Results 1 - 20 of 33
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: schimc Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Is the Virgin Birth of Jesus a myth? | Not Specified | schimc | 107894 | ||
Is the Virgin Birth of Jesus a myth? I have recently been investigating the point of view that Matthew made up the story concerning the virgin birth due to his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14 meaning young women instead of a real virgin. This and the investigation of this issue has really shaken my faith. I hold on to my belief because I have no where else to turn. But just the same, this discovery is startling. |
||||||
2 | Was John the Baptist really Elijah? | Not Specified | schimc | 108586 | ||
What is this piece of scripture trying to tell us....I don't get it. Matthew 11: 14-15 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15He who has ears, let him hear. |
||||||
3 | Physical or Spiritual Resurrection | Not Specified | schimc | 113304 | ||
I am still looking for scripture, preferably many different versus, where it unequivocally refers to the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. I have gotten an answer where it speaks of it once, but not multiple times. I have been told, and it makes since to me, that when it is only included one place in the scripture, it isn't as trustworthy as it is when it speaks several times of an event. Again, my brother is the root of the question, he is convinced that the physical resurrection portion was added to the text. My thought process is, if it is included several times in the scripture, then it becomes more difficult to except this belief. Your help would be greatly appreciated. |
||||||
4 | Rebutals for alledged contradictions | Not Specified | schimc | 141328 | ||
I need to find a comprehensive book or Internet site that rebuttals the alleged contradictions of the resurrection account. I've found bits and pieces but surely there is something that covers them all. | ||||||
5 | Did Mary Magdalene see the risen Christ | Not Specified | schimc | 141653 | ||
Did Mary Magdalene see the risen Christ on her first trip to and from the tomb? It seems like some versions are saying yes and some are leading you to believe no. |
||||||
6 | Other Religions Just As Good As CHRISTAN | Bible general Archive 2 | schimc | 108703 | ||
No objections from here | ||||||
7 | Was John the Baptist really Elijah? | Matthew | schimc | 108590 | ||
What is this piece of scripture trying to tell us....I don't get it. Matthew 11: 14-15 14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15He who has ears, let him hear. |
||||||
8 | Still more questions | Matthew | schimc | 108610 | ||
Ok...That is a start, but how do you know it is saying that. Can you expand on that? By the grace of God Schimc |
||||||
9 | Was John the Baptist really Elijah? | Matthew | schimc | 108696 | ||
ok, i think i get it. Thanks a bunch! schimc |
||||||
10 | Why believe in the physical Ressurection | Matthew | schimc | 109225 | ||
Why Believe? This question is about the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. I've heard a bunch of apologetics material before and have found some of it useful. I realize it will boil down to a matter of faith, which I have by the way, but when dealing with others it becomes unsettling. For instance, if you look at the biblical accounts of the resurrection they do not even agree on some pretty basic stuff. Was Mary Magdalene alone when she visited the tomb, etc etc. This is some pretty serious material, the Bible cannot be the word of God if it is full of discrepancies. The Human element of the author had to come into play. Any help would not only be greatly appreciated, but I believe it will help evangelize the lost. I can't argue certain points when I know the bible does not agree with itself in some pretty critical places. Namely, the resurrection account of the four authors of the Bible. in Christ Schimc |
||||||
11 | Why believe in the physical Ressurection | Matthew | schimc | 109228 | ||
Ok, then you are agreeing that the author took human privileges when writing the account. And as far as the account goes, it was not exactly inspired by God. Doesn't that open up quite a bit of the gospel for interpretation? This is not to confuse or argue, this is however, extremely important information when trying to convert the lost. Wouldn't you agree? in Christ Schimc |
||||||
12 | Inspired by God? | Matthew | schimc | 109363 | ||
Before you jump to conclusions, please do not think that I am someone in here trying to make trouble. I have serious questions regarding some of the text in the New Testament. I want and do believe in the bodily resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ! But (I believe) there may be problems with the text that will cause problems when trying to evangelize the lost, unless we (we/I) am able to resolve some issues with the resurrection accounts. First: mommapbs and others wrote me the following. 2 Tim 3:16 - All Scripture is inspired by God - note the word ALL, not some. I do not see at all where this would apply to the New Testament, even though I want (and do myself) believe the new Testament is inspired by God, this verse must be applied to the "Old Testament". The New Testament was not even something the author would consider as Scripture, yet. Please re-read the Resurrection account of these four crucial witness accounts, or second hand witnesses or third and fourth hand witnesses as in case of say Luke or Mark. Matthew 28 Mark 16 Luke 24 John 20 Read the accounts and answer these questions Was Mary alone when she went to the tomb on the first trip? Were there soldiers there when she went on the first trip? Who were the people that were with her on the first trip? Are these four men all in agreement on this? How many angels did she see on this first trip? Did she see any angels at all on this first trip? Are these four men all in agreement on this? Did Mary Magdalene see the risen Christ on her first trip to and from the tomb? Are these four men all in agreement on this? In what area of Palestine did Jesus first appear to the eleven? Are these four men all in agreement on this? What about this curious statement in Luke 24:34? You have the two men from the Emmaus experience who are fuzzy witnesses at best of what they think they saw or didn't see or wasn't allowed to see by supernatural means, and now they are telling the eleven that Jesus has appeared to Simon! Can't you see Simon's look of astonishment as he says "He did? That's news to me? Or, the other 10 looking at Simon and saying "why did you keep that VERY important information from us? Why did we have to hear from these two guys with the bad eyes that you have already seen the risen Christ? And Peter is just standing there with a sheepish grin "I was going to tell you, but I wanted it to be a surprise" It's an odd statement. It doesn't belong in the story. It doesn't belong in any of the stories. There are people who will say that Luke probably never wrote that. They will say it was probably added, very clumsily of course, and more than likely to prove that Peter, the first Pope, was also the first person to see the risen Christ. Isn't that strange? Luke never mentions that the risen Christ was witnessed by Mary Magdalene. Somebody has to come in and marry all of these texts together and by doing so they are going to have to make some major jumps to declare that they are all Divinely inspired and the Word of God. I have an appointment with my minister tomorrow to discuss some of these same issues. I'm more concerned with knowing what I am talking about when evangelizing the lost at this point, than with resolving these issues for myself, but I would like to resolve them as much as possible, in any event. In Christ Schimc |
||||||
13 | Problems with the Resurrection Accounts? | Matthew | schimc | 109406 | ||
Thank you Tim, and I can agree with you on both of these accounts, better than that, I believe it is something that can be used in defense of the arguments, but let's go on from there. I'm hoping to get beat on these other points as well. Getting beat is probably the wrong choice of words, but never the less, I hope there is something in defense of the other arguments. I have found a few other problems on my own that I did not even write about, but these other issues are still out there. Thank you very much for your response. p.s. I'm sorry I left the Mary Magdelene portion as part of my question. I do feel like you had already answered it. in Chirst Schimc |
||||||
14 | Inspired by God? | Matthew | schimc | 109409 | ||
Thanks again Tim, by brother who originated these arguments will probably not agree with your last assessment, and I'm not sure I do either. It still doesn't fit. But the rest of your arguments are excellent. And I can be left with the last problem (the Peter account) as something to be left on the shelf for now and not dealt with. I will, however, do some more studying on that issue, as well as the others. You have made my day! p.s. In my previous question I said there were other arguments that I did not write about. What I should have said is that there were other questions my brother had, that we had already agreed were not problems at all. He was thinking that Matthew was saying that Mary Magdelene witnessed the stone being removed from the tomb. But we already have cleared that up. I'm not exactly sure what is going on with my brother, but I do know that he has got me going as well. Not that I have lost faith, but I have been shaken on some issues since a couple of weeks before Christmas. By the grace of God and people like yourself. I'm getting by on track. It has been a great experience and blessing. I hope the Holy Spirit guides my brother back as well. Thanks again! in Christ Schimc |
||||||
15 | Problems with the Resurrection Accounts? | Matthew | schimc | 109428 | ||
I am in total agreement with everything you have said here. in Christ Schimc |
||||||
16 | Inspired by God? | Matthew | schimc | 109887 | ||
I do not think I responded to you earlier, but I must say that I was elated to read your response. I was certainly fooled into believe that it read the other way around. I just wanted to say thanks. You made my week! In Christ Schimc |
||||||
17 | Physical or Spiritual Resurrection? | Matthew | schimc | 112917 | ||
Anyone know how many places in the bible, it speaks of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ. I am having another discussion with my brother who is convinced the places in the bible that refers to the physical ressurrection are mythological, or referring to the spiritual resurrection. Help Schimc |
||||||
18 | Is the Virgin Birth of Jesus a myth? | Matt 1:19 | schimc | 107898 | ||
Is the Virgin Birth of Jesus a myth? I have recently been investigating the point of view that Matthew made up the story concerning the virgin birth due to his misunderstanding of Isaiah 7:14 meaning young women instead of a real virgin. This and the investigation of this issue has really shaken my faith. I hold on to my belief because I have no where else to turn. But just the same, this discovery is startling. |
||||||
19 | Why wasn't Jesus named Immanuel? | Matt 1:19 | schimc | 107944 | ||
Thanks for responding but I still have a question. Isaiah 7:14. As you know, this relates to King Ahaz regarding the fate of the two kings threatening Judah at that time and the fate of Judah itself. In the orginal hebrew, the verse says that a "young woman" will give brith, not a "virgin" which is an entirely different Hebrew word. It would seem that a case could be made that Mathew may have blundered the prophesy. Jesus triumphant entry into Jerusalem: In Matthew 21:1-7. In Mark, and Luke, Jesus is riding on a donkey. In Matthew, two animals are mentioned in three of the verses, so this cannot be explained away as a copying error. And Matthew has Jesus riding on both animals at the same time, for verse 7 literally says, "on them he sat.". Why does Matthew have Jesus riding on two donkeys at the same time? Because he could have misread Zechariah 9:9 which reads in part, "mounted on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." It starts to get scary because the word translated "and" in this passage does not indicate another animal but is used in the sense of "even" for emphasis. It would not be a problem if Mark and Luke did not explicity use the singular donkey. Luke 19: 28-32. It starts to make a great case for the skeptic that Matthew was in error. I am in serious trouble trying to reconcile the problems with the virgin birth story. Any help will be greatly appreciated. by the grace of God Schimc |
||||||
20 | Virgin Birth Myth | Matt 1:19 | schimc | 108004 | ||
Thank you very much EdB, I'm so very glad I came here for some answers. I've read the "Letters from a Skeptic" and, although it is a very good book, it overlooked the "Virgin Birth" story altogether, which further made me wonder about the story again. I will be sure and read the book you have suggested. Thank you |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |