Results 41 - 60 of 325
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216380 | ||
anachronism 1. the representation of something in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed 2. a person or thing that seems to belong to another time [Greek ana against AND khronos time] Sorry for the mispelling. I was in a rush. MJH |
||||||
42 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216381 | ||
Doc, I think the person who would come the closest to your definition of "proper exegesis" of Galatians from the "messianic" perspective would be Tim Hegg. I do agree with you, however, that too many in that area of Christianity are loose with their historical interpretation finding what they are looking for rather that always what is there. MJH |
||||||
43 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216444 | ||
Ariel ben-Lyman, as much as I have read, is a wonderful believer doing good things. I'm not a regular reader/listener, but I have read and heard from him on occasion. I don't align on some things that for him and myself may seem pretty big (though not condemning in anyway), but to the rest of the church as near non-issues. I'm somewhat surprised that you would have heard of him enough to mention. MJH |
||||||
44 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216445 | ||
BradK, Within Messianic Judaism there is a major issue that needs the prayers of all of the Church, not just those within this movement. There is a push, and it may be too far to stop, to "convert" Gentiles through circumcision to become "Jewish" so they can fully participate in the faith rather than only be those who are "supporting" Israel. This error, as you have stated, is straight out of Galatia, and I'd covet your prayers concerning this. We are all ONE body, Jews and Gentiles, as we stand God by Faith in Jesus Christ alone. The very thing Paul fought against is at the heart of what it causing injury to a part of the Body of Christ, and whether we agree with all they say and do, they are most certainly Believers and when one part hurts we all hurt. Most of you know where I stand on many of these issues particularly concerning the Law and our relationship to it. If you've been here long enough, you've seen me stumble awkwardly through a new understanding (new for me.) Yet, in the midst of this journey, I've found many who are following pretend leaders; people who purport to know things they do not; people who pretend to understand languages and history but lack the training necessary. These people ride the tide of supposed popularity, but end up dried out on the shore when the tide returns. To most, this fringe area of Christianity does not even show up on the radar, but it's there and it's growing and it needs the prayers of all Christians to be led by God's Spirit to the right places by the right leaders. With great respect, MJH |
||||||
45 | Did God bless the beasts as well | Gen 1:25 | MJH | 213303 | ||
Is is possible that in verse 1:28, the "He blessed them." That this "blessed them" was too all the land creatures including man. And that the second them ... "And God said to them" refers only to mankind? Gen 1:28 "And God blessed them[the land animals and man]. And God said to them[mankind], "Be fruitful and multiply . . ." The English translation would put the pronoun with the closest noun, but that isn’t necessarily how it works in Hebrew. ? Just a thought. I have never noticed this before...it is interesting. Thanks Azure. MJH |
||||||
46 | Genesis 3:22 Who is God referring to"us" | Gen 1:26 | MJH | 144346 | ||
I understand that Gen. 1:26 refers (so it is thought) to the Trinity, but does 3:22 also do this? Or not? | ||||||
47 | What was first sacrifice and by whom? | Gen 3:21 | MJH | 151574 | ||
Correct, smarty pants. | ||||||
48 | What was first sacrifice and by whom? | Gen 3:21 | MJH | 151575 | ||
Correct, smarty pants. | ||||||
49 | Was Ham showing homosexual tendencies? | Gen 9:22 | MJH | 175972 | ||
Jewish scholars during the time both before and after Jesus have written commentaries on this passage and some of them say that Ham committed Homosexual intercourse with Noah. That does not mean it is a certainty, but it has been believed to be the case even before the time of Jesus...which is at least interesting. From schechter.edu “In the Talmud we find some tradition saying that he was castrated by his son or that Ham had sexual intercourses with his father while he was drunk (Sanhedrin 70a). But as a general rule, most Sages transmit the simple meaning of the text, teaching that it is disrespectful for sons to see their parents (or their teachers) unclothed.” MJH |
||||||
50 | When did the hebrew become jew and why | Gen 11:16 | MJH | 230761 | ||
Bill, Yes, that is true. The Old Testament (TaNaK) is filled with the idea that Gentiles would become members of the Assembly. The books of Moses (or the Torah) is filled with laws pertaining to the Ger, or the non-Israelite who binds himself the the LORD. Therefore, Paul is correct to state that the Gentiles have been grafted in. However, the predominate theology of the day was the belief that a Gentile had to become "Jewish" nationally (as if that were possible.) Their teaching wasn't that Gentiles convert to the worship of the One true God, but to become Israel. "All Israel is saved." was a Text (forget the prophet that is quoted) which they used to proclaim that all Israel had a place in the World to Come and any non-Israelite would need to become one to have that place. That's an oversimplification, but in the end, Paul had the Theology foreseen in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings spot on. I really have a hard time understanding the rationale with modern day Jewish theology concerning this issue. I've not had the privileged to speak with a well-grounded Jewish theologian, but I'd like to ask many questions to find out how they deal with many of these issues. I do know their writings and how they explain Ruth and Rahab; but, there is so much more it's so hard to see how it's missed. Love to learn...MJH |
||||||
51 | Resurrection Day, not easter! | Exodus | MJH | 215259 | ||
Thanks for that link. I really appreciated it. MJH |
||||||
52 | Book of Exodus | Ex 1:1 | MJH | 213961 | ||
Good job in this answer. MJH |
||||||
53 | What NAME do we call our GOD? Ex 3:14 | Ex 3:15 | MJH | 164879 | ||
I did not read word for word the site either. It is very long. However, speed reading most of it and reading parts carefully, the author agrees with my standing. However, I hesitate to indorse it in total. I have studied in the Hebrew roots for some time and I have run across a few who seem to make the pronunciation of Jesus’ name almost a salvation issue. They wouldn’t all claim it was a salvation issue, but you wouldn’t know that when you listen to them. YAHshua is not a pronunciation that matches the times of Jesus. (www.jeruselemperspective.com and search for “Hebrew Nuggets”. One of the options is an article on Jesus’ name. These people are experts that the experts consult on Hebrew pronunciation.) Your site quoted the following: “I find the prohibition against saying the name of Jesus a little absurd, considering that the people who have imposed this prohibition, are calling the Messiah by a name that is not found anywhere in the Hebrew scriptures. Most of their reasoning, is that Jesus is an English rendering from a Greek name, and since all things Greek are pagan, this name should not be spoken, and that no self respecting Jew would have ever uttered a Greek name, and surely would not have written any scripture in Greek.” Quoted from the site you mentioned. www.seekgod.ca/htwhatsinaname.htm All said, I almost always use Jesus when speaking to most of my friends, family, and church members. I use Yeshua when it either is understood by those I am speaking to, or when using the Hebrew pronunciation adds to the point. An example is when Joseph is told to name Jesus “Yeshua” because he will save his people from their sins. Yeshua means “salvation.” As far as those who insist on never saying Jesus, but only Yeshua, or YAHshua… to each his own, and if I had friends who were stuck on that, I’d use the name they wanted when I was around them. These are of course my opinions. I like studying such things, but what matters most is how we treat widows and orphans…. MJH |
||||||
54 | Song of Moses the first passage written? | Ex 15:1 | MJH | 213313 | ||
I shall not repeat that error. I only did it so that the question would be placed for all to see again, since I was hoping for someone else to comment on the original question. Sorry. |
||||||
55 | Why worship on resurrection day? | Ex 20:10 | MJH | 140469 | ||
Point well taken. I did not spend near enough time on the last post and should have been more careful. I had to shovel snow from 4:30 am until 7 am and then had to wait to do Christmas Eve breakfast with my family. Soooo, I was tired and killing time reading the forum; but no excuse. Anyway, my reason behind the "this" referring to Passover, was when Jesus (not Paul) said, Luk 22:19 And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, "This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me." Luk 22:20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, "This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. So the “Do this” would refer to what Jesus was actually doing at the time with the Bread and the Wine. And we know that the first church and Apostles also broke bread “in remembrance” on a regular bases, and not just during the Passover. But, I still think that Jesus may have been refereeing to both the “communion” sacrament, as well as the Passover. I will not stand firm on that since I do not have time to spend analyzing the Greek text right now, being that it is only 3 minutes from Christmas day and I will be shoveling snow again at 4:00 am and rushing home to be there before the kids wake up! Thanks for putting me in my place in such a humorous way. I certainly plan to study the liturgical year and have been planning to do so. Any good book or starting point would be appreciated. MJH |
