Deborah_

Judaism is famous for its dietary laws. The basis of these is a list of the animals that the Israelites could and could not eat (Leviticus 11) - although there are many other rules as well. Much ingenuity and speculation has gone into working out the possible reasons why certain animals were ‘off the menu’. Why are lamb and beef OK, but not pork or rabbit? And although most of us would turn our noses up at ‘creepy-crawlies’ of any kind, why make an exception for locusts? Most commentaries lay stress on the possible health benefits of avoiding certain kinds of meat, but I think these are somewhat overstated. It’s true that pork and shellfish are well-known sources of parasites, but some of the ‘clean’ animals are almost as bad (you can get tapeworm from beef and salmonella from chickens). So that can’t be the explanation. In all probability, the distinctions between the ‘clean’ and the ‘unclean’ are purely arbitrary. God had called a nation out from the rest of the world to be his special people - and they needed help to maintain their distinctive identity. Dietary differences make for clear cultural boundaries; these food laws have helped the Jewish people to maintain their racial and cultural identity for over 3000 years. Under the new covenant, however, they have become irrelevant (Colossians 2:16,17). Christians have other ways of being distinctive from the surrounding culture. So what we put into our mouths no longer has any spiritual implications (Mark 7:18,19) - or does it? Unless we are at or near starvation level, what we eat and drink has significance above and beyond mere nutrition. We care enormously about our food: what goes into it, how it was grown, how animals are slaughtered (or whether we should eat animals at all). How many of us use moral criteria when compiling our shopping lists? We look for the labels that identify ‘free range’, ‘organic’, or ‘fair trade’`… and we also have to bear in mind the many individuals with food allergies (real or imaginary) and the vegetarians. Suddenly the kosher restrictions don’t look so restrictive after all… Whatever the reasons for our choices, we can easily become obsessive about them. We can forget that other people are free to make different choices (Romans 14:5,6) - and that those with coeliac disease or serious food allergies don’t have a choice. But the bottom line is this: “whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (I Corinthians 10:31).

I try to obey the two great commandments (Mark 12:28-31): "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." (Deuteronomy 6:5) and "Love your neighbour as yourself." (Leviticus 19:18) These two are, in effect, a summary of the Ten Commandments. Now I believe that the Ten Commandments are still in force, but how we put some of them into practice may look slightly different in the 21st century (idols are not what they used to be, respect for parents is expressed very differently in different cultures, and personally I don't think that one's sabbath HAS to be on Saturday). https://deborahsbiblestudies.wordpress.com/the-ten-commandments/ Once you go beyond the Ten Commandments, things get a lot more untidy. Some of the Old Testament laws are firmly endorsed in the New Testament (those concerning sexual behaviour, for example). Others are expressly set aside (such as the food laws). We are not under the Law and we don't have to keep every single rule; but we do need to understand the underlying principles in order to live holy lives in our own time and culture.

It probably shouldn't be regarded as a complete Christian theology - even for the second century. The full doctrine of the trinity wasn't worked out until the beginning of the fourth century.

Probably because he is better known as Silas. There is a footnote (the [a]) to say that the Greek actually says Silvanos. The rules for articles differ from language to language. We just wouldn't say ' in God Father' in English; so 'the' has to be added to make the translation grammatical. Just as we have to add indefinite articles (because Greek doesn't have them). What do you mean by the extra 'the Lord'? It's in the Greek text: Paulos, and Silouanos, and Timotheos, unto the ecclesia of Thessalonikians, in God, Father, and Lord Yeshua Anointed: Grace unto you, and peace from God, Father of us, and of Yeshua Anointed. Paulos/ Paul {3972 N-NSM} and {2532 CONJ} Silouanos/ Silvanus {4610 N-NSM} and {2532 CONJ} Timotheos/ Timothy {5095 N-NSM} unto the [one] {3588 T-DSF} unto an ecclesia {1577 N-DSF} of Thessalonikians/ of Thessalonians {2331 N-GPM} in {1722 PREP} unto God {2316 N-DSM} unto Father {3962 N-DSM} and {2532 CONJ} unto Lord {2962 N-DSM} unto Yeshua/ unto Jesus {2424 N-DSM} unto Anointed/ unto Christ {5547 N-DSM} a grace {5485 N-NSF} unto you {1473 P-2DP} and {2532 CONJ} a peace {1515 N-NSF} from {0575 PREP} of God {2316 N-GSM} of Father {3962 N-GSM} of us {1473 P-1GP} and {2532 CONJ} of Lord {2962 N-GSM} of Yeshua/ of Jesus {2424 N-GSM} of Anointed/ of Christ {5547 N-GSM}

Most significant individuals in Scripture are identified not only by their name but also by their genealogy. This was especially important with regard to the priests, because their ancestry was their main qualification for the priesthood. Aaron's genealogy is given to us several times! But Melchizedek is just 'dropped' into the story in Genesis 14 with no explanation. He appears as if from nowhere, and disappears again just as completely. And he is given no genealogy. The writer of Hebrews considers these omissions to be highly significant.

I never heard that before about the King James Bible. Could you elaborate more on this? The English name James means supplanter. That's because it's the English version of the Hebrew name Jacob - the man who 'supplanted' his older brother Esau

Jesus could (and often did) heal at a distance (e.g. Luke 7:1-10; John 4:46-54; Luke 17:11-19). But He didn't always do this. There were also many occasions when He made physical contact with the sick person, usually by simply touching them or by laying His hands on them (e.g. Mark 7:31-37; Luke 4:40). Using a physical medium, such as putting mud on the eyes of the man born blind, helped the sick person to respond in faith (in this instance, by actually going to a particular place to wash the mud off). Jesus knew, of course, exactly when such 'extra help' was required. I think the point about 'work' on the Sabbath provoking the Pharisees is also a good one. The two explanations aren't mutually exclusive; God likes 'killing two birds with one stone'.

I sympathise with your predicament. As Shiloh has suggested, you can look at the websites of all the churches in your area. That will give you a pretty good idea at least of the ones you want to avoid. But unless you meet some other Christians whom you 'gel' with and go along to their church, there is really no alternative to 'shopping around'. You won't know what it's like unless you go. Even the denominational label can sometimes be misleading.

Jesus is described (in older Bible translations) as the ‘only-begotten’ Son of God (John 1:18; 3:18), not because He was the product of conception and birth but because He is God’s Son by nature – whereas we are sons of God by adoption (John 1:12,13). Creation is distinct from fatherhood; what God ‘begets’ is God (just as horses ‘beget’ horses and humans ‘beget’ humans), whereas what God creates (angels, planets, people, etc) is not God. The ‘only-begotten’ Son, then, has the same divine nature as the Father; He must be God to the same extent that the Father is. The other important aspect of the word ‘only-begotten’ is what it implies about the closeness of the relationship between the Father and the Son. (This is why modern versions generally translate it as ‘one and only’) The Father loves the Son (John 3:35) as intensely as a human father loves his only son (Genesis 22:2), and the Son loves the Father in return (John 14:31). They are so close, indeed, that they are almost inseparable: they think and act as one (John 10:30).

I believe that most of what we dream is not 'caused' by any outside agency, and does not have a special meaning. There are definitely some exceptions (the dreams of Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar, for example). So yes, God can speak to us through dreams - there are several occasions in the first two chapters of Matthews gospel (Joseph and the Magi). But it's never happened to me. My dreams are just the result of my brain stringing random thoughts and images together. So nobody was necessarily 'responsible' for the dream of Pilate's wife. Have you ever read the book 'Who moved the stone?', by Frank Morrison? He suggests (very plausibly) that the high priest went to consult with Pilate just before having Jesus arrested. Pilate talked to his wife about it late that night, and she therefore had a dream on the subject in the early hours of that morning. But I don't suppose anyone will ever actually know.

The word "all' is often used in a hyperbolic sense, especially in narrative passages. It isn't quite the same as a newspaper report where the casualties have been accurately counted. If we were being pedantic, we would say, 'a very high proportion of' the livestock of the Egyptians died. But such minute accuracy would soon get very tiresome when telling a story.