Results 81 - 100 of 156
|
||||||
Results from: Answers On or After: Thu 12/31/70 Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | 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 |
||||||
82 | 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 |
||||||
83 | Origins of Synagogues and Rabbis? | Matt 12:9 | MJH | 207301 | ||
For the origins of the Synagogues see: The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years by Lee I. Levine It's a heavy book (700 pages I think?) In short, the Synagogue became popularized (if not began) with the Babylonian exile. The exile of Judah allowed them some religious freedoms and absent the Temple, the synagogue developed. The Rabbi's can be traced back to Ezra at the very least. Judaism will go back to Moses and the 70 Elders, but Ezra clearly sets up an instructional system that included Sages and disciples who trained to become like them. Of course, Ezra's system evolved over time. It wasn't until after 70AD that we see the period of the Talmadim (disciples) really take off in force. The Synagogue was very effective at keeping Israel as a nation and a people group throughout the past 2000 years. MJH |
||||||
84 | 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 |
||||||
85 | Matthew 16 | Matt 16:28 | MJH | 139477 | ||
Matt 16:28 "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” (NIV) Read the very next chapter of Matthew for you answer. If you still have a question, reply to this post and maybe we can walk through it. MJH |
||||||
86 | Did my dad go to heaven or hell? | Matt 18:3 | MJH | 166871 | ||
Tyronesedeno, A book that may be helpful in your search for answers would be "The Last Word and the Word After That" by Brian McLaren. It is written as a story but is about the topic of hell. A fictional pastor in the story is searching and has conversations with people in his life.....makes a theological question easier to read. MJH |
||||||
87 | Seventy times seven equals 490 | Matt 18:22 | MJH | 214773 | ||
"Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" The first brother conflict was with Cain and Able and it didn't end well. God said that if anyone did anything to Cain in revenge, God will avenge him 7 times. In Gen 4, Lemech says that he killed a young man for wounding him. He then says if Cain is avenged 7 times, then Lemech will be avenged 70 x 7 times. Where God would avenge Cain, Lemech would avenge himself. This started a chain of events that led to the Flood. When Peter asks if he should forgive 7 times, he is getting this from the Cain and Able story and God's statement. Jesus takes it the next step and repeats the opposite of Lemech's law. Not revenge, but forgive. Forgiveness ends the problem while revenge continues it and makes it worse. That is the way of the Kingdom of Life, the Kingdom of God. MJH |
||||||
88 | 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 |
||||||
89 | MJH, Where does the Bible add abuse? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144209 | ||
Thank you for making me put more meat on this issue. To begin with, Jesus and Paul being silent on this issue does not mean that it is not scriptural. The overriding text on divorce is Deut. 24:1-5. All other text interpret this one either loosely or strictly. Jesus and Paul were very strict, but their comments do not touch on abuse specifically. Deut. 24 says that if a "man" finds. I am going to take this to also mean "woman" and argue that in our post messianic times (and probably before) this was most certainly applicable both ways (see Mark 10:12). The reason for divorce here in Deut. is "anything displeasing." What Jesus was dealing with was a gross miss-application of this law that said, "anything displeasing" is literally anything and everything that causes the man to be displease in any form. (Such as burnt food.) Had Jesus been asked the specific question of “gross abuse” of a wife by a husband there is no doubt in my mind that He would find this a "displeasing" issue that fit Deut 24. (note: Jesus made the law more strict AND more loose in the same statement in Mark 10:12 by including the passage to mean, “If a wife finds a husband . . .”) And then we need to take the scripture as a whole. The scripture speaks of LIFE, not death. Of reconciliation, not divorce. Of protection for the weak, not abuse. Taking people OUT OF BONDAGE not placing them in it. Some texts that apply to relationships in general: Lev 19:16 You shall not go around as a slanderer among your people, and you shall not stand up against the life of your neighbor: I am the LORD. Lev 19:17 "You shall not hate your brother in your heart, but you shall reason frankly with your neighbor, lest you incur sin because of him. Lev 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. (All apply equally to a wife.) Lev 19:33 "When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. Lev 19:34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (If this is how they were to treat foreigners, then even more applies to the native born and yet more to the wife.) None of these texts apply specifically to the issue of abuse in marriage, but as stated before, one must look at the whole of scripture when attempting to apply it to an issue not specifically addressed in scripture. I believe that gross abuse of a spouse falls under the guidelines of “anything displeasing” since such acts are OBVIOUSLY displeasing to God Himself as is seen throughout the Text. (Sexual sins are displeasing as seen in the Law, but this isn’t in disagreement, but Jesus had to say what displeasing meant, and to do so had to rely on the Law to point out that sexual sins fell into the “displeasing” definition, but burnt toast did not. I am using the same method to show that abuse also fits the “displeasing” definition.) Then, like I said before. 1 Cor 7:15 – “If an unbeliever leaves. . .” Acts such as gross abuse render any so-called believer as an actual unbeliever (excommunicated if you will). AND such acts would mean the spouse has “left” even though he still remains physically. Then, finally, the texts on “Binding and Loosing” apply as well. The terms “bind” and “loose” given to the Apostles and henceforth to the elders of churches or denominations, allow for interpretation of texts to apply to new situations. If the church permits (looses) the divorce in cases of abuse, then so does heaven. The majority of competent Pastors, Elders, and church doctrine permit divorce in such cases, and those that do not have failed to see the heart of God (I believe). In summary: Jesus interprets Deut 24, and more specifically the term “displeasing.” The correct method for finding what “displeasing” means, is to known the rest of the Law. Sexual sin falls under this definition, and so does gross abuse. How did I do? MJH |
||||||
90 | MJH, Why limit it to adding abuse only? | Matt 19:9 | MJH | 144233 | ||
Searcher, The argument is one for you to prove otherwise. You have not taken much time or effort to make your point clear. I have laid out my position on divorce quite clearly. Since we are talking about divorce, not marriage, I stuck with the scriptures that deal with that. I will, for your sake, paste a commentary note on the subject: By John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible: Deut 24:1 "because he hath found some uncleanness in her;" "something that he disliked, and was disagreeable to him, and which made their continuance together in the marriage state very uncomfortable; which led him on to be very ill-natured, severe, and CRUEL to her; so that HER LIFE was exposed to danger, or at least become very uneasy; in which case a divorce was permitted, BOTH for the badness of the man's heart, and in favor of the woman, that she might be FREED from such rigorous usage." (CAPS are my additions). If you would write a position that is different, I'd like to read it because I am not dogmatic on every point with this issue. I also have not taken as much time with this issue as I have with others, so any detailed arguments that contradict any of my arguments would be looked at with appreciation. MJH |
||||||
91 | 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 |
||||||
92 | Not know Summer from Winter? | Matt 24:20 | MJH | 144053 | ||
No | ||||||
93 | What is "prophet's reward" in Matt. 10? | Matt 25:45 | MJH | 211980 | ||
EdB answered this same question in post ID# 59681 Just type the id number in the search field to the right. MJH |
||||||
94 | did apostles disobey jesus' commission? | Matt 28:19 | MJH | 214518 | ||
dieselcowboy, Thanks for your question. It might be helpful to understand what Baptism was/is. Baptism was very common in the life of the Jew is this day. They were often baptized daily. Some rich had baptismals (called mikvot) in their homes so they could immerse every day. The idea of a baptism was to show a change of status originally found in Exodus/Leviticus. If a person became "unclean" they needed to become "clean" before entering the Temple. The last thing they did would be to go through a Mikvah, showing their change of status from unclean to clean. At the Temple when Peter preached after the Holy Spirit came, 3000 people were baptized. The only reason this could have happened was because there were multiple baptismals at the Temple. Back to your question: When it is said that they baptized someone into the name of Jesus, it was equivalent to saying they were baptized into everything that Jesus taught and represented. The person was entering into a covenant community of Jesus believers. Matt 28 does not say, or mean, that you need to recite the words "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" for a baptism to be effectual. The person going into the waters has denounced any previous idolatry (if needed) and accepts fully the covenant status he is entering. Then, that person is to be taught to "observe everything [Jesus has] commanded you." You may be right in that when the scriptures say, "baptized into the name of Jesus" the entire covenant and God Head were implied, but I am not willing to allegorize this as you have (allegory was a Greek construct used in their mythical writings.) There are no Scriptures, no historical evidence, and no legitimate early church writings that I am aware of that reflect your statement. dieselcowboy, Thanks for the question and let me know if you have more to substantiate your claim. I am eager to learn and, even if I disagree, to understand why you’re arriving at your conclusion. MJH |
