Bible Questions

[+Paranoid Android]

I would agree that some are of ignorance but then there are some that are almost impossible to reconcile. When was Jesus Crucified? The third hour in Mark or the six hour in John?

Hi hairston, this is a new one to me. I remember someone else mentioning this on another forum to which I belong and I double checked the passage. Mark is the only one of the four gospels to mention when Jesus was first crucified (the 3rd hour). Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that there was darkness on the land from the sixth to ninth hour (which happened after Jesus was nailed to the cross), and that Jesus died at the ninth hour. John does not specify a time for Jesus' crucifixion at all (only the details that it happened), so I cannot see how this could possibly contradict.

Could you show me the passage which shows the difference?

Did both theives revile Christ in matthew and mark? or did only one in Luke?

I don't think this is necessarily a contradiction. Perhaps Matthew and Mark did not witness the second thieves confession, or perhaps they felt that for the sake of brevity (they only had limited parchment remember) that they would omit the thieves confession of Christ - omission does not imply contradiction.

. How many women went to the sepulchar? was it 1 in John or was it more than one in Matthew?.

Probably many, but John may have only been aware of one (having not been among the women who went in the first place). Just because John was not aware of more than one does not mean that he was wrong.

Was it sunrise when the two women went to the tomb as in Mark or was it still dark when only Mary Magdalene went as in Matthew?

The Matthew account actually states "Very early in the morning, while it was still dark". But the fact that it was morning meant that the sun was coming up ("while it was still dark" would not be total darkness, for the Jews did not consider it morning until the sun started to rise, so therefore it cannot be total blackness). Again, I don't necessarily see a contradiction here.

Were there 2 angels seen at the tomb in Luke or were there 1 angel sitting down in Mark?. How many angels were in this sepulchar?. Was it 2 as in John or 1 as in Mark?

Probably 2. Just because an account doesn't mention a second angel does not mean there was not one. In both accounts only one of the angels spoke, so the author might have simply included the important angel (the one who spoke).

*Imagine if you bump into two friends in the street and have a conversation. Imagine the next day if someone asks you what you did, you might mention that you bumped into your friend Barry, because he was the one telling you a story that you found funny. But to someone else you might say you bumped into Barry and Ross, because you wanted to provide a more accurate account. Does the omission of Ross in the first account mean there is a contradiction? Or more likely that you just chose to tell what part of the story was important (the conversation with Barry).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for sharing, I do see what you mean, but each of these are easily explainable as simply different points of view of the same incident. There is nothing inherent in what is there to suggest taht there is something blatantly contradictory. Indeed, with eye-witness accounts of an event, you would likely get small differences such as this, especially when the writers only had limited parchment to write it on

Just a few thoughts to consider.

~ PA

[+Paranoid Android]

so , does God repent ?

It depends. An underlying theme of this word translated as "repent" is the concept of changing your mind. In Numbers 23 then, the way you look at Repenting is in the context of God not being one to change his mind. In Exodus, God did indeed sorrow for his actions, but he did not change his mind. that's the way i read it, at least.

and if all goes according to God's plan . that God is all knowing and powerful . that God is perfect and

Isaiah 45:7:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things

this would mean God made sin to serve Gods perfect purpose - hence no sin. all happens according to Gods will.

The word translated as "evil" is not appropriate to this context. The word has heavy overtones of disaster and calamity. Looking at the words before this, the passage says "I create light and dark", and then "I make peace and ra‛ râ‛âh". Evil is not the most appropriate translation, but rather disaster. It would fit in with the theme of opposites set out in this passage (in fact, very few translations today use the word "evil", the vast majority of them translate it something along the lines of "calamity", which most agree is much more appropriate).

That said, while I do not believe this passage supports a God who created evil, the Bible is clear that God is in control of all things, including the evil. But there is a difference between God being in control of actions and God endorsing those actions. God is in complete control. But God hates sin. That makes perfect sense to me.

or isn't God perfect. ?

and God , being perfect , could never feel jealous. that roots from fear. insecurity. Being a perfect God God would know there is nothing to jealous of since all Goes according to Gods will. that is if you believe God is perfect.

For a creator who owns all that we are, he has the right to be jealous when we go our own ways and against God. God's jealousy seems to be a common point of discussion in recent days, but what has struck me is that so many people are happy to attribute Jealousy as an emotion a perfect God would never feel, but they never question why the same perfect God would feel Love. Why? What is different about Love and Jealousy, and why would God feel one but not the other? Why is one of those emotions a "godly" emotion, and the other a mere "human" one. As I mentioned in the point above, There is a difference in God being in control and God condoning or endorsing something. God is quite within his rights to be Jealous of HIS creation. But this has been done to death in the other thread, so I'll stop there......

[kjaye]

This is a tough question because the Bible is not absolutely clear on the answer. My opinion is based on the way that the Bible describes the two sacrifices given by Cain and Abel. In chapter 4 of Genesis, it describes Cain's sacrifices as: "In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD". (verse 3). In contrast, verse 4 shows, "But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The difference in descriptions is telling, as Cain's sacrifice was not really a sacrifice. he simply brought "some of the fruits", whereas Abel brought the best that he had - FAT portions of the FIRSTBORN.

As I see it, Abel's sacrifice was truly a sacrifice. Cain's was not - it appears he just gave the leftovers, the second-best. In other words, when thinking of his produce, Cain did not put God first.

That said, this is just my opinion based on the wording of the text. There is no actual verse stating exactly why God accepted one but not the other. Assuming then that my interpretation is incorrect, I cannot give you a fallback option beyond the "I don't know" response. I can't give you answers to biblical questions when they are not given in the Bible. This seems the most likely interpretation as I see it, and beyond this, I simply do not know.

Hopefully this helps you with your answer. All teh best,

~ Paranoid Android

Actually you have rather missed the point concerning the significance of sacrifice. It's also not hard to explain but one of the most fundamental foundational statements in the Bible.

Adam's sin seperated man from God, and that sin had to be punished. The punishment for sin was and still is death. When approaching God a sacrifice was essential because the death of the animal represented the death of the man offering the sacrifice. The blood of the animals took the place of the blood of sinful man. This was what God throughout the entire Old Testament was so dogmatic about.

He repeatedly instituted and reinstituted the necessity of the blood sacrifice in order man to approach God. It was first presented with Cain and Abel, then Noah, then Abraham and finally through Moses to the entire Jewish nation. It was so drum into them through the practise of ritual the fact that they were seperated from God and that their sinful blood must be shed as punishment for sins. As God wanted to reconcile us to Himself, he substituted the deaths of animals to die in our place. But this form of sacrifice was only ever a temporary arrangement. God's long term plan was to send His own Son to die as the ultimate sacrificial offering for mankind and through whom's sacrifice we can all be saved.

Now to all those who confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour he acts as our permenant and eternal sacrficial offering to God, the Scape Goat who died once for sins so that all of us who believe may have life.

The significane of the blood sacrifice cannot be understated. It is crucial to understanding the Old Testament and Jesus's redemptive mission.

It is also one of the most powerful facts of ancient history that all the ancient religions around the world practised the ritual of blood sacrifice to atone for their sins or to appease angry Gods.

This idea of sacrifice can only be understood and explained within the context of the Bible and is one of the most astonishing facts of ancient history. It is a universally accepted and practiced form of religious ritual whose origins are only explained in the Bible.

When man built the Tower of Babel, they all dwelt in once place. God then confounded their languages which resulted in them dispersing around the whole world. They took their memories of their previous form of religion, pyramids and towers, serpent worship, priests, sacrifice etc and rebuilt cities in Asia, the Americas and Europe all following the same old rituals.

That's why all these civilisations all sprung up at once with the same religious ideas all over the world. It's one of the most powerful evidences for Biblical history but is largely ignored because so few people understand it.

[+Paranoid Android]

Why, if Brother Jesus said, That none is good but the Father, do some christians believe Jesus is God?

Do they think he was talking about himself?

Or maybe that He meant none is Good but The father and Myself?

What do you think He Meant.

Iam one with My Father also, but I am not good like Father is while incarnate.

Darn Body and it's Ego, constantly messin my perfect love up.

Love Omnaka

The passage in which Jesus says "Why do you call me good" does not finish with "No one is good but the Father", but rather finishes "No one is good but God alone". There is no distinction between the Father and the Son in this passage. It then becomes a matter of whether you think Jesus was God's Son or not, and whether Jesus is God. Hope that helps

[+Paranoid Android]

Interesting, thanks. Following on from this, why do no Christians abide by this command in the current day and age? What makes it less important then other commands in the bible?

Old Covenant. These laws were written at a time when the Israelite nation was first entering the Promised Land. God told Israel that they would be different to the other nations, were to keep themselves separate and distinct from them. He then instituted a series of laws that would ensure this. Since the Israelite nation no longer exists in the sense that it did then, this early law no longer applies directly. This goes for all the laws in that section of the Bible.

Some of the laws have been reiterated at other points in teh Bible, by other writers, and if so, they still apply, but these specific laws I do not think they are a requirement for salvation.

That said, I can understand the argument that people might use to say that we should indeed keep those specific laws. There is a strong argument to suggest that they are correct. if they are correct, then when I find myself before God I will of course apologise most humbly and repent (promising to turn away and do those things). The law itself is not a law that will condemn me to a life without God. there is no indication that not doing this will condemn me. God won't like me living this way if i am wrong, but I will not be forsaken because if I do find out I'm wrong, I would apologise with sadness that I have misunderstood my God.

Hope that helps with your response

[+Paranoid Android]

Actually you have rather missed the point concerning the significance of sacrifice. It's also not hard to explain but one of the most fundamental foundational statements in the Bible.

*snip for brevity*

The significane of the blood sacrifice cannot be understated. It is crucial to understanding the Old Testament and Jesus's redemptive mission.

*snip for brevity*

Hi kjaye, forgive me for saying, but that response had nothing to do with my answer. You did do a good job at expanding on the NEED for sacrifice, but my question was responding to why God was happy with one sacrifice but not the other. Unless you were attempting to state that God was not pleased with Cain's sacrifice because his was unable to account for sin, and in which case I think that would be sad considering Cain was not a cattle-herder but a farmer of the earth. It is also worth noting that the account of Cain and Abel does not specify WHAT the sacrifices were for. There is no indication that the sacrifices were indeed used as atonements for sin, and there are other forms of sacrifices to God which did not involve animals at all.

That said, what is your opinion then on the Salt Sacrifices? These are grain offerings that have been seasoned with salt (in the form of flour, bread, etc) which were sacrificed to the Priests. For the poor who could not afford animals, God did indeed accept these Grain Offerings as atonement for sins - in other words, even in the Old Testament, for the poor there was a way to make atonements for sin without killing animals (because they could not afford animals).

Just a thought.

~ Regards, PA

Edited January 17, 2008 by Paranoid Android

[kjaye]

Hi hairston, this is a new one to me. I remember someone else mentioning this on another forum to which I belong and I double checked the passage. Mark is the only one of the four gospels to mention when Jesus was first crucified (the 3rd hour). Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that there was darkness on the land from the sixth to ninth hour (which happened after Jesus was nailed to the cross), and that Jesus died at the ninth hour. John does not specify a time for Jesus' crucifixion at all (only the details that it happened), so I cannot see how this could possibly contradict.

Could you show me the passage which shows the difference?

I don't think this is necessarily a contradiction. Perhaps Matthew and Mark did not witness the second thieves confession, or perhaps they felt that for the sake of brevity (they only had limited parchment remember) that they would omit the thieves confession of Christ - omission does not imply contradiction.

Probably many, but John may have only been aware of one (having not been among the women who went in the first place). Just because John was not aware of more than one does not mean that he was wrong.

The Matthew account actually states "Very early in the morning, while it was still dark". But the fact that it was morning meant that the sun was coming up ("while it was still dark" would not be total darkness, for the Jews did not consider it morning until the sun started to rise, so therefore it cannot be total blackness). Again, I don't necessarily see a contradiction here.

Probably 2. Just because an account doesn't mention a second angel does not mean there was not one. In both accounts only one of the angels spoke, so the author might have simply included the important angel (the one who spoke).

*Imagine if you bump into two friends in the street and have a conversation. Imagine the next day if someone asks you what you did, you might mention that you bumped into your friend Barry, because he was the one telling you a story that you found funny. But to someone else you might say you bumped into Barry and Ross, because you wanted to provide a more accurate account. Does the omission of Ross in the first account mean there is a contradiction? Or more likely that you just chose to tell what part of the story was important (the conversation with Barry).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for sharing, I do see what you mean, but each of these are easily explainable as simply different points of view of the same incident. There is nothing inherent in what is there to suggest taht there is something blatantly contradictory. Indeed, with eye-witness accounts of an event, you would likely get small differences such as this, especially when the writers only had limited parchment to write it on

Just a few thoughts to consider.

~ PA

As PA has said most of the 'apparent' contradictions are not really any such thing. Criminal lawyers who have studied the Gospels have found the eye witness accounts to be highly credible. The fact they are not all absolutely identical ADDS credibility, it doesn't take it away.

In real life if 4 people all witness the same event they will ALL have slightly different viewpoints based on their own position in the event, their own biases and emotions will cause them to focus on some areas rather than others. They may not all witness everything together but people witness different things.

When police are cross examing witnesses to a crime scene they immediately smell a rat if everybody agrees on all details. It's the little ommissions and selective focusing that marks a story as credible or not.

The Gospel accounts are highly credible in that regard.

Edited January 17, 2008 by kjaye

[kjaye]

Hi kjaye, forgive me for saying, but that response had nothing to do with my answer. You did do a good job at expanding on the NEED for sacrifice, but my question was responding to why God was happy with one sacrifice but not the other. Unless you were attempting to state that God was not pleased with Cain's sacrifice because his was unable to account for sin, and in which case I think that would be sad considering Cain was not a cattle-herder but a farmer of the earth. It is also worth noting that the account of Cain and Abel does not specify WHAT the sacrifices were for. There is no indication that the sacrifices were indeed used as atonements for sin, and there are other forms of sacrifices to God which did not involve animals at all.

That said, what is your opinion then on the Salt Sacrifices? These are grain offerings that have been seasoned with salt (in the form of flour, bread, etc) which were sacrificed to the Priests. For the poor who could not afford animals, God did indeed accept these Grain Offerings as atonement for sins - in other words, even in the Old Testament, for the poor there was a way to make atonements for sin without killing animals (because they could not afford animals).

Just a thought.

~ Regards, PA

Hey PA. You may have a point regarding the grain offerings. I guess my belief stems from the fact that this is the idea of sacrifice was featured in the Bible and that God wanted to make the point regarding the importance of blood sacrifices.

It's also fair to say that neither Cain or Abel would have been poor both having been the sons of Adam after all. It's also important to note that God's spirit at this point was still with man, it was only at the point of the flood that he decided he would withdraw communications so both Cain and Abel would have been able to communicate directly with God, at least as I understand it.

This would also mean that Cain knew full well the type of offering that was required by God but that he wilfully disobeyed putting his own ideas before God's commands.

The fact that he also then slay his brother Abel seems to me like a kind of reverse blood sacrifice, a Satanic sacrifice you might say.

His own sacrifice was rejected by God because in not sacrificing animals he was in effect saying that he had no guilt or sin to be atoned for.

Then in revenge he killed his brother, as punishment for what Cain saw to be his sins against him.

I may have read this wrong but that is how I have always interpereted this.

[Odd Christian]

as was stated, the word translated repent means to change your mind, more specificaly, to change the way you think. thus, when it says people repented, it means they stopped thinking that doing bad things is ok, and began to think that doing bad things was not ok, when used in this context, it also implies the feeling of remorse for the bad things that were done.

when Jesus said "i and my father are one" he meant that they were one in purpose, thought, and desires. Think of it like this, if a King sends his son to visit a remote part of his kingdom to deliver a message to the people, the prince is speaking on behalf of the king, so to the people, the prince and the king are the same, and to the people when speaking to the prince, it would be the same as speaking to the king.

as a second example , say you owned a business, and you sent your son to meet with and negotiate a business contract with another, the person negotiating with your son, is really negotiating with you, through your son. in this case, you and your son would be considered the same person. even though you are not. jesus also said that he did only what he saw his father do.

is God infinite? could you expand this a bit to be more specific as to what you mean by infinite, so a good answer can be given.

the angels that fell with satan are on earth, as satan is, still attempting to destroy man. satan is not able to be everywhere at once, and he uses those angels to carry out his plans through out the earth.

the angels refered to as "those who kept not there first estate" or those who took human women as wives, were bound in chains till judgement day.

[MissMelsWell]

Interesting, thanks. Following on from this, why do no Christians abide by this command in the current day and age? What makes it less important then other commands in the bible?

some christians do try to follow this command/teaching (it's somewhat difficult in this day and age though)... Amish, Brethren, Mennonite, Quakers... and a few other too. It promotes their ideas of simplicity.

[Bluefinger]

I do have a question.

How can we take any accounts of what jesus did seriously when everyone who wrote about him never even met him?

and even when they did write about it, it was quiet literally hundreds of years later.

except perhaps paul? never the less.... shaky record.

Actually, just because we don't have records of the Scriptures when they were first written, it doesn't mean it was written later. For example: The copy of the manuscript that makes account of Julius Caesar is about 800 years older than our earliest copy of the Bible. And yet no one has a problem believing in Julius Caesar and Marcus Brutus. If that manuscript had never been found, then we could as easily as said that Shakespear made the whole thing up. That goes to show that people choose to believe what the want to believe moreso than they rely on evidence. Otherwise, the New Testament writers would get more credit. Shakey society if you ask me.

[ShaunZero]

Actually, only Luke expressly states that he was an historian who didn't know Jesus. The rest indicate they are first-hand accounts of Jesus' life. This is not the same as asking proof that they did meet him (as you suggest). The accounts clearly show that the writers have made that intention that they knew and lived with jesus. You can disagree with that if you wish, I won't stop you. You can even choose to disagree with everything they say. I won't begrudge you that either. But your comment that they never knew him? There is no proof of that beyond your own opinion, whereas the claims made within the gospels themselves are proof enough that they claim they made them. Therefore the onus of proof is not on me making the extraordinary claim (having it based on textual evidence) but on you (who have based it on nothing more than your opinion).

Well, let's get more precise. Is your claim that they claim they knew Jesus in person, or is your claim that their claim is true? (A twister there, eh? Lol)

If it's the latter, then you are the one who needs to provide some proof. Sure, we know they claimed to know Jesus, but to say it's true just because they say so?

[+Paranoid Android]

The fact that he also then slay his brother Abel seems to me like a kind of reverse blood sacrifice, a Satanic sacrifice you might say.

That's an interesting hypothesis. i haven't quite thought about it that way. Reverse blood sacrifice...... could be could be. You make a compelling case. However, I still think we are jumping to conclusions on the basis that Genesis 4 does not specify what type of offering they were giving. You could be right and it was a sin-sacrifice, but there's no way to know for sure. In the absence of any textual evidence, I still think the way the Bible describes the different sacrifices given is telling. You could be right, of course. As I said originally, the Bible just doesn't say, so it's a kind of free-for-all opinions. In any case, thanks for this point of view. Reverse blood sacrifice, I'll have to think this one over.....

~ PA

[+Paranoid Android]

Well, let's get more precise. Is your claim that they claim they knew Jesus in person, or is your claim that their claim is true? (A twister there, eh? Lol)

If it's the latter, then you are the one who needs to provide some proof. Sure, we know they claimed to know Jesus, but to say it's true just because they say so?

My claim is that they claim to have known Jesus in person. It then becomes a matter of whether you trust that source to be telling the truth. And it just so happens that I do trust them to be truthful in their comments.

[+Paranoid Android]

<<>> Who was Methuselah? And what man is still alive that is 5,551 years old?........ Joey

And in all the rush of posts, this one got missed - my apologies. Methuselah was one of the people mentioned in the genealogy from Adam to Noah. He was the son of Enoch. In total he lived 969 years, fathering many children in the process. Methuselah is noteworthy for the sole purpose that he is documented as the oldest person in the Old Testament (hence the modern usage of the term to refer to an old and wise man as a "Methuselah").

Who exactly Methuselah was beyond this information given in Genesis 5 is unknown. We don't know anything about the events of his life except that he fathered many children, including Lamech who carried on the lineage to Noah. Hope that helps with your query

~ Paranoid Android

[norwood1026]

I got another one by the way this is fun!

We know that the bible was written by man & God says that man is full of sin So therefore we’re flawed.

Being that the bible is just over some 2,000 years old & that man did write it how do you know what’s in it is what God wanted? It’s say to say that the bible was inspired by God so end of story. During all that time it would be really easy for someone to mistranslated a word & slip something in there that they thought was lets says close enough. So why do people put his/her faith in a book that might not be very accurate in the first place?

BTW take your time it seem you got your work cut out for ya!

Edited January 17, 2008 by norwood1026

[hairston630]

Hi hairston, this is a new one to me. I remember someone else mentioning this on another forum to which I belong and I double checked the passage. Mark is the only one of the four gospels to mention when Jesus was first crucified (the 3rd hour). Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that there was darkness on the land from the sixth to ninth hour (which happened after Jesus was nailed to the cross), and that Jesus died at the ninth hour. John does not specify a time for Jesus' crucifixion at all (only the details that it happened), so I cannot see how this could possibly contradict.

Could you show me the passage which shows the difference?

I don't think this is necessarily a contradiction. Perhaps Matthew and Mark did not witness the second thieves confession, or perhaps they felt that for the sake of brevity (they only had limited parchment remember) that they would omit the thieves confession of Christ - omission does not imply contradiction.

Probably many, but John may have only been aware of one (having not been among the women who went in the first place). Just because John was not aware of more than one does not mean that he was wrong.

The Matthew account actually states "Very early in the morning, while it was still dark". But the fact that it was morning meant that the sun was coming up ("while it was still dark" would not be total darkness, for the Jews did not consider it morning until the sun started to rise, so therefore it cannot be total blackness). Again, I don't necessarily see a contradiction here.

Probably 2. Just because an account doesn't mention a second angel does not mean there was not one. In both accounts only one of the angels spoke, so the author might have simply included the important angel (the one who spoke).

*Imagine if you bump into two friends in the street and have a conversation. Imagine the next day if someone asks you what you did, you might mention that you bumped into your friend Barry, because he was the one telling you a story that you found funny. But to someone else you might say you bumped into Barry and Ross, because you wanted to provide a more accurate account. Does the omission of Ross in the first account mean there is a contradiction? Or more likely that you just chose to tell what part of the story was important (the conversation with Barry).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks for sharing, I do see what you mean, but each of these are easily explainable as simply different points of view of the same incident. There is nothing inherent in what is there to suggest taht there is something blatantly contradictory. Indeed, with eye-witness accounts of an event, you would likely get small differences such as this, especially when the writers only had limited parchment to write it on

Just a few thoughts to consider.

~ PA

I can agree with you on that. No arguments against your reply

Kindly,

Hairston

[Lt_Ripley]

It depends. An underlying theme of this word translated as "repent" is the concept of changing your mind. In Numbers 23 then, the way you look at Repenting is in the context of God not being one to change his mind. In Exodus, God did indeed sorrow for his actions, but he did not change his mind. that's the way i read it, at least.

The word translated as "evil" is not appropriate to this context. The word has heavy overtones of disaster and calamity. Looking at the words before this, the passage says "I create light and dark", and then "I make peace and ra‛ râ‛âh". Evil is not the most appropriate translation, but rather disaster. It would fit in with the theme of opposites set out in this passage (in fact, very few translations today use the word "evil", the vast majority of them translate it something along the lines of "calamity", which most agree is much more appropriate).

That said, while I do not believe this passage supports a God who created evil, the Bible is clear that God is in control of all things, including the evil. But there is a difference between God being in control of actions and God endorsing those actions. God is in complete control. But God hates sin. That makes perfect sense to me.

For a creator who owns all that we are, he has the right to be jealous when we go our own ways and against God. God's jealousy seems to be a common point of discussion in recent days, but what has struck me is that so many people are happy to attribute Jealousy as an emotion a perfect God would never feel, but they never question why the same perfect God would feel Love. Why? What is different about Love and Jealousy, and why would God feel one but not the other? Why is one of those emotions a "godly" emotion, and the other a mere "human" one. As I mentioned in the point above, There is a difference in God being in control and God condoning or endorsing something. God is quite within his rights to be Jealous of HIS creation. But this has been done to death in the other thread, so I'll stop there......

actually I don't think the love humans feel and the 'love' God feels is even similar. Ours has strings attached. always does.

I don't think God feels emotions. that's a human experience. humans lable God with emotion to feel closer hence making God smaller.

and yes God created and endorses 'evil' as we deem it in all respects because it is just part of life. call it what you will , satan , disaster from the mundane to the prophetic ...... all just life.

Edited January 17, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[doktorhook]

Well i guess this means you will be responding to everyone but me. I accept that & your fear of engaging me in conversation.

[Apostle]

Well i guess this means you will be responding to everyone but me. I accept that & your fear of engaging me in conversation.

Sorry for the wait. For clarification when you say, "Is God infinite?", do you mean is he all powerful? All-knowing?

Infinite in what aspect? Or just all of the above?

~Apostle

[fullywired]

Hi hairston, this is a new one to me. I remember someone else mentioning this on another forum to which I belong and I double checked the passage. Mark is the only one of the four gospels to mention when Jesus was first crucified (the 3rd hour). Matthew, Mark and Luke all record that there was darkness on the land from the sixth to ninth hour (which happened after Jesus was nailed to the cross), and that Jesus died at the ninth hour. John does not specify a time for Jesus' crucifixion at all (only the details that it happened), so I cannot see how this could possibly contradict.

Could you show me the passage which shows the difference?

I don't think this is necessarily a contradiction. Perhaps Matthew and Mark did not witness the second thieves confession, or perhaps they felt that for the sake of brevity (they only had limited parchment remember) that they would omit the thieves confession of Christ - omission does not imply contradiction.

Probably many, but John may have only been aware of one (having not been among the women who went in the first place). Just because John was not aware of more than one does not mean that he was wrong.

The Matthew account actually states "Very early in the morning, while it was still dark". But the fact that it was morning meant that the sun was coming up ("while it was still dark" would not be total darkness, for the Jews did not consider it morning until the sun started to rise, so therefore it cannot be total blackness). Again, I don't necessarily see a contradiction here.

Probably 2. Just because an account doesn't mention a second angel does not mean there was not one. In both accounts only one of the angels spoke, so the author might have simply included the important angel (the one who spoke).

*Imagine if you bump into two friends in the street and have a conversation. Imagine the next day if someone asks you what you did, you might mention that you bumped into your friend Barry, because he was the one telling you a story that you found funny. But to someone else you might say you bumped into Barry and Ross, because you wanted to provide a more accurate account. Does the omission of Ross in the first account mean there is a contradiction? Or more likely that you just chose to tell what part of the story was important (the conversation with Barry).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~ PA

My word you are being very generous with your assumptions.(short of parchment )you can do better than that PA .Mathew says it was dark but you say it wasn't.

Slipping an angei in where it wasn't mentioned ,What are you doing rewriting the gospel??

fullywired

[sandee]

Was there suppossed to be a book in the bible after revelations? If so why isn't it there, I have heard the catholic church has it, Always a pleasure

[Odd Christian]

I forgot to point out something about the dates of the gospels. The dates used are for the oldest copies of them that have been found. Several copies of different ages have been found of some of the books of the new testament, they use the oldest of these to arrive at the dates used, so there could possibly be older copies that have yet to be found.

sandee, the catholic church has alot of documents from around that time period (say 100 yrs) that they will not allow anyone access to because they claim they are heretical. personaly, I would prefer them to let some linguist in to translate them so I could read them and decide for myself. however, that will never happen.

[Zaus]

First off anything based on the english bible is already ridden with mistranslations from hebrew, secondly the english versions have been translated so many times and stuff changed and thrown out its essentially useless, and third the entire religion was just borrowed from ancient egypt.

What you have to understand here is religion was made as a means to control the populace, they ask for "faith" for a reason, and thats because if they didn't have your faith they wouldn't have anything at all. This is an age old game that i never foresee an end to.... ug... its been 6000 years already when are people going to wake the F up????

[Mademoiselle]

How did God communicate with Cain and Abel to tell them that one of their sacrifices was not good enough?

And why didn't he inspire them to do "the right thing " in the first place ?

Did He send angels , or did He speak to them ? Where was Adam and why didn't he help them out , instead of having one son kill his brother ?

And another question :

Was there ever a man/woman called israel ? Or a prophet ? Who was the first israelite ever ? And why were they called so ? Does the word mean anything ?

I know .. that's a big bunch .. but you said we may ask !!

Edited January 18, 2008 by Sama