Results 61 - 80 of 161
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | How is jacob the ancestor of a samaritan | John 4:12 | biblicalman | 228245 | ||
It depends what you mean by a Samaritan. If your mean the people of Samaria then yes some of the people of Samaria were descended from Jacob, those left in the land when the others were exiled. But the Samaritans in the New Testament came from around Shechem and were probably not descended from the ancient people of Samaria. Their religion was too pure for that. The people of Samaria may have worshipped YHWH but they also worshipped other Gods. Thats why Ezra would have nothing to do withe them religiously speaking. They were polytheists. And it was not permitted to marry them. But what were called Samaritans in the Gospel were worshippers of one God, the God of Moses. It is very doubtful whether they were descended from the mixed people of Samaria. Indeed it is probable that they were Jews, but with their own beliefs. Where they came from we do not know. See any good modern Bible Dictionary. |
||||||
62 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229276 | ||
Hi, The Israelites/Jews believed in arranged marriages, although that did not necessarily mean that the parents did not consult their children. But for a man or woman to marry without their parents agreement was unusual (Esau was an exception and thereby grieved his parents). When the couple were agreed on by their parents they became betrothed. This was then seen as binding, and only divorce could set it aside. The aim was that it would last for life. You will notice that Joseph was going to 'put away, divorce' Mary privately, even though they were 'only' betrothed. It had to be a semi-official action. Marriage wowuld then result when they had reached the necessary age. These are facts that can be found in any reliable Bible Dictionary, and good commentaries. NBD says, 'the betrothed woman was sometimes called 'wife' and was under the same obligation of faithfulness (Gen 29.21; Deut 22.23-24; Matt 1.18, 20) and the betrothed man was called 'husband' (Joel 1.8; Matt 1.19). Best wishes. |
||||||
63 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229289 | ||
Hi Tim, Well we can agree to differ :-)) As I pointed out the high sticklers took your view, (except that the period was not necessarily 12 months, it was agreed by the families), but the general consensus was that sexual relations during betrothal were permissible. Thus Mary would not have been frowned on by her Galilean friends, nor by the majority. It is doubtful therefore whether the Pharisees would have made a fuss about such a thing. You must not judge Jesus' day by later Rabbinic rules. Best wishes |
||||||
64 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229302 | ||
Hi Unfortunately this subject appears to be getting out of hand. At no time did I state that sexual relations were 'common' during the betrothal period, only that they 'regularly occurred', and that the general consensus was that they were permissible. It is all a matter of language. For something to regularly occur among say a million people over many years, does not mean that they were common (depending on what you mean by common), only that they fairly often happened. The question is not whether sexual relations within the betrothal period were approved of by Jewish society as a whole, but whether Jesus' parents would have been deeply frowned on for having had such sexual relations. My first statement was, 'in Jewish eyes Jesus would not have been seen as born of fonication'. This is in fact stated in the Halakah where it is emphasised that the child of a pre-marital union where the marriage is consummated is not to be seen as a mamzer (illegitimate child). In Israel betrothal was at the very basis of a marriage. It was at betrothal that the contracts were drawn up, payments made, and everything was settled. Apart from a blessing we know of no ritual that took place at the actual wedding. That had taken place at the betrothal. The betrothal was totally binding. The actual wedding was rather a time for feasting and the official consummation of the marriage. All the preliminaries (including the signing) had taken place at betrothal. Once betrothed the pair were looked on as husband and wife (Gen 29.21; Deut 22.23-24; 28.30; Judges 14.2, 8; Joel 1.8; Matthew 1.18-20). The only way out was through divorce. They did not, however, live together. But as the betrothed girl was expected to work in the countryside unsupervised (Deut 22.25) they would have ample opportunity to meet, and if they desired engage in love-making. (Consider the Song of Solomon). It is noteworthy that nothing is ever said against such practises in the Old Testament. There is never any suggestion that a betrothed pair be punished in any way if they engaged in such activity, even though the question of sexual relations is dealt with in a detailed way. Indeed in the Mishnah it is stated that one way by which betrothal takes place is by sexual relations. 'Said Rabbi Joseph, a girl is betrothed by sexual intercourse' (M Nid 5.4). In the section headed 'Betrothal' (quiddushim) it says, A woman is acquired as a wife in one of three ways, by money, by contract, or by sexual intercourse' (1.1). In neither instance is there any hint of disapproval. This is in fact backed up in Scripture in that if a man entices a virgin he must pay her dowry (thus bcoming betrothed) and take her as his wife (Exod. 22.16; compare Deut 22.28-29). Once again there is no punishment unless you see having to be married as a punishment. The couple would not be frowned on later, except by high sticklers, who would no doubt see it as a sign of 'common people'. My own comments were based on what I have learned from scholarly commentaries, but as I cannot offhand remember which ones, and no longer have access to such commenaries, I have provided details above which would support their case. Best wishes |
||||||
65 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229307 | ||
Searcher I stopped the generations discussion for the same reason. I felt it had run its course. But of course you fail to point that out. Well I see nothing in the supposed Biblical proof which shows that I was wrong. You have given no proof at all. Indeed you have mainly repeated what I said, avoiding the conclusions. You have mainly given Scriptures that I have already given except that you have misinterpreted them. There is no doubt at all that betrothed persons were called husband and wife. I suggest you read the Scriptures I gave again without prejudice. Fortunately others can judge for themselves. I also pointed out that betrothal was totally different from engagement. I can only presume from what you say that you did not read my recent post where I underlined this. It is indeed largely the basis of my argument. I put no special weight on the Jewish encyclopedia when it comes to the times of Jesus. They have no more information to go on than the scholars whom I consulted, possibly less, for they are of course biased in their own favour and a desire to present Judaism respectably. And they put too much emphasis on later Jewish tradition. Tell me do you believe what the Jewish encyclopedia says about Jesus Christ? No you are mistaken. It was the betrothal that was the means of obtaining a wife, the marriage was just the final seal. That is why Jacob could say 'give me my wife'. He was already betrothed to her and was working off the payment. With regard to the 'proof of virginity' passage that simply demonstrates what ought to have happened, but it only happened in certain cases where it was seen as important. Clearly if the two had had sexual relations the subject would not come up. The man would know his wife was not a virgin. Lol most of what you are pointing out is what I have already said. But you prove nothing from it. At least I then apply it. If they were betrothed they already had a wife and husband. There is never any suggestion of condemnation for the behaviour of such in sexual matters. If you disagree, produce it. On the other hand if they had sexual relations when they were not betrothed, that ensured their betrothal, which is one reason why the Rabbis said that sexual relations was one way of bringing about a betrothal. I fail to see what a wedding procession has to do with what I said. It was simply part of the celebrations which I spoke of. The serious part was accomplished by the betrothaal. I specifically pointed out that they did not 'shack up' Did you read anything I said? I am quite aware of what the Rabbi said in full, but firstly I did not think it the kind of thing that should be stressed on the forum, and secondly it makes not the slightest difference to the argument. The Rabbi was not recommending sex at that age. He was simply defining what in those days was seen as the minimum age at which a sexual relationship was considerd theoretically possible. He was not actually suggesting sex at that age. Again you have misinterpreted. I'm afraid I don't trust most of what is available on the internet. It is rarely written by people who have researched the subject in depth. I place more confidence in people who are acknowledged experts in the field under discussion. And besides those sites are not talking about how the common people viewed things. In fact I think you are not arguing against what I said, but against what YOU THINK I said, because you have not read what I said carefully enough. You have simply jumped to conclusions. |
||||||
66 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229310 | ||
Just me. I'm afraid what you say about the Quran destroys your case. I gave no incorrect information concerning the Quran. If I did not see your post I am sorry. But if a lot is posted then things tend to be disappear rather quickly. Had you drawn it to my attention I would have looked at it. If you will look back you will discover that what I suggested you consult a Bible Dictionary about is NOT what is now under discussion. Bible Dictionaries tend to concentrate on the standard official view, not the view of the common people. All that I said was getting out of hand was wasting a lot of time and space arguing about a subject of minor importance. Especially as the arguing very often reveals that the person arguing has not really read my posts. What I have said is accurate, And I have substantiated it from Scripture. Nor have I made a mistake. If I had a large theological library available as I once had I could soon trace my sources. But it is hardly a subject that I have kept records of. I did in fact find information on the internet which confirmed my position but did not consider the matter important enough to take the matter further. In fact if you think about it the fact that the Nazarenes who tried to pick holes in Jesus never brought the subject up, even though they would have known the facts, confirms that my view of things is correct. Sexual relations within betrothal were tolerated. Had they not been the Nazarenes would have seized on it to discredit Jesus. To a lesser extent (for they may not have known the facts) the same is true of the Pharisees. I am not prepared to retract a statement which I am confident is right. Best wishes. |
||||||
67 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229321 | ||
Ed Thank you for your information. No doubt you will provide me with the chapters and verses in Scripture that speak of this situation? Post-1st century Jewish ceremonies tell us nothing about the times of Jesus and before. They developed after the fall of Jerusalem. Furthermore there are those who claim that the Mikvah when it was introduced was performed immediately after the betrothal. Perhaps then you would provide evidence for what you say that excludes that possibility? best wishes. |
||||||
68 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229322 | ||
Searcher, Unless you can provide proof from the Torah and the Prophets that sexual relations between betrothed couple were forbidden your position also has no standing. I have at least demonstrated the probability that it was allowable. Of course the Mishnah is valid as evidence of what the Jews believed, which is the point at issue. We are not arguing about what the Scriptural teaching is. There was no Scriptural teaching on the subject. I find it interesting how people who like to call the Bible the word of God are quite happy to add in things and pretend that they too are the word of God just because it is what they think. I did not 'forget' about the three year and a day old (lol you forgot the day, so whwere do you stand?). I just thought it would raise unnecessary complications and upset some members of the forum. It was unnecessary to the argument. The statement was that women from that age upwards could become betrothed by sexual relations There is nothing in what you wrote that implied sex between betrothed persons was forbidden. But I am quite happy for you not to reply. I think the subject is best left alone. Where Scripture is silent each can form his own views. best wishes |
||||||
69 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229323 | ||
Ed, As you are aware you have to go to modern books for such a suggestion. It is not Scriptural. Nor is there any proof that such a tradition occurred in the times of Jesus. I am sure you are aware that the idea is taken from Deuteronomy 22.13-21 where it ONLY occurred if the husband made a public charge against his wife to the courts. The bloodstained sheets would then be produced. Thus it would not occur if the husband knew that they had had sexual relations during betrothal. With regard to the stoning, that would not have been allowed by the Romans. As far as we know it was only allowed in exceptional cases for blasphemy. We do not know what punishment would be meted out in such a case as deuteronomy speaks of. As everyone is so keen on quotations, let me quote what H L Ellison (a Jewish Christian consrvative scholar) says, 'He (Jesus) was not conceived until Mary was legally married. Betrothal was legally marriage'. Thus he sees things the way I do. I have already demonstrated that Jewish Halakhic tradition clearly states that the offspring born out of a betrothal situation was NOT seen as illegitimate. In which case there was no shame of fornication. Do you not find it interesting that the Jews never brought that particular matter up either when Jesus was alive nor after He was dead, even when the virgin birth had been publicised? Lol if I know young men and their propensities I am sure that premarital sex during betrothal happened quite frequently. And no one has yet produced a jot of Scripture which says that it was condemned, although I do not doubt that it was frowned on by many. Best wishes. |
||||||
70 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229330 | ||
