Results 81 - 100 of 568
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: MJH Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177174 | ||
Oh Kalos, you are reminding me of too many things. I really don't care if the Jahovah's Witnesses claim that Matthew was written in Hebrew first. The fact remains that we have the Greek, and that is what God inteneded for us to have that is our baises for interpretation. There are many things the Jahovah's Witnesses believe, some of which are true. Just because a cult which has errors in its teachings believes something, does not mean it is therefor false. "The reports of the fathers regarding a Hebrew "Gospel" must be considered as hearsay" It is very serious to call something a hearasy. Just because some believe there is evidence for a Hebrew Matthew does not mean they are Heritics. We must be careful how we use that term. (I know you were quoting someone else) MJH |
||||||
82 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177183 | ||
You are correct and for that I appologize. I should read more closely! MJH |
||||||
83 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177184 | ||
The Jahovah's witnesses believe: in one God; in a round earth, in gravity, and in the necessity of water to sustain life. All of these things are true. So just because a JW believes them too does not mean they must be false because they are considered a cult. That is the point I was making. In Kalos' note, the person he quoted was making the argument that since JW believe in an original Hebrew Matthew, that therefore it must not be true. Logically, this is not a good argument as I showed above. Whether there is or is not a Hebrew Matthew originally has nothing to do with the JW. MJH |
||||||
84 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177185 | ||
Well, actually "strong evidence" and "theory" are the same thing. A theory is something that can not be "proofed" but there is a lot of evidence to support the idea. I do think there is strong evidence to support a 'Q' of some sort, if not in writting, then certainly in oral transmision. But it is still just a theory. MJH |
||||||
85 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177186 | ||
John, Sorry... the Galil is [Galilee]. I should have used the more common term. MJH |
||||||
86 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177187 | ||
BradK I'll quote what I posted some years ago on the Hebrew as the spoke language. ----------- "Can anyone still believe that Jesus spoke Aramaic? The most advanced research says He spoke Hebrew. Using one verse to show He spoke Aramaic, when most of the Gospel and Acts say Hebrew, Archeology says Hebrew, Josephus says Hebrew, the early church fathers say Hebrew, Rabbinic literature says Hebrew, the Dead Sea Scrolls say Hebrew, and coins minted in the first century BC say Hebrew. You said, “We know Jesus spoke Aramaic because he spoke it from the cross when he said: "Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" which is the Aramaic, not Hebrew, version of Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Matthew records this in Hebrew (same words). The people in Mark's version are thinking that Jesus is calling Elijah which is only possible if He spoke the words as Matthew records in Hebrew since in Hebrew the term "Eli" can be either "My God" or a shortened from of Eliyahu, Hebrew for Elijah. "Eloi" in Aramaic can only mean, "My God". For Matthew; "lama" (why) is the same word in both languages, and sabak is a verb which is found in Mishnaic Hebrew as well as in Aramaic. Other Hebrew words in the Greek text; levonah, mammom, Wai, rabbi, Beelzebub, corban, Satan, cammom, raca, moreh, bath, kor, zuneem, Boarnerges, Mor, Sheekmah, amen. All archeological finds are 9 to 1 in favor of Hebrew over Aramaic including for those things used by the common man of the day. The Dead Sea Scrolls were in Hebrew 9 to 1 over Aramaic (the common man’s rules for the community were in Hebrew.) … and on and on and on it goes. . . Oh, and a fun one to explain: Jerome says he translated the Latin Vulgate directly from Matthew’s original Hebrew text. Jerome was the most competent Hebrew scholar of all the early church fathers, living in the Land for many years, learning Hebrew from the people who spoke it every day. Then there is the linguistic research which is beyond the scope of this forum I think. MJH" ------ That was posted way back when and since that time the archeological evidence has only increased in favor of Hebrew. All of this evidence is admissible in a court of law. Some of it can be argued against with some good points, but it is the shear volume of evidence over the span of all of these scholarly fields that make the case for Hebrew. I do, however, understand that I am in the minority both on this forum and in Christendom. But I also believe that will change over time as these things often take a long time to do so. MJH |
||||||
87 | MJH: Matthew in Hebrew and "Q" Document? | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177234 | ||
Thank you for allowing me the company of at least one other on the Hewbrew as common language. Also, in regard to the Greek of Matthew being the accepted book into the canon, I completely agree with you. All the other stuff is interesting at best, but in the end, it is the Greek that is what has been preserved and accepted into the canon and that is what holds authority. MJH |
||||||
88 | Mathew,Mark,luke which written 1st | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 177235 | ||
Point conceded. MJH |
||||||
89 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 193489 | ||
You are correct. Paul did not, as is often thought, convert to a new religion, nor did he stop observing the Torah AS IT OUGHT to have been observed. Since most of the Jews believed that Salvation was obtained by being Jewish, they felt very strongly about converting Gentiles to be Jews in order to receive salvation. Paul teaches against this. Most Christians believe that the Jews of Jesus day believe that they had to earn salvation by obeying the Law, but this is not accurate as can be seen in the very large amount of writing during this time. There were other problems Paul had to face. After he left, "Judiazers" came in and convinced many that circumcision was "required" and they also brought their traditions (oral law) that were extra Biblical. Paul becomes IRATE at this and blasts back with a very serious letter where he uses the term "works of the law." Paul is adamant that the Gentiles do not need to become a Jew and follow all of these absurd rules to earn salvation. They are saved by Grace, through faith, JUST AS THE JEWS are. Paul did not live long enough to see the new religion of Christianity come about. To him, he was leading a new sect of Judaism, and even those who did not believe in Jesus as Messiah saw them as a sect, not a separate religion. Historically around the 90’s and again in the second century when the Jews were being persecuted, Gentile Christians separated themselves. Also during this time the Jewish community introduced a new prayer in there service which basically made it impossible for Jesus believers to participate. Unfortunately, many people still today use Paul’s words to claim that the Torah was done away with as if God changes His mind. The worst is when they claim the “Spiritual Israel” ie. Christians replace Israel. I suppose I am preaching to the choir with you on this….but one thing to keep in mind; you most likely will not convince many that you are correct. Certain things are very strongly ingrained into the mind and theology and these things do not change very easily and for good reason. I have taken 6 full years to reach the point where I am now. I have practically become a historian, Hebrew scholar, and nearly have the books of Galatians and Hebrews put to memory. I’ve read so much on the culture, religion and the times Jesus lived in that I’ve had to add book shelves to my office, and still it was very difficult. Most people who disagree, even those who are “replacements” like my own family, are very good strong faithful believers who will have a secure place in the World to Come. Their’s has been the predominate teaching for hundreds of years, so there is a lot of solid interpretation behind it. God bless, MJH |
||||||
90 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 193490 | ||
Doc, but what about the original question. I have never heard someone who thinks the Law is done away with explain this episode. This is late in the period. Neither Paul, James, nor the Bible says Paul was wrong to do this. The Text claims that Paul has been Torah observant. It claims "myriads" of believers are zealous for the Law. And then they set up a plan to prove Paul is observant. What say you? What is the "erroneous interpretation of Pharisaic soteriology.?" God bless, MJH |
||||||
91 | New Perspective of Sha'ul | NT general Archive 1 | MJH | 193525 | ||
Doc, Thanks for the response. I have only touched the very service of the writings of NT Wright and that being the case, can not comment on whether or not I see myself along side him. In response to your statement then, I would say that historically speaking, there were more than on type of Pharisee. Many many were quite legalistic, particularly those in Judea. That being said, there were many who were most defiantly not. I do believe that Jesus lined up theologically more closely with the Pharisees than any other sect (and by that I do not intend to diminish Jesus.) This is probably why He is seen talking with them the most. The Sadducees were a lost sect so far from reality that there was little point in discussion. The same is true of the others to a lesser degree. It may be possible that some (okay it is more than possible) have swung the pendulum of opinion about the Pharisees too far in their favor. That being said, there were most defiantly many Godly Pharisees in His day, and even this can be seen in the Gospels and Acts. And as far as Legalism is concerned, I do think that many on this forum either do not know what the word means, or at the very least miss use it. Legalism is the belief that certain acts or deeds (mostly outward) were required for salvation. You know that I am not of this camp, and nothing I have written would lead one to think this way. Salvation is by grace through faith alone. MJH |
||||||
92 | Quries about Christmas? | NT general | MJH | 211725 | ||
Serious? If so, hey, thanks for your service. Love Lt. Col. North. Made a joke of some people back in the late 80's MJH |
||||||
93 | Quries about Christmas? | NT general | MJH | 211728 | ||
I did what you asked. Let me know...is that good? | ||||||
94 | Giving it up to the Lord | NT general | MJH | 214579 | ||
You may be helped by this book: Boundaries by Dr. John Townsend and Dr. Henry Cloud He also has one on marriage. I have very little understanding of your situation, but when we pray for help, we don't stop helping ourselves. I can't counsel you except to say that "giving it over to God" should not mean doing nothing. If it helps, good, if not, it's still a good book for anyone. MJH |
||||||
95 | 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 |
||||||
96 | 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 |
||||||
97 | 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 |
||||||
98 | 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 |
||||||
99 | 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 |
||||||
100 | 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 |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [29] >> |