Results 81 - 100 of 380
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: biblicalman Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
81 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229322 | ||
Searcher, Unless you can provide proof from the Torah and the Prophets that sexual relations between betrothed couple were forbidden your position also has no standing. I have at least demonstrated the probability that it was allowable. Of course the Mishnah is valid as evidence of what the Jews believed, which is the point at issue. We are not arguing about what the Scriptural teaching is. There was no Scriptural teaching on the subject. I find it interesting how people who like to call the Bible the word of God are quite happy to add in things and pretend that they too are the word of God just because it is what they think. I did not 'forget' about the three year and a day old (lol you forgot the day, so whwere do you stand?). I just thought it would raise unnecessary complications and upset some members of the forum. It was unnecessary to the argument. The statement was that women from that age upwards could become betrothed by sexual relations There is nothing in what you wrote that implied sex between betrothed persons was forbidden. But I am quite happy for you not to reply. I think the subject is best left alone. Where Scripture is silent each can form his own views. best wishes |
||||||
82 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229321 | ||
Ed Thank you for your information. No doubt you will provide me with the chapters and verses in Scripture that speak of this situation? Post-1st century Jewish ceremonies tell us nothing about the times of Jesus and before. They developed after the fall of Jerusalem. Furthermore there are those who claim that the Mikvah when it was introduced was performed immediately after the betrothal. Perhaps then you would provide evidence for what you say that excludes that possibility? best wishes. |
||||||
83 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Ex 2:8 | biblicalman | 229320 | ||
Hi Holmes. The term Hebrew was initially used by outsiders of Abraham and his descendants. Genesis 14 was describing a covenant made between Abraham and Melchizedek. This would almost certainly be drawn up by Melchizedek's Chief Scribe. (Note the totally unusual style of chapter 14 in contrasst with the rest of Genesis). Thus he speaks of Abraham as Abraham the Hebrew. Abraham would of course keep a copy of the covenant. Being semi-nomadic and non-Canaanite Abraham's tribe would be seen as similar to the Habiru (Apiru), landless people and without a settled home. It was not used of Isaac or Jacob's family tribes. It was then used by the Egyptians of Joseph in an Egyptian situation, followed by its use by the Egyptians of Israel in Exodus 1-10. It does not then occur until Exodus 21. It occurs in Exodus 21 of a special type of servant in a contract typical of the Habiru, as witnessed at Nuzi (repeated in Deuteronomy). Thus this was dealing with Habiru bondservant contracts. Its next use was by the Philistines of Israel (1 Samuel). Thus its use up to this point was clearly as I said, a use by foreigners of Israel. Saul then took it up as a reaction and taunt against the Philistines. It is not used anywhere in any other contexts. It was next used of Jonah by foreign sailora. By the time of Jeremiah (its final use) Jewish slaves were being described as Habiru, being on typical Habiru contracts. So Hebrew was a title gradually being assimilated to Israel. Best wishes |
||||||
84 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229310 | ||
Just me. I'm afraid what you say about the Quran destroys your case. I gave no incorrect information concerning the Quran. If I did not see your post I am sorry. But if a lot is posted then things tend to be disappear rather quickly. Had you drawn it to my attention I would have looked at it. If you will look back you will discover that what I suggested you consult a Bible Dictionary about is NOT what is now under discussion. Bible Dictionaries tend to concentrate on the standard official view, not the view of the common people. All that I said was getting out of hand was wasting a lot of time and space arguing about a subject of minor importance. Especially as the arguing very often reveals that the person arguing has not really read my posts. What I have said is accurate, And I have substantiated it from Scripture. Nor have I made a mistake. If I had a large theological library available as I once had I could soon trace my sources. But it is hardly a subject that I have kept records of. I did in fact find information on the internet which confirmed my position but did not consider the matter important enough to take the matter further. In fact if you think about it the fact that the Nazarenes who tried to pick holes in Jesus never brought the subject up, even though they would have known the facts, confirms that my view of things is correct. Sexual relations within betrothal were tolerated. Had they not been the Nazarenes would have seized on it to discredit Jesus. To a lesser extent (for they may not have known the facts) the same is true of the Pharisees. I am not prepared to retract a statement which I am confident is right. Best wishes. |
