Results 21 - 40 of 156
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Most important doctrines? | 2 Tim 3:16 | MJH | 215562 | ||
That there is but One God, Yod Hey Vav Hey (creator of all) who communicates his promises/covenants with His people though His Word that all who are His will be drawn near him as a result of the faithfulness of His Messiah Jesus, who's sacrifice is our guarantee that our everlasting covenant relationship is secured with God. And because of this, we are made able by the Holy Spirit to live rightly within this covenant relationship. One God; Inerrant Word; One Messiah all wrapped in the cloak of covenant relationship initiated by God Himself. Boy, three is just too hard. The Apostle Creed listed by hopalong is excellent. MJH |
||||||
22 | Jesus spoke with authority!!! | NT general | MJH | 215490 | ||
In the first century, most teachers and scribes could not teach their own interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. They had to teach in the name of their teacher. Torah Teachers usually were those who taught in a local area only and taught the Text as it has been passed down to them. Scribes generally knew the Text really well and copied it down in scrolls. If a Teacher (or Rabbi) were to say, "You have heard it said....but I tell you...." That person was brining a new teaching. Not so much new in that it wasn't in their Bible, but a new understanding of what it really meant. A person who taught this way was said to have Semicha (authority). It was generally given by no less than two leading Rabbis who also had Semicha and they would lay their hands on the person and lean on them their weight, thus giving them their authority. Later, Jesus is asked in Matt 21:23, "And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" The answer is not given by Jesus directly, but he hints that John the Baptizer was either one who gave him authority, or at least witnessed it. God Himself would have been the second one who declares Jesus to have His authority. To say, “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.” This was not so much that the scribes were teaching the wrong way or even the wrong things, but that the people (at least these people) had not heard a teacher give new interpretation like Jesus had. This is far too early for anyone to be condemned for not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. It was a requirement of the good religious leaders to test anyone claiming to be Messiah (Deut 12:32-13:18 is the big one.) Had the teachers NOT questioned Jesus, they would have been in the wrong. That is different than trying to “trap” Jesus as some of them also did. Testing is not the same as trying to trap. So to answer your question, there was nothing wrong with the scribes, they simply lacked the authority to teach in the way Jesus taught. MJH |
||||||
23 | when did moses send his wife and sons | Exodus | MJH | 215489 | ||
The answer is traditionally found in these verses, but you will note the odd construction: "went back to Egypt." Ex 4:20 "So Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the staff of God in his hand. And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, . . . [Pharaoh] will not let the people go. "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, 'Let my son go that he may serve me.' If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.'" "At a lodging place on the way" Ex 4:24 At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put [him] to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched [his] feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision. "At the mountain of the Lord"- opposite direction. The LORD said to Aaron, "Go into the wilderness to meet Moses." So he went and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him. Ex 4:28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD with which he had sent him to speak, and all the signs that he had commanded him to do. "Now in Egypt and apparently without family." Exo 4:29 Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the people of Israel. Did Moses decide that this was too dangerous for his family to go with him? Also, while many English Text say God was about to kill Moses, the pronouns do not have a noun they are attached to. One is left not knowing if Moses was the target, or his firstborn son? Likewise, we are not 100 percent certain whose feet were touched with the foreskin, the Angel of the LORD or Moses or the Son's. Probably more than you asked, but I have found this passage very interesting for some time. MJH |
||||||
24 | people places and things OT | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 215341 | ||
Mike, Good question, but I think John did a great job answering your question. There is no quick way to learning. It takes a long and sometime not so fun (but usually it is) time. If you are looking for timelines, I have some links that would help but will not really put the Historical context into it. For an historical context, it depends on which section of the Bible you are seeking help with. There's the 5 books of Moses; Then the books Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuels, Kings. (Many of the prophetic books and poetry books fall within this time line. Pre-Exile). And finally you have Daniel, Ezekiel, Lamentations, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, etc. which are post exile. Of course, we have the "quite years" which were not so quiet, and then, what most Christians focus on, the first century BC and AD. If you have a place you would like to start, I can give you some good books and resources to at least get you started and from there you will find your way around. I personally would suggest the Books of Moses as a place to start because I happen to believe that you can’t really understand later Scripture without understanding the foundation, but others here will argue you can’t understand the Books of Moses until you understand the New Testament. They of course are crazy and I of course am right as always :-) MJH |
||||||
25 | In Acts 8, is the eunoch a homosexual? | Acts 8:27 | MJH | 215261 | ||
A Eunuch is a male who is missing a couple essential "parts" for procreation and served a queen or other high female within a kingdom. The term was also used of high appointed officials in general without the necessary surgery. Could this man have been a homosexual? Exceedingly unlikely and completely disconnected from anything mentioned in the Text. He went to Jerusalem for the festival, so he was either Jewish or a proselyte to Judaism. If he was a true Eunuch in the surgical sense, then he couldn’t have functioned sexually in any direction. Someone is lying. How they managed to do so without laughter bursting out from the pews is the real question. And to do so on Easter Sunday…. How shameful. MJH |
||||||
26 | Resurrection Day, not easter! | Exodus | MJH | 215258 | ||
justme, This issue has irritated me for some time. It's a nearly futile research project unless you have a lot of time and can weed through language issues. Not only that, but most people who do research this area have a conclusion in mind before they begin…and they often find that their assumptions are correct regardless of what they are. Here is what I've gleaned. Easter is an English word! The German word connection is there due to missionary connections within the Anglo-Saxon world. The word may or may not have connection to a pagan goddess, but there are no other languages in our day that use a spring goddess name to refer to the resurrection. Almost all are derived from the Hebrew word Passover. And during the second to fourth centuries when a debate over dates was heated, English wasn't the language used! In the second century, the Roman and Jerusalem branches argued over how to celebrate Passover and the Lord’s resurrection. The Roman church wanted the resurrection to always fall on the first day of the week while the Jerusalem church wanted it to fall on first fruits. (Jesus rose on both, but the first day of the week is based on the sun, and First Fruits is based on the moon, so it changes days of the week every year.) Even though the Jerusalem side could argue that they were the living disciples of the Apostle John…they knew him personally and how he did it, they still lost the argument (split between East and West), but the Lord’s resurrection was still connected to God’s festival of Passover. In short, they observed the Passover followed by a day of fast followed by the Resurrection celebration of our Lord. The festival season was still referred to by the Greek word derived from the Hebrew festivals. In the fourth century the split between anything looking “Jewish” was at its breaking point. When the Christian Church became the political church, they had the opportunity to make some definitive statements about doctrine and Holy Days. Up until then, the Christians were at least somewhat dependant on the Jews for determining when Passover began and not all Christians followed the same calendar. There was quite a bit of confusion that needed to be dealt with in the now organizing church. Therefore, a calculation was invented based on both the lunar cycle and the solar cycle. This calculation puts the Lord’s Resurrection Holy Day, almost always near the Passover. The fourth century is where people like to connect the English Easter to a pagan goddess. My personal view is that I find it very hard to apply negative intent to the fourth century church fathers. It’s simply historically not the right time for this behavior. My belief is that the gentile/Jewish separation caused the church leaders to find a good opportunity to make a clean break. They couldn’t jettison the Resurrection, and since the Resurrection is intricately connected to Passover and First Fruits, they needed to find a way to keep the days without remaining “Jewish” in appearance. Any negative intent applied to these Church leaders is in regards to anti-Judaism rather than pro pagan goddess. In other words, they wanted to separate from anything appearing Jewish, but did not want to marry themselves to anything pagan. If in fact they were attempting to borrow the pagan goddess, then why do all languages on Earth today, except English and German, use a word coming