The PuritanBoard - NT Epistles http://www.puritanboard.com/ Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerety. (Eph. 6:23)]]> en Sat, 21 Nov 2009 01:53:57 GMT vBulletin 60 http://www.puritanboard.com/images/retro/misc/rss.jpg The PuritanBoard - NT Epistles http://www.puritanboard.com/ <![CDATA[Jude 9 and the Body of Moses, and the lost book "Assumption of Moses"]]> http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/jude-9-body-moses-lost-book-assumption-moses-55623/ Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:09:19 GMT ---Quote--- Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. ---End Quote--- I am re-studying this passage. ...
Quote:
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

I am re-studying this passage.


Does Jude use the book The Assumption of Moses in reference to this disputation. Is it universally believed that this book existed and acted as a source for Jude here?

Any thoughts on this disputing over the body of Moses? Why would there be a dispute?






In the Targum, the Pseudo-Jonathan, the comments on Deut. 34:6 seem to indicate a Jewish tradition of the Devil trying to get the body of Moses in order to tempt the Jews into idolatry, and so the angels bury Moses 4 miles from the site of his death. ]]> NT Epistles Pergamum http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/jude-9-body-moses-lost-book-assumption-moses-55623/ Ephesians - Audio Video Messages http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/ephesians-audio-video-messages-55176/ Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:49:26 GMT May I recommend my former theology professor's messages (Donald Macleod) on Ephesians which can be listened to / viewed here. ]]> NT Epistles Dieter Schneider http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/ephesians-audio-video-messages-55176/ Very Insightful Comment by John Stott on Galatians 1:7 http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/very-insightful-comment-john-stott-galatians-1-7-a-55098/ Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:48:55 GMT “So the two chief characteristics of the false teachers are that they were troubling the church and changing the gospel. These two go together. To tamper with the gospel is always to trouble the church. You cannot touch the gospel and leave the... “So the two chief characteristics of the false teachers are that they were troubling the church and changing the gospel. These two go together. To tamper with the gospel is always to trouble the church. You cannot touch the gospel and leave the church untouched, because the church is created and lives by the gospel. Indeed, the churches greatest troublemakers (now as then) are no those outside who oppose, ridicule and persecute it, but those inside who try to change the gospel. It is they who trouble the church. Conversely, the only way to be a good churchman is to be a good gospel-man. The best way to serve the church is to believe and to preach the gospel."

The emphasis is mine, but it should be that of every minister besides :) ]]> NT Epistles Archlute http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/very-insightful-comment-john-stott-galatians-1-7-a-55098/ Husbands/Wives of Eph 5, 1Cor 11:3 1Pet 3 http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/husbands-wives-eph-5-1cor-11-3-1pet-3-a-55000/ Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:23:09 GMT There was a discussion recently regarding the roles of husbands/wives and these passages were stated as though they were somehow in opposition to the OT and the way women in general were treated e.g. second class citizens, "property" of the husband etc.

Though never stated as explicitly as Paul, God's command to Adam and Eve surely implied the structure of a Godly home, yes? The discussion made it almost a purely NT concept of marriage. How can I address this in the coming class? ]]> NT Epistles D. Paul http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/husbands-wives-eph-5-1cor-11-3-1pet-3-a-55000/ <![CDATA[Colossians 1:20 "heaven"]]> http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/colossians-1-20-heaven-54941/ Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:35:59 GMT This was read yesterday in church and I was puzzled why the reference to heaven? Reconciliation on earth yes but in heaven? Are we talking angels? I must be looking at this the wrong way ? This was read yesterday in church and I was puzzled why the reference to heaven? Reconciliation on earth yes but in heaven? Are we talking angels? I must be looking at this the wrong way ? ]]> NT Epistles Eoghan http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/colossians-1-20-heaven-54941/ Reading Romans - literary style an obstacle? http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/reading-romans-literary-style-obstacle-54923/ Sun, 01 Nov 2009 10:39:11 GMT I am trying to read through Romans and am finding the twists and turns of the narrative as convoluted. It does seem to be a unique style of writing which seems to cause problems for us "modern" readers. Is it a diatribe? ]]> NT Epistles Eoghan http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/reading-romans-literary-style-obstacle-54923/ I Corinthians 9:16-23 http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/i-corinthians-9-16-23-a-54761/ Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:33:14 GMT I would like to pick your mind a little on this verse. Does it mean I should look and sound like the world to try to reach the lost? :D I would like to pick your mind a little on this verse. Does it mean I should look and sound like the world to try to reach the lost?
:D ]]> NT Epistles brianlve http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/i-corinthians-9-16-23-a-54761/ Romans 2:17-29 and a glaring omission http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/romans-2-17-29-glaring-omission-54731/ Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:54:05 GMT When Paul is attacking Jewish pride/arrogance and showing them convicted of sin under the law - why does he not refer to the sacrificial system. When I reflect on it why does he not treat this elsewhere (in Romans) in detail? When Paul is attacking Jewish pride/arrogance and showing them convicted of sin under the law - why does he not refer to the sacrificial system.

When I reflect on it why does he not treat this elsewhere (in Romans) in detail? ]]> NT Epistles Eoghan http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/romans-2-17-29-glaring-omission-54731/ 1 Timothy 4:9 http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/1-timothy-4-9-a-54671/ Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:51:06 GMT 1 Timothy 4:9 Does this refer to the previous verses (6-8)? or the following verse (10)?


Does this refer to the previous verses (6-8)? or the following verse (10)? ]]> NT Epistles Southern Presbyterian http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/1-timothy-4-9-a-54671/ <![CDATA[Romans 2:15 Stott's Commentary and the "failure" to use the definite article]]> http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/romans-2-15-stotts-commentary-failure-use-definite-article-54574/ Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:47:54 GMT In John Stott's commentary on Romans (p91) he claims that when Paul holds gentiles accountable for their actions, (their conscience now accusing now defending them) this is not universally applicable to every Gentile. Why? because the Greek does not use the definite article "the Gentiles" but "Gentiles". :scholar: That is, among the Gentiles there are some who show a greater sense of moral values - right and wrong. :scratch:

Now I appreciate Stott not wanting to ascribe a working moral compass to every gentile. This is patently not the case, nor is it what Paul teaches either! Conscience like natural revelation is not a reliable guide but it is sufficient to hold us accountable and show a general principle at work in us. When we go against conscience it becomes "seared" (1 Timothy 4:12) and silenced. Paul's point is not that it is a true moral compass for the gentile, always pointing True North but that we are all born with a conscience and rather than refine it, realigning it to True North (as opposed to magnetic north)we go against conscience and this makes us who have no Torah accountable.

Paul is not a surgeon suggesting a remedy for the gentile, rather he is a pathologist dispassionately showing the progress of the disease.

Getting back to the greek definite article or rather the lack thereof, which was my point in posting. Romans 3:9 "...both Jew and Gentile..." compasses every gentile and jew in it's scope yet it would appear to lack the definite article does it not? So John Stott's observation is wrong in the context and wrong in the particular? :agree:

Am I right?:judge: ]]> NT Epistles Eoghan http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/romans-2-15-stotts-commentary-failure-use-definite-article-54574/