Results 41 - 60 of 67
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | 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 |
||||||
42 | What commandments? Torah? yes-no? | 2 John 1:6 | MJH | 140380 | ||
I've read this many times, but it caught me a bit by surprise this time. It seems to be saying that we ought to walk according to the Torah, or the Mosaic Law. 1 John 2:4-6 also says, Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. We know that Jesus walked according to the Torah--as it ought to have been interpreted. These texts seem to be saying that the commandments of the Mosaic Law were to be "walked" the way Jesus "walked" them. The phrase, "just as you have heard from the beginning" seems to suggest this as well. Then what are the commandments of Jesus, if they are not His "yoke" or His interpretation of the Torah? And His interpretation always came out of love, but it was still centered on the Torah (first 5 books). What am I missing? MJH |
||||||
43 | What commandments? Torah? Yes-No? | 2 John 1:6 | MJH | 140379 | ||
I've read this many times, but it caught me a bit by surprise this time. It seems to be saying that we ought to walk according to the Torah, or the Mosaic Law. 1 John 2:4-6 also says, Whoever says "I know him" but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked. We know that Jesus walked according to the Torah--as it ought to have been interpreted. These texts seem to be saying that the commandments of the Mosaic Law were to be "walked" the way Jesus "walked" them. The phrase, "just as you have heard from the beginning" seems to suggest this as well. Then what are the commandments of Jesus, if they are not His "yoke" or His interpretation of the Torah? And His interpretation always came out of love, but it was still centered on the Torah (first 5 books). What am I missing? MJH |
||||||
44 | Numbers in Hebrew letters/words? | Judg 12:14 | MJH | 140406 | ||
Does anyone see any value in the “numbering” in the scripture? Or more specifically, with the numbers associated with the Hebrew letters? For example: The word “truth” in Hebrew is Aleph Mem Tav (First, middle, last letter of Hebrew). Aleph equals 1, Mem equals 40 and Tav equals 400. “I am the Aleph and the Tav; I am the Alpha and Omega” 40 is always associated in the Bible as a time of testing. 400 is the time the Israelites were enslaved in Egypt. 1 is the Messiah. (this one is far to long to express completely here any further) Another I’ve heard lately is that the word covenant in Hebrew equals 612. That is 1 less than the 613 laws in the Torah. When the Messiah came, he completed the Torah by being the one law that was lacking. That being, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another.” John 13:34 Not that the Torah was missing this law (see Lev. 19:18), but that it was not elevated to its proper place, at the top both in theology and actions. Ultimately Jesus was “love” in the flesh, and loved us so much to be the end (purpose) of the Law. Any way, I have never bought into the numbering game, but some things I’ve read recently are quite interesting at the least. Also, this was done even before the time of Jesus. (not that this adds credence.) Anyone study this more in depth, enough to answer? MJH |
||||||
45 | Why ordain pastors? How do you do it? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 140032 | ||
This brings up a good issue that I haven't thought of in some long time. Why do we "ordain" pastors? How did this practice start? I do know the scriptures, but I wonder how closely tied to them many denominations are. The one I grew up in required Greek to be learned and 4 years of seminary to get ordained (except it rare cases.) Then there is the difference between licensed and ordained. Any insightful thoughts on this? |
||||||
46 | Zealous for the law? Sacraficed? Noah? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139870 | ||
This does not get to the heart of my question. They were said to be "zealous for the law." And Paul sacrificed. I uderstand that he was like all people to win some" but this hardly answers the question in my mind. Also, the Acts 15 counsel and Paul in Acts 21:25 state, "they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." This is right out of the Noah covenant according to the Jewish belief of the time. God fearers, those who did not get circumsiced, but stilled believed in the One True God were expected to uphold the Noahetic Covenant at the least. Some Jewish sources list 7 items in this Covenant (I can't find 7), but the Apostles list these four. Could this line of thinking make a difference in how we approach Paul in this context? Seriously just wondering here and asking the question because I do not know. MJH |
||||||
47 | Sadducees vs Pharisees. Am I right? | Acts 23:8 | MJH | 139818 | ||
Roviear, Here is a late answer but one none the less. Sadducees believed in only the first five books of the Bible known as the Torah. They believed in a literal interpretation and therefore did not believe in those things mentioned in this verse. Acts 23:8 “. . . there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit.” They asked Jesus about marriage in Heaven and you will note that He quoted from the portion of the Bible that they accepted. Matt 22:23-33. The Sadducees were also generally wealthy. Their reward was on earth being that there was no resurrection. They also were in good with Rome. Rome put the High Priest in power. They ruled the Sanhedrin and were primarily responsible for sending Jesus to Pilot. Note that they did this the night of Passover when most people would be celebrating at home (as required) with family and most of the people who supported Jesus would be absent. Those who celebrated His triumphal entry into Jerusalem were not the same yelling “Crucify Him.” The Sadducees were fewer in number and ran the Temple and its services. This is how they made their money, requiring Jews to “buy” lambs raised in Temple fields at inflated prices. Their reasons were to streamline the approval of qualified sacrifices instead of having to inspect every lamb brought in that day. The Pharisees believed in the whole Old Testament (Tanak) and also an Oral Torah [Law] that put a “fence” around the written Law. There was more than one kind of Pharisee (contrary to popular belief.) Two main schools of thought were the Hillel and Shammai. Hillel died when Jesus was about 16. Hillel was more progressive and had a “light” yoke, where as Shammai had a very heavy yoke. There were 8 great debates among these two Rabbi’s They were: 1. Sabbath Day 2. Who is my neighbor? 3. Greatest commandment (and their order of importance.)? 4. Tithing 5. Wearing tefillin – (phylacteries) 6. Wearing tassels on corner of robe 7. Fasting 8. Divorce You may note that Jesus addressed them all. He sided with Hillel on all of them except Divorce. Hillel and Shammai disagreed on over 300 issues. Hillel is the school that won out primarily and is still around today I believe. The Pharisees get a bad rap in the Bible mostly, and for good reason (just read the Mishnah, the Oral Torah). However, there were some “good” Pharisees as well, and you meet some in the New Testament. Nichademus and Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel) come out fairly well (we know more about Gamaliel from the Talmud than from the Bible). And it was some Pharisees that tried to help Jesus: Luke 13:31 At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you." Paul was a Pharisee and claimed to still be one near the end of his ministry. Acts 23. Paul followed Gamaliel who followed Hillel. Gamaliel most likely would not have approved of Paul’s treatment of believers before his conversion. Mainly however, the Pharisees were far more concerned; it seems, with minor details of the “letter of the Law” than with mercy and justice. Being a hypocrite (which was an actor in the theaters) was applied well. They played a part, put on masks, and looked for applause. MJH Others: please confirm or correct any errors. Thanks. |
||||||
48 | Have a Messianic Jew answer your quest.? | Acts 21:21 | MJH | 139814 | ||
Wow, this is from a long time ago. Makarios, happened upon your comment. Would you like me to get a Messianic Jew to answer your Jully 27, 2001 question? MJH |
||||||
49 | New believers zealous for LAW? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139813 | ||
When I was young, I was told that the "law" (or Torah, Law of Moses) was done away with unless it was restated in the New Testament. Paul was said to have taught this. But here in Acts 21, we see Paul showing that the converts were "zealous for the law" and that he himself "walked in observance of the [Torah]". He even sacrificed to God after Jesus' atonement. AND he calls him self a Pharisee in the present tense. Any thoughts on this? A side note: one of the main questions I have been asking for the last couple of years (since I got a renewed fire for study) is, "What of the OT Laws apply to me, a Gentile, to the Jews in the Land, and to the Jews not in the Land?" Please don't answer THAT question right now, but I want to fully disclose why I am asking about Acts 21. For some reason I have missed this part of the story of Paul before. MJH – (re-born on this Forum to not be argumentative any more :-) |
||||||
50 | Scripture - more than one meaning? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 139827 | ||
Is it ever possible for scripture to have more than one meaning? I have heard the Sages of old said, "There are 70 layers to every Bible passage." I am not one to subscribe to 70 layers to every passage, but can there be more than one meaning? For example: Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers, rejected. There is an obvious plane meaning to this. Joseph was sold into slavery. But, does this narrative foretell the Messiah being sold by his brothers, rejected, only to save them in the end like Joseph saved his brothers? Is this a Messiah picture, besides the plane obvious story? I was just curious what others thought about this. I think the above example is a Torah picture of the Messiah (kind of like the snake is seen as more than a snake in Gen 2). But . . . what do you all think? MJH |
||||||
51 | What was Caesarea Philippi like? | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139541 | ||
Where was Jesus when He said, "On this Rock"? Caesarea Philippi. Are you aware of what is in Caesarea Philippi? Do you know what happened in that city during the time Jesus walked around? Have you seen the "gates of Hades" which is physically located in Caesarea Philippi? Some geography and history will both enlighten what Jesus said AND blow you away that He had the chutzpah to go there with His disciples. This being said, your explanation is not incorrect, but lacking some powerful pictures that could help make your point stronger. A side note: understanding how Rabbis in the time of Jesus understood the terms “binding” and “loosing,” would very much support some of your points. MJH |
||||||
52 | Levitate, go to heaven, or the City? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139435 | ||
In the first century if an Emperor came to a city the following would occur: A great procession would precede the Emperor with blowing horns to announce his arrival. All the people of the city, village, or town would come out to meet the Emperor on the road to the city. After meeting the Emperor outside the city to greet him, they would all return to the city and celebrations would occur. These usually had to do with worship of the Emperor as a god and the “savior of the world.” The above is available to be learned in any public library in the history section. How would the people in Thessalonica have read Paul’s letter when he says, “16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.” Note, it does not mention what happens after we meet the Lord in the air. I assume we all agree we do not levitate for eternity with the Lord. This means a direction is required before the last sentence. It’s not in the text, but maybe the historical picture of the times helps us? Your thoughts? MJH |
||||||
53 | ascend into Heaven? Where? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139377 | ||
You said, "Don't miss one very important issue, everyone must first come to God." -- But is it not more accurate to say that God came to us and we must accept Him? –rather than us having to go to Him? Also, where is it said, ". . . and ascend into the presence of the Lord?" I read all of 1 Cor. 15, and it isn't there. This is my point. Why do we keep saying we will ascend into heaven, when the scriptures do not ever say this? I do not doubt that the dead are now "in the presence of the Lord," but to say that in the end, we will all ascend into heaven is never mentioned. But it does say He will make His dwelling with us. So help me understand the reasoning behind the common belief that we all go to heaven to be with God “in the end?” (Please note, I am not trying to be argumentative as it might seem.) MJH |
||||||
54 | Israel rejected Messiah? How so? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139305 | ||
Kalos, you said, "'Yes, Israel rejected their Messiah when He came..." How can you square this with the fact that all (at least all that we know) of the first few thousand Christians were Jews? Not only that, but ALL of the Apostles were Jews. MJH |
||||||
55 | Would actions change if? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139302 | ||
Most Christians I meet talk in terms of mankind going to be with God. But the Bible always speaks in terms of God desiring to make His dwelling with mankind. It is a subtle point, but an important one to look into, I believe. It is not simply being with God -- the direction is important. How many people picture us being in Heaven with God and singing worship songs all day in white clothes? Oh, and don't forget that personal mansion that we are all suppose to have. In reading the Bible we are presented with a picture of God seeking to dwell with mankind. The whole purpose of the Temple, sacrifices, and Law of Moses was to paint a picture of a holy, loving, merciful God seeking to be among His people. The New Testament continues this picture with the Messiah being with us, and then Revelation speaking in the same language. When we in our language flip this direction we are in danger of developing theological beliefs that are contrary to reality. How would our understandings of God and therefore our actions change if we thought primarily of God coming down to dwell among us? |
||||||
56 | Look to OT or NT for answer? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139274 | ||
But doesn't the New Testament fulfill the Old Testament? And therefore shouldn't we look to the NT for the answer to this question? MJH |
||||||
57 | God dwell with Men? or Men with God? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139270 | ||
You said, Heaven is where God is, but your verses say that God will make his dwelling with men. No where did the term heaven even appear in your passages. I've heard many say, "We will all meet in Heaven some day." But I only read that we will all meet in the New Earth and God will dwell among us. Not unlike when the Tabernacle was built in Exodus, and God dwelt among them. Ex 25:8, “Then have them make a sanctuary for me, and I will dwell among them.” Note, it did not say he dwelt IN the sanctuary (where is Glory was) but that He dwelt AMONG them. Again, in Genesis 2, we see God dwelling among Adam and Eve. So, where does the idea of us all living for ever in Heaven come from? MJH |
||||||
58 | Men dwell with God, or God with men? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139238 | ||
Where in the Bible does it speak of people making their dwelling with God? |
||||||
59 | replacement theoplogy is incorrect? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139187 | ||
Does every Christian believe replacement theoplogy is incorrect? |
||||||
60 | What about Matt 27:25? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139186 | ||
What about Matt 27:25. All the people answered, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” Do you think this plays into the issue? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |