Results 281 - 300 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | Is NASB better than other translations? | 2 Tim 2:15 | MJH | 212007 | ||
Thanks, I will need to check this out. I think it is similar to www.e-sword.net. Isn't the internet and computers so awesome these days. What did people do back in the days of the reformation? thanks, MJH |
||||||
282 | Is NASB better than other translations? | 2 Tim 2:15 | MJH | 212008 | ||
Thanks, This is awesome. I will bookmark it and use it often. If I have any questions about why they translated differently, maybe I'll ask your opinion, because I understand this isn't as simple as it may seem. MJH |
||||||
283 | compilation of scripture and compilatio | 2 Tim 3:16 | MJH | 214308 | ||
keliy, First, good job on your thorough answer. I agree with lionheart that you did well. It's a big topic to cover in a short post. One thing that caught my eye was your comment on "You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you..." (Deu 4:2). It would be more accurate to view this passage along with Deut 12:32, in light of the covenant stipulations given in Deuteronomy. The covenant was seen as a unified whole with multiple parts. It was not possible to extract or add to the parts without destroying (ie violating) the whole. The command given here is to not add any new commandment or take any away. It is not speaking about adding to the canon of scripture. Deut 4:2 does not prohibit adding books to the list of inspired writings, it only prohibits the adding or subtracting of any commandments; ie. changing of the terms. MJH |
||||||
284 | Eternal life promised by God? | Titus 1:2 | MJH | 217648 | ||
Exodus 3:6 "And he said, 'I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God." God is not the God of the dead but of the living. Luke 20:37-38 is where Jesus uses this verse to proof to the Sadducees that the resurrection and eternal life in the World to Come was taught in the Torah. MJH |
||||||
285 | WHO is Hebrews 6:4-11 refering to? | Heb 6:4 | MJH | 144348 | ||
I too have looked this one over and found at this time the safest place to be is that of Paul's who said the following after spending 3 chapters of the subject. Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”[j] 35“Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?”[k] 36For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen." MJH |
||||||
286 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | MJH | 152288 | ||
Hey Doc, Acts 21:26 says, "Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself along with them and went into the temple, giving notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for each one of them." The preceding verses indicate that the vow was a Nazirite vow. See Numbers 6. It seems obvious that the Jerusalem leaders of the Jewish Christians wanted to prove to the rest of the believing Jewish population that Paul was loyal to the Torah (or law of Moses). This situation provided a good opportunity to show this by action and not just words. If Paul was anti-Mosaic-law, then he would not participate in a ceremonial sacrifice such as a Nazirite Vow requires. Since Paul did so, it raises questions concerning the post I replied to. MJH |
||||||
287 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | MJH | 152333 | ||
The main question I have is for those who say that Jesus death and resurrection did away with the need for any and all sacrafices. If this is true, and I do not argue eitherway, but simply ask why did Paul apparently participate in a sacrafice near the end of his ministry? Obviously the non-Jesus-believing Jews would have done sacrafices up until the destruction of the Temple, but why would Jesus believing Jews do them, such as Paul? MJH |
||||||
288 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | MJH | 152336 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the reply... As for those who thought Paul was "anti-Mosaic-Law", I am referring to the first century Jews who ended up setting him up and tried to kill him. You said, "The problem arises if one does [Mosaic Law] in order to obtain some sort of merit with God." I completely agree and feel that some on the forum misuse the term “Judaizers" against those who advocate following more of the Mosaic Law as Gentile Christians. One might disagree with how much of the Mosaic Law applies to Gentile Christians, but I have yet to read anyone uphold the view that salvation is dependant on your observance or lack of. In fact, I hear (not on this forum yet) some say the opposite -- that if you follow some or all of the Mosaic Law, you can not be saved. Sorry for tangent . . . Back to the passage at hand… If we assume for a moment that Paul participated so that he would provide the animals and/or the money for the animals to be sacrificed, then what does this have to say about our view that every and all sacrifices were done away with? I harp on this point, because it has perplexed me for some time. One commentator said that Christians didn’t have a full understanding of the end of the sacrificial system yet when this event occurred. I feel that such a statement is a cop-out. This commentator may have done better to say, “I don’t know why Paul did this” than to use his argument. I, obviously, have read Hebrews, and I know what it says, which is why this Acts passage causes me to scratch my head. MJH |
||||||
289 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | MJH | 152363 | ||
Kalos, No. At least not a "clear" verse. However, it would seem that in Acts 21, Paul participates in the scarifices (or intends to) associated with the Nazarite vow in Num. 6. So again, no clear verse. A question for you then is, what is going on in Acts 21? MJH |
||||||
290 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | MJH | 152367 | ||
Doc, True, the sacrifices were for the defilement, BUT verses 13-21 tell of the sacrifices that end the Nazirite vow when completed without defilement. So any Nazirite vow would have to end with the sacrifices. Since during this time the Temple was still run by the Sadducees, they would have followed Num 6 to the letter. Most commentators acknowledge that a sacrifice would have been made here. Again, in context, there are 1000's of Jewish believers who have it in mind that Paul teaches Jews who live among the Gentiles to not follow the Law or customs of the Jews. This whole episode is meant to disprove that accusation. If Paul and the Christian leaders felt sacrifices were done away with totally, they could have proved Paul's adherence to the Law of Moses in another way, but they choose this -- probably because it was so public. Hebrews 10:18 says, "And where these [sins] have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin." Re-reading Hebrews 10 I am stuck by the absence of any statement that says, "All sacrifices have ended." Actually most of Heb. 10 is referring to the Day of Atonement and once mentions the daily sacrifices. Side note: It is interesting to note that in Jewish Rabbinic literature written some time in the second century (I believe) they admit that for one full generation before the destruction of the Temple, the "Day of Atonement" cord did not turn white, which to them meant the sacrifice was not accepted. On generation being about 40 years, this would mean that we have a Jewish source that admits that after the death of Jesus (or near that time) the Atonement Day sacrifices were not accepted. It seems to me that the Believing Jews participated in at least some sacrificial events either personally or corporately after the death of Jesus. We also know that they celebrated the three main festivals, Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Booths). Am I right or am I still missing some thing? MJH (Thanks for following this with me.) |
||||||
291 | Is it God speaking?? | James 1:5 | MJH | 213337 | ||
Lissamz, I did not intend to place judgment on those you know who are saying they hear from God. I don't know them. I used this text to be helpful to you in that it helps you know that you're not deficient if your faith because you do not “hear” God like they say they do.. One of my most respected Bible teachers has said too that he would love to hear from God as others apparently have. He is anything but unspiritual. True spirituality is demonstrated not in esoteric feelings, but in how one lives their life. Do you live your life like you love the LORD your God with your whole being and your neighbor as yourself? Do you see the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control more readily apparent in your life? These are the measures of true Spirituality, not hearing voices, feeling tingly, or anything else, as nice as those things may be. MJH |
||||||
292 | Is it God speaking?? | James 1:5 | MJH | 213342 | ||
You said, "I am not intending to correct..." I would hope you do. Even when I wrote that post I thought..."I may not have worded that just right." Then it occured that on this forum I can expect that someone may refine my wording. I appreciate it...and you are right. MJH |
||||||
293 | Rabbis not paid? | James 3:1 | MJH | 205630 | ||
Thomas8, I am not failure with the site, but there wasn't anything that seemed out of sorts. There are many good Torah and Jewish sites that are also believers in Jesus as the Messiah. (There are of course many bad sites too). Probably a good place to start would be http://jcstudies.com/ That is Dwight Pryor's site and he's been studying Hebrew Roots and Rabbinic Theology for a very long time. MJH |
||||||
294 | Should we pray outside of God's will? | 1 Pet 2:24 | MJH | 166107 | ||
Mark, Just because God causes all things to work out "for the good" of those who are called by his name, does not mean that those things that happened were good. Anything that goes against the nature and character of God is not of his kingdom. The definition of "bad" is defined by which kingdom it comes from or serves. Death and sickness do not come from the Kingdom of God where His perfect will rules all. Certainly God does work out these things for his purposes, but that doesn't make them good. MJH |
||||||
295 | Should we pray outside of God's will? | 1 Pet 2:24 | MJH | 166143 | ||
You seem to be under the assumption that the work of the Messiah is complete. Certianly Jesus' death and resurrection are far greater than that of Satan, but we are still living in a world where the Kindgom of Death and the Kingdom of Life are a war. Satan has not yet been removed from the scene, and until Jesus' return and the strat of the World to Come, we will still experience the effect of a sinful world. To say we have physical healing in Messiah right now is failing to see reality. My argument is that such a state is not the "Will of God", but it does exist until the World to Come. MJH |
||||||
296 | BY HIS STRIPS | 1 Pet 2:24 | MJH | 212034 | ||
It is interesting that we are "healed" by the wounds of another. Generally my doctor doesn't take my sickness on himself in order to heal me. Recently the irony of this has struck me. MJH |
||||||
297 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217091 | ||
Tim, In short. Galatians was written to churches that existed in the first century when the predominate belief among Jewish (believers in Jesus and non-believers) was that Gentiles could not enter the covenant or get saved unless they went through certain processes and adhered to a particular set of rules (halacha - how to walk out the commands). This "process" was punctuated by the ritual of circumcision and was often (as can clearly be seen in Paul’s letters among other non-Biblical writings) called "circumcision" for short. "Works of the Law" was what the primary argument centered on. The Qumran Texts confirm the use of this term as a sectarian set of rules required by the group for admittance (all others outside the group were generally referred to as "sinners") Those rules were certainly related to the Law, but were focused on a particular interpretation. None of this changes the words or textual Hermeneutic, it simply enlightens the letter with the issues that were surrounding this community. If Paul allowed this view to stand, the Gospel would be no Gospel. There is no “way” into the presence of God, there is no way of salvation through obedience to The Law or any interpretation of the Law. The Abrahamic story is a perfect narrative to help explain this. Yet, to claim, since “getting into” the covenant family of God is apart from the Law, that this means that God’s Law is void or is cut up (taking out certain laws) is a huge hermeneutic leap. Being “under the law” or better said, “under the condemnation of the law” is wholly different than living within the Righteous decrees of the King and being a member of that Kingdom with its rules. I hesitate to even through my thoughts into this again. I decided to do so because the thread doesn’t appear in the home page anyway. This is a huge discussion and forum posts are generally to short and jumbled to address it well. I personally feel that people approach this issue from a theological perspective and then fit the Texts to meet that understanding. Far too many didactic texts need to be “explained away” to argue that God’s Law is divided into categories and then dismissed. And a final note: if people are offended or feel they are judged by a persons view that the whole of the Law still applies to Christians, then that’s their issue, not the person who holds to that view. I know you didn’t say you felt “judged”, but others have. |
||||||
298 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217117 | ||
Tim, Okay, I guess it's been over a year so I can discuss this again. There were two things you mentioned. 1) the way of the slave is the Mosaic law; 2) Paul [never says]...we are still subject to the Law. 2 first: It is true that Paul does not say, "..but you should still obey the commandment of God given through Moses." Here is a bad analogy, but the best I can come up with. We do not say now that we have a new president, "Attention all US Citizens: you still have free speech, and it's still illegal to (fill in the blank)." We don't say that because it's self evident (or should be.) Same in Paul’s day, the only Scriptures they had were the Torah, Prophets, and Writings. In these there was taught a clear "way" to live as well as judges/elders to help them live that way best they could in their specific situation. I will admit that Paul's letter to the Galatians is quick and to the point. I also believe that others in his day also came away with your thoughts on the Law too. "Is Paul saying we should stop obeying the Law?" (Acts 21 shows Jewish Christians who think Paul was teaching this, but Luke makes it clear that these were false charges.) Of course he couldn't say that and remain true to God's Word. I think that when he wrote Romans, he went to much greater lengths to explain himself on this issue. In Rom. 3:31, "Then is the Law annulled through faith? Let it not be! But we establish Law." And since you know Greek, you can confirm that "establish" here can be read, "make stand more firm." Here is the closest place where we see Paul saying that we still obey the Law. I know it’s a big book, but space is short so indulge me :-) 1) The slave is the Mosaic Law? Paul uses a great analogy in Galatians that strikes at the heart of his “adversaries.” They claimed to be “children of Abraham.” But Paul turns their argument around on them and claims they are not the children of Sarah, but Hagar. Why? Abraham received the covenant promise of the seed, but he had no children. Gen 12, and then Gen 15 we clearly see God promise, without condition, to bless Abraham and his seed and the nations. But Abraham didn’t have children. He attempts to cause the Promise to come true in his own strength and ability by taking Hagar. The son of the slave women is the son of “works salvation.” After this, while Abraham believes he has solved the conundrum, God returns and says, No! Not Ishmael, but a son from Sarah. It was Isaac who was the son of the Promise, and that was not by works (of Abraham) but by Faith. Therefore, the attempt to enter the covenant of Promise by works of Law is equal to Hagar the slave women. Enter into the Promise by Faith is Sarah. Also, circumcision was the covenant of the Promise, not the Mosaic Law. I believe circumcision was a reminder that the Promised Seed (and therefore eternal salvation) would come not by man’s strength or ability, but by God. Therefore the very organ used to attempt to secure the promise by works is cut. Yet, in Paul’s day this very sing of the Promise was misconstrued to mean just the opposite. In the end, the Sarah and Hagar comparison to the Law is not to toss out the Law as God’s Way, but to show salvation is not obtained by works. MJH PS-I too enjoy the conversation. I’ve learned so much as a result of this forum over the years. |
||||||
299 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217118 | ||
Yes, I may have confussed post from another thread and thought it was on this one. I can't find evidence to support my charge. And yes I see this is on the home page still. I again confussed this thread with another. All this confussion ... maybe I don't know what I'm talking about in other areas too? :-) MJH |
||||||
300 | abide | 1 John 2:3 | MJH | 217119 | ||
John, Comments well received and I agree that one must be very careful when looking outside the actual Text to support a view. First, one must support their view from the Received Greek first (or Hebrew if we are in the Old Testament). The literal meaning of the words, as received, are paramount. That is an essential part of Hermeneutics and can never be violated. Second, the Text must be viewed both in the context of the book itself (its structure, genre, etc.) AND it must be viewed in the context of all other Scripture. One Text can not contradict another, of course. Bringing in historical evidence from outside the Text (such as Greek culture, Josephus, Dead Sea Scrolls, Archeology, et. al.) should be done with the utmost caution. Especially when one uses such historical data to help support a view that is not aliened with the traditional interpretation held over a long period of time. Of course, tradition isn’t a good way to prove what the Text means either, but if one attempts to overturn even a small understanding of the Text as held by the majority over the majority of the time, that person must be in the position of needing to supply the burden of proof. In light of the post you are responding to, I have gone to great lengths to follow this through to see if the evidence is solid. After all, the whole premise of the argument rests on this historical data. Not that it contradicts the literal meaning of the words (at least I don’t think so) and it fits very good in light of other Scripture and I believe I can show with a very high degree of confidence that my view is accurate, I do recognize that still I am the one needing the burden of proof. God bless, MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ] Next > Last [17] >> |