Results 21 - 40 of 44
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Jaknik Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Where did Jesus call Simon and Andrew? | John 1:35 | Jaknik | 48736 | ||
Dear Mr. Moran: No "contradictions" in the angel visitations in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, as they apply to Mary and Joseph? And no "contradictions" in all the Gospels as they describe the death, burial, resurrection, number of angels, who saw what where, earthquakes, etc? These are descriptions of the same events but those descriptions are markedly different. |
||||||
22 | Where did Jesus call Simon and Andrew? | John 1:35 | Jaknik | 48747 | ||
Matthew 28: describes an earthquake, one angel coming down, rolling away the stone and sitting on it, speaks to the guards and the women..." Mark 16: women come to tomb, stone is already moved, inside the tomb is the angel (note: no guards or earthquake mentioned. To you, just an omitted "detail"?) Luke 24: huge stone is already rolled aside when the women arrive...inside, no angel yet, but then TWO angels suddenly appear... John 20: describes one woman, Mary, arriving at the tomb, the stone already rolled away. No angel or angels here at this time. Instead, Mary goes to get Peter and John. Then Peter and John go home, and Mary returns to the tomb, looks in and there are now TWO angels who talk to her.... ---------------------- As someone once said: "...the devil is in the details..." Was there an earthquake? Were there two angels, or just one? Were the guards there, too, being spoken to by the angels? How many women were there? Was Peter there? Was John there? The only version that puts John and Peter there is John...and John was certainly available or known when Mark, Matthew and Luke were written...or should have been...should these "details" be dismissed? If so, why should they? At the very simplest, if you were trying to prove a case in a court, this kind of "detailing" would derail your client in a heartbeat. Shouldn't we expect a tighter narrative? Is this the way an air-tight house should be built? Or, is the risk a "house of cards"? Again, when dealing with something as important as a "belief" and "faith", sophistry and speciousness should not be allowed. |
||||||
23 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48687 | ||
In the Book of Matthew, as Jesus expires on the cross, it is stated that there is a great earthquake that causes a great many of the nearby tombs to open and the previously dead people come back to life, even going into Jerusalem where they mingle with the inhabitants. Is this to be believed? And if so, why did not the other three Book--Mark, Luke, and John--say something about this extraordinary occurrence? | ||||||
24 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48692 | ||
I'm not sure that this answer addresses the question: "Did dead people come out of their graves and go into Jerusalem and mingle with the townspeople? Is that truly believable? Or, is that embellishment? If something like that were truly to happen, then I don't think anyone would be in a "questioning" posture. It is this kind of "stretch" that creates the questions. Also, there are a great many variations of the same events, some very puzzling. Example: the perfume on the head and/or feet of Jesus. This event is in all the gospels but with different twists, including different participants. Is a reader to assume that it is actually four different times that someone poured perfume on Jesus's head or feet? |
||||||
25 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48706 | ||
There are "lots" of discrepancies in the Four Gospels, too. Because of them, it's hard to figure out just what is the "true account". For example: the perfume over the head/feet. Are these four different happenings? Or, are they four embellishments? Lots more of this type of thing that requires some careful reading..... | ||||||
26 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48742 | ||
One could make the case that it is not Independency that is central, but simply each writer writing for a different audience for different circumstances. For example, assuming that Mark was the first gospel written, it is clearly bareboned. Much is left out or not explained fully. Also, Mark was not a Jew, and clearly is not that well versed in the OT. Matthew apparently notes these ommisions. And Matthew is a Jew, unlike Mark, and sees the necessity of addressing more directly his own Jewish brethren, in order to keep them aboard for the new changes. Ditto for Luke, who is probably not a Jew, but now sees the expansion going full tilt out into the gentile communities. Thus his changes, enhancements, embellishments are geared for the non-Jewish. The most "independent" of all the Books is JOHN. John sees the need to redirect the current emphasis and thought of the 2nd Coming, that was believed by the New Christians to be imminent. The only problem with that was that Jesus never came back when expected. And that's where John tries to divert or change this belief, by explaining that the REAL 2nd Coming was that of the Holy Spirit being sent after Jesus ascended to heaven. So, in many ways, the writings of the four gospels were progressions that were propelled by the governing realities and changing dynamics of the various time periods. And of course, they weren't the only versions, but simply the versions kept by the two councils who voted them in, during the latter part of the 4th century AD (or thereabouts)... One has to wonder why the councils did not deem it more appropriate to "edit" these four in some fashion, to make them more compatible. At least, to agree on some basic tenets, such as the number of "angels" at the tomb, etc.... |
||||||
27 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48751 | ||
You're engaging is "sophistry"... | ||||||
28 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48755 | ||
Contradiction: a) to assert the opposite of b) to deny the statement of c) to be contrary to; be inconsistent with Obviously our "problem" is under the umbrella statement: "...the meaning you get out of something, depends upon what you bring to that something..." Think about that. Here's an example: In Matthew, John the Baptist baptizes Jesus, knows who he is, witnesses the dove, hears the voice from above declaring Jesus as the Son. But then, when John is thrust in prison, and hears about the miracles that Jesus is doing, sends some of is disciples to ask Jesus if it's really true, that he is the real Son. Hmmmm....no questions here? Nothing of interest? Is there a non-sophistical answer to clear this up? Not to "explain" it away, but to CLEAR it up. That should be fair... |
||||||
29 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48765 | ||
That would be a mighty big "doubt" for John the Baptist to have, especially when he is Elijah the prophet (according to Jesus). 1. John (was) Elijah 2. John knew who Jesus was 3. John baptizes Jesus 4. John witnesses the dove 5. John hears the voice from heaven And you suggest that John STILL would have doubts? Most folks would look at the above and not arrive at your conclusion at all. Be honest. Isn't is puzzling that the alleged prophet Elijah would not know the score? And not know, especially after the direct confrontation he had with Jesus, the dove, and the voice? It stretches credulity to suggest otherwise..... |
||||||
30 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48773 | ||
Well, Joe, it's always back to basics: you can believe anything/everything you wish, but believing anything/everything you wish, does not make anything/everything true. You wish to believe in Balaam's talking donkey? Okay, so believe. But so what? You wish to believe that Jesus walked on water? Okay, but so what? In fact, the walking on water episode creates a good question: Jesus is striving to convince people (Jewish only) that he is the Messiah. What's the problem? All he had do to was to walk on (run on) the water in front of those he wanted to convince. Easy enough. Put me in the audience, let me see Jesus, from start to finish, walk out into the lake, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, things like that didn't happen, of course. The walk on water was for the disciples only. So, your stance would be that it is not legitimate to ask questions? To analyse? To want to know more? Again, in church sermon after church sermon, I have heard the admonition: "It is not our job to question, to wonder, to muse, to doubt. Our job is to BELIEVE!" That may be acceptable to a lot of folks, but not to all. In fact, by asking questions, by wondering with the brain God gave us, sometimes faith can be strengthed--or at least the whole understood better.... |
||||||
31 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48776 | ||
John 14: 25 "I am telling you these things now while I am still with you. But when the Father sends the Comforter instead of me--and by the Comforter I mean the Holy Spirit John 16: 5 thru 24 |
||||||
32 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48779 | ||
It may be "..human and beievable" but still raises questions. Nothing wrong with taking stock, sitting back, and saying. "...hmmmm, let's check this out, make sure the t's are crossed, the i's dotted. But in this case, I still say if I, personally had been in John's sandals, and I knew beforehand that Jesus was definitely the Messiah, I saw the dove from heaven alight, and a big booming voice from heaven, I would have NO DOUBTS. And, it is my opinion, that all of that would have been enough for most people.... | ||||||
33 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48781 | ||
Your "note": John the Baptist was not Elijah, himself... Matthew 11:14 "...if you are willing to understand what I mean, he (John) is Elijah.... This from Jesus to his disciples. How else can this be construed? |
||||||
34 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48785 | ||
At this time period in the New Church's history, many of the Jewish converts were returning to the old Jewish religion. One of the main causes for this defection was that they had believed the @nd Coming was to occur in their lifetimes, as suggested in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. This was a problem that had to be dealt with, one of the ways was that John tried to inject the notion that the 2nd Coming had, indeed, occurred via the arrival of the Holy Ghost.... | ||||||
35 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48786 | ||
No, you're wrong. I have no interest in proving the Bible wrong or right. In fact, that isn't even an issue. If a person believes it's right, nothing I may say will change that. Same for a person who doubts, or believes it wrong. Nothing I say will change him, either. In fact, here's the real deal. I am currently in research for a book I am writing, and a character in the book will be asking some questions. Why? Well, because he's just back from experiencing other parts of the world, and now back in Jerusalem (or Rome) and has been engaged to help JOHN write his BOOK. Much of this will be a discussion between him and John..... |
||||||
36 | jaknik, are you a Christian? | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48792 | ||
You bet, Hank. A very responsible Christian, one who is not afraid to delve, probe, ask, challenge. And I might add, a Christian who does not believe in "house of cards". If you or your fellow forum folks do, then they do. I have never been afraid of any challenges to my beliefs. And by the way: same question that I've posed before--if people truly want to learn, study, enhance, and understand their own beliefs and faith, then no question should be off limits. My supreme example would be that of Jesus Christ, or for that matter, Paul. Both of them asked plenty of questions, challenged many of the established views, etc. Thank God, they did.... If you feel uncomfortable concerning questions and legitimate "problems", then you should ask yourself "why?" I, too, have read through some of the threads, and noted that some individuals (especially one) wishes to "control" what others think and say. That's too bad because a whole lot of learning could go by the wayside. Do I believe "exactly" the way you do? Probably not. Or the way others do? Maybe, maybe not. But how can anyone learn, improve, understand unless the exchange of ideas are allowed? By your question and tone, you wish me off this list? No problem. |
||||||
37 | jaknik, are you a Christian? | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48802 | ||
Number 1: not trying to "impress" anyone Number 2: I think you give far too little credit to the younger folks. Just turned 60 but I, too, was once young. I remember being invigorated by "questions". But your position only exposes your belief (instinctive, maybe) that you are intellectually situated in a house of cards.... Number 3: I did not know that this site was totally a "fundamentalist" oriented one, with no room for any kind of dissenting or questioning opinions. No "..agree to disagree..." allowed. Number 4: Will bow to the will of Reformer Joe and you, and research elsewhere. Didn't mean to "scare" anyone... |
||||||
38 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48808 | ||
Tim, you might want to look at Matthew 27: verses 51, 52, 53 | ||||||
39 | Is "slavery" condemned in the Bible? | Gal 3:28 | Jaknik | 48774 | ||
Is there any condemnation of slavery in the Bible? By God? By Jesus? Paul? Peter? Others? These verses seem to support "slavery": Exodus 21...22 Book of Philenmon Titus 2: 9 1 Timothy 6:1 Colossians 3:22 Ephesians 6:5 |
||||||
40 | Is "slavery" condemned in the Bible? | Gal 3:28 | Jaknik | 48783 | ||
Well, Joe, I did not know that questions and/or questioning were not allowed. I suggest that you suggest my termination to Mr. Lockman. If he thinks anything I've said is untoward, then that is his right. I'm not sure why questions would upset you, especially if they're done in a polite manner? I certainly hope that there are good, decent minds available anywhere, especially in the Christian communities, that welcome real attempts at Bible study. If not, then what would be the reason for "study"? Sorry, you are offended...didn't mean to.... | ||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 3 ] Next > Last [3] >> |