Results 1 - 20 of 33
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Mandy33319 Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52909 | ||
. | ||||||
2 | was paul married? | NT general Archive 1 | Mandy33319 | 52883 | ||
Apparently you didn't note the last two words I said in the note: "Who knows?? |
||||||
3 | was paul married? | NT general Archive 1 | Mandy33319 | 52882 | ||
Hank, I can name them. Would you read them? Then your comments would have some traction. | ||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52876 | ||
Part Three: She said they said: 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. He said: 12. Yep, they made sure that he fulfilled all those prophecies, in spite of people still living who could easily refute their claims, and they would be imprisoned, endure torture, even die to defend what they knew to be a lie. Makes perfect sense. She said: At last we agree! It does make “perfect sense”. Now, I hope you don’t “assume” I’m serious about us agreeing. But I digress. First, do you know who might have been still living? Whom do you think would have been there to “refute” after 50, 60, 100 years after the crucifixion? And a lot of so-called scholars would put those years at an even farther distance. Who would have had access to the material? Was the printing press invented yet? I don’t think so. Would any, or most, of any possible people still living, have been able to read? In GreeK? Don’t bet on it. And certainly no Book of the Month Clubs or newspaper best-seller lists would be in the mailings. Your refutation scenario would be a very, very long shot. Second: why do you think the Gospel writers would have been imprisoned, tortured, or put to death? How large of an institution do you think the early Christian movement was? How greatly did it influence society? How greatly did the Romans fear the early Christians? There were plenty of other Jewish problems for the Romans, and they had little to do with a fledging religion. Mark, Matthew, and Luke risked all the dire straits you mentioned? Hardly. Third: these writers probably believed what they were writing. Or, at least enough of it, to want to gather in the sporadic, loose, and evasive “Oral Tradition” stories and make them intelligible. It was Luke, I think, who said he was writing his Book, in order to “Set the record straight.” Perhaps there was fear, but I hope you’ve noted that in the Gospels, Jesus says to always give Caesar his due. Paul, also, stated that idea, over and over. No fools, they. She said they said: 13. Only Luke has Jesus show his hands and feet. John has Jesus show his hands and side, but not his feet. He said: 13. Tell your friends, "So what?" It makes no difference. If I gave you twenty dollars and my mother 50 dollars, would you be wrong if you wrote, "Joe gave me twenty dollars"? In other words, what they are trying to do is argue from silence. She said: And this silence is deafening! And creates questions--many, many questions. That’s fair, isn’t it? Speculation is kosher, isn’t it? Did not Mark and Matthew know about the importance of the puncture wounds? Did they not know about the OT prophecies? Three of them missed the sword in the side. Puzzling, isn’t it? Even more puzzling are the early writers like Paul, Peter and John. Why wouldn’t they think to mention the fact that Jesus had been baptized by John the Baptist; or, about the virginity of Mary; even something about Bethlehem, Nazareth and Galilee; specific miracles and healings that Jesus performed; Pontius Pilate; Calvary? And lots more. Did they not know? Were they not the closest to Jesus in His own time? But, guess what? SILENCE. The people closest to Jesus are unwilling or incapable of telling a straightforward story of Him and his life. Who better to know all the missing details that plague us modern believers? Forget about the Four Gospels (which should have been placed after the epistles, since they were written some years afterward) and read the epistles. Pretend the Four Gospels don’t exist. You should be struck by the total lack of any kind of description of a human life of a man named Jesus. It’s almost as if Paul and the others don’t really know there had been a living, breathing physical Jesus. And if that SILENCE were not silent enough, think about the silence of that day’s writers. This silence roars! Nobody seemed to have picked up on Jesus as a subject of media interest. Strange? Yes, at best. Miracle after miracle, raising dead people, healing the incurable, casting out demons, and nobody thinks he’s worth mentioning in the history of the times? Now, that’s odd. And it gets worse: At Jesus’ death the world goes black for 6 or so hours (or was it 3?), graveyards break open and later these once dead people march into Jerusalem and kibitz about the weather and the prices of camels? And no one writes about it? All this has to wait at least 50 to 100 years? And no questions asked? Part three: |
||||||
7 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52874 | ||
Part two: She said they said: 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. He said: 8. Jesus' own people rejected him (John 1:11; John 18:38-40; Acts 2:36) She said: Maybe somebody should remind John about the throngs of people who attended the miracle sessions, who came to be healed from all over the land. Where was John when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on the donkey’s colt, when Jesus’ entrance almost caused a riot, when he was hailed as the KING OF JEWS? Maybe John was on vacation, who knows? True, Jesus’ own people who were Pharisees, hated him, but certainly not the laymen. As far as Acts 2:36, did Peter literally mean each and every person in the whole country? Or, would we know that his comments were directed at the leadership, the Pharisses, the powers that be? Again, the vast majority of people would have had no reasons to despise Jesus. She said they said: 9. They have given me other "prophecies" that they say are taken out of context. Example: Matthew 22: 14--15. And Matthew 2:23 He said: 9. What do they mean that prophecies are "taken out of context"? How is Matthew 22:14-15 a prophecy at all? She said: Oops. A typo. It should have been Matthew 2: 14-15 instead of 22: 14-15. “Get up and flee to Egypt with the baby and his mother,” the angel said, “and stay there until I tell you to return, for King Herod is going to try and kill the child.” That same night he left for Egypt with Mary and the baby, and stayed there until King Herod’s death. THIS FULFILLED THE PROPHET’S PREDICTION, “I HAVE CALLED MY SON FROM EGYPT.” According to my friends, Hosea 11: 1-3 is the verse that is the prediction. “When Israel was a child I loved him as a son and brought him out of Egypt.” But then, when the rest of the context is viewed, problems arise as to its prophecy status: “But the more I called to him, the more he rebelled, sacrificing to Baal and burning incense to idols. I trained him from infancy, I taught him to walk, I held him in my arms. But he doesn’t know or even care that it was I who raised him.” Why did Matthew reach back and choose this one? None of the other Gospel writers noted it. It’s so far out of context, that it’s almost weird. Then, the other example given by the friends was Matthew 2:23, which compounded his problem with prophecy. According to the same informants, this “prediction” has no applicable base in the OT. She said they said: 10. The speaker appears to have been saved by God, but Jesus was not spared. He said: 10. Jesus was raised from the dead, glorified. Death did not hold Him. Just as Psalm 2 says, God did not let his Holy One see decay. She said: Yes, but how many hop, skips and jumps are allowed from chapter to chapter, verse to verse, stanza to stanza? If that kind of coverage is engaged in, there would be all kinds of connections. But, what would happen, also, would be all kinds of disconnections. The pro AND the con sides would have a field day. And “raised from the dead” is somewhat after the fact, the fact being that when Jesus was beseeching God for help, God didn’t help. Some mixed signals, to be sure. She said they said: 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. He said: 11. Your pals need to go back and read the Garden of Gethsemane passages more carefully. And they need a lesson in the distinction between persons of the Trinity. Jesus was not talking to Himself there. She said: Do you understand the Trinity? Really? If you do, you’d be the first person I know about that really does. That would be unique, indeed. Trinity may be the real reason for the word “faith” to be a part of Christianity. (By the way, wouldn’t it be the distinction “among” persons, instead of “between” persons? Just something my “pals” are wondering about….) Part two |
||||||
8 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52873 | ||
Part ONE: She said they said: 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? He said: 4. It is pretty obvious that David was not writing about literal dogs, but that the term is a description for his pursuers. Go tell your friends what a metaphor is. She said: You have made an assumption. Of course, my friends know David was using metaphor and simile. But then, I, too, made an assumption. I assumed that it was understood that most people who read the Psalms know them to be metaphorical. It was a given, self-evident, axiomatic—but evidently not. I plan to be more careful in the future, so condescendence (acting with an air of superiority) might be avoided. She said they said: 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 He said: 5. Irrelevant to it being prophetic. Psalms are POETRY, and poetry employs figures of speech, metaphor, and other literary techniques. Saying that "you lay me in the dust of death" does not necessarily mean that he was laid in literal dust. Did your opponents in this debate ever take high-school English. Knowing our educational system as an insider, I am afraid that they just may have... She said: What is now irrelevant is that the friends did “not” know about metaphor. Clearly that was my faulty assumption that the reader of these questions would understand. As for my opponents ever taking “high-school” English, they are wondering why you chose to place a hyphen between high and school. Also, they are curious as to why, when you apparently have asked a question, you chose not to use a question mark at the end of the sentence. Finally, they observe that you end your last sentence with three periods, when four are necessary for proper grammar. She said they said: 6. There is no "hammer and nail" connection. He said: 6. Not necessary for it to be a prophecy. Many prophetic Psalms, including some Messianic ones, describe a current situtaion (in this case, that of David) as well as have a future implication as well. Again, this is a poetic prophecy, not a play-by-play to the last detail of all that is going to happen on the day it predicts. She said: Then, it is perfectly correct that a prophecy be supported by a sentence, whether or not it’s in or out of context? And “implication” is acceptable? Of course, implication is a far cry from being definitive. In fact, if a prophecy is to be supported, or proved, by implication only, then no wonder prophecies are controversial. No wonder it takes a biblical scholar, an expert, a spirit-laden reader to really understand the import of a sentence or idea, no matter the context. We lay believers have little chance, since we must depend on the interpretative abilities of others. (By the way, my assumption is that “situataion” is a typo) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- She said they said: 7. The piercing could have been caused by bites of the various metaphors and similes of animals. He said: 7. I hope someone else wrote this sentence, because the sentence itself makes no sense. Bitten by metaphors? Okay... She said: No, that “someone” was I, guilty as charged. Although I do agree it is written awkwardly, it's not a far intellectual reach to understand the premise, i.e., that if the animals are metaphors, then their bites would be metaphorical, also. (Just wonder if your question couldn’t have been asked in ten other, kinder ways, without the condescending, three-period-instead-four “Okay…” Part one |
||||||
9 | was paul married? | NT general Archive 1 | Mandy33319 | 52872 | ||
Hello, You won't like this answer, but there is an article and book that makes a circumstantial case that Paul was gay. Never married, not fond of women, urged others to adopt his lifestyle, and according to The Living Bible, personally circumsised Timothy, when Timothy was a young man. But who knows? |
||||||
10 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Not Specified | Mandy33319 | 52804 | ||
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 |
||||||
11 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52818 | ||
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 |
||||||
12 | Does Psalms 22 stand up to the skeptics? | Ps 22:16 | Mandy33319 | 52810 | ||
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 |
||||||
13 | 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 |
||||||
14 | Why is killing enimies in the OT okay? | Bible general Archive 1 | Mandy33319 | 49960 | ||
Ok, Steve: Perhaps you've said it best: "The challenge is to see a loving God in the midst of the carnage. Finally, it becomes a choice..." A choice? Yes, there we are in agreement. I have gone over all those Books and verses that I've listed, several times--seeking. As I have approached other Christians about them, I find that very few Christians are really aware of the volume, really aware of the magnitude. Search and ask as I may, I can find no "value" reasons for the consistent orders to "kill everything in sight", including millions and millions of babies, children and women. As you suggest, though, it is a choice. My choice is to keep my jury out, hopeful that I, too, someday may see what you state you see "in the midst of all the carnage". PS: last response on this topic, and last message to post on the forum. Thank you for your insights. Mandy |
||||||
15 | Why is killing enimies in the OT okay? | Bible general Archive 1 | Mandy33319 | 49941 | ||
Dear Steve: You wrote: "Notice that God did not demand the vow from Jephthah. It was his own idea..." But one might ask why or how he came up with that idea? It seemed natural. And then one might ask, why did God allow the event to happen? Abraham's poised knife was stayed in a previous sacrifice episode. It is an interesting scenario. You wrote: while I am "entitled" to my opinion, my opinion is without "standard or value." And that my comments are "loaded" with value judgments with no trace of "values". I trust that you realize that I could say the same thing--that your opinion about my opinions, are loaded with value judgments, etc. But I would say okay, I think, since how else can we view anything? Let's try this one: Numbers 16: 33-36 Paraphrasing: a man was caught gathering wood on the Sabbath day. He was arrested and taken before Moses and other judges. They put him in jail until they could find out what the Lord wanted to do with him. The Lord told Moses, "This man must die--all people shall stone him to death outside the camp. So, he was taken outside the camp and killed as the Lord had commanded." So, what kind of a "value" judgment is appropriate? None? ---------------------------------- You ask: what are my values? where do they come from? How do you know they're right? My values come from my faith in a loving and just God. My values come from my family who taught me (among other things) that the word "wonder" is a noun AND a verb. I was taught to be in WONDER (be in awe) of the mysterious and profound Creator of it all. But also, not to be afraid to wonder (the verb). To wonder is to ask. To ask is to attempt to understand. I value that very highly. -------------------- You wrote: my suggestion about "jumping" over the line is just testimony to the truth of the passages I cited earlier. Of course, that's your opinion. No problem. But until and unless, one is willing to sift through all the passage examples that I have previously listed, to see what they may or may not indicate, then what's the point? Based upon your values, do you have a position on the execution of the wood gatherer? WONDER and wonder :) Mandy |
||||||
16 | Why is killing enimies in the OT okay? | Bible general Archive 1 | Mandy33319 | 49923 | ||
And Greetings, Steve: You ask: What was my "favorite" story, the name of the "leader"? In Judges 11: 30 through 39 "Meanwhile Jephthah had vowed to the Lord that if God would help Israel conquer the Ammonites, then when he returned home in peace, the first person coming out of his house to meet him would be sacrificed as a burnt offering to the Lord! So Jephthah led his army against the Ammonites, and the Lord gave him the victory. He destroyed the Ammonites with a terrible slaughter all the way from Aroer to Minnith, including twenty cities, and as far away as Vineyard Meadow. ....when Jephthah returned home, his daughter--his only child--ran out to meet him, playing on a tambourine and dancing for joy. When he saw her he tore his clothes in anguish. Long story short, she was given a couple of months reprieve to play with her friend in the surrounding hills, but when she returned, Jephthah sacrificed her as a "burnt offering" to God, just as he had vowed to do. ------------------------------- Then you ask: who defines "wanton"? "You?" Well, that was an adjective that came to mind. "Heinous" might be another. Consider this episode (one of a multitude): Numbers 31: verses 14 through 41 Paraphrasing--Moses greets his returning army officers and battalion leaders, and is very angry with them. They had let "all" the women live. Moses instructs the officers to kill all the boys and the women who have had sexual intercourse, but save the "little girls" and keep them for "themselves". To me, that's fairly "wanton" and yes, "heinous", also. In many of the Books and verses that I listed, is the same sort of admoniton or direction/order by God, to "slaughter" "completely" all inhabitants of a city or country, including the babies. Over and over and over. --------------------------------- As for "borderline insanity", maybe it's not even border line? Especially if one tries to justify this kind of carnage, he has "jumped" over the line.... Mandy |
||||||
17 | Why is killing enimies in the OT okay? | Bible general Archive 1 | Mandy33319 | 49904 | ||
Concerning the OT killing: it is categorically incorrect that Canaan in the book of Joshua is the only examples of wanton killing and the sanction of said acts. My personal favorite is when the leader vows to God if God would make him victorious, when he came back he would kill the first person he saw. And that just happened to be his daughter.....(and, I know, I'm banned forever from this borderline insanity that permeates studybibleforum.. :) GE 34:13-29 GE 6:11-17, 7:11-24 GE 19:26 GE 38:9 EX 2:12 Moses murders an Egyptian. EX 7:1, 14, 9:14-16, 10:1-2, 11:7 EX 9:22-25 EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt. EX 17:13 EX 21:20-21 EX 32:27 EX 32:27-29 LE 26:7-8 LE 26:22 LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 LE 27:29 Human sacrifice is condoned. (Note: An example is given in JG 11:30-39) NU 11:33. NU 15:32-36 NU 16:27-33 NU 16:35 NU 16:49 NU 21:3 NU 21:6 NU 21:35 NU 25:4 (KJV) NU 25:8 NU 25:9 24,000 people die in a plague from the Lord. NU 31:9 NU 31:17-18 NU 31:31-40 DT 2:33-34 DT 3:6 DT 7:2 DT 20:13-14 DT 20:16 DT 21:10-13 JS 1:1-9, 18. JS 6:21-27 JS 7:19-26 JS 8:22-25 JS 10:10-27 JS 10:28 JS 10:30 JS 10:32-33 JS 10:34-35 JS 10:36-37 JS 10:38-39 JS 10:40 JS 11:6 JS 11:8-15 JS 11:20 JS 11:21-23. JG 1:4 JG 1:6 JG 1:8 JG 1:17. JG 3:29 JG 3:31 JG 4:21 JG 7:19-25 JG 8:15-21 JG 9:5 JG 9:45 JG 9:53-54 JG 11:29-39 JG 14:19 JG 15:15 JG 16:21. JG 16:27-30 JG 18:27 JG 19:22-29 JG 20:43-48 JG 21:10-12 1SA 4:10 1SA 5:6-9 1SA 6:19 1SA 7:7-11 1SA 11:11 1SA 14:31 1SA 15:3, 7-8 1SA 15:33 1SA 18:7 1SA 18:27 1SA 30:17 2SA 2:23 2SA 3:30 2SA 4:7-8 2SA 4:12 2SA 5:25 2SA 6:2-23 2SA 8:1-18 2SA 8:4 2SA 8:5 2SA 8:6, 14 2SA 8:132SA 10:18 2SA 11:14-27 2SA 12:1, 19 2SA 13:1-15 2SA 13:28-29 2SA 18:6 -7 2SA 18:15 2SA 20:10-12 2SA 24:15 1KI 2:24-25 1KI 2:29-34 1KI 2:46 1KI 13:15-24 1KI 20:29-30. 2KI 1:10-12 2KI 2:23-24 2KI 5:272KI 6:18-19 2KI 6:29 2KI 9:24 2KI 9:27 2KI 9:30-372KI 10:7 2KI 10:14 2KI 10:17 " 2KI 10:19-27. 2KI 11:1 2KI 14:5, 7 2KI 15:3-5 2KI 15:16 2KI 19:35 1CH 20:3 (KJV) 2CH 13:17 2CH 21:4 PS 137:9 PS 144:1. IS 13:15 IS 13:18 IS 14:21-22 JE 16:4 LA 4:9-10 EZ 6:12-13 EZ 9:4-6 EZ 20:26 EZ 21:3-4 EZ 23:25, 47 HO 13:16 |
||||||
18 | What about those who buried Jesus? | Num 19:11 | Mandy33319 | 49898 | ||
John 19: 39--40 "Nicodemus, the man who had come to Jesus at night, came too, bringing a hundred pounds of embalming ointment made from myrrh and aloes. Together (with Joseph of Arimathea), they wrapped Jusus' body in a long linen cloth saturated with the spices, as is the Jewish custom of burial." |
||||||
19 | 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". |
||||||
20 | What's the "real" purpose of "tongues"? | Not Specified | Mandy33319 | 49641 | ||
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..." |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |