Results 261 - 280 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140066 | ||
Opps, I left 2 posts to the same question. One to you, and one to the original poster. My answer to the question was in post 140036, and since it is short, I will re-post below. Sorry for the confussion. In short: Salvation is a free gift of forgiveness since we can never pay the price for our sin. Jesus freely paid that price and we have total forgiveness in Him. Yet, we must accept Him and repent of our sin. This is where I disagreed with you. "Nothing" would mean just that, "nothing" which would mean, no belief, no repentance, no acceptance, nothing. post 140036 . . . Act 2:37-38 “Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the emissaries, "Brothers, what shall we do?" Peter said to them, "Repent, and be immersed, every one of you, in the name of Jesus the Messiah for the forgiveness of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (HNT) The term, shubh (Hebrew), is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. TO TURN BACK – implies to turn back to something. This is most likely the word John the Baptist used in the desert when immersing people. (Or the Greek or Arabic equivalent). The same for Acts when Peter says the people need to repent and be immersed. (Baptism was a very common practice in those days and they would have all known what it was a picture of in relation to repentance.) So what is required for Salvation? Simple answer, “Repentance.” Although repenting implies the following: 1. you believe in the One true God; 2. you believe you have fallen short of what God requires. 3) Jesus is the Messiah; 4) His death and resurrection are sufficient to redeem you. Since you are “turning back” it might also be helpful to know to what you are turning back to. MJH |
||||||
262 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140065 | ||
Wait a minute. You said that "if hiltler asked." But that is not what you said in your first post. Your first post made it clear that hitler wouldn't NEED to ask or desire a relationship. You said "nothing" was required. I agree, one can never "pay" for salvation as my post stated. Your original post said you need to do "nothing" (which includes not needing to "seek" nor "ask" for salvation.) I responded that one must "repent" and that doing so required a trusting belief. Note: I did not say "pay" for your sins or anything else. Now your post is restating what I said. So in the end, we seem to agree. After all, if Hitler repented and asked, then yup, saved! MJH |
||||||
263 | fishing for comments, on these scripture | John 2:1 | MJH | 140053 | ||
Hank. I'm wondering if this diasperio guy, and the other guy a couple of days ago who swore and is now gone, isn't a double for one of the regular new posters to the Forum. This guy, who is undoubtably the same guy/gal who posted rude statements earlier, seems to follow an interesting pattern. Maybe you or others see similarities, or maybe not. Post 139997 made me wonder. MJH |
||||||
264 | What is required for Salvation? | John 17:3 | MJH | 140052 | ||
Your answer is misleading. Under your answer Hitler is saved. Or, those who flew planes into the World Trade center are saved. They after all did nothing. It is said, “Salvation is a free gift.” But that implies that we can not “pay” the price required for the forgiveness of our own sins. It does not imply that we can live intentionally apart from God, neither believing in Him, nor accepting His forgiveness through Jesus’ sacrifice. And, welcome to the forum. It's fun and challenging. MJH |
||||||
265 | fishing for comments, on these scripture | John 2:1 | MJH | 140049 | ||
In retrospect, on this thread, He-man might actually have gotten it right all along. :-) | ||||||
266 | Where's rapture - zeal of the revolution | John 2:1 | MJH | 140048 | ||
Okay people, we have got to learn that when someone joins simply to cause problems, the best thing to do is to not respond to their posts anymore. We look foolish falling into these set-ups. | ||||||
267 | Where's rapture - zeal of the revolution | John 2:1 | MJH | 140047 | ||
Okay people, we have got to learn that when someone joins simply to cause problems, the best thing to do is to not respond to their posts anymore. We look foolish falling into these set-ups. | ||||||
268 | Where's rapture - zeal of the revolution | John 2:1 | MJH | 140046 | ||
Okay people, we have got to learn that when someone joins simply to cause problems, the best thing to do is to not respond to their posts anymore. We look foolish falling into these set-ups. | ||||||
269 | 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. |
||||||
270 | 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 |
||||||
271 | 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 |
||||||
272 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139881 | ||
Point well taken. | ||||||
273 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139880 | ||
Dr Bivin was not a womanizer!!!! I simply wanted to make a strong point that whether Hebrew was spoken in Israel in Jesus time or not had nothing to do with knowing God. You said, "If something is in error, how can it be without error? :-)" How do you deal with differences in the synopic Gospels? MJH |
||||||
274 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139869 | ||
Yes, Bivin and others make the mistake in my opinion of going a bit too far with the Hebrew (or “pet theory” as you called it.) Bivin in his book even states something to the effect that you can not understand the Gospels apart from putting them back into their Hebrew context. This statement could have been stated better, such as; "Understanding the Hebrew language, idioms, and Hebraic culture and teachings common during Jesus time adds considerably to our understanding of Jesus words as I (Bivin) will show in this book. In fact, many of our inabilities to understand difficult words of Jesus can be solved from this study." That way of stating things may not be agreed upon by all, but it doesn't make it seem as though one can not understand the Gospels apart from knowing Hebrew which is just not true. You are right in saying we must examine the text as we have it. I'm not sure that the theory states that they could not "think" in Greek; but if they spoke Hebrew as their main language, then use of another language will be effected (usually). And yes, God is more than able to convey His message in any language. Even apart from any knowledge of Hebraic culture, the full force of the message is clear. And finally you state that the JP site says, ". . . the most effective way to approach a passage from the synoptic gospels is, first, to put its Greek text into Hebrew, . . ." This is their opinion, not doctrine. Also they say “most effective way” and not “only way.” People may have serious problems with the approach, but then others have problems with Calvin's approach and still others with Armenian’s approach. All in all, I think their study adds considerably to a continued discussion and search for an accurate knowledge and understanding of God. MJH |
||||||
275 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139868 | ||
I can't stop . . . I need help. :-) | ||||||
276 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139867 | ||
You said,“In this article, he takes a very low few of the gospels. He accepts triple source theory and states that Luke was wrong in his chronology.” Concerning Lindsey’s article “Four Keys for Better Understanding Jesus”. Robert Lindsey (the late) was a Jew who translated the Gospels into Hebrew. This apparently was one thing that sent him on course to spend the majority of his life studying the “Synoptic Gospels”. A note: Lindsey and David Flusser (also passed away I believe) are held in very high regard for their knowledge of all the Biblical Languages, as well as modern Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, modern Greek, and German, English, and who knows what else. I mention this to provide them with the appropriate respect for the immense study they both achieved. But they are not infallible of course. I did not see that Lindsey took a “very low few of the Gospels.” After all he spent his whole life studying them. The article in question, while fascinating, was quite hard for me to follow at times. 1) Lindsey advocated a 1 source theory. This 1 source called by him the “Anthology” was used to also produce a short source that divided up the first into narrative, teaching, parables. Then Luke, Mark, and Matt, according to Lindsey, had knowledge of different versions, not to mention some knowing the other’s Gospel. He put Luke first, then Mark and then Matt. (See how convoluted and odd this is getting? But, Lindsey should be given at least some examination by those, who study the Synoptic “problem”). 2) Obviously the synoptic Gospels pose a so called “problem.” Even first time readers can see this when reading. I myself spent minimal time on this issue. I don’t think it’s a “problem” in the normal sense of the word. 3) The three synoptic Gospels do not always agree on chronology. This cannot be disputed, I assume. Therefore one has to either always have a tension, or try to determine which chronology is correct. If you decide that one is accurate, then the other is not. After all, both can not be correct. Does this give a “low few of the Gospels?” I don’t think so. They are all divinely inspired and without error; however, that does not preclude that chronology HAS to agree and that one of the Gospel writers could not have gotten it wrong. Getting the chronology right does not change the Truth at all. 4) I personally think Matt was first; but I am not an authority on the issue. Also, Lindsey betrays the theory that all the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew when he states, “I encountered