Results 401 - 420 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153604 | ||
Thank you for jumping in… I do understand the importance of approaching a scripture both in the immediate context and in the context of the whole of scripture. I also believe that one should attemp as best as one can to understand what the original author meant when he wrote. To do this, an historical understanding is important. Paul was writing to a certain people at a certain time who had a certain religion, and he had a particular message he wanted to communicate to them. If we understand their world we better understand the letter. Also, Paul was a Pharisee, raised as a Jew in the capital of the Jewish religious world, and trained by the eminent Jewish Rabbi of the time (Gamaliel grandson of Hillel). Also, neither Paul nor any of the first Jewish Believers renounced Judaism, but rather remained Jews and practiced their Jewish faith, and remained observant to the Torah (or Law of Moses). So what the first century Jewish thought about the End Times, does make at least some difference in how we understand Paul's writings. Paul differed with Judaism in one way, that being how the LORD relates to Gentiles. (He also differed from non-believing Jews on the Person of the Messiah--obviously.) Also, the whole of scripture only shows one direction when it comes to people being with the Lord, and that is always the LORD coming to dwell with mankind, not the reverse. With the exception of 1 Thess 4:17, I challenge you to find scriptures that show otherwise. (Not individual's, but believers or people groups as a whole.) Since 1 Thess is the only scripture that does not fit the common pattern (unless anyone knows of another), one asks why? And the historical context -- of which the Thessalonians would be very much aware -- explains this: That being that these verses mirror the events of an Emperor entering a city or town. The trumpet would blast, the people would coming out to meet the Emperor, and they would return to the city (not Rome). My contention is that a believer in Thessalonica would have understood these verses to mean: that the Lord would return, that they would either literally, or figuratively meet Him in the air, (the dead rising first) and then return to Earth or their town to worship Him (and not worship the Emperor as would happen in the historical version.) I may very well be wrong, I have been before, but I'd like to be shown to be wrong, since I think I have a pretty good case for my position. MJH |
||||||
402 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153603 | ||
To be honest, I do not know. I think that God is up in Heaven looking at all of the End Times charts with His hand around His Son's shoulder and saying, "You know, I'm going to send you back down there just as soon as I can figure these things out." It's a little joke to lighten the mood, but to drive home a point that some quite intellegent people seem to come to different conclusions on the matter. I believe it is an important subject, but have not developed my own strong set of beliefs at this point. I can be dogmatic (too much so) on many Biblical and Theological points, but not this one. I would like suggestions of good books. And by "good books", I mean by people who really dug into the textual issue AND the historical context of these writtings. MJH |
||||||
403 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153601 | ||
I do not know what MOST people view the rapture to be... a poll might help clear that up. I have always seen the rapture as the dead AND living being taken from Earth while non-believers are left on Earth wondering what just happend to these "Christians." So resurrection was always a part of it, but not equal to a rapture. (How many people were resurrected when Jesus was? Was that a rapture? I assume no... but the rapture would include resurrections.) This is NOT necessarily my belief of the end times, but my understanding of the term in answer to your question. MJH |
||||||
404 | New Wine vs. Fermented | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 153498 | ||
Hello again Doc, According to my favorite Archeology book, "Life in Biblical Israel" by Philip King, and Lowrence Stager, wine was fermented and "wine culture was well developed in the period of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the first half of the first millennium B.C." Also, "The pomace of the grape was 'distilled' into grappa, a brandy. The simple technology for its production was available in the Bronze Age...20 to 60 percent alcoholic content." Hos. 4:11 "Wine (yayin) and new wine (tiros) take away the understanding." Isa 5:11 Isaiah denounces those "who rise early in the morning in pursuit of strong wine(sekar) who linger in the evening to be inflamed by wine (yayin)." See also, "The Origins and Ancient History of Wine", by Patrick McGovern New Wine: (tiros) is “newly fermented wine, or simply wine”. (asis) is “juice”. (Yayin) is simply “wine.” There are nine words in the Hebrew text for wine, but not necessarily meaning a different kind of wine, but rather distinguishing its origin. Given this understanding, “New Wine” was still fermented, and since there is a Hebrew word for “Juice,” I doubt that TIROS would mean juice as well. I got most of this information from the book listed at the top. I never knew this morning that I was going to delve so deeply into the Hebrew and Archeology of wine….. It’s always good to discuss things with you, Doc! MJH |
||||||
405 | Is lucifer an angel? Heaven? | Rev 12:9 | MJH | 153494 | ||
See also Luke 10:18. | ||||||
406 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153492 | ||
Revelations 20:4-5 is not a "rapture" but rather a "resurrection." Therefore it does not apply to what most view the rapture to be. Also, it still does not answer my question in post #153491 of who will be raptured. MJH |
||||||
407 | Will there be a partial rapture? | 1 Thess 4:17 | MJH | 153491 | ||
Kalos, Who says that the believer will be raptured rather than the non-believer. No where in scripture does it say which will go and which will stay. Jesus' parable states that two women will be in a field and one will be gone, but He does not say which. First century Judaism (at least that I am aware of...) does not show any picture of the faithful leaving to be with God, but God coming to be with His people. 1 Thess. has the best evidence that the rapture is a picture of believers "going to be with the Lord" but the picture is of a King coming to the people. In the first century, the people would leave their town, village, or city to meet the King (Emperor) on the way, and then all go back to the city with the King. (Trumpets announcing the Kings arrival were all apart of the production.) So, before one can answer the question about 1 or 2 raptures, one needs to know who is being raptured. Also, the rest of scripture is ALWAYS showing a picture of God making his dwelling among mankind, not the reverse. ... MJH |
||||||
408 | New Wine vs. Fermented | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 153490 | ||
Jesus drank fermented wine as did every Jew of his day (as well as their children) during the Passover. Only those taking a Nazarite Vow would abstain from fermented wine or anything from the grape vine for a period of time (about 3 months usually). Or in the case of Samson, for life. Some Pastors teach that Jesus and the first Christians did not drink fermented wine in order to justify their church's "rule" to not drink at all, but these arguments are not historically accurate. If a church chooses to make a "rule" to abstain from alcohol of any kind, that is fine. Elders can add certain rules or yokes for their congregations (binding and losing), and their congregations should abide by them if they attach themselves to that community of believers, but to claim something about Jesus and the disciples that is patently false to justify it is wrong. MJH Scripture: Num 6:3; Luke 1:15 (why say John the Baptist can not drink "strong drink" if no one did?); John 2; 1 Cor 11:21; etc... |
||||||
409 | what color was jesus christ to look upon | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 153475 | ||
Confusing question . . . Jesus was born in Israel, Bethlehem, and lived and grew up in northern Israel in Nazareth. He was Jewish and therefore one can assume he was the same color as every other Jew or Israelite at the time. He was not from Africa, but did spend time there when a very young child. But, as the others have asked, what is the purpose of the question? Especially since the answer is historically obvious. Does it matter his color? No. Does it matter his genealogy and race? YES. The Messiah had to be an Israelite from the tribe of Judah; therefore he had to be a Jew. MJH |
||||||
410 | 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.) |
||||||
411 | 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 |
||||||
412 | 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 |
||||||
413 | 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 |
||||||
414 | 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 |
||||||
415 | If all sacrafices ended, then why Acts 2 | Heb 9:1 | MJH | 152247 | ||
If all sacrafices should have ended with Jesus death and resurrection, then why did Paul participate in sacarfices in Acts 21? And in Acts 21 it was the James and the "elders" who urged Paul to participate with certain men in what appears to have been a Nazarite Vow. MJH |
||||||
416 | Why can we not just be Christians? | 1 Pet 1:2 | MJH | 151878 | ||
I believe that we are doing God's will by participating in these types of discussions. One of the ways in which Jesus (and all the Rabbis during His time) taught was by asking a question, and the answer would be formed as another question, therefore adding to the discussion. AND, during Jesus time, there were 8 great debates (and hundreds of little debates). Jesus participated in all of the big 8 debates. Now, we know that Jesus' answers were the right ones, but one thing Jesus NEVER did was to denounce the debates, rather he encouraged them. The election/forknowledge/free choice debate is one of my favorite. I think Paul gives a great reply to these discussions by saying . . . "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor? Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid? For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen." Romans 11:33-36 MJH |
||||||
417 | Jews' word for Hell comesfrom whatvalley | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 151724 | ||
Was it the Hinnon Valley? Excuss my spelling... I do know it was the valley where all the trash was dumped and burned. |
||||||
418 | What was first sacrifice and by whom? | Gen 3:21 | MJH | 151575 | ||
Correct, smarty pants. | ||||||
419 | What was first sacrifice and by whom? | Gen 3:21 | MJH | 151574 | ||
Correct, smarty pants. | ||||||
420 | What was first sacrifice and by whom? | Not Specified | MJH | 151560 | ||
Trivia question... Good luck.... Prize yet to be disclosed for winner. What was the first sacrifice recorded in the Bible, and who performed it? Not too tricky, but most scholars get it wrong on their first stab. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [29] >> |