Results 81 - 100 of 233
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: There Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | I CAME TO FULFILL THE LAW | Matt 5:17 | There | 23345 | ||
And before I get myself in trouble I better add that the Torah included "teachings" that do not pertain to us today. I know we all know that, but I didn't mention it in that last post and thought I better clarify. The law God wants to write on our hearts has to do with His moral law (the law of love) -- of which there are many, many more than TEN. | ||||||
82 | I CAME TO FULFILL THE LAW | Matt 5:17 | There | 23344 | ||
Hi Joe, I disagree that the "rest" spoken of in Hebrews is a future event. I think that when we "rest" in Jesus we cease from our works and instead do the works of the Father. And again, I think that is why it states "For we who have believed do enter that rest..." I do not mean that God's law is the Mosaic Covenant. God's law is everlasting. The Mosaic Covenant became obsolete and we are under the New Covenant. It states that the Torah (instructions and teachings of God, law of God) was given so man would recognize his sinfulness, and then what?? God's intent was always the same. He wanted man to come to Him in repentance, and listen to His voice -- learn from Him. God was willing to speak to the children of Isreal in a very real way, but because of their fear they pleaded to have God speak to them through Moses. So instead of listening to God's voice (teaching and instruction - law), they had the written Torah. Anyone who became a member of Judaism was required to conform to it's teachings. Under the New Covenant, we who believe are not "under" the written Torah, but under our Teacher -- the Holy Spirit of God. And because we are "under" Him... we are under His authority and therefore we must obey His commands to us. God's laws have not changed, but there is a major difference between human understanding and God's understanding of those "laws" that were written in the Torah. As believers we have access to God's understanding of His laws. Does that answer your request? Gentiles are not under the Mosaic Covenant, and no one was ever expected to really be placed "under the law" in the Mosaic Covenant -- not even the Jews. God's intent according to scripture was that man should look at the law and recognize his sin... and then come to Him. And many "Jews" (Israelites) did that, such as Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel etc. Their relationship with the Lord was not just one of "prophecy" but of a personal nature... and they obeyed the Lord's commands to them. If I misunderstood what you meant, please explain further. God bless. |
||||||
83 | I CAME TO FULFILL THE LAW | Matt 5:17 | There | 23263 | ||
I agree... please see my note to Lionstrong, aka LooseCannon above. I explained more fully what I meant. As I mentioned to Brian... the post you and he answered is one that I wish I had not sent because I didn't fully explain what I meant. I'm very sorry for doing that. | ||||||
84 | I CAME TO FULFILL THE LAW | Matt 5:17 | There | 23259 | ||
The post you are answering is one of those I wish I could take back because I didn't say it right. :) Jesus didn't "change" the law of God. He simply explained the various laws from God's perspective. If we look at each "law", our human perspective reads what is on the page, whereas if we allow the Holy Spirit to teach us -- we are taught God's "understanding" of His law... which has much more depth. And that's what I meant by "change"... the law itself has not changed, but it is given more depth of understanding and therefore is "different" than a simple "thou shalt not..." type thing. I'm probably botching this up even worse this time. :):) |
||||||
85 | I CAME TO FULFILL THE LAW | Matt 5:17 | There | 23199 | ||
Lionstrong, aka LooseCannon? :) I'm not sure that I understand exactly what you mean by "age of grace". I've heard the term many times, but it seems to me, different people mean different things by those words. As to whether or not we can disobey God's law or not... the answer is "no", but there is a difference between "keeping" the Torah (all of God's LAWS), and God's "understanding" of His law that is deeper than human understanding. I will try to explain. God's law said certain things. If a person reads it... we will have an understanding of the words written -- our own human understanding. Jesus showed us that in his examples in Matthew 5, where he added "depth" to the teachings of the Torah. He showed us "God's understanding" of those words written on paper (stone and papyrus in earlier years of course). God's understanding can only happen for each of us when we are being taught by the indwelling Holy Spirit. So we are to OBEY God's law which He writes on our hearts... but we are not under the LAW to keep it when it is only by our own human understanding. Example using one of the Ten Commandments. Thou shalt not kill. With human understanding we know that we shouldn't murder someone. And "keeping" that is good, but not in itself a complete "act of love" towards others according to God's understanding. With God's understanding (Matt. 5:21-26) we know that we are not even to THINK angry thoughts against our brother nor call him evil names... or we've just broken that commandment. I sincerely believe that each of the commandments given in Torah... have deeper meanings than just what we read on the surface. This would include the Sabbath, especially since all God's commands are culminated in the two great commands -- which are the "laws" of love toward God and man. Since the Sabbath is one that comes up so often I will also use that as an example. "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God... " Man's understanding says "go to church and take a day off from work on Saturday". I believe that God's understanding has more "depth" than that. Jesus does not address this really except to say that He is Lord of the Sabbath, and that the Sabbath (day of rest) was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. In other words God knew man would NEED a day of rest every week from his usual labors, and I think Jesus thought we'd understand what it meant when He said He was Lord of the Sabbath too. Paul explains a bit more concerning the Sabbath when he states that our "rest" is in the Lord through faith. Hebrews 4:3 "For we who have believed DO ENTER that rest..." (vs 11) "Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall after the same example of disobedience." So yes, as human beings we physically need a day of rest per week. As new creations in God through faith, we have already entered into the rest that God intended for His children by that command. And I believe that is why Paul states in Romans 14:4-5, "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another [6th or 7th?], another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind." ... because if someone observes one day or every day -- it is still observed to the Lord... and repeat, Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath. He is Lord of the rest (Sabbath) that we now have through faith. Backing up... if by "age of grace" you mean the new covanant -- and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then YES things have changed immeasurably. We are no longer under the LAW as we humanly understand it, but under God's grace where we each learn directly from Him exactly how He understands those things. So from a totally human perspective... many of the LAWS (Torah) have actually changed. But if we look at those same LAWS from God's perspective they have not. It would be sort of like the difference between reading an outline about a book and reading the book itself. We can say that every major event written in the book is included in the outline (Torah) which they are, but all of the details are still missing... until we read the entire book (learn the Torah from the Holy Spirit). If this still doesn't answer your question to me, please ask again. Perhaps we're just on two different wave-lengths here. :) God bless. |
||||||
86 | Did Christ not fulfill the law? | Matt 5:17 | There | 22367 | ||
Hi Steve, I would simply agree with you if that was the only passage concerning Paul's teachings. Since it is stated earlier that the Jews had been informed by others that Paul taught others not to keep the Law, then maybe the only way this can be settled is to look at some of the things Paul taught... to see where "others" would have gotten that impression in the first place. Paul said such things as: Romans 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. Gal. 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. Eph. 2:15 having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace. Phil. 3:6-8 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. But indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ. 1Tim. 1:5-11 Now the purpose of the commandment is love from a pure heart, from a good conscience, and from sincere faith, from which some, having strayed, have turned aside to idle talk, desiring to be teachers of the law, understanding neither what they say nor the things which they affirm. But we know that the law is good if one uses it lawfully, knowing this: that the law is not made for a righeous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane... Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless. Hebrews 7:18-19 For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. Btw, in each of those verses Paul used the same word "nomos" meaning the Law of Moses when he says "law". Personally, I think the "others" that informed the Jews that Paul "taught against the people (Jews - those who practiced Judaism), the law, and this place (the Temple - where Judism was practiced)" were quite accurate. And I am not convinced that those accusations were false. The only thing that I am sure of that was false in their accusations is that Paul took a Greek man into the Temple to defile it, the fourth accusation. |
||||||
87 | I CAME TO FULFILL THE LAW | Matt 5:17 | There | 22280 | ||
Jesus Himself changed some of the moral laws. See specifically Matt. 5:33-48. Jesus also fulfilled some -- ceremonial and Levitical. Christ is the one time perfect sacrifice, and also our new high priest. Also Paul makes a distinction between God's Law and Christ's Law in 1Corinthians 9:21. Paul understood apparently that they are not the exact same thing. |
||||||
88 | Did Christ not fulfill the law? | Matt 5:17 | There | 22275 | ||
I noticed that others had already answered your question, and I think I understand why you asked it. Do you think that Acts 21:26 shows Paul was still a "keeper of the Torah"? In the following passages we can learn exactly what Paul taught and practiced. Acts 21:28 "...This is the man who teaches all men everywhere against the people, the LAW (torah), and this place...". And by the way, Acts 21:26 is a very good example of Paul's words in 1Corinthians 9:20 "and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law...". |
||||||
89 | Did Christ not fulfill the law? | Matt 5:17 | There | 22172 | ||
First I do believe that Cain's sin was not in offering "grain" to the Lord, but that he did not give God the best, but only from the leftovers so to speak. Gen.4:3-4 And at the end of days it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. Abel also brought of the FIRSTLINGS of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offerings, but He did not respect Cain and his offering. "The end of days" implies the end of the growing season, rather than the firstfruits of the crop. But I do agree that because Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that they and their offspring KNEW right from wrong. You said: If Torah was not around before Moses how could the Lord warn Cain that sin was crouching at his door? Again, I believe Cain knew right from wrong because his parent's ate from the tree of the "knowledge of good and evil". But that is not the Torah (teaching and instruction) from God. As to the Lord's "commandments", you are making the assumption that the Torah is the Ten Commandments. But the verse in Matthew 5 is not talking about only the Ten Commandments. It is talking about the Torah, the first five books of Moses. All the teachings and instructions given to the children of Israel by God through Moses. You said: I can't think of any of the Lords commandments that I don't want to follow, can you? In another post, I mentioned to you certain teachings in the Torah that I personally would not want to "keep". I'm grateful that we are not obligated to keep the Torah. I'd prefer not to hate my enemies, give an eye for an eye, nor many of the others teachings (commands) in the Torah. You said: Jesus made it very clear that can keep G*ds commands in Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect , therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". But we can only be "perfect" through the teachings of the Holy Spirit. I mean that our obedience in the flesh is nothing... if it is not a "law" that God has written on an indivdual heart. If God has written on your heart to let's say "keep the dietary laws", then do so. Period. It would be sin if you didn't. But if He hasn't written that on someone else's heart, but instead tells them to be grateful for the pork that He has provided them to eat... it isn't sin for them to eat pork. And that same example could be used concerning most if not all of the Torah. You said: Jesus made it very clear that can keep G*ds commands in Matthew 5:48 "Be perfect , therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect". A reminder. It is God who calls and God who "justifies". We cannot make ourselves "perfect" by obeying Torah. If one could, there would have been no need for the new covenant at all. All those things in Matthew 5 spoke of "heart motives" and there is only ONE Person that can fix a heart and perfect it. And that is God Himself. As He teaches... so we shall obey His voice. You said: The Lord says in John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. I would then ask you... which command should we obey? An eye for an eye (Torah), or love your enemies (Matt.5:39). Love your neighbor and hate your enemy (Torah), or love your enemies (Matt.5:44)? Swear in the Lord's name (Torah), or not at all (Matt.5:34). So who's commands do you think we are suppose to obey? Those given to Israel through Moses, or those taught by Jesus Christ? |
||||||
90 | WHAT WAS JESUS ATTITUDE | Matt 5:17 | There | 22171 | ||
Hello Searcher, Yes the Bible just calls it the "Law" ("Torah"), and as we both explained in other posts, that means "teaching and instruction". But just as Moses instructed the children of Israel to keep the Torah, which was the first FIVE BOOKS, and not to take from it nor add to it... he meant the "whole" Law (Torah)(Deut.4:2). No place where the word Torah is used, does it get divided into "parts". Not even when Jesus used the word "nomos", which means the "law of Moses", did He make a distinction between "parts" of the law of Moses (Torah). So we must assume that Jesus too, meant the whole Torah, which is the first FIVE BOOKS of the Bible. Understanding that, then we can look at why Paul says we are not "under the Torah". We know that Christians are not "under" Torah (the tutor), but are under the teacher (Holy Spirit). And even more specifically we know that we are not "under" the obligation to keep God's Torah in regards to the governing of the nation of Israel, nor God's Torah in regards to the priesthood and ceremonies. Yet some people I've heard say that we are still under the moral "Torah", but they only want to include the 10 Commandments in that "moral Torah". Jesus made no such distinction. In fact he mentions some of the "torah" that is not involved in the Ten Commandments to show that He meant the whole Torah (Matthew 5:33:31-32; 33-37; 33:38-42; 33:43-44). So if anyone wants to attempt to keep the Torah as far as just the moral laws, then according to God's Torah: Raping a woman is not sin as long as you marry her (Deut.22:29), yet Paul taught self-control rather than fornication of any kind. Put false prophets to death, and kill anyone that worships an idol (Deut.12:2; 18:22), yet Jesus taught to love our enemies and the apostle John recognized false teachers and prophets, but I don't understand scripture to say that he killed any of them. Never relinquishing hatred for anyone who would entice others to idol worship (Deut.13:9), yet Jesus said "...love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be the sons of the Father in heaven..." Matt.5:44-45. The burning of cities if they have gone astray (Deut. 13:17). What can I say? that would include most of the world... and during the days of the early church, certainly Rome. Yet the apostles or early Christians did not burn Rome. Never to dwell in the land of Egypt (17:16), yet Christ said to "preach the gospel to all the world...". But there is no NT teaching that states if someone from Egypt came to the faith, they should leave that country. Love for converts to Judaism (Deut.10:9), yet Paul (and others) tried to convert the Jews to faith in Jesus the Messiah, not to convince them to convert to Judaism. There is a difference. The religion of Judaism does not recognize Jesus as the Messiah. Jesus did not teach conversion to Judaism, but "faith" in God. Taking oaths by the the name of the Eternal Lord (Deut. 10:20), yet Jesus said "Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.' But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God's throne; nor by earth, for it is his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great king. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let you 'yes' be 'yes', and your 'no' be 'no'. For whatever is more than these is from the evil one" (Matt.5:33-37). So another "moral law" was changed under the new covenant... through the "deeper meaning" that was taught by Jesus. Those "teaching and instructions" are part of the TORAH that God gave to the children of Israel through Moses. And Jesus was talking about the whole TORAH. So if a person is going to attempt to keep the Torah (LAW) then they should be attempting to keep the whole of it, not just the Ten Commandments. So yes, we can agree that Jesus gave deeper insight to the whole Torah, including the "moral" teachings. We can also agree that the whole Torah will continue until heaven and earth pass away and all is fulfilled. In other words, all of God's "teachings and instructions" will not be fulfilled until heaven and earth pass away. But that does not mean that Christians are to follow the Torah of the first covenant. We are to follow the teachings and instructions of Jesus, which we will have written on our hearts by the Holy Spirit of God. On this aspect, we may not agree. Gal. 3:25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under the tutor. |
||||||
91 | Did Christ not fulfill the law? | Matt 5:17 | There | 22108 | ||
Are you saying that first one must have "faith" and then they must or should keep "torah"? Can we add to our salvation by our own works? If God hasn't written his "torah" on a person's heart concerning a certain thing... it would only be works of the flesh, not works of faith. That is one reason Paul was against legalism. Galatians 3:1-9 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? HAVING BEGUN IN THE SPIRIT, ARE YOU NOW BEING MADE PERFECT BY THE FLESH? Have you suffered so many things in vain -- if indeed it was in vain? Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law. or by the hearing of faith? -- just as Abraham "believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the nations by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, "In you all the nations will be blessed." So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham. Abraham believed God -- had faith. Abraham wasn't given the "promise" because he kept "torah" which had not even been given yet. It was by faith that Abraham was saved, and because He believed God he obeyed God's commands to HIM. |
||||||
92 | Are new worship songs scripturally OK? | Bible general Archive 1 | There | 22102 | ||
Many of the contemporary Christian songs use phrases or whole verses from the Bible. I'm not sure I recognize the three you've mentioned though. Does the "Dance with me Jesus" have any reference to "dancing before the Lord" as David did?? And depending on the words to the song about letting your "fire fall"... it could be speaking of the power of the Holy Spirit coming to believers. I don't know. And the "river flowing", from what Paul says we can "grieve" the Holy Spirit. And if we're doing things our own way, then possibly our "river of love or life" is not flowing very well. I guess it depends on what the actual words are to the songs you mentioned. Below are some contemporary praise and worship songs and their Bible references. Perhaps it will help you to understand the lyrics if you realize where they are coming from?? [This is the Day -Ps.118:24; The Horse and the Rider -Ex.15:1; In Him We Live and Move -Acts17:28; We are a Chosen Generation -1Pet.2:9; I will Enter His Gates -Ps.100:4; It Is A Good Thing To Give Thanks Unto The Lord -Ps.92:1; Thy Word -Ps.119;105; King of Kings -Rev.19:16; Fear Not For I Am With You -Is.41:10; Great Is The Lord -Ps.48:1; Lift Jesus Higher -John12:32; Beauty For Ashes -Isa.61:3; Put on the Garment of Praise -Isa.61:3; We Bring the Sacrifice of Praise -Heb.13:15; Rejoice In the Lord Always -Phil.4:4; Make a Joyful Noise Unto the Lord -Ps.66:1;98:4;100:1; I Will Never Forget You My People -Is.49:15-16; Love, Love -Matt.22:37-39; Know Ye Not 1Cor.3:16; It's Done -John19:30] and many more. |
||||||
93 | Where is the line? | 2 Cor 9:7 | There | 22097 | ||
Hi Prayon, Actually, since the ceremonial/Levitical priesthood has been done away with by Jesus Christ, we no longer are under the laws that apply to ceremonial acts or the Levitical priesthood. In the NT there are examples of showing our love to others through "giving" though... Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, etc. (Matt.25:34-40), Feed and give drink to your enemy (Rom.12:20), Collections for other less fortunate brethren (1Cor.16:1), To share in all good things with him who teaches (Gal.6:6), To aid our leaders to meet their necessities (Phil.4:10-20; 1Peter5:1-4), A worker is worthy of their wages [not necessarily money - see references] (1Tim.5:17-18; Matt.10:9-10; Luke 10:7; 1Cor.9:14), To meet urgent needs (Titus3:14), For the brethren and for strangers (3John5-6). All of those things are not to be done by our pastor or church board either. We're told to do them ourselves. If we look in the Books of the law, what we find though is that the Israelites were to give 10 percent of their increase (tithe of the land; tithe of the herd; tithe of thy corn; tithe of the increase of thy seed; tithe of thy wine and oil, firstlings of your flocks; tithe of the oxen and sheep; etc.) to the priests to provide for their support and to provide for the needy. It wasn't to support the Temple. And it wasn't for the Levite's needs alone. |
||||||
94 | WHAT WAS JESUS ATTITUDE | Matt 5:17 | There | 22094 | ||
You're right Jesus isn't saying that He fulfilled the Law (Torah), but He is saying that He came TO fulfill it. Before I go on, I think it's important to realize that LAW, i.e. "torah" is the first five books of Moses, not only the Ten Commandments. I haven't followed along here to know if the whole meaning of the word "torah" has been used, especially in that verse in Matt. 5:17-18. The laws (teachings and instructions) concern three basic ideas. 1)Ceremonial/Levitical laws. 2) Political laws by which to govern the nation of Israel. 3) Moral laws. Since we can be relatively certain what it is that Jesus was about to "fulfill", then we can also know what part of the "torah" Jesus would fulfill by the time "heaven and earth" does "pass away". I understand that as being TWO major things. 1) Ceremonial/Levitical Law. He did and will fulfill completely the "torah" concerning the Levitical priesthood and all the ceremonial laws given under the first covenant. He not only IS our new high priest [Heb. 5:1-11] on a daily basis, but also has completely fulfilled the ceremonial duties of the Passover week, plus Pentecost [death-Passover; 3 days in the grave-Unleavened Bread; resurrection-Firstfruits; Holy spirit given-Weeks/Pentecost]. The remainder of that aspect of the ceremial law will not be "fulfilled" by Him until His second coming [Trumpets; Day of Atonement; Tabernacles]. 2) Moral Law. When a believer becomes saved, born-again of the Spirit, filled with the Spirit, however you want to say it, Jesus will fulfill the "torah" (moral law) in the individual by writing God's "torah" (teaching and instruction, i.e. law) on the individual's heart. And the totality of the torah concerning God's moral laws is being fulfilled in His children as we speak. The culmination of the moral law is 'loving God with everything you've got, and loving others as yourself'. Jesus said that on those two great commandments "hang ALL the Law (Torah) and the Prophets [Matt.22:40]. And the "keeping of the Torah" by the Pharisees was only "works" related. They looked at the "actions" as their "fulfillment" of God's law in their lives. Whereas under the new covenant, Jesus explains that believers are not just involved with doing works (actions) but allowing God to clean us from the inside out. And I think that is why Jesus went from saying that He came to fulfill the law... and continued the teaching as to how the law must be done through correct heart motives, not simply "actions". Hence, only God can fulfill the "law of love" in/through each believer. |
||||||
95 | Sorry to keep asking the same question. | Exodus | There | 20034 | ||
Thanks Steve. You gave me something more to dig into. |
||||||
96 | Sorry to keep asking the same question. | Exodus | There | 20011 | ||
I'm glad Steve that it convinces you... but it gives very little with which to impress others one way or the other. 1Corinthians 7:2 is basically saying that if you can't control yourself... get married. Both men and women. But that in itself is not teaching marriage to only one wife per say. Paul states also that it is even better to remain single if one can practice self-control. After reading your last post concerning monogamy being the "rule", and polygamy being the exception to the "rule", I did some checking in the OT and found that MANY, MANY men either had multiple wives and/or concubines. So it is very possible that polygamy was not the "exception", but rather, an option. My question still stands though. If polygamy is wrong, why didn't God condemn the practice, and/or at least speak out against it to those who practiced it? Such as Abraham, Jacob/Israel, many of his descendants including David, Solomon, etc. |
||||||
97 | Does the Bible teach that it is sin? | Exodus | There | 19944 | ||
This is a subject I hadn't thought about until recently when someone brought it up to me. Since God did not condemn David or Solomon nor any other Old Testament man for having more than one wife, where did the teaching come from that a man should only have one wife? And since God didn't condemn it then, is it actually wrong? Personally I'm a bit repulsed by the idea, but that may be because I have been taught that it IS wrong. I was told that a man in a muliple marriage can easily accept the NT verses where it says: "let the husband render to his wife..." "let each man have his own wife..." "the husband is head of the wife..." and even "the two shall become one flesh..." because it is talking about the relationship between TWO people, and the husband should be that to each of his wives individually. Further comments by all would be appreciated. |
||||||
98 | Why? | Exodus | There | 19902 | ||
Why do you guess that Zipporah was not living when Moses married the Egyptian woman? The opposite assumption could also be made since it does not say that Zipporah had died. One assumption would be as valid as the other. I'm not trying to contend with you, but only trying to gain insight. |
||||||
99 | Did Moses have a second wife? | Exodus | There | 19818 | ||
Exodus 2 tells of Moses marriage to Zipporah. Does Numbers 12:1 speak of a second wife? Please provide scripture proofs if possible (I haven't been able to find any to confirm that the Ethiopian could be Zipporah), and any other references or information that could add light to this question. | ||||||
100 | What happened to the Tribe of Dan | Rev 7:5 | There | 19287 | ||
Second post of two. Flavius Josephus also records the letter in his writings: "We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the Jew and the Spartans are of one stock, and are derived from the kindred of Abraham. It is but just, therefore, that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concerns as you please. We will also do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demotoles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is foursquare; and the symbol is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws." To Dan was given the symbol of Scorpio, which in ancient Egyptian zodiac was a snake. However, when the time came to hoist the symbol of the snake, Ahiezer refused and chose instead the symbol of an eagle -- according to Unger's Bible Dictionary: "The standard of the tribe of Dan was of white and red, and the crest upon it, an eagle, the great foe of serpents, which had been chosen by the leader instead of a serpent, because Jacob had compared Dan to a serpent. Ahiezer substituted the eagle, the destroyer of serpents, as he shrank from carrying an adder upon his flag." Comparing that information with a description by Flavius Josephus of the Spartan's symbol, which was an eagle with a dragon in his claws, we can see that it could represent the tribe of Dan. The dragon, many times is synonymous with the snake. And the Spartans also claimed to be descendants of Abraham. The Spartans lived in Laconia, near Arcadia, in the southern Greek peninsula called Peloponnesus. Over the centuries some of the group migrated northeast across the Aegean Sea to build the city of Troy. Supposedly the remotest ancestor of the Trojan line of royalty was Dardanus. Their insignia contained an eagle, serpent, and sometimes bees/honey. Over the centuries some of the Spartans migrated into southern France, and some of the surviving Trojans moved north and west into Germany, Belgium and northern France, and it is said that it was the Trojans that first settled Rome after defeating the Kittim of Italy. Here too brings again to mind that first verse quoted from Genesis, and the fact that Dan is missing from the tribes mentioned in Revelation. I think it's possible that the Antichrist (represented by the serpent) will come from the line of Dan (and the line of Japheth [Noah's son], as the Danites married into the Gentile descendants of Japheth]. Concerning Dan, this supposition is based also on the verses and testament below: Daniel 11:37 speaking of the Antichrist, "Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." And again, Jacob's prediction that "Dan shall judge his people" and "Dan shall be a serpent" in "the last days". Another apocryphal writing called the "Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs" where Dan was suppose to have made certain predictions concerning his offspring, has been dated by scholars to have been written/copied around 150 B.C. Fragments of this writing were found in the Quumran caves as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This "testament" is suppose to be the final utterances of the 12 sons of Jacob concerning things that would befall each tribe in the future. According to the "testament" of Dan, he gathered his sons around him when he was 125 years old. One of the things he stated was "I read in the Book of Enoch, the Righteous, that your prince is Satan..." Because of that statement, Jewish scholars, some 150 years before Christ, linked the tribe of Dan with the Antichrist -- "your prince is Satan". Another statement reads "I know that in the last days you will defect from the Lord, you will be offended at Levi, and revolt against Judah; but you will not prevail over them." I hope this helps a bit. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [12] >> |