Results 481 - 500 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
481 | Zealous for the law? Sacraficed? Noah? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139912 | ||
Yup, I concer with what you are saying. I have seen a Christian women convert to Judaism. It is a sad thing when people exchange the truth of the Gospel for the teachings of man -- Rabbis of old. There is a value to knowing what these men taught during Jesus time, but one must never forget how Jesus and Paul responded to misinterperations of the OT Text. You have been of great value to me in these discussions EdB. God Bless, MJH |
||||||
482 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139881 | ||
Point well taken. | ||||||
483 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139880 | ||
Dr Bivin was not a womanizer!!!! I simply wanted to make a strong point that whether Hebrew was spoken in Israel in Jesus time or not had nothing to do with knowing God. You said, "If something is in error, how can it be without error? :-)" How do you deal with differences in the synopic Gospels? MJH |
||||||
484 | Zealous for the law? Sacraficed? Noah? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139870 | ||
This does not get to the heart of my question. They were said to be "zealous for the law." And Paul sacrificed. I uderstand that he was like all people to win some" but this hardly answers the question in my mind. Also, the Acts 15 counsel and Paul in Acts 21:25 state, "they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity." This is right out of the Noah covenant according to the Jewish belief of the time. God fearers, those who did not get circumsiced, but stilled believed in the One True God were expected to uphold the Noahetic Covenant at the least. Some Jewish sources list 7 items in this Covenant (I can't find 7), but the Apostles list these four. Could this line of thinking make a difference in how we approach Paul in this context? Seriously just wondering here and asking the question because I do not know. MJH |
||||||
485 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139869 | ||
Yes, Bivin and others make the mistake in my opinion of going a bit too far with the Hebrew (or “pet theory” as you called it.) Bivin in his book even states something to the effect that you can not understand the Gospels apart from putting them back into their Hebrew context. This statement could have been stated better, such as; "Understanding the Hebrew language, idioms, and Hebraic culture and teachings common during Jesus time adds considerably to our understanding of Jesus words as I (Bivin) will show in this book. In fact, many of our inabilities to understand difficult words of Jesus can be solved from this study." That way of stating things may not be agreed upon by all, but it doesn't make it seem as though one can not understand the Gospels apart from knowing Hebrew which is just not true. You are right in saying we must examine the text as we have it. I'm not sure that the theory states that they could not "think" in Greek; but if they spoke Hebrew as their main language, then use of another language will be effected (usually). And yes, God is more than able to convey His message in any language. Even apart from any knowledge of Hebraic culture, the full force of the message is clear. And finally you state that the JP site says, ". . . the most effective way to approach a passage from the synoptic gospels is, first, to put its Greek text into Hebrew, . . ." This is their opinion, not doctrine. Also they say “most effective way” and not “only way.” People may have serious problems with the approach, but then others have problems with Calvin's approach and still others with Armenian’s approach. All in all, I think their study adds considerably to a continued discussion and search for an accurate knowledge and understanding of God. MJH |
||||||
486 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139868 | ||
I can't stop . . . I need help. :-) | ||||||
487 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139867 | ||
You said,“In this article, he takes a very low few of the gospels. He accepts triple source theory and states that Luke was wrong in his chronology.” Concerning Lindsey’s article “Four Keys for Better Understanding Jesus”. Robert Lindsey (the late) was a Jew who translated the Gospels into Hebrew. This apparently was one thing that sent him on course to spend the majority of his life studying the “Synoptic Gospels”. A note: Lindsey and David Flusser (also passed away I believe) are held in very high regard for their knowledge of all the Biblical Languages, as well as modern Hebrew, Mishnaic Hebrew, modern Greek, and German, English, and who knows what else. I mention this to provide them with the appropriate respect for the immense study they both achieved. But they are not infallible of course. I did not see that Lindsey took a “very low few of the Gospels.” After all he spent his whole life studying them. The article in question, while fascinating, was quite hard for me to follow at times. 