meta user
network profile
| bio | website | ateret-tiferet.com |
|---|---|---|
| location | United States | |
| age | 32 | |
| visits | member for | 6 months |
| seen | 7 hours ago | |
| stats | profile views | 9 |
Currently reading: Augustine, De Trinitate
My website "Ateret Tiferet" launched 02-23-2013. Please come visit! Send me an e-mail and let me know what you think (see the "Support" link in the website's navigation bar).
What is my religious affiliation?
I am Jewish by birth (this is not the religious affiliation), Christian by faith (this is the religious affiliation). Very simple.
|
Feb 28 |
comment |
Was the word ἐπιούσιον used prior to the Lord's prayer? What does it mean? He didn't cite any authorities on its meaning, so are we to take his word? He simply assumed "daily" is the correct meaning and went from there. That's not how it works. |
|
Feb 25 |
comment |
How can the sacrifice of one animal atone for many? Moshe was speaking to all of Israel, so of course, it would say "your souls" rather than "your soul." The manner of atonement is that, if someone sinned, the individual brought a sin offering for himself. In other words, if I sinned, another man can't bring a sin offering for me. The person who sinned had to bring it. But, I see the confusion and will use a more apparent scripture. |
|
Feb 25 |
comment |
In what way is OT Scripture profitable . . . Timothy didn't know Paul's epistles when he was a child. The notion of a Jew knowing scriptures since childhood --- is clearly a reference to the Torah. They start learning it at 5 years old. This is not only attested in the Mishna, but also in Josephus and Philo. |
|
Feb 23 |
comment |
Who is it that “wills” in 1 Corinthians 12:11? Have you read Gill's belief on 1 Cor. 12:6? biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/… What do you think about it? |
|
Feb 22 |
comment |
Should The Creation Story in Genesis Be Understood as Metaphorical? If "metaphorical," does that entirely reject the belief that Adam and Eve literally existed and were the first humans to be created? |
|
Feb 22 |
comment |
Contextually, which English translation/ Greek text seems more probable in Rev. 5:10? @swascheck: I do appreciate your intense research into the subject. It just wasn't exactly what I asked for. I hope you understand. :) |
|
Feb 22 |
comment |
Contextually, which English translation/ Greek text seems more probable in Rev. 5:10? I don't really agree... There's no ambiguity in "contextually." And there's no real reason for a "deeper analysis" when I provided the textual variants that I wanted the reader to consider. Had I asked, "What are the textual variants of Rev. 5:10, and which is more likely?" then I would have expected most if not all to focus on the textual criticism aspect instead of analyzing the context. But, truthfully, I wanted to know how the "elders and beasts" would be involved in the redemption (if the translation "us" was more likely), if at all. |
|
Feb 21 |
comment |
Were the Nephilim in Genesis 6 aliens? Actually, nefilim or nephilim (whichever you prefer) does not mean "fallen," i.e. "fallen ones." That would be נפוּלים (nefulim or nephulim). All we know is that the word נפילים (nefilim) shares the same trigeminal root as the verb נפל (nafal), which means "to fall." However, there's a possibility it could be a conjugation of the verb פָּלָא in binyan Nif'al, meaning "those who are great, amazing," referring to their immense stature. |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
If synoptic parallelism is a valid hermeneutic, is the Holy Spirit = the Spirit of the Father? Probably not a good idea because "Is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Father?" then becomes a question of Christian doctrine and no longer a question about specific verses and biblical hermeneutics. |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
If synoptic parallelism is a valid hermeneutic, is the Holy Spirit = the Spirit of the Father? So, can I start a new thread asking, "Is the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Father?" |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
Does the communion cup emphasize the vessel or the drink? @Eli Rosencruft: Per 1 Cor. 10:16, I always thought it was the כוס של ברכה. |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
What is the difference in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God? I don't know which is more common, but they're both definitely used. What will you be searching for exactly? |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
What is the difference in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God? I don't know what you just said. lol jk :) |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
What is the difference in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God? Talmud is replete with occurrences of שמיים being used as a name of God, as well as the other words. One example: Brakhot 33b. הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים, that is, "Everything is in the hand of 'Heaven' except the fear of 'Heaven.' Both occurrences of 'Heaven' mean 'God.' |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
What is the difference in the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God? No, it should not be translated as "the kingdom of God is among you." Although I used to think the same thing, but it's untenable. See this article: syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol12No2/HV12N2Ramelli.pdf. I do agree that "kingdom of God" = "kingdom of Heaven." No disputing that. |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
What does “born again” from John 3:3 mean? That being said, Yeshu'a didn't intend for him to understand it as "born again by returning to your mother's womb and her giving birth to you again." Rather, he meant "born again, this time by the seed of the word of God being implanted in your heart and it being vivified by the spiritual water of the Holy Spirit." It is a re-birth, but the latter birth is not physical. It is spiritual. Hence, that which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
Why does everyone in John misunderstand Jesus? You know what it is weird though...sometimes they misunderstand him, and sometimes they know exactly what he means (cp. John 8:58-59). Odd! |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
Why does everyone in John misunderstand Jesus? The reasons why they wouldn't literally mean what he said is because they're all impossible if taken literally. The Temple that took 46 years to build couldn't be built again in 3 days. Such a feat was physically impossible for that civilization. Again, it took 46 whole years to do so. Normal water doesn't give eternal life. And, a man cannot be born again a second time in his mother's womb. Those were the clues that what he said should not have been understood in a carnal or literal manner. |
|
Feb 20 |
comment |
What does John 12:40 mean? Honestly, I just want to know the meaning. Surely "What does John 12:40 mean?" is an appropriate question for BH.SE. :) |
|
Feb 19 |
comment |
Is the statement about love and obedience in John 14:15 an imperative or an indicative? To all in general, as you noted, τηρήσητε is indeed in John 15:10, but it's in the protasis, not apodosis. |
