Results 1 - 20 of 33
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Mandy33319 Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Meat eating after the flood? | Not Specified | Mandy33319 | 49084 | ||
If this has been asked before, forgive me (tried to look for it in "Search"), but here's the gist: Concerning the status of the ark animals--before the flood, no animal or human ate meat. Correct? But after the flood, meat eating was introduced. But a couple of problems: a) it takes a special kind of intestines and stomach for meat b) and if meat-eaters were eating meat, what would that do to the "eatees", who wouldn't have had too much time to reproduce, it would seem... In other words, a biological problem, along with a logistical problem. Going around and around with this in our family, so finally resorting to a little extra opinions. Hope some of you can help...thanks. | ||||||
2 | How did the Trinity concept come to be? | Not Specified | Mandy33319 | 49454 | ||
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? | ||||||
3 | 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..." |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||
5 | 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 |
||||||
6 | 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 |
||||||
7 | 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 |
||||||
8 | 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 |
||||||
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 | 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. | ||||||
11 | 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?? |
||||||
12 | Meat eating after the flood? | Genesis | Mandy33319 | 49085 | ||
If this has been asked before, forgive me (tried to look for it in "Search"), but here's the gist: Concerning the status of the ark animals--before the flood, no animal or human ate meat. Correct? But after the flood, meat eating was introduced. But a couple of problems: a) it takes a special kind of intestines and stomach for meat b) and if meat-eaters were eating meat, what would that do to the "eatees", who wouldn't have had too much time to reproduce, it would seem... In other words, a biological problem, along with a logistical problem. Going around and around with this in our family, so finally resorting to a little extra opinions. Hope some of you can help...thanks. | ||||||
13 | Meat eating after the flood? | Genesis | Mandy33319 | 49103 | ||
Thank you very much for the website. However, the short "audio" didn't seem to address our questions at all. But thanks, anyway... :) | ||||||
14 | Meat eating after the flood? | Genesis | Mandy33319 | 49112 | ||
Maybe my two teenagers will get on another topic soon. The "ark" seems to generate many more questions than answers, and answers supplied seem woefully inadequate. I hadn't thought much about any of it before, but these rascals are sticking my nose in it. The surprising thing is that their questions make sense, the answers don't. Where did I go wrong? :) ...just kidding... | ||||||
15 | 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." |
||||||
16 | 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 |
||||||
17 | 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 |
||||||
18 | 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 |
||||||
19 | 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 |
||||||
20 | 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: |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |