Results 61 - 80 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
61 | what color was jesus christ to look upon | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 153475 | ||
Confusing question . . . Jesus was born in Israel, Bethlehem, and lived and grew up in northern Israel in Nazareth. He was Jewish and therefore one can assume he was the same color as every other Jew or Israelite at the time. He was not from Africa, but did spend time there when a very young child. But, as the others have asked, what is the purpose of the question? Especially since the answer is historically obvious. Does it matter his color? No. Does it matter his genealogy and race? YES. The Messiah had to be an Israelite from the tribe of Judah; therefore he had to be a Jew. MJH |
||||||
62 | New Wine vs. Fermented | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 153490 | ||
Jesus drank fermented wine as did every Jew of his day (as well as their children) during the Passover. Only those taking a Nazarite Vow would abstain from fermented wine or anything from the grape vine for a period of time (about 3 months usually). Or in the case of Samson, for life. Some Pastors teach that Jesus and the first Christians did not drink fermented wine in order to justify their church's "rule" to not drink at all, but these arguments are not historically accurate. If a church chooses to make a "rule" to abstain from alcohol of any kind, that is fine. Elders can add certain rules or yokes for their congregations (binding and losing), and their congregations should abide by them if they attach themselves to that community of believers, but to claim something about Jesus and the disciples that is patently false to justify it is wrong. MJH Scripture: Num 6:3; Luke 1:15 (why say John the Baptist can not drink "strong drink" if no one did?); John 2; 1 Cor 11:21; etc... |
||||||
63 | New Wine vs. Fermented | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 153498 | ||
Hello again Doc, According to my favorite Archeology book, "Life in Biblical Israel" by Philip King, and Lowrence Stager, wine was fermented and "wine culture was well developed in the period of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the first half of the first millennium B.C." Also, "The pomace of the grape was 'distilled' into grappa, a brandy. The simple technology for its production was available in the Bronze Age...20 to 60 percent alcoholic content." Hos. 4:11 "Wine (yayin) and new wine (tiros) take away the understanding." Isa 5:11 Isaiah denounces those "who rise early in the morning in pursuit of strong wine(sekar) who linger in the evening to be inflamed by wine (yayin)." See also, "The Origins and Ancient History of Wine", by Patrick McGovern New Wine: (tiros) is “newly fermented wine, or simply wine”. (asis) is “juice”. (Yayin) is simply “wine.” There are nine words in the Hebrew text for wine, but not necessarily meaning a different kind of wine, but rather distinguishing its origin. Given this understanding, “New Wine” was still fermented, and since there is a Hebrew word for “Juice,” I doubt that TIROS would mean juice as well. I got most of this information from the book listed at the top. I never knew this morning that I was going to delve so deeply into the Hebrew and Archeology of wine….. It’s always good to discuss things with you, Doc! MJH |
||||||
64 | When babies die? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 153853 | ||
Get the book, "I'll Hold You in Heaven" by Jack Hayford. ISBN 0830732594 Book Description (From Amazon.com) For those who have lost a child to death, Jack Hayford provides compassionate answers to troubling questions such as, What happened to my baby after it died? Will I ever see my baby again-and will I recognize him? what happens if I've had an abortion? Does God have a reason for letting my child die? God's Word shines with hope in the dark night of human pain. God showed his tenderness when David lost the child he had with Bathsheba shortly after its birth. In his pain and grief, David spoke the word of revelation-reassuring word of God's truth-saying, "I will go to (my child) but he will not return to me" (2 Samuel 12:19-23). The freeing truth of the Word of God promises that, like David, you will hold your child again in heaven. |
||||||
65 | Can you prove 'a' god exists? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 154594 | ||
Do you believe that it is possible to prove the existence of God? I do..... Well, at least to prove the existence of some being that is not bound by time and therefore is "spirit." I have been working on an argument along these lines for some time and would love some feedback on it. But while I am attempting to post such an argument that fits this forums space limits and is articulate, I'd love your (and anyone else’s) feedback on the question, is it possible to prove that some higher power/being exists or not. MJH |
||||||
66 | Can you prove 'a' god exists? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 154796 | ||
That is evidence, not proof. GOOD evidence, but this is not what I mean. MJH |
||||||