Hi Tim, Thank you for confirming what I said about Halakhic tradition. As it points out that having agreed sexual relations was one way of initiating a betrothal, and appears to accept it as 'normal', I fail to see how anyone can deny that such a situation was 'accepted' as I said, even if not necessarily fully approved of by all. (I made clear it was not fully approved of by all). Thank you too for confirming what I said about the child of such a relationship being accepted as legitimate. Some will still be unwilling to accept it, but when an idea is fixed in the mind it often takes time to be willing to let it go. Best wishes |
||||||
71 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229333 | ||
Hi Ed, Let us try and avoid getting heated about this, it really is not worth it. Your sources are not based on 1st century sources (there are none) and they are therefore simply a matter of the opinions of the writers as people who live in the modern era against a background of Christian culture and read back later Jewish tradition which was revolutionised after 70 AD. They are not backed up by facts. I provided you with three sources which confirmed that betrothal could be initiated by sexual activity, but you simply ignored them. Now Tim has brought one of them up you accept it, although in my view you draw wrong conclusions from it. You have no sources which refer to Mikvah applying in 1st century AD, certainly not before the fall of Jerusalem. If you have I would be more than delighted to see them. But I do not believe that any are available, and scholars confirm the fact. So your conclusion does not follow, and furthermore no one is sure when Mikvah applied. Ritual cleanisng was something that was going on all the time, and always necessary after sexual relation. I have already cited Ellison writing in 'A New Testament Commentary'. But I cannot offhand remember which other authorities i found discussion of the subject in, but I can assure you that they were scholarly sources, not just 'popular' sources like the ones you mention. I am very careful where I obtain my information from and what I accept. It is always difficult to trace back background information of this kind because it is rarely provided in substantiated form. You cannot read later Jewish customs back to the time of Jesus, and certainly not to Galilee whose views were very different from those in Judea. Nor am I convinced that Mikvah is anything like our baptism. Mikvah, whenever it began, was a ceremony of ritual cleansing, John's baptism was never said to offer ritual cleansing. It was an indication of the coming of the Holy Spirit in terms of Isaiah 32.15; 44.1-5; 55.10-13 signifying the giving of life, which would be fulfilled by the coming of the Holy Spirit. Notice that almost all John's preaching was in terms of producing fruit and other agricultural activities. Best wishes |
||||||
72 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229335 | ||
Hi Ed, I don't quite understand your problem. I cited three Jewish sources, as follows, This is in fact stated in the Halakah where it is emphasised that the child of a premarital union where the marriage is consummated is not to be seen as a mamzer (illegitimate child). Indeed in the Mishnah it is stated that one way by which betrothal takes place is by sexual relations. 'Said Rabbi Joseph, a girl is betrothed by sexual intercourse' (M Nid 5.4). In the section headed 'Betrothal' (quiddushim) it says, A woman is acquired as a wife in one of three ways, by money, by contract, or by sexual intercourse' (1.1). In no instance is there any hint of disapproval of the sexual relations. Do you not count these as sources? In two I give chapter and verse. Referencing works in general can give an untrue impression. Edersheim does not cite any ancient Jewish preChristian source that disagrees with what I have said about betrothal and marriage. They do not exist. Best wishes |
||||||
73 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229350 | ||
Hi Tim, The question that I dealt with originally was not what was to be seen as the ideal, but what was actually countenanced and not seen as an open breach of the Law by the majority of people having the consequence of bringing the couple and the baby into disrepute, (apart, as I constantly stated, in the eyes of the high sticklers). We are all agreed that the Old Testament says nothing against sexual relations between a betrothed couple (who were seen as man and wife). Had it been seen as needing to be legislated against, it would have been mentioned, for it would certainly have occurred. And this is especially so in view of the fact that if it was totally forbidden it would have required the death penalty. Had that been so it would hardly have been overlooked. And this is especially so as in betrothal all the ritual requirements for marriage had been completed, and were binding, and all that was required was consummation of the marriage. This in fact is brought out rather vividly by Deuteronomy 20.7 where the husband is to race home to consummate the betrothal. In Ketuboth 1.5 it says, 'He who eats with his father-in-law in Judea without a witness cannot bring a complaint for the cause of non-virginity because he was alone with her.' This suggests that this was a fairly common occurrence as it is being legislated about. And there is no indication of disapproval, only a removal of the right of the husband to protest against his wife not being a virgin. We also note that the concern was not seemingly concerning immorality, but concerning the rights of the couple and the security of the marriage. Indeed that is the Old Testament emphasis. The immorality lay in what its social effects were. You say : The point you made in another post about sexual relations resulting in marriage does not indicate acceptance, but protection of the woman. It is much like in the OT where if a man raped a virgin, he had to marry her. The latter is in fact a point I brought out earlier. But the very fact that it is legislated about without any criticism being made demonstrates that it was accepted as not prejudicing the couple. There is never a hint of criticism. It is treated matter-of-factedly. There would be no reflection on the child. But we should note that the Mishnah, when speaking of a betrothal occurring through sexual relations, does not assume that there had been a rape. The sexual relations could equally have been by agreement in order to bring about betrothal. It is merely being seen as one means of entering a betrothal, without further comment being made. And what is important, as I think we are agreed on, (and was the point at issue), is that no taint attached to the child as long as both parties accepted the child as theirs. With regard to the period of twelve months it would appear that that period was only a suggested period and not rigidly applied. Often betrothal would take place when the couple were young children and the period of betrothal would be a lot longer. On other occasions where the couple were mature the period would be less. Of course this situation does not arise for Christians. Engagement is not betrothal. It is not totally binding. Thus for the Christian pre-marital sex is certainly disapproved of. But that is another question. Best wishes |
||||||
74 | salvation | John 10:28 | biblicalman | 227728 | ||
lol Doc i read mine again and i read yours prior to it. It seems to me your answer was more subjective than mine. However i was not expecting in four lines to deal with the whole question of salvation, I was merely dealing with the fallacy of speaking of salvation as though it was ours to gain or lose of our own choice. | ||||||
75 | What does the bible say about near death | Acts 14:19 | biblicalman | 229275 | ||
Hi, In 229238 Searcher stated that it was a parable. I was pointing out reasons why it might not be a parable but a reference to real life. Interpreters are divided on the question. But as Jesus' parables were always based on real life we can accept that its details are portraying His thoughts either way. Best wishes |
||||||
76 | What happens to people who never hear? | Rom 1:20 | biblicalman | 229548 | ||
Hi Ismaila, Another group of verses to take into account when considering this question are Romans 2.14-16. They may well indicate that in a limited number of cases some who have not heard of Christ will be acceptable to God because they have responded to His call in their hearts (although their acceptance will of course be on the basis of the cross). We must also remember that when Paul was writing many Jews among the dispersion would not have heard of Christ. To them therefore the Old testament teaching would still apply. There are unquestionably cases where missionaries have gone to certain peoples and have been approached by some who said, 'We know the God Whom you are talking about, and we have been waiting for you to come.' The ways of God are wonderful. If you want a good read and want to read an amazing story try to get hold of a copy of 'Mimosa', by Amy Carmichael. (Dohnavur Press). You will end up saying, 'My God, how great thou art'. Best wishes |
||||||
77 | What does dead to sin in Roman 6:2 mean | Rom 6:2 | biblicalman | 228661 | ||
The wonderful thing that does happen is that we become united with the risen Christ and therefore have His power available to us if our lives are fully yielded to Him. If we are Christians He and the Father come to live within us and we enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit. The way to a victorious life is yieldedness to Him. So we are not left alone to struggle on by ourselves. We have our risen Saviour dwelling in our hearts by faith (Ephesians 3.17). Possibly you could consider Galatians 2.20. 'I live, yet not I but Christ lives in me, and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by confident trust in the Son of God Who loved me and gave Himself for me.' Here is the secret, letting Christ live through us after recognising that we have died to sin in Him. |
