Results 41 - 60 of 275
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Tamara Brewington Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
41 | laying out fleece vs divining | Judg 6:38 | Tamara Brewington | 205727 | ||
Okay John God Bless You Dear.... So much for what I have witnessed... | ||||||
42 | Evidenc of Signs in 2008 Valid? | Mark 16:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205724 | ||
My dearest Jim, Did you read Pastor Moran's post? Most informing and intersting observations - namely that there is a question in the textual study area of whether or not the end of Mark should even be in the NT at all, that is why in every Bible it appears in brackets (I think I submitted a post not to long ago in answer to someone about this very thing). Since this portion of Mark is still to this day held in question as to whether it belongs in the NT taking it and runnig forward with it is not reccommended by commentators. As to posion, we should never say poison refers to a substance not intended by the original author, I highly doubt if that passage belongs in the NT that Mark meant bad food, I think he meant real poison, like a draught of poison. I think we should also try to look at the whole text there in the end of Mark in the light of the whole rest of what we can find in scripture that there is to see. For instance the use of tongues is not seen through out the NT as a sign of those who have believed consistently after the groups were added in Acts. And we don't here much about casting out demons either. This came up about the same verse in another post a few days ago and Pastor Moran remarked then, that we can't leave out the list of the other gifts as signs that people have believed. Making sense of things literaly must always also take into consideration the other texts that apply to the understanding of the principle to be arrived at as to an application. Some of the scriptures you came up with go off the general page in terms of hitting on the subject matter, but I can understand from reading carefully what you wrote how you got where you got. God's Love To You, Tamara |
||||||
43 | laying out fleece vs divining | Judg 6:38 | Tamara Brewington | 205719 | ||
Dear Doc, I will ask you to try to see that Gideon had no need to ask for a confirmation of something he shoud have just taken on faith... There was no need to ask for a confirmation of what he knew he heard was there? Here do you like this language better; Gideon asked for a confirmation of what he already was clearly told and should have known God would do, and that constitutes some lack on his part of a complete trust that God would deliver receiving a sign of confirmation. If that is still out of order please Doc take the time and :))))))) patience to teach my why it is out of order, or wrong thinking verbiage, verbiage, verbiage... I am trying to get at the reason why Gideon seemed to be needing confirmation - God is a solid promiser what is not clear about being told once? Gideon had that once being shown by fleece was not enough, and asked that God's anger not burn against him for asking twice - he was aware that there might be a problem between God that he was asking... We can say for sure that he had doubt about what God promised or he would not have asked for a sign of confirmation would he? That is where I started out from... God Bless, Tam |
||||||
44 | 3 brothers descendants changed | Col 1:16 | Tamara Brewington | 205692 | ||
continuation of Quote; wikipedia, Tamara “Mar Ephrem the Syrian said: When Noah awoke and was told what Canaan did. . .Noah said, ‘Cursed be Canaan and may God make his face black,’ and immediately the face of Canaan changed; so did of his father Ham, and their white faces became black and dark and their color changed.” Paul de Lagarde, Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des Pentateuchs (Leipzig, 1867), part II The Eastern Christian work, the Cave of Treasures (4th century), explicitly connects slavery with dark-skinned people: “When Noah awoke. . .he cursed him and said: ‘Cursed be Ham and may he be slave to his brothers’. . .and he became a slave, he and his lineage, namely the Egyptians, the Abyssinians, and the Indians. Indeed, Ham lost all sense of shame and he became black and was called shameless all the days of his life, forever.” La caverne des trésors: version Géorgienne, ed. Ciala Kourcikidze, trans. Jean-Pierre Mahe, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium 526-27, Scriptores Iberici 23-24 (Louvain, 1992-93), ch. 21, 38-39 (translation). Ishodad of Merv (Syrian Christian bishop of Hedhatha, 9th century): When Noah cursed Canaan, “instantly, by the force of the curse. . .his face and entire body became black [ukmotha]. This is the black color which has persisted in his descendents.” C. Van Den Eynde, Corpus scriptorium Christianorum orientalium 156, Scriptores Syri 75 (Louvain, 1955), p. 139. Eutychius, Alexandrian Melkite patriarch (d. 940): “Cursed be Ham and may he be a servant to his brothers… He himself and his descendants, who are the Egyptians, the Negroes, the Ethiopians and (it is said) the Barbari.” Patrologiae cursus completes…series Graeca, ed. J.P. Migne (Paris, 1857-66), Pococke’s (1658-59) translation of the Annales, 111.917B (sec. 41-43) Ibn al-Tayyib (Arabic Christian scholar, Baghdad, d. 1043): “The curse of Noah affected the posterity of Canaan who were killed by Joshua son of Nun. At the moment of the curse, Canaan’s body became black and the blackness spread out among them.” Joannes C.J. Sanders, Commentaire sur la Genèse, Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 274-275, Scriptores Arabici 24-25 (Louvain, 1967), 1:56 (text), 2:52-55 (translation). Bar Hebraeus (Syrian Christian scholar, 1226-86): “‘And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and showed [it] to his two brothers.’ That is…that Canaan was cursed and not Ham, and with the very curse he became black and the blackness was transmitted to his descendents…. And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be to his brothers.’” Sprengling and Graham, Barhebraeus’ Scholia on the Old Testament, pp. 40-41, to Gen 9:22. See also: Phillip Mayerson, “Anti-Black Sentiment in the Vitae Patrum”, Harvard Theological Review, vol. 71, 1978, pp. 304-311. According to Catholic mystic Anne Catherine Emmerich, "I saw the curse pronounced by Noah upon Ham moving toward the latter like a black cloud and obscuring him. His skin lost its whiteness, he grew darker. His sin was the sin of sacrilege, the sin of one who would forcibly enter the Ark of the Covenant. I saw a most corrupt race descend from Ham and sink deeper and deeper in darkness. I see that the black, idolatrous, stupid nations are the descendants of Ham. Their color is due, not to the rays of the sun, but to the dark source whence those degraded races sprang" 2. Pre-modern European interpretations. In the Middle Ages, European scholars of the Bible picked up on the Jewish Talmud idea of viewing the "sons of Ham" or Hamites as cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins. Though early arguments to this effect were sporadic, they became increasingly common during the slave trade of the 18th and 19th Centuries. 5 The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of a ready supply of African labour. This interpretation of Scripture was never adopted by the African Coptic Churches. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
45 | 3 brothers descendants changed | Col 1:16 | Tamara Brewington | 205691 | ||
Dear Jeff, I went looking at your scriptures first off, because I really wanted to know what the Bible says in answer to the oringinal question that got posted. Here is what I found out abuot the erroneous curse of Ham and how it got started! Quote; wikipedia; Early Jewish interpretations The Torah assigns no racial characteristics or rankings to Ham. Moses married a Cushite, one of the reputed descendants of Ham, according to the Book of Numbers, Chapter 12. Despite this, a number of early Jewish writers have interpreted the Biblical narrative of Ham in a racial way. The Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b states "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished — the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates, his seed into his mate's mouth. and Ham was smitten in his skin." Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 108b. The nature of Ham's "smitten" skin is unexplained, but latter commentaries described this as a darkening of skin. A later note to the text states that the "smitten" skin referred to the blackness of descendents, and a later comment by rabbis in the Bereshit Rabbah asserts that Ham himself emerged from the ark black-skinned. 2, 3 The Zohar states that Ham's son Canaan "darkened the faces of mankind". 4 edit. Early and Early Modern Christian interpretations. Many pre-modern Christian sources discuss the curse of Ham in connection with race and slavery: Origen (circa 185 c. 254): “For the Egyptians are prone to a degenerate life and quickly sink to every slavery of the vices. Look at the origin of the race and you will discover that their father Cham, who had laughed at his father’s nakedness, deserved a judgment of this kind, that his son Chanaan should be a servant to his brothers, in which case the condition of bondage would prove the wickedness of his conduct. Not without merit, therefore, does the discolored posterity imitate the ignobility of the race, Non ergo immerito ignobilitatem decolor posteritas imitatur.” Homilies on Genesis 16.1 more to come, Tamara |
||||||
46 | Praise Dance Wrong Worship? | Ps 149:3 | Tamara Brewington | 205690 | ||
Dearest Doc, You said; I've yet to see any examples in North America of so-called "praise dancing" that reflected a reverential fear of God, and an effort to honor Him in the spirit in which He commands. Instead, it is always something man centered, with exceedingly fleshly aspects. Take the flesh out of it, and there might be some measure of hope of the Holy Spirit's involvement (Galatians 5:17). Could you please expound a bit more here about what you see would be the fleshly aspects and what would be a true display of the reverential fear? No aruguments or disagreements being fired here... How are we to know what is in folks hearts when they praise the Lord by dance? If we saw African Christians moving differently than American Christias move, would we say it was not reverential in the fear of God because it was different? David danced out of his clothes in pure worship of God in joy that the Ark was being returned to its proper place. His wife found that undignified, ungodly, and a disgrace before God and men, she was wrong. I am pretty sure David got fairly active there or he couldn't have danced out of his clothes. Would we, if we were seeing him have felt that his worhship was to "me centered" becuase it was not dignified or even reverential in form? I was under the impression that we should praise the Lord from the heart, whatever the mode and not worry about appearances, with all our heart. I am not insinuating that you are saying different and this is not the beginning of a fruitless argument or an entrance into an ignoring of good advice. You got me to praying and thinking some more about this is all. What do you think? God's Grace To You, Tamara |