67 | Proof of 'a' God. Your thoughts? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 154819 | ||
Doc (and others) It seems that my days are far too busy to sit and articulate this well, so here is an off the cuff thought on rationally proving that 'a' god or higher power beyond the material world HAS to exist. ------------- Time may be infinite in the future. That makes sense rationally. But time can not exist infinitely in the past. There is no possibility of such an idea, because infinity past would mean that the present time we are in would never arrive. (If you can't get your mind around this idea....or others that follow, let me know and I will try to articulate them more fully.) Second. If you have material you must have time. It is impossible for material to exist without the existence of time. Material is dependant upon time. Third. Time cannot exist apart from a material substance (not as easy to understand why...but true). If there is no material world then time has no meaning nor purpose. It is non-existent by its own definition. (If you don’t grasp #3, then keep going because it may not matter.) Fourth. If there can be no possibility of infinity past and therefore time had to have a beginning, then matter or material too had to have a beginning, a start from true nothingness. Any other thought is illogical. It just can not be any other way. The mathematics would not work otherwise. Therefore; how it all happened would still be up in the air. When it all began would still be up in the air. But some non-material being HAD TO HAVE STATED IT. Some being not bound by the material world and therefore not bound by that confining fourth dimension, had to create the material out of nothing. Thought had to bring the material into being...... This leads to any number of conversations, but there it is, my premise that proves if nothing else, that at least some non-material being (a spirit being) had to start matter from nothing and begin time as we know it. My conclusions are that YHVH is that One True God and that Yeshua (Jesus) is the Messiah that further proves by his resurrection that YHVH is who He says he is. YOUR THOUGHTS? MJH |
||||||
68 | Can you prove 'a' god exists? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 154820 | ||
see my post further up this thread. ID# 154819 Evidence is not proof. It is support of a possible truth, but as any court case showes, there is evidence on both sides, yet only one side can be true. If you show you evidence contrary to God's existance, that does not prove that God does not exist. Either he does or he does not. Both can not be true. So evidence builds your case, but does not proof it as I attempted to do in post ID# 154819. MJH |
||||||
69 | were the Ninevites fish god worshippers? | Bible general Archive 2 | MJH | 156678 | ||
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Nineveh land locked? I mean miles from any sea or ocean? MJH |
||||||
70 | Verses on being afraid | OT general | MJH | 175973 | ||
Just a thought....May there really be a man or woman outside your daughters window? It'd be really scary if what she saw was actually there... but assuming there isn't you might have her sleep in your room for a few nights. Obviouisly this is far more than can be discussed on this forum, but if something is going on in her life that is causing her to be afraid, until the root cause can be found, staying in your room (which will provide her with the feelings of saftey and comfort) may help in the short term. Just a thought. MJH |
||||||
71 | ?? | OT general | MJH | 212243 | ||
Cheri did well. One addition. The Jews use the Masoretic Text which they do not alter based on textual criticism and new discoveries. What the Masoretic Text says is what they use; period. There are some rather minor differences and some are of interest, but I don't know them by heart. There are many things in the Jewish religion that causes them to reject Christ, but most have to do with what certain Christians claim Jesus and Paul are teaching as well as disagreements about certain prophesies. If they openly and seriously searched the scriptures for the answer about Jesus, they would find him to be True. MJH |
||||||
72 | OT/NT | OT general | MJH | 212244 | ||
Cheri. The Jews don't use the Shema to prove God is One because Ehad can also mean a group of one, or a man and woman become one(Ehad). I forget the exact place where it's more emphatic, sorry. MJH |
||||||
73 | Love for all, judge not anyone | OT general | MJH | 213227 | ||
join the club of the "deleted" :-) | ||||||
74 | Love for all, judge not anyone | OT general | MJH | 213228 | ||
"So, Sunday, ham, man-made observances over God-ordained feasts is not really the issue - it's Who dwells within, Who guides you in your decisions." Great statement Cheri. MJH |
||||||
75 | 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. |
||||||
76 | How close are we to end times | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 140119 | ||
Personally I think Jesus' return will be at least 500 years from now. Show me a generation since the 300's AD that has not thought it was living in the days right before Jesus' return. I figure if I choose 500 or more years, I have a better chance of being right. :-) MJH |
