Results 61 - 80 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | What is love? | Matt 22:37 | MJH | 216977 | ||
Love isn't a feeling, but an action. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. It's that simple. Why did Jesus say, when asked the greatest commandment, quote Deut 6, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind." and then add the second? "Love your neighbor as yourself?" Why did Jesus need to include the second greatest command when giving the first? Why does Paul say the greatest commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself? Is he disagreeing with Jesus? No. He isn't. No one can Love God with "special feelings." They can only love God by showing love to His people. And since Love is the fulfillment (purpose) of the commandments, when we Love Jesus we obey his commandments. MJH |
||||||
62 | has the church preaching remaind faithfu | OT general | MJH | 216644 | ||
Ptr, A few thoughts: 1) Your statement about the condition of the Church could have been said by God’s people in nearly anytime during the last 2000 years. The "True Church" is strong and well (Elijah also thought he was the only one left; yet, there were 7000 who did not bow to Baal.) Also, your view of the church is primarily based on your personal experience while the Church universal is advancing all over the globe. You said, “When we insist on maintaining a standard of biblical truth and Godly holiness, we are often faced with ridicules.” This has always been and always will be the case. Get used to it. But don’t let it cause you to become bitter, but rather allow love to rule the day. 2) You are making some erroneous statements about the religious state at the time of John the Baptizer. The Pharisees were not the powerful rich elite. They did not have staggering growth of numbers (they discouraged Gentile converts and grew their faith mostly through child birth.) The Sadducees ruled the day and the money and the Pharisees worked with them only by necessity (Sadducees controlled the Temple and the Sanhedrin.) The Pharisee was much closer to the people of the land, particularly in Galilee where Jesus did most of his teaching, and not all Pharisees are depicted negatively in the Gospels and Acts. 3) Classifying all "seminary graduates of our day" in one category is undeniably wrong. Making a categorical statement reflects anger in your heart towards individuals who may have wronged you; rather than a faceless "group." When we direct our bitterness towards a group, we misappropriate our disgust and furthermore are unable to reconcile adequately; all of which harms us, not the group. 4) I'd suggest living your life with a "Christ-like spirit, Godly lifestyle, and maintain your faith in this age." This will prove your own words to be wrong, because you are a part of the Church, and when you stand strong on what is right, the Church is strengthened. |
||||||
63 | Paul’s missionary work | Acts 9:15 | MJH | 216524 | ||
Since this question has come up maybe 100 times over such a long period of time, maybe the real project is to ask all over the internet to see what responses you get? How could one question possibly be asked this often this consistantly? MJH |
||||||
64 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216445 | ||
BradK, Within Messianic Judaism there is a major issue that needs the prayers of all of the Church, not just those within this movement. There is a push, and it may be too far to stop, to "convert" Gentiles through circumcision to become "Jewish" so they can fully participate in the faith rather than only be those who are "supporting" Israel. This error, as you have stated, is straight out of Galatia, and I'd covet your prayers concerning this. We are all ONE body, Jews and Gentiles, as we stand God by Faith in Jesus Christ alone. The very thing Paul fought against is at the heart of what it causing injury to a part of the Body of Christ, and whether we agree with all they say and do, they are most certainly Believers and when one part hurts we all hurt. Most of you know where I stand on many of these issues particularly concerning the Law and our relationship to it. If you've been here long enough, you've seen me stumble awkwardly through a new understanding (new for me.) Yet, in the midst of this journey, I've found many who are following pretend leaders; people who purport to know things they do not; people who pretend to understand languages and history but lack the training necessary. These people ride the tide of supposed popularity, but end up dried out on the shore when the tide returns. To most, this fringe area of Christianity does not even show up on the radar, but it's there and it's growing and it needs the prayers of all Christians to be led by God's Spirit to the right places by the right leaders. With great respect, MJH |
||||||
65 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216444 | ||
Ariel ben-Lyman, as much as I have read, is a wonderful believer doing good things. I'm not a regular reader/listener, but I have read and heard from him on occasion. I don't align on some things that for him and myself may seem pretty big (though not condemning in anyway), but to the rest of the church as near non-issues. I'm somewhat surprised that you would have heard of him enough to mention. MJH |
||||||
66 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216381 | ||
Doc, I think the person who would come the closest to your definition of "proper exegesis" of Galatians from the "messianic" perspective would be Tim Hegg. I do agree with you, however, that too many in that area of Christianity are loose with their historical interpretation finding what they are looking for rather that always what is there. MJH |
||||||
67 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216380 | ||
anachronism 1. the representation of something in a historical context in which it could not have occurred or existed 2. a person or thing that seems to belong to another time [Greek ana against AND khronos time] Sorry for the mispelling. I was in a rush. MJH |
||||||
68 | Do you think there are any churches that | NT general | MJH | 216369 | ||
"Most of what we think of as Judaism was more influenced by rabbis in Europe centuries after the primitive church spread out in the Roman empire" Very true. It's a frustrating thing when people apply anagronisims. Also, seeking out the theology of the first century Jew is extremely difficult work. MJH |
||||||
69 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215986 | ||
Val, Forgot to mention. The link puts "so-called" in square brakets. This usually means the origianal word was replaced with a similar word. OR it wasn't in the original text but added by the editor later. MJH just trying to give the benefit of the doubt. |
||||||
70 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215985 | ||
Val, Yes I did catch that too. I was more interested in historical evidence than attitude. Also, I simply do not have a "dog in this fight" so-to-speak. I just don't care much about it to get into the fray. My personal impression is that if a church desires to be alcohol free, I am perfectly fine with this. I also think if you join that church you are obligated to follow what you signed up for. But they would be much better served if they didn't attempt to prove it from the Bible as being a hard and fast "law" all Christians should follow. Doing so puts them in a theological corner they can't get out of. While there is a part of me that would love to draw them into a discussion and then back them into a corner and watch them squirm, I don't think it would be profitable. As far as anyone on this forum whom I have spoken with about the issue, I have seen only grace. Maybe others I haven't spoken to (and the links provided) use terms such as "so-called Christians" or apostates, but that doesn't reflect the discourse I’ve seen from this forum. MJH |
||||||
71 | doing a trivia questionaire | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 215972 | ||
O' shucks. I put Paul for the last one.... He rather said, For me to live is Christ and to die is gain. mjh |
||||||
72 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215971 | ||
Tim, Thanks. That was exactly what I was looking for. I love it when a specific historical statement can be backed up. Seems to me that the anceints might have used Wine more as a common beverage than as a beverage to accompany a good steak. Either way, your link was a good one. MJH |
||||||
73 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215900 | ||
see new note to searcher56 | ||||||
74 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215899 | ||
I check out the two links. They both hold very different views. The second is a perfect example of my earlier post on this thread. Apparently anyone who doesn't agree with their view of wine is "apostate." In either case, the first did not mention the mixing of wine with water and the second mentions the four parts to one mixture without any reference. It's not that I don't think this has a high probability to be true. But the quote is a specific 4-1 mixture rather than the more generic "they mixed water in with their wine" This leads me to believe that they MUST have a source. Something dating from near the first century such as Philo or Josephus or the Mishna or a Greek writer from the era speaking about the Jews. I've read many of so-called historical "facts" from the first century that turned out to be not true, but since they've been passed on so much and so many pastors reference them in sermons, they become assumed. MJH |
||||||
75 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215891 | ||
THanks, I will check them out. MJH |
||||||
76 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215886 | ||
You said, "The wine at the time Jesus lived was diluted from a concentrate about 4 parts of water to one part of wine." Do you have a source for this information? Thanks, MJH |
||||||
77 | Did Jesus ever drink wine? | Matt 11:19 | MJH | 215868 | ||
John the Baptist did not drink wine because he was a Nazarite for life and no grape product (wine or juice or simply a grape) could be eaten. Jesus did drink wine and it was the real thing...with alcohol in it fully fermented. He also changed water into wine, and again, it was the real thing. The master of the household declared it the best, and wine that isn't fermented isn't close to the best. (This miracle was performed in a town that worshiped Dionysius, the god of wine.) Some have tried to convince themselves that Jesus only drank what they refer to as “new wine” that did not contain alcohol. But historically and religiously this simply is not true. In fact, it is so obviously shown to be untrue that only one thing can cause a person to hold firmly to such a belief. Pure dogmatism. A strict belief in something because their “teachings” say so. No proof needed and all evidence to the contrary is dismissed outright. The fact of the matter is that God actually created grapes to be used as wine. It's use in the worship at the Temple was prescribed by God Himself. The Passover celebration (in the first century) required four glasses of wine to be drunk by the participants (probably small glasses or all from a common cup.) Drinking red wine with a meal is in no way bad in-and-of-itself. Only when it causes offense to another, or temps a person with a drinking problem. Most churches now use grape juice for the Lord's Supper (Eucharist, Communion, et. al.) to protect those who are alcoholics. I hope this helps. Biblical references are so numerous it would be cumbersome to include, but if you do not have a good concordance or e-sword.org, or can't access “blue letter Bible” on the Internet, I could gather them for you. MJH |
||||||
78 | are we born into a sinnful world | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 215842 | ||
Good answer to whomever at gotquestions wrote this one. The only thing I would add would be that sin infected not only all mankind, but also all creation. Romans 8:19 "For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now." MJH |
||||||
79 | Why did Jesus need to leave first? | John 16:7 | MJH | 215799 | ||
Thanks Doc. It's good to hear from you again. In light of the question then, Jesus needed to bodily ascend before the Spirit could come because we are His body, the Church? I understand the Theology of Christ's finished work as our only means of redemption, and I know that as he said, he needed to leave before the counselor could come, but I just can't quite put into words why the Spirit (who was present with Him at baptism for sure) could not come upon the disciples before he left them. If I understand Jesus words right, if he stayed through Pentecost, then the Spirit wouldn't have come. But why? What did the ascension do that wasn't already done? I'd look this up in some books for the thoughts of commentaries, but I am absent from them at this time. Thanks, MJH |
||||||
80 | Why did Jesus need to leave first? | Not Specified | MJH | 215781 | ||
Why did Jesus need to depart before the Spirit could come? | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [29] >> |