||||||
56 | ... | Ex 31:16 | MJH | 212838 | ||
1Corinthians 16:1,2: 1 Now concerning the collection for the saints: as I directed the churches of Galatia, so you also are to do. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put something aside and store it up, as he may prosper, so that there will be no collecting when I come. -In the first century they did not handle any money on the Sabbath and waited until nightfall to take any collections. (The next day started at sunset.) Acts 20:7 On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. - to break bread was the traditional way for a community to end the Sabbath. The breaking of bread always occured after sunset Saturday evening, which was therefore the first day of the week. This also means that Paul spoke for a few hours, not all day and night. I don't mention this to disagree with your assumptions nor the Westminster Confessions, only to add some historical understanding, something I fear can get me into some trouble. :-( MJH |
||||||
57 | ... | Ex 31:16 | MJH | 212843 | ||
First, not all protestants call Sunday the new Sabbath, but they observe a day of rest in honor of the rest we have in Christ. They do so on Sunday in honor of the day he rose and defeated death. The second century church fathers explain much of this in detail. They explicitly state that the seventh day Sabbath was fulfilled in Jesus. Col.2:14-17; Romans 14 are just two scriptures used to support them. Celebrating days in remembrance of events in religious history was also done by Ester and the Maccabees. Jesus follows the event created after the Maccabean revolt, so there is no reason to assume that the later church could not choose to remember certain days such as the resurrection, ascension, birth, and others . MJH |
||||||
58 | Does the Mosaic Law apply to gentiles? | Leviticus | MJH | 156680 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the chastisement of sorts. You are right that my comment did little...okay, did no help in answering the question. Your note does raise some interesting issues, however. "Antinomianism" I am sorry to say, I had to look that one up, and no no no no I am not that in the least. If anything, I tend to side on the opposite. I have been asking these questions of myself (and others that will discuss them) for about 4 years now. What of the Mosaic Law applies today....to Israel and/or to Gentiles. (I do think there is a distinction.) Where I am today (and may not be tomorrow) is that I believe that none of the Mosaic Law is abandoned, but parts are altered after the Resurrection. Example: I believe that Mark 7 does NOT say that Jesus declared all animals clean, nor does Peter's Acts vision mean to say that there are no longer "unclean" foods. The Levitical sacrificial system has been altered, but I am unable to clearly state how and why at this time. See the book of Hebrews. Galatians is speaking of “works of the Law†not the Law itself. To me, this is a way of saying “legalistic acts of the Law†(see David Stern). Also, the whole argument was “What do the Gentiles have to do?†and never “What do the Jews have to do?†(See Acts 21-22.) I do not buy the argument that, "If the New Testament restates the Old Testament command, then it is still in effect, but otherwise it is not." (My brother’s favorite comment) That to me is a copout. Some in my study group think all of the Mosaic Law applies to Gentiles today, including circumcision, tassels, etc… (I remind them that until they wear tassels, they don’t believe it, because to believe it is to do it.) Now we are actually going over the 613 laws listed by the Jewish scholar in, I believe, the 1200’s one at a time and asking, does this apply to us now? Am I dispensational? I never thought I was. I was raised in the Christian Reformed Church, but have not been in it since 1995. I do not have any significant negative issues with the church that helped raise me in the faith. They did a wonderful job. They were Covenant Theology and Replacement Theology of which I no longer am. I also do not baptize my children as babies. Now I attend a church that recently has hit the church