Results 261 - 280 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | MJH | 200715 | ||
Hey, Doc It's been a long time. Good to see you are still around these parts. I do not dislike the NASB nor the Amplified translations. The amplified of course is more interpretation, but is real nice for reading and an additional resource. When reading Romans 2 recently, I noticed while crossing over this familiar passage a pause that made me wonder if there shouldn't be at least a look at changing the translation. My reason was because in many other parts of scripture it seems obvious that "no one seeks God and no one does good, not even one." So why would Paul attempt to say that non-regenerate Gentiles would "do what the Law requires." Second, I have am not currently in favor of assuming that Paul is dividing the Law up here into only "common" law (do not murder, do not steal) or even a so called Noahidic Law common to all peoples. So in re-reading the English text (since I don't read Greek unfortunately) I put in mind that these were Gentiles who were "regenerate" (ie. Christians to use our term). Then the Text made some sense: the Jews, who were "in the flesh" born into the covenant and grew up with the Law and heard it read weekly or more, were in reality not "doing it"; but, the Gentiles who were not "in the flesh" born into the covenant, but grafted into Israel through the faith of Abraham, were now actually hearing and doing the Law. “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Furthermore, the Law is “written on their hearts” still speaking of Gentiles. This is drawing back on Jeremiah 31, which speaks of the whole Law and also speaks only of Israel, therefore in Romans 11 Paul speaks of how the Gentiles are grafted into Israel. If the Law is written on their hearts, it must be the Holy Spirit that does this, and this also means they must be regenerate Gentiles, not random pagans in any culture. Therefore: “…when Gentiles, who do not have by nature the Law [of Moses], do the things required by the Law [of Moses], they are …” Also, this change (not in the Greek, but in the translation) that I propose does not in anyway change the argument that Paul is making. The only real practical change is that a lot of sermons based on “all cultures” having a common law because we were all created in the Image of God, etc… will need to find a different passage to preach from. Doc, I was waiting to reply until I had more time, but when your response also came, I couldn’t resist. Then I remembered that on this forum, I like to test some of my thinking out even before I have had time to really organize and confirm or not confirm my thinking. It’s nice to have a place where a person can think out loud. MJH |
||||||
262 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | MJH | 200687 | ||
Are there any Greek scholars out there? I'd like to know if the Greek of this verse can be translated as below. I'm not asking if you think in should be, but rather can it be translated this way without violating the rules of Greek? "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law by nature, do what the Law requires, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves" Note: the main change is in where to apply the word "nature." If I can find someone to verify (double source) this possible translation for me, that would be helpful since I am ignorant of Greek syntax and structure. Also, every known English translation puts "nature" the same way . . . "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law, do by nature ..." Thanks, MJH |
||||||
263 | 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 |
||||||
264 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193494 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the response. See my other note about the Acts verses. Colossians 2:16 and on. (I have my Bible now). vs. 16 says “Therefore”, and proceeds to mention four things prescribed by the Torah and says that they ought not to let others Judge them on these things because they are a shadow of things to come, the reality being Jesus. (ie. this isn't a Plato shadow theory. Paul is using the shadow in the since that Jesus casts a shadow, and these things are that shadow.) THEN Paul mentions two things that are taught against in the Torah (worshiping Angels and false humility) and claims these things are "based on human commands and teachings" as opposed to God's commands and teachings. Then he ends it in Chapter 3:2 with, "Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things." The two are here again, heavenly things (ie things from God0 and Earthly things (ie things form man--which would include the "works of the law" that Paul mentions in Galatians") I see the two as separate and not a part of the same line of thinking. Paul is contrasting. I do not see Paul saying that both worship of Angels is bad and following God's appointed times is bad. What do you think? (please disregard my original question that started all of this.) MJH |
||||||
265 | 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 |
||||||
266 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 193489 | ||
You are correct. Paul did not, as is often thought, convert to a new religion, nor did he stop observing the Torah AS IT OUGHT to have been observed. Since most of the Jews believed that Salvation was obtained by being Jewish, they felt very strongly about converting Gentiles to be Jews in order to receive salvation. Paul teaches against this. Most Christians believe that the Jews of Jesus day believe that they had to earn salvation by obeying the Law, but this is not accurate as can be seen in the very large amount of writing during this time. There were other problems Paul had to face. After he left, "Judiazers" came in and convinced many that circumcision was "required" and they also brought their traditions (oral law) that were extra Biblical. Paul becomes IRATE at this and blasts back with a very serious letter where he uses the term "works of the law." Paul is adamant that the Gentiles do not need to become a Jew and follow all of these absurd rules to earn salvation. They are saved by Grace, through faith, JUST AS THE JEWS are. Paul did not live long enough to see the new religion of Christianity come about. To him, he was leading a new sect of Judaism, and even those who did not believe in Jesus as Messiah saw them as a sect, not a separate religion. Historically around the 90’s and again in the second century when the Jews were being persecuted, Gentile Christians separated themselves. Also during this time the Jewish community introduced a new prayer in there service which basically made it impossible for Jesus believers to participate. Unfortunately, many people still today use Paul’s words to claim that the Torah was done away with as if God changes His mind. The worst is when they claim the “Spiritual Israel” ie. Christians replace Israel. I suppose I am preaching to the choir with you on this….but one thing to keep in mind; you most likely will not convince many that you are correct. Certain things are very strongly ingrained into the mind and theology and these things do not change very easily and for good reason. I have taken 6 full years to reach the point where I am now. I have practically become a historian, Hebrew scholar, and nearly have the books of Galatians and Hebrews put to memory. I’ve read so much on the culture, religion and the times Jesus lived in that I’ve had to add book shelves to my office, and still it was very difficult. Most people who disagree, even those who are “replacements” like my own family, are very good strong faithful believers who will have a secure place in the World to Come. Their’s has been the predominate teaching for hundreds of years, so there is a lot of solid interpretation behind it. God bless, MJH |
||||||
267 | Followers of "The Way" - meaning? | Acts 9:2 | MJH | 193465 | ||
Cheri, THANKS! This is the answer I was hoping someone would confirm to me. Do you remember where you heard this? Maybe our source is the same? God bless....I'm so excited! Notice: The Cherubim were on the curtain separating us from the Holy of Holies and it was over the cover of the Ark of the Covenant. (These were in the Temple even though the Law said, No Image from Heaven above or the Earth below for the sea.) Cherubim are from heaven above, and yet here they are. Must be important right? Then the curtain rips and they "way" to God through the blood (you can't get into the Holy of Holies without blood) of Jesus is made. Again, thanks, and I'd love to hear where you heard this. MJH |
||||||
268 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193464 | ||
Cheri, You said you are doing a study on Hebrews. Is this through your local church or something available on line through MP3 or Commentary? Just curious. I am also in a Hebrews study and the more info the better. MJH |
||||||
269 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193463 | ||
Doc, How do you view: 1) Jesus Zeal for the House of God; both the prophesy and the act of clearing the temple of money changers? 2) The Apostles participating in "The Prayers" in Acts 2, and their "continually" going to the Temple? 3) Paul eager to get back to Jerusalem to participate in the Temple and the feast? 4) Paul participating in sacrificing at the Temple in Acts 21-23. 5) The Text (I am without my Bible right now so I forget the exact reference) where Paul says, "Do not let anyone judge you on account of feasts, new moon, Sabbaths, etc... These things ARE the shadow of Messiah who is the reality." (Some translations add "mere" or place this is the past tense erroneously.) I always appreciate your dedication to knowing God and serving Him on this forum. MJH |
||||||
270 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193462 | ||
First, thank you for your well thought out response. I do appreciate it any time someone seriously provides an answer to a question concerning Scripture. Curious, however, how you might view Paul in light of Acts 21 and on. James (the Righteous/Just) and Paul seem to be hatching a plan to prove something to the Jewish believers in Jesus as the Messiah who are all “zealous for the Law." What is it that they are trying to prove to the "Hebrews" or the Messianic Jews in Jerusalem? MJH |
||||||
271 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193414 | ||
the "we" includes any who call Jesus Lord and Savior. This would include both Jews and Gentiles in our current period. MJH |
||||||
272 | Wearing the clothes of the Priests? | Lev 19:19 | MJH | 193406 | ||
If the law of God said that you are not to wear a garment of linen mixed with wool because this was the garment worn by the priests serving in the Temple, then in the New Covenant where we are all a Kingdom of Priests, are we permitted to wear linen and wool mixed? Yes, any time. No, never. Yes, but only when. . . Curious what you think. My question assumes that the Law of Moses is still valid, that the prohibition was because the priests wore wool and linen mixed. MJH |
||||||
273 | Followers of "The Way" - meaning? | Acts 9:2 | MJH | 193401 | ||
I was wondering if anyone had any input on the meaning of the first Jewish believers in Jesus being called "the Way?" I have had my opinion in the past and I have just heard a new one that sounds even better, but I'd like confirmation. I thought I would through this out here and see if any one confirms my thinking. Thanks for any ideas.... MJH |
||||||
274 | Confused? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 192309 | ||
Doc, Yes, Jesus is the living fulfillment of the Torah. You are correct that he is much more than a teacher. When I wrote that Jesus did not add to the laws, I had in mind first and foremost the command in Deut. 12:32 that says, "See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it." But yes, Lev 19:18 is relevant as well. Jesus is obviously alluding to this commandment. It is new in as much as it is Jesus himself, the Messiah, who tells us that to love ones neighbor as oneself is fulfilled by loving as he as loved. Love for oneself can be unhealthy at times and loving ones neighbor as oneself is a very open ended command. Jesus is putting a finer point on this command by saying, "I have showed you how to love and you being my disciples should do likewise." And of course his love was sacrificial, servant like, and absolute. It's new in the sense that we have a new picture to relate the command of love to, but it is not new in that the Torah did not already command us to love our neighbors. Of course if Jesus did add a totally new commandment, he would have broken a commandment nullifying his ability to be the unblemished perfect sacrifice for our sins. Thanks for giving me an opportunity to flesh out that statement in my pervious post. I was wondering if someone might catch that… MJH |
||||||
275 | Confused? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 192299 | ||
Jesus did not change the "letter" of the law because if he did he couldn't be the Messiah. Deut. 13 warns of a prophet that would come even doing miracles but if that prophet tried to take Israel away from the commands of Moses, then that was a false prophet. Too many Christians turn Jesus into someone he was not. Jesus also did not "spiritualize" the commands. What he did do, however, (to help you with your argument) was to correctly interpret the commands in both how they were originally intended to be understood and how they ought to be applied in their current situation. The Pharisees (not all of them) were heaping on mounds of oral tradition (oral law) and put all of the focus on those laws, most of which had to do with "holiness" commands (ie. clean and unclean) and neglected the mercy and justice laws that Jesus (and some other 1st century Rabbis) taught were "greater." Nowhere do we see Jesus ending any laws (like the food laws) or adding to the laws (like the Law to Love each other.) Until Christians see Jesus in his own context and among His own people they will continue to miss his point and teaching (or at least many of them...most Christians do get the heart of the teaching). But even the teaching on the "Kingdom of God/Heaven" that He spent most of his time on is still misunderstood by us today as if it has to do with "going to Heaven." It is very important, however, to understand the Living Walking in the Flesh Torah Logos of God did not change, end, nor supplant the very Word that He was. Everything in the Torah and the Prophets and the New Testament tells us this. MJH |
||||||
276 | Confused? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 192289 | ||
You said, "Subsequently, the laws of Moses which the scribes and the Pharisees insisted that people follow, was replaced by the teachings of Jesus" How can the teachings of Jesus replace the laws of Moses when the teachings of Jesus were the laws of Moses? MJH |
||||||
277 | What was in the cup, wine? | Mark 14:25 | MJH | 192278 | ||
we have to remember that in those days water was in most cases almost undrinkable - This is not true. Thus wine was the easily available cheap alternative -- This is also not true (the cheap part anyway) The water in Ephesus was particularly bitter -- This very well may be the case, but this is not in Jerusalem nor Galilee. Jesus certainly did drink wine at the Passover (as stated already in this thread) but nowhere that I have found does it say it was mixed with water or a "weak" version. These are often argument used by those who want to prohibit alcohol by their members, but it's not based in accurate history (at least that I have ever found.) If a church body wants to prohibit the stuff, they have the Biblical right to do so under the "binding and loosing" given by Jesus to his followers. Of course some read these verses differently too, but oh well. MJH |
||||||
278 | Abstaining from things strangled, blood? | Acts 15:20 | MJH | 192276 | ||
Jews in Jesus day believed that "God fearers", those Gentiles who believed in the One true God but were not circumsised into Israel, were to follow the Noahic covenant in which they found 7 laws. You can do a search of my name "mjh" and "noah" to find many more details on this. Acts 15 requirements are all found in what the Jews saw in the Noah covenant which was given to all peoples. Those that were not included in Acts 15 were not necessary because they were already a part of the rule of law among the Gentiles. Sorry that this is so scant, but it's late and I did post a lot on this in the past. MJH |
||||||
279 | Abstaining from things strangled, blood? | Acts 15:20 | MJH | 192275 | ||
Are these upheld today as being necessary things and if not, why? YES. Since you didn't ask "why" for a "yes" response, I will not give one.... :-) |
||||||
280 | Confused? | Bible general Archive 3 | MJH | 192273 | ||
Dear Confused believer, You are right to be confused by this teaching. You site some examples but there are many many more that contradict the idea that the Law of Moses was abolished. My favorite text to site for those who take of that belief is Acts 21 and on. Paul and James attempt to prove to the thousands of Jews in Jerusalem that accept Jesus as the Messiah that Paul is not only following the Torah (laws of Moses) himself, but never taught otherwise to the Jews in other cities. I have enjoyed the study material by FFOZ (First Fruits of Zion) quite a bit. They have a "Torah Club" which is Christian but could be very helpful IF you could find others in your area who are also in the Bible study. All this being said, there are very diverse understandings of Scripture among Christians. Most of them will be perfectly fine to become involved with. I, and others on this forum may have strong disagreements with certain doctrines and the such, but in the end we will all be eating at the Feast with the Messiah in the World to come. Don't allow these "arguments" about doctrine derail your faith. But keep learning and if you find you need to find others who are closer to you in their understanding of the Word of God, then make a change. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [29] >> |