Results 421 - 440 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
421 | What was first sacrifice and by whom? | Gen 3:21 | MJH | 151563 | ||
Trivia question... Good luck.... Prize yet to be disclosed for winner. What was the first sacrifice recorded in the Bible, and who performed it? Not too tricky, but most scholars get it wrong on their first stab. MJH |
||||||
422 | Take Him for His Word | Matt 24:2 | MJH | 150215 | ||
Ray, I am not speaking of Ezekiel 36:26, I am wondering about the detailed description of the Temple which Ezekeil lays out. Ezekiel 40:1 and on.... It seems that he is prophecying that a new Temple will be built in the future unlike the old. Ez 40:38-47 mention sacrafices, and Ez 42 mention Priests. I have always wondered about this... Thanks, MJH |
||||||
423 | Take Him for His Word | Matt 24:2 | MJH | 150200 | ||
You seem quite against a third building of the Temple in Israel. How do you then interpret the second half of Ezekiel where he prophesies about a Temple being built that has not yet been built? Also, if the Temple was so bad after Jesus' resurrection, then why did Paul perform sacrifices in the Temple is Acts 21-22? Did Jesus prophesy against the Temple as you say, or did he prophesy against what was going on in the Temple? Or was he simple stating a fact that the Temple was going to be destroyed? MJH |
||||||
424 | Does God have wings? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 150199 | ||
The Hebrew word for wing is kaw-naf'. This word can mean either "wing" in Hebrew, or "corner". The Hebrews were told in Numbers 15:38 to tie tassels on the kaw-naf' of their robes (so we say corner). This was to remind them of the Laws of God which were to protect them. When the priest blessed the people, when lifting the robe with the tassels tied to it, he appeared to have wings. So the visual wings were seen when the corners were lifted to bless. (kaw-naf' was seen when the kaw-naf' was lifted). They equated these tassels as a symbol of God's protection. When David cut off the kaw-naf' (corner) of Saul's robe in the cave, David was saying by doing this that God's protection was no longer on Saul. Saul says this same thing when he learns of it. The Hebrews were very visual, and when they heard the psalmist say God had kaw-naf' (wings), they connected this to Num. 15:38, and saw the protection from God found in the symbol of the Tassels which represented the Law. NOW FOR A REALLY COOL TIDBIT WE OFTEN MISS... Malachi 4:2 "But for you who fear my name, the sun of righteousness shall rise with healing in His (kaw-naf') wings. You shall go out leaping like calves from the stall." Mattew 9:20-21 " And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well.” Remember that the "fringe" or "tassel" was tied to the corner of the robes of all Jews. She didn't just touch him, she reached out and grabbed the tassel which was on the kaw-naf'(corner OR wing) of Jesus robe. We do not see Malachi's powerful prophesy and Jesus’ fulfillment, because we do not know that in Malachi, the word is kaw-naf'. Does God have wings? Yes, as it relates to the word kaw-naf'. It makes very perfect sense that the Hebrews would have pictured God with a robe and tassels held out to bless His people. Of course it's much easier to say, God covers me with His kaw-naf'. What was God's wing to the Hebrew? His wing was the Torah, or the Law given to Israel. What is God's wing to us now? The Salvation from sin and death through the Messiah Jesus, but more than that… MJH |
||||||
425 | Are we free from the Law? | Rom 7:6 | MJH | 150100 | ||
I am so glad you asked this question. I have been searching this out for the last three and a half years. If you are a reader, I can give you some good books to read. They will not give you a clear cut answer, but they will help in your search. Personally I have found the search for an answer far more rewarding than an eventual answer. In short, the covenant with Noah plays a large part in this discussion. In the first century the "God Fearers" were those who believed in the One true God, but did not want to have certain parts of their anatomy cut off (circumcision). They worshiped in the court of the Gentiles, but were not converts in the fullest sense. These people were expected to follow the Noah covenant. The Jews found 7 laws in this covenant. This all was practiced during the time of Paul. The Acts 15 counsel listed 4 things that the Gentile believers in Jesus needed to abide by. All four are a part of the covenant with Noah and fit in with how the first century Jew viewed these things. Paul did not want to force all of the Law on the Gentiles as it was lived out by Jews in Jerusalem. That being said, others say.... Read Acts 21 and on. There are thousands of Christians ZELOUS for the law, and Paul not only performs a sacrifice, but pays for others to be able to perform the sacrifice (Nazarite covenant sacrifice.) Paul