-------------
Question (5)
My Christian friends can your God still be a God without having a Son? could he still forgive if he had no Son?
Question (6)
The Bible tells us that God regretted making Saul king (1 Samuel 15:11), but if that’s the case, doesn’t that mean God didn’t know the future? Because if he knew he was going to regret making Saul king, he would’ve never done it in the first place.
--------------------
so Christians have no problem in accepting God being CIRCUMSIED and having his private sucked during the practice being performed.
now thats BLASPHEMY!!
The words of Qarāfī, who says: ‘If (the Christians) say, “how do you (Muslims) hold onto these scriptures [i.e. the Bible] when you consider them to be unauthentic?” we reply that the prophethood of our Prophet, peace be upon him, is proven by miracles and has no need for these books. Yet, we point to what they hold as proof of his prophethood, peace be upon him, only in order to force the ahl al-kitāb, who believe in their authenticity, to accept the argument (ilzām)’ (Qarāfī, Ajwiba, p. 463).
---------
Question (1)
How can you prove that the Gospels you preach is 100% authentic and the word of God. What Evidence do you have that the gospels are genuinely true and Jesus actually spoke all those words.
In short I need you guys to prove and convince me, that the gospels are 100% word of God true to the very Text, and that they are truly inspired. I know Paul said all scriptures are Inspired, but when Paul allegedly said that, the very gospels you preach were not written down. He was referring to the Old Testament so don't try pulling that stunt..
---------------
Question (2)
How can you Christians prove that your Jesus was a true prophet and messiah? How can you prove from the Old Testament that your Jesus was not false? Where did Yahweh declare that Jesus was a true messiah ?
Show us the word messiah in the Torah referring to Jesus, and also show us the name Jesus in the Torah referring to messiah?
Show us the word messiah in the Torah referring to Jesus, and also show us the name Jesus in the Torah referring to messiah?
In short can any Christians prove that their Jesus is a true Messiah? Watch how They will struggle to answer you back. In fact they use the Quran as their defence which only shows that they have no other way out other then accepting Islamic sources. Saying that till now I haven't come across a single nasrani who has been able to answer without using Islam or on the other hand turning to insults!
Question (3)
The idea that God
can only forgive our sins, by having his son tortured and killed as a scapegoat
is surely from an object point of view a deeply unpleasant idea. If God wanted
to forgive us our sins why didn’t he just forgive them? Why did he have to torture
his so called son? God was in the position to accept any ransom he chose
presumably why on earth would he have his son tortured for the sin of something
who lived millions of year ago. Saying that if we were to use the biblical
timeline then it would be around five thousand years ago?
So Adam was
disobedient and that sin reverberated down to mankind throughout the ages is
inherited by all humans. What kind of a doctrine is that? Inherited by all
humans and had to be redeemed by the so called son of god being tortured, what
kind of a morality are you propagating there?
Question (4)
Question (4)
In
each of the canonical gospels, when the Temple guards and the Roman soldiers
come to arrest Jesus, one of the disciples pulls out a sword and cuts off a
slave’s ear. John 18:10 names the disciple as Simon Peter; the others leave him
anonymous.
Now in
any organized society, especially a Roman province with a history of having a
low flash point for violence, interfering with an arrest, especially by using a
weapon, would get you arrested as well. Yet nothing happens to Peter (or
whomever); Jesus tells him to put up his sword, in one case heals the priest’s
slave’s ear, and they all go off.
Question (5)
My Christian friends can your God still be a God without having a Son? could he still forgive if he had no Son?
Question (6)
Questions
Why did Yahweh contradict himself in Genesis by creating the sun and moon on the fourth day [Gen. 1: 16-19] to provide light during the day and night when he already created light for the day and night on the first day [Gen. 1: 3-5]?
Bible say, “God is love” [1 John 4:8], “love is not jealous” [1 Corinthians 13: 4] and “God is jealous” [Exodus 20:5]? [Deductive reasoning makes it impossible for all three verses to be true simultaneously].
Why is it that God is allowed to possess a characteristic [jealousy, in Deut. 4:24 and Exodus 20:5] that the Bible itself denounces in Proverbs 27:4 and 14:30?
When Noah’s ark landed, how did the kangaroos make it back to Australia?
The Bible tells us that God regretted making Saul king (1 Samuel 15:11), but if that’s the case, doesn’t that mean God didn’t know the future? Because if he knew he was going to regret making Saul king, he would’ve never done it in the first place.
The Bible tells us that God sacrificed his only son so that we can go to Heaven (John 3:16), but the Bible also tells us that he raised his son back from the dead again. If God didn’t really lose his son, then how is that a sacrifice?
The Bible tells us that God isn’t willing that anybody should perish (2 Peter 3:9), but his holy word has been corrupted through the ages by mankind, so doesn’t that mean that God either allowed it to be corrupted, or he was unable to keep
it from being corrupted?
In the book of James, God instructs Christians on what they should do when they get sick (James 5:14-15). There’s supposed to pray and lay hands on the sick person, and God promises to heal them, so why do you ignore God’s command and run to science every time
In the book of James, God instructs Christians on what they should do when they get sick (James 5:14-15). There’s supposed to pray and lay hands on the sick person, and God promises to heal them, so why do you ignore God’s command and run to science every time
The Bible tells us that Jesus threw a huge temper tantrum in the Jewish temple (John 2:15). He actually made a whip, and whipped these people, and drove them out of the temple, but not before overturning their tables and spilling their money
everywhere. The Bible also tells us that Jesus called a Canaanite woman a dog (Mark 7:27). And Jesus insulted the Pharisees by calling them derogatory names at every turn (Matthew 23:13-33). Jesus also lied to his own disciples (John 7:8-10); they asked him
if he was going to the feast, he said, “no, my time’s not yet come.” And he turns around and goes to the feast.
Jesus also condones slavery and he did not denounce the crimes of rape or paedophilia (Matthew 10:24, Matthew 24:46, Luke 17:7). Not only that, Jesus taught that if you call somebody a ‘fool’, you are in danger of going to hell (Matthew 5:22). Then he turns around and calls several people fools (Matthew 23:17, Luke 24:26). Not only that, the Bible tells us that Jesus explicitly upheld the ghastly Mosaic Law that requires children to be killed if they became unruly (Matthew 15:3-4, Matthew 5:17-18, Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
there are clear historical inaccuracies in the New Testament. One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event. Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.
In addition, what are we to do with the wide variation of chronologies in the Gospels, different placements of pericopes in the timeline of Jesus' ministry (i.e the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2), and the substantial disagreement of John with the other three, in terms of historical outline?
A third question concerns authorship - mainly, the authorship of the Gospels and of the Pentateuch. Both sets are anonymous, textually - furthermore, the earliest date we even have for a name being applied to the gospels is in the very late first century, with quotations by Papias (transcribed by Irenaeus), and that only to Mark and Matthew (if we are to understand him to refer to the texts we now know: I am content to do so). Moses' name wasn't applied to the Pentateuch until long after the exile...as in, more than a millennium after the latest events which it describes! True, Moses is the one whose name has been traditionally attached ever since - but why does one have to "believe" in Mosaic authorship as a cornerstone of faith being a christian?
Did Jesus condemn or approve homosexuality?
We know what the law of Moses says:
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)
So Jesus being a man of peace and love would he kill or let them live?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus tells us he's fulfilment on earth was written in the Law of Moses, the prophets and psalms. Can Christians show us where Jesus is mentioned in the OT starting with the Law of Moses?
He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
(Luke 24:44)
Jesus also condones slavery and he did not denounce the crimes of rape or paedophilia (Matthew 10:24, Matthew 24:46, Luke 17:7). Not only that, Jesus taught that if you call somebody a ‘fool’, you are in danger of going to hell (Matthew 5:22). Then he turns around and calls several people fools (Matthew 23:17, Luke 24:26). Not only that, the Bible tells us that Jesus explicitly upheld the ghastly Mosaic Law that requires children to be killed if they became unruly (Matthew 15:3-4, Matthew 5:17-18, Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
there are clear historical inaccuracies in the New Testament. One such example is that of Acts 5, where Luke writes of the Pharisee Gamaliel's speech (vv. 34-39). This speech would have taken place around AD 35-40, yet it refers to Theudas' revolt of AD 46-47 as a past event. Furthermore, Gamaliel is made to say that "Judas the Galilean" raised a revolt which followed that of Theudas - but Judas' revolt was in AD 6 or 7! We know these dates from Josephus, most notably, as well as from other records.
The sons of Judas the Galilean, who had led a revolt in 6 C.E.
over the Roman taxation census, were crucified by the Roman procurator Tiberius
Alexander (46-48 C.E.), who was the nephew of the philosopher Philo.