certain repeated words and expressions that resisted translation into Hebrew.” Okay, this is about the article that you found disturbing. I don’t think it is disturbing, but I also do not have the same understanding of languages and the synoptic problem that you may have. Thanks, by the way, for following this with me. I think I am learning and it helps to have people walk through things with you so you keep your feet on solid ground! My own uneducated thinking is this: Matt. wrote first and wrote in Hebrew. Jesus taught in Hebrew when in the Galilee, but did not when in the Decapolis, Caesariea Phillipi (when speaking to “the crowd”), and I am unsure when in Symaria, and on the way to Tyre and Sidon. In Jerusalem he may have spoken Aramaic or Greek during the festivals since the Jews and Gentiles from outside the Land were present, and particularly when facing Pilot and while hanging on the cross (hmmm, not sure about that?) However, He very well could have said many things in Hebrew as well in Jerusalem, particularly when telling a parable, but who knows? Judging from the pure historical evidence, it seems very likely, though not conclusive, that the commoner spoke Hebrew. Be it Mishnaic, Ancient, or some variant, the evidence uncovered by archeology and the Dead Sea scrolls all point to this besides the text itself. The Sermon on the Mount is classic Hebrew and in our current article of discussion you will note the mention of a Jewish scholar who said, “If you listen carefully, you can hear Jesus speaking Hebrew!” And some strong Aramaic theorists have recently admitted that Jews in Jesus time spoke Hebrew as a common tongue. This is what I think about spoken languages only (and Matt writing in Hebrew). But as far as their being a ‘Q’ source, or a Hebrew source, or that all the Gospel writers wrote in Hebrew first; these things I have no strong opinions on, and would assume that at least Luke would have written in Greek, and probably Mark as well. I see no reason to think otherwise, but Bivin thinks they all wrote in Hebrew. The reason I push Bivin’s book is because he gives all the evidence for the Jews in Jesus’ time speaking Hebrew as a common language. And even if Bivin was a womanizing atheist who hated God, the case wouldn’t change since it is historical and scientific, and does not have a barring on my, nor anyone else’s, faith I hope. God bless thanks for the great discussion. MJH |
||||||
277 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139822 | ||
So you're up late too. I think I am addicted. |
||||||
278 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139821 | ||
Ahh I found it. You were looking in the Forum. But what is written there is no more a reflection of Bivin than what others on this Forum say is a reflection of you. Are we not all glad of that. The forum is "watched" but not controlled. And, even though I am not discussing Hebrew being spoken by Jesus in the Galalie for reasons earlier stated, don't forget we are talking about an historical issue. An athiet could just as well make the point. But no more on that . . . Thanks for checking the JP site. I appreciate your care. MJH |
||||||
279 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139819 | ||
Tim, I checked out Jerusalem Perspective again, and I can not find what you found. "For instance, the site advocates the view that Judas did not in fact betray Jesus. In response to the many challenges that this statement generated, the remark was made that 'Matthew CHANGED Mark's account' of the story." Help me out here. I'd like to know. I have read many articles, and where I don't subscribe to all of them, I haven't found anything outrages like you have. God bless, MJH |
||||||
280 | they would not have crucified the Lord | Joel 2:3 | MJH | 139781 | ||
BradK, Let me help you understand He-man . . . Num 28:15 And one kid of the goats for a sin offering unto the LORD shall be offered, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering. Luk 14:24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. 2Sa 19:35 I am this day fourscore years old: and can I discern between good and evil? can thy servant taste what I eat or what I drink? can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women? wherefore then should thy servant be yet a burden unto my lord the king? Dan 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. Deu 26:15 Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest unto our fathers, a land that floweth with milk and honey. 2Sa 17:29 And honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David, and for the people that were with him, to eat: for they said, The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness. Act 13:22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Eph 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; I DO HOPE THIS CLEARS EVERYTHING UP! MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [17] >> |