You’ve written that Christ didn’t appear in His glorified body after the resurrection. If that’s true how did He appear in the upper room whilst the doors were bolted shut? Didn’t He ascend to heaven and sprinkle His blood on the Mercy Seat before coming back to earth for forty days? I always figured that once He was raised He was in His glorified body. I never even entertained the notion that He was in His regular “human” body after he arose. Is there scripture I can use to reference this idea?

I was reading your question and answer about the Rich Young Ruler and it got me to thinking. Since Jesus had not yet died and been resurrected, then technically the Rich Young Ruler as well as everyone else was still under the Old Testament Law. Therefore, that is why Jesus gave him a works based answer to his question about eternal life. I guess my question to you is, When did the New Covenant actually begin?

Thank you so much for your labor in answering the questions that come your way. Your website is my daily friend and teacher. Here’s my question….in the story of the rich young ruler why does Jesus’ answer to the question “What must I do to be saved?” seem to be works-based and not belief-based as in JOHN 6:21? There seems to be a conflict here that is hard to understand.

When I accepted Jesus Christ I first believed that He is the Son of God who died for my sins and then repented (changed my mind) from how I viewed things around me and my destination. Now I’m now perplexed as to which one of these two verbs comes first. In Matt. 21: 32 it appears as if its repentance that comes before believing. Is that correct?

A family member just graduated from a “Christ-centered” liberal arts college, and was telling me some of the things he learned. One teacher showed photographs of the various “Dead Sea scrolls”, and made the claim that there were minor discrepancies in the scriptures, caused by different scribes of the time, and that we may not “have all the picture”, so-to-speak. I replied that certain people try to subtly foist such false teaching on the Church, in order to discredit God’s word. He disagreed, and said his faith is strong, but believes this to be true. What do you think?

I understand the passages you quoted in your answer on the Doctrine of Election and see it as you do. However, I’ve always been confused with Romans 9: 21-23.

This makes it sound as if God purposely makes certain people for destruction. This has never been very clear to me.

My question is in reference to the question “how can a believer be lukewarm?” Could you reconcile where the Bible tells us that Jesus wishes we are either hot or cold, but because we are lukewarm, He will spew us out of his mouth?

Unfortunately, I feel that I am probably a lukewarm Christian, continuing to fall into a particular sin. I know my sin is wrong, I really want to stop, but I am having hard times brother.

I’ve read that we have so many manuscripts and portions of manuscripts that we can be confident that we have the scripture pretty much as it was written, but other places, I read that this factoid is misleading, that the manuscripts are not as complete as we are led to believe. A more modest claim I have heard is that we have enough that we can be certain our scripture is doctrinally correct. And, of course, even in Christian scholarly circles, there is controversy about whether one verse was added, etc.

More specifically, I was discussing the bible with my college-age daughter and her pseudo-intellectual boyfriend, both unsaved, and he said that our concept of Satan and all the scripture pertaining to Satan had been added later by the Catholic church, that our original new testament did not portray him as the adversary of God and that the Jews don’t view him that way, either. News to me. I didn’t pay it much heed, considering the source, but my husband (an Episcopalian) nodded in agreement. He said he had seen a documentary on TV that showed manuscripts side by side with the additions. Can you give me any guidance here?

You said, “There’s a very good reason why the New Testament doesn’t make more specific reference to the 70th Week of Daniel. As Gabriel pointed out to Daniel, it’s for his people and his holy city. The church is not involved and won’t be here.”

Question: Are you saying that the purpose/audience of the OT is Israel and the purpose/audience of the NT is for the Church?

Also, Jesus spoke in the Olivet Discourse about the coming destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem which was for Daniel’s people and his holy city, so not sure why it would follow that he wouldn’t also speak about the 70th week? The argument doesn’t seem to follow. What am I missing?

How do I answer the following questions from one who takes a historical perspective on prophecy, does not believe in a literal 3.5 year Great Tribulation, and thinks it began at the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70AD?

1. He claims that Jesus says the Great Tribulation begins with the destruction of Jerusalem, citing Lk 21:20-24.

2. He says the NT makes no mention of 7 years, though it deals heavily with chronologies and times, and asks, “How could that omission be possible if it is as clear and important as you maintain? Were Jesus and the apostles not aware of this prophetic time structure that is key to your viewpoint?”

3. Jesus speaks of Jerusalem being trodden underfoot by the gentiles during this same period, commencing at the destruction of Jerusalem. Revelation marks this as one of the four 3-1/2 year periods. Preaching to the ends of the world is one of the 3-1/2 year periods of Revelation – did that not start with the apostles?