Results 261 - 280 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
261 | "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 |
||||||
262 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139868 | ||
I can't stop . . . I need help. :-) | ||||||
263 | "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 |
||||||
264 | "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 |
||||||
265 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139881 | ||
Point well taken. | ||||||
266 | Did Jesus speak Greek in this verse? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 181756 | ||
I was wondering if any of you thought Jesus actually used the Greek language in this verse? I am not sure how else this would make sense. The play on words works in Greek, but does it work in Hebrew? Jesus was in a Greek pagan region, and I suppose it is possible he used Greek supposing some locals were there at this time who didn't speak Hebrew, but it is perplexing to me. Any thoughts? MJH |
||||||
267 | Did Jesus speak Greek in this verse? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 181770 | ||
What language Jesus normally spoke in is not my question. I know the answer to that, but this verse if originally spoken in any other language than Greek does not have the word play that Jesus is using. That is why when reading it this time, I was struck with a "hmmmm, that's weird, I wonder?" question. It's actually not that important to understanding the text etc... but I get inquisitive about this stuff sometimes. I don't know enough about Semitic languages to know how it would have sounded in those languages, but in English, the whole play on words is lacking. MJH |
||||||
268 | Did Jesus speak Greek in this verse? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 181820 | ||
Thanks for the reply. Another good book is "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" by Bivin. But most on this forum stick stubernly to the Aramaic theory unfortunately. MJH |
||||||
269 | Matthew 16 | Matt 16:28 | MJH | 139477 | ||
Matt 16:28 "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (NIV) Read the very next chapter of Matthew for you answer. If you still have a question, reply to this post and maybe we can walk through it. MJH |
||||||
270 | Did my dad go to heaven or hell? | Matt 18:3 | MJH | 166871 | ||
Tyronesedeno, A book that may be helpful in your search for answers would be "The Last Word and the Word After That" by Brian McLaren. It is written as a story but is about the topic of hell. A fictional pastor in the story is searching and has conversations with people in his life.....makes a theological question easier to read. MJH |
||||||
271 | Seventy times seven equals 490 | Matt 18:22 | MJH | 214773 | ||
"Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" The first brother conflict was with Cain and Able and it didn't end well. God said that if anyone did anything to Cain in revenge, God will avenge him 7 times. In Gen 4, Lemech says that he killed a young man for wounding him. He then says if Cain is avenged 7 times, then Lemech will be avenged 70 x 7 times. Where God would avenge Cain, Lemech would avenge himself. This started a chain of events that led to the Flood. When Peter asks if he should forgive 7 times, he is getting this from the Cain and Able story and God's statement. Jesus takes it the next step and repeats the opposite of Lemech's law. Not revenge, but forgive. Forgiveness ends the problem while revenge continues it and makes it worse. That is the way of the Kingdom of Life, the Kingdom of God. MJH |
||||||
272 | Is 1 free if divorce not due 2 adultery? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144172 | ||
Searcher56 – (I know it is long, but I tried real hard, so forgive me) It’s been awhile, so I will try to tackle this one and see where it goes. :-) I’m going to deal with Luke 16:18 here for reasons that make sense below. Also, I will provide some context, some Greek verb stuff, and THEN answer your question. Luk 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” Divorce was one of the 8 great debates of the first century, thus the reason He is asked the question (Matt. 19:3). The 2 schools of thought were Hillel and Shammai. Jesus sides 7 times with Hillel and 1 time with Shammai. With divorce Jesus agreed with Shammai. (Hillel said you could divorce for “burnt toast.”) It is, of course, important to value the context, which I know you all know I bring up a lot. Jesus did not equate divorce and remarriage with adultery, as is often thought. Prohibiting divorce would abrogate the Torah passage Deut. 24:1-2. Jesus was intent on interpreting the Torah properly, but he did not want to destroy it. Another context can be seen in the Mishnah (Sotah 5.1) where a woman who is divorced because of an adulterous relationship is not permitted to marry the man with whom she had an affair. (Most of the Mishnah was taught before and during Jesus’ time, but not all.) - Context is used here NOT to change Jesus words or their meaning, but to help see the world as it was during the time he said these words. - Divorce for the SAKE of remarriage was therefore also adultery. When we look at the Luke 16:18, the verbs “divorce” and “marry” are in the present tense. (The parallel in Mark 10:11 put them in the subjective mood.” (see note below). Also, the conjunction “and” was often intended to express purpose. Re-wording the translation of the Greek into English to better capture the original meaning might be, “Every one who divorces his wife [in order] to marry another commits adultery.” “In light of the Mishnah passage in Sotah, if a man marries a woman who obtained a divorce merely for the sake of her second marriage, then it is considered adultery. Divorce is not adultery” and neither is remarriage. (see note below) Answer to your question. Divorce is allowed, but not divorce simply for the sake of convinces, whether that be to marry another or simply to avoid responsibility. Divorce for the sake of abuse, adultery, and any other things that fit under the term “unfaithfulness” is Biblically okay. If a spouse divorces un-Lawfully, then their partner is made free and permitted to remarry without committing adultery. (1Co 7:15 “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”) I understand that you said that “Unbelief” is not a part of the issue in your stated situation, but I think the “rule” here can still be applied. It was not the choice of the innocent partner to divorce, so if their spouse acts in an unbelieving manner by divorcing for illegitimate reasons, the spouse who is left is free (not enslaved.) Luke 16:18b “He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” This is the same idea only this time the woman is divorcing. So if a woman was divorced by her husband because her husband wanted another woman or simply because he didn’t liker her or she “burnt his toast”, then she would be free to re-marry. But if she divorced for the reason to marry another, then to marry her would be adultery. These things can get very complicated and so in the end we need to use our understanding of scripture on a WHOLE and apply it. We ought not to take one statement within the text and try to make situations fit, and thereby nullify other commands in the process. This was the BIG mistake of the Pharisees. Example: they took the Sabbath laws separate from the rest of the Torah, and applied them. They were correct in the letter of the one command, but wrong in interpreting the Torah as a whole. Jesus corrected them on this, and “loved His neighbor” by healing on the Sabbath. We too can take divorce laws out of the text and apply them to the letter correctly, but actually be misinterpreting the text on a whole at the same time. MJH |
||||||
273 | MJH, Where does the Bible add abuse? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144209 | ||
Thank you for making me put more meat on this issue. To begin with, Jesus and Paul being silent on this issue does not mean that it is not scriptural. The overriding text on divorce is Deut. 24:1-5. All other text interpret this one either loosely or strictly. Jesus and Paul were very strict, but their comments do not touch on abuse specifically. Deut. 24 says that if a "man" finds. I am going to take this to also mean "woman" and argue that in our post messianic times (and probably before) this was most certainly applicable both ways (see Mark 10:12). The reason for divorce here in Deut. is "anything displeasing." What Jesus was dealing with was a gross miss-application of this law that said, "anything displeasing" is literally anything and everything that causes the man to be displease in any form. (Such as burnt food.) Had Jesus been asked the specific question of “gross abuse” of a wife by a husband there is no doubt in my mind that He would find this a "displeasing" issue that fit Deut 24. (note: Jesus made the law more strict AND more loose in the same statement in Mark 10:12 by including the passage to mean, “If a wife finds a husband . . .”) And then we need to take the scripture as a whole. The scripture speaks of LIFE, not death. Of reconciliation, not divorce. Of protection for the weak, not abuse. Taking people OUT OF BONDAGE not placing them in it. Some texts that apply to relationships in general: Lev 19:16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. Lev 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. (All apply equally to a wife.) Lev 19:33 "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. Lev 19:34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (If this is how they were to treat foreigners, then even more applies to the native born and yet more to the wife.) None of these texts apply specifically to the issue of abuse in marriage, but as stated before, one must look at the whole of scripture when attempting to apply it to an issue not specifically addressed in scripture. I believe that gross abuse of a spouse falls under the guidelines of “anything displeasing” since such acts are OBVIOUSLY displeasing to God Himself as is seen throughout the Text. (Sexual sins are displeasing as seen in the Law, but this isn’t in disagreement, but Jesus had to say what displeasing meant, and to do so had to rely on the Law to point out that sexual sins fell into the “displeasing” definition, but burnt toast did not. I am using the same method to show that abuse also fits the “displeasing” definition.) Then, like I said before. 1 Cor 7:15 – “If an unbeliever leaves. . .” Acts such as gross abuse render any so-called believer as an actual unbeliever (excommunicated if you will). AND such acts would mean the spouse has “left” even though he still remains physically. Then, finally, the texts on “Binding and Loosing” apply as well. The terms “bind” and “loose” given to the Apostles and henceforth to the elders of churches or denominations, allow for interpretation of texts to apply to new situations. If the church permits (looses) the divorce in cases of abuse, then so does heaven. The majority of competent Pastors, Elders, and church doctrine permit divorce in such cases, and those that do not have failed to see the heart of God (I believe). In summary: Jesus interprets Deut 24, and more specifically the term “displeasing.” The correct method for finding what “displeasing” means, is to known the rest of the Law. Sexual sin falls under this definition, and so does gross abuse. How did I do? MJH |
||||||
274 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144233 | ||
Searcher, The argument is one for you to prove otherwise. You have not taken much time or effort to make your point clear. I have laid out my position on divorce quite clearly. Since we are talking about divorce, not marriage, I stuck with the scriptures that deal with that. I will, for your sake, paste a commentary note on the subject: By John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible: Deut 24:1 "because he hath found some uncleanness in her;" "something that he disliked, and was disagreeable to him, and which made their continuance together in the marriage state very uncomfortable; which led him on to be very ill-natured, severe, and CRUEL to her; so that HER LIFE was exposed to danger, or at least become very uneasy; in which case a divorce was permitted, BOTH for the badness of the man's heart, and in favor of the woman, that she might be FREED from such rigorous usage." (CAPS are my additions). If you would write a position that is different, I'd like to read it because I am not dogmatic on every point with this issue. I also have not taken as much time with this issue as I have with others, so any detailed arguments that contradict any of my arguments would be looked at with appreciation. MJH |
