Results 21 - 40 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | were the Ninevites fish god worshippers? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 156678 | ||
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Nineveh land locked? I mean miles from any sea or ocean? MJH |
||||||
22 | 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 |
||||||
23 | Love for all, judge not anyone | OT general | MJH | 213227 | ||
join the club of the "deleted" :-) | ||||||
24 | Love for all, judge not anyone | OT general | MJH | 213228 | ||
"So, Sunday, ham, man-made observances over God-ordained feasts is not really the issue - it's Who dwells within, Who guides you in your decisions." Great statement Cheri. MJH |
||||||
25 | has the church preaching remaind faithfu | OT general | MJH | 216644 | ||
Ptr, A few thoughts: 1) Your statement about the condition of the Church could have been said by God’s people in nearly anytime during the last 2000 years. The "True Church" is strong and well (Elijah also thought he was the only one left; yet, there were 7000 who did not bow to Baal.) Also, your view of the church is primarily based on your personal experience while the Church universal is advancing all over the globe. You said, “When we insist on maintaining a standard of biblical truth and Godly holiness, we are often faced with ridicules.” This has always been and always will be the case. Get used to it. But don’t let it cause you to become bitter, but rather allow love to rule the day. 2) You are making some erroneous statements about the religious state at the time of John the Baptizer. The Pharisees were not the powerful rich elite. They did not have staggering growth of numbers (they discouraged Gentile converts and grew their faith mostly through child birth.) The Sadducees ruled the day and the money and the Pharisees worked with them only by necessity (Sadducees controlled the Temple and the Sanhedrin.) The Pharisee was much closer to the people of the land, particularly in Galilee where Jesus did most of his teaching, and not all Pharisees are depicted negatively in the Gospels and Acts. 3) Classifying all "seminary graduates of our day" in one category is undeniably wrong. Making a categorical statement reflects anger in your heart towards individuals who may have wronged you; rather than a faceless "group." When we direct our bitterness towards a group, we misappropriate our disgust and furthermore are unable to reconcile adequately; all of which harms us, not the group. 4) I'd suggest living your life with a "Christ-like spirit, Godly lifestyle, and maintain your faith in this age." This will prove your own words to be wrong, because you are a part of the Church, and when you stand strong on what is right, the Church is strengthened. |
||||||
26 | How close are we to end times | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 140119 | ||
Personally I think Jesus' return will be at least 500 years from now. Show me a generation since the 300's AD that has not thought it was living in the days right before Jesus' return. I figure if I choose 500 or more years, I have a better chance of being right. :-) MJH |
||||||
27 | 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 |
||||||
28 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177174 | ||
Oh Kalos, you are reminding me of too many things. I really don't care if the Jahovah's Witnesses claim that Matthew was written in Hebrew first. The fact remains that we have the Greek, and that is what God inteneded for us to have that is our baises for interpretation. There are many things the Jahovah's Witnesses believe, some of which are true. Just because a cult which has errors in its teachings believes something, does not mean it is therefor false. "The reports of the fathers regarding a Hebrew "Gospel" must be considered as hearsay" It is very serious to call something a hearasy. Just because some believe there is evidence for a Hebrew Matthew does not mean they are Heritics. We must be careful how we use that term. (I know you were quoting someone else) MJH |
||||||
29 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177183 | ||
You are correct and for that I appologize. I should read more closely! MJH |
||||||
30 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177184 | ||
The Jahovah's witnesses believe: in one God; in a round earth, in gravity, and in the necessity of water to sustain life. All of these things are true. So just because a JW believes them too does not mean they must be false because they are considered a cult. That is the point I was making. In Kalos' note, the person he quoted was making the argument that since JW believe in an original Hebrew Matthew, that therefore it must not be true. Logically, this is not a good argument as I showed above. Whether there is or is not a Hebrew Matthew originally has nothing to do with the JW. MJH |
||||||
31 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177185 | ||
Well, actually "strong evidence" and "theory" are the same thing. A theory is something that can not be "proofed" but there is a lot of evidence to support the idea. I do think there is strong evidence to support a 'Q' of some sort, if not in writting, then certainly in oral transmision. But it is still just a theory. MJH |
||||||
32 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177186 | ||
John, Sorry... the Galil is [Galilee]. I should have used the more common term. MJH |
||||||
33 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177187 | ||
BradK I'll quote what I posted some years ago on the Hebrew as the spoke language. ----------- "Can anyone still believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic? The most advanced research says He spoke Hebrew. Using one verse to show He spoke Aramaic, when most of the Gospel and Acts say Hebrew, Archeology says Hebrew, Josephus says Hebrew, the early church fathers say Hebrew, Rabbinic literature says Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls say Hebrew, and coins minted in the first century BC say Hebrew. You said, “We know Jesus spoke Aramaic because he spoke it from the cross when he said: "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" which is the Aramaic, not Hebrew, version of Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Matthew records this in Hebrew (same words). The people in Mark's version are thinking that Jesus is calling Elijah which is only possible if He spoke the words as Matthew records in Hebrew since in Hebrew the term "Eli" can be either "My God" or a shortened from of Eliyahu, Hebrew for Elijah. "Eloi" in Aramaic can only mean, "My God". For Matthew; "lama" (why) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found in Mishnaic Hebrew as well as in Aramaic. Other Hebrew words in the Greek text; levonah, mammom, Wai, rabbi, Beelzebub, corban, Satan, cammom, raca, moreh, bath, kor, zuneem, Boarnerges, Mor, Sheekmah, amen. All archeological finds are 9 to 1 in favor of Hebrew over Aramaic including for those things used by the common man of the day. The Dead Sea Scrolls were in Hebrew 9 to 1 over Aramaic (the common man’s rules for the community were in Hebrew.) … and on and on and on it goes. . . Oh, and a fun one to explain: Jerome says he translated the Latin Vulgate directly from Matthew’s original Hebrew text. Jerome was the most competent Hebrew scholar of all the early church fathers, living in the Land for many years, learning Hebrew from the people who spoke it every day. Then there is the linguistic research which is beyond the scope of this forum I think. MJH" ------ That was posted way back when and since that time the archeological evidence has only increased in favor of Hebrew. All of this evidence is admissible in a court of law. Some of it can be argued against with some good points, but it is the shear volume of evidence over the span of all of these scholarly fields that make the case for Hebrew. I do, however, understand that I am in the minority both on this forum and in Christendom. But I also believe that will change over time as these things often take a long time to do so. MJH |
||||||
34 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177234 | ||
Thank you for allowing me the company of at least one other on the Hewbrew as common language. Also, in regard to the Greek of Matthew being the accepted book into the canon, I completely agree with you. All the other stuff is interesting at best, but in the end, it is the Greek that is what has been preserved and accepted into the canon and that is what holds authority. MJH |
||||||
35 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177235 | ||
Point conceded. MJH |
||||||
36 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 193490 | ||
Doc, but what about the original question. I have never heard someone who thinks the Law is done away with explain this episode. This is late in the period. Neither Paul, James, nor the Bible says Paul was wrong to do this. The Text claims that Paul has been Torah observant. It claims "myriads" of believers are zealous for the Law. And then they set up a plan to prove Paul is observant. What say you? What is the "erroneous interpretation of Pharisaic soteriology.?" God bless, MJH |
||||||
37 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 193525 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the response. I have only touched the very service of the writings of NT Wright and that being the case, can not comment on whether or not I see myself along side him. In response to your statement then, I would say that historically speaking, there were more than on type of Pharisee. Many many were quite legalistic, particularly those in Judea. That being said, there were many who were most defiantly not. I do believe that Jesus lined up theologically more closely with the Pharisees than any other sect (and by that I do not intend to diminish Jesus.) This is probably why He is seen talking with them the most. The Sadducees were a lost sect so far from reality that there was little point in discussion. The same is true of the others to a lesser degree. It may be possible that some (okay it is more than possible) have swung the pendulum of opinion about the Pharisees too far in their favor. That being said, there were most defiantly many Godly Pharisees in His day, and even this can be seen in the Gospels and Acts. And as far as Legalism is concerned, I do think that many on this forum either do not know what the word means, or at the very least miss use it. Legalism is the belief that certain acts or deeds (mostly outward) were required for salvation. You know that I am not of this camp, and nothing I have written would lead one to think this way. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. MJH |
||||||
38 | Quries about Christmas? | NT general | MJH | 211725 | ||
Serious? If so, hey, thanks for your service. Love Lt. Col. North. Made a joke of some people back in the late 80's MJH |
||||||
39 | Quries about Christmas? | NT general | MJH | 211728 | ||
I did what you asked. Let me know...is that good? | ||||||
40 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216369 | ||
"Most of what we think of as Judaism was more influenced by rabbis in Europe centuries after the primitive church spread out in the Roman empire" Very true. It's a frustrating thing when people apply anagronisims. Also, seeking out the theology of the first century Jew is extremely difficult work. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [17] >> |