Results 41 - 60 of 67
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Unanswered Bible Questions Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | 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 |
||||||
42 | 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 :-) |
||||||
43 | 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 |
||||||
44 | 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. |
||||||
45 | 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 |
||||||
46 | 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 |
||||||
47 | Has the church replaced Israel? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139101 | ||
Has the church replaced Israel? | ||||||
48 | Can you clarify your previous post? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139103 | ||
BJH, You said "Others say 'No' but the church is Israel. By this statement do you mean that some say the church replaced Israel, some say it has not replaced Israel but that the church IS Israel? Please clarify. Thanks, MJH |
||||||
49 | 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? |
||||||
50 | replacement theoplogy is incorrect? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139187 | ||
Does every Christian believe replacement theoplogy is incorrect? |
||||||
51 | 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? |
||||||
52 | 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 |
||||||
53 | 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 |
||||||
54 | 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? |
||||||
55 | 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 |
||||||
56 | 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 |
||||||
57 | 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 |
||||||
58 | Blessed Passover tonight | 1 Cor 5:7 | MJH | 148837 | ||
Blessed Passover tonight. Anyone celebrating? Baruch atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech Haolam |
||||||
59 | Justified by faith or His faithfullness? | Gal 2:16 | MJH | 174573 | ||
Justified by faith in Christ? or Justified by the faithfulness of Christ? David Stern in his commentary on the New Testament likes to translate this (and other passages in the Bible that say the same thing) as "justified by the faithfulness of the Messiah Jesus." rather than "faith in the Messiah.” It seems to me to be a more accurate translation more fitting with the whole of scripture. We are justified because of the Messiah's faithfulness and not our own, and when we place our trust in Him, his faithfulness is imputed to us. I wanted to know if any Greek scholars, or those with the time to look into it, can provide an argument for supporting or opposing this translation. MJH |
||||||
60 | Paul the Torah observant Jew? | Phil 3:7 | MJH | 154015 | ||
Doc, Kalos, Wild Olive Shoot, Anyone . . . Seeking comments on two notes I posted to Jeff, but have not recevied a reply to. I am eager to get feed back on these two posts if possible. They are things I am disdussing in real life at a Bible study.... Post # 153873 and #153874 Thanks, MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next > Last [4] >> |