||||||
275 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144412 | ||
Searcher, I am still waiting to hear why you feel that a woman should stay married to a husband who is grossly abusive. This is the whole bases of our discussion of which I have provided much to think about, but which you have said nothing other than that you don't agree. Ex. 21 forbids gross abuse of SLAVES, but I am to assume that a married woman is lower than a slave and should not be defended in such a case? The scripture also forbids that a man allow another man's animal to be abused or put under a load that is too heavy. And, oh yeah, it was an ENEMIES animal that was under the heavy load, fell down, or fell into a hole. Yet, we are to treat our enemy’s animal with more respect than a man's wife? Is that what Jesus taught? To be literal in the very strictest way, as you suggest would be impossible at times. Let me show. The Sabbath laws forbid work on the Sabbath. The laws about property require that a man helps another man's donkey if it falls into a pit. What happens if the donkey falls into a pit on the Sabbath. Which law do you break? The rabbis in Jesus time said you break the Sabbath laws and help the donkey. Even they, those strict den of vipers, cared enough for an animal to break their beloved Sabbath. But I am to understand that Jesus was more of a viper by allowing women to be abused? Please, please provide an argument for your case. I am afraid that I may be getting sarcastic and I certainly do not wish to break the rules of the forum. MJH |
||||||
276 | Biblical views on castration | Matt 19:12 | MJH | 185301 | ||
You mention that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament and then quote a verse that says the very opposite. Matt 5:17-19 "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Jesus did not come to put away or do away or replace the [Old Testament] but to [Do it completely]. Jesus came and lived it perfectly. In fact He was the Torah in flesh. But He never says that it is null and void. In fact the very next verse says "whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments...will be called least in the Kingdom." What you just stated was that Jesus Himself annulled not just the least, but the whole thing. Is He least in His own Kingdom? Thankfully it will only render many Christians "least" in the Kingdom, and not left out. And by "least" Jesus does not refer to some future punishment or place in line, but that because they annul the commands, they will not experience the true fullness of the Kingdom now, here, in this life and the next. Because they ignore some of the Law, they miss out on all God has for them. As far as castration is concerned, the Bible prohibited the castrated person from entering the Temple because of this deformity. God uses such pictures to demonstrate who He is, Holy. If being castrated meant being separated from God Himself (which it did not in the Old or New Testament) then why does Philip teach and baptize the eunuch in Acts 8? Romans 8:1-3 doesn't apply to the eunuch because being a eunuch was not a sin, it was simply of state of being. MJH MJH |
||||||
277 | Biblical views on castration | Matt 19:12 | MJH | 185332 | ||
Hank, Just a clarification. I was not arguing that the Old Testament was replaced, but rather the opposite. Your quote of mine is my quote of the previous poster who stated that the New "replaced" the Old. So I agree with you in that part of your note; that the Old is not done away with. I separate from you in that the Mosaic Covenant from Sinai is done away with. I think it is not. How that all plays out in doctrine is about a 500 page book or so, but Paul and James make is quite clear that the Mosaic Covenant from Sinai was not done away with in Acts 21-23, and Jesus of course in Matt 5:17-19, and the book of James particularly where as Jews in the first century equated "good works" with "doing the commands." That's a bit of a simplified statement to something more complex, but in short, when we were created in Christ Jesus to do "good works" which were prepared in advance for us before the creation of the world. This is speaking of "Torah" which had been assumed in the first century to have been conceived before the creation of the World. (One of the seven things that the Oral Torah taught came before "In the beginning.") Also, to "repent" which consequently is absent in Paul's teaching, had a specific meaning. Repent is to turn back, but one has to have something to "turn back" too. That is why John and Jesus could say, "repent" because the Jews were to "turn back to Torah" or the right way of living in the land. Paul does not tell the Gentiles to "repent" because it would not have made any sense. "Repent" to what? My old pagan ways? Of course not. They were to convert to a whole knew life, leaving the old life behind. "Do not go back to your old ways in which you once lived." In fact, Paul taught the Gentiles to "not repent." It's also true in our evangelism efforts. Words mean something. The way of God is a specific defined Way of living. To live in this way invites the "Kingdom of God" into our lives both now and in the world to come. A little rambling..... MJH |
||||||
278 | 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 |
||||||
279 | 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. |
||||||
280 | What is love? | Matt 22:37 | MJH | 216977 | ||
Love isn't a feeling, but an action. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. It's that simple. Why did Jesus say, when asked the greatest commandment, quote Deut 6, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind." and then add the second? "Love your neighbor as yourself?" Why did Jesus need to include the second greatest command when giving the first? Why does Paul say the greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself? Is he disagreeing with Jesus? No. He isn't. No one can Love God with "special feelings." They can only love God by showing love to His people. And since Love is the fulfillment (purpose) of the commandments, when we Love Jesus we obey his commandments. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ] Next > Last [29] >> |