calls himself a Pharisee in the present tense. In Acts 15, the 4 "rules" are laid out, but they end by noting that Moses is taught every week in the synagogues in every city, possibly implying that Gentiles know where to go to learn what else the laws say. Did Jesus do away with not eating unclean animals in Mark 7? Or is that a miss understanding of what He was saying. Could the Messiah do away with any commands of the Torah (Law of Moses) and still be the Messiah. Especially when in Matt 5, He says that he did not come to abolish the Law, but to place it on a firmer footing. Many think that in Galatians 2, Paul, when he says “works of the law” (ergos numos) he means “legalistic observance to the law”, but in the Greek in the first century there was no word for legalistic, and “works of the law” was the closest he could come. …. By now I am either boring you, or perking your interest. I do not have your answer, but I have been studying this for some time and read much about it. If you want to discuss it more, or want book recommendations, or have questions about statements above, let me know. KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS…… They are they key to wisdom…… MJH |
||||||
426 | children and last supper | 1 Corinthians | MJH | 150096 | ||
Your first question. Yes wine was served at communion. Communion was first done by Jesus during the Passover which used 4 cups of wine. Children were always a part of Passover (which is what Communion in some ways represents.) Jesus chose this meal for a reason. Passover was a family meal where extended family attended, or neighbors, or the poor. Every Jew participated (if they were ritually clean), but it was done in the home. Wine was used, but grape juice is a perfectly acceptible alternative, and in mass church audienaces is the best choice. If you did communion in your home with your family, wine, even with children, would be acceptible as well. We are not talking about a whole bottle, right..... Some believe communion can only be given by a priest or pastor. I suppose if you feel that way, then you should stick to your denominations teachings. Otherwise, family communion can be a beautiful thing. MJH |
||||||
427 | Israel the promise land? | Gen 17:8 | MJH | 150095 | ||
"the army from the north attack Israel..." If you look closely at the geography, all armies in the ancient world would have to attack from the north of south (or possibly from the west by way of the sea.) I can not think of a time that an army attacked from any other direction than north or south. Babylon may be more East, but to attack, they would have to come from the North. Just a thought. MJH |
||||||
428 | When did Jesus violate any law? | Rom 7:6 | MJH | 150094 | ||
According to some, Mark 7 says that Jesus did away with the food laws, permitting anyone to eat any animal, clean or unclean. If Jesus revoked a law of Moses, then that would be a violation of the law. What do you think Jesus did in Mark 7? MJH |
||||||
429 | denominations. | Eph 4:3 | MJH | 148830 | ||
But was John the "Immerser" :-), the only one in his day immersing? Was he the first person “baptizing”? MJH |
||||||
430 | Blessed Passover tonight | Not Specified | MJH | 148824 | ||
Blessed Passover tonight. Anyone celebrating? Baruch atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech Haolam |
||||||
431 | Blessed Passover tonight | 1 Cor 5:7 | MJH | 148837 | ||
Blessed Passover tonight. Anyone celebrating? Baruch atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech Haolam |
||||||
432 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144412 | ||
Searcher, I am still waiting to hear why you feel that a woman should stay married to a husband who is grossly abusive. This is the whole bases of our discussion of which I have provided much to think about, but which you have said nothing other than that you don't agree. Ex. 21 forbids gross abuse of SLAVES, but I am to assume that a married woman is lower than a slave and should not be defended in such a case? The scripture also forbids that a man allow another man's animal to be abused or put under a load that is too heavy. And, oh yeah, it was an ENEMIES animal that was under the heavy load, fell down, or fell into a hole. Yet, we are to treat our enemy’s animal with more respect than a man's wife? Is that what Jesus taught? To be literal in the very strictest way, as you suggest would be impossible at times. Let me show. The Sabbath laws forbid work on the Sabbath. The laws about property require that a man helps another man's donkey if it falls into a pit. What happens if the donkey falls into a pit on the Sabbath. Which law do you break? The rabbis in Jesus time said you break the Sabbath laws and help the donkey. Even they, those strict den of vipers, cared enough for an animal to break their beloved Sabbath. But I am to understand that Jesus was more of a viper by allowing women to be abused? Please, please provide an argument for your case. I am afraid that I may be getting sarcastic and I certainly do not wish to break the rules of the forum. MJH |
||||||
433 | WHO is Hebrews 6:4-11 refering to? | Heb 6:4 | MJH | 144348 | ||
I too have looked this one over and found at this time the safest place to be is that of Paul's who said the following after spending 3 chapters of the subject. Rom 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and[i] knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34“Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?”[j] 35“Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?”[k] 36For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen." MJH |
||||||
434 | 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? | ||||||
435 | Matt 7:21 criteria for heaven | 1 John 3:9 | MJH | 144345 | ||
In understanding Matt 7:21 one must understand what Jesus means by "Kingdom of Heaven." First, the term Heaven in Jesus time often was used to refer to God since to even mention God's Name outside the Temple was too close to blaspheming It. Therefore “Kingdom of Heaven” and “Kingdom of God” are the same thing. Second, the Kingdom of Heaven is (among other things) a condition of the heart. Also to say, "The Kingdom of Heaven is near," would not mean "near" in the sense of time, but rather in the sense of being near by. Third, the Kingdom of Heaven is often revered to in the New Testament in two seemingly contradictory ways. 1) that the Kingdom of God is present right now (meaning in Jesus time), and 2) that it would be established in the future. Often when Jesus speaks of the Kingdom of Heaven and entering it (or not) and who is in it and who is not, refers to the condition of people's heart and how such condition places them within the Kingship of God (and the Messiah). For example: the prostitutes by virtue of their turning away from their sin and towards a renewed relationship with God and His Word, were in reality experiencing the Kingdom of Heaven (God) in their lives. They had God as their King and Ruler, whereas the Pharisees (not all, but many) were not repentant of sin and not turning toward the correct way to live out the Word of God (ie. mercy, love, compassion) and as a result their lives were not experiencing the reality of being in the Kingdom of God and having God as their true King. (They were Kings of themselves by their high view of themselves for following the minute "traditions of the elders" while missing the main thrust of God's Word to show mercy, compassion and love to all His people.) Therefore the answer to your questions is this: By doing the will of the father, you will experience the reality of being in the Kingdom of God, and He will be King of your life. It is NOT saying that those who fail to follow the law perfectly will not enter heaven. However, to say you believe, but to live an INTENTIONALLY sinful life is not possible. Belief and action are one and the same, at least they were in the mind of a Jew like Jesus and James (Jam 1:22 "But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.") For James, a Jew from birth, to even say this shows that he was quite failure with Greek thinking by this time. For a Jew could not say this otherwise. For a Jew to "hear" the Word, meant to "do" the word. There wasn't a dichotomy of thought and action. The same is true in Matt 7:20-27 and 1 John 3:9. You can not be the one without being the other. You can not believe without action. Matt 25:31-46 also reveal this. Did I help or just serve to confuse? MJH |
||||||
436 | M- Is this about 2 believers who divorce | 1 Cor 7:15 | MJH | 144270 | ||
Ansewred in post 144209 | ||||||
437 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144233 | ||
Searcher, The argument is one for you to prove otherwise. You have not taken much time or effort to make your point clear. I have laid out my position on divorce quite clearly. Since we are talking about divorce, not marriage, I stuck with the scriptures that deal with that. I will, for your sake, paste a commentary note on the subject: By John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible: Deut 24:1 "because he hath found some uncleanness in her;" "something that he disliked, and was disagreeable to him, and which made their continuance together in the marriage state very uncomfortable; which led him on to be very ill-natured, severe, and CRUEL to her; so that HER LIFE was exposed to danger, or at least become very uneasy; in which case a divorce was permitted, BOTH for the badness of the man's heart, and in favor of the woman, that she might be FREED from such rigorous usage." (CAPS are my additions). If you would write a position that is different, I'd like to read it because I am not dogmatic on every point with this issue. I also have not taken as much time with this issue as I have with others, so any detailed arguments that contradict any of my arguments would be looked at with appreciation. MJH |
||||||
438 | MJH, Where does the Bible add abuse? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144209 | ||
Thank you for making me put more meat on this issue. To begin with, Jesus and Paul being silent on this issue does not mean that it is not scriptural. The overriding text on divorce is Deut. 24:1-5. All other text interpret this one either loosely or strictly. Jesus and Paul were very strict, but their comments do not touch on abuse specifically. Deut. 24 says that if a "man" finds. I am going to take this to also mean "woman" and argue that in our post messianic times (and probably before) this was most certainly applicable both ways (see Mark 10:12). The reason for divorce here in Deut. is "anything displeasing." What Jesus was dealing with was a gross miss-application of this law that said, "anything displeasing" is literally anything and everything that causes the man to be displease in any form. (Such as burnt food.) Had Jesus been asked the specific question of “gross abuse” of a wife by a husband there is no doubt in my mind that He would find this a "displeasing" issue that fit Deut 24. (note: Jesus made the law more strict AND more loose in the same statement in Mark 10:12 by including the passage to mean, “If a wife finds a husband . . .”) And then we need to take the scripture as a whole. The scripture speaks of LIFE, not death. Of reconciliation, not divorce. Of protection for the weak, not abuse. Taking people OUT OF BONDAGE not placing them in it. Some texts that apply to relationships in general: Lev 19:16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. Lev 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. (All apply equally to a wife.) Lev 19:33 "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. Lev 19:34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (If this is how they were to treat foreigners, then even more applies to the native born and yet more to the wife.) None of these texts apply specifically to the issue of abuse in marriage, but as stated before, one must look at the whole of scripture when attempting to apply it to an issue not specifically addressed in scripture. I believe that gross abuse of a spouse falls under the guidelines of “anything displeasing” since such acts are OBVIOUSLY displeasing to God Himself as is seen throughout the Text. (Sexual sins are displeasing as seen in the Law, but this isn’t in disagreement, but Jesus had to say what displeasing meant, and to do so had to rely on the Law to point out that sexual sins fell into the “displeasing” definition, but burnt toast did not. I am using the same method to show that abuse also fits the “displeasing” definition.) Then, like I said before. 1 Cor 7:15 – “If an unbeliever leaves. . .” Acts such as gross abuse render any so-called believer as an actual unbeliever (excommunicated if you will). AND such acts would mean the spouse has “left” even though he still remains physically. Then, finally, the texts on “Binding and Loosing” apply as well. The terms “bind” and “loose” given to the Apostles and henceforth to the elders of churches or denominations, allow for interpretation of texts to apply to new situations. If the church permits (looses) the divorce in cases of abuse, then so does heaven. The majority of competent Pastors, Elders, and church doctrine permit divorce in such cases, and those that do not have failed to see the heart of God (I believe). In summary: Jesus interprets Deut 24, and more specifically the term “displeasing.” The correct method for finding what “displeasing” means, is to known the rest of the Law. Sexual sin falls under this definition, and so does gross abuse. How did I do? MJH |
||||||
439 | Why celebrate Ash Wednesday? | Not Specified | MJH | 144179 | ||
Why celebrate Ash Wednesday? Can anyone provide me with reasons to observe this holiday other than "The church says so?" I know it isn't in the Bible and I believe it started around 900 AD. But, if someone can give me healthy reasons for it, I'd love to hear them. Also, any background you want to provide would be nice. And, what do you (you personally) do on Ash Wednesday? (I'm not "against" it. But I would like to hear reasons for being "for" it.) Thanks. MJH |
||||||
440 | Why celebrate Ash Wednesday? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 144184 | ||
Why celebrate Ash Wednesday? Can anyone provide me with reasons to observe this holiday other than "The church says so?" I know it isn't in the Bible and I believe it started around 900 AD. But, if someone can give me healthy reasons for it, I'd love to hear them. Also, any background you want to provide would be nice. And, what do you (you personally) do on Ash Wednesday? (I'm not "against" it. But I would like to hear reasons for being "for" it.) Thanks. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ] Next > Last [29] >> |