Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Daystar

Advanced Member
  • Content Count

    4,485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Hello Neshama. Jesus said that only God is good (Matt. 19:17). What does that make us? Also, in sort of a backdoor way, the Bible does claim to be complete where it says not to add or take away from scripture. Christians are not complete in the scriptures, but they are in Christ. In him, Christians are "perfect" in the eyes of God (Col. 1:28) because their sins have been taken away.
  2. Hello Placid. I don't see how the LORD (of hosts) could be a "manifestation" of God when He is LORD. (Ps. 33:12) There is one Lord, one God, one Spirit (Eph. 4:4-6), which of course forms the Trinity. Are you saying the Lord of hosts is different than the Lord?
  3. This is where it gets difficult for Moslems. We believe that He, the Holy Spirit, like Father and Son, is Divine. Yes, they prophesied by the Holy Spirit: "Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:20,21) WE believe that all men (and women:) are born with a spirit, but which is not responsive to God until it is "awakened." That is the spiritual awakening that Jesus called being "born agai
  4. Hello Ghulam. It is not possible to debate because where the Bible disagrees with the Quran, moslems say that the Quran corrects the Bible. So all the verses where the diety of Jesus is recorded, and moslems can't prove that such verses were corrupted, their only recourse is to say the Quran corrects the Bible. Of course, we say that the Bible corrects the Quran. See what I mean:)
  5. Not one word about what's going on in the courts. I suggest you check out investigatingobama.com and get caught up to date. Please notice that your source didn't say a word about the two cases that will be conferenced this week, and the following week, by the U.S. Supreme Court. There will be others to follow. The fair and balanced drive-by media has been totally silent about all the law suits (30+) that have been filed challenging Obama's citizenship and birth place. Neither have they reported that Obama's own Kenyan grandmother has said she was in the delivery room when he was born in
  6. It means that Barack Obama is not eligible to become president. This is according to our constitution. The founders put this provision is to insure that anyone who is elected president doesn't have dual citizenship or dual allegiances with another country.
  7. The divorce records of Barack Obama's parents (Stanley Ann and Barack Sr) confirm that he was born in Kenya. These papers will be revealed soon. For more details listen to the Plain Radio Network at: http://www.plainsradio.com/chat1.html for more details visit: investigatingobama.com U.S. Constitution requires that presidential candidates be born natural citizens. This would disqualify Barack Obama.
  8. John is the only gospel author who used the first person pronoun "I" and he used it only once (John 21:25). However, in his three epistles he used it many times. That Matthew, Mark and Luke never used personal pronouns is curious. But Luke did use "I" and "us" in Acts. Nowhere in Acts does it say that Luke was the author. However, it is deduced by Acts 1:1 where the author addresses the book of Acts to "Theophilus." In the same verse he acknowledges his "former account" which was also addressed to Theophilus (Luke 1:3). The former account has to be his gospel and he was the author of Acts.
  9. Hello rzairul. You're correct about the parenthesis, but it is not inconsistent with what Jesus said in a the preceding verse: "Whatever enters a man from the outside cannot defile him." (Mk. 7:18) Would Pork not qualify as a "whatever?" Jesus would have required Jews to abide by Torah law, but at the same time he is anticipating the new covenant. The time would come (Pentecost) when it would be initiated and all foods become "clean." If a Jew ate pork before that time, he would have broken the law and sinned. But sin was still atoned for by the sacrifices. What Jesus was trying to do wa
  10. Right. The only plausible explanation is that Judas did hang himself. It is possible to go hang oneself and fail. Whether he succeeded or not is not the issue. When he hit the ground and spilled his guts, that for sure would have killed him. At first glance, Matthew and Luke appear to be in disagreement as to who Joseph's father was. Matthew states he was the son of Jacob, while Luke states he was the son of Heli. Fortunately, an unlikely source has aided scholars in unraveling this mystery. The Jerusalem Talmud indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli (Haggigah, Book 77, 4). Josep
  11. The writers tell us the priests and Judas acquired the field. It is left up to the reader to see that the priests were the direct purchasers, with Judas participating indirectly. That is the meaning accepted by most scholars. Please explain why it isn't plausible. I bet there have been other instances where people tried to hang themselves but failed. I did google like you adviced me to. http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/genealogy.htm immediately discualified itself by saying that Matthew was one of the 12 desciples of Jesus. ??? He was a disciple. ??? They all say he was
  12. I think if you will do google searches using key words, you will find lots of sites that address whatever contradictions you believe there are. Try "Jesus geneology contradiction." Where have I changed the "meaning" of any text? Matthew states that Judas gave the money back to the priests and hanged himself. Then the priests bought a field for the money (that were no longer Judas money). Live with this. You have explained what happened perfectly. Indirectly he was like a purchaser because he provided the funds which acquired the field. IN THAT SENSE he purchased the field - INDIRECTLY
  13. I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. It is only this one account in the entire book that you have a problem with. What you think is not credible, yet possible, only explains your position. If a scenario is possible, then that's all that matters. Do what I do. Google search using key words like "contradiction Matt. 27:7 and Acts 1:18." The two commentaries I use the most are Matthew Henry and Waalvord/Zuck New TEstament commentary. I also use William Hendricksen Commentary of the New Testament. Not all commentaries address the two purchasers of the field.
  14. Dead or alive, it was an indirect purchase made with funds that came from the priests. The priests bought the field directly; Judas indirectly. This appears to be the only explanation. If you think this is an unsatisfactory explanation and want to use it as a reason to reject the entire Bible, you can do so. There are some places in scripture which appear to be nothing more than transcription errors, but none of them impact theology.
×
×
  • Create New...