|
|
Questions
If Jesus had the credentials of the Messiah, Why didn’t the Jews accept him?
If Jesus was without sin, why was He baptized?
What did Jesus do in his earlier years?
How did Jesus empty himself and become a servant and yet he was God?
Could the New Testament Account of Jesus be just an Exaggeration? ?
Could Jesus have sinned if he wanted to?
Did Jesus promise an easier life for those who believed?
What did Jesus look like?
What does Jesus want me to do?
Why did Jesus, as a God, become a man?
I would like to ask you to tell me what Jesus, meant in Matthew 8:22, “Let the dead bury their dead?” ?
The idea of a virgin birth is scientifically impossible.
What did Jesus mean when he said, “The Father is greater than I”? ?
If Jesus truly paid the full price for our sins in our place, why doesn’t He have to spend an eternity in hell?
There are no sources outside the Bible about a historical Jesus ever existing.
Couldn’t Jesus have been a magician who made people hallucinate about his miracles?
Some Christians say that Jesus is God. Now God is immortal, then how can he die?
How can a person have a divine nature and a human nature at the same time in the way that we believe Jesus Christ did?
If Jesus had the credentials of the Messiah, Why didn’t the Jews accept him?
There were many factors that led to the Jewish people rejecting Jesus as their Messiah, it can be stated simply they did not believe because they did not want to believe. It is the same reason why most people throughout history have rejected Jesus as Messiah. It is not that they could not believe, it is that they would not believe. It is not that people need more evidence, it is that they do not act upon the evidence that they have.
The New Testament provides many such examples of the religious leaders attempting to suppress the truth of God. A case in point is that of Lazarus. In the presence of the religious rulers, Jesus brought back Lazarus from the dead after Lazarus had been dead four days. One would think that such a miracle would at least make them consider believing in Jesus as the Messiah, because form their own testimony they never saw anyone do such miracles. But discussing about what to do with Jesus, they decided to kill him. “The from that day on they plotted to put Him to death.” (John 11:53). Rather than causing belief, it made them want to get rid of him. But it was not only Jesus that they wanted to kill.
Lazarus was walking around alive, a living testimony to the power and credentials of Jesus. Therefore, the religious leaders wanted to kill Lazarus also! “But the chief priests took counsel that they might also put Lazarus to death, because on account of him many of the Jews went way and believed in Jesus” (John 12:10,11).
Jesus, in speaking to his disciples, summed up the state of the people: “Seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand” (Matt. 13:13). The basic reason that the majority of the nation Israel rejected Jesus is simply because they did not want to believe.
If Jesus was without sin, why was He baptized?
John the Baptist also asked that question:
But John didn't want to baptize him. "I am the one who needs to be baptized by you," he said, "so why are you coming to me?" But Jesus said, "It must be done, because we must do everything that is right. " So then John baptized him. (Matthew 3:14,15)
So what did Jesus mean? There are several reasons for it. The bible says that Jesus came to earth to live the perfect life. This enables him to become the sacrifice for ours sins upon Calvary’s cross. His life is our example of how we should live. Those who believe in him are instructed to follow that example. So he insisted on being baptized to set an example for the conduct of believers. Another reason for Jesus’ being baptized, was so that he was publicly dedicating himself to God’s will. Lastly, even though Jesus had no sin, what better way to begin His ministry than to symbolically identify with sinners.
"Jesus, like any good fisherman, first catches the fish; then He cleans them" - Mark Potter
What did Jesus do in his earlier years?
Throughout history, fanciful accounts of Jesus’ youth have been written but all of these have proven unreliable. The only firsthand source of information we have about his life is the New Testament and it remains silent about Jesus’ youth.
So in answer to your question, without a doubt Jesus was doing whatever duty was set before him with the same dedication he would later have in his ministry. His faithfulness is acknowledged at his baptism when God the Father’s voice was heard saying, “This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:17). We know that the Father was pleased with his Son. Whatever things Jesus did during those silent years he did them well, pleasing his heavenly Father, and though we may wish to know more, we can be satisfied with the knowledge that the youth of Jesus was spent as faithful to his calling.
How did Jesus empty himself and become a servant and yet he was God?
The concept of "emptying" was a raging controversy in the nineteenth century, and elements of it remains today The Greek word used by Paul in the second chapter of Philippians, kenosis, is translated as "emptying" in most Bible versions. The question is, Of what did Jesus, in his human (incarnate) state, empty himself?
The popular view in certain circles in the nineteenth century was that at the time of the Incarnation, the eternal God, the second person of the Trinity, laid aside – emptied himself of – his divine attributes so that he could become a man. And in becoming a man in the very real sense, he stopped being God. And so there is the transformation from deity to humanity because he set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, his self-existence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.
There was one orthodox theologian during the middle of that controversy who said somewhat caustically that the only emptying that theory proved was the emptying of the minds of the theologians who would teach such a thing as God stopping for one second to be God. If God laid aside one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation; the infinite suddenly stops being infinite; it would be the end of the universe. God cannot stop being God and still be God. So we can’t talk properly of God laying aside his deity to take humanity upon himself. That is why orthodox Christianity has always declared that Jesus was verus homus, verus Deus – truly man, truly God; fully man and fully God. His human nature was fully human, and his divine nature always and everywhere fully divine.
Nevertheless, the apostle Paul does speak of Christ emptying himself of something. I think the context of Philippians 2 makes it very clear that what he emptied himself of was not his deity, nor his divine attributes, but his prerogatives – his glory and his privileges. He willingly cloaked his glory under the veil of his human nature hat he took upon himself. It’s not that the divine nature stops being divine in order to become human. In the Transfiguration, for example (Matt. 17:1-3), we see the invisible divine nature break through and become visible, and Jesus is transfigured before the eyes of his disciples. But for the most part, Jesus concealed that glory. I think Paul is saying in Philippians 2 that we’re to imitate a willingness to relinquish our own glory and our own privileges and prerogatives.
Could the New Testament Account of Jesus Be Just an Exaggeration?
There are several problems with this view. First is the testimony of his disciples. They contended that Jesus did these miraculous deeds in their presence. The Apostle John wrote, “The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.” (John 19:35). Simon Peter made it clear that the disciples knew the difference between myth and reality. “We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” (2 Peter 1:16). It is the united testimony of the New Testament that Jesus performed miracles in front of multitudes of people.
These same disciples are the ones who gave us the New Testament record. The Gospel writers, Matthew and John, were disciples of Jesus and eyewitnesses to the events. Mark and Luke recorded eyewitness testimony. Thus, we have individuals who were with Jesus and witnessed the events firsthand. They are not passing down a story to us that they had been told. They were there!
Finally, if the New Testament account of Jesus were merely an invention or exaggeration, then why didn’t his enemies say so? Those who hated Christ would have denied his miracles if they could have. Yet they attempted to explain his miraculous character by attributing his works to the power of Satan. Rather than deny that Jesus was a miracle workers, his enemies tried to say his power was demonic.
Further more, these same disciples are united in their portrait of Jesus. From the first statement until the last, everything that they record about Jesus testifies to his supernatural.
Thus, to say the New Testament portrait of Jesus was an invention or exaggeration does not fit the facts.
Could Jesus have sinned if he wanted to?
Yes, but he did not want to.
Could Jesus have sinned if he did not want to?
No, anymore than God could sin because God doesn’t want to sin.
Could Jesus have wanted to sin?
Yes, that is part of being made after the likeness of Adam.
Did Jesus promise an easier life or those who believed?
Well, let’s see…
"God blesses you when you are mocked and persecuted and lied about because you are my followers. Be happy about it! Be very glad! For a great reward awaits you in heaven. And remember, the ancient prophets were persecuted, too.(Matthew 5:11, 12;TNLB)
When the world hates you, remember it hated me before it hated you. The world would love you if you belonged to it, but you don't. I chose you to come out of the world, and so it hates you. (John 15:18, 19:TNLB)
Why?
Their judgment is based on this fact: The light from heaven came into the world, but they loved the darkness more than the light, for their actions were evil. (John 3:19;TNLB)
And what did Paul say:
Yes, and everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. (2 Timothy 3:12;TNLB)
Looks like a “No”, to me.
What did Jesus look like?
We can surmise from Scripture that Jesus was not outstanding in his appearance . He was probably of average size for a man living in his day. We can deduce this from the record of his betrayal. Judas Iscariot made a pact to betray Jesus or thirty pieces of silver. The chief priests and religious rulers wanted to be sure they had the right man. Judas said "You will know which one to arrest when I go over and give him the kiss of greeting." (Matthew 26:48). If Jesus had been above average in height or had some outstanding physical characteristic, then it is hard to imagine why Judas needed to point him out. Jesus obviously did not stand out that strikingly in a group of eleven other men.
The prophecy of Isaiah also mention this following:
My servant grew up in the LORD's presence like a tender green shoot, sprouting from a root in dry and sterile ground. There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him. (Isaiah 53:2)
In the Old Testament, the sacrificial lamb was to be without spot or blemish. This was a picture of Jesus, the Lamb of God, who was the perfect sacrifice for our sins. Although the perfection of Jesus was spiritual, that is he was without sin, it might also have reference to his physical characteristics. But of this point we cannot be sure. Anything we can deduce about Jesus’ physical appearance is only from inference.
But the LORD said to Samuel, "Don't judge by his appearance or height, for I have rejected him. The LORD doesn't make decisions the way you do! People judge by outward appearance, but the LORD looks at a person's thoughts and intentions." (1 Samuel 16:7).
This indicates that his outward appearance was not the crucial. What was important was what was on the inside – in his heart. Many years before Jesus came, God had made that clear.
What does Jesus want me to do?
Three things:
1)For if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved. (Romans 10:9, 10, TNLB)
Believe and acknowledge the Lord Jesus as Savior.
2)Jesus replied, "`You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: `Love your neighbor as yourself.' (Matthew 22:37-39)
Since he is both Lord and Savior, we are to be obedient to the Bible. It gives us the standard of right and wrong.
3)"So why do you call me `Lord,' when you won't obey me? (Luke 6:46)
When we call Jesus our Lord, then we desire to do those things, which are pleasing to him. If we refuse to obey his commandments we have no right to call him Lord. Since God has made us and knows what is best for us, it is only logical that we follow what he has prescribed. Failure to do what he instructs will result in our suffering the consequences. But obeying his commandments will bring us a life of fulfillment.( See also the New Beliver section.)
Why did Jesus, as God, become a man?
The Scriptures gives us four reasons why Jesus came to earth.
The first and foremost reason was to reveal God to mankind. If you wish to know what God is like you need go no further than to look at Jesus. “ No one has ever seen God. But his only Son, who is himself God,” (John 1:18). This verse teaches that Jesus explained God to humanity. We need no longer wonder what God is like; Jesus shows us.
Another reason for Christ’s coming was to die on the cross for the sins of the world. “For even I, the Son of Man, came here not to be served but to serve others, and to give my life as a ransom for many." (Matt. 20:28). Jesus’ death on the cross, paid the penalty for our sins. He died in our place in that we do not have to suffer eternally for our misdeeds.
His coming also was to destroy the works of the Devil and the hold he has had over mankind. “But when people keep on sinning, it shows they belong to the Devil, who has been sinning since the beginning. But the Son of God came to destroy these works of the Devil.” (1 John 3:8). Jesus’ death on the cross frees us from the power of sin. The Devil no longer has any right to control us because Christ has given us the freedom to choose not to sin.
Jesus also came to provide an example for the believer on how to live ones’ life. When a person puts his faith in Christ he has an example to follow. Jesus lived the perfect man with faith in his Father. Consequently, we are told, “to walk just as He walked” (1 John 2:6).
It is for these reasons that Jesus left heaven’s glory to live as one of us.
I should like to ask you to tell me what Jesus meant in Matthew 8:22, “Let the dead bury their dead’?
It means “Let the spiritually dead bury their physically dead.” It should be read in relation to its context in the verses proceeding.
The idea of a virgin birth is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
Ever since in vitro fertilization and embryonic transfer came on the scene in 1978 (not to mention artificial insemination), it is quite possible for a woman who has never experienced sexual intercourse to give birth. |
What did Jesus mean when He said, "The Father is greater than I"?
Sometimes when Jesus makes straightforward statements that appear to mean one thing on the surface, they require that we go a bit beneath the surface to resolve the apparent difficulty. In this case, that kind of extra labor is not required. Jesus meant exactly what he said: “The Father is greater than I.” That’s somewhat distressing for Christians because we have this sacred doctrine of the Trinity that describes the unity of the three persons of the Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Here the Son of God is saying that the Father is greater than he is. This is one of the reasons the church has always confessed a doctrine called subordination of Christ. Notice that it’s not called the inferiority of Christ. Because in our culture some people conclude that subordination necessarily implies inferiority.
The reason Christian theology contains a doctrine about the subordination of Christ is that even though the second person of the Trinity is co-essential with the Father (he’s of the same essence, “very God of very God,” eternal in his being) there is a distinction among the persons of the Godhead. In the economy of redemption and even of creation we see certain works attributed to the Father, others to the Son and others to the Holy Spirit.
The traditional view is that the Son is begotten of the Father – not created, but eternally begotten. The Father is not begotten of the Son. The Son is sent into the world by the Father; the Son does not send the Father. Jesus said, “I do nothing on my Own authority, only that which the Father tells me to do.” His meat and his drink were to the will of the Father. He was commissioned by the Father to come into the world for the work of redemption in the Godhead itself, one sends the other, and the one who sends is said to be greater than the one who is sent in terms of the economic distinctions and the structure by which the Godhead works.
By the same token, the church historically, except for the filioque dissenters, has stated that, as the Father sends the Son, so the Holy Spirit is sent by both the Father and the Son. As the Son is subordinate to the Father in the work of redemption, so the Spirit is subordinate to both the Father and the Son. But again, that does not mean an inequality of being or dignity or divine attributes. The second person of the Trinity in fully God; the third person of the Trinity is fully God. In that work of redemption we see the expression of superordination and subordination.
If Jesus truly paid the full price for our sins in our place, why doesn’t He have to spend an eternity in hell?
Many have wondered how Christ could have borne the undiminished wrath of God in our place, since the Lord exacts retribution on sinners through both temporal death and conscious, eternal torment in hell.
As a man, Jesus truly experienced death (Mark 15:37). However, you must remember, that Jesus is more than just a man. He is also God (John 1:1, 14.). Through Christ, God both shed His blood (Acts 20:28) and was crucified (1 Cor. 2:8). Since Christ is an infinite person, His bitter sufferings and death communicate boundless value. For this reason, Jesus did not have to spend eternity in hell. Christ, an eternal person, was afflicted once for all, communicating limitless value through His one sacrifice (Heb. 10:14).
An atheist named Luigi Cascioli, author of The Fable of Christ, contends that apart from the New Testament there is no reliable evidence that Jesus is an historical figure and there is, then, no reliable basis for Christianity. He claims that evidence for Jesus’ existence apart from the Bible is gleaned from statements made after the time of “the hypothetical Jesus” and therefore is unreliable.
The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious "Christians " ("named after Christus" which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44 ).
Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.” There is a controversial verse (18:3) that says, "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats. . . . He was [the] Christ . . . he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him." One version reads, "At this time there was a wise man named Jesus. His conduct was good and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who became his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders."
Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus in a discussion of the darkness which followed the crucifixion of Christ (Extant Writings, 18).
Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper.
The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover, and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.
Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.
Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of his followers.
Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.
In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed - worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).
In conclusion, there is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and Biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the 12 apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie. |
Couldn't Jesus was a magician who made people hallucinate about His miracles?
All sorts of excuses and challenges have been offered to contradict or explain away the miraculous accounts of Jesus' life. Among the weaker challenges offered is that Jesus was some sort of a magician who was able to get people to hallucinate about His miracles. In other words, countless people were all seeing Jesus do things that were not really happening and it was Jesus who was perpetrating this deception upon them. Let's take the account of where Jesus feeds the five thousand with five loaves and two fish (Matt. 14:19-21). Though it is certainly possible to have one person hallucinate about this, how do the critics account for five thousand people hallucinating about the same thing at the same time? Or how about the resurrection? How do the critics explain the accounts of Jesus appearing to the disciples with holes in His feet and hands? How did Jesus get numerous people to believe a lie about His resurrection (a mass hallucination?) after the Romans, who were experts at executions, not only flogged Him severely, beat Him, and hung Him on a cross for six hours and then pierced His side where water and blood came out? How did Jesus do that?
Some have alleged that Jesus went to the Far East and learned many "tricks" and techniques for influencing people as well as controlling His bodily functions so as to appear dead. Of course, this kind of theory lacks any evidence at all and is nothing more than conjecture and guesswork. Besides, the Bible says in Luke 2:51 that Jesus from a very young age continued in subjection to His parents. This means that in that culture, Jesus was obligated to stay with His earthly parents and care for them in accordance to the Ten Commandments that stated that He was to honor His mother and father. His obligation was to be there and care for them in their old age, not abandoning them for some journey to the Far East in order to learn techniques of mind control.
Hallucinations are misperceptions, false interpretations of reality. It is certainly possible for a single person to have a hallucination about something. But, how do you get two, three, or four people to misperceive reality and claim to see the same thing at the same time -- like Jesus' resurrection? That is very difficult to do. In fact, have you ever heard of a group of people succumbing to a mass hallucination and all of them believe the same thing?
But then, some might say that Jesus was able to hypnotize people which would account for the mass hallucination. But you must remember that if Jesus were hypnotizing people, then He would have had to do it over and over again in different circumstances (in homes, in temples, in open fields, in boats, from the cross, etc), with hostile audiences (Pharisees, Sadducees, etc.), as well as those who were already believing Him. If Jesus was so good a hypnotizing people and getting them to believe things that weren't true (which makes Him a deceiver), then why did He not fool people and escape the sentence of being beaten and crucified? Or is it all part of the incredibly great hoax that Jesus somehow managed to accomplish on hundreds and hundreds of people.
Also, did Jesus teach His disciples how to do mystical and/or mind control techniques? If that is so, then where is the evidence? Merely claiming that Jesus could do it, does not mean that it is true. There must be some compelling evidence to support the claim. Simply stating that miracles cannot happen and this must mean that Jesus was a magician or some sort, is begging the question. In other words, the critics assume to be true the thing they are trying to prove; namely, that miracles cannot happen. They then base conclusions upon that assumption which cannot be proven at all.
In order to maintain the theory that Jesus was a master magician who caused people to hallucinate it would seem that the person holding that position must himself be hallucinating.
Some Christians say that Jesus is God. Now God is immortal, then how can he die?
Also, they must realize that "Dead" means lifeless and devoid of all powers. So if he died, then someone else had to bring him back to life, since he is devoid of all powers. Therefore, he can not be God.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "God died" as far as I can remember. I agree that would be paradoxical. God is the source of all life, he is life itself.
Do you believe when a person dies, his soul and spirit dies? Or do you believe his body died and his soul is alive and in paradise?
God did not die, but the body, which he had taken on when he became human, this body died a real human death and a very cruel one indeed.
And Jesus was a real man, not like an angel who can take on "bodily form" for a while and then disappear again. Jesus incarnated into is body, he was conceived, he was born, he was real man. And as man, he was in anguish and suffered and was in pain on the cross. And the load of all the sin of the world on him, all "eternity of hell" on him, that did for sure give him the taste of forsakenness by God [the Father]. That Jesus was not really forsaken is proven by the resurrection. But since he took up our sin, he had the penalty of "God forsakenness" and he cried out under it. I don't think any human being can imagine what it must mean to be judged by God for the sin of the whole world. And no human being would have to if he will accept the substitutionary sacrifice and offer of God to go free because of it.
How can a person have a divine nature and a human nature at the same time in the way that we believe Jesus Christ did?
One of the great crises in evangelical Christianity today is a lack of understanding about the person of Christ. Almost every time I watch Christian television, I hear one of the classical creeds of the Christian faith being denied blatantly, unknowingly, unwittingly. And of course, part of the reason is that it is so difficult for us to understand how one person can have two natures. You are asking me the question “How?” I don’t know how; I know that Jesus is one person with two natures. How can that be? Long before there was a human nature, there was a second person of the Trinity. Here the second person of the Trinity, very God of very God, God himself, was able to take upon himself a human nature. No human being could reverse the process and take upon himself a divine nature. I cannot add deity to my humanity. It’s not as if Christ changed from deity into humanity. That’s what I hear all the time. I hear that there was this great eternal God who suddenly stopped being God and became a man. That’s not what the Bible teaches. The divine person took upon himself a human nature. We really can’t understand the mystery of how this happened. But it is conceivable, certainly, that God, with his power, can add to himself a human nature and do it in such a way as to unite two natures in one person.
The most important council about this in the history of the church, whose decision has stood for centuries as the model of Christian orthodoxy and is embraced by Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Roman Catholics, Baptists— virtually every branch of Christendom — is the Council of Chalcedon. It was held in the year 451, in which the church confessed its belief about Jesus in this way: They said that we believe that Jesus is verus homus, verus Deus— truly man, truly God. Then they went on to set boundaries for how we’re to think about the way in which these two natures relate to each other. They said that these two natures are in perfect unity, without mixture, division, confusion, or separation. When we think about the Incarnation, we don’t want to get the two natures mixed up and think that Jesus had a deified human nature or a humanized divine nature. We can distinguish them, but we can’t tear them apart because they exist in perfect unity.
Further future questions:
What did Jesus mean when he said we would do greater work than he did?
How can a person have a divine nature and a human nature at the same time in the way that we believe Jesus did? |
So-called Contradictions/Discrepancies about Jesus
Christ was to be three days and three nights in the grave (Matt 12:40) compared to Christ was but two days and two nights in the grave ([Mark 15:25,42,44,45,46; 16:9)
According to Haley, Orientals reckon any part of a day as a whole day. Thus, one whole and two parts of a day, along with two nights, would be popularly styled as "three days and three nights." Such usage is seen elsewhere in Scripture.
Jesus first appeared to the eleven disciples in a room at Jerusalem (Luke 24:33,36,37; John 20:19) compared to Jesus first appeared to the eleven on a mountain in Galilee (Matt 28:16,17)
Matthew's account does not say that this was Jesus' first appearance. It is certainly possible that Matthew simply passes over the earlier appearances and focuses on the call to go into Galilee. In fact, notice how Matthew's account is not exhaustive. In 28:16, he mentions that Jesus had indicated what mountain in Galilee the disciples were to go to, yet he does not mention this when he quotes Jesus in verse 10.
Christ ascended from Mount Olive (Acts 1:9,12) compared to Christ ascended from Bethany (Luke 24:50,51)
You know one is grasping when they cite the same author writing about the same thing as a contradiction. :) Bethany is on the eastern slope of Mount Olivet. Anyone coming back from there and returning to Jerusalem would have to pass over the mountain, and thus return from Mount Olivet. You would think that someone who proposes a geographical contradiction would look at a map.
Christ was crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25) compared to Christ was not crucified until the sixth hour (John 19:14,15)
At what hour was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:25 says it was in the third hour, 9:00 a.m. John 19:14-15 says that in the sixth hour (different clock). He was still not crucified yet but was being judged before Pilate. This was at about 6 a.m.
So three hours later He had carried the cross up to Golgotha (with some help) and was crucified.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Acts use Hebrew time for their reckoning. John uses Roman time. Another example of this is in John 18:28 -- early morning refers to the fourth Roman watch, which was 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. --MAW
The two thieves reviled Christ (Matt 27:44; Mark 15:32) compared to Only one of the thieves reviled Christ (Luke 23:39,40)
Did both or only one of the thieves revile Jesus?
Matt. 27:44 and Mark 15:32 say they both did.
Luke 23:39-40 says that the one rebuked the other for his blasphemy.
Probably at first they both did and then one of them repented, and, while the other was still reviling, rebuked him and asked the Lord to remember him. So he was saved. Luke doesn't say that the rebuking one had not at first been also reviling. It merely records a segment of the conversation. --MAW
(Once again, we see another "contradiction" which presumes exhaustive accounts --MB)
The infant Christ was taken into Egypt (Matt 2:14,15,19,21,23) compared to The infant Christ was not taken into Egypt (Luke 2:22, 39)
Luke does not say that the infant was not taken into Egypt as neither account is exhaustive (those who look for contradictions often overlook the fact that Biblical accounts are rarely exhaustive in their scope). We can easily harmonize the accounts as follows:
Journey of Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem; birth of the child; presentation in the Temple; return to Bethlehem; visit of the Magi; flight into Egypt; return to settle in Nazareth.
Christ was tempted in the wilderness (Mark 1:12,13) compared to Christ was not tempted in the wilderness (John 2:1,2)
Mark 1:12, 13 Jesus was tempted in the wilderness immediately after His baptism.
John 2:1, 2 The third day after John testifies for Jesus for the first time in the book of John, (not the first ever) Jesus is in Cana of Galilee turning water into wine. There is no mention of how much earlier Jesus was baptized. He was tempted in the wilderness before 1:29. Then He went back to see John, at which time John proclaims that Jesus is the Lamb of God, based on previously having seen the Spirit descend on Him in the form of a dove. (verses 32 to 34). --MAW
Christ preached his first sermon on the mount (Matt 5:1,2) compared to Christ preached his first sermon on the plain (Luke 6:17,20)
Neither account says anything about this being his "first sermon." As MaryAnna notes: Probably two different sermons with similar content. Matt. doesn't say the sermon on the mount was His first sermon. Matt. doesn't seem too concerned about the sequence of events. Matt. 4:23 seems to indicate that before this the Lord already had done a lot of speaking. The one in Luke 6:17 was to the crowds, whereas the one in Matt. 5 was addressed to the disciples privately. --MAW
Indeed. It is not at all uncommon for a preacher to preach similar sermons at different times and with different audiences, now is it?
John was in prison when Jesus went into Galilee (Mark 1:14) compared to John was not in prison when Jesus went into Galilee (John 1:43; John 3:22-24)
The account in Mark does not indicate that this was the first time Jesus went into Galilee. It is quite possible that Jesus did earlier visit Galilee to baptize and mingle, and Mark alludes to a subsequent visit (after John's imprisonment) when He began to preach the nearness of the kingdom.
Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with a staff and sandals (Mark 6:8,9) compared to Christ's disciples were commanded to go forth with neither staves not sandals (Matt 10:9,10)
These are more of complementary accounts which get us closer to the full instructions of Jesus. In Mark, He tells his disciples to take nothing for their journey except a staff and sandals to wear. In Matthew, He instructs them not to acquire many things (including more sandals and staffs). In short, he is instructing them to take little, and not to accept the gifts of men in return for the healing and message that they bring with them.
A woman of Canaan besought Jesus (Matt 15:22) compared to It was a Greek woman who besought Him (Mark 7:26)
The nationality of the woman who besought Jesus.
Matt. 15:22 She was a Canaanite woman.
Mark 7:26 She was a Greek, Syro-phoenician by race. The Phoenicians were descendants of the Canaanites. So she was Greek in some way other than race. It could have been by religion, marriage, or something else. Anyway, these verses don't contradict each other. The point is she was not an Israelite. --MAW
Also, "Greek" may have simply meant "Gentile". According to Haley, she lived in a part of Canaan called "Syro-Phoenicia."
Two blind men besought Jesus (Matt 20:30) compared to Only one blind man besought Him (Luke 18:35,38)
How many blind men were there?
Matt. 20:30 mentions two. Luke 18:35, 38 only mentions one. A certain one. Luke probably was acquainted with him and so mentions him specifically. He may have continued to follow the Lord and even been among the 120 later, whereas the other may not have. At any rate Luke doesn't say that the blind man was alone, just that he was there and received his sight. -- MAW I should point out that critic's don't like the type of replies that MaryAnna suggests, although I think her explanation is quite plausible. So allow to me reply to their complaints at this point. In another context, one critic decried a similar type of approach as described it as follows
Critic: "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b", so they decide there was "a" AND "b" -- which is said nowhere.
My reply: Simply because it is "said nowhere" doesn't mean it is not the case. That follows only if you assume exhaustively detailed and verbatim reports. In fact, we can induce that it was probably the case by putting the pieces together. This is a perfectly valid approach. Anyone who lives in this world ought to know that. If I go for a ride with my buddies Bob and Steve, and come home to tell my wife I was out with Bob (perhaps because I talked to him more, ie, he was on my mind) and later mention that Steve said something about getting a new job, have I contradicted myself? The contradiction exists ONLY if I said that ONLY Bob and I went for a drive. And it would certainly be reasonable for my wife to conclude that I must have went for a ride with both Bob and Steve.
In attempting to pooh-pooh this type of explanation which is commonly experienced, the critic is fallaciously engaged in black and white thinking. It's like saying, "Hey, either you went for a ride with Bob or Steve, which is it?". But why in the world can't it be both?
Critic: This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a + b".
My reply: I don't know about happy, but this sounds like the crying of a spoiled child. If you are out to demonstrate a CONTRADICTION, this is exactly the type of thing you have to uncover. Just because the critic fails to shoulder HIS/HER burden is no reason for me to take their point seriously.
|
Jesus was all-powerful (Matt 28:18 and John 3:35) compared to Jesus was not all-powerful (Mark 6:5)
Matt. 28:18 is after the resurrection, after all power was given to Him by the Father. John 3:35 says that the Father has given all into His hand.. could be referring to all the believers, as in other verses in John...
Mark 6:5 shows us that Jesus was limited by man's unbelief.
This is a recurring theme in the Bible, that although God is all-powerful, He chooses to limit Himself to man; that is, He chooses to wait for man's co-operation. This explains why the Bible calls His believers His fellow workers. God doesn't need man to work together with Him, yet this is His chosen means of operation. If this is how He chooses to work, this explains how He is all-powerful and yet "could not do many works of power there because of their unbelief." --MAW
Christ is equal with God (John 10:30 and Phil 2:5) compared to Christ is not equal with God (John 14:28 and Matt 24:36)
A few of the "contradictions" are based on a lack of understanding of the Trinity. This is one of them. In His person, Christ is equal with God essentially. Economically, for the accomplishment of His plan, Christ took on humanity, forsaking His equality with God temporarily in order to set a good pattern of submission and to pass through death for the redemption of man and the destruction of the devil and to bring His life to all men. Now He has been seated at the right hand of the majesty on high, with all things subjected under His feet. --MAW
These teachings involve a discussion of both the Trinity and the Incarnation (which is beyond the scope of this reply). Suffice it to say that it is quite possible that such doctrines could be true, thus these verses would be a case of both/and, rather than a contradiction.
Christ's mission was peace (Luke 2:13,14) compared to Christ's mission was not peace (Matt 10:34)
Luke 2:14 says, "peace among men with whom he is pleased."
Mt. 10:34 says, "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
The first verse could very well mean that peace exists among those with whom God is pleased, i.e., the fellowship of believers. Yet such believers are like a light among the darkness, and men prefer the darkness. Thus, the fellowship of believers, while full of peace, incurs the wrath of the nonbelievers.
One only need consider that in some nations Christians peacefully gather, yet are persecuted, to see how easy this "contradiction" is resolved.
Christ received not testimony from man (John 5:33,34) compared to Christ did receive testimony from man (John 15:27)
In John 5:34, Jesus claims that the witness he receives comes not from men. If we read Luke 1:76, we see that John is to be a prophet, one who speaks for God. Thus, John's witness, as a prophet, is really God's witness. In other words, Jesus is not rejecting John's witness; he is clarifying it. (Also, this verse is particular to the witness for Jesus early in his ministry.) These verse do not necessarily teach that Jesus does not receive witness from men.
The verse in John 15 speaks of a different situation. This is after Jesus' crucifixion and the indwelling of the Spirit.
Christ's witness of himself is true (John 8:18,14) compared to Christ's witness of himself is not true (John 5:31)
This is a bogus "contradiction." Jesus is not saying His witness of Himself is untrue. He is pointing out that if He alone bore witness of Himself, it would be untrue. Since Jesus did not bear witness of Himself alone, His witness of Himself is not untrue.
MaryAnna adds: Was Christ's witness of Himself true? John 8:18 and 14 is talking about the legal stipulation in the Old Testament that a person giving testimony for himself was not to believe unless he had at least one other witness. John 5:31 is talking about the verity of Christ as a witness. Of course, in the sense of verity, Christ's witness is indeed true. --MAW
Christ laid down his life for his friends (John 10:11 and 15:13) compared to Christ laid down his life for his enemies (Rom 5:10)
Did Christ lay down His life for His friends or His enemies?
Both. The friends mentioned in John 15:13 and John 10:11 are His disciples. The enemies mentioned in Rom. 5:10 were all of us. He could easily die for both His enemies and His friends. This could be answered more completely, but even this simple answer shows that these two verses are not contradictory. --MAW
It was lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death (John 19:7) compared to It was not lawful for the Jews to put Christ to death (John 18:31)
Was it lawful for the Jews to put Jesus to death?
By Jewish law, as stated in the Old Testament, yes. (John 19:7). But by the law of the occupying Romans at the time of Jesus' walk on earth, it was expressly forbidden for the Jews to put anyone to death on their own without going through the proper Roman legal channels and using the Roman means of execution (John 18:31). --MAW
Elijah went up to heaven (2 Kings 2:11) compared to None but Christ ever ascended into heaven (John 3:13)
Here one has to read John 3:13 in context.
"If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And no one has ascended into heaven, but he who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man."
Haley notes: Jesus, setting forth his own superior authority, says, substantially, "No human being can speak from personal knowledge, as I do, who came from heaven. No man hath ascended up to heaven to bring back tidings." So we, speaking of the secrets of the future world, should very naturally say: "No man has been there to tell us about them." In saying this, we do not deny that any one has actually entered the eternal world, but merely that any one has gone thither, and returned to unfold its mystery.
Haley's interpretation of the whole point is entirely possible.
More Q & A about Jesus
Did Jesus ever laugh? What do the Scriptures tell us about his character and sense of humor?
I’ve heard some people answer this question in the negative by saying that laughter is always a sign of frivolity and a thinly veiled attempt to make light of things that are sober. They say life is a so |
|
| |
|