||||||
85 | what is the rapture, what should i do? | Bible general Archive 4 | biblicalman | 229309 | ||
Hi, What is called today 'the Rapture' refers to the taking away of living Christians, to be united with those who have just been raised from the dead, to be ever with the Lord. It is described in 1 Thessalonioans 4.13 ff and 1 Corinthians 15.52. As far as Christians are concerned that will be the end of time. it is only what follows (if anything other than the new Heaven and the new earth - 2 Peter 3.13) that causes problems. What should you do? Be sure that you are ready to meet the Lord at any time, for he will come unexpectedly. Thus you should rid your life of all known sin, you should openly confess Christ before others, and you should read and study His word and continue constantly in prayer. Those things are far more important than spending a lot of time on eschatological theories and interpretations on which there is such wide diversitirtes of opinions. Best wishes. |
||||||
86 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229307 | ||
Searcher I stopped the generations discussion for the same reason. I felt it had run its course. But of course you fail to point that out. Well I see nothing in the supposed Biblical proof which shows that I was wrong. You have given no proof at all. Indeed you have mainly repeated what I said, avoiding the conclusions. You have mainly given Scriptures that I have already given except that you have misinterpreted them. There is no doubt at all that betrothed persons were called husband and wife. I suggest you read the Scriptures I gave again without prejudice. Fortunately others can judge for themselves. I also pointed out that betrothal was totally different from engagement. I can only presume from what you say that you did not read my recent post where I underlined this. It is indeed largely the basis of my argument. I put no special weight on the Jewish encyclopedia when it comes to the times of Jesus. They have no more information to go on than the scholars whom I consulted, possibly less, for they are of course biased in their own favour and a desire to present Judaism respectably. And they put too much emphasis on later Jewish tradition. Tell me do you believe what the Jewish encyclopedia says about Jesus Christ? No you are mistaken. It was the betrothal that was the means of obtaining a wife, the marriage was just the final seal. That is why Jacob could say 'give me my wife'. He was already betrothed to her and was working off the payment. With regard to the 'proof of virginity' passage that simply demonstrates what ought to have happened, but it only happened in certain cases where it was seen as important. Clearly if the two had had sexual relations the subject would not come up. The man would know his wife was not a virgin. Lol most of what you are pointing out is what I have already said. But you prove nothing from it. At least I then apply it. If they were betrothed they already had a wife and husband. There is never any suggestion of condemnation for the behaviour of such in sexual matters. If you disagree, produce it. On the other hand if they had sexual relations when they were not betrothed, that ensured their betrothal, which is one reason why the Rabbis said that sexual relations was one way of bringing about a betrothal. I fail to see what a wedding procession has to do with what I said. It was simply part of the celebrations which I spoke of. The serious part was accomplished by the betrothaal. I specifically pointed out that they did not 'shack up' Did you read anything I said? I am quite aware of what the Rabbi said in full, but firstly I did not think it the kind of thing that should be stressed on the forum, and secondly it makes not the slightest difference to the argument. The Rabbi was not recommending sex at that age. He was simply defining what in those days was seen as the minimum age at which a sexual relationship was considerd theoretically possible. He was not actually suggesting sex at that age. Again you have misinterpreted. I'm afraid I don't trust most of what is available on the internet. It is rarely written by people who have researched the subject in depth. I place more confidence in people who are acknowledged experts in the field under discussion. And besides those sites are not talking about how the common people viewed things. In fact I think you are not arguing against what I said, but against what YOU THINK I said, because you have not read what I said carefully enough. You have simply jumped to conclusions. |
||||||
87 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229302 | ||
Hi Unfortunately this subject appears to be getting out of hand. At no time did I state that sexual relations were 'common' during the betrothal period, only that they 'regularly occurred', and that the general consensus was that they were permissible. It is all a matter of language. For something to regularly occur among say a million people over many years, does not mean that they were common (depending on what you mean by common), only that they fairly often happened. The question is not whether sexual relations within the betrothal period were approved of by Jewish society as a whole, but whether Jesus' parents would have been deeply frowned on for having had such sexual relations. My first statement was, 'in Jewish eyes Jesus would not have been seen as born of fonication'. This is in fact stated in the Halakah where it is emphasised that the child of a pre-marital union where the marriage is consummated is not to be seen as a mamzer (illegitimate child). In Israel betrothal was at the very basis of a marriage. It was at betrothal that the contracts were drawn up, payments made, and everything was settled. Apart from a blessing we know of no ritual that took place at the actual wedding. That had taken place at the betrothal. The betrothal was totally binding. The actual wedding was rather a time for feasting and the official consummation of the marriage. All the preliminaries (including the signing) had taken place at betrothal. Once betrothed the pair were looked on as husband and wife (Gen 29.21; Deut 22.23-24; 28.30; Judges 14.2, 8; Joel 1.8; Matthew 1.18-20). The only way out was through divorce. They did not, however, live together. But as the betrothed girl was expected to work in the countryside unsupervised (Deut 22.25) they would have ample opportunity to meet, and if they desired engage in love-making. (Consider the Song of Solomon). It is noteworthy that nothing is ever said against such practises in the Old Testament. There is never any suggestion that a betrothed pair be punished in any way if they engaged in such activity, even though the question of sexual relations is dealt with in a detailed way. Indeed in the Mishnah it is stated that one way by which betrothal takes place is by sexual relations. 'Said Rabbi Joseph, a girl is betrothed by sexual intercourse' (M Nid 5.4). In the section headed 'Betrothal' (quiddushim) it says, A woman is acquired as a wife in one of three ways, by money, by contract, or by sexual intercourse' (1.1). In neither instance is there any hint of disapproval. This is in fact backed up in Scripture in that if a man entices a virgin he must pay her dowry (thus bcoming betrothed) and take her as his wife (Exod. 22.16; compare Deut 22.28-29). Once again there is no punishment unless you see having to be married as a punishment. The couple would not be frowned on later, except by high sticklers, who would no doubt see it as a sign of 'common people'. My own comments were based on what I have learned from scholarly commentaries, but as I cannot offhand remember which ones, and no longer have access to such commenaries, I have provided details above which would support their case. Best wishes |
||||||
88 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229289 | ||
Hi Tim, Well we can agree to differ :-)) As I pointed out the high sticklers took your view, (except that the period was not necessarily 12 months, it was agreed by the families), but the general consensus was that sexual relations during betrothal were permissible. Thus Mary would not have been frowned on by her Galilean friends, nor by the majority. It is doubtful therefore whether the Pharisees would have made a fuss about such a thing. You must not judge Jesus' day by later Rabbinic rules. Best wishes |
||||||
89 | WHY DID THE LORD PERMIT BABYLON TO REMOV | Jeremiah | biblicalman | 229288 | ||
Hi Jesuschild, Welcome to the Forum. Judah had turned to wholesale idolatry, and were even offering their children as child sacrifices to the gods (e.g. Jeremiah 19.5). In spite of Jeremiah's pleadings they continued on in their ways, but when he called on them in God's Name to submit to Babylon they refused to do so. So they did in fact choose their own fate. They knew that continual resistance would result in exile, but they continued to trust in Egypt rather than obey God. Had they obeyed God most would not have been exiled. Incidentally a large part of Judah were not removed to Babylon. When Jerusalem was destroyed only 832 leaders and tradesmen (Jer 52.29)were removed from Jerusalem with their families (although a number would probably be exiled from outlying districts before that). More had in fact been exiled as a result of the earlier invasion (Jer 52.28). The 'poor of the land' who were in the majority were left behind, and many would return from their hiding places once the Babylonians had gone. But they continued in idolatry, and many fled to Egypt in disobedience to God's command. Thus the returning exiles in the time of Cyrus would have nothing to do with them. They had on the whole learned their lesson and eschewed idolatry. Best wishes. |
||||||
90 | How did Moses know he was Jewish? | Ex 2:8 | biblicalman | 229284 | ||
Strictly speaking Moses was not Jewish. He was an Israelite, or, in Egyptian terminology, a Hebrew. The title the Jews did not come into the reckoning until at least after northern Israel was destroyed, although could of course be applied to the people of Judah. |
||||||
91 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229276 | ||
Hi, The Israelites/Jews believed in arranged marriages, although that did not necessarily mean that the parents did not consult their children. But for a man or woman to marry without their parents agreement was unusual (Esau was an exception and thereby grieved his parents). When the couple were agreed on by their parents they became betrothed. This was then seen as binding, and only divorce could set it aside. The aim was that it would last for life. You will notice that Joseph was going to 'put away, divorce' Mary privately, even though they were 'only' betrothed. It had to be a semi-official action. Marriage wowuld then result when they had reached the necessary age. These are facts that can be found in any reliable Bible Dictionary, and good commentaries. NBD says, 'the betrothed woman was sometimes called 'wife' and was under the same obligation of faithfulness (Gen 29.21; Deut 22.23-24; Matt 1.18, 20) and the betrothed man was called 'husband' (Joel 1.8; Matt 1.19). Best wishes. |
||||||
92 | What does the bible say about near death | Acts 14:19 | biblicalman | 229275 | ||
Hi, In 229238 Searcher stated that it was a parable. I was pointing out reasons why it might not be a parable but a reference to real life. Interpreters are divided on the question. But as Jesus' parables were always based on real life we can accept that its details are portraying His thoughts either way. Best wishes |
||||||
93 | How long is a Biblical Generation ? | Gen 15:16 | biblicalman | 229269 | ||
Hi Holmes, LOL wildly speculate? Let others judge who is wildly speculating :-)) Joshua was thirty eight years old at the Exodus (Joshua 14.7). So now per your schemat all his ancestors will have had to marry at 14 and have their first son at 15. Meanwhile all Moses' ancestors are having their sons at 95, Amran having his first (Aaron) at 92? It does not sound very convincing to me. Indeed I challenge you to produce one birth at the age of 15 (or 16) mentioned in the Pentateuch. And yet you postulate ten. It appears to me that the wild speculation you mention is yours :-)) I will just list a few errors in your statements then I will withdraw from the argument. I do not think it anymore suitable for the forum. You have not shown that the 400 years mentioned in Gen 15.13 includes the time in Canaan. The Hebrew text in fact gives the opposite impression. YOU SAY: . Exodus 12:40-41 indicates that the sons of Israel were in Egypt for EXACTLY 430 years. Correct, that is what it does say, in Egypt for exactly four hundred and thirty years. So why are you arguing differently? YOU SAY: The original text also indicates this was both Canaan and Egypt. Which original text? Nowhere does any Hebrew text suggest that Canaan was included. Paul's 430 years commenced with the 'confirmation of the covenant'. This is a vague date. The covenant was confirmed over the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (see e.g. Gen 35.11-12). Paul's point was that the Law was given 430 years after the whole period of covenant confirmation prior to entering Egypt. With the rest you are just playing with figures to suit your argument, inventing figures for birth dates as you go along. Wild speculation? Well, certainly not scriptural facts. I suggest now that we drop the subject. Let people judge for themselves. Best wishes |
||||||
94 | when did jesus ascend into heaven? | Acts 1:9 | biblicalman | 229268 | ||
Hi Elizabeth, Welcome to the Forum It partly depends on whether you mean when the risen Jesus first went to God, or whether you are referring to His final ascension into Heaven in bodily form after which He did not appear again (except in special circumstances). John 20.17 appears to suggest that He 'ascended to the Father' initially on the day of His resurrection. And this is what we would expect. But His final ascension into Heaven in bodily form was undoubtedly after 40 days (see Brad's excellent list of verses). We need to beware of dogmatism about what all this involved. To question 'where Jesus' body was in the meantime' is foolish. We are dealing with One Who is Spirit being with One Who is Spirit. And we have no real idea what His risen flesh consisted of. (While He could eat He could also go through walls). We are dealing with the undefinable. Best wishes |
||||||
95 | worship a image of god or his son? | 1 John 4:12 | biblicalman | 229267 | ||
Hi Michelle, Welcome to the Forum. God has forbidden the worship of ALL images (Exodus 20.4-5). Jesus Christ as the Son is described as 'the image of the invisible God' (Col 1.15), that is, an exact representation of Him (Heb. 1.2-3), but not in His manhood. He is in God's image as the Firstborn (the one with authority over) all creation, as the One Who made all things. As the Creator He is the image of the Creator. When man was made in God's image it does not mean that man looked like God. It means that man was given spirit, as God is Spirit (John 4.25).That is why, unlike all animals, man worships. When man sinned his spirit became corrupted, which is why it is said that Seth was made in Adam's image. But God is the invisible God Whom no man has seen nor can see, dwelling in unapproachable light. There is nothing that can truly portray Him. And to seek to do so would be to demean Him |
||||||
96 | Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? | John 8:41 | biblicalman | 229266 | ||
There are no real grounds for suggesting that the Pharisees were referring to Jesus' birth in John 8.41. In Jewish eyes Jesus would not have been seen as born of fornication, for Joseph and Mary were betrothed, and betrothed couples regularly had children without it being frowned on (except by high sticklers). Betrothal was binding and could only be broken by divorce. Marriage simply sealed the betrothal. Furthermore the contrast made by the Pharisees was with God as their Father. Thus as you say they were contrasting themselves with those who had idols as their father and were thus 'born of fornication'. Idolatry was regularly seen as harlotry. |
||||||
97 | Ram for abraham to sacrefice | Gen 22:1 | biblicalman | 229250 | ||
Hi Farmboy, Welcome to the forum. It is probable that God knew that Abraham, having observed what people did round about, and seen how the Canaanites demonstrated their love for their gods by offering child sacrifices, was himself deeply disturbed about whether he should do the same. It may even have been that he was being derided by them because he was seen as not sufficiently dedicated to his God. God was thus demonstrating to Abraham and his descendants that He did not require child sacrifice, but that instead He was content with a substitute, in this case in the form of a ram. It is noteworthy that the opening phrase 'offering up a burnt offering' is only once repeated in the Old Testament and that in the words of Jephthah. It is therefore suggested by some that what Jephthah did was dedicate his daughter to the service of the Tabernacle (prepetual virginity) and offer up a substitute offering. This would explain why the priests did not refuse to do what Jephthah had suggested. In both cases it was a type of the substitutionary sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ. |
||||||
98 | Atonement | NT general | biblicalman | 229246 | ||
Am I right in assuming from your question that you have done something wrong to someone which no one knows about and now wish to atone for it in some way? If the harm done can be put right in no other way then you will have to confess to it. If, however, the harm done cannot be put right then all you can do is try to make it up to the person in some way. Hope I got your meaning right :-) Best wishes |
||||||
99 | What does the bible say about near death | Acts 14:19 | biblicalman | 229242 | ||
I hope I may be forgiven if I disagree with one item in Searcher's list. The men who rose in Matthew 27 did so 'after His resrrection', and not on His death. Nor do I see any grounds for thinking that they did not benefit by His resurrection so as to be permanently raised. My only other criticism would be as to whether the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. Jesus never names people in parables. It is therefore very much open to question. |
||||||
100 | Plan of Salvation - Acts\1Cor | Eph 2:8 | biblicalman | 229235 | ||
Hi The plan of salvation is that plan which God carries into effect when He brings about our salvation. In the first stage He accounts us as righteous (Rom 3.24) through the gift of righteousness (Rom 5.17)as a consequence of His redemptive work on the cross (Rom 3.24) when we put our trust in Him as our Saviour. At the same time we are born of the Spirit from above (John 3.1-6) and become new creatures in Christ (2 Cor 5.17). In the second stage the Holy Spirit works within us, causing us to will and do of God's good pleasure (Phil 2.13) while changing us from one degree of glory to another (2 Cor 3.18). In the third stage we are transformed and made perfect (1 Cor 5.52), being presented before Him holy, unblameable and unreproveable in His sight (Col 1.22). This saving work commences when we come to Christ as our Saviour and put our trust in Him. This involves: 1) Admitting our sinfulness (1 John 1.8). 2) Turning from our sin to follow Christ (repentance). 3). Asking Jesus Christ to come into our lives to cleanse us from sin and live out His life through us. If we do this honestly He comes into our lives, we are thereby accounted as righteous before God, and we receive the Holy Spirit for the purposes described above. May God bless you. |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ] Next > Last [19] >> |