Results 21 - 40 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Clarification on Kingdom parable. | Matt 22:2 | MJH | 225099 | ||
Doc, thanks for the reply. But your answer seems to miss the point that the other times Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven, he does not use the same Greek word. In the others he uses the present active verb. Only in this parable does he use the passive voice. Rather than saying, "The Kingdom of God is like..." this parable depicts the Kingdom of God as receiving the action, and also in the past continuing tense (Though I am unsure exactly how to word this. It's all Greek to me, but from what I've studied, this parables wording is certainly unique.) Further more, why add the additional phrase "compared to a 'human' King." Why add the seemingly unnecessary word 'human' unless it's meant to further drive home the point. "The kingdom of heaven is being made to be like a human king who...." Or, maybe the Greek is better said, "The kingdom of heaven has been made to be like a human king who..." Like I said, I don't know how to word the tense correctly, but the voice being passive is indisputable where as in all the other kingdom is like parables, the voice is active. Certainly not trying to start anything. I just heard this in a sermon today and I'd like clarification. |
||||||
22 | The real Kingdom of God is Like? | Matt 22:2 | MJH | 225094 | ||
The Greek: Should it more accurately be translated "the Kingdom of Heaven [is being made to be like] a human king who..." Is not the homoioo (G3666) in the passive tense therefore, it is the Kingdom that is being made to be like. In context of the flow of this section of scripture. Is not Jesus using this parable to show what the Sanhedrin is causing the Kingdom to appear as to be like... rather than saying the Kingdom of Heaven is actually like this. This parable does not fit the mold of the previous parables of the Kingdom and this is the only one where "homoioo" is used rather than "homoios esti". Is it possible that Jesus is saying that the current leaders of the Temple have made the Kingdom to be like this parable, rather than saying, this is what my Kingdom is actually like? It is difficult to understand this parable as a description of the genuine Kingdom of the Real God! MJH |
||||||
23 | Lying justified? | Josh 2:5 | MJH | 225076 | ||
Brad, You are correct. I forget sometimes that specific wording is very important. Rahab, like everyone, is justified by Grace through Faith. It was her faith that caused her actions to produce the result which protected the spies. Hebrews specifically words it as you state, faith produced action. MJH |
||||||
24 | Lying justified? | Josh 2:5 | MJH | 225072 | ||
It would have been morally wrong for Rahab to not lie for it would have certainly resulted in the death of the spies. Those good people risking all to hide Jews during WW2, to fail to lie to the German Nazi's, would have been morally wrong. When one is faced with the unfortunate situation where by keeping one law you break another, he must know which is greater. "Life" trumps most things. In Jesus day this question was asked in many ways and Jesus is asked it as well. Will Jesus "work" on the Sabbath to bring wholeness to a hurting sick person or not? Is "to do good" greater than to "not work on the Sabbath?" One group said it this way: All commands can be broken to preserve life but these three: 1) to take a life, 2) to commit adultery, 3) to commit idolatry; for the Law was given so that "you might have life" and not death. Death is the antagonist of God's Law and Kingdom. A long way to say, Rahab was considered righteous because she lied. That being said, I agree with previous answers, it is technically speculation, but the results of Rahab's blessed life and the comments in Scripture concerning her lead me to be quite certain of that statement. MJH |
||||||
25 | What was the purpose of circumcision? | Gen 17:10 | MJH | 223383 | ||
Gen 12 - Abram is given the Promise. I will bless you, make you into a great nation, all nations on earth will be blessed through you, and the Land will be yours. No Sign of this covenant Promise given. Gen 15 - Abram is given the covenant Promise in covenant form. God "cuts" a covenant with Abram and repeats the promises. No sign of the covenant is given. Gen. 16 - Abram has Ishmael with Hagar. He attempts to make God's promise come true in his own strength. If Abram does not have a child, God is proved to be a liar. Abram solves the problem, so he thinks for the next 13 years. He assumes the blessing is reckoned through Ishmael. Gen. 17 - Abram believes God and it is credited as righteousness. God promises a son, the Promised son, through Sarah. God gives the sign of the covenant Promise--circumcision. Why not given until now? Because Abraham needed to understand that God's Promise (all of it) will come about in God's time and way. Circumcision is a physical reminder of that fact. It is neither by Abram’s works nor ours that the Promise of God will come to all nations. By cutting the very part of the body that attempted to secure the Promise in his own strength; the part of the body that signified a man’s power and strength, the People of God would be reminded of this Promise and that it would not come about by their (or their child’s) ability, strength, cunning, or wisdom, but by God's alone. Joshua 5. All the people who were born in the wilderness wanderings were not circumcised. Why? When the first generation refused to trust God's promise of the land by entering; and then trying to conquer it on their own strength, they proved themselves to be faithless. They did not trust in the Promise of God and therefore they were forbidden to participate in the sign of the promise. They were faithless so they can not perform the covenant sign of faith in the Promise. When the next generation is ready to enter the land, and they do trust God, they get circumcision. (This is a further proof of trust, because it made them extremely vulnerable at the door step of their enemies.) The prophets repeatedly say that one should be “circumcised of heart.” Having a surgery performed on you at eight days old did not demonstrate your own acceptance of the Promise. Circumcised of heart is true Faith in the Promise which is by far more important than an outward physical sign. In Paul’s day and some time earlier, circumcision was seen as a way for Gentiles to join the community. Rather than an outward sign of true faith, it became the means to join God’s people and therefore was a “work of the law” to get saved. That’s turning the original meaning Abraham was shown upside down. If circumcision is seen as a way to get saved, then better to stay uncircumcised. Circumcision of the heart (as spoken of by the Prophets) was and is the main issue. Yet, Paul does not toss out the commandment as is seen in circumcising Titus (or was that Timothy?) and proving in Acts 21-22 that he was not teaching against the Jews circumcising their children. I hope that helps. Please note: you should do due diligence in seeking answers to your questions. My answer may not be that common, but I am certain that gifted teachers here will comment should they feel I am off base…which I welcome. |
||||||
26 | The Spirit and the Seventy | John 16:7 | MJH | 223381 | ||
Mr. Levin, I asked this question some time ago as well. It perplexed me as to why is was necessary for Jesus to ascend before the Spirit could come. Since then, the best I could reason is that since Jesus is the High Priest in the Heavenly Tabernacle (and not the Earthly one), He needed to ascend and serve as High Priest before the Spirit would be able to come and write the Law on the hearts of the Believers. That's still a bit less than a full answer, but the best I could conceive. If you find out more, let me know. Tim's quote of Barnes is also helpful but also opens up a few more questions as to how and why the Spirit could then come even for a short time prior to the Ascension? MJH |
||||||
27 | 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. ;-) |
||||||
28 | 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 |
||||||
29 | 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 |
||||||
30 | 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 |
||||||
31 | 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 |
||||||
32 | 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. |
||||||
33 | 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 |
||||||
34 | Is this law still binding? If so, how? | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 218046 | ||
Humility. To be unclean is not a sin, though sin does make one unclean. Unclean is a "state of being" that renders one unable to approach God safely in the Temple. Evening was the start of a new day. I'm not sure the greater significance, but I do know that a day begins a sunset in the Bible. Washing with water (ie. baptism) was to demonstrate that a change in status from unclean to clean had occurred. Much the same way our Baptism practiced in Christianity signifies a change in status from alienated from God, to be near God and a part of His family. The true nearness occurs when Rev. 21 happens, but until then we know we have been cleansed (made clean) from our sin. I've practiced this "law" in our marriage out of respect for both my wife and for life. The menstrual cycle is a reminder that a life that might have happened, had things lined up right, did not and the blood is a picture of life being lost (the life is in the blood). All of this, all of uncleanness, is a picture of what sin did not only to our souls but to the whole physical world and created order at large. It's a physical picture and reminder that things are not as they are suppose to be. Furthermore, the woman's cycle and subsequent pains in childbirth (and pain during PMS not to mention the man's pain during that time...) is a result of the original sin. This is how I understand it. It's probably more complicated and odd than what you expected...sorry. I come from the starting point that God's Law is perfect and complete, not to be added to or subtracted from as He says in Deut 4 and 12. How that Law applies when we have no Temple, are not in the Land, and are not Priests, and are living after the resurrection of Jesus is constantly being debated. In the end, I try to keep as much of the command as I am able living in this day and in his place. And that I do poorly at best. This note does not necessarily reflect the majority opinion. MJH |
||||||
35 | Eternal life promised by God? | Titus 1:2 | MJH | 217648 | ||
Exodus 3:6 "And he said, 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God." God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Luke 20:37-38 is where Jesus uses this verse to proof to the Sadducees that the resurrection and eternal life in the World to Come was taught in the Torah. MJH |
||||||
36 | Call from God! | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 217478 | ||
Mike, You have my sympathies in your loss. When you get the time, please update your profile. You are being prayed for still. MJH |
||||||
37 | By What Law | Rom 3:23 | MJH | 217466 | ||
Doc answered what sin was and supported his answer. I only added some additional material. MJH |
||||||
38 | By What Law | Rom 3:23 | MJH | 217460 | ||
Doc, What book have you recommended on sound hermeneutics? You mention it in this note. I'm looking for another book on the topic and maybe I have not read your recommended choice. MJH |
||||||
39 | By What Law | Rom 3:23 | MJH | 217459 | ||
... | ||||||
40 | animal that can't be killed | Leviticus | MJH | 217458 | ||
The Bible does not restrict raising any animals. It also does not restrict slaughtering them with the exception previously noted. It does restrict which can be used as a sacrifice and where a sacrifice could be made as well as which can be eaten by a member of the Assembly of God. If you are interested in which can be "eaten" see Leviticus 11. This may be what you were seeking. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [29] >> |