||||||
95 | Sins are responsible for sickness? | Mark 2:3 | MJH | 214205 | ||
One more thing about your passage specifically. Was the man's sins forgiven before he was healed? Yes they were, yet he still had the illness. So we know that his illness was not connected to his personal relationship with God and his own sin state. Otherwise his illness would have been healed when he received forgiveness. But one can not see forgiveness and only God can forgive sins. By Jesus then healing the man, he removes all legitimate questions as to his ability to declare sins forgiven. There is simply no way God would heal through Jesus if he just blasphemed God. It's quite masterful. He led these doubters to express their doubt by declaring forgiveness for a man, something only God could do; and then he healed the man who was obviously healed and Jesus did this in front of many witnesses. The doubter’s only recourse was to recant their belief that God would heal through a blasphemer, or accept Him for who He was/is. MJH |
||||||
96 | Demon posession or Personality disorder? | Mark 5:15 | MJH | 211899 | ||
In the Greek they are actually often referred to as "unclean" spirits. What we generally think of as demon possession is certainly an unclean spirit and fits the context. But why does the text often use the term unclean? Unclean was a "status" in which a person could be living. A simple definition would be, anyone who's status was not in proper relationship with the One God, and therefore not at Peace [wholeness]. A psychological disorder is also an example of being in an unclean state. Jesus came to heal not just those who were unclean physically (the Lepers and those with blood issues) but also those with unclean spirits or personalities or psychological disorders. Whatever Jesus touched went from unclean to clean. It's the opposite of what should have happened. When you touch a person who is in an unclean state, you become unclean too. But with Jesus, he touches a dead body and the dead body comes to life (comes to a "clean" status). Jesus took on our infirmities and diseases. This is a bit off the topic, but did Jesus then become unclean? Would that have been possible for the Messiah to be "unclean?" My answer is yes he did. Isaiah said he would take on himself our illness. Eventually Jesus takes on himself the ultimate state of unclean and he dies. His death, however, brings us life. All this to say that I read the demon possessions as a continuation of Jesus ministry of making all things right. Whether they were true demons as we often think, or simply psychological disorders makes no difference in the end because they were both in a state that was not right and Jesus made them right. Jesus’ Kingdom was breaking out all around him. And his Kingdom is one of wholeness, life, health, peace, and love. Concerning your question about how should one seek help? Personally I believe that a person should seek help wherever they can find healing and restoration. The church obviously plays a role, but so does medicine. The goal of returning to wholeness is the key, not the means. (Unless the means is contrary to the Bible, like taking another’s life to give you life.) |
||||||
97 | Does Mark 7:19 contradict Acts 15:29? | Mark 7:19 | MJH | 137491 | ||
I (MJH) wrote concerning this, but opted to use the following source instead, since they stated the case best. I believe that this is the best possible interprtation of this text as you may or may not agree: Taken from: http://www.jesusisajew.org/Short/MK7V19.htm At the end of Mark 7:19 most Bible translations say, "Thus He declared all foods clean." So its pretty clear that Yeshua ("Jesus") changed the old food regulations in Leviticus 11, and its ok to eat pork, shellfish, or whatever we want, right? The most important clue for understanding any passage in the Bible is to check the context. In this case, its given in Mark 7:1-5 where Yeshua is asked, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the Tradition of the Elders, but eat their bread with unwashed hands?" (v.5). Notice two things: first, the question isn't about the Torah ("Law"), but about a tradition. Second, its not a question about what may be eaten. It's about whether one may eat at all without a ritual handwashing. That explains why Yeshua responded by saying, "Neglecting the Commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men," (v.8) and, "You