Results 281 - 300 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
281 | Take Him for His Word | Matt 24:2 | MJH | 150200 | ||
You seem quite against a third building of the Temple in Israel. How do you then interpret the second half of Ezekiel where he prophesies about a Temple being built that has not yet been built? Also, if the Temple was so bad after Jesus' resurrection, then why did Paul perform sacrifices in the Temple is Acts 21-22? Did Jesus prophesy against the Temple as you say, or did he prophesy against what was going on in the Temple? Or was he simple stating a fact that the Temple was going to be destroyed? MJH |
||||||
282 | Take Him for His Word | Matt 24:2 | MJH | 150215 | ||
Ray, I am not speaking of Ezekiel 36:26, I am wondering about the detailed description of the Temple which Ezekeil lays out. Ezekiel 40:1 and on.... It seems that he is prophecying that a new Temple will be built in the future unlike the old. Ez 40:38-47 mention sacrafices, and Ez 42 mention Priests. I have always wondered about this... Thanks, MJH |
||||||
283 | Not know Summer from Winter? | Matt 24:20 | MJH | 144053 | ||
No | ||||||
284 | The ingathering of Israel? | Matt 24:31 | MJH | 166082 | ||
Personal thoughts only....I haven't studies it so this is somewhat of a guess. Jesus (as He almost always does) is speaking about something found in the first 39 books of the Bible. Here I think Jesus is referring to the passages you quoted, but his use of the word "elect" rather than Israel broadens the meaning to include the Gentiles who would believe. His audience would most certainly have understood him to mean the elect Israel, and they would have know of the passages he was quoting. Personally I see Israel still as a separate elect chosen group of people for whom God has plans (ie. I'm no longer a "replacement theology" adherent.) But I also believe we are all going to be with the Lord in the New Jerusalem in the World to Come. MJH |
||||||
285 | What is "prophet's reward" in Matt. 10? | Matt 25:45 | MJH | 211980 | ||
EdB answered this same question in post ID# 59681 Just type the id number in the search field to the right. MJH |
||||||
286 | Seating at the Last Supper | Matt 26:23 | MJH | 213973 | ||
You're going to have to supply evidence for the Jewish customs that you state. I've heard of none of them. Knowing that this supper was a Passover would enlighten the events, but not the seating so much. Any sources for these? MJH |
||||||
287 | did apostles disobey jesus' commission? | Matt 28:19 | MJH | 214518 | ||
dieselcowboy, Thanks for your question. It might be helpful to understand what Baptism was/is. Baptism was very common in the life of the Jew is this day. They were often baptized daily. Some rich had baptismals (called mikvot) in their homes so they could immerse every day. The idea of a baptism was to show a change of status originally found in Exodus/Leviticus. If a person became "unclean" they needed to become "clean" before entering the Temple. The last thing they did would be to go through a Mikvah, showing their change of status from unclean to clean. At the Temple when Peter preached after the Holy Spirit came, 3000 people were baptized. The only reason this could have happened was because there were multiple baptismals at the Temple. Back to your question: When it is said that they baptized someone into the name of Jesus, it was equivalent to saying they were baptized into everything that Jesus taught and represented. The person was entering into a covenant community of Jesus believers. Matt 28 does not say, or mean, that you need to recite the words "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" for a baptism to be effectual. The person going into the waters has denounced any previous idolatry (if needed) and accepts fully the covenant status he is entering. Then, that person is to be taught to "observe everything [Jesus has] commanded you." You may be right in that when the scriptures say, "baptized into the name of Jesus" the entire covenant and God Head were implied, but I am not willing to allegorize this as you have (allegory was a Greek construct used in their mythical writings.) There are no Scriptures, no historical evidence, and no legitimate early church writings that I am aware of that reflect your statement. dieselcowboy, Thanks for the question and let me know if you have more to substantiate your claim. I am eager to learn and, even if I disagree, to understand why you’re arriving at your conclusion. MJH |
||||||
288 | Sins are responsible for sickness? | Mark 2:3 | MJH | 214205 | ||
One more thing about your passage specifically. Was the man's sins forgiven before he was healed? Yes they were, yet he still had the illness. So we know that his illness was not connected to his personal relationship with God and his own sin state. Otherwise his illness would have been healed when he received forgiveness. But one can not see forgiveness and only God can forgive sins. By Jesus then healing the man, he removes all legitimate questions as to his ability to declare sins forgiven. There is simply no way God would heal through Jesus if he just blasphemed God. It's quite masterful. He led these doubters to express their doubt by declaring forgiveness for a man, something only God could do; and then he healed the man who was obviously healed and Jesus did this in front of many witnesses. The doubter’s only recourse was to recant their belief that God would heal through a blasphemer, or accept Him for who He was/is. MJH |
||||||
289 | Hebrew Greek Scholar question ? | Mark 5:9 | MJH | 140521 | ||
What is your name? My name is Legion. Legion is Greek Strong’s # G3003. We all know what that word means right? If the disciples of Jesus heard the man speak this in Greek, which is likely given the location, would they hear the Greek Word, "legion" as the Hebrew word, "leshon" which means "Slanderer" or "Accuser" (Hebrew Strong’s H3960)? Any Hebrew/Greek scholars out there can help me on the closeness of pronunciation? (We will have to assume for the purpose of the question that the disciples would have known some Hebrew. I am also not making the leap that they did not hear and understand the Greek word. I am only asking if the two words would have similar sounds.) MJH |
||||||
290 | Demon posession or Personality disorder? | Mark 5:15 | MJH | 211899 | ||
In the Greek they are actually often referred to as "unclean" spirits. What we generally think of as demon possession is certainly an unclean spirit and fits the context. But why does the text often use the term unclean? Unclean was a "status" in which a person could be living. A simple definition would be, anyone who's status was not in proper relationship with the One God, and therefore not at Peace [wholeness]. A psychological disorder is also an example of being in an unclean state. Jesus came to heal not just those who were unclean physically (the Lepers and those with blood issues) but also those with unclean spirits or personalities or psychological disorders. Whatever Jesus touched went from unclean to clean. It's the opposite of what should have happened. When you touch a person who is in an unclean state, you become unclean too. But with Jesus, he touches a dead body and the dead body comes to life (comes to a "clean" status). Jesus took on our infirmities and diseases. This is a bit off the topic, but did Jesus then become unclean? Would that have been possible for the Messiah to be "unclean?" My answer is yes he did. Isaiah said he would take on himself our illness. Eventually Jesus takes on himself the ultimate state of unclean and he dies. His death, however, brings us life. All this to say that I read the demon possessions as a continuation of Jesus ministry of making all things right. Whether they were true demons as we often think, or simply psychological disorders makes no difference in the end because they were both in a state that was not right and Jesus made them right. Jesus’ Kingdom was breaking out all around him. And his Kingdom is one of wholeness, life, health, peace, and love. Concerning your question about how should one seek help? Personally I believe that a person should seek help wherever they can find healing and restoration. The church obviously plays a role, but so does medicine. The goal of returning to wholeness is the key, not the means. (Unless the means is contrary to the Bible, like taking another’s life to give you life.) |
||||||
291 | Does Mark 7:19 contradict Acts 15:29? | Mark 7:19 | MJH | 137491 | ||
I (MJH) wrote concerning this, but opted to use the following source instead, since they stated the case best. I believe that this is the best possible interprtation of this text as you may or may not agree: Taken from: http://www.jesusisajew.org/Short/MK7V19.htm At the end of Mark 7:19 most Bible translations say, "Thus He declared all foods clean." So its pretty clear that Yeshua ("Jesus") changed the old food regulations in Leviticus 11, and its ok to eat pork, shellfish, or whatever we want, right? The most important clue for understanding any passage in the Bible is to check the context. In this case, its given in Mark 7:1-5 where Yeshua is asked, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the Tradition of the Elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" (v.5). Notice two things: first, the question isn't about the Torah ("Law"), but about a tradition. Second, its not a question about what may be eaten. It's about whether one may eat at all without a ritual handwashing. That explains why Yeshua responded by saying, "Neglecting the Commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men," (v.8) and, "You have a fine way of setting aside the Commandment of God in order to keep your tradition" (v.9). So then, could verses 18-19 have Yeshua setting aside a commandment of God when up until that point He had been criticizing the Pharisees for that very thing (v. 8,9,13)? And could verses 18-19 have Yeshua talking about a commandment at all, when up until that point His subject had been a "Tradition of the Elders" (v. 3,4,5,8,9,13)? Lastly, could verses 18-19 suddenly be about food when up until that point the subject had been ritual handwashing (v. 2,3,4,5)? Obviously, no. This is made even clearer by comparing the same discussion as reported by Matthew (15:1-20). Yeshua concludes by saying, "but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." Because the subject of Mark 7:1-19 isn't Kashrut (Biblical diet), it cannot be about abolishing Kashrut either. Ok, but why do so many translations* seem to say that it is? Again consider the context, but in this case the social context. This discussion took place in a social and historical context different than our own. Language and practice were based on the Word of God. For instance, their holidays were those days set apart in the Bible for special observance, not ours. Their property rights were those of the Bible, not ours. Likewise, only those things that are not taw-may ("defiled", "unclean") were considered food, everything else was not. Reading Mark 7:19 as they would have, it means, "Thus He declared all things given by God as food to be clean, regardless of ritual hand washing." *Although there are many minor textual differences between source documents of the New Covenant, it is very rare that a variance significantly affects meaning. Mark 7:18-19 is one of these rare passages. The difference of a single letter (Omicron or Omega) determines gender for the word "purging, making clean" near the end of v.19 (katharizon). Most translators believe that this word must attach to a subject, while some do not. For those who do, if the word's gender is neuter (written with the Omicron), it attaches to "stomach," and is speaking of the digestive process. (See the King James Version, for instance.) But for translators who believe the word's gender is masculine (written with the Omega), it must look all the way back to the "He" (Yeshua) at the beginning of verse 18 for its masculine subject. For the sake of clarity, these translators insert a phrase that never appears in the Greek: "Thus He declared." Regardless of which manuscripts and translations are correct, this article attempts to show that Mark 7:1-19 is not an instance of Divine self-correction, by assuming the most difficult case, "Thus He declared all foods clean." |
||||||
292 | Is "to salt" to mean "to destroy?" | Mark 9:49 | MJH | 164721 | ||
Could this passage mean: "For everyone [who is sent to hell] will be destroyed by fire." ? Reasons... The context from (42) causing "one of these little ones who believes in me to sin...", it would be better to be cast into the sea (also known as the abyss) and then if any part of you causes you to sin it would be better to remove that part than to be cast into the valley of Gehinnom. This is followed by the "odd" passage in question. The following are my reasons for interpreting this text as I did above: 1) If the Jews in the first century spoke Hebrew (this works even if you believe they spoke Aramaic as well.) then the Greek of Jesus words are a translation from the Hebrew that Jesus spoke. This passage can be translated word for word from the Greek back to Hebrew without changing the word order. (Which is not common between the languages.) 2) In Hebrew the word salt, from the base "m-l-h" can mean to destroy. (Lot's wife; Is 51:6 the words translated "to vanish away" is actually the words "to salt". Judges 9:45 Abimelech destroys Shechem and "sows it with salt." Deut 29:3, salt is a symbol of destruction. The “salt sea” is also known as the “dead” sea.) All of these are the same in Hebrew. So salting a place or person is often to destroy. 3) Most explanations of this verse have to do with purifications; so much so that some translations of the Bible actually put it in the text. (Always a dangerous thing to put an interpretation into the text of a translation.) They arrive at this from the use of salt in the sacrificial system. 4) Two Dutch exegetes - Hugo Grotius in 1641 and Johannes Clericus in 1714 - proposed this very interpretation. (I am unaware if Clericus got his interpretation from Grotius.) 5) This works the same with Aramaic since the root of the word “salt” is the same. If Jesus was using this term by drawing from either a Hebrew idiom or the Text of scripture that matches the “destruction” of Gehinnom, is certainly is a plausible interpretation. It matches the context of all that came before. THE PROBLEM: The problem I have unresolved is the next verse. If “salt” in verse 49 is to be rendered as “destroy” then verse 50 posses a problem that I have not sifted through. If anyone has some thoughtful comments I would love to read them. I have read several commentaries, so no need to quote them unless it pertains to the discussion. There are after all at least 15 different interpretations out there. I want to hear from others if there is any possibility of this being correct. As you may know, I like to try to get into the mind of the first hearers of the text and hope to hear what they heard. Being western and removed by language culture and 2000 years makes that a challenge….but a fun one. God bless, MJH |
||||||
293 | Is "to salt" to mean "to destroy?" | Mark 9:49 | MJH | 164881 | ||
Kalos, Of course you probably understand that I completely disagree with you....see our discussions from a year ago. :-) I just can't let it slide... Jesus spoke Hebrew and all recent discoveries points to most Jews in Palestine speaking Hebrew as their common tongue. The Septuagint was not translated for Jews in Palestine but rather for a "Librarian" in Alexandria, where a large population of Jews lived. The Jews in the Diaspora used the Septuagint, and the Jews in Palestine use the Targum (Aramaic) for purposes of commentary or dynamic equivalent translation since the Hebrew copies could not contain ANY alteration to clear up changes in the language, or even footnotes/marginal notes. Jesus may have spoken Aramaic or Greek when the audience required it like during the Festivals or when in Greek areas. But among his disciples, Hebrew is a near certainty. See "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" for in depth argument. Or see my previous posts on the matter. MJH |
||||||
294 | Expound on Mark 11:15-19 | Mark 11:17 | MJH | 186244 | ||
The temple had a "court of the Gentiles" where non-Jews could come to worship the One true God. The Sanhedrin decided to make things run smoother; the only lamb you could use at Passover was the lambs they raised and sold. That way they could streamline the "approval" process of the sacrifice. At least this was their said reasoning. Actually they were jacking up the price so high that those coming from far away, not only would not be able to use the lamb they brought, but they could not afford the lambs being sold. Their worship on Passover was in jeopardy. The reason they sold in the court of the Gentiles was because there just wasn't room anywhere else. So the Gentiles had no place to worship the One True God. There was dung everywhere. So Jesus (and others before and after him) drove out the money changers. Jesus called them a "den of thieves" but he also said, "My house is a house of prayer for ALL NATIONS." He said this because the Gentiles were being left out. The "den of thieves" carries with it an additional jab at the Herodians. Herod was often referred to as a "fox" in the first century. Paul latter says that the "wall of separation" is removed. He is talking about the wall that divided Gentiles and Jews in the Temple. Ezekiel’s temple also does not have a "wall of separation." MJH |
||||||
295 | 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 |
||||||
296 | The actual date of the birth of Jesus? | Luke 2:1 | MJH | 163812 | ||
Christmas was placed on December 25th because it was the winter solstice celebration of the pagan people who converted to Christianity near the 2nd-3rd centuries. Because the people wanted to continue to celebrate their festivals, the leaders of the faith at the time, finding it too hard to get them to stop celebrating the pagan holidays, decided to make them into Christian holidays. When was Jesus born? The true answer is that no one knows. But that being said, I would LOVE to speculate. The census was not a one day deal. There was a period of time when the people had to show up. Since Nazareth was a long ways from Bethlehem, it makes sense that Joseph would have registered at a time when he would be nearby anyway. Scripture tells us that Joseph went to all three festivals every year, so it only makes sense that the birth of Jesus would be near one of the three festival times set aside in the Torah for the men to go to Jerusalem. Joseph would have taken Mary because it was close to the time to give birth. Why wouldn’t he stay and wait to register latter if he had a window of time to register? Because Joseph wasn’t going to miss a festival of the Lord for any reason. He, knowing the significance of this child, was not going to leave Mary behind either. Not to mention the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. In 1st century Judaism, Jesus would have been either a Mamzer (Hebrew for basterd), or at the least a “doubtful mamzer.” The Mishnah (Oral Law, Traditions of the Elders) has many laws about what such a child could and could not do which is fascinating and would have made them outcasts among the devout. There must have been family tensions that Joseph and Mary were happy to leave behind for a while. Why did Mary not find room in a home to give birth? Think about it. Even a stranger would want to give up their accommodations for a pregnant woman giving birth, but for some reason, Joseph can not find room in the small village of his (and Mary’s) own ancestry. This is fascinating. Why do they even go to an Inn if they are in their families home town? Probably because they were outcasts do to Mary being pregnant out of marriage (see pervious paragraph) After the shepherds come and spread the “Good news” to the whole town, Joseph and Mary find themselves in a house according to Matthew. Maybe the family had a change of heart? I believe Jesus was born during the Feast of Booths, was crucified during Passover, sent the Holy Spirit on the feast of Weeks, and the Trumpet will would on the Day of Trumpets, and on the day of Atonement the Lord will return. OKAY, this is very speculative, and no, I do not subscribe to Hal Lindsey, but hey, it’s a lot more logical than December 25th. We know that during the feast of booths (Tabernacles or Sukkot), the people were to spend the week living in “booths” or temporary shelters. This is exactly what a stable would have been. One more thought that supports a birth during a festival. When would the Inn be full? During any ‘ol day of the year, or when hundreds of thousands of Jews from the world over were visiting Jerusalem for a festival just up the road? The Bethlehem Inn was excavated some distance north of Bethlehem (closer to Jerusalem near the main road.) It housed the people on a second floor, and the animals were kept below the rooms. They believe that the best place to find privacy would be in the stable under the Inn rooms. This is a possibility for the birth place as well as the cave theory. This would have been cleaner, had access to clean straw, and provided a place for the animals to move to (I doubt they were in the same room like our nativity scenes show). Of course the early church fathers say it was a cave and that’s some good evidence. MJH |
||||||
297 | The "dramatic addition" is extrabiblical | Luke 2:5 | MJH | 181514 | ||