news wires with various pro’s and con’s concerning the Pastor, so I will remain anonymous in that, suffice it to say I am in a non-denominational church. I long to spend time with those who really know the Text and have lived it for decades. If they are willing to be authentic with relating their journey, I would soak it up. (I am 34 now.) I hesitate to relate this information because I have found that once you do so, people tend to peg you into a certain group of thought and assume you are coming from a certain point of view. It hinders honest communication. A recent Pastor I served with knew my background and no matter how hard I tried, he always argued with me from the assumption that I was in lock step with the reformed church. You said, “You respond asking if the Mosaic law is applicable Christians, more specifically Gentile Christians. (An extra distinction that is, perhaps, telling, but I will not delve into at this time.)†Please delve into this….. MJH (PS - I hope this is helpful in knowing where I come from and why I ask certain questions.) |
||||||
59 | unclean is a sin? or not? | Lev 5:2 | MJH | 174792 | ||
Since I did start this thread, let me jump in here. Thanks to both of you for spending so much time on this. It has benefited me greatly. Doc, your statement about the use of the Mishnah et. al. is well stated. 1)"The order of the Laws" was a very common argument among the rabbis in the time of Jesus. You see it in the question to Jesus, "Which is the greatest commandment." They actually went deeper then the fist 3 or 4, but Jesus answer is in line with the Pharisees up until the Samaritan is called a neighbor. The question I like to ask people is, "If your donkey falls into a hole on the Sabbath, do you help it out?" Either way you break one of the commandments. "Life" is the controlling standard. You save the donkey; otherwise it dies, so breaking the Sabbath is justified. 2) The woman who touches the tassel on Jesus robe is showing an amazing act of Faith. She believes in Micah 4:2 that the Son of Righteousness will come with "healing in his corners." Num 15:38 says that all Israel must wear tassels on the corners of their robes. Corners equals Kanaph; Micah says the Messiah will have healing in his (wings, corners) equals Kanaph. The woman obviously understood this passage to mean that if she touched the tassel of the Messiah, she would be made well. So her act, becoming well, superseded the unclean law because to become well was to promote life. She took a great risk in following her faith...if she were wrong she could be exposed of sinning intentionally by touching so many people as well as a respected Rabbi. If she was correct, then her actions would be justified and she would be healed. Note: the word in the Greek text about the woman touching the tassel is the same Greek word used in the LXX to translated Kanaph. 3) It is still my understanding that to become unclean, while limiting your access to the Temple worship for a time did not mean you had “sinned.” But the Lev 5 text does use the word for sin when someone becomes unclean, even unintentionally. I have since had time to study this more and every commentary I found said the following: “The sin was that the person entered the Temple in an unclean state and/or did not do the purification necessary.” Therefore the sin was not being unclean, but in not following the law of purification. Also: In the Jewish Misnah (w) it is said, the word "hidden" is twice used, to show that he is guilty, for the ignorance of uncleanness, and for the ignorance of the sanctuary. (w) Misn. Shebuot, c. 2. sect. 5. I like this explanation much more since one does not have to look at the New Testament and then back track to the old to justify an understanding of scripture. Even though this may work, it doesn’t say “why” it works. Paul and the others didn’t change the meaning or understanding the Old Testament texts. They were working from an understanding of the texts based on their scripture at the time. Not to mention that the Text must mean what it says in the original transmission. MJH |
||||||
60 | What caused two of Aarons sons to die. | Lev 10:2 | MJH | 212844 | ||
It's been awhile since I studied this text and I remember discussing the possibilities of what might have happened. Since at that time we did not have a definitive answer, I choose to answer what I did know at the very least. I’m not in a place at this time on this forum to speculate . Even facts, those stubborn things, get me in trouble. However, your note is the very kind of small group discussion that I am so fond of and remember well. I've been away for 6 months and I miss it. Thanks for the added info. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [17] >> |