1) Lindsey advocated a 1 source theory. This 1 source called by him the “Anthology” was used to also produce a short source that divided up the first into narrative, teaching, parables. Then Luke, Mark, and Matt, according to Lindsey, had knowledge of different versions, not to mention some knowing the other’s Gospel. He put Luke first, then Mark and then Matt. (See how convoluted and odd this is getting? But, Lindsey should be given at least some examination by those, who study the Synoptic “problem”). 2) Obviously the synoptic Gospels pose a so called “problem.” Even first time readers can see this when reading. I myself spent minimal time on this issue. I don’t think it’s a “problem” in the normal sense of the word. 3) The three synoptic Gospels do not always agree on chronology. This cannot be disputed, I assume. Therefore one has to either always have a tension, or try to determine which chronology is correct. If you decide that one is accurate, then the other is not. After all, both can not be correct. Does this give a “low few of the Gospels?” I don’t think so. They are all divinely inspired and without error; however, that does not preclude that chronology HAS to agree and that one of the Gospel writers could not have gotten it wrong. Getting the chronology right does not change the Truth at all. 4) I personally think Matt was first; but I am not an authority on the issue. Also, Lindsey betrays the theory that all the Gospels were originally written in Hebrew when he states, “I encountered certain repeated words and expressions that resisted translation into Hebrew.” Okay, this is about the article that you found disturbing. I don’t think it is disturbing, but I also do not have the same understanding of languages and the synoptic problem that you may have. Thanks, by the way, for following this with me. I think I am learning and it helps to have people walk through things with you so you keep your feet on solid ground! My own uneducated thinking is this: Matt. wrote first and wrote in Hebrew. Jesus taught in Hebrew when in the Galilee, but did not when in the Decapolis, Caesariea Phillipi (when speaking to “the crowd”), and I am unsure when in Symaria, and on the way to Tyre and Sidon. In Jerusalem he may have spoken Aramaic or Greek during the festivals since the Jews and Gentiles from outside the Land were present, and particularly when facing Pilot and while hanging on the cross (hmmm, not sure about that?) However, He very well could have said many things in Hebrew as well in Jerusalem, particularly when telling a parable, but who knows? Judging from the pure historical evidence, it seems very likely, though not conclusive, that the commoner spoke Hebrew. Be it Mishnaic, Ancient, or some variant, the evidence uncovered by archeology and the Dead Sea scrolls all point to this besides the text itself. The Sermon on the Mount is classic Hebrew and in our current article of discussion you will note the mention of a Jewish scholar who said, “If you listen carefully, you can hear Jesus speaking Hebrew!” And some strong Aramaic theorists have recently admitted that Jews in Jesus time spoke Hebrew as a common tongue. This is what I think about spoken languages only (and Matt writing in Hebrew). But as far as their being a ‘Q’ source, or a Hebrew source, or that all the Gospel writers wrote in Hebrew first; these things I have no strong opinions on, and would assume that at least Luke would have written in Greek, and probably Mark as well. I see no reason to think otherwise, but Bivin thinks they all wrote in Hebrew. The reason I push Bivin’s book is because he gives all the evidence for the Jews in Jesus’ time speaking Hebrew as a common language. And even if Bivin was a womanizing atheist who hated God, the case wouldn’t change since it is historical and scientific, and does not have a barring on my, nor anyone else’s, faith I hope. God bless thanks for the great discussion. MJH |
||||||
488 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139822 | ||
So you're up late too. I think I am addicted. |
||||||
489 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139821 | ||
Ahh I found it. You were looking in the Forum. But what is written there is no more a reflection of Bivin than what others on this Forum say is a reflection of you. Are we not all glad of that. The forum is "watched" but not controlled. And, even though I am not discussing Hebrew being spoken by Jesus in the Galalie for reasons earlier stated, don't forget we are talking about an historical issue. An athiet could just as well make the point. But no more on that . . . Thanks for checking the JP site. I appreciate your care. MJH |
||||||
490 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139819 | ||
Tim, I checked out Jerusalem Perspective again, and I can not find what you found. "For instance, the site advocates the view that Judas did not in fact betray Jesus. In response to the many challenges that this statement generated, the remark was made that 'Matthew CHANGED Mark's account' of the story." Help me out here. I'd like to know. I have read many articles, and where I don't subscribe to all of them, I haven't found anything outrages like you have. God bless, MJH |
