Results 221 - 240 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
221 | Praying for the 'World'. | Matt 5:44 | MJH | 163626 | ||
Doc, I would whole heartedly agree with your every word. I greatly appreciate systematic theology and all its good points of which many you mention. What I don't like is approaching God and the study of God in that manner ALONE. Taking him and his revelation apart and looking at it like a scientist can lose sight of the whole of the story or picture. After all, God does not describe Himself as Omni..., but as a Father, a Shepherd, a Rock, a fortress, etc... An example might be: A local junior high school goes to the swamp and gets frogs, cuts them up, and studies their bodies. Another approach would be to go to the swamp and watch and learn about the frogs behavior, his girl friend, his favorite lily pad, etc… It’s the same frog and neither method of study will give the whole picture, but both together will really help us understand “frogness.” So I do love and study the systematic theologies and they are much of what gave my faith roots that last. But recently, I have loved studying who God is using other approaches. (Biblical theology as one example, but others as well.) Like I said, I do agree with your every word in your post. I only want to add more too it. You are right, some like the word "wonder" rather than "mystery" for many reasons. "Wonder" is probably a better word to use given the semantics associated with a word such as "mystery." God bless, MJH |
||||||
222 | What did Jesus mean, "obey My commands?" | John 14:21 | MJH | 162306 | ||
I think MacArthur is correct, but I just don't think that most Evangelical Christians (of which I am one) actually walk it. When the discussion gets down to the specifics, there is so much rationalizing and qualifiers as to WHY we don't have to obey THAT command. Even MacArthur (I hope I am not confusing him with another guy) on his churches web site gives these reasons for some of the commands, none of which I agree with. If Jesus said to obey all the commands, even the little ones, then why don’t we? MJH |
||||||
223 | Is Allah the God of Israel? | Acts 28:2 | MJH | 157895 | ||
Possibly my lack of knowledge about the languages may have caused be to err. Maybe not, but doing a simple google search on the phrase "etymology of the word Allah" provided some interesting things to read. They are of course just web sites that can say anything, but there seems to be a common thread reflected in the following statement: ----------- In common roots with all Abrahamic religions, ie. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, "Allah" is the same word that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use for God. Arabic Torah, Bibles and Qur'an, the word "Allah" is used where "God" is used in English. Allah is the only word in the Arabic language equivalent to the English word "God". However, Allah is somewhat a unique word grammatically, since it cannot be made plural or given gender (i.e. masculine or feminine), which goes hand-in-hand with the Islamic concept of God. The root word "God" in English, for instance, can be used in similar forms, such as "God", "Gods" or "Goddess". --------- Maybe this helps some? MJH |
||||||
224 | Is Allah the God of Israel? | Acts 28:2 | MJH | 157804 | ||
I believe you are mistaken to assume the Maltese language uses the term "Allah" as a impersonal noun like the words "god" or "theos." "Allah" is a personal name, and not a generic word for "god." If those on Malta are using the term "Allah" as a translation of the word "god" or "theos" as you seem to be stating, then the people of Malta have a serious problem because the name "Allah" is understood across all languages, much like the name YHWH is (only who knows how to pronounce the One True God's name.) It is unfortunate, for example, when the media translates a terrorist’s statement and translates the "Allah" as "god" in English, because it is not correct. The translation should be true to the speaker’s intent and translate "Allah" as "Allah" so there is no confusion. If those in Malta are translating a generic "god" as "Allah" they will also confuse the population. I say this as one who never went to Malta, nor do I know anyone there or anyone who went there. But, to answer your original question, I believe quite strongly that the personal name "Allah" should never be used of anyone but the god of Islam. MJH |
||||||
225 | Does the warning against tattoos apply | Lev 19:28 | MJH | 157232 | ||
Kalos, Have you heard the Midrash (story) about Solomon changing the law about Kings having many wives by removing the Hebrew letter Yod from the text? It’s a wonderful legend begun by Rabbis that pre-date Jesus. (At least that is the belief since Jesus seems to allude to it in Matt 5.) In sort (it’s a long story) the story goes like this: 1) Solomon is copying the text per the Law that Kings write a copy of the Law. 2) He comes to the offending law which says he can not have many wives otherwise his heart would turn away from the LORD. 3) He thinks, “I know the purpose of this law, and I will not turn from God, so it doesn’t have to apply to me. I will obey the ‘spirit’ of the law.” 4) He removes the letter “yod”. 5) The letter “yod” ascends on high to the throne of God, prostates itself and says, “Look what Solomon has done, if you allow this, then soon a whole word will be removed, and then whole commands, and your law will be meaningless.” 6) To this, God says, “Do not worry, Solomon and thousands like him will come and go, but not so much as a ‘yod’ will be removed from My Law until heaven and earth disappear.” The Rabbis used this story to teach that one must not think he knows more than God, and therefore think he can disregard one of his commands because he thinks he knows why it was put there. I really like this parable or legend, because it has helped me to stop justifying certain actions that in my heart I know violate God’s commands. Solomon had a good reason to think he knew why God put the command there, since the text says why it is there. But at the end of his life the text says that Solomon multiplied wives and his heart turned toward other gods and away from the Lord. (1 Kings 11:4) It is also said that it would have been better for Solomon to have cleaned latrines his whole life than for that sentence to have been written about him. In relation to the current topic, it is my personal belief that the command still stands. We may think we know why God gave this command and therefore rationalize why we do not have to obey it. But this is my opinion, and I hold no real judgments against those who arrive at a different conclusion. Just my two sense worth. MJH |
||||||
226 | Is it mt 26:60-61 happening today? | 1 John 4:2 | MJH | 157156 | ||
Possibly the book, "Velvet Elvis : Repainting the Christian Faith" by Rob Bell would be a worth while read. MJH |
||||||
227 | Was Jesus married? | John 1:38 | MJH | 156778 | ||
If I am right, Jewish oral law said that a member of the Sanhedrin had to be married with children. (Or latter to be a "judge" of the Law.)(1) I do not know of a tradition that stated a Rabbi had to be married. Is there one? and if so when did such a tradition begin? and if there was one at the time of Jesus, why does this not come up in the Gospels? Even Jesus' detractors called him "Rabbi." (1) - Mishnah Fourth Division: Nezikin, Horayoth I. 4. |
||||||
228 | Does the Mosaic Law apply to gentiles? | Leviticus | MJH | 156680 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the chastisement of sorts. You are right that my comment did little...okay, did no help in answering the question. Your note does raise some interesting issues, however. "Antinomianism" I am sorry to say, I had to look that one up, and no no no no I am not that in the least. If anything, I tend to side on the opposite. I have been asking these questions of myself (and others that will discuss them) for about 4 years now. What of the Mosaic Law applies today....to Israel and/or to Gentiles. (I do think there is a distinction.) Where I am today (and may not be tomorrow) is that I believe that none of the Mosaic Law is abandoned, but parts are altered after the Resurrection. Example: I believe that Mark 7 does NOT say that Jesus declared all animals clean, nor does Peter's Acts vision mean to say that there are no longer "unclean" foods. The Levitical sacrificial system has been altered, but I am unable to clearly state how and why at this time. See the book of Hebrews. Galatians is speaking of “works of the Law†not the Law itself. To me, this is a way of saying “legalistic acts of the Law†(see David Stern). Also, the whole argument was “What do the Gentiles have to do?†and never “What do the Jews have to do?†(See Acts 21-22.) I do not buy the argument that, "If the New Testament restates the Old Testament command, then it is still in effect, but otherwise it is not." (My brother’s favorite comment) That to me is a copout. Some in my study group think all of the Mosaic Law applies to Gentiles today, including circumcision, tassels, etc… (I remind them that until they wear tassels, they don’t believe it, because to believe it is to do it.) Now we are actually going over the 613 laws listed by the Jewish scholar in, I believe, the 1200’s one at a time and asking, does this apply to us now? Am I dispensational? I never thought I was. I was raised in the Christian Reformed Church, but have not been in it since 1995. I do not have any significant negative issues with the church that helped raise me in the faith. They did a wonderful job. They were Covenant Theology and Replacement Theology of which I no longer am. I also do not baptize my children as babies. Now I attend a church that recently has hit the church news wires with various pro’s and con’s concerning the Pastor, so I will remain anonymous in that, suffice it to say I am in a non-denominational church. I long to spend time with those who really know the Text and have lived it for decades. If they are willing to be authentic with relating their journey, I would soak it up. (I am 34 now.) I hesitate to relate this information because I have found that once you do so, people tend to peg you into a certain group of thought and assume you are coming from a certain point of view. It hinders honest communication. A recent Pastor I served with knew my background and no matter how hard I tried, he always argued with me from the assumption that I was in lock step with the reformed church. You said, “You respond asking if the Mosaic law is applicable Christians, more specifically Gentile Christians. (An extra distinction that is, perhaps, telling, but I will not delve into at this time.)†Please delve into this….. MJH (PS - I hope this is helpful in knowing where I come from and why I ask certain questions.) |
||||||
229 | 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 |
||||||
230 | Can you prove 'a' god exists? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 154820 | ||
see my post further up this thread. ID# 154819 Evidence is not proof. It is support of a possible truth, but as any court case showes, there is evidence on both sides, yet only one side can be true. If you show you evidence contrary to God's existance, that does not prove that God does not exist. Either he does or he does not. Both can not be true. So evidence builds your case, but does not proof it as I attempted to do in post ID# 154819. MJH |
||||||
231 | Can you prove 'a' god exists? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 154796 | ||
That is evidence, not proof. GOOD evidence, but this is not what I mean. MJH |
||||||
232 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 154013 | ||
Are you saying then, that Paul intentionally misleads the Jerusalem believers in Acts 21-22 to save his own skin? Did James know this? It was he who came up with the idea. It is obvious that their plan was to show that Paul was following the Law and not teaching Jews to stop following it. If Paul's actions in Acts 21-22 are contrary to what he taught, then how could he speak boldly against Peter when Peter did the same thing? (Gal 2:11) I personally can not come to the conclusion of your Bible professor in this regard. Being all things to all people does not mean lying to them or deceiving them. In Acts 15, Paul did not shrink back in the face of controversy in Jerusalem. Even James was a part of the Acts 15 statement about what the Gentiles were to do, so why would he participate in trying to convince Jewish Believers in Jerusalem that Paul was following the Law? I do appreciate your reply, however, and hope to continue the conversation. MJH |
||||||
233 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153996 | ||
Thanks for the reply. Phil 3:3-7 is a good verse to use. Paul found no righteousness of his own in following the Law, which was legalism, but he did remain observant to the Law (Torah), but it was the Messiah who brought him salvation. His attempts at salvation through the law were worthless (not the Law) Rom 7. But it was because of Jesus' faithfullness that he too could be declaired righteous. And yes, those were my words. I spent some time developing an outline of which only a part is written in the post, but I want to know if I am correct in my understanding. Thanks again for the reply. MJH |
||||||
234 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153874 | ||
A couple things about your post separate from my other reply. Rev. 11:12 refers to the two witnesses going to be with the Lord, not the rapture as we usually think of it. This is not unlike Enoch, Elijah, and Jesus. These cases do show people “going up to be with the Lord.” But this is for a time until Jesus returns. I was just thinking, depending on your view of the way the end times will occur, you might see the rapture as very similar to Enoch, Elijah, and the two witnesses. Next: Paul had “certain people” in mind…. It is true that the Holy Spirit knew that this letter would be read by all generations in all places, but Paul didn’t know this, nor, I am quite certain, did he even contemplate the possibility. However, good interpretation, if I can go back to my college classes for a moment, says that you need to know what a text meant in the “then and there” before you can know what it means in the “hear and now.” Or even better, “The text can never mean what it never meant.” So if 1 Thess 4:17 meant to the original hearers that Jesus would return and stay, then it can’t mean that Jesus would return and then go back to heaven with the righteous to us. Not only that, but it contradicts what Revelations 21:1-3 says and the basic picture of God dwelling with mankind from Gen. 2 – Revelations 22. Galatians 4:9-11 I am going to quote David Stern here because he says it better than I could. “…But when Gentiles observe these Jewish holidays neither out of joy in sharing what God has given the Jewish people nor out of spiritual identification with them, but out of fear induced by Judaizers who have convinced them that unless they do these things, God will not accept them, then they are not obeying the Torah but subjugating themselves to legalism; and legalism is just another species of those weak and miserable elemental demonic spirits, no better than the idols left behind. (An alternative interpretation, however, is that the “days, months, seasons, and years” of this passage …refer…to pagan Gentile feasts, naturally and directly reflecting “those weak and miserable elemental spirits.”)” ---end David Stern quote. One way we can know that Paul was not telling the Galatians (and Jews like himself in particular) to not celebrate the Jewish holidays, is because they kept doing so themselves. Even the Gentiles celebrated Passover as can be seen in Eusebius’s Church History. Book 5 # 23 from Paul Maier’s translation, “At that time (180’s AD), no small controversy erupted because all of the Asian dioceses thought the savior’s paschal (Passover) festival should be observed, according to ancient tradition, on the 14th day of the moon, on which the Jews had been commanded to sacrifice the lamb.” The story goes on to say that two groups, both celebrating the Passover as Gentile Christians, thought the fast should end on a different day. However, they all celebrated the Passover. Also by Eusebius, Book 6 #22, “…Hippolytus…wrote “The Paschal Festival”, a chronology offering a sixteen year cycle of dates for the Passover . . .” Those Historians out there may feel free to dispute my understanding of this, since my only source here is a translation of Eusebius. Also the following texts show Paul celebrating the feasts after he wrote Galatians: Act 18:21 But bade them farewell, saying, I must by all means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem: but I will return again unto you, if God will. And he sailed from Ephesus. Act 20:16 For Paul had decided to sail past Ephesus, so that he might not have to spend time in Asia, for he was hastening to be at Jerusalem, if possible, on the day of Pentecost. 