have a fine way of setting aside the Commandment of God in order to keep your tradition" (v.9). So then, could verses 18-19 have Yeshua setting aside a commandment of God when up until that point He had been criticizing the Pharisees for that very thing (v. 8,9,13)? And could verses 18-19 have Yeshua talking about a commandment at all, when up until that point His subject had been a "Tradition of the Elders" (v. 3,4,5,8,9,13)? Lastly, could verses 18-19 suddenly be about food when up until that point the subject had been ritual handwashing (v. 2,3,4,5)? Obviously, no. This is made even clearer by comparing the same discussion as reported by Matthew (15:1-20). Yeshua concludes by saying, "but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." Because the subject of Mark 7:1-19 isn't Kashrut (Biblical diet), it cannot be about abolishing Kashrut either. Ok, but why do so many translations* seem to say that it is? Again consider the context, but in this case the social context. This discussion took place in a social and historical context different than our own. Language and practice were based on the Word of God. For instance, their holidays were those days set apart in the Bible for special observance, not ours. Their property rights were those of the Bible, not ours. Likewise, only those things that are not taw-may ("defiled", "unclean") were considered food, everything else was not. Reading Mark 7:19 as they would have, it means, "Thus He declared all things given by God as food to be clean, regardless of ritual hand washing." *Although there are many minor textual differences between source documents of the New Covenant, it is very rare that a variance significantly affects meaning. Mark 7:18-19 is one of these rare passages. The difference of a single letter (Omicron or Omega) determines gender for the word "purging, making clean" near the end of v.19 (katharizon). Most translators believe that this word must attach to a subject, while some do not. For those who do, if the word's gender is neuter (written with the Omicron), it attaches to "stomach," and is speaking of the digestive process. (See the King James Version, for instance.) But for translators who believe the word's gender is masculine (written with the Omega), it must look all the way back to the "He" (Yeshua) at the beginning of verse 18 for its masculine subject. For the sake of clarity, these translators insert a phrase that never appears in the Greek: "Thus He declared." Regardless of which manuscripts and translations are correct, this article attempts to show that Mark 7:1-19 is not an instance of Divine self-correction, by assuming the most difficult case, "Thus He declared all foods clean." |
||||||
98 | Expound on Mark 11:15-19 | Mark 11:17 | MJH | 186244 | ||
The temple had a "court of the Gentiles" where non-Jews could come to worship the One true God. The Sanhedrin decided to make things run smoother; the only lamb you could use at Passover was the lambs they raised and sold. That way they could streamline the "approval" process of the sacrifice. At least this was their said reasoning. Actually they were jacking up the price so high that those coming from far away, not only would not be able to use the lamb they brought, but they could not afford the lambs being sold. Their worship on Passover was in jeopardy. The reason they sold in the court of the Gentiles was because there just wasn't room anywhere else. So the Gentiles had no place to worship the One True God. There was dung everywhere. So Jesus (and others before and after him) drove out the money changers. Jesus called them a "den of thieves" but he also said, "My house is a house of prayer for ALL NATIONS." He said this because the Gentiles were being left out. The "den of thieves" carries with it an additional jab at the Herodians. Herod was often referred to as a "fox" in the first century. Paul latter says that the "wall of separation" is removed. He is talking about the wall that divided Gentiles and Jews in the Temple. Ezekiel’s temple also does not have a "wall of separation." MJH |
||||||
99 | The actual date of the birth of Jesus? | Luke 2:1 | MJH | 163812 | ||
Christmas was placed on December 25th because it was the winter solstice celebration of the pagan people who converted to Christianity near the 2nd-3rd centuries. Because the people wanted to continue to celebrate their festivals, the leaders of the faith at the time, finding it too hard to get them to stop celebrating the pagan holidays, decided to make them into Christian holidays. When was Jesus born? The true answer is that no one knows. But that being said, I would LOVE to speculate. The census was not a one day deal. There was a period of time when the people had to show up. Since Nazareth was a long ways from Bethlehem, it makes sense that Joseph would have registered at a time when he would be nearby anyway. Scripture tells us that Joseph went to all three festivals every year, so