Results 401 - 420 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
401 | OT/NT | Acts 26:14 | MJH | 212242 | ||
Without trying to stir up needless debate, I believe strongly that Jesus spoke Hebrew, though it is an ongoing debate. 1) The earliest sources (referred to as secondary) say Hebrew. 2) Archeology is more and more leaning toward Hebrew for the common tongue. 3) The dead sea scrolls give more evidence for Hebrew than Aramaic. 4) It's the language of the Bible and the Jews were only gone 70 years in an Aramaic speaking land. But since the late second century they were gone for more than 1800 years and when the got their land back they went back to Hebrew as the common tongue. Why wouldn’t they have done so after only 70 years. Everything I know about the Jewish people of the first century tells me that they would cling to their native language and teach it to their children from birth. This argument is base solely on inferences. 5) Jesus would have spoken Aramaic because many Jews coming into the area for the festivals would be Aramaic and Greek speakers. It would be reasonable to assume Jesus knew Aramaic very well and Greek enough to get by. These are my assumptions, but the majority of "scholars" still say Aramaic, though they are wrong :-) MJH |
||||||
402 | Is Allah the God of Israel? | Acts 28:2 | MJH | 157804 | ||
I believe you are mistaken to assume the Maltese language uses the term "Allah" as a impersonal noun like the words "god" or "theos." "Allah" is a personal name, and not a generic word for "god." If those on Malta are using the term "Allah" as a translation of the word "god" or "theos" as you seem to be stating, then the people of Malta have a serious problem because the name "Allah" is understood across all languages, much like the name YHWH is (only who knows how to pronounce the One True God's name.) It is unfortunate, for example, when the media translates a terrorist’s statement and translates the "Allah" as "god" in English, because it is not correct. The translation should be true to the speaker’s intent and translate "Allah" as "Allah" so there is no confusion. If those in Malta are translating a generic "god" as "Allah" they will also confuse the population. I say this as one who never went to Malta, nor do I know anyone there or anyone who went there. But, to answer your original question, I believe quite strongly that the personal name "Allah" should never be used of anyone but the god of Islam. MJH |
||||||
403 | Is Allah the God of Israel? | Acts 28:2 | MJH | 157895 | ||
Possibly my lack of knowledge about the languages may have caused be to err. Maybe not, but doing a simple google search on the phrase "etymology of the word Allah" provided some interesting things to read. They are of course just web sites that can say anything, but there seems to be a common thread reflected in the following statement: ----------- In common roots with all Abrahamic religions, ie. Judaism, Christianity and Islam, "Allah" is the same word that Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews use for God. Arabic Torah, Bibles and Qur'an, the word "Allah" is used where "God" is used in English. Allah is the only word in the Arabic language equivalent to the English word "God". However, Allah is somewhat a unique word grammatically, since it cannot be made plural or given gender (i.e. masculine or feminine), which goes hand-in-hand with the Islamic concept of God. The root word "God" in English, for instance, can be used in similar forms, such as "God", "Gods" or "Goddess". --------- Maybe this helps some? MJH |
||||||
404 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200828 | ||
What of the Mosaic Law applies to me a Gentile Christian? I have been seeking an answer to this question for the last six years and have often been frustrated at the slow pace in finding good answers from people who have different views. I could use some help. While I have come a long way in my search and have ended up where I never expected when I started, I felt that it would have been more effective for me to have had quality articles written in support of each view. I have been surprised by the fact that it is very difficult to find any article written to answer this specific question. The best I could do was find mentions of it in passing, or in bullet point form. Maybe even a short 1-2 page paper giving the overall points of a theological viewpoint, but as of yet, I have not found one excellently written article which covers the topic thoroughly, and uses primary sources when applicable. In fact, most positions are so poorly written, that when confronted, the author is at a loss. Therefore, I am collecting the best of the best theological scholarly papers on this question from every main view point that has substance. If anyone here knows of good articles supporting any view well, I’d love to know of them. I have found none so far…only mediocre articles. MJH |
||||||
405 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200831 | ||
Sorry, but that really isn't helpful. Sending me to Romans and asking me to refrain from finding out how different Theologies interpret it is the same as condemning this whole forum. You could as easy answer every question the same way. Covenant Theology and Dispensational theology disagree but both read Romans just to name two. Others say we ought to follow all of the Mosaic Law, and still others say we ought not to follow any. Both are reading Romans and neither is preaching works salvation. If you know of any quality thesis papers or articles of substance, I’d love to read them! MJH |
||||||
406 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200839 | ||
Hey Doc, Thanks for the links! Also, yes I know the doctrines and most the people you site and yes I could argue and discuss any side of this issue very well. I'm honestly not seeking to prove my thinking or understanding, I just can't/couldn't find available online a good argument that addressed this issue specifically. MJH |
||||||
407 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200847 | ||
Romans 2:6 “God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’” Romans 2:13 “It is not those who hear the Law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the Law who will be declared righteous.” Romans 2:27 “The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the Law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a Law-breaker.” Romans 3:31 “Do we, then, nullify the Law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the Law.” Romans 6:1 “What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means!” Romans 6:15 “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness?” Romans 7:12 “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” Romans 7:22 “For in my inner being I delight in God’s Law” Romans 8:3b “And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met is us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.” Romans 8:7 “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s Law, nor can it do so.” |
||||||
408 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200850 | ||
My question wasn't "Which is the correct view?" My question was, "Are their any articles that systematically spell out a particular theologies beliefs concerning the Law and the Christian?" Not that I am not thankful, but honestly, I'm just looking for good articles. I'm not even saying which view I personally agree with. MJH |
||||||
409 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200851 | ||
Doc, These keywords are both on the ridiculous side of things. I'm looking more for the coherent arguments and systematic theologies which fall within the rational realm of Christendom. I look forward to following your earlier links! Thanks again, MJH |
||||||
410 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200860 | ||
Jeff, Sorry Jeff, I was sort of playing with you there (with the Roman's quotes). I know that Scripture has the answers we are looking for but not everyone reads them the same way and they were written in a specific context. Romans, of which I've studied and read, has more commentaries on it than any other book in the Bible. Honestly, I do hear what you are saying. And in part I agree. I just wasn't begging for a debate on the issue of the Law, I simply wanted to know if anyone had links to well written papers on the topic, that's all. Nothing more, nothing less. And yes, there seemingly is no end to it, but that doesn't mean I don't want to at the very least try to understand the opposing views. It is apparently possible that when one types, their words don’t always come across in the same light they meant for them to be read. If I was offensive, I apologize. God Bless too, MJH |
||||||
411 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200861 | ||
Doc, It seems that you are a bit upset with me here. Of all the people I've discussed with here on this site over the years, none have I respected more than you. Like I mentioned to Jeff, I may not realize how my typing always comes across. You said, "But I can guarantee you won't find it in a couple of pages worth of reading." You are very correct there. So far the best article I have found is 31 pages long. That's why I've had a hard time finding good writing. Most of them are short synopsis. "Scholarship takes some intellectual sweat, I fear!" - that is an understatement. It is great when you find a person who is doing it though, or to read the writings of those who came before. It's marveling. MJH |
||||||
412 | What of the Law applies to me a believe? | Romans | MJH | 200902 | ||
Great examples Doc. They're excellent at making your point. I'm not sure if you understand that I agree with you probably completely. I know that you are not saying that, "any obedience at all to God throws out Grace." I know you're not antinomian. So, if Christians obey Law, they are not automatically trying to earn anything in the site of God. Any act of obedience done in love is a wonderful thing, I believe, and I am quite sure you do as well. God forbid anyone ever teach that our actions in relationship to any deed, law, or even doctrine can earn ourselves either salvation or a more favorable place before a Holy God. We are saved by faith alone through the Messiah Jesus alone by grace alone. MJH |
||||||
413 | Fair multitude die without gospel? | Rom 1:20 | MJH | 165501 | ||
