If Jesus died on Thursday (Passover), and if at sundown immediately the feast of Unleavened Bread began, and if at sundown Friday the regular Sabbath started (Saturday), what day did the women buy and prepare the spices to anoint the body of Jesus? Mark says in 16:1 that they bought and prepared the spices “when the Sabbath was over,” speaking of Unleavened Bread, but Luke says they prepared the spices and perfumes and then rested on the Sabbath (Lk 23:56).
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?
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.
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?
To demonstrate my belief in OSAS I quoted John 10:27-30 on my Facebook page. “My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father`s hand. I and My Father are one.”
In response someone wrote, “No one can snatch us away, but we can turn away. 2 Peter 2:20” How would you reply to that?
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?
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?
My question has to do with those OT saints represented in Matt 27:52-53. Did they have resurrected bodies or were they like Jarius’ daughter and Lazarus in that they died again? If they had resurrected bodies, did they ascend when Jesus ascended into heaven? If not, what happened to them?
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?
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?