Question. Pastor...Why did Paul write in I Corinthians 15:5 that Jesus appeared to "the Twelve" after his resurrection when Judas was said to have already have committed suicide by then. If Jesus had appeared to him too, why would Jesus not thank him for playing his part and forgive him? Did Paul know of the story told in the newly discovered "Book of Judas," which says that Jesus had Judas betray him according to plan and that Judas was one the best disciples?
Question. Pastor...When did Satan enter into Judas to betray Judas. Was it before the Last Supper as Luke 22:3-6 says? Was it during the Supper, as John 13:27 says, or was it not at all, or at least nothing worth mentioning in Matthew and Mark? And if Satan finally got a hold of him, then could he even help it?
Question. Pastor...Concerning these thirty pieces of silver as the payment to Judas for betraying Jesus. Did Judas throw it down at the Priests as Matthew 27:6-8 says, and walks away, or did he buy some land as we read in Acts 1:18? And why did Mark, Luke and John not know this story? I could ask why Matthew's "thus it was fulfilled" in Matthew 27:9-10 was attributed to Jeremiah but is really from Zechariah 11:12-13, but we all know how Matthew thinks by now about rummaging around in the Old Testament to find quotes that make up his story.
Question. Pastor...Why does Mark 14:44-46 and Matthew 26:49-50 say that Jesus was betrayed with the kiss and arrested, but John 18:2-9 Jesus volunteers to indentify himself and no kiss is mentioned? And as long as we're on it...why on earth did the Romans have no clue which guy was Jesus in the first place? I thought he had ridden into Jerusalem in Triumph just a few days earlier and been teaching in Jerusalem to thousands doing amazing things for one year or three, depending? How can you not know which one was Jesus? Was it too dark?
Question. Pastor...Why does Matthew 27:6-8 say that the Priests bought the land and it gets it name "field of blood" because it was purchased with Judas blood money, which I assume is for the blood of Jesus, when Acts 1:18 says it is called that because Judas fell down and his blood and guts spilled out on that piece of property? Would that not be the "field of guts"....just kidding Pastor! How come Matthew is the only one to mention all this? Oh and how does Judas die anyway? Of course he hangs himself according to Matthew 27:5, but according to Acts 1:18 he fall down and splits open. Mark, Luke and John don't mention this either. I don't think they would leave him hanging until the rope broke do you? I mean weren't Jewish people sensitive about that kind of thing?
Question. Pastor...Why if Judas betrayed Jesus once, and Peter denied Jesus three times, does Peter get forgiven, reinstated and made Pope, or whatever and Judas goes to hell for all eternity or whatever? Is it just because Peter did not hang himself too, or fall down so that his guts burst out?
Question. Pastor...Ok, enough about Judas. I'd like to ask about Peter taking a swing with a sword at the servant of the High Priest who also was there at Jesus arrest and taking his ear off. Did Peter intend to kill the poor guy and why not take a swing at the High Priest or the Romans? I guess it was safer to chop off the ear of a nobody than a somebody?
Question. Pastor...Mark 14:47, Matthew 36:51 and John 18:10 say the ear stayed chopped off, which would be normal. . But Luke 22:50-51 says that Jesus put it back on. You'd think that the other three would have noted this miracle. I can see watching an accident and debating who came from what direction or how fast, but I think all the witnesses would notice Peter trying to cleave someone's head who ducked and Jesus replacing the smitten ear. Or did the three that didn't say anything about this just feel they would leave this to John to report? I don't think it would work that way.
Question. Pastor..Speaking of swords. Did Jesus, in Matthew 26:52 tell them that "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword" and get rid of the things, or did Jesus tell them, as in Luke 22:36-38 to buy swords? And of course, Mark and John don't seem to be into weapons at all.
Question. Pastor...We all know the famous "Give us Barabbas" story. (Mark 15:11) Don't you think it is such a coincidence that Jesus is called the "King of the Jews" by the Romans. At least that is what is going to be put on the sign over his head on the cross. And this "Barabbas" name means "Son of the Father? Bar means "son" and "Abba" means "father," so see what I mean? Is it possible that Barabbas and Jesus were the same person and Pilate was asking the crowd, "do we crucify the King and political threat to Rome and thus to you, or the religious guy and not much of a threat to Rome, it's up to you? Could not Pilate be saying, "Choose carefully because your answer depends on whether I crucify all of you too?" I don't see the wishy washy Pilate of this account in history. He was pretty darn ruthless according to others besides Mark. Anyway, the crowd wants the "Bar Abbas," the Son of God or Son of the Father released, and that seems not to be a problem with Pilate. But Jesus, "King of the Jews," since they have no King but Caesar, is to be crucified which is fine with them. Isn't it more a tale of the people defining the Jesus they want killed so Pilate doesn't kill them for insurrection? What do you think? Pretty cool huh? Did you know that in early copies of Mark, Barabbas is called Jesus Barabbas? But maybe that was too obvious, so we don't see it in later copies. That would make Barabbas, "Jesus Son of the Father." Whoa!
