Results 441 - 460 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
441 | Help with depression | 2 Tim 1:7 | MJH | 144177 | ||
- I agree with the great one, Doc. who already answered this post. - But on a personal note: Depression is a modern issue mostly. Also, it is rare in underdeveloped nations. For this reason, many believe that the foods we east may be one of the biggest causes of depression. (Food is dealt with in the Bible but we often ignore it. A GREAT book on the subject is "What the Bible Says About Healthy Living." by Dr. Rex Russell (see review below). My wife struggled for years with depression. When she finally decided to eat NO sugar in any form, her depression left within days and she said a cloud lifted from her head that she did not even realize was there because it has been so many years she assumed that was what life was. Her whole attitude and look on life changed dramatically. She went back to a sugar addiction a few months later and for a YEAR she was mildly depressed again. She just quit sugar again and life is much nicer around here. (I had to pay her to quite. This time it will cost me 625 dollars to help her last 10 weeks. After that we are hoping it will be easier for her. It is the best money I could spend.) Sugar alone may not be enough. She already identified food insensitivities and we eat whole foods (much of it organic) and no food coloring or non-food stuff like preservatives and nitrates and MSG and on, and on. (The book noted above helped us in this.) Basically it is a TOTAL lifestyle change when it comes to what we put in our mouths. It has changed our lives (my daughter had a chronic immune deficiency and she is now very healthy. When we were concerned that she wasn’t 100 percent, our Doctor said, "most kids like here are always sick and sickly looking. Your daughter may not be has healthy as you want, but she is much much better than most kids in her situation." When asked why, he said it was the food. We do not give her any medications. Most kids with her issues are on 3 - 5 medications at the same time. (She is 5 years old now.) Some people like to say all depression is one thing or another. I do not intend to say that all depression is food related (although eating healthy will always help every time it is tried). It is also not always spiritual, though it may be I suppose. Being a Christian does not prevent you from getting depressed any more than being a Christian prevents you from getting the flu. To see if you are addicted to sugar (or any substance or thing) try going without it for 90 days. If you can’t, you are addicted. (Maybe not medically speaking, but emotionally, or physically. You GOT to have it. Then “it” becomes a god.) Review of the book mentioned above by Amazon.com: “Why do we get sick? If God says we are "fearfully and wonderfully made" (Psalm 139:14), why do we always seem to be hampered with health problems? While a perfect, pain-free existence won't happen on this side of heaven, there are tangible, successful ways you can improve your health and overall quality of life. The answers, says Dr. Rex Russell, ... lie in God's Word. Through year's of searching for answers to his own struggle with diabetes, Dr. Rex Russell finally discovered a successful plan for healthy living: don't eat anything God didn't intend for food (e.g. avoid scavenger meats ..., [non-food additives]); don't become addicted to anything (i.e. do not make food your god); and ingest food before it is changed into nutrient deficient or harmful products.” MJH |
||||||
442 | Is 1 free if divorce not due 2 adultery? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144172 | ||
Searcher56 – (I know it is long, but I tried real hard, so forgive me) It’s been awhile, so I will try to tackle this one and see where it goes. :-) I’m going to deal with Luke 16:18 here for reasons that make sense below. Also, I will provide some context, some Greek verb stuff, and THEN answer your question. Luk 16:18 "Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” Divorce was one of the 8 great debates of the first century, thus the reason He is asked the question (Matt. 19:3). The 2 schools of thought were Hillel and Shammai. Jesus sides 7 times with Hillel and 1 time with Shammai. With divorce Jesus agreed with Shammai. (Hillel said you could divorce for “burnt toast.”) It is, of course, important to value the context, which I know you all know I bring up a lot. Jesus did not equate divorce and remarriage with adultery, as is often thought. Prohibiting divorce would abrogate the Torah passage Deut. 24:1-2. Jesus was intent on interpreting the Torah properly, but he did not want to destroy it. Another context can be seen in the Mishnah (Sotah 5.1) where a woman who is divorced because of an adulterous relationship is not permitted to marry the man with whom she had an affair. (Most of the Mishnah was taught before and during Jesus’ time, but not all.) - Context is used here NOT to change Jesus words or their meaning, but to help see the world as it was during the time he said these words. - Divorce for the SAKE of remarriage was therefore also adultery. When we look at the Luke 16:18, the verbs “divorce” and “marry” are in the present tense. (The parallel in Mark 10:11 put them in the subjective mood.” (see note below). Also, the conjunction “and” was often intended to express purpose. Re-wording the translation of the Greek into English to better capture the original meaning might be, “Every one who divorces his wife [in order] to marry another commits adultery.” “In light of the Mishnah passage in Sotah, if a man marries a woman who obtained a divorce merely for the sake of her second marriage, then it is considered adultery. Divorce is not adultery” and neither is remarriage. (see note below) Answer to your question. Divorce is allowed, but not divorce simply for the sake of convinces, whether that be to marry another or simply to avoid responsibility. Divorce for the sake of abuse, adultery, and any other things that fit under the term “unfaithfulness” is Biblically okay. If a spouse divorces un-Lawfully, then their partner is made free and permitted to remarry without committing adultery. (1Co 7:15 “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.”) I understand that you said that “Unbelief” is not a part of the issue in your stated situation, but I think the “rule” here can still be applied. It was not the choice of the innocent partner to divorce, so if their spouse acts in an unbelieving manner by divorcing for illegitimate reasons, the spouse who is left is free (not enslaved.) Luke 16:18b “He who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.” This is the same idea only this time the woman is divorcing. So if a woman was divorced by her husband because her husband wanted another woman or simply because he didn’t liker her or she “burnt his toast”, then she would be free to re-marry. But if she divorced for the reason to marry another, then to marry her would be adultery. These things can get very complicated and so in the end we need to use our understanding of scripture on a WHOLE and apply it. We ought not to take one statement within the text and try to make situations fit, and thereby nullify other commands in the process. This was the BIG mistake of the Pharisees. Example: they took the Sabbath laws separate from the rest of the Torah, and applied them. They were correct in the letter of the one command, but wrong in interpreting the Torah as a whole. Jesus corrected them on this, and “loved His neighbor” by healing on the Sabbath. We too can take divorce laws out of the text and apply them to the letter correctly, but actually be misinterpreting the text on a whole at the same time. MJH |
||||||
443 | Saving sex for marriage | Ps 1:1 | MJH | 144144 | ||
The words you are using are not in the Bible, but as Doc already answered you, Psalm 1:1 is a good verse. Since you are not asking IF God says to wait for marriage, then I assume you know that. Therefore, if we follow what God wants, we will enjoy life much more over the whole course of our life. (Those doing wrong may enjoy life in the short term, but latter they reap what they sow. It is easy to look around you and see.) Anecdotally speaking, I waited until I was married at 25, and WOW, it was worth it. Also, I have no memories of being with anyone else. Also, I worked (before being married) with some men at a factory who were shocked that I a) was a virgin in my 20's and b) that I was proud of it. After leaving the break time, one man who often commented on his experiences asked me why I was proud to be a virgin (He never meet someone like me). I told him, “I could be what you are within 3 hours. It was easy. But you can never be what I am. It is hard.” There is forgiveness and a person can turn and do right after making the error. God sees them in a right relationship. But they will still never experience what those who wait will. The consequence still remains. My wife became a Christian a couple years before we married and a year before we met. She didn’t have the value of a Christian up bringing. She came into our marriage clean before God and me, but she still had the past none the less. I hope that this helps some. And I pray that more men wait! MJH |
||||||
444 | Not know Summer from Winter? | Matt 24:20 | MJH | 144053 | ||
No | ||||||
445 | Why did jesus speak in parables? | Matt 13:10 | MJH | 143847 | ||
Jesus spoke in parables because it was one of the most common methods of teaching by the rabbis of His time. The other answer given to your question is also correct. MJH |
||||||
446 | Who saved James, Hebrews and Revelation? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 143790 | ||
Colin, You are so very correct when you say, "Protestant scholarship suffers from suspicion of anything Catholic. This is a terrible fault on our part as Protestants . . ." I grew in faith, grace and knowledge the years that I decided that other denominations had good things to say too. I grew in faith, grace and knowledge the years that I stopped treating the Catholic Church as the anti-church. And when I accepted people who loved Jesus, attended our protestant church, but stilled called themselves catholic. I grew in faith, grace and knowledge when I stopped viewing Judaism as a works based faith destined to damnation, and listened. I don't know where the future leads, and my own faith as not wavered (I haven't taken up heretical teachings) and my commitment to Jesus the Messiah has grown stronger, not weaker. The day we stop questioning, listening, and humbly seeking to know God, is the day we become the very thing we fear most. God Bless, MJH |
||||||
447 | Why do they prey for the deads salvation | 1 Cor 3:15 | MJH | 143394 | ||
Regarding your statement that "removing them (the Apocrypha) was a sin:" I would say that if they were never even added no sin was committed. Considering their source, adding them, however, WAS and is a sin (Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 15:7-9, 1 Timothy 6:3-5, Revelation 22:18). I know, you had a fever; but it bugs me when people use scripture to make a point that the scripture they are quoting doesn’t make. Taking them 1 at a time. Proverbs 30:5-6 This is speaking about the Torah, or the first 5 books of the Bible. Some might argue (wrongly) that this statement also refers to prophetic words spoken by God to prophets after Moses but before Solomon. Then others have the strange idea to apply this to post Solomon times. The statement can not apply to post Solomon for several reasons the most important being that if it did, then all post Solomon books would be non-Biblical (“do not add to his words”). (The words: “Every word of God proofs true” is universal of course.) Matt 15:7-9: This statement is clearly speaking about the Oral Torah (Law). Here Jesus is stating that these so called Oral Laws were not from the Torah as the teachers of the Torah taught, but actually from men. Jesus spent much of His time teaching the correct interpretation of the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. Again, these can not make your point about the Apocrypha books which were before Jesus time. He isn’t even speaking of written texts, but of oral laws. 1 Timothy 6:3-4: This one is obviously not a refutation of the Apocrypha books. Rev 22:18-19: Here we have two things: 1) is this statement about the book of Revelation? or the whole Bible? If just Revelation, then why is the word translated into English as “book” and not “letter?”; if he means whole Bible, then why does he mention this in a letter to the churches. I assume he wasn’t attaching the whole Bible to the letter. The best understanding is to say the words apply to the book or letter of Revelation. However; other Bible passages make it clear that God’s Word isn’t to be changed (texts that usually refer to the Torah (first 5 books) but can be extrapolated to the whole accepted Bible, but still doesn’t answer the Apocrypha question.) 2) This text was written WAY after the Apocrypha, so even if it refers to the whole Bible, the Apocrypha was written before, not after John’s letter. There is no way one can use scripture to disprove or prove the Apocrypha EXCEPT when the books in the Apocrypha contradict accepted scripture, which many do. I am not a scholar of the Apocrypha, but I do know that many books add to our understanding of the Jews and the times. They were known by the apostles and Jesus and the general public. The Jews celebrated, the holiday instituted in Maccabees (Festival of Lights or Hanukah) which Jesus also celebrated and called Himself the Light of the World during the festival. All this and still I agree that the Apocrypha are not to be accepted as authoritative God given scripture. Studying for a mid-term? Seems to me after reading your many posts you ought to be giving the mid-term. God Bless MJH |
||||||
448 | If you gave a tenth of all you OWNED... | Prov 3:9 | MJH | 142630 | ||
Infinity (and beyond) ;-) Technically speaking you would never give everything away. However, if you rounded off to the nearest penny, then it would depend on how much money you started with. Did I win anything? MJH |
||||||
449 | When was the Book of Job first published | Job | MJH | 142372 | ||
It is my impression that Job was written either during the exile in Babylon, or after that period when many of the apocrypha and pseudogrypha books were written. It is for this reason why the book is often viewed by people as an allegory (Israel was experiencing what Job experienced in many ways at this time. Job written at this time makes a lot of sense.) Just because the book may have been penned during the exile or post exile, does not mean that it isn't still historically accurate. Therefore your question about the origin of the book still remains and no one will ever know the answer for sure. I am certain, however, that the Jewish Rabbis have a lot to say about authorship. You might venture over to such a web site and seek an answer there. I'd do it, but just don't have time today. MJH |
||||||
450 | Baptism ritual before John | Lev 8:6 | MJH | 141974 | ||
No, John the Baptist was not doing anything radically new in his day. The idea of water being used to make a person or object clean is written about all over the book of Leviticus. See Lev 14:8 and the whole chapter of Lev. 15 for a sample. The temple itself has many, many baptismal pools. (Singular they were called a Mikvah.) You can do a search at google with the word mikvah and find a host of information. They have excavated these pools outside the temple which explains why 3000 could be baptized at one time. The dead sea scrolls have a lot written in their societal order about their Mikvout (I think this is how you spell the plural of Mikvah.) Also the Jewish oral law, the Talmud or Mishnah, has a lot to speak of about these baptisms. John used the Jordan because it was a source of living water. A baptism required a certain amount of living water defined as water that fell from heaven, or water that was moving. A cistern or well (unless also a spring) was not living water. The people usually baptized themselves and did not get dunked by a rabbi or other person; however, that does not mean rabbi’s didn’t physically baptize also. Jesus did not baptize. Many wealthy Jews in Jerusalem has their own Mikvah in their homes. A person immersed themselves for many reasons such as to enter the Temple, to become ritually clean after becoming unclean for any reason, and then to signify a returning back to “Torah” or the written (and probably the Oral) law of Moses. John was calling people back to following Torah, or the books of Moses. To repent was to turn back to something. This something was the “Way” of God. (Way is another interpretation of the word Torah which also means teaching, law, commandments, etc..) “Biblical Archaeology Review” magazine has an in-depth article on this in one of their 1986 issues. Should you be so inclined to study this more, you can check it out at your local college or university library. Also, go to Amazon.com and type Mikvah in the search area and several books on the subject will come up, then check them out at your local library. It is quite fascinating. Too much to post here unfortunately. MJH |
||||||
451 | Did "betrothed" couples live together? | Matt 1:19 | MJH | 141581 | ||
In the Hebrew culture, of which Joseph and Mary were apart, in the first century, engaged couples did not live together. In short, the engagement occurred between the couple’s father. The girl did have a say in the choice (and I presume the mother as well). After the engagement, the groom-to-be went home to his fathers house and added a room to the fathers household. When the father said that it was time, and not before (the son did not usually know the date or time of the wedding), then the wedding party would depart from the village and go to the brides village (if different) with trumpets and all announcing the wedding day. The girl and family went back to the groom’s home, they married, went together in the room or house, and afterward partied for 7 days. This is the basic idea of a wedding in first century Galilee. There may have been variations and I may have some small points out of place, but the main point for your professor is that they certainly did not live together. Your professor will not just accept my knowledge, so some books to help prove your point: “Life in Biblical Israel” by Philip J King and Lawrence E Stager. “Our Father Abraham”, Marvin R Wilson. “Mishnah” Translated by Darby. “. . . the bride was not to be seen by her intended husband until their entry into the wedding chamber.” Life in Biblical Israel” Page 54 For first century teachings of the Jews about Marriage you can consult the “Mishnah”, translated by Darby. It has a huge amount of the oral teachings about such matters most of which Joseph and family would have been aware of and none I assure you allow for the two to be together before marriage. Don’t forget that Joseph was described as being “devout” in Matt. 1:19. I hope this helps. MJH |
||||||
452 | 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 |
||||||
453 | 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 |
||||||
454 | Why worship on resurrection day? | Ex 20:10 | MJH | 140402 | ||
Jesus instituted the Holy Communion during Passover and said to do "this" in remembrance of me. The question is, what does "this" refer to? If it refers to Passover, then possibly we have been getting it wrong. I will allow others to debate this with you and me, but I believe that we ought to celebrate Passover and do it in remembrance of Jesus. It's quite amazing how much of Passover reflects Jesus, even the way the Jews do it today. The early church DID celebrate Passover, and debated in the 180's AD whether it should be done on the traditional Passover day, or the Sunday following. Rome said Sunday, and Jerusalem said the traditional day. Rome almost excommunicated Jerusalem, but cooler heads prevailed, and they lived in peace for a while. But they both seem to have celebrated Passover in connection with the Lords resurrection. Certainly the Apostles celebrated Passover and connected it with the Lord's Resurrection. To believe otherwise is absurd. They were Jewish and Acts shows Paul eager to return to Jerusalem before Shavuot (Pentecost) to celebrate it in Jerusalem. Celebrating Jesus birth is man made; though I think a good man made tradition. Celebrating his Resurrection was not man made, but commanded by Jesus Himself. Easter was not a word even used, nor imagined to be used in connection with Jesus Resurrection until the 4th century when that pagan spring fertility celebration was mixed with the Holy Passover. I believe one of the greatest tragedies in church history. My family celebrates "resurrection day" and have a separate God honoring "spring celebration" for our girls that we try to tie into the first really nice sunny day to honor God for the seasons and new agricultural season. Our Resurrection Day happens two days (3 if your Jewish) after Passover when ever Passover happens. Then of course we do go to church on "Easter." God Bless you in your search for truth. MJH |
||||||
455 | Who is the Lord of the 10 commandments? | Ex 20:11 | MJH | 140401 | ||
The sabbath day is Saturday (as you apparently know.) During the first century the Christians, both Jewish and Gentile, continued to honor the Sabbath and usually attended the synagogue. On the first day of the week they honored the Lord's Ressurection day, meeting in homes. During the 4th century (300's) AD, the Church fathers adapted the Sunday celebration because Constantine wanted the whole empire to be consistent in their worship. They choose Sunday as the day of worship. No small reason for this was the fact that the Sun god was worhshiped on this day. This also began another persecusion of the Jews. (I believe) The day a person rests is one of contraversy. Whole denominations center around this one commandment. You need to come to your own conclusions both on the day, and how you honor it. But like the rabbis of old, you need to interpert what it means to "work" while avoiding the temptation to be legalistic, or worse, to honor the sabbath above loving your neighbor as yourself. I'm sure some on the forum, should they read my answer, will correct some errors in my history, but I know that I am close. I honor Saturday, imperfectly I am sure; but then attend church on Sunday. We realised that our Sunday was anything but restful, but it is not easy to go against the grain of the rest of your Brothers, particularly when they assume you are legalistic simply by honoring Saturday as the Sabbath. I often wonder who is being legalistic. Your question seemed to be more of a statement, but I hope that I have helped some. MJH |
||||||
456 | Violent men take it by force | Matt 11:12 | MJH | 140400 | ||
The key to understanding this verse turns out to be an old rabbinic interpretation (midrash) of Micah 2:12-13 which reads: 12 I will gather all of you, Jacob; I will collect the remnant of Israel. I will put them all together like sheep in a fold, like a flock inside its pen. It will be noisy and crowded with people. 13 The breach-maker (poretz) goes through before them Then they break out. Passing through the gate, they leave by it. Their king passes through before them, their Lord at their head. Rich imagery! A picture of a shepherd penning up his sheep at night. He quickly builds a fold by throwing up a makeshift rock fence against the side of a hill. The next morning, to let the sheep out, he makes a hole or a breach in the fence. The sheep being penned up all night can hardly wait to “break” out. The ancient rabbinic interpretation said the “breach-maker” was Elijah, and “their king” was the Messiah. “The Kingdom of Heaven,” Jesus says, “is ‘breaking forth’ [not ‘suffering violence’], and every person in it is ‘breaking out’ in it.” Two things are happening. The Kingdom is bursting forth into the world, and individuals within the Kingdom are finding freedom and liberty. In Micah it is the Lord and his sheep that are breaking out. Jesus alters that figure slightly so that it is the Kingdom and its sheep that are breaking out. Though Jesus does not refer directly to his own role as the shepherd leading the sheep out, no listener could possibly misunderstand Jesus’ stunning assertion – I am the Lord. Elijah had come and opened the way, and the Lord himself was leading the noisy multitude out to freedom. Adapted from “Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus” Bivin, Blizzard MJH |
||||||
457 | What commandments? Torah? Yes-No? | 2 John 1:6 | MJH | 140381 | ||
. | ||||||
458 | 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 |
||||||
459 | 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 |
||||||
460 | Numbers in Hebrew letters/words? | Not Specified | MJH | 140378 | ||
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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ] Next > Last [29] >> |