Results 21 - 33 of 33
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Mandy33319 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
21 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52878 | ||
Part four: She said they said: 14. There is some proof that feet were never nailed, but the legs were tied to a buttress apparatus He said: 14. Such as? She said: According to one of my “pals”, this contraption can be found on the web, a picture of Jesus as he might have been crucified. I haven’t seen it yet. But who knows? There is a common belief that Jesus carried his cross. But a lot of scholars discount that, and say that what was actually carried was the crossbeam. The poles were usually in place, and once the condemned reached the site, the crossbeam was attached. Just the crossbeam was estimated to have weighed about 100 pounds, so that would make sense. But, any proof, for sure? No. Personally I don’t see how anyone could carry a 100 pounds very far, much less the whole enchilada. She said they said: 15. Normally, it took forever to die from crucifixion; Jesus died really fast. He said: 15. The Hebrew Masoretic text is actually from the 9th century. While most extant Hebrew texts do have the different wording, it is hard to conclude what was actually there in the autographs. Some Hebrew texts have "pierced" just like our Bible does, and the Septuagint has the hands and feet "pierced" as well. In any case, we cannot be certain that the Masoretic text is the correct rendering in this case. She said: I guess you’re referring to question 16? The response sure doesn’t seem to correspond to 15. She said they said: 16. If the Hebrew Masoretic translation is accurate, why do other translations deviate? He said: 15. The Hebrew Masoretic text is actually from the 9th century. While most extant Hebrew texts do have the different wording, it is hard to conclude what was actually there in the autographs. Some Hebrew texts have "pierced" just like our Bible does, and the Septuagint has the hands and feet "pierced" as well. In any case, we cannot be certain that the Masoretic text is the correct rendering in this case. She said: This answer is greatly appreciated. It is informative, not argumentative. Great! She said they said: 17. Who was at the cross as witnesses? No one seems to know. Only John puts anyone close to the scene He said: 17. Well, if John puts himself there, then John seems to know, doesn't he? She said: Apparently. But the operative word is “seems”. In his prior writings, before the Book of John, he didn’t seem to know much at all. The closer he was to the lifetime of Jesus, the less he seemed to know. But that’s been covered. Let’s grant that John was at the foot of the cross, along with Mary, the mother of Jesus, so close that he and Jesus conversed. Why is this granted? The answer is because John says so. Instant question would be why on earth didn’t the other writers mention this? Instead they either said all had fled and were in hiding, or some of the women were standing a far distance from the cross. Mary is NOT at the cross, according to Mark, Matthew and Luke. And please don’t engage in the weak argument that just because one writer didn’t mention it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. That wears extremely thin in its simplicity. John also puts himself at the tomb. And John also has more words from Jesus, spoken in more form and manner, than any of the writers. Did Jesus say all that John attributed to Him; after 60 years or more? So, how does anyone know that what John says is true? “And we all know that my account of these things is accurate.” We do? Part four |
||||||
22 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52879 | ||
Last part: Joe said, in summation: Your fellow debaters are really amateurs who do not know how to read literature very well at all, much less the Bible. If they are looking for reasons to rebel against God, they will always find them, no matter how feeble they may be. She said, in summation: Odd, that I could have written the above for you. How’d I know you’d end it with the condescending you began with? You “assume” they (and I?) are looking for reasons to “rebel” against God. That kind of assumption assumes that there is a God, your god specifically. Bad assumption. My “pals” as you call them, might inquire, “Which God?” The one who tells the pope what to do and say? Is that the one? The one (Allah) who the Muslims say is Great? The Jewish God, you know, the God who is still waiting for his own Messiah to come? The Hindu deity? Then, there is the God of the Mormons? Can you be more specific? The God of the Jehovah Witnesses; there’s a good one. Church of Christ? Not much room in heaven for those two, is there? Or, is it the God of the Old Testament? Have you read that horror story, lately? What kind of monster resides there? I hope that isn’t the God you think I’m rebelling against. I wouldn’t even try and recognize that kind of creature. How about a little Christian Science God? I wouldn’t worry about being sick. Maybe the God of Benny Hinn? But I need to practice my buckling backward instead of forward, as is normal. Gods, Gods, Gods, everywhere! Which God to choose? But it’s hard to shop when THEY can’t be seen, when no one has ever seen, heard, touched, smelled a God. But I’m not ready for any kind