||||||
78 | I am confused | Rom 8:30 | biblicalman | 229686 | ||
What is made quite clear in Rom 8.29-30, however interpreted, is that the same people who were justified and glorified, were also those who were foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, and no others. We cannot refer the first half to 'all men' and the second half to 'some men'. That is to ignore the clear meaning of the Greek. Futhermore it is quite apparent that we cannot say all men were predestinated to be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, because it is quite obvious that they were not, unless of course we say that God has failed in His purpose. To predestinate means to determine destiny beforehand. So the meaning of the verses is that those whom God foreknew were the ones who would be saved. The argument between Calvin and Arminius lay in the meaning of foreknew. Does it mean 'discern beforehand' or does it mean 'determine beforehand' (or more strictly 'enter into personal relationship with beforehand'). The Greek (proginosko) would favour the latter. For the former we would expect pro-oida. But however we view the matter we cannot avoid the fact that from the beginning God knows who will be saved. That being so by allowing creation to continue He was predestinating some to be saved and some to be condemned. For had He allowed all men to die in the Flood no one following that time would have existed. They could neither be saved or condemned. Thus by allowing Noah to survive, and not be taken into Heaven like Enoch was, God was determining the destiny of all future mankind. How can I know that I am one of the predestined? By receiving Jesus Christ as my Saviour and LORD. Best wishes |
||||||
79 | I am confused | Rom 8:30 | biblicalman | 229690 | ||
The word translated predestined or foreordained is pro-orizo, to lay down or determine beforehand. pro-ginosko is translated as foreknow. ginosko means to know by experience, in contrast with oida which means to know intellectually. Thus God's foreknowledge was not just intellectual but personal. |
||||||
80 | I am confused | Rom 8:30 | biblicalman | 229696 | ||
When considering the Scriptures we have to recognise that there are certain veins running through them which might even appear to us, with our limited knowledge to be contradictory, although they are in fact complementary. One of those is God's sovereignty. Another is man's freewill. I prefer not to use human logic when considering the ways of God because if one thing is certain when we use our own logic about God it is that we will be wrong. But even human logic tells me that if man is oorrupt he will never choose to respond to God. Yes He can choose to sin, he can choose options in his life (although usually in accordance with his own predilections and therefore not strictly though freewill), But one thing sinful man would never do without God's grace acting on him is to choose God. And it seems to me that the Scriptures demonstrate this clearly. Consider for example Romans 9.14-24. When the Bible speaks of God calling it makes nonsense of the whole idea if we say that He calls 'whosoever will'. He calls in accordance with His own purpose. There is a specific call and there is a general call. Thus there is a general call, but we must not mix it up with God's specific call in for example Romans 8.29-30. We should of course try to be morally right, and we should do that not because we have a choice, but because it is the right thing to do. And that is so whether God is acting in sovereignty or not. But it is not for us to say that because God is sovereign we are not responsible for what we do. Of course we are. We live our lives on earth as freewill beings. But God help us if He leaves us the victin of our own freewill. On those terms no one will ever be saved. Of course God can decide who will be saved, for it depends on the activity of His undeserved compassion and favour, and through the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1.2). Do you really think that if God brought Himself home to men as He really is and worked by His Spirit in their hearts they would not come to Him? I know of a number of people who have actually SEEN the risen Christ. I have never heard of one who did not subsequently believe. So what finite men believe about the question is irrelevant. As to 'losing our salvation'. If it is ours we will certainly lose it, But it is not. Salvstion is the work of God from beginning to end. and He has never lost anyone's salvation. 'And this is the will of Him Who sent Me that of all whom He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise them up at the last day' (John 6.39). See also John 10.27-29; 1 Cor 1.7-9; Phil 1.6; 2 Tim 1.12. It is amusing and sad to me how people try to avoid the clear teaching of Scripture just so that they can imprison God in their own logic. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [9] >> |