If Jesus is not responsible for our sins, why would God allow him to die.
No one saw Jesus die on the cross. Several Bibles and passages say he did not die:
Bible of Barnabas: "The face of Yehuda who led the soldiers to arrest Christ was transfigured into that of Christ who had been rescued by the Angels through the window to the third Heaven."
Also the Bibles of Basilidains, Docetae, The Marcionite Gospel.
Here brothers and sisters you have 4 chosen and recognized Bibles, also Luke 20:34-36, 24:36-41, Hebrew 5:7 and John 20:17 support Jesus was saved.
The Bible says that Jesus did not die on the cross, that his loving creator saved Jesus from the cross as confirmed in the Koran.
God loves Jesus.
Would a compassionate, forgiving, merciful God allow his anointed Jesus to die??
* To say he was sacrificed for us, opposes the Bible's teachings (Hosea6:6) and (Matthew 9:13 and 12:7).
* To say he died on the cross, discredits his prophethood (Deuteronomy 13:5) and (21:22-23).
The Jews claimed they killed him to prove he was a false prophet which they still believe. The Koran is here to unite the Jews and Christians and to have them submit their will to God, to be Muslims.
Where is the information on sacrifice coming from?
Paul, who was a Jew and his belief in Jewish sacrifice was transported into Christianity as suggested by a renowned New Testament scholar V. Taylor "The Atonement in the New Testament Teaching." Paul developed the idea by sending letters to the Corinthians, the Romans 4:25, He told the Galatians 6:4., and Ephesians 5:2, read the history yourself. Christianity is the teaching of Paul, not Jesus.
Who are we to believe??
Jesus came to confirm the Torah, not to destroy it (Matthew 23:2-3).
While Paul abolished the teachings of the Torah (Acts 13:39).
What hour was Jesus crucified??
(Mark 15:25) It was the third hour, and they crucified him.
(John 19:14) It was the sixth hour, and he was not yet crucified
Who bore the cross??
(Matthew 27:32) The compelled Simon to bear the cross of Jesus./ also(Luke 23:26)& (Mark 15:21).
(John 19:17) Jesus was bearing his cross himself.
What did they put Jesus on??
(Mark 15:21) They put Jesus on the cross.
(Peter 2:24) They put Jesus on the tree./ also (Gal3:13)
What did they give Jesus to drink??
(Mark 15:23) They gave him wine mingled with myrrh to drink.
(Matthew 27:34) Thew gave him vinegar mingled with gall to drink.
What happened to Judas??
(Mat 27:5) Judas went and hanged himself.
(Acts 1:18) Judas fell headlong, and burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
Many earlier sects of Christians believed that it was Judas who died in the place of Jesus, with the contradictions at hand, maybe those earlier Christians were right.
Who went to the grave of Jesus??
(John 20:1) Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.
(Mat 28:1) Mary Mag-da-le-ne and another Mary.
(Luke 24:10) Mary Mag-da-le-ne and another Mary and Jo'an-na and some other women.
(Mark 16:1) Mary Mag-da-le-ne and another Mary and Sa-lo'-me.
Angel??
(John 20:12) One woman saw two angels at the grave of Jesus.
(Mat 28:2) Two women saw one angel.
(Luke 24:3) Three women saw two men.
(Mark 16:5) Three women saw one man.
Who was told??
(Luke 24:9) Mary the Mag-da-le and Mary the Mother of James and Jo'an-na returned back from the grave and told the eleven apostles all of what they saw.
(Mark 16:8) Mary the Mag-da-le and Mary and Sa-lo'-me returned back from the grave, and did not tell anyone anything because they were afraid.
During the time of the assumed crucifixion, as you see, was a time of confusion, because no one saw Jesus die. (Matthew 26:56)
But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might fulfilled." Then all the disciples deserted him and fled."
So the Qur'an says: 4:157
"That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, butonly conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:"
When Abraham was told by God to sacrifice his son, his son did not object or question him, if Jesus was sent to be sacrificed for our sins, why would he question God?
(Matthew 27:46): ".. . My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Could this not come from someone other than Jesus? Even a Non Prophet would smile at agony as he knew that his death would win him the title of martyr.
Was this not an insult to Jesus in not having faith in Allah?
The sacrifice that has to be made to be forgiven for our sins is the sacrifice of our will to the Creator Allah, as confirmed in the Bible.
Not only do we rely on faith, but also action and reality all combined.We believe in the same God, you have been taught by the recipients of your hard earned 10% of your income tithing that the Koran is not the word of God, that is sad, because then you would learn as every chapter begins "God is the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful."
In Islam, only 3% of your income goes straight to the poor, such as a relative. None is required to go the Church or Mosque. 3% of the wheat in the world would feed all the starving.
LAST EDITED ON 25-10-01 AT 01:07 PM (GMT)[p]>If Jesus is not responsible for
>our sins, why would God
>allow him to die.
>No one saw Jesus die on
>the cross. Several Bibles and
>passages say he did not
>die:
>
The confusion you have is with two issues: 1) your understanding of sin and responsibility, and 2) your understanding who Christ is.
It is true that we are each responsible for our individual sins. However, the Christian position is that God created a world where sin did not exist in the first place. Once sin entered the world, it effected the entire universe. Death, suffering, pain, and an inclination to sin entered the world. We call this condition 'original sin', and by it, our very nature is effected. A more detailed description of original sin is offered in my response to "Can Salvation Be Reached Through Christ". When we commit personal sins, we ratify the condition of original sin. However, even if we commit no actual sins, we are effected by original sin, and most deeply by concupiscience (the desire to sin which results from original sin). Jesus enters this condition as one untainted by original sin, and by continuing through life without personal sin, he breaks the cycle of sin for the whole human race.
Regarding who Christ is, Jesus is God and man at one and the same time. Only if Christ was a man can his life have HUMAN significance and meaning. Only if Christ is God can his life have UNIVERSAL significance and meaning. Thus, God does not LET Christ die on the cross. Rather, God offers himself on the cross as a free gift.
>Bible of Barnabas: "The face of
>Yehuda who led the soldiers
>to arrest Christ was transfigured
>into that of Christ who
>had been rescued by the
>Angels through the window to
>the third Heaven."
>Also the Bibles of Basilidains, Docetae,
>The Marcionite Gospel.
>
All the writings you mention were likely of later origin than the cononical gospels. Marcion was not even born until about 110 A.D. The Docetae were were a very early group of pagans outside of Palestine proper who borrowed the Christ image but refused to believe he was human (they believed ONLY in his divinity -- not very Islamic). Basiledes wrote between 120-140 at the earliest. Like the Docetae, Basilides was polytheistic and borrowed from Greek and Persian mythology as easily as Christian and Hebrew sources.
The gospel of Barnabas can only be reconstructed from late dated fragments quoted in second-hand writings, and appears to be tied to the author of a late dated letter of Barnabas which denies the inspiration of the Old Testament. I recently purchased a copy of such a reconstructed Gospel of Barnabas which I have yet to read in its entierity. However, the first chapters clearly attempt to harmonize the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke, indicating the author used the canonical gospels as source material. Furthermore, the author denies the Sonship of Jesus, and explains this was the cause of his break with his ministry with Paul. However, this account does not square with earlier accounts of Paul and Acts, since Paul was preaching the Sonship and Lordship of Christ long before he and Barnabas amicably parted ways. Moreover, anyone reading such material needs to know that the "translater" is making up most of it, because the fragments left behind are small in number and late in origin.
There are several ways of dating an ancient texts. One way is to look for quotes of the text in other writings that you can date with certainty. For example, anyone who quotes Shakespear lived after Shakespear. Another is to examine references to historical events. For example, anything written that refers to man walking on the moon had to be written after 1969. Another way to determine the date of a writing is to examine the use of words. For example, in 1890, "***" meant happy, but by 1990 it meant homosexual. Another way to date a writing is to examine acheology of physical descriptions. Another way to date material is through examining the concepts. For example, anyone writing an essay about the dangers of communism wrote after the life-time of Marx. Another way to date material is examining traditions to see if there is a reference to its first appearence. One can carbon date archeological finds that are discovered with a text. There are techniques of literary criticism that take dating down to further level. For example, a shorter essay is usually earlier than a longer one, because the longer is usually trying to clarify obscurities in the original.
Using these techniques, one can determine that the canon of the New Testament DOES contain the earliest complete and extant texts about Jesus available. There are legitimate arguments about the dating of the gospel of Thomas (the content of which does not support Islam) and the gospel of the Ebionites was of early origins (but only fragments remain). Scholars also believe that it is possible, and even likely that Matthew and Luke had a common written cource that has been lost (known as Quell Source, or Q). The canonical writings were started by 50 A.D. and completed by 110 A.D. The calandar is based on Jesus' birthdate, so we are really saying that they were written about 17 to 80 years after the crucification. Furthermore, Paul quotes hymns and credal formulas that can be dated to within 3 years of the crucification. They were written by people who knew Jesus or the apostles, and they refer to historically verifiable events (such as the government of Pontius Pilate in Palestine). The New Testament Scriptures were written by several authors and refer to living witnesses in the numbers of hundreds and thousands.
The simple fact is that the assertion that Christ did not die on the cross is absurd from a purely secular argument. There is more historical evidence that Jesus died on the cross than there is that Julius Ceasar was a Roman emporer.
>Here brothers and sisters you have
>4 chosen and recognized Bibles,
>also Luke 20:34-36, 24:36-41, Hebrew
>5:7 and John 20:17 support
>Jesus was saved.
>
Luke 20:34-36: "Jesus said to them, 'The children of this age marry and remarry; but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage. They can no longer die, for they are like angels; and they are the children of God, because they are the ones who will rise."
Do I really need to add any commentary to demonstrate that this quote does not support your argument? I mean, honestly, I think child could see the fallacy in using this text. How can they "rise" unless they were dead? This passage does not make your point. Indeed, this passage is used by the Roman Catholic Church to prove the calling to celibacy is valued.
Luke 24:36-41: "While they were still speaking about this, he stood in their midst and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' But they were startled and terrified and thought they were seeing a ghost. Then he said to them, 'Why are you troubled? And why do questions arise in your hearts? Look at my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me and see, because a ghosts does not have flesh and bones as you can see I have.' And as he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet."
It is very odd that you would chose a verse that seems to me to demonstrate the exact opposite of what you want to prove. Again, do I really need to add any commentary to demonstrate that this quote does not support your argument? Jesus appears to them through a locked door, and they think they are seeing a ghost -- obviously, this is no ordinary appearence. Then he convinces them he is not a ghost, but also let's them know it is the same Jesus who was crucified by showing them his hands and feet (which had been pierced). The fact that my interpretation is more likely is also born out by the fact that the same author writes of the crucification event and the resurrection! Your interpretation so unsupported by the text that it is difficult for me determine whether you actually read the selection or cited the verse from a pamphlet without checking the source.
John 20:17 and Hebrews 5:7 also do not support your theory, as both authors describe the crucifixtion, resurrection, appearences, and ascension as separate events. ALL New Testament authors refer to the crucifixtion and resurrection. All of them refer to these events as "salvation from death" not only for Jesus, but for us. If you really want me to write out the quotes I will, but I think the point is made. Even when you quote out of context, you are not selecting good quotes!
>The Bible says that Jesus did
>not die on the cross,
>that his loving creator saved
>Jesus from the cross as
>confirmed in the Koran.
>God loves Jesus.
>
The Bible does not say anywhere that Jesus did not die. I have already demonstrated this. Every book of the New Testament explicitely says Jesus died, and even a surface reading of the quotes you take out of context is not convincing.
>Would a compassionate, forgiving, merciful God
>allow his anointed Jesus to
>die??
>
Satan is the accuser of sin: "For the accuser of our siblings is cast out, who accuses them before God night and day." (Revelation 12:10). Satan tempts us to sin, and then acts like the prosecuter to try to force us to be unbelieving in God's mercy, and force God to damn us in his justice. And God is perfectly just. Thus, in order to save us, God became a man and bore the penalty for sin on our behalf. As a perfect man who was killed, he caught Satan in a trap. A perfect man should not die, since death is the result of sin. Satan's case against humanity is thrown out of court. The perfectly just Father accepts the atonement of the Jesus, and is perfectly justified to be infinitly forgiving. This courtroom metaphor can be streched too far, but this is the basic idea the Bible is trying to communicate. In other words, a perfectly merciful God did not simply LET his annointed die. Rather, in Christ, God offered himself to us and for us on the cross!
>* To say he was sacrificed
>for us, opposes the Bible's
>teachings (Hosea6:6) and (Matthew 9:13
>and 12:7).
>
"For it is love (or mercy) that I desire, not sacrifice." is quoted in both passages. Here you make a little better point. The translation of "love" is from the Hebrew "Hesed", but the gospel substitutes "mercy".
The places where God actually commands sacrifices in the Old Testament are too numerous to mention, and it should go without saying that a nuanced view of sacrifice is required. Elsewhere, Jesus says, "No one has greater love than this, to lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13).
As I said in my preceeding answer, the "sacrifice" and courtroom images applied to the crucifixtion and resurrection event is a metaphor. In other words, because the metaphors fall short of the reality does not mean that the events did not happen. Rather, the use of the metaphors of sacrifice and atonement are interpretations of the event.
Without the event, there is nothing to interpret or explain. You assume that Paul starts with a metaphor and imagines the events. This is absurd. Rather, he starts with a historical event -- the death of an innocent man and an experience of his resurrection. Then he tries to interpret this event in light of the Old Testament. If you read Paul's letter to the Galations (his earliest letter), you see that is precisely how he works towards these images and metaphors.
>* To say he died on
>the cross, discredits his prophethood
>(Deuteronomy 13:5) and (21:22-23).
>
Paul answers this objection by quoting those verses exactly. Indeed, Paul likley used these verses as justification for persecution of the Christians before his conversion. He writes, "..., for it is written, 'Cursed be everyone who hangs on a tree.'" (Galatians 3:13. Throughout this letter Paul explains how he had to come to understand how and why a just man could be hung upon a cross if he were truly righteous. I won't quote the entire letter here, since you can read it yourself. What this proves is three things.
First, Jesus was crucified. Even the Jews who disbelieved acknowledged this and used it as ammunition against the Christians. Armed with the very verses you quote, they argued that Jesus could not be the Messiah since he was hung upon a tree and died. We have the argument from one who participated in the persecution of Steven!
Second, this proves that Paul had some type of experience that 'knocked him off his horse' and convinced him that Jesus was a righteous man who was risen! Whatever Paul experienced, it was powerful, and he chose to describe it as an experience of the resurrection. His life-long commitment to preaching this experience gave him peace and got him killed. I'd like to share in this same experience, and I believe I taste it in my relationship with Christ!
Third, Paul was an Old Testament scholar (a Pharisee), and we learn from him that there is a means of interpreting these events in light of the Old Testament that makes sense. Likewise, there is a means of interpreting the Old Testament in light of these events that makes sense.
>The Jews claimed they killed him
>to prove he was a
>false prophet which they still
>believe. The Koran is here
>to unite the Jews and
>Christians and to have them
>submit their will to God,
>to be Muslims.
>
Yes -- the fact that the Jews never denied his death is further evidence that he died. The Qur'an has not united Jews and Christians, but only added another division in humanity. Now we have Jews, Christians, and Muslims among the monotheists, where it used to be just Jews and Christians.
>Where is the information on sacrifice
>coming from?
>
>Paul, who was a Jew and
>his belief in Jewish sacrifice
>was transported into Christianity as
>suggested by a renowned New
>Testament scholar V. Taylor "The
>Atonement in the New Testament
>Teaching." Paul developed the idea
>by sending letters to the
>Corinthians, the Romans 4:25, He
>told the Galatians 6:4., and
>Ephesians 5:2, read the history
>yourself. Christianity is the teaching
>of Paul, not Jesus.
>
I have not read Taylor, but I do not deny that Paul provided an interpretation of the events. That is a very different thing than saying he invented the events.
>
>
>Who are we to believe??
>
Believe IN Jesus. He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
>Jesus came to confirm the Torah,
>not to destroy it (Matthew
>23:2-3).
>
That is correct. If you read Christian theology from Paul through the twentieth century, we always demonstrate that the Old Testament is fullfilled in the New Testament.
>While Paul abolished the teachings of
>the Torah (Acts 13:39).
>
Paul wrote "What then can we say? That the law is sin? Of course not!" (Romans 7:7) and "So then the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good." (Romans 7:12). Paul is a very nuanced theologian. Peter says of him, "And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them are some things very hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures." (2 Peter 3:15-16).
Scripture itself admits that Paul can be difficult to understand, so I don't blame you morally for getting it wrong. I also believe that the differences between Catholics and Protestants are largely over the finer nuances in the writings of Paul, with both sides being able to defend strong positions form the texts.
Regarding the law of works verses the law of grace issue: I am Catholic, but I heard a Protestant explain the teachings of Paul on salvation by grace that I thought was excellent. He used the analogy of an airplane. He stated that the laws of gravity apply universally, at all times. Under those laws, humans cannot fly. However, the laws of aerodynamics allow men to appear to break the laws of gravity. In actually, gravity still applies in the airplane -- but human beings still seem to be breaking those laws by soaring to 30,000 feet. So it is with grace. It appears to the outsider that we are denying the laws of justice. However, what is actually happenning is that another law has been revealed: the law of grace! Justice still applies to Christians, but grace appears to break those laws sometimes.
If you read Paul carefully, he is saying that the law provides an opportunity for Satan to tempt us to sin. Because we have a sinful nature, we succumb. The wages of sin are death, but this hints at an eternal situation where evil and sin seem to be winning. Christ is God and man breaking the hold of death and fullfilling the requirements of justice. If we accept this and place our trust in God, we will be saved. Salvation makes us a new creation where we no longer try to follow the law out of fear of punishment. Instead, we are a new creation where the law is written in our hearts and we do good because we desire good. This happens through a process, and all of us occassionally fall back into a "works righteousness" mentality. We need to continue to trust the one who started the work to bring it to completion.
Catholics and Protestants disagree over the role of works in this process. Protestants believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone apart from works. Catholics believe that we are saved by grace alone that produces faith infused with works, and those works are meritorious. In theological language, the difference is forensic justification verses intrinsic justification respectively. Protestants and Catholics also disagree over the issue of assured salvation verses reasonable confidence in salvation respectively, as well as some secondary issues like purgatory and prayers of the saints. However, salvation by grace alone is accepted by all Christians.
>What hour was Jesus crucified??
>(Mark 15:25) It was the third
>hour, and they crucified him.
>
>
>(John 19:14) It was the sixth
>hour, and he was not
>yet crucified
>
Mark 15:33 "At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour." There are so many explainations for this issue that I almost prefer to refer you to a commentary. Let me point out some general principles and questions you haven't faced.
First, inconsistency on the major points would be a definite sign of a falsehood. However, absolute consistency in minutia would be sign of conspiracy. Ask any two people for a detailed description of an event that happened simultaneously to them the day before down to the level of time, and you will get two different answers. If you did not, you would expect that they collaborated to concoct a falsehood.
Second, what do you mean by "When was Jesus crucified?" Do you mean, when was he given the cross?, or when was he nailed to it?, or when did he die? Assuming the later, how does anyone know the exact moment he died? It's not like there was a medical crew on site to say "Yep. He's finally dead now!" We can be certain he was dead after being lanced by the centurion and taken down -- but nobody knows how long he was dead before that.
Third, time is measured differently in different cultures. Some say the first hour starts at midnight, others at daybreak, and so forth. As each gospel is written to a different church community, we need to take into account how that community measured time.
Finally, the gospels are not exactly written to be dry history books. These are catechetical writings, or story-sermons meant to inspire faith based loosely on a historical events that happened years prior. Thus, each author tweeks his story to make a theological point to the community he is addressing. Mark is likely addressing why the liturgy was moved from evening to morning. John was likely tying the event to the time the lambs were sacrificed for passover. Neither intended their audience to assume a literal history was being told.
When you begin to ask these types questions, you need to seek real answers before dismissing it out of hand. And if these small "contradictions" you bring up are resolved, it should be less problematic to see the bigger picture the authors of the New Testament are portraying.
We Christians often find similar apparent contradictions in a cursory first reading of the Qur'an. I assume that you can answer them, and I expect commentary. That alone does not make your text false.
>
>
>Who bore the cross??
>
>(Matthew 27:32) The compelled Simon to
>bear the cross of Jesus./
>also(Luke 23:26)& (Mark 15:21).
>
>(John 19:17) Jesus was bearing his
>cross himself.
>
There is no contradiction here. The historical Jesus may have been given the cross to start, but fell under the weight after having been lashed. However, it is also possible that John was making a theological point that Jesus carries the weight of our sins. Either way, so what? Both accounts agree that he died!
>
>
>What did they put Jesus on??
>
>
>(Mark 15:21) They put Jesus on
>the cross.
>
>(Peter 2:24) They put Jesus on
>the tree./ also (Gal3:13)
>
I see no contradiction here at all. A cross is made from trees.
>
>
>What did they give Jesus to
>drink??
>
>(Mark 15:23) They gave him wine
>mingled with myrrh to drink.
>
>
>(Matthew 27:34) Thew gave him vinegar
>mingled with gall to drink.
>
>
My great-grandfather made wine when I was a child. Vinegar is nothing but stale wine. Again, no contradiction -- but there may be a theological point in the word choice. Matthew's use of the "gall" may refer to Psalm 69:22.
>
>
>What happened to Judas??
>
>(Mat 27:5) Judas went and hanged
>himself.
>
>(Acts 1:18) Judas fell headlong, and
>burst asunder in the midst,
>and all his bowels gushed
>out.
>
>Many earlier sects of Christians believed
>that it was Judas who
>died in the place of
>Jesus, with the contradictions at
>hand, maybe those earlier Christians
>were right.
>
Regarding the apparent contradiction, I point out once again that these texts are not dry history books in the modern sense. The main historical point is that Judas met a very bad end through suicide. Both accounts agree that Judas bought a field with the money received for betraying Christ. If you insist on trying to get to a consistent history behind the texts, it is entirely possible that Judas hung himself, and was left hanging long enough that the rope rotted and he fell. His long dead body, already decomposing, easily burst asunder. But honestly, I do not understand the Muslim demand for consistency on this minutia, and would find it a sign of dishonesty if there these little quircks and obscurities here and there!
The notion that these sects you keep mentioning were earlier and closer to Jesus than the twelve is absurd. As I argue above, the earliest references to the Docetae and the groups you refer to is in the second century. While an argument certainly can be forth that perhaps they had earlier roots IN the first century, there is absolutely no evidence they are earlier than the twelve or Paul. At best, you can assert they were contemporary with Paul, and that's a difficult argument to prove except by asserting without evidence that they were "super-apostles" and "jews" that Paul writes against at times. Even if you take this track, you have the problem that Peter and James endorsed Paul, and this is widely attested to by not only the canonical gospels, but by the early church fathers and saints who were writing by the end of the first abd early second century (before your Docetetae).
>
>
>Who went to the grave of
>Jesus??
>
>(John 20:1) Early on the first
>day of the week, while
>it was still dark, Mary
>Magdalene went to the tomb
>and saw that the stone
>had been removed from the
>entrance.
>
>(Mat 28:1) Mary Mag-da-le-ne and another
>Mary.
>
>(Luke 24:10) Mary Mag-da-le-ne and another
>Mary and Jo'an-na and some
>other women.
>
>(Mark 16:1) Mary Mag-da-le-ne and another
>Mary and Sa-lo'-me.
>
There would only be a contradiction here if the gospels said "Mary Magdalene went by herself". But that's not what any of them say. We know that Mary Magdelene, another Mary, Joanna, and Salome were there. It appears there may have been some other women as well. It would be surprising if Mary, mother of Jesus were not there, and she be the other Mary. All accounts seem to indicate that Mary Magdalene was the first to experience the risen Lord. She may have arrived ahead of the others, or the others may have left and returned, or it may have just part of the tradition behind the text that she was first to come to faith. The texts are not very clear about this. Matthew and John seem more interested to get to the male accounts of resurrection, since those would be more convincing accounts to first century Palestinians and Greeks.
>
>
>Angel??
>
>(John 20:12) One woman saw two
>angels at the grave of
>Jesus.
>
>(Mat 28:2) Two women saw one
>angel.
>
>(Luke 24:3) Three women saw two
>men.
>
>(Mark 16:5) Three women saw one
>man.
>
All accounts are trying to describe an experience of coming to faith in the risen Christ. This experience is beyond description.
I admit that I am not personally sure what is meant by the angelic visitations throughout the Bible -- never having seen an angel myself. This is a question that doesn't shake my faith in the resurrection.
I am continuing to research this to determine whether angelophanies (angel appearences) are better explained as literary devices, or genuine experiences. I accept on faith that pure spirits called angels exists and pray for us.
However, I have no idea how they operate or what they look like, or even whether the authors of Scripture intend every account to be taken literally. Maybe some accounts are literal, or none, or a mixture. I can't wait to get to heaven to find out the answers. In the meantime, I will keep studying.
In the above verses, another important point is that none of the verses say ONLY one woman,...or ONLY Two women,...or ONLY one man,...etc.... Thus, even if the accounts are taken as literal history, there is no logical contradiction.
>
>
>Who was told??
>
>(Luke 24:9) Mary the Mag-da-le and
>Mary the Mother of James
>and Jo'an-na returned back from
>the grave and told the
>eleven apostles all of what
>they saw.
>
>(Mark 16:8) Mary the Mag-da-le and
>Mary and Sa-lo'-me returned
>back from the grave, and
>did not tell anyone anything
>because they were afraid.
>
Both accounts are likely accurate. If I saw a person raised from the dead, I likely would hesitate to tell anyone at first. But eventually, I couldn't hold it in.
>
>
>During the time of the assumed
>crucifixion, as you see, was
>a time of confusion, because
>no one saw Jesus die.
>(Matthew 26:56)
>
>But this has all taken place
>that the writings of the
>prophets might fulfilled." Then all
>the disciples deserted him and
>fled."
>
The flight spoke of refers to the moment of arrest. The gospels are uniform in placing some of Jesus followers at the feet of the cross.
>So the Qur'an says: 4:157
>"That they said (in boast), "We
>killed Christ Jesus the son
>of Mary, the Messenger of
>Allah"- but they killed him
>not, nor crucified him, but
>so it was made to
>appear to them, and those
>who differ therein are full
>of doubts, with no (certain)
>knowledge, butonly conjecture to follow,
>for of a surety they
>killed him not:"
>
So let me ask this: what was Mohammed experiencing when he had this sudden revelation 600 plus years after the event? And why should I assume he is correct? If my brother started spouting that God has revealed to him that Christopher Columbus or William Shakespear never existed, I'd assume he's insane! Yet, my brother could argue that there are scholars claiming he's right. This would not convince me that he's not insane -- I would assume he's insane preceisely because he says God said it to him.
I do believe that all people are invited into a personal relationship with God. However, I also believe that the normal means God speaks to us is far more subtle than hearing voices and seeing some supernatural being with the eyes. I am very suspicious of anyone claiming to hear God directly, since it is far more likely the person suffers from schizophrenia or other ailments than that their experience is an objective is an objective reality.
What is the evidence that Mohammed is a prophet rather than a maniac? (and PLEEEAAASE do not quote from the Qur'an where Mohammed says "they say I'm mad...." I've already read that, and it's not a convincing argument).
>When Abraham was told by God
>to sacrifice his son, his
>son did not object or
>question him, if Jesus was
>sent to be sacrificed for
>our sins, why would he
>question God?
>
>(Matthew 27:46): ".. . My God,
>my God, why hast thou
>forsaken me?"
>
If I say to a Roman Catholic, say the "Our Father" or the "Hail Mary", they know exactly what I mean -- and they know I mean saying more than two words!
In like fashion, if I say to an older priest, pray the "Miserere", he knows I mean Psalm 51, which was the first word in the Latin Vulgate of the Psalm. A priest would know that because he prays the Psalms daily at specified times (and they still do in English).
The Jews prayed this way, with the Psalms being their prayer book. Before the chapters and verses were numbered in the Bible, everyone with devotion in first century Palestine knew that "Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?" was what we call Psalm 22.
Read the Psalm itself and see how perfectly it prophecies of the cross ending in praise of God for eternal life. Those who were less devout or did not hear him correctly assumed he was calling on Elijah.
>Could this not come from someone
>other than Jesus? Even a
>Non Prophet would smile at
>agony as he knew that
>his death would win him
>the title of martyr.
>
That's absurd. I believe in eternal life, and I long for heaven. It's true that sometimes I get very excited thinking about what it will be like. However, I also love life on earth, and I love my wife, and I have a lot I still want to accomplish here. Life is a precious gift from God, and Christianity has always maintained the goodness of the body and life on earth, while placing our eternal hope in the life to come. Paul expressed the same tension in regard to his ministry and his longing to be in heaven. One early martyr said that if she died, she would be with God, but if she lived, God would be with her. Furthermore, while I want to be in heaven, I have absolutely no desire to be killed on a cross. Intellectually, I understand the honor of martyrdom, and I believe in faith that God is with me when I suffer, and I long for eternal life -- but crucifixtion is an awful way to die. Anyone who wishes crucifixtion on themselves is insane!
>Was this not an insult to
>Jesus in not having faith
>in Allah?
>
Absolutely not. In fact, throughout the entire event, all his words and deeds show that his trust was in his heavenly Father: from praying Psalm 22, to forgiving his enemies, to comitting his spirit to the Father.
>The sacrifice that has to be
>made to be forgiven for
>our sins is the sacrifice
>of our will to the
>Creator Allah, as confirmed in
>the Bible.
>
God does not want to obliterate our will. In losing our life, we find it. We place our will in his hands trusting him and loving him and kowing that as we draw closer to him. We become more authentically human, more natural, more like his image as we were originally intended to be and more free. I can provide the Scriptures if you need them.
>Not only do we rely on
>faith, but also action and
>reality all combined.We believe in
>the same God, you have
>been taught by the recipients
>of your hard earned 10%
>of your income tithing that
>the Koran is not the
>word of God, that is
>sad, because then you would
>learn as every chapter begins
>"God is the Most Gracious,
>the Most Merciful."
>
>In Islam, only 3% of your
>income goes straight to the
>poor, such as a relative.
>None is required to go
>the Church or Mosque. 3%
>of the wheat in the
>world would feed all the
>starving.
This seems to be off topic, but I'll take a shot at it.
Most Catholics don't really tithe -- though I try to and there has been a greater push for it in the past few years. At any rate, I think that most Christian Churches on the worldwide scene avoid a legalistic tithing.
Many Evengelical Protestants are more strict about it, but they are not the actual majority of Christian churches. Jesus holds up a widow who gave all she owned as an example of Christian giving. The woman only had a few cents. At the same time, with our Pauline understanding of salvation by grace, we consider it legalistic to think that you MUST give ten percent even if your family is suffering.
I have heard pastors in my church actually say in the puplit that they wanted widows on fixed incomes to STOP giving money to the church. I've also heard several priests say that while the church needs some operating funds, we should also give to other worthwhile charities.
As I read the Bible, I realize that the tithe was instituted in a theocracy with no separation of church and state. Thus, the tithe not only supplied the temple, but the palace and the army. Therfore, my taxes really could be considered part of my tithe by Biblical standards.
I think the Christian attitude toward money should be a healthy willingness to separate needs from wants, live simply, spend prudently, and realize that God gives us everything to be used with responsibility and with discernment. It's not really the percent you give that makes you holy, but the attitude of your heart.
I read somewhere that if you can live quite well by putting 10% of your money in investments that will make more money, save 10%, and give 10% away. I also believe in avoiding debt, as Scripture advises. I try to live by these principles, and I seem to be doing fine. But I don't look at this as a legalistic guideline -- it's just a way of trying to make my life mean something.
To sum up:
I admit that gross inconsistency makes a collection of texts incomprehensible and reveals fallacies in thinking. Furthermore, I expect greater consistency with a single author than I would with multiple authors. In other words, I believe that your questions about the Bible can be answered.
However, the so-called absolute internal consistency argument that Muslims are using for the Qur'an on this site can actually be an argument that a text is conveying a conspiratorial lie! How do I know that Uthman and his court did not conspire to create and compile a consistent Qur'an to unite the Arabic people to build an empire?
At the same time, I am not stating that apparent contradictions can never be resolved. I believe I have answered your objectiosn to the Bible inconsistencies and you can check my answers in common resources such as secular encyclopedias and common history books, as well as Biblical commentaries such as Peake's or the New Jerome Biblical commentary.
Bottom line: the absolute consistency argument is not absolutely convincing.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.