Kalos, I have read the web site you quoted. I many times "preached" those very points from those very scriptures. I've been in the faith for nearly 30 years and was brought up in the faith as a child. I understand all of the things that that web site has to say, only now I do not accept them any longer as stated. My understanding of Hell has changed some in the past few years. Actually it has been something that I struggled with even while teaching the very things on the site you have given. I do not believe that a Holy and Just God would find it Just to condemn for eternity those who sought to serve and Love Him, but got it wrong. My old neighbor is a good anecdotal example. She lived through the Holocaust and concentration camps. She was a Jewish believer who loved the one True God and served Him, prayed to Him, knew His Word and followed it as best she knew how. She did know about Jesus, but in her words, "He hasn't spoke to her yet." As He apparently did for her daughter. My original belief was that God would do to her what even Hitler couldn't dream up as a punishment. And not only that, God would do it to her for ever and ever and ever in conscious torment. All this for trying to serve and love the One True God. I do not find any scriptures that uphold that view. One might argue whether or not she will be "with the Lord" but to be in eternal conscious torment...no, I do not believe that based on my understanding of all of scripture. MJH |
||||||
414 | Fair multitude die without gospel? | Rom 1:20 | MJH | 165559 | ||
I agree that salvation is found in no one else than in Jesus the Messiah and by no one else and through no one else will anyone be saved. I also do not believe this women would have been saved by following the Mosaic Law nor saved by works of the Law. Which many taught even before the time of Jesus. I did not say she was saved....but lets assume I did for a momment because I believe it is quite possible. Salvation is through Jesus alone, but does that mean a person has to have a completly accurate understanding of Him to be saved through Him? (CS Lewis, by the way, did not think so...though he is not the Word of God.) I used to believe in my youth that most Catholics were not going to be saved. I was even harsh in my attitude toward Mother Teressa. My reasons were that they had an inacurrate understanding of Jesus (amoung other things). While in the ministry as an adult our largest "target" audiance to convert were Catholics. Although I still believe that church ought to reach out to the Catholics in their neighborhood because most of them were Catholic in name only, I wouldn't concern myself with "coverting" them as if they were hell bound. In the end it is in the hand of God, whome I trust with my whole being. The more I read scriptrure, however, the more I find the arguments I used to make a little harder to make and somewhat selective. Don't worry about me though. I tend to hold to my original and traditional beliefs longer than I should rather than toss them at the first sign of unrest. This forum is a safe place to explore those thoughts, however. Should I have this discussion at the family reunion, I might cause some to meet the Lord all too soon if you know what I mean. God Bless, MJH PS. If any catholics read this I would like to point out that scripture at its core speaks of redeming the word and helping orphans and widows (those in real need). I see the (Catholic) names on Hospitals and Orphanages and adomption centers all around the globe. The world can see, if they choose, who is doing what the Gospel calls "good news". |
||||||
415 | salvation for unbelievers? | Rom 1:20 | MJH | 212444 | ||
The question you ask is a large debate in the Christian community. You will find from the extreme Universalism that everyone who lives will eventually be in heaven all the way to the extreme dogmatic who believes that anyone not in their denomination will not go to heaven. The Scriptures deal with how mankind can draw near to a Holy God. They generally do not deal with this hypothetical question straight on. One comes to conclusions based on inferences. One thing we can be certain of is that God is holy AND just and will deal with each person according to His character and purpose. Why does this specific question interest you at this time? MJH |
||||||
416 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | MJH | 200687 | ||
Are there any Greek scholars out there? I'd like to know if the Greek of this verse can be translated as below. I'm not asking if you think in should be, but rather can it be translated this way without violating the rules of Greek? "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law by nature, do what the Law requires, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves" Note: the main change is in where to apply the word "nature." If I can find someone to verify (double source) this possible translation for me, that would be helpful since I am ignorant of Greek syntax and structure. Also, every known English translation puts "nature" the same way . . . "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law, do by nature ..." Thanks, MJH |
||||||
417 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | MJH | 200715 | ||
Hey, Doc It's been a long time. Good to see you are still around these parts. I do not dislike the NASB nor the Amplified translations. The amplified of course is more interpretation, but is real nice for reading and an additional resource. When reading Romans 2 recently, I noticed while crossing over this familiar passage a pause that made me wonder if there shouldn't be at least a look at changing the translation. My reason was because in many other parts of scripture it seems obvious that "no one seeks God and no one does good, not even one." So why would Paul attempt to say that non-regenerate Gentiles would "do what the Law requires." Second, I have am not currently in favor of assuming that Paul is dividing the Law up here into only "common" law (do not murder, do not steal) or even a so called Noahidic Law common to all peoples. So in re-reading the English text (since I don't read Greek unfortunately) I put in mind that these were Gentiles who were "regenerate" (ie. Christians to use our term). Then the Text made some sense: the Jews, who were "in the flesh" born into the covenant and grew up with the Law and heard it read weekly or more, were in reality not "doing it"; but, the Gentiles who were not "in the flesh" born into the covenant, but grafted into Israel through the faith of Abraham, were now actually hearing and doing the Law. “For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Furthermore, the Law is “written on their hearts” still speaking of Gentiles. This is drawing back on Jeremiah 31, which speaks of the whole Law and also speaks only of Israel, therefore in Romans 11 Paul speaks of how the Gentiles are grafted into Israel. If the Law is written on their hearts, it must be the Holy Spirit that does this, and this also means they must be regenerate Gentiles, not random pagans in any culture. Therefore: “…when Gentiles, who do not have by nature the Law [of Moses], do the things required by the Law [of Moses], they are …” Also, this change (not in the Greek, but in the translation) that I propose does not in anyway change the argument that Paul is making. The only real practical change is that a lot of sermons based on “all cultures” having a common law because we were all created in the Image of God, etc… will need to find a different passage to preach from. Doc, I was waiting to reply until I had more time, but when your response also came, I couldn’t resist. Then I remembered that on this forum, I like to test some of my thinking out even before I have had time to really organize and confirm or not confirm my thinking. It’s nice to have a place where a person can think out loud. MJH |
||||||
418 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | MJH | 200716 | ||
Tim, Thanks so much for your confirmation that more than just one person found this. I like Cranfield's comment. I'm not sure how much work you went into for this, but it seems like a lot and I appreciate it. I responded more fully under Docs response only because it came second, so see there for why I was thinking about this. This is still something that is running around in my head while I drive and have time to think. I have not had time to put meat on it at all, so it may go nowhere. Thanks so much, MJH |
||||||
419 | Greek scholars help with translation? | Rom 2:14 | MJH | 200737 | ||
Doc, Granted you can (see further on the shoulders of giants)...and I have...and I value them for their theology and mostly of course their courage in light of the times they lived. Forever indebted are we to them! Calvin was always a preferred favorite in my upbringing. That being said, I've of recent come to see that Paul was not teaching that the Law of Moses was no longer applicable (or not applicable) to the lives of both Jews and Gentiles (ie. so I do see him saying "do the Law." Granted, I have not plowed these text (In Romans 2) like I should, but rather have been tilling the good soil of Galatians and ended up here on an excursion. So, I hold these "truths?" to be non-self evident and shall continue to work them over. It's been nearly 7 years now where I started this trek, allowing myself to ask the questions in search of the truth while holding so very tightly to the doctrine and teachings of the giants of the faith, some times too tightly. After all, beliefs that have been held for hundreds of years have been held that way for a reason. Either way, we all agree that salvation is through faith and faith in Jesus the Messiah alone both now, in the first century, and before the Messiah was born. MJH |
||||||
420 | Who is a Jew? | Rom 2:28 | MJH | 139100 | ||
Kalos, A Jew is from the tribe of Judah. Usually one thinks of Israel and Jew as one and the same. Technically that is not accurate. But since most who remain are from the tribe of Judah, the name Jew came to mean all Israel. It is interesting to note that Paul (Saul) was a Benjamite, and not a Jew (from Judah). I'm certain there is much more detail information about how and when this term Jew came about and when it replaced Judah and when it came to mean all Israel. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ] Next > Last [29] >> |