||||||
47 | Praise Dance Wrong Worship? | Ps 149:3 | Tamara Brewington | 205689 | ||
Dearest Doc, You said; I've yet to see any examples in North America of so-called "praise dancing" that reflected a reverential fear of God, and an effort to honor Him in the spirit in which He commands. Instead, it is always something man centered, with exceedingly fleshly aspects. Take the flesh out of it, and there might be some measure of hope of the Holy Spirit's involvement (Galatians 5:17). Could you please expound a bit more here about what you see would be the fleshly aspects and what would be a true display of the reverential fear? No aruguments or disagreements being fired here... How are we to know what is in folks hearts when they praise the Lord by dance? If we saw African Christians moving differently than American Christias move, would we say it was not reverential in the fear of God because it was different? David danced out of his clothes in pure worship of God in joy that the Ark was being returned to its proper place. His wife found that undignified, ungodly, and a disgrace before God and men, she was wrong. I am pretty sure David got fairly active there or he couldn't have danced out of his clothes. Would we, if we were seeing him have felt that his worhship was to "me centered" becuase it was not dignified or even reverential in form? I was under the impression that we should praise the Lord from the heart, whatever the mode and not worry about appearances, with all our heart. I am not insinuating that you are saying different and this is not the beginning of a fruitless argument or an entrance into an ignoring of good advice. You got me to praying and thinking some more about this is all. What do you think? God's Grace To You, Tamara |
||||||
48 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205681 | ||
Dear Jim, Thank you for your kind remarks I look forward to learning from everyone here. I will think about your take on things... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
49 | 3 brothers descendants changed | Col 1:16 | Tamara Brewington | 205678 | ||
My Dearest Val, Thank you very, very much, this is exactly te verse I was looking for about the blood... Thank you for finding that, I have a feeling the curse of Ham thing is way off there, but I am not sure... Val do you no anything about this idea and whether or not it had roots in the Bible? Or is it just racist slave owner garbage? Thanks in advance, God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
50 | Praise Dance Wrong Worship? | Ps 149:3 | Tamara Brewington | 205658 | ||
Dear Cheri, Here is something for you in return then, when you look to the side you will see as you scroll down that there are praise dancers of eveyr shade in this thing! Enjoy! Are you familiar with the praise dacing that is done in white face or black face depending on your color with white gloves that is done as a kind of mime dancing? These dancers use no facial expression and use their hand and body motions to praise the Lord to music! It is fascinating and freeing to watch this, but I don't know where to go on line to send this to you. I am going to enjoy this link you sent me very much! Thanks Cheri! you always edifify!, Tamara http://www.christianartistsonline.net/artists-home/task,videodirectlink/id,1711/ |
||||||
51 | Christians Demon Plagued? | Mark 16:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205657 | ||
Dear Cheri, My friend did not preach a visiting Arch-Bishop did... I am not talking about Peter's denial I am talking about Mathe 16:23 where Peter had said to Jesus God, forbid it Lord! This shall never happend to You? About Jesus saying He was going to be crucifed. How do you say Peter was not sealed with the Holy Spirit? Are you saying that the disciples, the OT saints somehow got saved without the actions and work inside them of the Holy Spirit? What about the teaching that the blood of Christ and the works of the Holy Spirit towards salvation were working backwards in time from the of the cross and that Pentecost was specifically as Jesus said it was, "you will recieve power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses, etc."? What about Ephesians 1:13? In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation - having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise. How then is it that those who were saved before Jesus died whether disciples or OT saints did not receive the Holy Spirit? If you do not have the Holy Spirit you aren't saved! Here, II Peter 1:21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. Are you going to say that these men were not operating by the power of the Holy Spirit, or that they weren't saved? Jesus does not say in Acts that He was giving a seal of salavtion does He? He says the Holy Spirit will be coming with power so they could witness, there is a difference, the Holy Spirit was definitely working through them all when they were casting out demons and healing the sick... By what other power do you think they were doing it? Yeah okay Turetz, then why after they got they demon out of her was she suddenly healed? God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
52 | Christians Demon Plagued? | Mark 16:17 | Tamara Brewington | 205646 | ||
Dear Forum members, I have a friend from school who is a minister in a Pentecostal church, I am Baptist always have been always will be. I went to a function at his church tonight to fellow ship with him and his lovely wife. I heard a number of things I have heard before that I wonder if some of you know more about than I do... Here is the deal; the visiting preacher was talking about a situation where a member of his church who had confessed the Lord Jesus and asked for forgiveness of sins was plagued by demons. Here is what she was doing that was the outward sign, she stripped naked to the nothingness of nakedness several times during services while he was preaching very quickly before the ushers could stop her. This man is an arch-bishop of a Pentecostal church, he had interviewed this woman to make sure she was saved as best he could and had baptized her immediately after her profession of faith and repentance the same day she confessed the Lord Jesus. The deacons in his church were highly upset saying how very fast she took all those clothes off, remarking that she never had any undergarments to hinder her haste and saying as how she seemed to be a demon plagued Christian and some said a demon possesed Christian. I am not so stupid or so new as to think that a Christian could actually have the spirit of the devil and the Holy Ghost at the same time. He never said she was possesed, he said she was demon plagued and that the demon had to be cast out of her in the name of Jesus before her sanity returned to her. We know from the Bible that folks who are saved can actually do things by the spirit of Satan, like Peter did and still be saved, which means the spirit of Satan is operating through them, working through them, even though they are sealed by the Holy Ghost. What do you all think of this? Do you see anything here according to what I have said that you could illuminate by the scriptures on? God's Blessings Tam |
||||||
53 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205643 | ||
Dear Cheri, I agree the substance of the thing is the most important part above the consideration of timing here or trying to understand what Jesus said and what it meant. Here is a question about that timing and explanation you got there... If any part of a day constitutes a day, then why could it not be that; He was crucified Friday morning before the Saturday Sabbath begins, dies before sundown and is buried before 7 at night. He is in the grave by 7 on Friday night when the Sabbath begins counting as day one. He lays in the grave all Saturday and this counts as day two. He lays in the grave through 7 on Saturday night which counts as the beginning of day three and therefore this counts as one whole day. He gets up sometime before Mary arrives still in day three. In this way because any part of a day constitutes a whole day He indeed stays in the grave three days and three nights because any part of a day counts as one twenty four hour period? I don't know what you think of this and please like others in here that mean no harm, but don't understand why I always seem to say something different than what is presented to me, please don't take this as disputing your point or arguing or disagreeing. I am only trying to understand you, but also to see what the Bible actually meant to say... God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
54 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205639 | ||
Dear Cheri, You spelled everything real good Cheri as to how things work! Could you explain more according to this that you have written about the actual timing of this thing? Need help understanding. I realize you might be at work, get back when you can Cheri... God Bles, Tam |
||||||
55 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205632 | ||
Dear JIM, I hear you loud and clear, but then what is your account for the time? Are you saying this was a Thursday crucifixion? Help me to understand please what you mean and not what I think.. God Bless, Tam |
||||||
56 | what does verse 4 chapter 18 mean | Gen 1:1 | Tamara Brewington | 205631 | ||
Dear Jim, I may have been wrong, I was going by the verse picked as Gen. 1:1 thinking that person meant Genesis 4:18! Good point, good point! Tam |
||||||
57 | May we claim rewards for tithing? | Mal 3:10 | Tamara Brewington | 205579 | ||
Dear rgarden1, We don't claim things we read in the Bible we receive things we read in the Bible, Malachi was speaking of receiving a promise of God by obedience to His word, not claiming rewards. The Holy Spirit is not waiting around for people to act before He will though, He is already working through people. The question is what is He trying to do? Evangelize always, guide us always. I think the issue of giving to the needs we see around us is important though, but what is the primary role of the church? I will not answer that I will leave room for you to do that... The New Testament teaches grace giving you are on track... II Corinthians 9:7 Each must do as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. However, no one according to this text should be compelled to give for any reason, it has to be from their heart. The Holy Spirit has to do a work in people's hearts before they will open up and give though, just letting people know others need something more than they do won't get people to open up their hearts to give to these needs. Not every church and not every members is called to be a missionary or a missionary church either. Not all pastors except money either, and not all pastors let their boards run them into the ground, or the "stockholders" either. Not all pastors have a second job in a big church and you should not muzzle the ox while he works... It is interesting what you say about reaching out to address needs though, that is a first century church model for sure, see Acts 2 and 4 at the ends. Most folks would not be willing to part with things in order to follow that model, but it is the model... That has always bothered me... That we no longer operate like that, everyone is out for his own interests to make a living and don't think much or often about using what God gave us to do what Jesus said; hungry you fed Me, naked you clothed Me, homeless you housed Me. Ain't nobody gonna take a homeless person off the street are they? They might give em a few bucks, but not a track of land to sell to go get an apartment... Even Christians are not running around doing this for Christians these days. God's Day To You, Tamara |
||||||
58 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | Tamara Brewington | 205578 | ||
Dear Steve, I believe if you want to be removed to the Forum you could try the link provided to make a complaint about a user and tell them you want to be unregistered. I tried once to ask a question using another link that supposedly was there to contact them, I had a question, they wrote me back that that link could not be used to communicate with them about concerns and to use the other link, it was not about anyone else, but about myself. But this part of your post is a head scratcher! You want to be removed, but didn't stop posting! ARgh? There is a feature in here you can use per post after you press preview follow up on the preview page you have the option of choosing to not receive an email back to your post, this works per note, per answer! Does this help any? God Bless, Tamar |
||||||
59 | Help! Unclean vs clean meat? | Acts | Tamara Brewington | 205577 | ||
Dear Colt 045, I do believe there is a simple very simple answer to your question once one is willing to set aside the issue of whether or not it was in the origanal text... And then I will tell you about the places in your Bible where a text was not found in all manuscripts that make up your Bilble and try to exlain to you how it is that things get put in the Bible in the frist place so that you can see that men don't add or take away a part of a text, but that some manuscripts contain some things and some don't. But that is not the problem here with the verse you are interested in. You have to consider that when Jesus was speaking when Peter was near, He never said the words, "(Thus He declared all foods clean.)", or else they would be in red! What is going on here is that the writer, Mark added in words later to illustrate the meaning of what Jesus actually was saying to Mark's readers. This is an excersize in grammar- taking the parts of the grammar of the text and breaking it down into its harmonious parts and then putting it back together to make better sense of what the text means. So, Mark quoted Jesus, the red part, and then Mark made a comment to his readers summing up what Jesus just said; that food going in cannot defile a man, and then Mark takes what he learned their and states that because of what Jesus was saying before Jesus meant that all foods were clean. How many times did the disciples hear what Jesus said and not understand it? More than once! More than twice? Yup! They understood most of it later, when the they were teaching it and writing it! We can't assume Peter understood it when it was spoken based on his actions later can we? No, in fact we can conclude that he did not understand it at all... By the time we get to Acts 10, Peter is still practicing Judaism at the same time as all the Jewish Christians; they went to temple, they went to synagogue, they ate kosher food, they stayed away from the Gentiles, they considered themselvs Jews who believed in Jesus. The word Christian and the concept of being separate from Jews are two different things. They were first called Christians at Antioch by folks in that city and it was not a compliment. There was great division between Jews who were Christians and Gentiles who were Christians over food for a while, they did not eat together, they did not eat the same thing. When Peter got to that vision he did not go out and start eating any old thing, he understood all people can be made clean by God even Gentiles. Peter took a long time before he went and ate anything unclean and then when the Judean Jews came to Galatia, he backed right up and stopped eating Gentile food, and he and Paul fought about it. Now to the question of texts and what are in orginal texts and what are in copies, which make up our Bible. This is an area called textual criticisim; There are two sets of manuscripts used for the construction of the New Testament. The Latter Texts and The Earlier Texts. The Latter Texts were used to write the King James Bible, the very first one. These manuscripts were copies of the original texts written by the original authors and those are called the original autographs. These orginal autographs are gone now, they were around in the first century when they were written and then copied many, many, many times. Altogether there are upwards of 5,300 Greek manuscript fragaments which are portions of the New Testament used to construct the New Testament into one whole canon. The Latter texts were all discovered first, but they were not the oldest copies, they were the youngest copies - and from this we get the King James Bible. The Earlier Texts, the earlier manuscripts are more in number and contain less differences in textual content per passage and contain less copyist errors. From these Earlier Texts which are more reliable manuscripts and higher in number and which are older manuscripts we get the NASB, NIV, ESV, TNIV, NRSV, NASU, NAB, NJB, GNB, REB, which were all written in the last century or so. Our dear translators have a wonderful guide at the beginning of the NASB describing Explanation of General Format, but they left out one very important thing, the use of brackets in the all Bibles written in the last century or so. They talk about notes, cross referrences, paragraphs, quotation marks, and so on, even asterisks. Here is why everyone has brackets all over their Bible and it is the only reason. Where ever you see brakets, like in Mark 16:9-20 and the after note, it is because a set of manuscripts referrenced by the body of translators of your particular Bible came accross a situation where one set of manuscripts leave out that part of the verse, but the other manuscripts contain that part of the verse. Make sure to understand this only refers to brackets and not to parenthesis. Hope this clears it all up for you, God Bless, Tamara |
||||||
60 | Idiom? | Bible general Archive 4 | Tamara Brewington | 205572 | ||
Dear Jim, Hi there guy! We have to accept first what scripture said, scratch our proverbial heads a bit and then try to make sense of what the words meant to them when it was wriiten to them, not what it means to us reading it now. Fact - Jesus said Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster for three days and three nights, that makes that part fact, right? Fact - Jesus said He too would be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights, that makes that part fact, right? Okay now turn to Mark 15:42-47 - Jesus was buried the day before Sabbath could begin, the Sabbath begins on Saturday, so Jesus was buried on Friday. Look down at Mark 16:1-6 - Mary and the women came on the first day of the week to anoint Jesus and get told, He is risen that morning of the first day of the week. That is Jesus in the tomb before the sun went down - Now, see John 18:28 - The Jews wanted to hurry up and get Jesus crucified before sundown so they could eat the Passover with clean hands. So Jesus was crucified before the sun went down on Friday and got up sometime early Sunday morining that is a fact. But you have to look at the fact of that time frame of from Friday evening to Sunday morning and realize Jesus could not be mistaken about it being three days and three nights no matter how it looks. So the question is never did He get crucifed on Thursday (did not say you said that), He did not the text shows He did not. The only possible question there could be is what did Jesus mean by three days and three nights? It has to be exact, but it also has to fit the real time frame of being somehow not three full days, right? It is exact and it does fit the time frame. Here is why... The New Testament is written in Greek, Jesus spoke Aramaic. Whatever the Aramaic word for day that Jesus used Mathew knew what He meant by the word day. Mathew chose a word, the Greek word Hemera, number 2250 in the Strong's - it's actualy translated as literally - the time space between light and dark, or the whole twenty four hours, figuratively a period of time as any part of a day. So if you look at that very real definition there is no reason why we can't understand what Jesus was really saying in light of what really happened. What Jesus actually was saying was accurate when you factor in that what He meant was figuratively a period, not twenty four hour periods. This issue is about a figure of speech, it has to do with the use of the word Hemera as being it's last listed meaning - a figurative period. You are wondering what in the heck I am saying by now aren't you because it does not seem to add up yet does it? Here is what we now have to turn to to understand how Jews calculated time in Jesus day. This is fact, not speculation, not conjecture, the Jews did count any part of a day as constituting the whole day, this is an historical fact. When we go back to the beginning, Moses uses the word Yowm in Genesis to describe a day. The definition of Yowm number 3117 is - the warm hours, from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next, or figuratively a space of time. When Moses used the word he meant night and day a twenty four hour day, but the word can mean a figurative space of time as any part of that day as well. Let's look at Mathew 17:23 and they will kill Him and He will be raised on the third day." Again Jesus uses the word Hemera as that any part of each of the three days constitutes a day unto itself and therfore it is correct that He rose on the third day whether they were three twenty four periods or parts of days. Mark 4:35 the word Hemera is used to describe part of a day - On that day, when evening came, etc. That the word Hemera can mean part of a day and not the whole day is not an idiom as John Gill purports but is a correct translation of the word Hemera as used by Jesus to mean part of a day as being one day. It is not about what scripture can intrepret that three days and three nights means 24 hours, 2 minutes, and 72 hours. It is about that Jesus meant part of one day as counting for a full day according to the Greek meaning of the word Hemera. Hope this helped, Tamara |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [14] >> |