||||||
77 | Meaning of baptism | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 173827 | ||
You are correct, a very good answer. Baptism was also practiced by the Jews for hundreds of years before John the Baptist arrived. Even baptism of Repentance (turning back to the Mosaic Law) was practiced at times before John the Baptist. A study of baptism without a study of the 1st century Mikvah is unfortunate. If you have not done so, it's a worthy thing to study. Very fascinating and helpful in understanding what the Apostles did and why, and why Jesus was baptisted at the start of his ministry. MJH |
||||||
78 | What are the six requirements to become | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 173940 | ||
I'll take a stab. The 1 biggest requirement was to be accepted by the Rabbi. Historically, a Jewish boy would spend from 6 – 11 years old memorizing the first 5 books of the Bible (girls in Galilee memorized Deuteronomy and Psalms among other things). If they showed a propensity to learn and understand scripture, they would move on to the next step of memorizing the remainder of the Tanak (aka Old Testament) as well as many parts of the Oral Tradition and the interpretations of the text by the local Torah Teacher. If one of these students wanted to extend his learning he might seek out a traveling rabbi he admired and ask him if he could be his disciple. The traveling Rabbi would ask many questions of the young man (who would have been a teenager) about the text and his understanding of it. He would then either allow him to be his disciple, or he would send him on his way … “You are a wonderful student of the text, but you are not able to ‘be like me.’ Go and serve God as a …” If they didn’t find a Rabbi who excepted them, they learned their father’s trade. Most did not become disciples of a Rabbi. A disciple was more than a student, but rather a young man who wanted to be like his rabbi in every way. It was often said that a disciple should be “covered in the dust of his rabbi.” Jesus was different in that he called his disciples, not the other way around. James and John dropped their nets and probably were extremely excited to be a disciple of Jesus since they obviously did not make the cut with any of the other Rabbi’s they may have sought out. It was a high honor to be a disciple of a Rabbi, particularly one who had authority like Jesus, Hillel, Gamaliel, and a few others. Jesus had more than 12 disciples, but the 12 were special in that he personally called them out. Other requirements might have been: 1) being male (although Jesus had female disciples and other Rabbis may have as well, but I am not sure.) 2) being a Hebrew or at least a full convert. Resources on this can be found at www.followtherabbi.com. MJH |
||||||
79 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177163 | ||
Most consider Mark first, but I personally subscribe to Matthew being first and orginally written in Hebrew, not Greek. Either way, there is strong evidence for an earlier writting no longer in existance that predates Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Some call this "Q". Luke was obviously not first since he says so in the first verse. A good read is, "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus" which is a short book but very insightful and does deal some with this topic. MJH |
||||||
80 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177173 | ||
Matthew being first, I don't recall at hand and it's too late to think that hard, plus I really don't care if Matthew or Mark was first right now. Sorry. Originally in Hebrew. Again, there is not credible evidence other than looking at how the Greek is written and linguistically it seems likely to have been written in Hebrew first. Also, the evidence that Hebrew was the common spoken language of the people in the Galil is so over whelming that it baffles the mind that anyone would think otherwise. Every form of evidence favors Hebrew as the spoken language, and yet since Aramaic was also spoken and since the Jews were in captivity in Arabic speaking nations, most pastors still hold to the Arabic language as the common tongue. Given that theory, then in 2000 years the historians then will claim that the people living in Israel now are speaking anything but Hebrew. After all, they were spread all over the globe among other languages for not 70 or 400 years, but 1,900 years! They couldn't have preserved their language no matter what Archeology and the written texts from the time show. Right? Sorry for the sarcasm, but this topic with me on this forum is getting too old and I am in the minority still. Oh well, I still love all you people who are wrong. hee hee. The 'Q' is just a theory that people have of which I do not have any opinion on. I only tossed it out there for information...that some believe. Sorry Hank, I could go into the Matthew being in Hebrew and being first, but I just don't have the energy right now. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [29] >> |