it only makes sense that the birth of Jesus would be near one of the three festival times set aside in the Torah for the men to go to Jerusalem. Joseph would have taken Mary because it was close to the time to give birth. Why wouldn’t he stay and wait to register latter if he had a window of time to register? Because Joseph wasn’t going to miss a festival of the Lord for any reason. He, knowing the significance of this child, was not going to leave Mary behind either. Not to mention the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy. In 1st century Judaism, Jesus would have been either a Mamzer (Hebrew for basterd), or at the least a “doubtful mamzer.” The Mishnah (Oral Law, Traditions of the Elders) has many laws about what such a child could and could not do which is fascinating and would have made them outcasts among the devout. There must have been family tensions that Joseph and Mary were happy to leave behind for a while. Why did Mary not find room in a home to give birth? Think about it. Even a stranger would want to give up their accommodations for a pregnant woman giving birth, but for some reason, Joseph can not find room in the small village of his (and Mary’s) own ancestry. This is fascinating. Why do they even go to an Inn if they are in their families home town? Probably because they were outcasts do to Mary being pregnant out of marriage (see pervious paragraph) After the shepherds come and spread the “Good news” to the whole town, Joseph and Mary find themselves in a house according to Matthew. Maybe the family had a change of heart? I believe Jesus was born during the Feast of Booths, was crucified during Passover, sent the Holy Spirit on the feast of Weeks, and the Trumpet will would on the Day of Trumpets, and on the day of Atonement the Lord will return. OKAY, this is very speculative, and no, I do not subscribe to Hal Lindsey, but hey, it’s a lot more logical than December 25th. We know that during the feast of booths (Tabernacles or Sukkot), the people were to spend the week living in “booths” or temporary shelters. This is exactly what a stable would have been. One more thought that supports a birth during a festival. When would the Inn be full? During any ‘ol day of the year, or when hundreds of thousands of Jews from the world over were visiting Jerusalem for a festival just up the road? The Bethlehem Inn was excavated some distance north of Bethlehem (closer to Jerusalem near the main road.) It housed the people on a second floor, and the animals were kept below the rooms. They believe that the best place to find privacy would be in the stable under the Inn rooms. This is a possibility for the birth place as well as the cave theory. This would have been cleaner, had access to clean straw, and provided a place for the animals to move to (I doubt they were in the same room like our nativity scenes show). Of course the early church fathers say it was a cave and that’s some good evidence. MJH |
||||||
100 | Why not Elisabeths home? | Luke 2:7 | MJH | 212442 | ||
Why did Joseph and Mary not stay with relatives? This is a very good question, though it ultimately it is speculative. First, Elizabeth and Zachariah lived in Judea, but this was a large region and they may not have lived near Bethlehem, at least not close enough to go to when labor began. However, one would assume that Joseph and Mary had other relatives that were in Bethlehem and who after all would refuse a pregnant relative? One reason may be that her pregnancy was under suspicion. Who would buy the story that an Angel visited her and she became with child by the Holy Spirit. Any couple who lived in an observant family in this region at this time may have trouble with relatives. They may have turned them away. This issue may have been resolved after the local shepherds came to town spreading their message which corroborated the story Mary and Joseph would have told. In Matthew, they are located in a home. It is also possible that they visited Bethlehem right before a major festival when they would have been in the area anyway, therefore killing two birds with one stone (visit); going there for the census and festival. This has a lot of credence. There was a local Inn in the area of Bethlehem that would have been full in this case. Mary and Joseph may have assumed they had more time before the birth, but when the birthing came they needed something right away. They found the best place they could. Then, one more option, like the above one, they may have gone to the Inn. These Inns had the humans living above the ground with animals living below. There was not privacy where the humans lived, but if one cleared an animal area out, they could have found some room for birthing in this area. This case again assumes the onset of birth prevented them from reaching relatives that would have allowed them the needed space. That is my limited ideas. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ] Next > Last [8] >> |