(Josephus Antiquities 20: Chapter 5)
THEUDAS. The leader of an unsuccessful rebellion in
the area of Judea during the 1st cent. A.D. The only reference to the name in
Scripture appears in Acts 5:36, where Gamaliel, in his testimony before the
Sanhedrin, indicates that the rebellion associated with Theudas occurred before
the uprising led by Judas the Galilean, who arose in the days of the
census" (presumably a reference to the taxation associated with the
governor Quirinius, Ca. A.D. 6; cf. Lk. 2:lf.). A more probable date, however,
was provided by Josephus (Ant. xx.5. 1197-99)), who assigned the movement to
the rule of the procurator Cuspius Fadus (A.D. 44-46) several years after the
death of Gamaliel himself.
Josephus described Theudas as a self-proclaimed
prophet who deluded the majority of the masses" (four hundred men
according to Acts) with his promise to divide the Jordan River upon command so
that the people could cross with ease, thus repeating the miracle performed by
Joshua. The attack of a Roman cavalry regiment soon brought an end to the
uprising, however, and many in the movement were either slain or captured.
Theudas himself was decapitated.
Some scholars (e.g., F. F. Bruce. _Comm.
on the Book Of Acts_ [NICNT, 1954),
pp. 124f.) have suggested that the accounts provided in Acts and Josephus refer
to different individuals. But modern attempts to associate the Theudas of Acts
with other historical rebels in Palestine, such as Simon (Herod the Great's
former slave), Theudion (Herod the Great's brother-in-law), or Matthias (the
son of Margaloth, a radical teacher of the law), have proven unconvincing. The
name was relatively uncommon, and the significance attributed to the rebellion
by the text of Acts certainly characterizes the movement as worthy of reference
by Josephus. The disparity between the accounts of Acts and Josephus, with
respect to both details and dating, would suggest instead some problem
associated with the sources used by the authors. (C. N. Jefford)
In addition, what are we to do with the wide variation of chronologies in the Gospels, different placements of pericopes in the timeline of Jesus' ministry (i.e the healing of the paralytic in Mark 2), and the substantial disagreement of John with the other three, in terms of historical outline?
A third question concerns authorship - mainly, the authorship of the Gospels and of the Pentateuch. Both sets are anonymous, textually - furthermore, the earliest date we even have for a name being applied to the gospels is in the very late first century, with quotations by Papias (transcribed by Irenaeus), and that only to Mark and Matthew (if we are to understand him to refer to the texts we now know: I am content to do so). Moses' name wasn't applied to the Pentateuch until long after the exile...as in, more than a millennium after the latest events which it describes! True, Moses is the one whose name has been traditionally attached ever since - but why does one have to "believe" in Mosaic authorship as a cornerstone of faith being a christian?
Did Jesus condemn or approve homosexuality?
We know what the law of Moses says:
"'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. (Leviticus 20:13)
So Jesus being a man of peace and love would he kill or let them live?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus tells us he's fulfilment on earth was written in the Law of Moses, the prophets and psalms. Can Christians show us where Jesus is mentioned in the OT starting with the Law of Moses?
He said to them, "This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
(Luke 24:44)
--------------------
Where is the proof
that Satan was believed to be the devil before Christ, from the Old Testament.
Question :
what is the timeline between Numbers 34 to Deuteronomy 34?
how long would you say the duration is days, weeks, months, years?
-------------------
Did Jesus ever refer
to the "Pentateuch" by their given names i.e. Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy?
Was he even aware of
such names? How comes he never uttered the names of those books, but rather referred to "it" as the Law of Moses.
Here's something
fascinating, the names Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are
nowhere to be found in the Pentateuch or anywhere in the entire 66 books of the
protestant Bible, isn't that something.
now thats BLASPHEMY!!
----------------
Question :
Why didn't Joseph try to contact his father during all his time in Egypt? After all, the distance between the land of Israel and Egypt
is only "six days" of travelling, according to Nachmanides'
calculations. Why, when he became the head of Potiphar's household --
and could easily do such a thing -- didn't Joseph send a letter to his
father, informing him that he was alive and well? Certainly, once he
became viceroy, the second most powerful man in Egypt, he could have
done anything he wanted. All those many years of Jacob languishing,
mourning for his favorite son, could have been avoided. Didn't Joseph
miss his father just as much? How could he be apart from him all those
years?
How could Joseph have allowed his father to mourn him for so long? Why didn't he let Jacob know that he was alive? Egypt
is not so far from Canaan, and it was certainly within Joseph's means
to dispatch a courier to his father with the good news that he was alive
and well.
----------------------------------------------
Contradiction
Ishmaelite or Israelite
19
August 2017
20:54
Abigail was the
mother of Amasa, whose father was Jether the Ishmaelite. (1 chronicles 2:17)
And
Absalom made Amasa captain of the host instead of Joab: which Amasa was a
man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite, that
went in to Abigail the daughter of Nahash, sister to Zeruiah Joab's mother. (2
samuel 17:25)
Yevamot 77a:1
Doeg raised before them all those
objectionsfrom the others who are disqualified from entering into the
congregation, and they were silent, not
knowing how to respond. Doeg then wanted to
proclaim that David was disqualified from entering into the
congregation. He was immediately answered.
Here it says: “Now Amasa was the son of a
man, whose name was Jithra the Israelite, that went into Abigal the daughter of
Nahash” (II Samuel 17:25), andyet
elsewhere it is written that
Amasa’s father was named “Jether the
Ishmaelite”(I Chronicles 2:17).
More contradictions
When Esau was forty
years old, he married Judith daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and also Basemath
daughter of Elon the Hittite. (Genesis 26:34)
From the above verse
we can cleary read basemath was the daughter of Elon the Hittite. However a few
chapters later the same basemath become the daughter of Ishmael.
also Basemath
daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebaioth. (Genesis 36:3)
Of David.
A psalm. The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who
live in it; (Psalm 24:1)
Contradiction
The
heavens belong to the LORD, but he has given the earth to all humanity. (Psalm
115:16)
Rabbi Levi raised a contradiction: It is written:
“The earth and all it contains is the Lord’s,” and it is written else
where: “The heavens are the Lord’s and
the earth He has given over to mankind” (Psalms
115:16). There is clearly a contradiction with regard to whom the
earth belongs. ( Talmud Berakhot 35a)
God made two great
lights--the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the
night. He also made the stars. (Genesis 1:16)
Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi raises a contradiction between
two verses. It is written: “And God made
the two great lights” (Genesis
1:16),and it is also written in the same verse: “The greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night,”
indicating that only one was great. (Talmud Chullin 60b:)
Assuredly, I will
take back My new grain in its time And My new wine in its season, And I will
snatch away My wool and My linen That serve to cover her nakedness. (Hosea
2:11)
Contradiction
I will grant
the rain for your land in season, the early rain and the late. You shall gather
in your new grain and wine and oil— (Deuteronomy 11:14)
the
Gemara cites that Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa
raised a contradiction: It is written, “I will take back My grain at its time and
wine in its season” (Hosea 2:11), and it is written: “And you shall gather your grain, your
wine and your oil” (Deuteronomy 11:14). To whom does the
grain belong: To God, or to the people? (Talmud
Berakhot 35b)
Return,
ye backsliding children, and I will heal your
backslidings. Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the
LORD our God. (Jeremiah 3:22)
Contradiction
Turn, O backsliding
children, saith the LORD; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of
a city, and two from a family, and I will bring you to Zion: (Jeremiah 3:14)
Rabbi Yehuda raised a
contradiction between
two verses. It is written: “Return, you
backsliding children I will heal your backsliding” (Jeremiah
3:22), implying
that anyone can achieve healing, which is dependent only on repentance. But it
also states: “Return, O backsliding children, says the Lord, for I am a lord to you, and I will take you one from a
city, and two from a family” (Jeremiah 3:14), implying that repentance is available only to certain
individuals.
Goat
atones Yahweh's anger?
And
there shall be one goat as a sin offering to the LORD, to be offered in
addition to the regular burnt offering and its libation. (Numbers 28:15)
------------------
God saw that the moon was not comforted. The Holy One, Blessed be He,
said: Bring atonement for me, since I diminished the moon. The
Gemara notes: And this is what
Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is differentabout
the goat offering of the New Moon, that it is
stated with regard to it: “For the Lord” (Numbers
28:15)? The Holy One, Blessed
be He, said: This goat shall be an atonement for Me for having diminished the size of the moon. (Talmud
Chullin 60)
Wait!
the "Goat" was an atonement for Yahweh?
for
Your faithfulness is as high as heaven; Your steadfastness reaches to the sky.
(Psalm 57:11)
Contradiction
for
Your faithfulness is higher than the heavens; Your steadfastness reaches to the
sky. (Psalm 108:5)
Rava raised a contradiction: It is written: “For Your mercy is great unto the
heavens, and Your truth reaches the skies” (Psalms
57:11); and it is written elsewhere: “For Your mercy is great above the heavens, and
Your truth reaches the skies” (Psalms 108:5). How so? How can these verses be
reconciled? (Talmud Pesachim 50b)
The earth
brought forth vegetation: seed-bearing plants of every kind, and trees of every
kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that this was good.(Genesis
1:12)
Contradiction
when no
shrub of the field was yet on earth and no grasses of the field had yet
sprouted, because the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth and there was
no man to till the soil, (Genesis 2:5)
Rav Asi raises a contradiction between
two verses. It is written: “And the earth
brought forth grass” (Genesis 1:12),on the third day of the week of Creation. And it is also written: “No
shrub of the field was yet in the earth” (Genesis
2:5), on Shabbat eve, the
sixth day of Creation, immediately before Adam was created. (Talmud
Chullin 60b)
The
LORD is righteous in all his ways and kind in all his works. (Psalm 145:17)
Rav Huna raised a contradiction between
the two halves of a verse. It is written:
“The Lord is righteous [tzaddik] in all His ways” (Psalms
145:17), indicating that God acts in accordance with the attribute
of strict justice [tzedek], and then it is written in the same verse: “And kind [ḥasid] in all His
works,” implying that He acts with grace and loving-kindness [ḥesed], going beyond the
letter of the law. (Talmud
Rosh Hashanah 17b)
So
Moses the servant of the LORD died there, in the land of Moab, at the command
of the LORD. He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, near Beth-peor;
and no one knows his burial place to this day. (Deuteronomy 34:5-6 Masoretic
Torah)
According to the
Masoretic Torah, Moses of the Bible was buried by Yahweh in the land of Moab.
The verse goes on to say no one knows where Moses was buried till this day.
This tells us the text was written much later i.e. long after Moses.
Here's where it
gets interesting. We have a text which
pre dates the Masoretic Torah by roughly a thousand years, that is the DSS.
So
Moses the servant of the LORD died in the land of Moab, according to the word
of the Lord . And they (Israelites) buried him in the valley in the land of
Moab, opposite Beth-peor; but no one knows of his burial place to this day.
(Deuteronomy 34:5-6 DSS Torah)
Did you catch the
problem? The Masoretic Torah which postdates the DSS states Yahweh buried
Moses. However the DSS which predates the Masoretic states "they"
i.e. the Israelites buried Moses in the land of Moab. The other problem is, if
the Israelites buried Moses in Moab, then surely they would know they location
to where the exact place is. The text on both manuscripts states "no one
knows till this day", again indicating the author wrote much later. If for arguments sake the author wrote a
thousand years after Moses, then yes he wouldn't know where the exact buried
location would be unless they had a strong oral tradition which we know they
didn't. It's possible the people who participated in burying Moses orally told
people the location, which eventually faded away from the lips and memory of
people. Whatever the case we see the earliest manuscript i.e. the DSS proves
tampering took place at best.
Another issue to deal
with. Did the Masoretic writers refer the Israelites as God?
If you ever forget
the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I
testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. (Deuteronomy 8:19
Masoretic Torah)
There is a variant
reading of the above statement.
And If you forget the LORD your God and walk after other
gods and serve them and worship to them, I call the heavens and the earth as
witnesses against you today that you
will surely perish. (Deuteronomy 8:19 DSS Torah)
Notice how the DSS
Torah states Yahweh will use the heavens and earth as witnesses against those
who worship a false god. This is very interesting since Christians brag, Yahweh doesn't depend on
anything as he only swears by himself. seems like the DSS opened a new can of
worms.
It is a land the
LORD your God cares for; the eyes of the LORD your God are always on it, from
the beginning to the end of the year. (Deuteronomy 11:12)
so that your days
and the days of your children may be many in the land the LORD swore to give
your ancestors, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.
(Deuteronomy 11:21 Masoretic Torah)
According to the DSS
a foreigner is not allowed to eat Passover.
--------------------
And he said, Thou
canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. (Exodus 33:20)
Contradiction
But [Micaiah] said,
“I call upon you to hear the word of the LORD! I saw the LORD seated upon His
throne, with all the host of heaven standing in attendance to the right and to
the left of Him. ( 1 Kings 22:19)
In the year that
King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the
train of his robe filled the temple. (Isaiah 6:1)
-----------------
How comes Micaiah
and Isaiah were able to see Yahweh, yet when Moses demanded Yahweh refused to
show himself? Doesn't that make Micaiah and Isaiah more unique then Moses for
seeing Yahweh?
------------------
אין זה
כי אם בית אלוקים,
“this can only be (the location of) the House of G-d.” Rashi endeavours to find
the source for the statement by the sages that G-d had said that it is
intolerable that a righteous person of the calibre of Yaakov who needed a place
to spend the night, should be unable to find more than a stone to lay his head
on. Also why would Yaakov call the place that had been known as Luz
“Yerusalem,” i.e. the house of G-d? Furthermore why afterwards does he refer to
“Beyt El,” a place much further north? Clearly there appears to be some
contradiction here! Our sages themselves seem to have had second thoughts when
they said that Yaakov renamed called Luz as Beyt ElBeing aware of these
difficulties, Rashi says; “therefore I say that Mount Moriah had been moved and
Yaakov had arrived there, i.e. as far as Beyt El, (all on the same day)[If any
reader finds all this as strange, I remind him that if G-d enabled Eliezer,
Avraham’s servant, to cover a similar distance with his 10 camels when he went
to look for a wife for his master in the course of one day, then Yaakov’s
experience can certainly not be considered as so unbelievable. Ed.] There is
also the problem that Yaakov instead of walking from B’eer Sheva to Charan
would be travelling from west to East, as testified to by Isaiah
9,11 ארם מקדם ופלשתים מאחור, “Aram to the East and the land
of the Philistines at the back.” (to the west) Moreover, we (our author) had
previously explained that Aram and Charan are one and the same. (compare verse
10). According to what we have read here Yaakov was traveling from the south to
the north according to what Rashi explained earlier. We have to say that Yaakov
travelled the same route that his grandfather Avraham had traveled when coming
from Charan, southward after having left both Ur Casdim and Charan on his way
to the land of Canaan. He had proceeded southward in stages all the way to
B’eer Sheva. Both he and Yitzchok had taken up residence in towns on this route
from time to time as we have read in previous portions of the Torah. The route
was well known and they were familiar with it. This is the reason why Yaakov
also used this route. As to Rashi quoting Yaakov as having said that possibly
he had failed to stop at a place where his father and grandfather had offered
prayers to G-d, this must have referred not to Mount Moriah, for he had prayed
there repeatedly as stated by our sages in B’reshit Rabbah at the end of
chapter 78,16, where we are told that no one can properly appreciate how many
libations Yaakov had offered at Mount Moriah, but to Beyt El, for Avraham had
prayed there and built an altar as recorded in Genesis
12,78. Our sages
in Sanhedrin 44 are on record that if Avraham had not prayed between
Beyt El and Ai, the Jewish people would long ago have perished completely (Joshua
7,25 when
they were defeated there during the first encounter They were saved only due to
the merit acquired by the prayers Avraham had offered in that region.) The
reason that this location is referred to as Beyt El is on account of the
prayers offered there in the future, for in Yaakov’s time it was still known as
Luz. Yitzchok had also offered prayers at that altar which his father Avraham
had built. Even though we do not possess a written record of it, it is quite
plausible to assume that he used this altar on numerous occasions in order to
offer prayers. Yaakov, on the other hand, had not had an opportunity to offer
prayers at that location up until now. This is also why he said: “is it
possible that I simply passed by this place without stopping to offer up a
prayer?” He therefore decided to retrace his steps after coming to Charan, and
to go back as far as Beyt El to offer a prayer there. In response to Yaakov’s
determination to do so, G-d folded the earth beneath him to expedite matters.
What this meant in practice was that the town known as Luz was transported to
the vicinity of Charan, saving him many days of walking. G-d’s motivation was
that the prayer of a righteous person such as Yaakov should preferably be said
in a Temple or other sacred site. As a result, the mountain of Moriah was
immediately uprooted and removed as far as Charan. After having prayed there
Yaakov continued on his way. When G-d saw that, He said: seeing that this
righteous person has taken so much trouble to come to My residence, how can I
allow him not to have shelter for the night? This is why He arranged for the
sun to set prematurely so that Yaakov would spend the night there. During that
night he dreamt the dream reported in detail in our chapter where it became
clear to him that the place he had slept was destined to become a Temple in the
future. Realising that this was the meaning of the dream, he called the site
“house of G-d,” renaming the town of Luz to be known as Beyt El. (House of
G-d). This is the meaning of the line: “he called that site Beyt El, the site
being that which had previously been known as the town of Luz. The stone which
had served as Yaakov’s “pillow,” which had come from Mount Moriah, remained at
that site. Yaakov anointed it with oil as a symbol of its future significance.
As soon as he had done this, he proceeded on his trek to Charan. It would be
wrong to understand the verse as meaning that Yaakov arose in the morning in
the town of Charan. This is clear from the Torah telling us in 19,1 that Yaakov
then set out in the direction of the people residing in the land of the
Orientals. When he met the shepherds huddled around the well he asked them
where their home was and they told him that their home was Charan. When Yaakov,
20 years later, was on the way from Lavan to the land of Canaan, he passed this
location and he named the site Beyt El and erected a monument at the site. (Genesis
35,7, and
15)[This is a unique exegesis, as, normally, Yaakov is understood as having had
to return to that site after having already settled in the land of Canaan and
having overlooked his promise to erect a Temple at that site so that G-d had to
remind him. (compare chapter 33,18 30) Ed.] (COMMENTARY Chizkuni Genesis, Chapter
28:17)
-----------
Question for my Jewish and Christian friends
According to the Bible from creation till now, the earth is around 5,700 - 6000 years old. if this is true what evidence do you have to support it?
------------------
Jesus said to them, “Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you. 32 For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him. (Matthew 21:31-32)
-------
Which tax collector and prostitute believed in John the Baptist? and if by believing in John the Baptist could attain a Prostitute salvation what good is the blood of your Jesus? no need for a human sacrifice. it was enough to believe in John the Baptist.
There is no mention of Jesus saying believe in John the Baptist and me. he already confirmed those who believed in John the Baptist are entering the kingdom of God.
------------
Q) Is Yahweh Holy?
A) Yes Psalm 99:9 (God is Holy)
A) Yes Psalm 99:9 (God is Holy)
Q) Is Yahweh a spirit?
A) Yes John 4:24 (God is a Spirit)
A) Yes John 4:24 (God is a Spirit)
Q) If Yahweh is Holy and a Spirit, doesn't that make him the "Holy Spirit"? If Yahweh is the Holy Spirit who is the other Holy Spirit that's also called Holy Spirit? And how many Holy Spirits are there?
A) You need the Holy Spirit in you to know the answer! please stop asking me those questions as i'm under pressure. i won't be answering you. I'M BUSY!
-------
Did Only the Nile Turn to
Blood or All the Water in Egypt? Flat out contradiction!
Yahweh said to Moses: Say
to Aharon:Take your staff and stretch out your hand over the waters of Egypt,
over their tributaries, over their Nile-canals, over their ponds and over all
their bodies of water, and let them become blood! There will be blood throughout
all the land of Egypt—in the wooden-containers, in the stoneware. (Exodus 7:19)
But all Egypt had to dig
around the Nile to drink water, for they could not drink from the waters of the
Nile (Exodus 7:24)
Let me start at the end,
with verse 24, which suggests that only the Nile water was affected by the
plague. That flatly contradicts verse 19, which claims that the blood plague
affected all the water in Egypt: “There will be blood throughout all the land
of Egypt—in the wooden-containers, in the stoneware,” where the last phrase
suggests that even water stored in various containers turned into blood!
--------------------
---------
1. God loves the world versus do not love the world.
For God so loved the world, that he gave
his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal
life. (John 3:16)
Do not love the world or the things in
the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. (1
John 2:15)
2. People believed when they saw Jesus’s signs versus
they did not believe.
Now when he was in Jerusalem at the
Passover Feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs that he was
doing. (John 2:23)
The
author of John’s Gospel has recorded contradictions at the superficial level of
language to encourage the audience to think more deeply.
3. They know Jesus and where he comes from versus they
do not.
So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the
temple, “You know me, and you know where I come from.” (John
7:28)
Jesus answered, “Even if I do bear
witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where I came from and
where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or where I am going.” (John
8:14)
They said to him therefore, “Where is
your Father?” Jesus answered, “You know neither me nor my Father. If you knew
me, you would know my Father also.” (John
8:19)
4. If Jesus bears witness of himself, his testimony is
not true, versus the opposite.
So the Pharisees said to him, “You are
bearing witness about yourself; your testimony is not true.” Jesus answered,
“Even if I do bear witness about myself, my testimony is true, for I know where
I came from and where I am going, but you do not know where I come from or
where I am going.” (John 8:13–14)
5. Jesus judges no one versus he has much to judge.
Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is
true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me. (John
8:16)
I have much to say about you and much to
judge, but he who sent me is true, and I declare to the world what I have heard
from him. (John 8:26)
6. Jesus did not come into the world to judge it
versus he came to judge.
If anyone hears my words and does not
keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to
save the world. (John 12:47)
For God did not send his Son into the
world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through
him. (John 3:17)
Jesus said, “For judgment I came into
this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become
blind.” (John 9:39)
Thinking Deeply on Meaning
I hope that after reading the list above and studying
the subtle way the Gospel of John is written, you will agree that these formal
contradictions are deliberate. They are part of the author’s way of making us
reflect more deeply on the multiple meanings of the words involved.1This sample prepares us to consider a quotation by skeptic Bart Ehrman
from a book in which he explains what he thinks are the clearest contradictions
within the Gospels:
One of my favorite apparent
discrepancies—I read John for years without realizing how strange this one
is—comes in Jesus’ “Farewell Discourse,” the last address that Jesus delivers
to his disciples, at his last meal with them, which takes up all of chapters 13
to 17 in the Gospel according to John. In John
13:36, Peter says to
Jesus, “Lord, where are you going?” A few verses later Thomas says, “Lord, we
do not know where you are going” (John
14:5). And then, a few
minutes later, at the same meal, Jesus upbraids his disciples, saying, “Now I
am going to the one who sent me, yet none of you asks me, ‘Where are you
going?’” (John 16:5). Either Jesus had a very short attention span or there is
something strange going on with the sources for these chapters, creating an odd
kind of disconnect.2
This forms part of Ehrman’s cumulative case for there
being irreconcilable contradictions within the Gospels. However, it also shows
a weakness in his method. In every case listed above, Jesus is portrayed as
speaking one or both sides of the contradiction. But why may an outstanding
teacher not use paradox? Each of the formal contradictions we have seen
highlights the multiple meanings of words. In the Gospel of John, Jesus is
going to the cross and then to his Father, God. The disciples are not asking
about that but are only thinking in mundane terms of where he will next walk
to. Ehrman has just missed the irony.
Written
for the skeptic, the scholar, and everyone in between, this introduction to the
historical and theological reliability of the four Gospels helps readers better
understand the arguments in favor of trusting them.
The problem seems, therefore, to be that the question
of contradictions has become part of a point-scoring exercise between those who
claim or deny error in the Gospels. Here the author of John’s Gospel has
recorded contradictions
at the superficial level of language to
encourage the audience to think more deeply. It is somewhat similar to how
Dickens opened his A
Tale of Two Cities with a whole list
of contradictions to characterize the inconsistencies of an era. He famously
began, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”3
The presence of such deliberate formal contradictions does not mean that the contradictory statements
are not both true in some way at a deeper level. But these formal
contradictions do show that the author is more interested in encouraging people
to read deeply than in satisfying those who want to find fault.
If one author may use vocabulary in more than one way,
why may not two authors? If anyone wants to argue that two Gospel accounts are
in such conflict that both cannot be true, he must first ensure that he has
correctly understood the claims being made in each text and that he is not
reading either of the accounts in a way that is not intended. For all the many
contradictions that have been alleged in the Gospels, and for all the texts
that remain puzzling, I do not know of any that cannot possibly be resolved.
Notes:
- Oxford philosopher Thomas W. Simpson argues that the formal contradiction of John 5:31 and 8:14 in fact shows “philosophical sophistication.” See his “Testimony in John’s Gospel: The Puzzle of 5:31 and 8:14,” Tyndale Bulletin 65, no. 1 (2014): 101–18, esp. 101.
- Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (and Why We Don’t Know about Them) (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 9.
- Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (London: Chapman & Hall, 1859).
------------------
Pauls thought on homosexuals
That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. (Romans 1:26-32)
---------------
Notice how Paul condemns the homosexuals in verse 27
"And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved."
Soon after Paul says verse 32, the law of God states they should die, i.e. executed according to the law of the Torah
"They know God's justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too.(verse 32) cross reference with the Torah
"If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:13)
We can conclusive evidence from Paul where he quotes the Torah saying homosexuals should be killed. Now the question is how many Christians agree with Paul?
---------
What was the first deception?
The question from the above passage is, what was his "FIRST DECEPTION" that the Jews were so concerned about? why didn't the disciples nor the author make any comments of this FIRST DECEPTION. What exactly did he do to be labelled a deceiver? Such an allegation was not refuted.
What is mean by the "first deception" is not made clear. Theologian Daniel J. Harrington suggests it was probably Jesus' claim to be the King of the Jews
Harrington, Daniel J., The Gospel
of Matthew, Liturgical Press, 1991 pg. 405
No comments:
Post a Comment