Question:This is a question that has been bothering me quite a bit for a long time. It can be easily seen that there are differences in the four gospels on certain events. For instance, Jesus says to bring a donkey and its colt for the ride to Jerusalem in Matthew, while it is mentioned in the other 3 gospels that He asked for a colt only. In Matthew, Jesus gives a sermon on a mountain and the teachings of that sermon can also be found in Luke but nothing about preaching on a mountain is mentioned. Is it possible that Jesus repeated the Sermon on the Mount at different places in an elaborated way? There are some more of these differences between the gospels. How do we deal with such differences? I also want to know how Luke elaborated the teachings of Jesus on the mount--saying more than what can be seen in Matthew. The last thing I want to know is that how can Mark's and Luke's gospels be based on the original life of Jesus even though they were never with him? The book of Matthew and John makes sense because they were with Jesus and they received the Holy Spirit after the departure of Jesus from this world. Even if Mark and Luke were writing the gospel with a lot of studying and inquiry from witnesses, how can we be sure that their books were written in the guidance of the Holy Spirit? I believe that since both Luke and Mark were disciples/campanions of Paul (see 2 Timothy 4:11), they had the Spirit with them. What are your thoughts?
Question:In spite of the clear teaching in the Bible about being baptized as a necessary part of the miracle of regeneration, how do you explain people's denominational experience of a changed life when they "prayed Jesus into their heart?"
Question:I know we have many prophecies of Christ in the OT, but I did not find one that says 'He will rise from the dead'. Is there any verse that explicitly states this? Or is it as He said to the doubting people the only evidence He will give them is the sign of Prophet Jonah who was in the belly of the fish for 3 days. Is this sufficient to imply the resurrection?
Q: Why do some commentators break the 70 "weeks" of Daniel 9 into the first 69 "weeks" with the seventieth week still in the future?
On what basis do some commentators say the 70th week of Daniel 9:27 is still in the future? Why would the 70 week prophecy be broken down as 69 continuous weeks with the 70th week potentially some 2000 years detached from 69th week?
Question:People say that the story of Jesus' resurrection is copied from the Egyptian myth about the gods Horus and Isis. Is this claim credible?
Question:Jews always criticize the Christian explanation of Daniel 9... https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/daniel-9-a-true-biblical-interpretation/
Can you prove that Daniel really spoke about Jesus in Daniel 9?
Question:Please tell me whether the concept of the "second death" means a complete disappearance or eternal torment in a lake of fire?
Are Richard Dawkins' points valid in his response against faith as the only way to morality?
[Editor's Note: View Dawkins' video that claims that secular humanists have created a better kind of morality than religion.]
Question: I was reading on your website an article about Nimrod and any evidence for Nimrod. I would like to take it a step farther. What if Sargon of Akkad was actually Moses? What if the Enuma Elish which talks about Apsu the fresh pure water god and Tiamat who was the bitter salty water God that joined to create the young gods were the expanse over the firmament have influenced our Bible?
This seems reasonable because our seas have salty bitter water (Tiamat). I could go on, but my question to you is, is it even a possibility that the early Roman Church made this all up? Perhaps they grabbed pieces from the ancient writings of Assyria, Babylon, etc etc to create a story to their liking. Everything seems to center around Rome. There are too many similarities and we do know, they forced Christantity upon the people using the Knight Templars to get their word out much later than Constantines day and age. For me this is a gut feeling. What do you think? Please note that I do believe in God the creator but I believe the Old and New Testaments have too many flaws. Lucifer for example, isn't even mentioned in the Hebrew writings. The Old Testament that mentions Lucifer in today's Bible is actually about a son named Helel of the Babylonian King. Totally different beings if you will, which leaves a wrong impressionit is about the Devil when in actuality its really about a person in Babylon. I hope that made sense. What is your take on all this? We have proof of Sargon of Akkad and a story of him as a baby in a basket (like Moses) etc.... Thank you for taking the time to read this and hope to hear from you.