless....I'm so excited! Notice: The Cherubim were on the curtain separating us from the Holy of Holies and it was over the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. (These were in the Temple even though the Law said, No Image from Heaven above or the Earth below for the sea.) Cherubim are from heaven above, and yet here they are. Must be important right? Then the curtain rips and they "way" to God through the blood (you can't get into the Holy of Holies without blood) of Jesus is made. Again, thanks, and I'd love to hear where you heard this. MJH |
||||||
203 | Paul’s missionary work | Acts 9:15 | MJH | 216524 | ||
Since this question has come up maybe 100 times over such a long period of time, maybe the real project is to ask all over the internet to see what responses you get? How could one question possibly be asked this often this consistantly? MJH |
||||||
204 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213671 | ||
Thanks Tim. I appreciate the reply. I would like to discuss it more. I do have other uses of the two terms outside of the Biblical Text dating to the first century. I have been a bit gun shy in that area recently, but if from a purely word study understanding it helps, maybe I’ll add them? You are right about Acts 10:15. The two terms are certainly connected. But I have also found that in reference to Gentiles, the term "common" or koinos was most often used (outside of Biblical Texts). Gentiles were defiled, while not "unclean" in and of themselves. They were, by Jews, rendered "common" because of how they lived, primarily their connection to Idolatry. Acts 10:14 also uses both words, but in this statement it would seem that there is a difference. "I have not eaten anything that is common (koinos) or unclean (akathartos)." Why use both words if they were synonyms? Since Jesus repeats only "common", he would be referring to Gentiles. At least in this context since Gentile inclusion was the whole point. I know I am writing as if I am definite, but in truth I am not but seeking to ask the next question. Thanks again for the reply and let me know what you find. MJH Can you list the Proverb passages that have Koinos? I can't do a search with the LXX I have and it doesn't have strong numbers either, so I am at a disadvantage there. |
||||||
205 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213721 | ||
Tim, Our approach then to outside sources is the same. I looked up Prov 1:14, 21:9 (good one) and 25:24. I can not figure out which Hebrew word the LXX is translating with koinos. It seems that "unclean" and "common" do not fit at all. Some of my sources did come from the Apocrypha and Pseudographia, but I am having difficulty locating them now. Thanks for the help. I've run across this and while parts make sense, I have learned that doing the looking myself helps me find out if others have made poor leaps of logic or misapplied ideas. I am however highly disabled in both Greek and time. If you do have time to look into it more, great, if not, I shall continue the search more and fill you in if ever I reach a conclusion. God bless you in your understanding of Greek. It is a real gift. MJH |
||||||
206 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213794 | ||
Part 1 of 2 Sorry for the length. Also, this is mainly about the final two paragraphs, not the interpretation I take, but you can respond to whatever. Tim, this is what I found. I wrote it as an essay and copied it here, so excuse the more formal approach. In Romans 14:14 we read, “I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean.” The word translated into English as “unclean” is koinos (Strong’s 839). However, the word koinos literally means “common.” Why then do the translators use “unclean” and is that the best word to use? The use of “unclean” is chosen for two main reasons. 1) the obvious connection to impermissible foods which links it to Lev. 11; 2) the connection that common (koinos) has to unclean (akathartos Strong’s 169) found in Acts 10 and Mark 7. It is quite certain that “common” and “unclean” have a connection in the New Testament Scriptures. In Acts 10:14, after Peter sees all kinds of animals (we assume clean and unclean) descend in a sheet he hears a voice say, “Kill and eat.” Peter replies, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common (koinos) or unclean (akathartos)” Here Peter insists that he has never eaten anything common or unclean. Therefore, we must assume there is some connection to the two words; yet, they are distinct. Unless we assume Peter to be redundant, there must be something different between something that is common (koinos) and unclean (akathartos). Another example from the New Testament is Mark 7:2, “…and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.” Here koinos is translated as impure, and impure due to unwashed hands. Now we know for a fact that the Old Testament has nothing to say about the common Israelite needing to wash his hands for them to be pure for eating. Yet, the Pharisaic rules of the day found a way to render unwashed hands, not as unclean (akathartos), but as common or impure (koinos.) So here again the word common is obviously connected to, but different from unclean. In the LXX translation of the Old Testament, unclean animals and other items found unclean are always translated with akathartos, and never with koinos. And again, koinos literally means common, not impure in classical Greek. So, why is it connected to impurity and things unclean? What are we to make of this? Hebrew Scriptures: There was an offering for the Temple that only the Levites and there families could eat. It is often referred to as the heave offering, but the Hebrew word is terumah. This basically was something that was “clean” – but because it was reserved for only the priestly caste, it was forbidden to the common man. Hence, terumah that was outside of the Temple environs became “common” and inedible – and the reverse is true as well – those things “common” were not permitted in the sanctified areas of the Temple. Also, the priests were required to wash their hands when performing in the Temple. (Ex. 30:18) Pharisaic law: These concepts were extended from the Temple environs to the every day life of Pius Jews (by man-made law). If someone “unsanctified” (i.e. Gentile) touched bread, it became “common” or unfit to eat, even though it conformed to the clean/unclean laws of the Torah. Likewise, the person that could render bread “common” was also referred to as “common.” Therefore we see a link between things common and things unclean. continued..... |
||||||
207 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213795 | ||
Part 2 of 2 To backtrack, we see in Acts 10, our Lord Jesus teaching Peter that Gentiles are not to be considered as unclean or as common. They, like he, could also be in the covenant family of God. While the Law states very clearly that the Gentile who sojourns with Israel, is not only allowed covenant fellowship, but also the Temple worship (Lev 17:8), in the days of the Apostles, all Gentiles were considered common. Jesus says, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” Pre Exile Years: During the years of the Judges and Prophets the people adulterated themselves after false gods and were sent into exile. This idolatry was mainly due to contact with pagan Gentiles. The remnant who returned eventually set up laws to separate themselves from ALL Gentiles, pagan or not, in order to prevent a repeat of the sins of their fathers. Around the year 20 B.C. a counsel convened that wrote Eighteen Measures that cemented the dividing wall between Jews and any Gentile. This was a period of high Gentile interest in the faith of Israel (see Josephus, et. al.) Certain strict Pharisees, who determined to build this wall between Jews and Gentiles, ended up killing dozens of the followers of the more lenient school and enacted the measures despite them. Many years latter, this event was considered by some as more grievous than the day of the Golden Calf. Either way, by the mid first century A.D. these measures were well entrenched into the Jewish life. The word common is littered throughout these measures. Back to Romans 14:14 While this may seem a bit of a rabbit trail, how this connects to Romans 14:14 is important. These measures made food bought from a Gentile Market “common.” Pius Jews would not eat such meat. Since the ruling Paul gives in this chapter is about “disputable matters” it would seem unlikely that he would be referring to Lev. 11, since that passage is quite clear. It’s hard to dispute plain language. But, this issue of what meat could be eaten being a disputable matter fits the historical events. Paul has no problem eating this meat (which might even have been used in the pagan Temple) because he will not add to what the Law says (Deut 4:1-2; 12:32). Yet, if some have strong convictions that eating such meat would be a transgression of the Law, they ought to follow their convictions. As for Paul, he has no issue with eating “common” meat. There is no such thing as “common” for Paul, primarily because the Hebrew Scriptures (the only Scriptures he has) say nothing about it. Furthermore, we see in Ephesians 2:14 that Paul has declared the dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles to be destroyed. Paul, being the Apostle to the Gentiles, fought hard against the 20 BC ruling – the Eighteen Measures – as well as other things. So what is the best word to use to translate koinos in Romans 14:14? The most obvious choice would be to use “common” each time koinos is used. We are not helping the average English reader by using the wrong English word regardless of its connection to another. While I understand the need to “interpret” at times when doing a translation, my view is that the translator should do more translating and less interpreting. By translating what the author meant to convey instead of what the author said, we cheapen the Text and assume an ignorant audience. This verse, as translated in English wrong, prevents the English reader from asking the question, “What is meant by ‘common’?” Without the question the reader can not find the answer. MJH |
||||||
208 | Greek use of koinos and akathartos | Acts 10:15 | MJH | 213811 | ||
Thanks for the kind comments. Certainly my post isn't the end of the discussion. I made some statements that ought to be backed up with more evidence and sources. What I posted here is more accurately my hypothesis based on the bit of research I did do, but could change after deeper digging. Your questions are exactly the questions needing more clarification. The time needed to go further will mean I won't be adding much for a while. I do hope to get a couple books from some universities (our library is connected to the colleges now...Yeah!)that have done some of this research already. Finding out if the Jews, who wrote Hebrew or Aramaic mostly in their first century writings, used 'koinos' in this way when speaking Greek may be impossible to proove. There are some Greek texts, but that's pretty much out of my league. MJH |
||||||
209 | Abstaining from things strangled, blood? | Acts 15:20 | MJH | 192276 | ||
Jews in Jesus day believed that "God fearers", those Gentiles who believed in the One true God but were not circumsised into Israel, were to follow the Noahic covenant in which they found 7 laws. You can do a search of my name "mjh" and "noah" to find many more details on this. Acts 15 requirements are all found in what the Jews saw in the Noah covenant which was given to all peoples. Those that were not included in Acts 15 were not necessary because they were already a part of the rule of law among the Gentiles. Sorry that this is so scant, but it's late and I did post a lot on this in the past. MJH |
||||||
210 | Help Bible study to accept differences? | Acts 20:7 | MJH | 185333 | ||
Hey Hank. Thanks for the quote. That was good. I also printed up a long history of the change from Saturday to Sunday that, surprisingly, did not include the often biased misinterpretations. I'll print your response too and include it when or if necessary. The "Torah Club" is studying the Bible in the same way Jesus did following the yearly Torah and Haftarah portions that all Jews do today and did back in the first century. (Actually Jesus probably followed the three year cycle.) The Torah Club includes 2 years in the first five books, 1 year of the Haftarah (the rest of the Old Testament), 1 year in the Gospels, and 1 year in Acts-Revelations. It is written from a Jewish believer in Jesus as Messiah. I avoid using terms like "Messianic Jew" and "Hebrew roots" because they carry different meanings to different people. This has been by far the best study I have been in and continue in personally. I do not agree with everything in the study, but then I don't agree with everything others say either. MJH |
||||||
211 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218047 | ||
Psst. That's the sound I make when the pastor says something wrong. ;-) In love, MJH |
||||||
212 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218064 | ||
So James and Paul were bluffing? Lying? or doing a head fake? Luke doesn't say they are doing this. He leads us to believe that Paul followed the Law and even participated in the Temple sacrifices intentionally because he wanted to and believed it was honoring to God. To presume that Paul was buckling to pressure on such a vital issue when his whole Christian life up to this point was one of constant persecution; yet he never wavers; but now it was okay for him to make it appear as though he was following the Law and Temple system, but “wink wink,” we all know he was just trying to fool the Believing Jews? Is it possible that Paul understood the Temple and the purpose of ritual purification from contact with a dead body before offering a sacrifice to end a Nazirite vow (or really, start it over since he touched the dead guy a couple chapters back) more than we do? Maybe our understanding of what Jesus death and resurrection accomplished is slightly off when we assume the Temple ceased to have any purpose and the sacrifices ceased to have any purpose at that moment in time? That's why I ‘thhst’ your answer. Within the scope of the whole Acts narrative, your response makes Paul and James manipulators at best, and liars at worst. Neither are acceptable conclusions, and Luke tells this as if the whole event makes complete sense. MJH With all due respect intended. |
||||||
213 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218077 | ||
Chist's sacrifice puts an end to the need for sin sacrifice in the world to come as Hebrews teachs. Again, my applogise to Doc and other offended by my psst, which was received in a manner not intended, but disrescpectful none the less as I ought to be more careful. MJH |
||||||
214 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218078 | ||
Doc, I apologizes for the disrespect. None was intended and certainly I wasn't attempting anything cultural by it. Either way, I ought to have known better than to make a condescending sounding remark to someone who, believe it or not, I respect. Please accept my apologies. MJH |
||||||
215 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218079 | ||
Like I mentioned earlier, it's because 'we' fail to understand what the Temple was for and what it accomplished that we feel any participation in it after Jesus resurrection is "going back to those old miserable ways." The Temple system was not set up by God to do away with sin. It also wasn't set up to be only a metaphor for what Jesus would some day do. It also didn't fail as some say, “the Temple didn't accomplish what it was meant to so God had to go with plan 'B'.” The Temple allowed a worshiper in This World to approach a Holy God safely. The sacrifices and cleansing purified the worshiper temporarily so they could present the Peace/Fellowship offering. Leviticus beings with, "If anyone desires to draw near (offer a sacrifice)....this is how to do it." It doesn't say, "When ever you sin, you must bring a sacrifice to cleans yourself of sin." Rather, IF YOU DESIRE TO DRAW NEAR...do it this way, and a sin sacrifice is an obvious part of that process. In the World to Come, the Temple and the whole city will be Holy. The Kingdom of Sin and Death will be gone. There is be no need to offer sin sacrifice because there will be no sin in that World which we are destined for. Jesus death made this way possible. The way past the cherubim and the flashing sword into the Kingdom of Light to once again walk with God in the cool of the day on a new Earth. In the mean time, we as a community have been given the guarantee, the Holy Spirit, so that we are in effect, mobile Temples of God. By virtue of the Holy Spirit being present, who is God, we are near God; yet the World to Come has not come fully, not yet. If you assume by my belief that Paul not only participated in the Temple in acts 21, but had planned to all along because he knew what it stood for as well as what it didn't, that I then believe that one needs to have the Temple to get forgiven, you're wrong. I don't believe that. I don't believe Paul HAD to go to the Temple. He wanted to. He, as did most of the early Christians, loved the House of God. Psalm 84 was a longing of their heart too. But, as Hebrews reminds them once they were kicked out (or it was destroyed), the Temple for all it's beauty and sanctity in helping a worshiper draw near to God, it is far from the reality in the World to Come. The real actual Temple of which Jesus is the High Priest. Just as on Earth, no one could participate in drawing near to God apart from the High Priest, so too we can not draw near to God apart from our High Priest in Heaven who is Jesus. Finally, a legalist is someone who believes you must follow certain laws or perform certain works in order to get saved. There is not one time or place where I said that, taught that, or professed that. There is no way to the Father and salvation from this world but through God's sovereign Grace through Faith, and that alone, nothing more. Nothing I do can adds to nor makes this more complete. God's gift of the Holy Spirit will work in me to sanctify me more and more in His likeness. In the end, it is all God. MJH |
||||||
216 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218081 | ||
Sorry about the miss spelled words. Forgot spell check :-( Lambs in the neighborhood are doing great. No Temple, not priesthood, not in the Land. We obey as much as we are able. I also couldn't resist. You don't have an answer either ;-) So, you did get my apologize right? That's important for me. I'd hate to start the 40 days without getting this error cleared up as much as I am able. MJH |
||||||
217 | Why did Paul do it? For conscience sake? | Acts 21:23 | MJH | 218083 | ||
Your note is received well. Thank you for your instruction and I hold it dearly. I have not seen my actions in this light, but your willingness to shine the light on it has shown me the truth. While I meant no disrespect, the disrespect was there non-the-less. Even though only my friend heard me and she knows my admiration for my pastor, I still see my own heart for what was there. I truly have been helped in reading these past few responses to my hastily written post. I know you all and know that you mean only the best for me and others. And even though we disagree on some matters, I look forward to the day when I can put a face to the name and thank you personally for what you have added to my life and "walk" over the past number of years. MJH PS- It's the 40 days of repentance. Something I'm doing for the first time leading up to the Day of Atonement. Boy, do I get a good start on things. ;-) |
||||||
218 | Zealous for the law? Sacraficed? Noah? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139912 | ||
Yup, I concer with what you are saying. I have seen a Christian women convert to Judaism. It is a sad thing when people exchange the truth of the Gospel for the teachings of man -- Rabbis of old. There is a value to knowing what these men taught during Jesus time, but one must never forget how Jesus and Paul responded to misinterperations of the OT Text. You have been of great value to me in these discussions EdB. God Bless, MJH |
||||||
219 | Zealous for the law? Sacraficed? Noah? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139913 | ||
I'm a bit busy. I will fill you in on this today or in the near future. kalos's post you showed me was very good. MJH |
||||||
220 | Zealous for the law? Sacraficed? Noah? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139998 | ||
I apologize for not tracking down the primary source, so this secondary source will have to do. This is in regards to what the sages during Jesus time and during the times of Paul were teaching concerning non-Jewish believers who did not get circumcised; also known as “God Fearers.” ----------- From “Fruits of Zion” Torah Club Year One pages 39-40 “After God makes some promises to Noah, He then delineates to Noah … and the future generations which will come from him…some responsibilities. In fact, the rabbis see a total of seven stipulations from these verses. They call these torahs [ “teachings”, “laws”], the ‘Seven Commandments given to the descendants of Noah. They constitute what we might call Natural Religion, as they are vital to the existence of human society.’ (1) The Torah of Moses, the rabbis assert, was given to rule Israel; obedience to these seven commandments alone was, in ancient times, also required of non-Jews living among Israelites, or attaching themselves to the Jewish community. The seven are: 1. establishment of courts of justice. 2. prohibition of blasphemy 3. prohibition of idolatry 4. prohibition of incest 5. prohibition of murder 6. prohibition of robbery 7. prohibition of the eating flesh cut from a living animal (eating blood.) It is important to note the similarity between these seven laws and the four requirements of the Jewish believers placed upon the non-Jewish believers who were coming into the believing community in Acts 15:20. The non-Jews were, in essence, being asked to follow all the traditional guidelines of any Jewish community should have asked of its non-Jewish members.” ----------- Also note that after giving these commandments, the next verse says, “[Moses] is read every Sabbath in the synagogues." In other words, these are the minimal requirement to be members of the Jesus community, if you want to learn more, the leaders from Jerusalem were saying, they just had to go to the synagogue where they would learn.” There was no separation of synagogue and community of believers at this point, and even latter in Acts, the separation was among Jews and Jews, not among Gentiles and Jews. (I can not find the 7 items in the Noah covenant, but this is what they taught during first century.) (1) Hertz, op. cit., pg 33. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ] Next > Last [17] >> |