of controlled insanity and never will be. As for the “feeble” reasons always to be found, you neglect the “Superman” reasons that you don’t have to find. They find you. No matter how much you deny, avert, disguise, lie to yourself, your mind knows better. Go back and look at the Gods. Do you think they’re ALL real? Do you think that just yours—whatever that is—is real? The biggest, and most absurd, lie that you keep telling yourself is that the Bible is “God-breathed”, “infallible”. And this without the investigation of its history; without the investigation of how it came to be. How many on this forum know about the pagan religions that surrounded Christianity and what Christianity absorbed from them? Mithra, Persian God of the 5th-century B.C., was the God of Light and Wisdom. He aided human souls to heaven after death; he was born on December 25, and his birth was the result of a miracle; shepherds worshipped at his birth; his rites included baptism and a sacred meal; and he was to raise the dead and judge humankind at the end of the world. Doesn't this have a familiar ring to it? The End |
||||||
23 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52909 | ||
. | ||||||
24 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | John | Mandy33319 | 52807 | ||
Hi all, have a current "hot" debate going with some friends, and decided to come back and glean some thinking from the "fine" minds on the forum. :) This concerns Psalms 22, and its use as prophecy. All along, I've always been taught, and believed, that Psalms 22 was the strongest of all prophecies for one main reason: 16 "...they have pierced my hands and feet." Now, I'm not so sure. Here's some of the observations of those I've been discussing this matter with: 1. The New American Bible says: "So wasted are my hands and feet." 2. The New Revise Standard Version says: "My hands and feet have shriveled." 3. The Jewish Masoretic says: "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." 4. In most of the other translations, it is unclear who does the piercing--the dogs or evil men who have the speaker encircled. If dogs, then biting would have done it. If men, then with what? Swords, knives, spears? 5. It seems apparent that the speaker is on the ground, either prone or at best, in a crouching defensive position. Nothing suggests that the speaker is up a tree, on a cross, etc. 6. There is no "hammer and nail" connection. 7. The piercing could have been caused by bites of the various metaphors and similes of animals. 8. It's a sentence taken out of context since the speaker is also said to have been despised by his own people, as well as by all mankind. This wouldn't fit Jesus, since he was only hated by the Pharisees. The Romans were basically neutral; Jesus own people adored him; and the rest of the world didn't even know he existed. 9. They have given me other "prophecies" that they say are taken out of context. Example: Matthew 22: 14--15. And Matthew 2:23 10. The speaker appears to have been saved by God, but Jesus was not spared. 11. It would make no sense for Jesus to beg to be spared, to be asking Himself to save Himself; and especially in light of the foreknowledge that he must die, in order for the Salvation plan to work. 12. That what appears to happen is that the Gospel writers wrote their books with an OT blueprint. They knew what Jesus was supposed to fulfill so they made sure he did. 13. Only Luke has Jesus show his hands and feet. John has Jesus show his hands and side, but not his feet. 14. There is some proof that feet were never nailed, but the legs were tied to a buttress apparatus. 15. Normally, it took forever to die from cruxifixion; Jesus died really fast. 16. If the Hebrew Masoretic translation is accurate, why do other translations deviate? 17. Who was at the cross as witnesses? No one seems to know. Only John puts anyone close to the scene. ------------------------------- I'm sure they're going to come up with more ideas, but if anyone can refute some of the above, it would help. Thanks, Mandy |
||||||
25 | How did the Trinity concept come to be? | Acts | Mandy33319 | 49458 | ||
Just a thought or two about the Trinity, even though some suggest it's "old" stuff on the forum: correct this if it's wrong, but wasn't the concept of Trinity "voted" upon by the Church in the 3rd or 4th Century AD? And there was a lot of controversy, some people may have died, some were imprisoned, some exiled? | ||||||
26 | Holy Spirit, holy spirit, or both? | 1 Corinthians | Mandy33319 | 49541 | ||
Does anyone find it interesting that most, if not all, of the "I Am's", are from the Book of John? That bears some thinking about, perhaps. But here's some more from John, other than those cited by "Pastor Paul": John 14:2, In my Father's house, there are many mansions.... John 14: 10...I am in the Father and the Father is in me. The words I say are not my own but are from my Father who lives in me. And he does his work through me. (Very difficult to get "I Am" from the above..) John 14: 15-16: If you love me, obey me; and I will ask the Father and he will give you another Comforter John 14: 23 ...The Father will love them too, and (we) will come to them and live with them... John 14: 24... I am not making up this answer to your question! It is the answer given by the Father who sent me... John 14: 26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name...' John 14: 28 ...for now I can go the Father... John 15: 9 ...I have loved you even as the Father has loved me... John 15: 26 ...But I will send you the Comforter--the Holy Ghost, the source of all truth. He will come to you from the Father and will tell you all about me... -------------------- If Jesus's intent is to tell the disciples that they're standing before GOD, then it is an awfully awkward way to do it. And of course, there is more, tons, in fact. All of this might cause a person to think about "I AM" a heap more. Is Jesus, by saying "I AM", merely emphasizing his relationship? "I AM" of the Godly, part of the family, perhaps, is all he's conveying. I guess it depends upon just exactly what a person wants it all to mean, or what someone else has told him it means. It really shouldn't be this difficult, should it? :) |
||||||
27 | Holy Spirit, holy spirit, or both? | 1 Corinthians | Mandy33319 | 49547 | ||
Huh????? | ||||||
28 | Why not Brothers? | 1 Cor 11:3 | Mandy33319 | 49798 | ||
You wrote: "Very weak Trinitarian scholars tell people to take it (The Trinity) on faith." No, no matter what, it's faith, pure and simple. If ALL were demonstrably true, then faith would not be necessary. No need for "faith" at all. But that is simply not the case or and/or the reality. "Faith" is the cornerstone, the heart and soul, of any and all religions. I find it difficult to understand why many are so uncomfortable with "faith". |
||||||
29 | What's the "real" purpose of "tongues"? | 1 Cor 14:22 | Mandy33319 | 49647 | ||
What is the "real" purpose of speaking in tongues? In Acts 2: 4 thru 11, tongues are described as known languages. Paul, in Cor 14, isn't exactly a fan of this practice. The way I read what Paul is saying is that he actually discourages it. For instance,...in verse 27: "...someone must be ready to interpret what they are saying. 28: "...but if no one is present who can interpret, they must not speak out loud. They must speak silently to themselves and to God but not publicly.." And perhaps this is even more of an example that Paul is not a fan: Cor 14: 23 "...Therefore, if an unbeliever, or someone who doesn't have these abilities, comes to church and hears you speaking in tongues, he is likely to think you are crazy. 24..."But if you are prophesying when such a person comes in, what you say will convince him that he is a sinner, and his conscience will be judged by everything he hears..." |
||||||
30 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Mandy33319 | 49501 | ||
"Fate and Predestination": so, it is possible that a person could be fated (doomed) to be predestined for hell, and not be able to do a thing about it? If God has a person predestined for hell, then he's going to hell, no matter what? | ||||||
31 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Mandy33319 | 49512 | ||
"...those not predestined for salvation will never want what it takes to be justified before a holy and just God..." (What someone on the forum said) Is there something directly in the Bible that states or agrees with this? Is this saying that God has made a list of those who will not/cannot come to him? Pardon the naivety but unless this is supported clearly somewhere in the Bible, then it is clearly just one of those utterances that seem to abound, concerning the plans and thinking of God. I'd certainly like to read this IN the Bible. |
||||||
32 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Mandy33319 | 49525 | ||
Concerning "Fate and Predestination": One last observance. After reading, then rereading the posts on this subject, it is fair to say that nothing is very clear. Was it just me, I kept wondering? Why couldn't I "get it", why couldn't I see the "sense" of it. Then I came across this quotation from Thomas Jefferson: "The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and preeminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained." Finally! Something that made sense.... |
||||||
33 | catholic and protestant salvation view | Eph 4:3 | Mandy33319 | 49528 | ||
"Fate, Predestination, and Deism": It was said: "...since he (Jefferson) believed that God created the universe and left it to run on its own..." Actually, Jefferson would not have been so specific as to say "God", but more like "Something" did the creating. And probably would not have gone too much further. Certainly not a "revealed religionist". But along with Jefferson, the other Founding Fathers such as Thomas Paine, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Adams, James Madison, Ethan Allen were not exactly Christians but more in line with deism or the unitarian view. I wonder why? Some sterling minds, there, wouldn't you say? And I have no problems with the statement: "...that nonsense can never be explained." After reading the posts here, the myriad questions and ideas, I am convinced he was on to something. At a minimum, a "revealed religion" should provide an ANSWER instead of questions, each of which seem to have unlimited answers, and most often, those answers simply spawning more and more questions, with more and more answers, and on it goes, and goes, and goes.... Oh well, time to surf! One thing for certain: "gobbledegook" is always a waste....(no mas for me) Mandy :) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 1 2 ] |