Results 81 - 100 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Why did Jesus need to leave first? | John 16:7 | MJH | 215783 | ||
Why did Jesus need to depart before the Spirit could come? | ||||||
82 | Why the Holy Spirit came on Pentecost | Acts 2:5 | MJH | 215631 | ||
Why did the Holy Spirit come on Pentecost? Pentecost, also known as Shavuot, is the second of three festivals where all the men of Israel were to come together to celebrate. On this day Israel remembered the audible voice of God (literally seen as sparks of lightening) giving the Ten Words from the mountain. It was and is tradition that God's Voice was heard by all people on Earth in their own language; in the languages of all 70 nations found in Gen 11. God audibly gave the written covenant and Law on Shavuot. Jews today spend the night reading through all five books of Moses on this day. One of the reasons God sent the Holy Spirit to descend on the disciples as they worshiped in the Temple that Shavuot day (Pentecost), is because the Holy Spirit was writing this Law now on their hearts. Jer. 31:33, "I will put my Torah [law] within them, and I will write it on their hearts." There is no other day of the year that makes more sense then this day to send the Counselor who will put God's Word on your heart rather than just on stone. Also, just like the first Shavuot, God's voice can be "seen." And the voice spoken through the Apostles is heard again in the languages of all of the people. MJH |
||||||
83 | WHAT WAS CIRCUMCISION? | Genesis | MJH | 215565 | ||
Circumcision was a covenant sign. The promise God made was to bless Abraham and cause him to be a great nation (Gen. 15). Abraham attempts to make this promise come true by having a child Ishmael with Hagar. He thinks that this was the plan until Gen 17 when God says no, Ishmael will not be the promised child, but rather one from Sarah who is past child bearing years. Abraham tried to make the covenant promise a reality in his own strength. Then God confirms the promise and institutes circumcision. The part of the body Abraham used to try to make God's promise a reality was cut. The symbol of his strength is cut. It is a visual and physical reminder that 1) God's ultimate promise of the Seed (Gen 3) will not come about by man's righteousness or strength. 2) Ultimate salvation is not by works. When you circumcise your 8 day old child, you will be reminded that God's promised Seed will come by God’s righteousness to the covenant and not by this child's righteousness or strength. It's a bit of a quick answer. There is more there. BTW, in the first century, circumcision was seen as a way into the covenant. Its purpose was turned on its head. A Gentile couldn't be a covenant member unless he circumcised himself (among a few other things). Paul argued that no “work” can gain you covenant status. Abraham is a perfect example, so Paul uses him in Galatians and Romans. MJH |
||||||
84 | Most important doctrines? | 2 Tim 3:16 | MJH | 215562 | ||
That there is but One God, Yod Hey Vav Hey (creator of all) who communicates his promises/covenants with His people though His Word that all who are His will be drawn near him as a result of the faithfulness of His Messiah Jesus, who's sacrifice is our guarantee that our everlasting covenant relationship is secured with God. And because of this, we are made able by the Holy Spirit to live rightly within this covenant relationship. One God; Inerrant Word; One Messiah all wrapped in the cloak of covenant relationship initiated by God Himself. Boy, three is just too hard. The Apostle Creed listed by hopalong is excellent. MJH |
||||||
85 | Jesus spoke with authority!!! | NT general | MJH | 215490 | ||
In the first century, most teachers and scribes could not teach their own interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures. They had to teach in the name of their teacher. Torah Teachers usually were those who taught in a local area only and taught the Text as it has been passed down to them. Scribes generally knew the Text really well and copied it down in scrolls. If a Teacher (or Rabbi) were to say, "You have heard it said....but I tell you...." That person was brining a new teaching. Not so much new in that it wasn't in their Bible, but a new understanding of what it really meant. A person who taught this way was said to have Semicha (authority). It was generally given by no less than two leading Rabbis who also had Semicha and they would lay their hands on the person and lean on them their weight, thus giving them their authority. Later, Jesus is asked in Matt 21:23, "And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, "By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?" The answer is not given by Jesus directly, but he hints that John the Baptizer was either one who gave him authority, or at least witnessed it. God Himself would have been the second one who declares Jesus to have His authority. To say, “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.” This was not so much that the scribes were teaching the wrong way or even the wrong things, but that the people (at least these people) had not heard a teacher give new interpretation like Jesus had. This is far too early for anyone to be condemned for not recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. It was a requirement of the good religious leaders to test anyone claiming to be Messiah (Deut 12:32-13:18 is the big one.) Had the teachers NOT questioned Jesus, they would have been in the wrong. That is different than trying to “trap” Jesus as some of them also did. Testing is not the same as trying to trap. So to answer your question, there was nothing wrong with the scribes, they simply lacked the authority to teach in the way Jesus taught. MJH |
||||||
86 | when did moses send his wife and sons | Exodus | MJH | 215489 | ||
The answer is traditionally found in these verses, but you will note the odd construction: "went back to Egypt." Ex 4:20 "So Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the staff of God in his hand. And the LORD said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt, . . . [Pharaoh] will not let the people go. "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, 'Thus says the LORD, Israel is my firstborn son, and I say to you, 'Let my son go that he may serve me.' If you refuse to let him go, behold, I will kill your firstborn son.'" "At a lodging place on the way" Ex 4:24 At a lodging place on the way the LORD met him and sought to put [him] to death. Then Zipporah took a flint and cut off her son's foreskin and touched [his] feet with it and said, "Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me!" So he let him alone. It was then that she said, "A bridegroom of blood," because of the circumcision. "At the mountain of the Lord"- opposite direction. The LORD said to Aaron, "Go into the wilderness to meet Moses." So he went and met him at the mountain of God and kissed him. Ex 4:28 And Moses told Aaron all the words of the LORD with which he had sent him to speak, and all the signs that he had commanded him to do. "Now in Egypt and apparently without family." Exo 4:29 Then Moses and Aaron went and gathered together all the elders of the people of Israel. Did Moses decide that this was too dangerous for his family to go with him? Also, while many English Text say God was about to kill Moses, the pronouns do not have a noun they are attached to. One is left not knowing if Moses was the target, or his firstborn son? Likewise, we are not 100 percent certain whose feet were touched with the foreskin, the Angel of the LORD or Moses or the Son's. Probably more than you asked, but I have found this passage very interesting for some time. MJH |
||||||
87 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | MJH | 215367 | ||
Hey John, Mind if I bring up old items? I just got back from a Bible teaching and I'm about to go nuts. I struggle with even saying anything in a class or even to a teacher; because I certainly don't desire to cause a problem...so I shut up. But here maybe I can speak.... Why do people want to say that obeying a law is the same as trying to earn merit by obeying a law? Paul obviously teaches against earning anything, particularly a right place with God in His Kingdom, by doing works or obeying any law. That's as obvious as anything in the New Testament. Then why do some further say that anyone obeying the law is in error? For example: the thousands of believing Jews in Jerusalem who were zealous for the Law. They are apparently in "error" because they were trying to "earn a place with God." But Acts never says they were trying to "earn" anything and Acts never says they were in "error." It simply says they were believers and zealous for the Law. What can possibly be wrong with this picture? Why can't people see the distinction? Is it blindness? Is it a fear of ever appearing to say anything positive about God's Law? UUUGGGHHHH. Okay... I vomited my thoughts all over. Sorry for the mess. MJH - p.s. I intentionally left the note under your name so as to not make too big of a scene. - Also, in regards to what this post is linked to; Barnabas could have owned and sold land as a Levite even before Jesus was born or died. That’s my point. The ceremonial law didn’t need to be abolished to absolve the man for selling property, so why mention it even if it’s true? I suppose he mentions it to make his point even stronger. |
||||||
88 | how can Barnabas sell or possess land | Acts 4:36 | MJH | 215361 | ||
John, I like Gills answer. It's informed and provides good examples. But to add the phrase," but now the ceremonial law was abolished" seems unnecessary given his answer. Of course you know my thoughts on the so called abolishment of the ceremonial law...so that aside, why feel the need to add it to this answer? Of course you are not Gill, so I am just curious as to why you think Gill included it. He basically says, according to the whole law, a Levite could have owned and sold land. That answer is enough. MJH |
||||||
89 | Is tattoos acceptabe as christians | 1 Cor 6:19 | MJH | 215342 | ||
Azure Thanks for that post. I did not think of it this way. I normally wouldn't agree to the tattoo thing, but I can certainly see a purpose beyond what I had previously considered. I'm still not convinced for myself, but I could not argue with someone in this situation doing it. MJH |
||||||
90 | people places and things OT | Bible general Archive 4 | MJH | 215341 | ||
Mike, Good question, but I think John did a great job answering your question. There is no quick way to learning. It takes a long and sometime not so fun (but usually it is) time. If you are looking for timelines, I have some links that would help but will not really put the Historical context into it. For an historical context, it depends on which section of the Bible you are seeking help with. There's the 5 books of Moses; Then the books Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuels, Kings. (Many of the prophetic books and poetry books fall within this time line. Pre-Exile). And finally you have Daniel, Ezekiel, Lamentations, Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles, etc. which are post exile. Of course, we have the "quite years" which were not so quiet, and then, what most Christians focus on, the first century BC and AD. If you have a place you would like to start, I can give you some good books and resources to at least get you started and from there you will find your way around. I personally would suggest the Books of Moses as a place to start because I happen to believe that you can’t really understand later Scripture without understanding the foundation, but others here will argue you can’t understand the Books of Moses until you understand the New Testament. They of course are crazy and I of course am right as always :-) MJH |
||||||
91 | In Acts 8, is the eunoch a homosexual? | Acts 8:27 | MJH | 215261 | ||
A Eunuch is a male who is missing a couple essential "parts" for procreation and served a queen or other high female within a kingdom. The term was also used of high appointed officials in general without the necessary surgery. Could this man have been a homosexual? Exceedingly unlikely and completely disconnected from anything mentioned in the Text. He went to Jerusalem for the festival, so he was either Jewish or a proselyte to Judaism. If he was a true Eunuch in the surgical sense, then he couldn’t have functioned sexually in any direction. Someone is lying. How they managed to do so without laughter bursting out from the pews is the real question. And to do so on Easter Sunday…. How shameful. MJH |
||||||
92 | Resurrection Day, not easter! | Exodus | MJH | 215259 | ||
Thanks for that link. I really appreciated it. MJH |
||||||
93 | Resurrection Day, not easter! | Exodus | MJH | 215258 | ||
justme, This issue has irritated me for some time. It's a nearly futile research project unless you have a lot of time and can weed through language issues. Not only that, but most people who do research this area have a conclusion in mind before they begin…and they often find that their assumptions are correct regardless of what they are. Here is what I've gleaned. Easter is an English word! The German word connection is there due to missionary connections within the Anglo-Saxon world. The word may or may not have connection to a pagan goddess, but there are no other languages in our day that use a spring goddess name to refer to the resurrection. Almost all are derived from the Hebrew word Passover. And during the second to fourth centuries when a debate over dates was heated, English wasn't the language used! In the second century, the Roman and Jerusalem branches argued over how to celebrate Passover and the Lord’s resurrection. The Roman church wanted the resurrection to always fall on the first day of the week while the Jerusalem church wanted it to fall on first fruits. (Jesus rose on both, but the first day of the week is based on the sun, and First Fruits is based on the moon, so it changes days of the week every year.) Even though the Jerusalem side could argue that they were the living disciples of the Apostle John…they knew him personally and how he did it, they still lost the argument (split between East and West), but the Lord’s resurrection was still connected to God’s festival of Passover. In short, they observed the Passover followed by a day of fast followed by the Resurrection celebration of our Lord. The festival season was still referred to by the Greek word derived from the Hebrew festivals. In the fourth century the split between anything looking “Jewish” was at its breaking point. When the Christian Church became the political church, they had the opportunity to make some definitive statements about doctrine and Holy Days. Up until then, the Christians were at least somewhat dependant on the Jews for determining when Passover began and not all Christians followed the same calendar. There was quite a bit of confusion that needed to be dealt with in the now organizing church. Therefore, a calculation was invented based on both the lunar cycle and the solar cycle. This calculation puts the Lord’s Resurrection Holy Day, almost always near the Passover. The fourth century is where people like to connect the English Easter to a pagan goddess. My personal view is that I find it very hard to apply negative intent to the fourth century church fathers. It’s simply historically not the right time for this behavior. My belief is that the gentile/Jewish separation caused the church leaders to find a good opportunity to make a clean break. They couldn’t jettison the Resurrection, and since the Resurrection is intricately connected to Passover and First Fruits, they needed to find a way to keep the days without remaining “Jewish” in appearance. Any negative intent applied to these Church leaders is in regards to anti-Judaism rather than pro pagan goddess. In other words, they wanted to separate from anything appearing Jewish, but did not want to marry themselves to anything pagan. If in fact they were attempting to borrow the pagan goddess, then why do all languages on Earth today, except English and German, use a word coming from Passover rather than a word coming from a pagan goddess? And why can we not find any fourth century Church fathers writing anything that would make you believe they were in truth, pagan mixing Aster lovers? In fact you can not. But there is ample writings showing their hatred for anything appearing Jewish! In fact the link provided by nickmostly does a good job with the etymology of the Anglo-Saxon word Easter. The case if far stronger against a pagan connection than there is for one. Now to get personal: It is enormously unfortunate that the Christian Church does not celebrate Passover! There is simply no other Festival instituted by God that more profoundly professes the Grace of God through the redemption of his children both through the Exodus and through the crucifixion/resurrection. The Christian church has no idea what it is missing. MJH |
||||||
94 | Business and following Lord | Luke 18:22 | MJH | 215126 | ||
All work is sacred. There is no such thing as a profession or business that is better or best. Not even full time ministry or missionary service is "better" than any so-called secular job. Adam was created to do work, even before the fall in Genesis 1-3. God has given you gifts and talents, and what ever you feel "called" to or have a passion for, do it with all your passion as to the Lord. If you work for someone else, do it with conviction, ambition and gratitude. If you work your own business, do it with integrity. If you care for your own children as in a stay-at-home mom/dad, then do it well and with purpose and forethought. But the idea that there is a better job is simply not correct. There may be a better job for you personally, but that is based on your gifts, talents, and passions. Please note: I assume you know that jobs which promote sin are not good in anyway. MJH Col 3:23-24 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. |
||||||
95 | Translation of the Greek word "aion" | Eph 3:9 | MJH | 214817 | ||
Searcher56, You said, "when there is a new heaven and earth (Rev 21:1), there will be no more time since there is no need of the sun or of the moon to shine" From a purely philosophical perspective, it is not possible to have matter (flesh and blood, soil and water, etc.) without the existence of time. If you have any "matter" you must also have "time." Logically it's impossible for matter to exist without time. It's also true that you can not have time apart from matter, but that is much more difficult to grasp and this isn't the place for that kind of discussion I'm guessing. MJH |
||||||
96 | Is tithing a command for chriatians? | 2 Cor 9:7 | MJH | 214816 | ||
keliy, Tithing aside, your post here concerning dispensations got my juices flowing and it's hard not to get overly passionate. Sorry. Also, sorry if this is post is not in line with the forum rules; it's a bit of a question I agree, so delete "me" if you must, I'd understand. That being said, I must disagree in the strongest of terms. I believe that your post is an example of interpreting the Scriptures based on your theology rather than deriving your theology from Scripture. (I appreciate you, keliy, so don't take that in the wrong spirit.) You said, "between the Cross of Christ and the Crown of Christ, which is referred to as the dispensation of Grace." Under that thinking then what pray tell was the "old testament" assembly under? A dispensation of gracelessness? law? covenant? onerous stipulations not possible to follow? sadness and depression? Ps. 119 didn't seem to be too unhappy with the Law. Ps. 84 didn't find Tabernacle/Temple worship something to distain. The Old Testament and the Covenants are grace upon grace. Where is there anything but Grace? From Gen 12, and the promises (quoted by Paul as the Good News) to Mt. Sinai. It's all grace! From Joshua's conquests to the exile, it's all grace. The faithfulness of God to His promises is grace. The coming of Messiah who is the Word made flesh, is all grace. Without grace, we are nothing and have nothing. We are a doomed people more pitied than any. With Grace we shine like stars. It's not a dispensation accounted to those after the cross; it's the whole blooding story. You said, "the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament." Gen 28:3, promises that “you will be the church” (qahal; kaw-hawl strongs 6951). Deut 5:22; God's speaks to the [church] from the mountain. The "church" was formed as a distinct body at Mt. Sinai. You can check the Greek word for church (ekklesia; ek-klay-see'-ah Strongs 1577) and see that it is the word used to translate Assembly/congregation in the Hebrew Scriptures. Pentecost was the festival remembering what God did at Mt. Sinai, when his voice was seen as sparks or lightening. They saw God's voice go out from the Mount. At Pentecost in Acts 2, we see the "wind" of God (a.k.a. Holy Spirit) and the tongues of fire rest upon the Apostles while they are at the Temple for the festival of Pentecost. The same thing happens to them that happened at Mt. Sinai. Also, 3000 are baptized into their number (3000 were killed after the Golden Calf). The "church" has a start, or maybe a new start. What has changed is that the Holy Spirit came in power and the Law was written upon the heart (Jer. 31; New Covenant). And soon the door swings open for the Gentiles, who before had no hope and were far off...now are now brought near. They are "grafted" into the olive branch that is Israel, or that is the Assembly of God formed at Mt. Sinai. One church, One people. (An aside: tradition, not Scripture itself, has said that God’s voice went out at Mt. Sinai in the languages of all 70 nations….the 70 nations seen in Gen 11; they all heard God in their own tongue all over the Earth give the Decalogue. This may be only a tradition, but it’s interesting that the same things does actually happen and get recorded as happening on the same day that the first event was recorded; on Pentecost.) There is no "dispensation." There is only an opening of the eye and heart that embraces the Gentile into the community and witnesses the mystery of God, that being "How can a Holy God dwell with an unholy man?" The incarnation is the mystery (Among other mysteries hidden in the heart of God.) You said, “That the Gentiles were to be "saved" was no Mystery. (Rom 9:24-30). The "Mystery" was God's purpose to unite Jews and Gentiles into The Church, towards the formation of His Body, The Church. (1 Cor. 12:12-13).” And here you are spot on correct! Thanks for the chance to rant a bit. MJH |
||||||
97 | 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 |
||||||
98 | Rahab righteous or not? | Josh 2:4 | MJH | 214679 | ||
John, I think you hit on good points in response. I'm particularly impressed with the statement that Rahab was protecting God's messengers and thereby partnering with God rather than rebelling against him. I haven't thought of it in those words before. Here is how I've thought of this type of issue. The Law is about life; it describes life in the kingdom of Life and not death. Therefore when a person is faced with an issue such as Rahab, to preserve life (and as you said, God's will) and to lie, then preserving life always wins out. "I have come that you might have life...." So my question of whether is was a "sin" only matters in the minutia of technical law, because we all agree that we and the Word of God testify that Rahab was correct. So to answer my own question, it matters not . . . it does matter to defend life and to protect and participate in the Will of God in this life. MJH |
||||||
99 | Rahab righteous or not? | Josh 2:4 | MJH | 214671 | ||
Here is a question. Is it always a sin to lie? Would it be a sin to lie to the Nazi's who sought to find Jews hiding in your home? MJH |
||||||
100 | Moabites forbidden and Ruth allowed?? | Deut 23:3 | MJH | 214591 | ||
Steve, That is a very good point. Thanks for adding that to this thread. MJH |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [29] >> |