In John 8:41, those Jesus is confronting say to him, "We are not illegitimate children..." I have heard more than one person mention that this may have been a jab at Jesus' questionable birth. It's not conclusive, but just a thought. Here is what I think.... Mary and Joseph go to the census during the feast of booths (Joseph would be going to Jerusalem anyway at that time, and Bethlehem was very close by so it “kills two birds with one stone”. The Romans usually had a window of time to register.) Since Bethlehem was Joseph's home town, many relatives would have been there. So why did they not find "room?" Really...a pregnant woman can't find room in their hometown? I figure 1 of 2 possibilities. 1) Joseph and Mary were ostracized by their family due to the questionable pregnancy, and her odd explanation. After the birth, the relatives relented and accepted them, especially after the witness of the shepherds from Migol Eder (the Temple shepherds) which would have confirmed Mary and Joseph's story from a third party. This is why later in Matthews story we see them in a home. 2) From Archeology we learn that the INN near Bethlehem was typical of the times. The people lived above and the animals. For any privacy, people could descend into the stable area below the housing (The stables below the housing served to warm the housing and give those staying close watch of their animals.) It is thought that for privacy, people could expel the animals from an area of the stable, clean it up, and find privacy. Since this time was so busy given a Festival at Jerusalem, the INN would be packed. Theory 2 does not match the history of being born in a cave, but does match archeology and inferences. As far as the people in Bethlehem NOT knowing about the questions surrounding Mary’s pregnancy assumes that the relatives from Bethlehem and Nazareth never communicated, which is hard to believe since they met at least 3 times a year at the feasts. Also, then why didn’t Mary and Joseph find accommodations with family if they had no reason to keep them apart. It is doubtful that the time of arrival and the time of birth were far removed. If not that night, then within a week would make most sense, but the text is not clear about how long they waited. MJH |
||||||
298 | Why not Elisabeths home? | Luke 2:7 | MJH | 212442 | ||
Why did Joseph and Mary not stay with relatives? This is a very good question, though it ultimately it is speculative. First, Elizabeth and Zachariah lived in Judea, but this was a large region and they may not have lived near Bethlehem, at least not close enough to go to when labor began. However, one would assume that Joseph and Mary had other relatives that were in Bethlehem and who after all would refuse a pregnant relative? One reason may be that her pregnancy was under suspicion. Who would buy the story that an Angel visited her and she became with child by the Holy Spirit. Any couple who lived in an observant family in this region at this time may have trouble with relatives. They may have turned them away. This issue may have been resolved after the local shepherds came to town spreading their message which corroborated the story Mary and Joseph would have told. In Matthew, they are located in a home. It is also possible that they visited Bethlehem right before a major festival when they would have been in the area anyway, therefore killing two birds with one stone (visit); going there for the census and festival. This has a lot of credence. There was a local Inn in the area of Bethlehem that would have been full in this case. Mary and Joseph may have assumed they had more time before the birth, but when the birthing came they needed something right away. They found the best place they could. Then, one more option, like the above one, they may have gone to the Inn. These Inns had the humans living above the ground with animals living below. There was not privacy where the humans lived, but if one cleared an animal area out, they could have found some room for birthing in this area. This case again assumes the onset of birth prevented them from reaching relatives that would have allowed them the needed space. That is my limited ideas. MJH |
||||||
299 | Why not Elisabeths home? | Luke 2:7 | MJH | 212478 | ||
This is a sticking statement. We see this story as cute and quaint because we are overly failure with the story and the Christmas’ nativities. But the idea that this angel would come to announce the coming of the long awaited Messiah and end his pronouncement with, "You will find him in a manger" is sticking. I highly doubt that they would have questioned if they found the right baby! Also, the Lamb of God placed in a lamb’s feed box is unique. Not the place where a fabricated story would place the King of Kings! He was also born in the literal shadow of the mountain built by Herod. Bethlehem, if the time of year was right, I believe would wake up in the morning covered with the shadow of the mountain Herod built in the dessert for one of his palaces; also his ultimate burial site. The King of Kings born in the shadow of the usurper, the Edomite king ruling the Jewish people. Balaam’s fourth prophesy would have been of interest to this Herod who attempted to convert to gain acceptance by the Jewish people. MJH |
||||||
300 | legal rights re: copyrights | Luke 6:31 | MJH | 138955 | ||
You only are allowed to make a copy for back-up purposes for yourself only. You can give your original away, but then must destroy or give the back up away to the same owner as well. Or, you can ask the owner of the material for permission to copy. The copyrite owner must provide this in writting. Even copying songs from live radio is technically illegal. I would suggest that you simply buy what you want. In the past, I have copied something with the purpose of learning if I wanted to purchase or not and then erased the copy; but this too is not technically not legal. To be sure yourself, check out the actual law at http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html God bless, MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ] Next > Last [29] >> |