1Co 5:8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival . . . Here in 1 Cor 5:8, David Stern says, “I question [the common thought that this is figurative language]. I see no compelling reason in the context to excise the plain sense (p’shat) from the phrase, ‘Let us celebrate the Seder.’ Instead, it seems that the early believers, Gentiles included, observed the Jewish feast Pesach (Passover). As we will see, their service combined traditional Jewish Passover symbolism with the new symbolism relating to Jesus the Messiah’s central role in Jewish and world history. Evidently the Corinthian congregation observed Passover without supposing that, as many of today’s Christians might think, they were “going back under the law.” End quote. MJH |
||||||
235 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153873 | ||
Paul the Torah observant Jew. It’s hard to post on this subject in such a short space, but I shall try. The primary place in scripture to find proof that Paul always saw himself as obedient to the Law of Moses is by reading Acts 21 – 22. (Acts 21:24,26) Here we find Paul just arriving in Jerusalem and James says there are thousands of Jewish believers in Jesus as Messiah who are all zealous for the law [of Moses] and they think Paul is not zealous for the Law and is teaching “JEWS” to ignore the Law [of Moses]. Paul sets out to PROVE to them that he is Torah observant by participating in the Nazarite Vows that some poor members of the community had taken. Paul could have “said” he was observant, but much better he can “show” it by his actions. (see post 152288 and replies for more on this) Paul always held the Torah up in high regard. The argument among the first century Jewish Christians was concerning what the Gentiles had to do. Paul again and again says the Gentiles do not need to convert to Judaism to be saved. There were two types of Gentile believers BEFORE Jesus came. 1) A “God fearer” who believed in the One true God and His word revealed in the Old Testament but who did NOT get circumcised nor follow all of the Mosaic Law. They were expected to follow the Noah Covenant (see post 150100) (which is what Acts 15 mentions as well). 2) A proselytite was a Gentile who became circumcised and became Jewish, following the whole Mosaic Law. The first group came to the temple and had to stay in the “court of the Gentiles” (which was filled with Jews trading and selling so the “God fearers” did not have anyplace to go, thus Jesus and his whip and his “house of prayer for ALL nations” quote.) The second group, the converts, could go into the Jewish sections, they were ritually clean. All this is important to understanding Paul’s view of Gentile Christians. He said they could basically be “God Fearers” who accept Jesus as the Messiah to be saved and be a complete member of the community (not divided by the dividing wall). To Paul there was no longer any difference between Jew and Gentile in the eyes of God in relation to salvation. The book of Ezekiel also predicts the wall of separation would be taken away in the days of the Messiah. Paul did not tell Jews to stop following the Law of Moses (he circumcised Timothy after all). He DID preach against legalism among Jews as did Jesus. Legalism is the idea that salvation is by following commandments (so a person following commandments is not a legalist unless he believes that his ability to do so earns him salvation.) The Old Testament NEVER teaches this idea (even if many 1st century Jewish Rabbis did.) The Old Testament is a grace based religion. God did not change. The Passover is a celebration of this grace based salvation which came before the commandments. So Paul did not require Gentiles to follow the “Law of Moses” to be saved, but he did not tell Jews to stop following the Law of Moses (Acts 21:20-21). Paul followed all of the Law according to both his and Jesus interpretation. He did not follow the law according to the interpretation of some rabbis of his time which was a legalistic or works based faith that was contrary to the Law itself. I really had to cut this short….I had an outline that was simply too long for a forum. I assume that this simple post will not be enough to make my point, but I’ll see what you think of this first. It’s a real joy to discuss…. MJH |
||||||
236 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153667 | ||
Woops. Did I do that? Contridict myself in the same thread? Wow! I suppose that I always assumed that "most people" viewed the rapture as I did, but I do not actually know what "most people" think in a scientific sense. As for the discussion on Paul and his attitude toward the Jewish faith in our other discussion, I will get back to you when I have more than just a few minutes.... looking forward to more thoughtfull dialogue. MJH |
||||||
237 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153604 | ||
Thank you for jumping in… I do understand the importance of approaching a scripture both in the immediate context and in the context of the whole of scripture. I also believe that one should attemp as best as one can to understand what the original author meant when he wrote. To do this, an historical understanding is important. Paul was writing to a certain people at a certain time who had a certain religion, and he had a particular message he wanted to communicate to them. If we understand their world we better understand the letter. Also, Paul was a Pharisee, raised as a Jew in the capital of the Jewish religious world, and trained by the eminent Jewish Rabbi of the time (Gamaliel grandson of Hillel). Also, neither Paul nor any of the first Jewish Believers renounced Judaism, but rather remained Jews and practiced their Jewish faith, and remained observant to the Torah (or Law of Moses). So what the first century Jewish thought about the End Times, does make at least some difference in how we understand Paul's writings. Paul differed with Judaism in one way, that being how the LORD relates to Gentiles. (He also differed from non-believing Jews on the Person of the Messiah--obviously.) Also, the whole of scripture only shows one direction when it comes to people being with the Lord, and that is always the LORD coming to dwell with mankind, not the reverse. With the exception of 1 Thess 4:17, I challenge you to find scriptures that show otherwise. (Not individual's, but believers or people groups as a whole.) Since 1 Thess is the only scripture that does not fit the common pattern (unless anyone knows of another), one asks why? And the historical context -- of which the Thessalonians would be very much aware -- explains this: That being that these verses mirror the events of an Emperor entering a city or town. The trumpet would blast, the people would coming out to meet the Emperor, and they would return to the city (not Rome). My contention is that a believer in Thessalonica would have understood these verses to mean: that the Lord would return, that they would either literally, or figuratively meet Him in the air, (the dead rising first) and then return to Earth or their town to worship Him (and not worship the Emperor as would happen in the historical version.) I may very well be wrong, I have been before, but I'd like to be shown to be wrong, since I think I have a pretty good case for my position. MJH |
||||||
238 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153603 | ||
To be honest, I do not know. I think that God is up in Heaven looking at all of the End Times charts with His hand around His Son's shoulder and saying, "You know, I'm going to send you back down there just as soon as I can figure these things out." It's a little joke to lighten the mood, but to drive home a point that some quite intellegent people seem to come to different conclusions on the matter. I believe it is an important subject, but have not developed my own strong set of beliefs at this point. I can be dogmatic (too much so) on many Biblical and Theological points, but not this one. I would like suggestions of good books. And by "good books", I mean by people who really dug into the textual issue AND the historical context of these writtings. MJH |
||||||
239 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153601 | ||
I do not know what MOST people view the rapture to be... a poll might help clear that up. I have always seen the rapture as the dead AND living being taken from Earth while non-believers are left on Earth wondering what just happend to these "Christians." So resurrection was always a part of it, but not equal to a rapture. (How many people were resurrected when Jesus was? Was that a rapture? I assume no... but the rapture would include resurrections.) This is NOT necessarily my belief of the end times, but my understanding of the term in answer to your question. MJH |
||||||
240 | New Wine vs. Fermented | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 153498 | ||
Hello again Doc, According to my favorite Archeology book, "Life in Biblical Israel" by Philip King, and Lowrence Stager, wine was fermented and "wine culture was well developed in the period of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the first half of the first millennium B.C." Also, "The pomace of the grape was 'distilled' into grappa, a brandy. The simple technology for its production was available in the Bronze Age...20 to 60 percent alcoholic content." Hos. 4:11 "Wine (yayin) and new wine (tiros) take away the understanding." Isa 5:11 Isaiah denounces those "who rise early in the morning in pursuit of strong wine(sekar) who linger in the evening to be inflamed by wine (yayin)." See also, "The Origins and Ancient History of Wine", by Patrick McGovern New Wine: (tiros) is “newly fermented wine, or simply wine”. (asis) is “juice”. (Yayin) is simply “wine.” There are nine words in the Hebrew text for wine, but not necessarily meaning a different kind of wine, but rather distinguishing its origin. Given this understanding, “New Wine” was still fermented, and since there is a Hebrew word for “Juice,” I doubt that TIROS would mean juice as well. I got most of this information from the book listed at the top. I never knew this morning that I was going to delve so deeply into the Hebrew and Archeology of wine….. It’s always good to discuss things with you, Doc! MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ] Next > Last [17] >> |