Question. Pastor...See, my other problem with the Barabbas story would be then just who was really crucified and who was let go? If it was someone called Jesus, the son of the Father was let go, and another Jesus, the King of the Jews died, then did the right savior die? Oh well. I can't imagine this being two separate men can you? Or big time coincidence for sure!
Oh, you have to go to lunch now? Ok, I'll wait here. :)
Dennis Diehl is a former pastor of 26 years, who outgrew the Literalism of Fundamentalism. He writes about Pastoral and Church abuse and is available to speak on such topics or be helpful to any church suffering under abusive religion or pastors.
"On top of that, it even admits that the reason for no figs was that it wasn't fig season. Isn't that like me getting angry at a watermelon field in the winter? I do know that maybe the point was that just as fig trees without figs deserve to wither, so Temples without good fruit do too, but still it not being fig time and two different stories mean it either didn't happen at all and is just a way to make a point, or if it did happen, someone goofed. Of course, one could argue that fig trees that don't have figs due to it not being time for figs don't deserve to be withered."
Esbe: You fail to mention an important part of the story (which is actually a metaphorical lesson): The fig tree had leaves OUT OF SEASON, thus implying that it should also have figs.
It is you (here) who is taking something in a literal manner, and failing to grasp it's occult meaning. The fig tree is the symbol of Israel. Figs are "fruits". Fruits (as everyone who understands scripture knows) are good works. The metaphore is also a prophecy; that Israel would be destroyed for having the appearance of good works (religion), but not the results. Jesus cursed Israel when he cursed the fig tree. If you go on to read his other teachings concerning the false Israel which is to arise in violation of his condemnation (let no man ever partake of it's fruit again), you will see that the fig tree is again used as a measure of the beginning of the end ("last days" or whatever); "When the fig tree putteth forth it's shoots, know that the hour is near".
Anyone who TRULY understands what is recorded as the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, understands that no REAL Christian could EVER support the re-creation of Israel. The correct interpertation of the scriptures leaves one with only one choice: Between rejecting the Messiah as false, or understanding that todays Zionist Jews are the enemy of God and humanity. There is no middle ground in this, all politically correct efforts aside. It may be the Devil, or it may be the Lord, but You're gonna serve somebody. The price of standing grows by the day.
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 9:33:25 AM
I believe Cecil B. DeMille had it right. It (The New Testament) is "The Greatest Story Ever Told" I don't believe it was finally canonized until the time of Council of Nicea in 325 CE So a lot of editing could have gone on between the canonized St Jerome edition and the time of the Apostles. Note that the four Gospels always begin with "The Gospel According To --------- )
S why nitpick about it?
by
Bucky the Commoner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 56 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 1:22:37 PM
remarkably sheltered the US people from the whole genre of ' funny Bible' literature which existed in Europe since 17th century. We can name Leo Taksil or Jean Effeil, we can name Jules Renan, etc. That is Mr. Diehl's questions had precessors and mighty ones! Charles De Costaire comes to mind and his immortal character Ulenspiegel... We can list hundreds down the Pushkin's " Gavriiliad' and Michael Bulgakov's ' Master and Margerite'. The questions above would not be asked ( this one is for gormley) if those pastors would not impose their authority on people. So, back off, hypocrites and people would not fight back with humor and sarcasm. That's the message of the genre. I can vouch that out of hundreds of books on the topic I have personally read there was not a word of mockery towards faith- but there was a lot of witty humor fighting hypocricy and bigotry. Why going so far? Take Mark Twain's 'Innocents abroad' and read his statements about the Church and hypocrites. Or how about " Adventures of Huck Finn" ?That simple.
by
Mark Sashine (55 articles, 19 quicklinks, 256 diaries, 3701 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 1:35:30 PM
We deal with these in undergraduate Biblical Hermnuetics 101. They have been answered and refuted time and again. I would suggest you buy and read Norman Geisler's "Christian Apologetics," or Josh McDowell's new edition of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," or anything on Hermaneutics or Biblical Critical Interpretation written by F.F. Bruce. Theyare world respected scholars who have spent their lives deal with texts and textual criticism. If you really want a good book, buy and read: "The Bible-Myth or Message?" by Michael Penny who lives in England.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 970 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 3:59:45 PM
I agree. I condemn those who "sale" faith to the highest bid. I have never listened to any Tel Evangelist that I was not immensely turned off. The mega churches are doing more to destroy Christianity than any one thing on this planet. The are not ministering to the poor, the widows, the fatherless, nor are they helping the powerless. Their churches and organizations vote straight Republican and oppose every thing in society and government to empower "the helpless," "the poor," "the widows," and "fatherless."
Google up Blue Letter Bible, type in "poor" and see how many verses are brought up on the screen. There will be hundreds; type in "rich" and maybe ten or fifteen verses come up; then notice what the Bible has to say about the "poor" and what the Bible has to say about the "rich" or "powerful." Compare what you find to what you hear from Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, Richard Land and on and on it goes. They are millionaires who have no compassion. They come across is messengers of Jesus, but their life style is much like the moneychangers mentioned in the above article.
Mark Twain, Benjmin Franklin, Thomas Paine Ralph Ingersol could condemn the Church time and again for they could see the contradiction of what the Bible teaches, both The tanakh and The New Testament.
I will defend the Bible to my death, but I will not write a word to defend what I see in the denominations and mega churches. There is a lot of difference between Biblical Christianity and the corrupt monster we see paraded around claiming to be Biblical Christianity. We are not at loggerheads on this one at all.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 970 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 6:50:03 PM
Your questions are purely subjective. It is what I think or feel over against what someone else thinks or feels; yet you want an objective answer to a purely subjective frame work.
Let us put it in an objective case as far as possible such as; not what God asks because your god or gods are different than my God, but let us ask does the Tanakh (Old Testament) and New Testament teach that blood sacrifice must be given for forgiveness by the God of the Bible, not another God but the God of the Bible.
Now, you can say you do not believe in the God of the Bible or do not believe the Bible means what it says when it says something. You have every right to reject both the God of the Bible and every right to not believe the Bible to be true holy revelation; but if you do, please reject the rest of the Bible. It is either the Word of God or it is just trash; no, it is a very evil book for it claims inspiration and uniqueness. If it is not unique, it is lie and all of it is a lie including the First Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, The Ten Commandments, the Twenty-third Psalm. The Bible is a whole cloth woven with one thread. If you take one part of it out, the whole garment is just torn cloth. Do not pick and choose what you wish to be revelation and call it Biblical Christianity. You can call it Christianity, but you cannot call it Christianity. You cannot do that with a secular Book, and cannot do it with the Bible.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 970 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 3:46:22 PM
My next to the last line, "You can call it Christianity, but you cannot call it Christianity;" should have read, "You can call it Christianity, but you cannot call it Biblical Christianity."
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 970 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 3:51:55 PM
What this author does is set up straw men of his choosing and then shoot them down, meanwhile refusing to accept the argument that the gospels were written by different men at different times to different people to achieve different religious and political results. Matthew, Mark and Luke were all based probably upon the Q gospel as has been speculated by their similar syntax and almost identical word choice in certain passages. But each of these three gospels differ when the writer remembers a specific event differently than it appears in the Q document or an event not in the Q document. John, on the other hand, most probably the last gospel written, relies not at all on the Q document but is the fully developed theology of Christianty as it existed at the beginning of the second century. None of these disciples had much, if any, contact with one another, once they spread out to begin their ministries across the known world, and they wrote their gospels some thirty to fifty years after the events in question.
The more proper question to ask is, "Mr. Diehl, since hundreds of thousands of people existed that were present when the events in question occurred, and the disciples made no secret of their claims of the story of the crucifixion and resurrection, and the Q document and the gospels were around when many non-believers still lived, how is it that not a single document in rebuttal exists?" In fact, the Jews accept the empty tomb, but claim that the body was stolen by the disciples. This claim is tenuous since an entire Roman Guard (approximately 90 men) was assigned to guard it). Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of a number of early Jewish and Roman historians, none of which contradict the fact he was put to death by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate.
I'll take the time to shoot down just a couple of your straw men that are so easy. Judas is no where said to be damned to hell, but clearly repented of his sin and was necessary to the divine plan, and I pray you someday meet him and the other eleven. Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple not because they were providing a necessary service but because they were cheating in the exchange of currency and overcharging for the sacrificial animals; not to mention giving kick backs to the Sadduccees for the privilege of remaining in the outer temple.
It seems to me that you have been a victim of Christian fundamentalism and now harbor a hatred against the theology. Rather than admitting and repenting that you were a stooge for the military industrial complex and learning what your religion truly means, you now try to persuade others from an unbiased examination of Christianity. True Christianity is the hardest of all theologies to follow. When one accepts Christ into his or her spirit, a covenant is made that cannot be broken. The new convert is guaranteed eternal life with others that have been molded to be like Christ, but in exchange he or she gives up free will to the extent that God will actively manage that persons life to begin to mold a spirit as Christ-like as possible in earthly conditions. This usually requires the complete breaking down of the old person through financial or health or job or some other crisis from which only God can deliver that person. Thus breeds the beginning of faith.
And it goes on and on. When two teenagers cheat on an exam, the Christian gets caught, but the non-believer gets his A. In business, the Christian sees corruption all around him. But dare he engage in it, his days are numbered, and the indictment will hold his name and not the others.
On top of this burden, the true Christian must love his enemies and pray for them; must lend $2000 when only $1000 is requested, and must not expect repayment; and when robbed of his wallet must offer his watch additionally.
I commend your recognition of the bankruptcy of the fundamentalist church. It was not always that way though. The pentecostals led the movement to integrate churches, and have been at the forefront of a number of progressive movements. It is the teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture that has corrupted any church that doctrine touches, and, of course, that doctrine is the epitome of selfishness--we won't be here so who cares about those left behind. This belief allows them to forsake caring about the death penalty, global warming, war with Islam, outsourcing, and all of the evils that prevail upon us these days. But it keeps the church coffers full (just like when Jesus threw out the money changers) because people do not want to hear that they may have to lose their lives for their belief in Christ. They do not want to hear all of the sacrifices I listed above. They would just change churches. So it is all a big money game now led by the church hierarchy pushing the pre-tribulation rapture even though there is no basis in scripture for such a doctrine.
You have broken free, but only into another confinement. I suggest you read VELVET ELVIS, REPAIRING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, Zondervan,2005,Rob Bell, as a beginning step toward taking your rightful position as a leader of the real church. Also, if you want to see how God works around the idiocy of humans, go to 90 AA meetings in 90 days and see real miracles still occurring merely from the words of the New Testament. Right now AA and NA are the real church in America.
And never forget, that in America, the path to power is through the church. The failure to recognize this fact is the reason for the post WWII progressive movement's failure to have any substantial impact on public policy except for the Reverend Martin L. King.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 439 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 4:06:12 PM
1. God had declared that disobedience would bring death. Adam chose death. Adam was offered a way to escape eternal death by offering a lamb as a sacrifice. The lamb would be a picture of the seed of the woman who would never sin, yet He would die for sin.
It is why Adam's fig leaf apron was rejected and he was given an animal skin to cover (kippur) his sin. It is why Cain's sacrifice was rejected and Abel's accepted; it had nothing to do with Cain being a farmer or Abel being a shepherd. One other thing, the sacrifice had to be given with faith and a changed lifestyle. As Samuel told King Saul (I Samuel or Samuel in the Tanakh 15:22)—"And Samuel said, 'Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.'").
When King David committed both murder and adultery he wrote in Psalm 51:17, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken spirit and a contrite heart, O God, Thou will not despise." Isaiah 1:11-17 is even more emphatic; as is Jeremiah 7:22-23; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; and a dozen others in the New Testament. Blood sacrifice was demanded by the God of the Bible, but only with faith and repentance.
Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth was the prophesied "seed of the woman," and the final Lamb to be offered; thus John the Baptist's words when he saw Jesus standing on the banks of the Jordan River, "Behold! the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world." The Book of Hebrews in the New Testament is very clear on this matter.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 970 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 4:10:36 PM
Question #2. Why Christians keep Easter and not Passover.
Your sarcasm verges on the silly and is disrespectful. I can see why you had trouble if you were a minister in a church.
If you are going to attack Biblical Christianity with any authority, I suggest first of all you learn a little history and a lot of Koine Greek.
Easter is no where mentioned in the Bible. If you had minimal church history, you would know that when Constantine converted so conveniently to Christianity, he declared the whole Roman Empire to be Christian and the Roman Empire to be a Holy Roman Empire. Citizens of Rome were forced to conversion to Christianity on pain of death. All the non-Christians did was rename their gods to names of angels and saints: Jupiter as Peter, Mercury as Paul, Aphrodite as Mary. Christian events were changed to match the non-Christian calendar. All this forced a marriage between Christian beliefs and non-Christian beliefs. The forced blending of Church and State grew worse until the Bishop of Rome dominated all Christianity; laws were passed outlawing any heresy against the Bishop of Rome's teaching which went on for a thousand years culminating in the Reformation with Martin Luther. This is basic Church History 101.
Easter is mentioned one time in the King James Version of the Bible (The Authorized Version or AV). You do not even need to know Greek to see it is mistranslated by the Church of England in 1507, but if you know the Greek, look up Acts 12:4, "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Look it up in any good modern translation such as the New King James Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, New Revised Standard Version to name a few. All translate it as Passover. Easter is not in the Bible.
King Herod Agrippa has arrest Peter right after he beheaded James bar Zebedee. The word for Easter in the original language (Greek) is a transliterated word from Hebrew, Pascha (pi, alpha, sigma, chi, alpha). Passover or Pascha became known as Easter because it matched the goddess of fertility (your Bunny Rabbits) sometime around 500 CE (or AD).
Any pastor with any seminary could handle this question easily, in fact so could most of my high school students of which all but one goes to a typical secular high school.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 970 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 4:42:58 PM
I am well aware of Easter vs. Passover. I taught Passover in a christian context over the paganism of Easter...As well as other Jewish Holydays over Christmas etc...
by
Dennis Diehl (70 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 56 comments)
on Friday, June 22, 2007 at 8:36:54 PM
After reading several comments from believers I think you missed who this article is pointed at. This is pointed at the people who will tell EVERTHING ING THE BIBLE HAPPENED EXACTLY THEY WAY IT WAS WRITTEN. My brother in law comes to mind. He almost lost his mind when I brought up the fact that jesus was not his hebrew name its this greek way of saying it. According to him if its in the king james version thats the way it happened. Its these people that want the bible taught as science
by
mike (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 92 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 4:55:28 PM
I've enjoyed your series on: Questions your Pastor will Hate.
Though I agree everyone has the right to have "faith" in whaterever they believe the Bible has always made me ask questions because of the conflicting scriptures.
DO I believe in Christ, Jesus, and the Bible? No
Why? For that specific reason.
I mean, lets get real here, if the scriptures can't agree on what happened why would I be inclined to believe them?
Oh yes, I remember, faith. :.)
Troubled Texan
by
TroubledTexan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 5:05:40 PM
You really need to learn Greek if you are going to be the hypercritical authority of destroying Holy Scripture. The "and" in Greek is "kai" (kappa, alpha, iota). It is a common Greek conjunction and is usually translated "and" in English, but is translated by various English conjunctions. The great monster error is removed by simply translating the "kai" as "even;" making Matthew 21:5 read, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King comes unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, "even a colt the foal of an ass."
Your sarcasm is duly noted, but you are do need to be truthful. John 12:14 does not say Jesus went and fetched the donkey Himself. It said he found a young ass." Last month, my daughter wanted to purchase a used car and asked me to be on the look out for one. A few days later I talked to my mechanic who knew of a car she might want to buy. I looked at the car, told Beth about it, and she went by the seller's home, purchases the car, and drove it home. I found the car, but I did not bring it home. Jesus found the "ass" but someone else drove it home. How silly can we be? Just about as silly as trying to make Matthew say Jesus was riding the ass and the foal of an ass at the same time. How silly. Matthew says nothing of the sort if you know Greek 101,
I can guess your questions about the signs on the cross. Heard them many times and are answered by any good Bible Dictionary or Commentary. Answer to the two and one is simple. If they brought the two, they had to bring the one; picky, picky, picky, but yes, you are wrong.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 970 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 5:38:49 PM
The money was not exchanged from foreign money to the Jewish money. People were buying animals for sacrifice. The moneychangers were charging exhorbant prices for the animals and many of the animals were unclean (broken limbs, sick, blind, and so forth). A little reading of Flavius Josephus and Alfred Edersheim would benefit you greatly.
You are right. Jesus came to Jerusalem to die as fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 52-53, Psalm 22, Zechariah, etc).. He diied for you sins. It is a shame you do not believe He did.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 970 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 5:47:28 PM