||||||
491 | Sadducees vs Pharisees. Am I right? | Acts 23:8 | MJH | 139818 | ||
Roviear, Here is a late answer but one none the less. Sadducees believed in only the first five books of the Bible known as the Torah. They believed in a literal interpretation and therefore did not believe in those things mentioned in this verse. Acts 23:8 “. . . there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit.” They asked Jesus about marriage in Heaven and you will note that He quoted from the portion of the Bible that they accepted. Matt 22:23-33. The Sadducees were also generally wealthy. Their reward was on earth being that there was no resurrection. They also were in good with Rome. Rome put the High Priest in power. They ruled the Sanhedrin and were primarily responsible for sending Jesus to Pilot. Note that they did this the night of Passover when most people would be celebrating at home (as required) with family and most of the people who supported Jesus would be absent. Those who celebrated His triumphal entry into Jerusalem were not the same yelling “Crucify Him.” The Sadducees were fewer in number and ran the Temple and its services. This is how they made their money, requiring Jews to “buy” lambs raised in Temple fields at inflated prices. Their reasons were to streamline the approval of qualified sacrifices instead of having to inspect every lamb brought in that day. The Pharisees believed in the whole Old Testament (Tanak) and also an Oral Torah [Law] that put a “fence” around the written Law. There was more than one kind of Pharisee (contrary to popular belief.) Two main schools of thought were the Hillel and Shammai. Hillel died when Jesus was about 16. Hillel was more progressive and had a “light” yoke, where as Shammai had a very heavy yoke. There were 8 great debates among these two Rabbi’s They were: 1. Sabbath Day 2. Who is my neighbor? 3. Greatest commandment (and their order of importance.)? 4. Tithing 5. Wearing tefillin – (phylacteries) 6. Wearing tassels on corner of robe 7. Fasting 8. Divorce You may note that Jesus addressed them all. He sided with Hillel on all of them except Divorce. Hillel and Shammai disagreed on over 300 issues. Hillel is the school that won out primarily and is still around today I believe. The Pharisees get a bad rap in the Bible mostly, and for good reason (just read the Mishnah, the Oral Torah). However, there were some “good” Pharisees as well, and you meet some in the New Testament. Nichademus and Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel) come out fairly well (we know more about Gamaliel from the Talmud than from the Bible). And it was some Pharisees that tried to help Jesus: Luke 13:31 At that very hour some Pharisees came and said to him, "Get away from here, for Herod wants to kill you." Paul was a Pharisee and claimed to still be one near the end of his ministry. Acts 23. Paul followed Gamaliel who followed Hillel. Gamaliel most likely would not have approved of Paul’s treatment of believers before his conversion. Mainly however, the Pharisees were far more concerned; it seems, with minor details of the “letter of the Law” than with mercy and justice. Being a hypocrite (which was an actor in the theaters) was applied well. They played a part, put on masks, and looked for applause. MJH Others: please confirm or correct any errors. Thanks. |
||||||
492 | Have a Messianic Jew answer your quest.? | Acts 21:21 | MJH | 139814 | ||
Wow, this is from a long time ago. Makarios, happened upon your comment. Would you like me to get a Messianic Jew to answer your Jully 27, 2001 question? MJH |
||||||
493 | New believers zealous for LAW? | Acts 21:24 | MJH | 139813 | ||
When I was young, I was told that the "law" (or Torah, Law of Moses) was done away with unless it was restated in the New Testament. Paul was said to have taught this. But here in Acts 21, we see Paul showing that the converts were "zealous for the law" and that he himself "walked in observance of the [Torah]". He even sacrificed to God after Jesus' atonement. AND he calls him self a Pharisee in the present tense. Any thoughts on this? A side note: one of the main questions I have been asking for the last couple of years (since I got a renewed fire for study) is, "What of the OT Laws apply to me, a Gentile, to the Jews in the Land, and to the Jews not in the Land?" Please don't answer THAT question right now, but I want to fully disclose why I am asking about Acts 21. For some reason I have missed this part of the story of Paul before. MJH – (re-born on this Forum to not be argumentative any more :-) |
||||||
494 | Scripture - more than one meaning? | Not Specified | MJH | 139812 | ||
Is it ever possible for scripture to have more than one meaning? I have heard the Sages of old said, "There are 70 layers to every Bible passage." I am not one to subscribe to 70 layers to every passage, but can there be more than one meaning? For example: Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers, rejected. There is an obvious plane meaning to this. Joseph was sold into slavery. But, does this narrative foretell the Messiah being sold by his brothers, rejected, only to save them in the end like Joseph saved his brothers? Is this a Messiah picture, besides the plane obvious story? I was just curious what others thought about this. I think the above example is a Torah picture of the Messiah (kind of like the snake is seen as more than a snake in Gen 2). But . . . what do you all think? MJH |
||||||
495 | Scripture - more than one meaning? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 139827 | ||
Is it ever possible for scripture to have more than one meaning? I have heard the Sages of old said, "There are 70 layers to every Bible passage." I am not one to subscribe to 70 layers to every passage, but can there be more than one meaning? For example: Joseph is sold into slavery by his brothers, rejected. There is an obvious plane meaning to this. Joseph was sold into slavery. But, does this narrative foretell the Messiah being sold by his brothers, rejected, only to save them in the end like Joseph saved his brothers? Is this a Messiah picture, besides the plane obvious story? I was just curious what others thought about this. I think the above example is a Torah picture of the Messiah (kind of like the snake is seen as more than a snake in Gen 2). But . . . what do you all think? MJH |
||||||
496 | they would not have crucified the Lord | Joel 2:3 | MJH | 139781 | ||
BradK, Let me help you understand He-man . . . Num 28:15 And one kid of the goats for a sin offering unto the LORD shall be offered, beside the continual burnt offering, and his drink offering. Luk 14:24 For I say unto you, That none of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper. 2Sa 19:35 I am this day fourscore years old: and can I discern between good and evil? can thy servant taste what I eat or what I drink? can I hear any more the voice of singing men and singing women? wherefore then should thy servant be yet a burden unto my lord the king? Dan 2:37 Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. Deu 26:15 Look down from thy holy habitation, from heaven, and bless thy people Israel, and the land which thou hast given us, as thou swarest unto our fathers, a land that floweth with milk and honey. 2Sa 17:29 And honey, and butter, and sheep, and cheese of kine, for David, and for the people that were with him, to eat: for they said, The people is hungry, and weary, and thirsty, in the wilderness. Act 13:22 And when he had removed him, he raised up unto them David to be their king; to whom also he gave testimony, and said, I have found David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart, which shall fulfil all my will. Eph 4:23 And be renewed in the spirit of your mind; I DO HOPE THIS CLEARS EVERYTHING UP! MJH |
||||||
497 | Hair cuts and beards | Lev 19:27 | MJH | 139644 | ||
. | ||||||
498 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139595 | ||
Let me know where on the site you find this disturbing information. And I agree, it sounds disturbing. The site is not totally represetative of Bivin's beliefs which is stated at the end of every article that may appear in the magazine (of which many articles are online). To say I agree 100 percent with any author would not be accurate, but I believe that Bivin and his co-author in the book mentioned earlier make a strong case for the evidance for the Hebrew spoken language. MJH |
||||||
499 | Levitate, go to heaven, or the City? | Rom 11:25 | MJH | 139573 | ||
Yes, I think your conclusions are accurate. Although using "mansions" is not the best word to use. "Rooms" would be more appropriate, but it does not change at all your conclusions. MJH |
||||||
500 | "upon this rock I will build my church" | Matt 16:18 | MJH | 139572 | ||
I am familiar with all but one of these books, although I do not have them all yet. The Chumash is very interesting and it’s great to get a new perspective on the Torah. Friends in my Bible study group have it, but not me. I have the complete Jewish Bible and Jewish New Testament Commentary. I have not heard of Kingdom Relationships. I loved reading the Historical Fiction books, "First Light" and "Second Touch" by the Thoene's. They are very knowledgeable about the times and the characters in these books meet Jesus. They provide insights that are fascinating. They make the Text come alive in many ways. I would recommend them highly. Marvin Wilison’s “Our Father Abraham” is also very good. It is some what like a text book, but I thought it was an easy read. “The Bible as it Was” by James L Kugel is also very interesting showing many ancient interpretations. Similar, I think, to the Chumash, but not in commentary form. Is Kingdom Relationships a good read? I like to add books to my wish list. It’s quite long. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 ] Next > Last [29] >> |