from Passover rather than a word coming from a pagan goddess? And why can we not find any fourth century Church fathers writing anything that would make you believe they were in truth, pagan mixing Aster lovers? In fact you can not. But there is ample writings showing their hatred for anything appearing Jewish! In fact the link provided by nickmostly does a good job with the etymology of the Anglo-Saxon word Easter. The case if far stronger against a pagan connection than there is for one. Now to get personal: It is enormously unfortunate that the Christian Church does not celebrate Passover! There is simply no other Festival instituted by God that more profoundly professes the Grace of God through the redemption of his children both through the Exodus and through the crucifixion/resurrection. The Christian church has no idea what it is missing. MJH |
||||||
27 | Business and following Lord | Luke 18:22 | MJH | 215126 | ||
All work is sacred. There is no such thing as a profession or business that is better or best. Not even full time ministry or missionary service is "better" than any so-called secular job. Adam was created to do work, even before the fall in Genesis 1-3. God has given you gifts and talents, and what ever you feel "called" to or have a passion for, do it with all your passion as to the Lord. If you work for someone else, do it with conviction, ambition and gratitude. If you work your own business, do it with integrity. If you care for your own children as in a stay-at-home mom/dad, then do it well and with purpose and forethought. But the idea that there is a better job is simply not correct. There may be a better job for you personally, but that is based on your gifts, talents, and passions. Please note: I assume you know that jobs which promote sin are not good in anyway. MJH Col 3:23-24 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. |
||||||
28 | Seventy times seven equals 490 | Matt 18:22 | MJH | 214773 | ||
"Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" The first brother conflict was with Cain and Able and it didn't end well. God said that if anyone did anything to Cain in revenge, God will avenge him 7 times. In Gen 4, Lemech says that he killed a young man for wounding him. He then says if Cain is avenged 7 times, then Lemech will be avenged 70 x 7 times. Where God would avenge Cain, Lemech would avenge himself. This started a chain of events that led to the Flood. When Peter asks if he should forgive 7 times, he is getting this from the Cain and Able story and God's statement. Jesus takes it the next step and repeats the opposite of Lemech's law. Not revenge, but forgive. Forgiveness ends the problem while revenge continues it and makes it worse. That is the way of the Kingdom of Life, the Kingdom of God. MJH |
||||||
29 | Why was being born a Jew so important? | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 214580 | ||
Here's a question... Did Jesus come to Earth to "save mankind" from the snares of the devil? or did he come to "save the elect?" Or am I just begging for a contentious debate? Jesus had to be from Israel via Gen 12,15,17 and several more. Jesus had to be from Judah because of Balaam's final prophesy and the promise made to King David. Judah is the tribe that became known as Jew. Moses said a prophet like himself would come....who had to be from Israel. Why did God choose Israel? They were the least of all people. God's promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Israel had no ability to choose God being slaves in Egypt. Why did God choose Abraham? That may be the real question. MJH |
||||||
30 | Giving it up to the Lord | NT general | MJH | 214579 | ||
You may be helped by this book: Boundaries by Dr. John Townsend and Dr. Henry Cloud He also has one on marriage. I have very little understanding of your situation, but when we pray for help, we don't stop helping ourselves. I can't counsel you except to say that "giving it over to God" should not mean doing nothing. If it helps, good, if not, it's still a good book for anyone. MJH |
||||||
31 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214578 | ||
... continued ... So if Ruth wasn’t exempt because she was a woman then what? We read in the book of Ruth that Boaz was exceedingly detailed in his observance and more than just observant; his heart is pure and right. Boaz is, as we say now, a part of the New Covenant “with the Torah written on the heart.” If this law forbade marriage to Ruth, certainly he of all people would have understood this. So why did he marry her? The book of Ruth does an interesting thing. While Orpah returns to her gods and her people, Ruth says, “Your people will be my people, and your God will be my God.” Here Ruth does two things. First she leaves her own people. In effect she cancels her citizenship. It may be this statement that is the key. While a Roman could be a member of the “Assembly of the LORD” (ie. church in the New Testament) yet remain a Roman citizen, the same is not true for the Moabite. Once Ruth abandoned her people and therefore was no longer a Moabite (at least in terms of citizenship) she was no longer bound by the Law of Deut 23. The second thing she does is to enter the covenant as Abraham, by faith. “Your God will be my God.” She becomes a “ger.” I do not much care for the term Proselyte, because in the New Testament days, the term carried connotations that are not intended in the Torah. A “ger” was a non-Israelite that sojourned with Israel. There was one Law for the “ger” and for the native born. But a “neker” was a stranger who was “passing through” and a “zowr” was a stranger who was an Idolater. The Law had specific things to say about each, but in most English translations, the word stranger is used for all three. It is possible then that referring to a person as a Moabite was tantamount to referring to them in light of Balaam and their heinous sin at Peor. No such person even remotely connected to their form of Idolatry should be a part of the assembly of Israel. They were all “zowr” as long as they had any part of that nation. (No dual citizenship.) When Ruth clearly says, your God will be my God, she joined the people of God and the covenant as well. But can Ruth join the covenant in this way? Yes! She entered neither through marriage nor some other means, but in the same means that Abraham entered, through faith. She had not only abandoned her false gods, but her people as well. It was only after this that Boaz married her. Finally, there is one other option, though remote: It was common, at least in the first century and beyond, to discuss what happens when two laws collide. If one law says, “A Moabite cannot enter the assembly of Israel.” And another law says, “If [your brother] dies and has no son, [you shall] perform the duty of a husband's brother to [his wife].” Then which of these laws must be broken, for surly one of them will? The most common easy answer was that a positive law trumped a negative law. That “rule” would apply favorably here as well. This is an extension of the “what is the greatest commandment” discussion Jesus entered into. So there are four possibilities: 1) Ruth was a woman and therefore not bound by this law. 2) Ruth was not a leader in the assembly, and therefore did not violate this law. 3) Ruth abandoned her gods AND her people, making her no longer a citizen Moabite, and joined the people of God and their God fully by faith. Therefore the law didn’t apply because she no longer was technically a Moabite. 4) The positive command to fulfill the duty of a brother trumped the negative command to not let a Moabite enter the assembly. I personally like #3, but I have yet to discuss it with others. This option has a difficulty in that the Text continues to have others refer to Ruth as a Moabite, but I believe this is for two reasons: 1) to keep the negative image of Moab in the readers mind connected to Ruth; 2) to help explain how great Boaz is to be willing to marry such a woman and why the nearest kinsman redeemer didn’t want anything to do with her. In the end, Ruth and Boaz didn’t break the law of Deut. 23, of that we can be certain. MJH -sorry for the length. |
||||||
32 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214577 | ||
Cheri, (2 post long) I was interested in your question but didn’t have time to answer. Now that you and John had your dialogue, it seems somewhat unnecessary, but I did the work so here it is. A starting point in how I approach the Bible may be helpful: 1) I don’t believe as some commentators do, that God can violate the covenant, but mankind can not, therefore God can include Ruth just because he said so. God MUST remain faithful. 2) I don’t believe the covenant stipulations change after Jesus resurrection; but rather that the law points to and is enhanced and enlightened by Him. Rom 3:31 “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. [give it a firmer standing]” ESV I include this for those “who are reading along” as John so wisely recognizes. With this in mind, the law for the Moabite can not simply be uprooted (Deut 4:2; 12:32 “do not add to this law, nor take away from it.”) A Moabite can not “enter the assembly of the LORD” to the tenth generation…forever. The “forever” is “ ‘ad o’lam ”, which is nearly impossible to translate any other way than “forever.” If it could, then the Targum Jonathan, which Gill quotes, (see John’s answer) would have most certainly used this option. Neh. 13:23 also says this law means forever. The phrase “assembly of the LORD” is another key. One source had this to say, “In the Torah, the word kahal (assembly) is used to apply to Israel as a nation, to a religious gathering and to a national governing assembly. This national governing assembly consisted of all adult males meeting in plenary session. Eligibility in this governing assembly was apparently tantamount to eligibility in full citizenship and therefore eligible for leadership.” While Ruth was a women and may (or may not) be exempt for that reason, I believe there are other options. It is possible that this passage is speaking of holding leadership position. In this case, Ruth also wouldn’t need worry about this law. Furthermore, when we look at the law in context, it falls within a marriage section. Why would this be included here? Let’s read the context of the sin of Moab: Num 25:1 “While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor.” It was within adulterous relationships that Moab seduced Israel with their women threatening their existence as a nation, and by extension, the coming Messiah. If they can’t beat them by war, and they can’t defeat them with the curses of Balaam, maybe they can defeat them by seduction. To marry into this nation was to marry into their cult. See also Neh 13:23 “In those days also I saw the Jews who had married women of Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. And half of their children spoke the language of Ashdod, and they could not speak the language of Judah, but only the language of each people.” The women in this passage were not “making your God my God” but rather were still worshiping their false gods. The mothers are the primary teacher of children when they are young. This instance was a violation of the Law (and Nehimiah also says “ ‘ad olam” means forever.) With these passages we are hard pressed to say women are absolved from the Deut 23 law simply by being women. So if Ruth wasn’t exempt because she was a woman then what? ...continued... |
||||||
33 | did apostles disobey jesus' commission? | Matt 28:19 | MJH | 214518 | ||
dieselcowboy, Thanks for your question. It might be helpful to understand what Baptism was/is. Baptism was very common in the life of the Jew is this day. They were often baptized daily. Some rich had baptismals (called mikvot) in their homes so they could immerse every day. The idea of a baptism was to show a change of status originally found in Exodus/Leviticus. If a person became "unclean" they needed to become "clean" before entering the Temple. The last thing they did would be to go through a Mikvah, showing their change of status from unclean to clean. At the Temple when Peter preached after the Holy Spirit came, 3000 people were baptized. The only reason this could have happened was because there were multiple baptismals at the Temple. Back to your question: When it is said that they baptized someone into the name of Jesus, it was equivalent to saying they were baptized into everything that Jesus taught and represented. The person was entering into a covenant community of Jesus believers. Matt 28 does not say, or mean, that you need to recite the words "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" for a baptism to be effectual. The person going into the waters has denounced any previous idolatry (if needed) and accepts fully the covenant status he is entering. Then, that person is to be taught to "observe everything [Jesus has] commanded you." You may be right in that when the scriptures say, "baptized into the name of Jesus" the entire covenant and God Head were implied, but I am not willing to allegorize this as you have (allegory was a Greek construct used in their mythical writings.) There are no Scriptures, no historical evidence, and no legitimate early church writings that I am aware of that reflect your statement. dieselcowboy, Thanks for the question and let me know if you have more to substantiate your claim. I am eager to learn and, even if I disagree, to understand why you’re arriving at your conclusion. MJH |
||||||
34 | HOW DO WE HELP THOSE IN NEED? | 1 Tim 2:3 | MJH | 214517 | ||
When I worked at a church I became acutely aware of the people who went from church to church either through the phone book or down the street. How does a church determine who to help with their limited resources? I have pushed for an area wide church coop system to deal with non-church members/attendees. The local churches collectively support a central aid organization and any time someone from outside their influence seeks aid, they are directed to the same organization as every other church in the region or city. This organization could help those in need and follow-up with them so they no longer need help. After all, true compassion is measured by how many people no longer need our help, not on how many are currently receiving it. Individual churches, regardless of the above, should know how to effectively help their own people and be ready to do so, and they should do that long before they help those who do not attend. If aid is a witness, than what witness is it when we neglect those who are in our family to help those who are not? The true witness would be for neighbors of those in true need seeing their local church community coming along side them through that time. Aside from all of that: It’s important for the church to teach what the Bible says about consumer debt. How you are not able to help others and be the blessing God wants you to be for others if your “cup isn’t over flowing.” The church should encourage and respect people who are successful and able to help rather than immune them as less than righteous; as if they became a success on the backs of others. Imagine if everyone in our church was debt free except maybe their home. Who could we help then? (note: I am not suggestion prosperity preaching here.) I think maybe this is a raw nerve for me. I shall digress. MJH |
||||||
35 | OT says Altar of Insence is outside viel | Heb 9:2 | MJH | 214284 | ||
Hebrews is speaking about the Day of Atonement in chapter 9. The High Priest entered once a year and before he could safely enter the most Holy place, he had to take the incense from the alter and create a cloud in front of the mercy seat so that he would not die when he entered to apply the blood. There was one golden censor (the others being silver) which was used only for this purpose. If the book of Hebrews was describing where things were stored, then this would be a problem, but the author is clearly speaking about the use and purpose on the specific Day of Atonement of which he is speaking. The entire letter to the Hebrews is very Jewish in its style and shows a high degree of understanding in regards to how the Tabernacle functioned. In fact, this knowledge of the Tabernacle has led some to hypothesize that the author may have been a priest. There is simply no way that this author would have been speaking about the storage place of the incense alter and gotten it wrong. No one knows for certain who actually wrote the letter. MJH |
||||||
36 | Are there verses about outside business? | 1 Pet 3:15 | MJH | 214245 | ||
There are no texts that I can find that explicitly answer your question, however, the Bible on a whole assumes that you will be interacting with those outside the community of believers. Israel was placed at the crossroads of the ancient world to be a light for the nations. We are to be a light of the world. It is difficult to do this when we are not doing business with the world. I may have misunderstood your question. If so, please clarify. If you mean, "Can we do secular business inside the local church building?" Then this is a separate question which deserves a separate answer. MJH |
||||||
37 | what is/are the discharge(s) referred to | Lev 15:2 | MJH | 214234 | ||
The "issue" is this text is only seen here in Lev 15. The Hebrew word "zobe" means, a seminal or menstrual flux: - issue (according to Strongs). The primary reason this is associated with penal discharge is because the second half of the chapter referrers to a woman's menstrual flow and uses the same word. Some commentators believe the man's problem is gonorrhea. In either case, for the man this is something that is not natural, where as for the woman it would be menstrual OR if it lasted longer than seven days, something unnatural. Normal seminal flow, whether in intercourse or not, would only render a man unclean until evening. Please note that “unclean” is not a “sin state.” Being unclean was not in any way a statement on the person’s personal failings. It had primarily to do with whether they could approach a Holy God in His Tabernacle/Temple. While sin can make you “unclean”, being unclean does not usually mean you sinned. MJH |
||||||
38 | belly of a whore? | Gen 38:9 | MJH | 214222 | ||
I think you may be a bit confused. The only place your question could be connected to is Gen 38 where Onan refuses to produce a child with his dead brothers wife by "spilling his semen on the ground." The act was tantamount to attempting to prevent the birth of the Messiah. It was through Tamar that Jesus was ultimately born. Judah sends Tamar to live with her own family as a widow until the younger son was old enough. Since Judah was afraid of loosing his last remaining son (all the other with this women had died), he never intended on giving his son to her to fulfill the duty of a brother. Tamar learns that Judah is coming to town, so she dresses as a prostitute and gets Judah to sleep with her. She becomes pregnant and you can read the rest of the tale in Gen 38. MJH |
||||||
39 | Sins are responsible for sickness? | Mark 2:3 | MJH | 214205 | ||
One more thing about your passage specifically. Was the man's sins forgiven before he was healed? Yes they were, yet he still had the illness. So we know that his illness was not connected to his personal relationship with God and his own sin state. Otherwise his illness would have been healed when he received forgiveness. But one can not see forgiveness and only God can forgive sins. By Jesus then healing the man, he removes all legitimate questions as to his ability to declare sins forgiven. There is simply no way God would heal through Jesus if he just blasphemed God. It's quite masterful. He led these doubters to express their doubt by declaring forgiveness for a man, something only God could do; and then he healed the man who was obviously healed and Jesus did this in front of many witnesses. The doubter’s only recourse was to recant their belief that God would heal through a blasphemer, or accept Him for who He was/is. MJH |
||||||
40 | hebrews 12:24/1peter 1:2 | Lev 16:14 | MJH | 214134 | ||
Only the priests can sprinkle the blood of a Sacrifice, and as far as Heb 12:24 and 1 Peter 1:2 is concerned, only the High Priest can sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat. In the World to Come (aka Heaven), Jesus is the High Priest who sprinkled his own blood once and for all cleansing the sinner. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |