60 Questions for the Christians to Answer

Here is a list of questions that are posted on an Islamic website.  I normally do not get heavily involved in answering the skeptics. This is not because their are no answers to there questions, but do to the fact that the skeptics can keep you busy for more then a life time answering oblivious questions.

Most of the questions asked by skeptics are easy to answer.  If they would only read the "contradictions" as they are written it would become clear that there is indeed no contradiction at all.  However the skeptics are not looking for answers but questions only.  This is one of the ways that they try to deal with their conscious that tells them there is a real God in Heaven which is the God of the Bible.

We are also told in 2Peter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts.  This is another prophecy fulfilled and it's telling us that we are in the last days.

This response to these questions does not support any particular Christian denomination, but are answered from a biblical point of view.

 

60 Questions for the Christians To Answer

A Christian Response

The Trinity

Hussein Khalid Al-Hussein

According to most Christians, Jesus was God-incarnate, fully man and fully God. Can the finite and the infinite be one? “To be fully God” means freedom from finite forms and from helplessness, and to be “full man” means the absence of divinity.

 

Below are some links that discuss the Holy Trinity in more detail then listed here. 

Is Jesus God

The Holy Trinity

The Triune God

1. To be son is to be less than divine and to be divine is to be no one’s son. How could Jesus have the attributes of Sonship and divinity altogether?

 

This statement alone does not make sense.  If God the Father who is 100% God were to have a (begotten) son, how could the Son be less than God himself?  Jesus is not a created being but was begotten from the Father.   
2. Christians assert that Jesus claimed to be God when they quote him in John 14:9: “He that has seen me has seen the Father”. Didn’t Jesus clearly say that people have never seen God, as
it says in John 5:37: “And the father himself which Has sent me, has borne witness of me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His shape“?

 

On this one you missed most of the verses that deal with this topic. Let me help you with this:

In: Genesis 12:7, 17:1, 18:1, 26:2, 32:30, Exodus 3:16, 6:2-3, 24:9-11, 33:11, Numbers 12:7-8,14:14, Job 42:5, Amos 7:7-8, 9:1 God is seen.

And

In: Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1John 4:12 God is not seen. No one can see God's face and live. No one has ever seen him.

The amazing thing is that these verses resolve your confusion themselves! No one has seen God in all his glory. In Exodus, God hid Moses from seeing his face. Isaiah, John, and others saw a vision of God. God takes on a form (like a burning bush to Moses or a whirlwind to Job) before conversing with man.

Furthermore we are told in Isaiah the names of Jesus.  Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

The Child is the Baby in Bethlehem.

The Son is the Son of God

The mighty God is his divinity

The everlasting Father coincides with John 10:30 and John 4:9 and speaks to the oneness of the God Head.

   

3. Christians say that Jesus was God because he was called Son of God, Son of Man, Messiah, and “savior”. Ezekiel was addressed in the Bible as Son of Man. Jesus spoke of “the peace makers” as Sons of God. Any person who followed the Will and Plan of God was called SON OF GOD in the Jewish tradition and in their language. “Messiah” which in Hebrew means “God’s anointed” and not “Christ”, and “Cyrus” the person is called “Messiah” or “the anointed”. As for “savior”, in II Kings 13:5, other individuals were given that title too without being gods. So where is the proof in these terms that Jesus was God when the word son is not exclusively used for him alone?

 

We are told that Jesus is God in the following versus.

1: The prophet is foretelling the coming of the Messiah:

 Isaiah 9:6 For to us a Child is born, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be on His shoulder; and His name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

--------------------------------------------------------------

2: This is another scripture that links God and Jesus as being equal

 1 John 5:20  And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.

--------------------------------------------------------------

3:Thomas refers to Jesus as his Lord and his God

 John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. (28) And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

--------------------------------------------------------------

4: Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.  Immanuel means God with us

--------------------------------------------------------------

5: When Stephen called upon God he said Lord Jesus; remember he is talking to his God

Act 7:59 and they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

--------------------------------------------------------------

6: The Jews sought to kill Jesus on many occasions because he claimed he was the only begotten son of God 

John 5:18  Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

--------------------------------------------------------------

7: Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? (6) And again, when he bringeth in the first begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (7) And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. (8) But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

Let’s take another look, God the Father is speaking to his only begotten son. This is interesting because God the Father calls Jesus (or his only begotten son) GOD.

--------------------------------------------------------------

8: In Isaiah 40:3 we are foretold of the coming of Jesus by John the Baptist, reading in Isaiah 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God. Here in Isaiah Jesus is referred to as God.

 

4. Christians claim that Jesus acknowledged that he and God were one in the sense of nature when he says in John 10:30 “I and my father are one”. Later on in John 17:21-23, Jesus refers to his followers and himself and God as one in five places. So why did they give the previous “one” a different meaning from the other five “ones?

 

This again speaks of the oneness of the God Head or Holy Trinity.  We are told again that the Father and Son are one. In John 17:21 which is a prayer to the Father in Heaven, that those who are in the true body of Christ would be as one as Jesus and God the Father are.  This means that the saints of God share a common trait while on this earth.  

Christians are all redeemed by the same blood, and are going to the same heaven. They have the same wants, the same enemies, the same joys. So these verses of scriptures is a prayer for the unity of the saints.

John 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

John 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

The true believers in Christ are one, in the same way Jesus and His Father are one. The body of Christ is one, made up of individuals, yet united by one Spirit. In the same way, Jesus and His Father are one, yet separate persons. We are to be one (or joined) in Christ, though we are separate persons, yet Jesus dwells in us. In the same way that Jesus and we (the true believers),  are one, yet separate persons. The Father and Jesus are one, yet separate persons.
 

5. Is God three-in-one and one in three simultaneously or one at a time?

 

9: It is written, for there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the HOLY GHOST: and these three are one-1 John 5:7.

There are three separate Persons of the Trinity. These three are illustrated here.

God, the Father.

God, the Son, which is Jesus. The word is Jesus. It is written, his name (Jesus) is called the word of God-Revelation 19:13. Also it is written, in the beginning was the word (Jesus), and the word (Jesus) was with God, and the word (Jesus) was God. Jesus is the Word and He is God. And the word (Jesus) was made flesh, and dwelt among us-John 1:1, 14.

God, the Holy Ghost or Holy Spirit.

 

6. If God is one and three simultaneously, then none of the three could be the complete God. Granting that such was the case, then when Jesus was on earth, he wasn’t a complete God, nor was the “Father in Heaven” a whole God. Doesn’t that contradict what Jesus always said about His God and our God in heaven, his Lord and our Lord? Does that also mean that there was no complete god then, between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?

 

Once again you misread the scriptures. The Father, Son and Holy spirit are not 1/3 part God but each are 100% God. 

They share the same attributes of God as stated in the article The Triune God. 

God is omnipresent, he is in all places at all times and space and matter.  Jesus' body died on the cross but the spirit of God continued to live on. 

We are told in Luke that after Jesus body died he want to paradise. Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
 

7. If God is one and three at a time, then who was the God in heaven when Jesus was on earth? Wouldn’t this contradict his many references to a God in Heaven that sent him?

 

As stated above, God is omnipresent, he is in all places at all times and space and matter.

There are not three Gods, which are the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  These are three separate beings but are one God.

God the Father was in Heaven as well as God the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Remember that God is in all places at all times.

8. If God is three and one at the same time, who was the God in Heaven within three days between the claimed crucifixion and the claimed resurrection?

 

9. Christians say that: “The Father (F) is God, the Son (S) is God, and the Holy Ghost (H) is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost is not the Father”. In simple arithmetic terms, if F = G, S = G, and H = G, then it follows that F = S = H, while the second part of the statement suggests that F¹ S¹ H (meaning, “not equal”). Isn’t that a contradiction to the Christian dogma of Trinity in itself?

 

You cannot mathematically explain God, God can not be reduced to an equation or a formula.

This example might shed some light on the Trinity.  But you must remember that you can not fully explain the Holy Trinity which is spiritual by means of the physical.

If you took three matches each one representing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and lit each one then but the three flames together you would have three matches but one flame.

Or if you drew a circle which would be God and placed the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the circle you would have three persons in one circle which is God. 

 

10. If Jesus was God, why did he tell the man who called him “good master” not to call him “good” because accordingly, there is none good but his God in Heaven alone?

 

You will find that through the Bible that the Father, Son And Holy Spirit pay full honor and respect to each other.  None of them claim to be more then the other but shows the utmost admiration for each other.

Example

In  Hebrews 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Here God the Father refers to his Son as God.

And

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. Here Jesus is referring to God the Father as his God.

There is no contradiction here but rather confirms the Trinity yet again.

 

11. Why do Christians say that God is three-in-one and one in three when Jesus says in Mark 12:29: “The Lord our God is one Lord” in as many places as yet in the Bible?

 

This is the same question as mentioned above several times. “The Lord our God is one Lord” There is one God in three Beings.
12. If belief in the Trinity was such a necessary condition for being a Christian, why didn’t Jesus teach and emphasize it to the Christians during his time? How were those followers of Jesus considered Christians without ever hearing the term Trinity? Had the Trinity been the spinal cord of Christianity, Jesus would have emphasized it on many occasions and would have taught and explained it in detail to the people.

 

There is a triune God, (not three Gods) but one eternal God in three persons; Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are united in that one great Being called God, Who is the Creator and ruler of the Universe. Genesis 1; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; Colossians 2:9; Matthew 28:19.

The teaching of the Trinity is a thread that runs through out the entire Bible.

Each one Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the same attributers as listed here:

Who created the Heavens and the Earth:
Father:
Genesis 1:1
Son:
Hebrews 1:10
Holy Spirit:
Genesis 1:2

Who is it that gives us salvation:
Father:
Titus 3:4
Son:
Matthew 1:21
Holy Spirit:
2Thessalonians 2:13

Who gives us eternal life:
Father:
Romans 6:23
Son:
John 10:28
Holy Spirit:
Galatians 6:8

Who comforts us:
Father:
2Corinthians 1:3
Son:
2Thessalonians 2:16
Holy Spirit:
John 15:26

Who is it who dwells within us:
Father:
1Corinthians 3:17
Son:
John 14:23 
Holy Spirit:
1Corinthians 3:16

Who is it who speaks through the believers:
Father:
Matthew 10:19
Son:
Luke 21:14
Holy Spirit:
Mark 13:11

Who raised Jesus from the dead:
Father:
Act 2:32
Son:
John 2:19
Holy Spirit:
Romans 8:11

Also read:

Is Jesus God

The Holy trinity

 

13. Christians claim that Jesus was God as they quote in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”. This is John speaking and not Jesus. Also, the Greek word for the first occurrence of God is hotheos which means “the God” or “God” with a capital “G”, while the Greek word for its second occurrence is tontheos, which means “a god ” or “god” with a small “g”. Isn’t this dishonesty and inconsistency on the part of those translating the Greek Bible? ? Isn’t such quotation in John 1:1 recognized by every Christian scholar of the Bible to have been written by a Jew named Philo Alexandria way before Jesus and John?

 

Some people deny the deity of Christ, and claim that John 1:1 merely calls him “a god,” but not full deity. They rest their case on three facts of Greek grammar:

  1. There is no such word as "a" or "an" in Greek, so we sometimes have to add "a" to translate into English, (Acts 28:6).
  2. The Greek word used here (theos) has two meanings: usually the supreme God revealed in Scripture, but sometimes lesser beings like the gods of Greek mythology.
  3. The Greek word "the" is often attached to the word "God" or theos, but it does not appear in John 1:1. Hiding behind the rendering of the verse is an unspoken equation: God + "the" (ho theos) = Jehovah, the Almighty God, God - "the" (theos) = a created being with divine qualities. Some claim that the apostle John deliberately omitted a "the" in the final phrase to show the difference between God and the Word. As the New World Translation (p. 775) explains:

John's inspired writings and those of his fellow disciples show what the true idea is, namely, the Word or Logos is not God or the God, but is the Son of God, and hence is a god. That is why, at John 1:1-2, the apostle refers to God as the God and to the Word or Logos as a god, to show the difference between the Two.

Is this the proper translation?

No. The equation underlying the rendering breaks down within a few verses. John 1:18 contains theos twice, without “the” either time. We would expect to translate both as “god” or “a god.” Instead, the New World Translation says "God" the first time and "god" the second time. The context overrules their rule.

Why did John choose not to put “the” on the word “God”?

    1. To show which word was the subject of the sentence. In English, we can recognize the subject of a sentence by looking at word order. In Greek, we must look at the word endings. John 1:1 is trickier than most verses, because both “God” (theos) and “Word” (logos) have the same ending. The usual way to mark off the subject clearly was to add “the” to the subject and leave it off the direct object. That is precisely what John did here.
    2. To conform to standard Greek grammar. E.C. Colwell demonstrated in an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature in 1933 that it was normal practice to omit "the" in this type of sentence. John was simply using good grammar, and making it clear that he intended to say, “The Word was God” rather than “God was the Word,” a statement with some theological drawbacks. John constructed his sentence in the one way that would preserve proper grammar and sound doctrine, declaring that “the Word was God.”

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-acb/acb-r001.html

 

14. Wasn’t the word “god” or “tontheos” also used to refer to others as well as in II Corinthians 4:4 “(and the Devil is) the god of this world” and in Exodus 7:1 “See , I have made thee (Moses ) a god to Pharaoh”?

 

There are many types of Gods.  God does say that Moses was a God but rather that Pharaoh perceived Moses to be a God, however this does not make him one.

Satan is called the god of this world but he is not the true God. If you think that you are the true God you need to take heed to Jeremiah 10:11

Jeremiah 10:11 Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.
 

 

60 Questions for the Christians To Answer

A Christian Response

SALVATION

Christians say that “GOD lost His only son to save us”. To whom did God lose Jesus if He owns the whole universe?

 

What is Salvation

Being saved means our sins have been completely removed. God promises to forgive our sins and restore us to full fellowship with Him if we put our trust in Jesus Christ. Being saved means no longer having our sins count against us; it means being forgiven by the grace of God and being given eternal life.

Romans 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

God sent Jesus Christ to take our place and receive the punishment for sin that we deserved. When we trust in him, we receive the gifts of eternal life and fellowship with God.

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. (10) For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

When you are saved you are freed from the power of sin and free to live a new life.

Romans 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. (7) For he that is dead is freed from sin. (8) Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
 

15. If it was agreeable with God’s Majesty to have sons, He could have created a million sons the like of Jesus. So what is the big clear deal about this only son?

 

The Bible tells us that Jesus is NOT created but is begotten of the Father as stated in John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

It also mentions here that God the Father gave his only begotten Son, not that He lost his Son.  
 

16. Why does the Bible say that Jesus wanted to die on the cross, when the one on the cross was shouting “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” according to Matthew 27:45 and Mark 15:33?

 

These are two different questions.

1)  There is no reference to scripture pertaining to Jesus wanting to die on the cross.  Jesus prayed in to the Father in Matthew 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.    

Here is states that if there were any other way that man might be redeemed from sin than for Jesus to die on the cross that it would be done.  But if there was not then Jesus would carry out His duty.

2) Jesus paid for the sins of all mankind with his death on the cross.  Keep in mind that the physical beating of Jesus is not what washed away our sins.  We are told in Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. The LORD placed the sins of all mankind, past, present and future on Jesus.

Jesus the man lived a sinless life, Jesus the Son is God and can not sin. When the Father placed the sins of the world on Jesus it was the first time he experienced separation from God causing Him to speak the words My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?  

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
 

17. If God had wanted to save us, couldn’t He have done that without sacrificing Jesus?

 

No,  the word of God tells us that if a person commits one sin that the payment is death and hell forever.  In order for a person to pay for their sins they need to stay in Hell for all eternity.  The only one who could possibly pay such a price is God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

Since Jesus paid the full price for each one of us, those who truly accept Jesus as their LORD and savior have had their sin debt paid.  This is a free gift from God and is not something that a person can work to obtain.

If God were to decided to forgo the punishment of a sinner with out someone paying the price, would make God a liar and a deceiver.

 Therefore God (Jesus, the second person in the trinity) was the only one capable of paying the debt.

  

18. God is Just, and justice requires that nobody should be punished for the sins of others nor should some people be saved by punishing other people. Doesn’t the claim that God sacrificed Jesus to save us because He was Just, contradict the definition of justice?

 

First off there is no human that ever lived except Jesus that could pay for the sins of someone else.  Everyone has sinned therefore everyone must pay the penalty for their sins which to be in hell and the lake of fire for all eternity.  Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Therefore it is impossible for someone to help pay for the sins of someone else. In order for this to happen a person would have to serve their time in eternity, get out of hell, then go back to pay for someone else's sins.  Since you can never get out of eternity it is not possible to pay for someone else's sins you have your own to pay for.

However Jesus did not have any sins and he is eternal. This makes Jesus who is God the only one who can pay for the sins of man kind stated in question #17.

 

19. People sacrifice things they have to get something they don’t have when they can’t have both. Christians say that “God sacrificed His only son to save us”. We know that God is Almighty; to whom did He sacrifice Jesus?

 

Jesus was sacrificed so that the plan of salvation would be made available to everyone who believes on the name of the Lord.  
20. A real sacrifice is when you can’t get back what you have offered, so what would be the big deal about such a sacrifice if God could recover the same offering (according to the Christians’ terminology)?

 

God sent his Son to the cross in order to save man from there sins. After the fall of man in the garden of Eden man was lost with no hope of eternal live with God there creator.

You stated that "A real sacrifice is when you can’t get back what you have offered" Jesus paid for the sins of all man; the sin of all mankind was laid upon him.  This is something that will not be recovered from.

If I were to work to pay off a debt I would not be able to recover the time or labor that I spent while paying off this debt, it would be lost forever. However after the debt is completed you would no longer be in debt and I would have obtained the item I was working for.  Again I refer back to the answer for question #17.

 

21. If all the Christians are saved through Jesus and are going to Heaven no matter what they do, then the teachings of Jesus are irrelevant and the definition of good and bad are also rendered irrelevant. If this is not so, then do Christians who believe in Jesus yet do not follow his teachings nor repent go to Hell?

 

1) The Bible does not state that a Christian can do anything they want and still go to Heaven.  There are many who claim to be Christians but do not follow the teaching of Jesus.

2) In order to be saved you must believe on Jesus, no simply with lip service as stated in Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.  A true believer will show forth the fruits of the spirit as stated in Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

3) When a person truly becomes a Christian there is a visible change in their life.  This change is noticeable by those around them. When a person realizes the full impact of what Jesus did for them on the cross they willing follow Jesus out love for what He has done for them.  This is not a forced conversion as in Islam.  
 

22. How can Christians take deeds as irrelevant after becoming one when Jesus says: “But I say unto you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the Day of Judgment. For by the words thou shalt be justified, and by the words thou shalt be condemned”?

 

Our deeds are going to be judged on the day of judgment.  If your bad deeds (sins) have not been paid for by Jesus Christ you will have to give an account of your bad deeds which is eternity in the lake of fire. 

However if you have accepted the free gift of Jesus, who already paid in full for your sins then you can stand before the judge with confidence because your sin debt has been paid in full. 

See answer to question #21 on a Christians good deeds.

 

23. Christians say that people go to Heaven only through Jesus yet Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8-16 that the unbelieving husband is acceptable to God because he is united with his wife and vice versa, and their pagan children are also acceptable to God. So people can go to heaven without believing in Jesus according to this.

 

These verses are not talking about salvation.  Being sanctified and being saved are two different things.

In marriage as God has designed it two people become one flesh. So if God blesses you, guess who gets in on that blessing? Your husband. It is not talking about redemption or salvation, it’s talking about the fact that a believer is set apart for blessing from God, and when you are in a union with an unbeliever, he gets it, it's like the rain falling on the just and the unjust.

A husband, if he were married to an ungodly woman and had ungodly children in his family. God will not be at all involved in that home. But because you have faith in Christ and your children have faith in Christ. God is involved in blessing that home, and he by being one with you in the act of marriage comes under that sanctifying grace. But he still has to make his own commitment to Christ.

 

24. How come the Bible says that all Israel is saved although they don’t believe in Jesus? Doesn’t that contradict the claim in the Bible that the only way to heaven is through Jesus?

 

I believe that you are referring to Romans 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.  This is referring to the second coming of Jesus at the battle of Armageddon.  This is the reference to the Deliverer which is Jesus Christ.  During the battle of Armageddon when all the earth will come against the city of Jerusalem that the city will be split into three pieces as stated in Revelations 16:19 And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath.

It will appear that Jerusalem or Israel will be defeated.  However when it seams that all is lost that the remaining Israelites will once call upon the name of the Lord.  When this happens the Lord of glory will appear and all Israel (those that remain) will be saved.

Zechariah 14:2 For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. (3) Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. (4) And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south.

 

25. According to Christians, those who have not been baptized will go to Hell. So even the infants and babies go to Hell if not baptized, since they are born with an inherited original sin. Doesn’t this contradict the definition of justice? Why would God punish people for sins they never committed?

 

Not a true Biblical Christian.  There is no place in the Bible where we are told that a person goes to hell if they are not baptized.  If a person had to perform the ritual of baptism than the gift of salvation is no longer a gift but something that a person needs to perform in order to get to Heaven.

Reading in Act 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (37) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Here we find that in order to be baptized you need to first believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.  So baptism should happen after a person accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior not before.


Your statement about babies going to hell because they were not baptized is in direct contradiction to the true teaching of the Bible.  King David stated that after his son died that he would be going to be with him but that his son could not come back to him. David is stating that he will be with his son in Heaven.

Reading 2Samual 12:23 But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me.

  

 

60 Questions for the Christians To Answer

A Christian Response

HOLY SPIRIT

The only place in the Bible where the Paraclete was called the Holy Spirit is in John 14:26 “But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you”. What has the Holy Spirit brought or taught for the last 2000 years?

 

Since John 14:26 is at the heart of this section, here is the full verse. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
 
26. Christians say that the Paraclete means the Holy Spirit. Jesus said in John 16:7-8: “If I do not go away the Paraclete will not come to you”. This could not mean the Holy spirit, since the Holy spirit was said to have been there before Jesus was even born as in Luke 1:41: “Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit”. Here, the Holy Spirit was also present during Jesus life time. So how could this fit with the condition that Jesus must go away so that the Holy Spirit will come?

 

Wrong on all accounts. It appears that you seem to believe that Jesus only came into existence with the virgin birth. Jesus has always existed, He is the creator of everything as mentioned in;

Colossians 1:16  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: (17) And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (18) And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. (19) For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; (20)  And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. (4) In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Revelation 4:11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

Hebrews 1:10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

The Holy Spirit did dwell in the hearts and minds of individual people through out the Old Testament.  However the Holy Spirit could come and go as He sees fit.  David prayed in Psalms 51:11 Cast me not away from thy presence; and take not thy holy spirit from me.

After the resurrection of Jesus as stated in John 14:26 and John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; The Holy Spirit was sent over the whole earth to teach us the ways of truth and righteousness.

 

27. In John 16:7-8, it says: “But if go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world of sins and of righteousness and of Judgment”. What do “he” and “him” refer here? Don’t they refer to a man?

 

Let's take a look at John 16:7-8:

John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. (8) And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

I can't possibly see how this would refer to someone else other then the Comforter as mention in John 16:7.  The Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you, send who, the Comforter as mentioned 13 words before Him.
   

28. Does the Holy Spirit talk to good Christians and bad Christians as well? Is the Holy spirit with them all the time or just at certain times? When does it start visiting a person who wants to become a Christian?

 

As stated in Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?  The Father will give the Holy Spirit to anyone who sincerity asks for the Holy Spirit in their lives.

We are sealed with the Holy Spirit after receiving Him as stated in Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, and Ephesians 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.

The Holy Spirit is our teacher; The Holy Spirit will always direct us in the right path to take.  However, the Holy Spirit will not force us to make the right choice only to guide us to the right path.

When an individual chooses not to listen to the Holy Spirit but chooses to do things their own way would constitutes a "bad Christian" so the answer is yes, the indwelling Holy Spirit speaks to "bad" Christians as well as "good" Christians.

 

29. How can you as a Christian tell if the Holy Spirit is inside another Christian? How come many Christians fooled people by claiming that the Holy spirit was inside them only to be converted to another religion later on?

 

I don't believe that a person can truly tell if another person has the Holy Spirit inside them or not.  We are saved by faith alone as told in Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: It is not possible to determine if another person has faith in God or not.

Although you can measure that person's life to see if it matches to the will of God.  The individual will show forth the fruits of the Spirit which are stated in Galatians 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, (23) Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Many people start out with what might seem to be a real genuine appearance.  I know of many people who start out with an exercise program and visit a gym 3 to 4 times a week, but after a month or so they are right back to their old habits.

Obviously, these people do not have a sincere change of heart.  Many people are like this in the Christian faith as well, many are called but few are chosen.           
 

30. Does the Holy Spirit dictate what Christians should do without choice or freedom at all or does it only guide them and they have the freedom to follow or not?

 

God (the Holy Spirit) never forces an individual to make the right choice. But rather guides and instructs the person to make the right choice.  The Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to bring conviction in a person's heart and life when they have gone astray.

This is much different than Islam in that if you do not confess that Allah is the only true God and that Mohammad is his prophet then off comes your head. This makes for a very high percentage rate of false conversions in Islam.

 

31. If the Holy Spirit dictates what Christian should do, why do Christians commit sins and make mistakes? How can you explain the conversion to other religions and atheism of many Christians? Are they told to do that by the Holy Spirit?

 

This question is just a rewording of the first 5 questions in this section:

1) The Holy Spirit does not dictate what Christian should do; see the answers to questions #28, #29 and #30.

2) When a Christian commits a sin they are not in Christ when the sin is committed. In order to sin the person must step outside of Gods will to commit the sin.

3) The conversion to other religions is answered in questions #28, #29 and #30.

 

32. If the Holy Spirit guides Christians only, and they are free to do what they want, then how do we know that the writers of the Gospels didn’t make mistakes in writing them?

 

The Holy Spirit guided and directed the writing of the scriptures. The whole Bible is not just one Book but a collection of 66 Books.  Most of the authors never knew one another yet their writings hold up 100 percent to the other authors whom they never met.

In order for this to happen it had to have been directed by a greater power then the individual who wrote a small portion of the Bible alone and have it coincide with the rest of the Bible.

 

33. If Christians believe that the Holy Spirit comes and talks to them everyday, why don’t they ask the Holy Spirit about which version of the Bible to follow since there are too many versions floating around?

 

This is a topic that is too great to mention here. There is only one Bible that is the Authorized King James Bible. Read some of the topics listed below for further understanding:

Assault on the word

A closer look at the NKJV - New King James Version

TNIV: Translation Treason

More on Bible Comparison

Bible Comparison of the Good News Bible (GNB)

Attack on the Bible

The new The Message Bible

Is it hard to enter into the Kingdom of God

How to spot a counterfeit Bible

A closer look at the NIV - New International Version

TNIV: Translation Treason continued

Bible Comparison of the New Century Version (NCV)

Are You Washed in the Blood?

Letter to non-believers

The new Revolve bible

 

 

60 Questions for the Christians To Answer

A Christian Response

MISSION OF JESUS

Without borrowing from other religions and systems, can Christianity provide people with a complete way of life? Since Christianity is limited to spiritual life and does not provide law, how can a society decide which laws are right or wrong?

 

You must be getting desperate for questions. Here are ten commands that all should follow.

I Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

II Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

III Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

IV Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

V Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

VI Thou shalt not kill.

VII Thou shalt not commit adultery.

VIII Thou shalt not steal.

IX Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

X Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

Jesus Himself made the statement that they should follow the commandments that He taught them

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
 

34. Why do the Christians say that Jesus came with a universal mission when he said that he was sent to the Jews only? He said to the Canaanite woman who asked him to heal her daughter from demon-possession: “I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel” and also said: “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to their dogs”

 

Here is the verse in question: Matthew 15:26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Israel is God's chosen people (even to this day).  Jesus was sent as a prophet to the Jews and to the world he was sent as the Saviour and Redeemer.

So Jesus taught his disciples who in turn taught it to the Jews who in turn taught it to the rest of the world.

Romans 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.     

Jesus commanded his disciples on numerous occasions to go into all the world and to preach the gospel.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
 

 

60 Questions for the Christians To Answer

A Christian Response

RESURRECTION

If you read Matthew (28:1-10), Mark (16:1-20), Luke (24:1-12), and John (20: 1-18), you will find contradicting stories. They all agreed that the tomb was guarded for three days. However, they reported the discovery of the empty tomb differently.
  • Matthew (28) and John (20) reported that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the first to discover the tomb.
  • Mark (16) reports that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome were the first to discover the empty tomb.
  • Mark (28) reports that there was an earthquake that removed the rock from over the tomb. He says that an angel caused it. The other gospels do not mention of an earthquake.
  • Matthew and Mark say that only ONE man in white clothes was sitting on the tomb when the woman arrived, and that he was an angel.
  • Luke says that TWO men in white clothes, who were angels, were sitting. Johns says that the two women did not meet anybody the first time they came to the tomb, but when they returned, they saw TWO people, ONE was an ANGEL, and the other was JESUS.
  • Matthew reports that when the guards reported this to the chief priest, the chief priest paid them a large sum of money, telling them: “You have to say that his disciples came at night and stole his body.” He claims that the soldiers took money and spread the story around and since then, the story had been circulating among the Jews until today (according to Matthew). The other gospels do not report of any such thing.
Each of the gospels adds details that help complete the story of the Hebrews resurrection. The order appears to be as follows: A large group of women had observed the crucifixion of Jesus (Matthew 27:55), followed the progression of His burial (Luke 23:55) and then went to prepare spices and ointments for Him.

They rested on the Sabbath and then returned in two groups on Sunday (Luke 24:1). Mary Magdalene, Mary (supposed to be the mother of James and Joses), and Salome start out ahead while it is still dark (John 20:1), looking for someone to roll away the stone (Mark 16:3). They are amazed to see the stone taken away and the tomb which appeared to be empty.

Without going inside, Mary Magdalene runs off to tell the disciples that someone stole the body (John 20:2). The other two women proceed to go into the tomb and see an angel (Mark 16:5). This same angel who had earlier appeared to the guards and rolled the stone away now speaks to them (Matthew 28:5-7), instructing them to go tell the disciples. They flee out of the tomb in great fear, too frightened to go tell the disciples (Mark 16:8).

Meanwhile Peter was informed by Mary Magdalene and runs to see the empty tomb for himself (Luke 24:12), followed by John (John 20:3). Mary Magdalene also returns behind them and remains weeping after they leave (John 20:11). Two angels appear to comfort her and Jesus Himself comes to her (John 20:12-14 and Luke 16:9).

Afterward, She returns to the disciples to share the further news (John 20:18). Meanwhile the frightened Salome and Mary regroup with the rest of the women carrying the spices and go to the tomb. Finding it empty, they stand perplexed (Luke 24:4).

Then two angels appear to the full group and explain in greater detail the news of the resurrection (Luke 24:4-9). Afterwards, they ALL go back to the disciples (Luke 24:10 and Matthew 28:8). On the way, Jesus himself meets them and comforts them further (Matthew 28:9-10).

Given the fact that each gospel writer focuses on a different piece of the story (i.e. John ignores the other women and just records the Mary Magdalene experience). This is the reason that this vital pinnacle of all history is recorded from four different perspectives. It gives us a much more complete picture of the Messiah.

35. Which narration now is more authentic?

 

 They all are authentic, see the answer above.
36. Why is the appearance of Jesus after the crucifixion taken as a proof of his resurrection when there is an explanation that he was not dead because someone else was crucified in his place when God saved Him?

 

The disciples and other followers of Jesus followed the crucifixion, some from a distance others up close. They know who died on the cross and helped to place Him in the tomb after His death.

When Jesus had risen three days later it shocked His followers as much as anyone.  He showed Himself to His disciples and about 500 other people as well.  He physically showed the nail prints in His hands and feet as well as the wound in his side as told in John 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

The whole city turned out for the beating and crucifixion of Jesus.  There is not one credible account of someone trading places with Jesus. There is no way that anyone could have changed places with him without someone in the whole city aware of it.

        

37. How did Matthew know of the claimed agreement between the soldiers and the chief priest? Can’t someone say that someone paid the women a large sum of money and told them to spread the word around that Jesus rose from the dead, with the same authenticity as that of the story of Matthew?

 

As stated before the Holy Bible is inspired by God as stated in 2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  The Holy Spirit revealed to Matthew the deceit of the priests and the solders.

As you can see Matthew foretold that this lie would be told for all time.  Its looks like another prophesy has come true!  

Matthew 28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
 

38. Why did they believe that man in the white clothes? Why did they believe he was an angel? John’s narration is too strange, since he says that Mary did not recognize Jesus (one of the two) while talking to him, and she only recognized him when he called her by her name.

 

The description of the angel is given in Matthew 28:3.  It would be easy to see that this "person" who was at the tomb was not an ordinary man hence it must be a spiritual being from God, an angel. Matthew 28:3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:

If you were to read the account it would make sense Mary was grieved in her heart. She also was not facing Him at the time as stated in John 20:16 where she turned to Him when He called her name.

John 20:15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. (16) Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

 

39. How does an empty tomb prove that Jesus was crucified ? Isn’t it that God is capable of removing another man from the tomb, and of resurrecting him too?

 

When the body of Jesus was resurrected, it caused quite a stir in Jerusalem; We are told that the priests, solders and Jesus followers did not know what happen.

When Jesus started to appear to the people of Jerusalem there was probably the next thing to an uprising.

1) If the priests would have taken or known where the body of Jesus was you can be sure that they would have produced it.  This would have proved without a doubt that Jesus did not rise from the dead as some were claiming.

2) The roman solders were in the same boat.  If they could have produced the body it would have put an end to the hysteria that was going on at this time.

3) If Jesus followers would have known where Jesus body was they would not have been in that state of shock that they all were in. Jesus followers did not know where that body was and did not believe that He arose from the dead. If they did then why were they afraid or did not believe.

Luke 24:36 And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (37) But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Mary had no idea where Jesus body was. John 20:13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

Jesus brethren did not know where His body was. John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Jesus disciples did not know either. John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (20) And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the Lord.

There are other places in scripture where no one knew where Jesus body was taken. Which of course it was not taken anywhere but He was resurrected as stated in scripture.

   

40. The Gospels are believed to be the verbatim words of God, they are supposed to be dictated by the Holy Spirit to the Disciples who wrote them. If the source were the same, why shouldn’t they correspond with each other in reporting such an important event?

 

This is the same question as stated in the commentary at the beginning of the resurrection section, see above.
41. How could Matthew, Mark, Luke and John be considered eyewitnesses of resurrection when the Bible implies that nobody at all saw Jesus coming out of the tomb?

 

I can't find in scripture where it tells us that the disciples or anyone else were eye witnesses to Jesus coming out of the tomb. However the Bible does state in Luke 24:48 And ye are witnesses of these things.

The disciples were a witness to these things:

The wounds in His hands and feet according to scripture. Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (40) And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet.

The fulfillment of scripture, of how he would be born, live and be crucified hundreds of years before crucifixion was ever a way of death.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

Luke 24:46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:
Luke 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

 

 

60 Questions for the Christians To Answer

A Christian Response

BIBLE

If the Christians consider the Old Testament as God’s Word, why did they cancel the parts of the Old Testament that dealt with punishment (example: the punishment for adultery)?

 

More of a wrong statement could not be made.  Whole civilizations were destroyed because of there wickedness. The children were dealt with continually all through the Old Testament.

As far as adultery, King David did not fair out so well with his adultery if you read 2Samuel chapters 11 and 12

   

42. Why doesn’t Mark 16:9-20 exist in as many versions of the Bible while it exists as a footnote or between brackets in some other versions? Is a footnote in the Bible still considered as God’s word, especially when it addresses an important feature like the Ascension?

 

This is a topic that is too great to mention here. There is only one Bible that is the Authorized King James Bible. Read some of the topics listed below for further understanding:

Assault on the word

A closer look at the NKJV - New King James Version

TNIV: Translation Treason

More on Bible Comparison

Bible Comparison of the Good News Bible (GNB)

Attack on the Bible

The new The Message Bible

Is it hard to enter into the Kingdom of God

How to spot a counterfeit Bible

A closer look at the NIV - New International Version

TNIV: Translation Treason continued

Bible Comparison of the New Century Version (NCV)

Are You Washed in the Blood?

Letter to non-believers

The new Revolve bible

 
43. Why does the Catholic Bible contain 73 books while the Protestant Bible has only 66? With both claiming to have the complete Word of God, which one should be believed and why?

 

"The Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Bible, was universally received, while the Apocrypha added to the Greek version of the Septuagint were only in a general way accounted as books suitable for church reading, and thus as a middle class between canonical and strictly apocryphal (pseudonymous) writings. And justly; for those books, while they have great historical value, and fill the gap between the Old Testament and the New, all originated after the cessation of prophecy, and they cannot therefore be regarded as inspired, nor are they ever cited by Christ or the apostles" (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, book 3, chapter 9)

21 reasons why the Apocrypha is not inspired:

  1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.
  2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
  3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
  4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
  5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
  6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
  7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
    And the day following Judas came with his company, to take away the bodies of them that were slain, and to bury them with their kinsmen, in the sepulchers of their fathers. And they found under the coats of the slain some of the donaries of the idols of Jamnia, which the law forbiddeth to the Jews: so that all plainly saw, that for this cause they were slain. Then they all blessed the just judgment of the Lord, who had discovered the things that were hidden. And so betaking themselves to prayers, they besought him, that the sin which had been committed might be forgotten. But the most valiant Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves from sin, forasmuch as they saw before their eyes what had happened, because of the sins of those that were slain. And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachmas of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins. (2 Maccabees 12:39-46)
  8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.
    Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.
    Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.
    Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
  9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
  10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.
    And they laid up the stones in the mountain of the temple in a convenient place, till there should come a prophet, and give answer concerning them. (1 Maccabees 4:46)
    And there was a great tribulation in Israel, such as was not since the day, that there was no prophet seen in Israel. (1 Maccabees 9:27)
    And that the Jews, and their priests, had consented that he should be their prince, and high priest for ever, till there should arise a faithful prophet. (1 Maccabees 14:41)
  11. Josephus rejected the apocryphal books as inspired and this reflected Jewish thought at the time of Jesus
    "From Artexerxes to our own time the complete history has been written but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier records because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets." ... "We have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine..."(Flavius Josephus, Against Apion 1:8)
  12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
  13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.
    They debated the canonicity of a few books (e.g., Ecclesiastes), but they changed nothing and never proclaimed themselves to be authoritative determiners of the Old Testament canon. "The books which they decided to acknowledge as canonical were already generally accepted, although questions had been raised about them. Those which they refused to admit had never been included. They did not expel from the canon any book which had previously been admitted. 'The Council of Jamnia was the confirming of public opinion, not the forming of it.'" (F. F. Bruce, The Books and Parchments [Old Tappan, NJ.: Fleming H. Revell, 1963], p. 98])
  14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.
  15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.
  16. The terms "protocanonical" and "deuterocanonical" are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.
  17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as "the infallible and authentic Bible." Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the "Apocrypha" (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.
  18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – "Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated" (the Septuagint)
  19. The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century
  20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)
  21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said "These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical."

 Is the Apocrypha Inspired? Does it really belong in the Bible?

Let us consider while we are at this point, the subject of the Catholic apocrypha, for which they make such great claims; and because of which they deny the Bible in common use by most brethren. 2 Macc 12:38-46 seems to be the principal reason they cling to the apocrypha. There is no other doctrine that depends so heavily upon support in the apocrypha. If I were not afraid of absolute statements, I would say that their defense of the apocrypha is only because of the passage and their claims about its teachings.

The Catholics have 46 Old Testament books rather than the 39 found in our Bibles. However, they have added much more material to other books which does not appear under separate titles. That material follows: The Rest of Esther added to Esther; The Song of the Three Holy Children, The History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon added to Daniel; Baruch; 1 and 2 Maccabees; Tobias; Judith; Ecclesiasticus; and the Wisdom of Sirach.

The only powerful support for these books is that they appear in the Septuagint version. However, in many of our Bibles there is much material that is uninspired, including history, poetry, maps, dictionaries, and other information. This may be the reason for the appearance of this material in the Septuagint. The apocrypha was not in the Hebrew canon.

There are reputed to be 263 quotations and 370 allusions to the Old Testament in the New Testament and not one of them refers to the Apocryphal

The usual division of the Old Testament by the Jews was a total of 24 books: The Books of Moses (51, The Early prophets 14; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings ~, The Late Prophets (4; Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the 12 Minor Prophets), and the Hagiagrapha (11; Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon. Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles i. These 24 books contain all the material in our numbering of 39.

Josephus spoke concerning the canon, but his book division combined Ruth-Judges and Lamentation-Jeremiah for a total of 22 books rather than 24:

"For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, ... only 22 books. which contain the records of ail the past times; which are justly believed to be divine;...It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers;...and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them, or to make any change in them." (Flavius Josephus Against Apion Book 1, Section 8).

Plainly Josephus distinguishes between those books written before and after Artaxerxes. This eliminates most of the apocrypha, especially the Maccabees.

The apocrypha itself denies all notion of inspiration. Referring to the events in the Maccabees the author makes these statements:

"...all such things as have been comprised in 5 books by Jason of Cyrene, we have at-tempted to abridge in one book. For considering the difficulty that they find that desire to undertake the narrations of histories, because of the multitude of the matter, we have taken care for those indeed that are willing to read,...And as to ourselves indeed, in undertaking this work of abridging, we have taken in hand no easy task, yea. rather a business full of watching and sweat. .. Leaving to the authors the exact handling of every particular, and as for ourselves. according to the plan proposed, studying to brief... For to collect all that is known, to put the discourse in order, and curiously to discuss every particular point, is the duty of the author of a history. But to pursue brevity of speech and to avoid nice declarations of things, is to be granted to him that maketh an abridgement." (2 Maccabees 2: 24-32).

"...I will also here make an end of my narration. Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired; but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me. For as it is hurtful to drink always wine, or always water, but pleasant to use sometimes the one, and sometimes the other, so if the speech be always nicely framed, it will not be grateful to the readers..." 12 Maccabees 15: 39-40).

This forms a bizarre contrast with passages in the New Testament:

"Take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For it is not ye that speak. but the spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" (Matthew 10: 19-20).

"Now we have received. not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God: that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in words which man s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth" (1 Corinthians 2: 12-131.

The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books written between 400 - 200 BC. What is significant here is that NONE of the books within the "apocryphal collection" are every quoted. So the Catholic argument that "the apocryphal books cannot be rejected as uninspired on the basis that they are never quoted from in the New Testament because Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are also never quoted in the New Testament, and we all accept them as inspired." The rebuttal to this Catholic argument is that "Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther" were always included in the "history collection" of Jewish books and "Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon" were always included in the "poetry collection". By quoting one book from the collection, it verifies the entire collection. None of the apocryphal books were ever quoted in the New Testament. Not even once! This proves the Catholic and Orthodox apologists wrong when they try to defend the apocrypha in the Bible.

The apocrypha does not belong in the Bible because It IS not inspired.

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm

 

44. Where do those new translations of the Bible keep coming from when the original Bible is not even available? The Greek manuscripts which are translations themselves are not even similar with each other.

 

See the answer to question #42
45. How can you take two gospels from writers who never met Jesus, like Mark and Luke?

 

Mark was a young man and scribe to the Apostle Peter. Yes, he knew Jesus personally, but was not one of the 12. In the book of Acts he is referred to as "John Mark".

Mark:

Act 12:12 And when he had considered the thing, he came to the house of Mary the mother of John, whose surname was Mark; where many were gathered together praying.

Act 12:25 And Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem, when they had fulfilled their ministry, and took with them John, whose surname was Mark.

Act 15:37 And Barnabas determined to take with them John, whose surname was Mark.

Luke:

Luke was not one of the 12 either but he probably knew Jesus and was the educated historian who wrote out his gospel in chronological order.

If I were you I would remove this question.  If in fact Mark and Luke did not know Jesus, but wrote about him with 100% accuracy (read the part on the resurrection for more detail) really makes your case look bad.

 

46. Why is half of the New Testament written by a man who never even met Jesus in his lifetime? PAUL claimed with no proof that he had met Jesus while on his way from Jerusalem to Damascus. PAUL was the main enemy of Christianity. Isn’t that reason enough to question the authenticity of what he wrote? Why do the Christians call those books of the Old Testament “God’s Word” when the revisers of the RSV Bible say that some of the authors are unknown? They say that the author of Samuel is “unknown” and that of Chronicles is “Unknown, probably collected and edited by Ezra”!

 

The RSV is not the real Bible, See the answers to question #42

 

60 Questions for the Christians To Answer

A Christian Response

CONTRADICTIONS

47. Concerning the controversial issues in the Bible, how can Christians decide by two-thirds majority what is God’s Word and what is not, as the prefaces of some Bibles say like that one of the RSV?

 

The RSV is not the real Bible, See the answers to question #42
48. Why does Luke in his gospel report the Ascension on Easter Day, and in the Acts, in which he is recognized as the author, forty days later?

 

The Greek word which is translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the word "pascha". This word appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered "Passover" in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.

The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have made much of this translation of "pascha".

Coming to the word "Easter" in God's Authorized Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect. Fortunately for lovers of the word of God, they are wrong. Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a celebration of the earth "regenerating" itself after the winter season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same symbol as "Playboy" magazine), and the egg. Both are known for their reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the "queen of heaven" (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). She is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any association with Jesus Christ.

Problem: Even though the Jewish passover was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the pagan festival Easter was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was referring to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring to the passover, the translation of "pascha" as "Easter" is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, then the King James Bible (1611) must truly be the very word and words of God for it is the only Bible in print today which has the correct reading.

To unravel the confusion concerning "Easter" in verse 4, we must consult our FINAL authority, THE BIBLE. The key which unlocks the puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of unleavened bread... ") To secure the answer that we seek, we must find the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. We must keep in mind that Peter was arrested during the "days of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3).

Our investigation will need to start at the first Passover. This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4, 5). Let us now see what the Bible says concerning the first passover, and the days of unleavened bread.

Exodus 12:13-18: "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
    14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
    15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
    16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
    17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
    18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even."

Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.

After the passover (Exodus 12:13, 14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!

In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st. This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18:

"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
    17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.
    18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:"
In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of unleavened bread."

Deuteronomy 16:1-8: "Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.
    2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God, of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there.
    3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.
    4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.
    5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee:
    6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
    7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.
    8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein."

Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs.6) not at sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).

In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.

II Chronicles 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles."

Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.

II Chronicles 30:l5,21: "Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD."

Ezra 6:19,22: "And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel."

We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:
  1. On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover. 
  2. On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.

It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.

Now let us look at Acts 12:3, 4:

"And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) 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."

Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-21). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven". He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.

First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.

Second, Herod could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19, 47). They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.

In further considering Herod's position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.

It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17-47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews "have all the fun." He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.

Thus we see that it was God's providence which had the Spirit-filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate "pascha" as "Easter". It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to "passover" would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/easter.html

 

49. The genealogy of Jesus is mentioned in Matthew and Luke only. Matthew listed 26 forefathers from Joseph to David while Luke enumerated 41 forefathers. Only Joseph matches with Joseph in those two lists. Not a single other name matches! If these were inspired by God word by word, how could they be different? Some claim that one is for Mary and one is for Joseph, but where does it says Mary in those two Gospels?

 

The genealogy of Jesus through Joseph is given by two passages from the Gospels, Matthew 1:2–16 and Luke 3:23–38. Both of them trace Jesus' line back to King David and from there on to Abraham; Luke traces the line all the way back to Adam. These lists are identical between Abraham and David.

There are several generations left out of Matthew's genealogy. However, since Luke's genealogy traces a separate lineage, there is no need to have the identical number of generations.

It clearly states in Luke 1:27 and 34-35  Luke goes to great pains to make it clear that Joseph was NOT Jesus' biological father. He was Jesus' earthly adopted father. That is why Luke 3:23 adds the all-important phrase "as was supposed." This genealogy traces the biological ancestry through Mary.

Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.

This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of view.

A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males. Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.

This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.

The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Haggai 2:4).

 

50. If Moses wrote the first books of the Old Testament, how could Moses write his own obituary? Moses died in the fifth book at age 120 as mentioned in Deut. 34:5-10.

 

The first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy - are referred to as the Pentateuch. In the Pentateuch or Torah we find the recorded of God's covenant with Israel, and the Ten Commandments which God gave to Moses.

There is no direct claim of authorship in any of the five books. Although there are passages attributed to Moses like Deuteronomy 1:5, 4:45, 31:10 and passages that said that Moses made specific written records as in Exodus 17:14, 24:4, 34:27, Numbers 33:2, Deuteronomy 31:9,24. But nowhere in any of these books is there any allusion to itself being written by the Jewish prophet.

I believe that this question holds no merit to be placed in the contradictions category.  If the Pentateuch never claims that Moses wrote them, how can you contest them? 

We are told in 2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
And
2Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So the question should be which Holy man or men of God wrote the Pentateuch?

 

51. In the King James Version, why does it report seven years of famine in II Samuel 24:13 while it reports three years of famine in I Chronicles 21:12? Why did they change both to three years in the New International Version and other versions?

 

The solution can be noticed by observing the usage of words in each passage. When you compare the two passages you will note that the wording is significantly different in 1 Chronicles 21 from that found in a 2 Samuel 24.

In 2 Samuel 24:13 the question is "shall seven years of famine come to you?" In 1 Chronicles 21:12 we find an alternative imperative, "take for yourself either three years of famine..." From this we may reasonably conclude that 2 Samuel records the first approach of the prophet Gad to David, in which the alternative prospect was seven years; whereas the Chronicles account gives us the second and final approach of Nathan to the King, in which the Lord (doubtless in response to David's earnest entreaty in private prayer) reduced the severity of that grim alternative to three years rather than an entire span of seven.

As it turned out, however, David opted for God's third preference, and thereby received three days of severe pestilence, resulting in the deaths of 70,000 men in Israel.

 

52. Still In the same King James Version, why does it say that Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign in II Chronicles 21:12, while it says eighteen years in II Kings 24:8? Why did they change in both to eighteen in the new Versions?

 

Both can be correct. It is possible that when Jehoiachin was eight years old, his father made him co-regent, so that he could be trained in the responsibilities of leading a kingdom. Jehoiachin then became officially a king at the age of eighteen, upon his father's death.
53. In all versions, why does it say that David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen as evidenced in II Samuel 10:18 while its says seven thousand men which fought in chariots, and forty thousand footmen, in I Chronicles 19:18?

 

Since they had ten men per chariot both verses are fine, there is no contradiction here.
54. In all versions, why does it report two thousand baths in I Kings 7:26 while II Chronicles 4:5 reports three thousand?

 

  1. 1Kings 7:26 Solomon's "molten sea" held 2000 "baths" (1 bath = about 8 gallons).
  2. 2Chronicles 4:5 It held 3000 "baths."

        Both are correct. It "received and held" up to 3000 baths (Chronicles). Kings says it "contained" 2000 baths. Apparently they did not make a practice of filling it to the top, perhaps keeping it convenient for the washing.

 
55. In the King James version, why does it report that Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses in II Chronicles 9:25 while it accounts that Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses in 1 KINGS 4:26? Why did they change both to four thousand in the new versions?

 

  1. 1Kings 4:26 Solomon had 40,000 horses (or stalls for horses).
  2. 2Chronicles 9:25 He had 4,000 horses (or stalls for horses).

        Once again you fail to simply read scripture. Like anything else, this number changed over time. The passage in Kings takes place before the temple is built while the passage in Chronicles takes place many years later. The parallel passage to II Chronicles 9:25 is I Kings 10:26.

        Many scoffers have cited I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" and II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen" as a contradiction. There is no contradiction. He had 40,000 stalls for horses yet only 4,000 stalls for the chariots. They had 10 men and 10 horses per chariot in case they got a "flat tire." See II Sam 10:18 "And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians," and I Chron. 119:18 "But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians seven thousand men which fought in chariots," to show the same point. The men of 700 chariots would be 7000 men.

 

56. In Genesis 1, God’s creation progresses from grass to trees to fowls, whales, cattle and creeping things and finally to man and woman. Genesis 2, however, puts the creation of man before cattle and fowl and woman subsequent to beast. How can this be explained?

 

Genesis 1:11 has the trees made on day 3 before man;
Genesis. 2:8 has the trees made on day 6 after man.
Genesis. 1:20 has birds made out of the water on day 5;
Genesis. 2:19 has birds made out of the ground (after man) on day 6.
Genesis. 1:24, 25 has the animals made on day 6 before man;
Genesis. 2:19 has the animals made on day 6 after man.

A careful reading of the two chapters will show the solution for this supposed contradictions.


Chapter 1 tells the entire story in the order it happened.
Genesis. 2:4-6 gives a quick summary of the first five days of creation.
Genesis. 2:7-25 is describing only the events that took place on day 6 in the Garden of Eden.
 

The trees described in Genesis 2:8 are only in the Garden (the rest of the world is already full of trees from day 3). The purpose of this second creation of trees may have been to let Adam see that God did have power to create, that He was not just taking credit for the existing world. Notice that the second creation of trees was still on day 6 and was only those trees that are "pleasant to the sight and good for food."

The birds created out of the ground on day 6 are only one of each "kind" so that Adam can name them and select a wife. The rest of the world is full of birds from day 5.

Genesis 2:19 is describing only the animals created in the Garden, after man. The purpose of this second batch of animals being created was so that Adam could name them (Genesis. 2:19) and select a wife (Genesis. 2:20). Adam, not finding a suitable one (God knew he wouldn't), God made Eve (Genesis. 2:21-22).
There are no contradictions between these two chapters. Chapter 2 only describes in more detail the events in the Garden of Eden on day 6. If ancient man had written the Bible (as some scoffers say), he would never have made it say that the light was made before the sun! Many ancient cultures worshiped the sun as the source of life. God is light. God made the light before He made the sun so we could see that He (not the sun) is the source of life.

 
57. Why won’t you, Christian reader, come to hear and learn of the true religion of Jesus?

 

I do that every time I go to Church. The best source is to read the KJV of the bible for your self.  You should try it.

 

58. Have you, as a Christian, learned of Islam and if so, was it from the true Muslims?

 

I do know something about Islam and how it got its start.

I also know that Islam as “peace and tolerance” is the most popular lie in the world today. Intellectuals in the West who defame Christ parrot the most fatuous praise of Muhammad, in spite of his legacy of murder, pillage and rape.

A Sesame Street-type Arabic TV program features children training to be suicide bombers and chanting “Death to Israel”—for peace, of course. Reporter Ann Coulter suggests, “Inasmuch as liberals are demanding that Americans ritualistically proclaim, ‘Islam is a religion of peace,’ Muslims might do their part by not killing people all the time.” That our leaders promote this lie, and that so many believe it without one fact to support it, bodes ill for America and the world.

We only ask Muslims for one example of where and when Islam ever brought peace and tolerance—and please don’t threaten us with death (the standard Islamic persuasion) for asking! Never forget that Muslims slaughtered and conquered “for Allah” from Spain to China. These Arab conquests (defensive battles, they claim) were “more rapid than the Roman, more lasting than the Mongol...the most amazing feat in military history.”

Islam’s founder, Muhammad, began his career attacking rich caravans passing near his base in Medina. The first three assaults failed. The fourth succeeded because the victims were surprised by an ambush during Ramadan. Arab tribes had long refrained from aggression in that “holy month.” Muhammad, however, had received a “revelation” authorizing plunder and murder in Allah’s name during this special time of peace (Surah 2:217). Another absolved the Muslims of killing: “Ye slew them not, but Allah slew them” (Surah 8:17). Most Muslims don’t realize that in observing Ramadan and the annual pilgrimage (hajj) to Mecca, they follow what pagan Arabs practiced for centuries before Muhammad was born.

On March 16, 624, near Badr, he led 300 warriors in a vicious attack against a large Meccan caravan protected by a force of 800. Some 40 Meccans were killed and 60 taken prisoner to a loss of only 14 Muslims. This amazing victory was seen as the attesting miracle Muhammad needed. As a result, the ranks of Muslims swelled with those eager to share in future plunder.

Having proved himself the prophet of Allah with the sword, Muhammad sealed his apostleship with more than twenty murders, beginning with al-Nadr, an old enemy from Mecca. Taken captive in the battle at Badr, he pleaded that the Meccan Qur’aish tribe would never kill captives. Muhammad had him beheaded anyway, justifying the deed with another “revelation”: “It is not for any Prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land” (Surah 8:67). Much of the growing Muslim wealth came from robbing and killing Jews, causing “the disappearance of these Jewish communities from Arabia proper” justified by a further “revelation” (Surah 33:26,27).

To this day, by law no Jew may set foot in Saudi Arabia. A number of poets were murdered at Muhammad’s behest for having mocked him in verse. The first was the poetess Asma bint Marwan, stabbed to death by Umayr while she was nursing her youngest child. The poet Abu Afak (reportedly more than 100 years old) was murdered next. Then came the Jewish poet Ka’b bin al-Ashraf. A timely “revelation” said all poets were inspired of Satan (Surah 26:221-227).

Does it bother today’s Muslims that murder, rape, plunder and slavery of innocent people were the accepted way of life upon which Islam was founded and still operates? Apparently not. Ka’b’s murder (the account slanted with fictitious details) is justified on a popular Muslim web site, revealing Islam’s peculiar meaning of “peace” and “justice”: Ka’b had become a real danger to the state of peace and mutual trust which the Prophet was struggling to achieve in Madinah....The Prophet was quite exasperated with him....This was all part of the great process...which helped to make Islam spread and establish it on foundations of justice and piety. [Emphasis added]

Christ left Christians “an example, that ye should follow his steps: who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not...[but] bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness...” (1 Pt 2:21-24). But the Muslim must follow the example of Muhammad who killed all who dared to disagree with him! A Christian must “know” God (Jer 9:24; Jn 17:3), “love” God with all his heart (Dt 6:5; Mt 22:37, etc.) and “believe” in Christ in his heart (Acts 8:37; Rom 10:9).

The God of the Bible wants man’s trust and affection without coercion. In contrast, Allah can be neither known nor loved. Nor does one even have to believe to become a Muslim. Under threat of death, one merely recites aloud, “There is no ila (god) but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet.” This “conversion without faith” was established when Abu Sufyan, a Qur’aish leader, upon surrendering Mecca in 630 to Muhammad and his superior army, admitted that he doubted the latter’s prophethood. He was warned, “‘Accept Islam and testify that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before your neck is cut off by the sword.’ Thus [without believing] he professed the faith of Islam and became a Muslim.”

This pattern is followed today: confess or die! Upon Muhammad’s death in A.D. 632, many Arabs attempted to abandon Islam. Abu Bakr (the first caliph to succeed Muhammad) and his warriors in the infamous Wars of Apostasy killed tens of thousands of ex-Muslims, forcing Arabia back into Islam. Muhammad had commanded, “Whoever relinquishes his faith, kill him.” Islam is still enforced this way under shari’a (Islamic law) in Saudi Arabia and wherever Muslims are able to do so. This is peace and tolerance?!

The Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights was announced at the International Conference on the Prophet Muhammad and his Message held in London in April 1980. It declares, “Islam gave to mankind an ideal code of human rights fourteen centuries ago...based on the Qur’an and the Sunnah [teachings and practice of Muhammad]....” Human rights? What deceit! Abu Bakr was succeeded as caliph by Umar Abu Hafsa. His armies took Damascus in 635, Antioch in 636, Jerusalem in 638, Syria in 640, Egypt and Persia in 641. Entire cities were massacred, such as Behnesa, Fayum, Nikiu and Aboit in Egypt, Tripoli in North Africa and Euchaita in Armenia. Carthage was razed to the ground. In 644, Umar was murdered. Uthman ibn Affan, the third caliph, consolidated and expanded the growing Islamic empire.

A son-in-law of Muhammad, he standardized the Qur’an, burning all rival copies over protests of those still alive who remembered different readings and missing verses. Among these was Muhammad’s favorite wife Aisha who, by the way, never veiled her face. Uthman, too, was murdered by a rival Muslim faction. Prevented from being buried in a Muslim cemetery, he was buried at night by friends, ironically, in a Jewish cemetery. Islam divides the world into dar al-Islam (the house of peace) and dar al-Harb (the house of war). To bring “peace,” Allah commands, “I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads! (8:13); Slay the idolaters wherever you find them...(9:5); O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites and be thou harsh with them...(9:73); Believers, make war on the infidels that dwell around you...” (9:123). Perpetual jihad is commanded until all the world is under shari’a. Nor would that bring peace, because Muslims fight among themselves, as history testifies. The fourth and last of the “rightly guided” caliphs was Ali, Muhammad’s cousin and son-in-law.

Accused of complicity in Uthman’s murder, he never fully established his rule. Aisha supported a rebellion against him, resulting in the Battle of the Camel in which 10,000 were killed. Ali won, but was murdered in 661. Wars of succession pitted Qur’aish against Bedouins, Umayyads against the Hashimite followers of Ali, etc. Most of Ali’s family were killed by rival Muslims in 680. Mecca was besieged by troops of Yezid, an Umayyad; the Ka’aba (later restored) was burned to the ground, its Black Stone split into three pieces. Mecca was taken in 692 by Abd-al-Malik (who in 691 had built the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem to replace the Ka’aba).

He united Muslims once again by force and Islam continued its conquests. In 712, Muslim raiders under Muhammad Qasun began the invasion of India, demolishing temples and palaces and massacring, as in Constantinople, where the streets ran with blood. “The massacres perpetrated by Muslims in India are unparalleled in history, bigger in sheer numbers than the Holocaust....” But Islam is “peace!” The Umayyad caliphate ruled the Muslim world until 749 when all of the Umayyads were murdered by the rival Abbasids, except one survivor, abd-al-Rahman, who fled to Spain where he established an independent caliphate.

Thus began the Abbasid caliphate, which lasted until 1258 in spite of intrigue, assassinations and uprisings—all peaceful, of course. The double-cross and murder of Muslims at the hands of Muslims continues to this day. Scarcely a Muslim regime is not ruled by a dictator who seized power from other Muslims, as in Syria and Iraq.

The ten-year revolution in Algeria has cost 100,000 lives. In Afghanistan, rival Muslim warlords fight one another. “Infidels” have to intervene there as in the Gulf, to enforce peace among “peaceful” Muslims. Muslims loyal to the murdered Ali and his sons are called Shi’ites (the majority in Iran). The others are called Sunnis and comprise the majority elsewhere. These two factions have long demonstrated that “Islam is peace” by fighting one another, as in the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq when more people were killed than in World War I. Muslim conquests involving multiple massacres of literally millions continued for more than 1,300 years.

Under the Abbasids the Islamic empire reached its zenith of power, prosperity and learning. In Spain (to which Muslims point as an example of their tolerance) the garrison of Muez was slaughtered in 920; Pamplona was put to the sword in 923; then Cordova, Zaragoza and Mereda, with all adult males killed and women and children enslaved.

The Jews of Granada were butchered in 1066, 34 years after 6,000 Jews had been slaughtered in Fez, Morocco. In 1146, Islamic Fez was put to the sword by rival Muslims, the Almohads, who conquered much of North Africa after annihilating the Almoravides (another Muslim faction) with about 100,000 massacred, another 120,000 killed in Marrakesh, and similar slaughters elsewhere—all gestures of “peace.” The 400-year rule of the Ottoman Turks saw forced kidnappings of young boys into Islam and slavery, causing parents to mutilate children to make them undesirable. Under the Ottomans, being Greek, Armenian, Serb or any other non-Muslim was to live in daily fear of murder, rape, torture, genocide.

To this day, Serbs and Bulgarians loathe Turks and Bosnians. When Sultan Murad III died, his son Muhammad had all nineteen of his brothers murdered and the seven of his father’s concubines who were pregnant sewn into sacks and thrown into the sea. The successor of Murad IV had all 300 women in his harem sewn into sacks and thrown into the Bosphorus. Like so many other Muslim leaders, he was murdered—peacefully. The persecution of Jews in Roman Catholic Europe was mild compared to what Ottoman Christians endured for four centuries.

More than a million Armenians were slaughtered in the last decades of the nineteenth and the first of the twentieth centuries, as well as many thousands of Jews, Greeks, Assyrians, Lebanese, et al. Tragically, the oppression and bloodshed were often condoned by Western powers, particularly England and at times America. In the great 1915 genocide, “women came with butcher knives [to] gain that merit in Allah’s eyes that comes from killing a Christian.” The destruction of Smyrna in September 1922 with the deliberate massacre of nearly 300,000 inhabitants is another example of Islamic “peace.” English, American, Italian and French battleships anchored in the harbor repelled fleeing victims who swam out to them for help.

The popular “explanation” that Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are not Muslims, but fanatics, is a rebuke to the Qur’an, to Muhammad, and to Islam itself. As Trifkovic writes (p. 127), “Thirteen centuries of...suffering and death of countless millions, have been covered by the myth of Islamic ‘tolerance’....” The West winks at the blatant denial of basic human rights and support of terrorism by Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries—even favors Islamic terrorists in Chechnya, Cyprus, Bosnia, Kashmir, Kosovo, Macedonia, Sudan and East Timor.

Our politically correct delusion is leading to disaster. Tragically, the gospel is kept from Islamic countries by the failure of Western governments to admit and confront the truth about Islam. Please continue to inform yourselves, to protest to our leaders, to pray for God’s intervention, and to be witnesses for Christ to Muslims in our country.

http://www.thebereancall.org/node/2599
 

59. As a Christian, do you agree that out of fairness and honesty you must investigate what Islam says about God, Jesus, including this life and the hereafter?

 

No, when you have the real religion you don't need to know every other religion.

For instance we all know that 2 + 2 = 4. But according to your thinking in order to really know you must try every other number in the world to see if it also equals 4. So you would start at, does 2+1=4, no, does 2+3=4, no, does 2+100,000=4, no. You would need to do this for every conceivable number possible.

Once you give yourself over to the one true God of Christianity there is no longer a need to pursue other religion practices.

 

60. Being a Christian, do you also believe that we must all stand accountable to our Creator and that the Creator is Perfect and Just? As a sincere believer in God, don’t you owe it upon yourself to find out the entire unadulterated truth regardless of the consequences?

 

Is allah just? We read in Sura 35:8 "Verily God misleadeth whom He will, and guideth whom he will." Does this sound like a just god, allah is going to purposely mislead some people than throw them into Hell for ever.

If you blow up women and children through Jihad this is your reward. Mutahsibir - sensual pleasure in sex with virgins, eating, and happiness
Sura 55:56 "On couches with linings of brocade shall they recline, and there in shall be the damsels with retiring glances, whom nor man nor djinn hath touched before them:

With gushing fountains in each: In each fruits and the palm and the pomegranate: In each the fai, the beauteous ones: With large dark eyeballs, kept close in their pavilions:

Whom man hath never touched nor any djinn: Their spouses on soft green cushions and on beautiful carpets shall recline: Blessed by the name of the Lord, full of majesty and Glory."
Also (Sura 56:15-22, Sura 47)

This is just not radical Islam, your holy book the Quran tell us that we are to kill anyone who does not convert to Islam.  “I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads! (8:13); Slay the idolaters wherever you find them...(9:5); O Prophet, struggle with the unbelievers and hypocrites and be thou harsh with them...(9:73); Believers, make war on the infidels that dwell around you...” (9:123). Perpetual jihad is commanded until all the world is under shari’a.

So if you are a good Muslim you will obey all the versus in the Quran as listed above.  If you don't then you are not following Islam so don't call it Islam.  If you want to make up another religion then call it something else. Islam has its history, its holy book and its own culture and traditions.