quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:


There is nothing in the Bible that states His miracles took a physical toll on Him. That is new age bunk.

Excuse me...but whaaaaat???

The Bible clearly tells us that Christ became human and lived with the other humans of the time; "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.."

Look at where he was in the desert for 40 days with no food and Satan came to him and tried to tempt him; "After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry..."

Why would you not think that his day to day ministry of preaching and performing miracles as a man would NOT make him tired and take a physical toll on him?

quote:

Originally posted by PASig:

quote:

Originally posted by PowerSurge:


There is nothing in the Bible that states His miracles took a physical toll on Him. That is new age bunk.

Excuse me...but whaaaaat???

The Bible clearly tells us that Christ became human and lived with the other humans of the time; "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.."

Look at where he was in the desert for 40 days with no food and Satan came to him and tried to tempt him; "After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry..."

Why would you not think that his day to day ministry of preaching and performing miracles as a man would NOT make him tired and take a physical toll on him?

I have to agree with PowerSurge. The power to perform miracles did not come from His humanity but from His divinity. Miracles that happened via other humans in the Bible did not take a "physical toll" on the humans themselves. I am not aware of any passages in the Bible that indicate to the effect that performing miracles took a physical toll on Jesus.

Jesus' first miracle turning water into wine doesn't even have him lifting any finger. He simply directed others to do the work.

If we believe Jesus to be God the Son, the second person of the triune God, then Jesus has access to the infinite power of God. That God rested on the seventh day after creation was not because God was tired but that he ceased from work on that day.

The tiredness and other physical toll he experienced was part of his living as a human. The things he did as God such as miracles or forgiving sins did not take a toll as a human person. He did, indeed, suffer on the cross as a human and quite possible as the second person of the trinity as he underwent being sacrificed as the spiritual payment for our sins.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
My wife and I just watched S1E3 of The Chosen a few nights ago. The subject matter was Matthew 4:24, concerning his healing of many sick and afflicted people in Syria.

The episode ended with Jesus trudging back into the disciples' camp at dusk. He was visibly exhausted; the kind of exhaustion that comes from hard work, not mere long hours. The Scripture surrounding Matthew 4:24 doesn't imply this, but the idea appeals to me.

Jesus doesn't just snap His fingers. His miracles took a spiritual, emotional, and ultimately even a physical toll on Him.

His crucifixion is obviously the peak example. The spiritual/mental/emotional toll of shouldering the collective guilt and shame of all of humanity's sin is unfathomable. He was wiling to do it for us.

I think it lends a significant weight to the Christian concept. For a non-believer, a messiah who was sent by God, to "symbolically" absolve the world of it's sin by perishing on a cross, to then be whisked away to heaven in a pre-arranged scenario is perhaps dismissible as not being a particularly significant sacrifice on the part of Jesus.

Considering that He suffered a spiritual hardship that we can't even imagine, on top of the physical torture of crucifixion, is another thing altogether.

Again, I don't know what (if any) scripture supports this thinking.

As we get further away from the original manuscripts, we encounter editorial license even just with the different Bible versions. Before I get to The Chosen, please allow me to cover this topic first. The different versions and translations of Bibles we have today have come about through different methodologies and approaches. The first kind of Bible we have is the Literal Translation where it aims to stay as close to the original text as possible, focusin on word-for-word translation. This approach is the most "accurate" other than being fluent and reading it in the original languages. But sometimes results in a less fluid reading experience. Examples are King James Vesrion, New American Standard Bible, and English Standard Version.

Dynamic equivalence or Thought of Though Translation sees to express the meaning or thought behind the original text rather than adhering strictly to the original wording. This requires editorial license and ability to discern the meaning or thought behind the text but the aim is to render the Bible in a more contemporary and accessible language. Eamples are New International Version, New Living Translation, and Good News Translation.

Paraphrase Biblesprioritizes readability and understanding over textual precision. The text is rephrased more freely, often expanding on ideas to make the translation easier for modern readers to comprehend. The expense is you are wholly dependent on the outlook and view of the paraphrasers. Examples are The Message and The Living Bible.

Those are just the different methodologies or approaches of how the Bible is presented in current form.

Now, you have The Chosen where not only do you have editorial license but also literary license taken by the people bringing you the story. As a matter of fact, The Chosen includes a disclaimer stating that the series has taken creative liberties in its interpretation and portrayal of biblical events and characters. It's a dramatized interpretation of Bible passages and even includes parts not in the Bible. The creators encourage viewers to engage with the Bible directly for the authentic scriptural text while still appreciating the series.

As PowerSurge referenced, there is nothing in the Bible that would indicate performing miracles took a toll on Jesus nor on anyone else in the Bible through which miracles were performed. If Moses, Elijah, and the other people performed their miracles and the Bible did not note they got tired, why would the Son of God get tired?

The good news is that, as part of my belief, the Bible is the only book in the world that when you open it to read it for understanding, the Author shows up to help you understand it.

Thank you for your contributions, Rey.

The bibles I use are KJV and ESV. I am admittedly not through the entire thing even one time yet, though. And I am certainly not confident in my understanding of all of what I have thus far read. I went into The Chosen understanding and acknowledging their disclaimer, but still can't help but wonder at certain things presented, considering the possibility that, though I have read that particular part in the bible, I missed something that they didn't.

I have a lot of work to do, in building myself a more solid foundation of scriptural knowledge. However, I see no wrong in consulting my peers. If anyone who ever asked a Christian a question was told to just nut-up and read the stinkin' bible until they understood it, we'd likely be facing a recruitment crisis.

Where the crucifixion is concerned, it's generally held that it was a big deal for Him to take-on the sins of the world. As in it was quite a burden to bear. Surely it was a spiritual burden. If it was effortless for Him to take on that burden, and the only thing for Him to contend-with was his mortal death by crucifixion, as PowerSurge implied was the case with his miracles, then why was He frightened?

A mortal death by crucifixion is nothing to scoff at, of course, but He knew who He was, and where He was going. I don't think He would have hesitated even for a second, if all He was faced with was what a human knows as death by crucifixion.

On that note, and maybe it's been mentioned. But are there any good audio versions of the bible that's easy to understand anywhere? I've tired some of the NIV versions and it just didn't work for me.

Word of Promise. Best audio of the Bible.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

I have a lot of work to do, in building myself a more solid foundation of scriptural knowledge. However, I see no wrong in consulting my peers. If anyone who ever asked a Christian a question was told to just nut-up and read the stinkin' bible until they understood it, we'd likely be facing a recruitment crisis.

Where the crucifixion is concerned, it's generally held that it was a big deal for Him to take-on the sins of the world. As in it was quite a burden to bear. Surely it was a spiritual burden. If it was effortless for Him to take on that burden, and the only thing for Him to contend-with was his mortal death by crucifixion, as PowerSurge implied was the case with his miracles, then why was He frightened?

A mortal death by crucifixion is nothing to scoff at, of course, but He knew who He was, and where He was going. I don't think He would have hesitated even for a second, if all He was faced with was what a human knows as death by crucifixion.

I definitely understand what you're saying about "just read the bible." I think some people mistake the meaning of "Sola Scriptura." It's Latin for "by scripture alone" meaning the Bible is the sole, infallible authority against which Christian doctrine and practices must be compared and conform to. But it doesn't mean our quest for spiritual truth must only come from reading the Bible. The early Christians depended on the biblical expositions on the Old Testament and, later, on the epistles and gospels that end up comprising the New Testament. After I became a Christian (and I don't know if I said it already on this thread so forgive me), I devoured books on various Biblical topics (creation, the end times, cults, Calvinism, Armenians, etc.). That's my normal mode on anything I'm studying; up until 2005 every time there was a new version of Excel, I would buy several books. So, I was learning about the Bible from different books about the Bible; but I compared them from my understanding of the Bible. One of the results of my studying was coming to my own conclusions; for example, I read so many books on the Biblical end times that I discovered contradictions among the different books about what the interpretations of bible passages were. I concluded that while I can be certain that the end times will transpire as the Bible says they will be but it's indeterminate as to what the actual reality of the symbols may be. And my position has precedent in that they priests in Jesus' times were the most well-versed about Scriptures. They knew all the prophesies about the Messiah and, yet, they missed Him.

I also believe Christians need the Bible expounded upon by the pastor(s) of the local church they attend. We should also be studying the Bible on our own AND also discussing the Bible with each other like in a Bible study group or a life group. Colossians 3:16 say "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs...." It says "teaching one another;" that doesn't sound like just a pastor teaching a whole congregation every Sunday.

I want to share an insight I gained recently. It was during a Life group and we were studying Genesis. We were on Joseph's life. Personally, for me, I've always wondered what made Joseph being faithful and being a good worker through being sold into slavery, through being seduced by his master's wife, through being thrown into prison unjustly, and through being forgotten after he interpreted the dreams of the prisoners with him. Nothing I could come up with would reconcile his faithfulness and his nature as an ordinary human. Only him and Daniel had any substantial material written about them but no human fault or failings were mentioned about them. Shadrach, Meschach, and Abedneggo also had no flaws mentioned but they only had a short segment. In any case, something someone said, and they weren't the teacher, made it make sense to me. They said Joseph continued to believe in the dream he had that made his brothers wanted to kill him in the first place.

Understanding that Joseph kept believing in the dream made him faithful to God in how he lived and worked wherever he was. He believed that dream was from God as was the dream Pharaoh had. He took it as God's promise to him and he believed in God. He believed in God's promises so much that on his deathbed, he remembered God's promise to Abraham, Joseph's great grandfather, that Abraham's descendants would spend 400 years in a country that is not the promised land before they will get back to the promised land (Genesis 15:13-14). In the last chapter of Genesis (50:24), Joseph made his brothers promise they will keep his bones and bring his bones with them when they leave Egypt for the promised land. and 430 years later, we read in Exodus 13:19 that Moses took Joseph's bones with him as they left Egypt and their slavery. It made me finally understand Joseph's motivation and his commitment to being faithful to his God. As I said, you open the Bible to understand it and its author, God, shows up to help you. He also uses others to help you understand it via their perspectives in the same way He used people with different backgrounds to write the different parts of the Bible.

To me, God is the original Promises Made, Promises Kept person. The Bible is a book of Promises Made, Promises Kept, and Promises still to be certainly fulfilled. So it gets to be exciting for the Christian as he or she understands more.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

Where the crucifixion is concerned, it's generally held that it was a big deal for Him to take-on the sins of the world. As in it was quite a burden to bear. Surely it was a spiritual burden. If it was effortless for Him to take on that burden, and the only thing for Him to contend-with was his mortal death by crucifixion, as PowerSurge implied was the case with his miracles, then why was He frightened?

A mortal death by crucifixion is nothing to scoff at, of course, but He knew who He was, and where He was going. I don't think He would have hesitated even for a second, if all He was faced with was what a human knows as death by crucifixion.

With regards to the crucifixion, I'm not sure whether "frightened" is an apt description; in any case, we can be certain of his commitment and strength of resolve to go through with it. I can certainly agree Jesus was in deep anguish, distress, and overwhelming sorrow.

First, I claim no knowledge about the spiritual mechanics of the crucifixion. But I can imagine he knew what all he was about to go through and those human reactions would have been in play much in the same way but to a greater extent when he knew what he was about to go through in fasting in the desert and being tempted by the devil for 40 days and 40 nights.

We can figure out all the human experience that Jesus endured from the crucifixion from history records of other crucifixions along with what we know about the body from modern science.

As to what happened spiritually, we can only "speculate" some of the things from what happened in the physical world. From Matthew 27:45 onwards, there was darkness from noon to three PM . Many theologians take this to be the time when God the Father turned His back on the Son and in doing so, Jesus experienced spiritual death (separation from God). Which is why Jesus cried out about 3 PM, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" which wasn't actually a question but it reflected and was a call back to Psalm 22 which is taken to be a prophesy of the crucifixion and describes what a human would go through being crucified long before crucifixions. The psalm also included specific things that happened to Jesus apart from any other crucifixion.

Then there is the account of the temple veil being torn in two at the moment Jesus died (Matthew 27:51). The temple veil served to separate the Holy of Holies from the profane. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies and only on one day of the year, the Day of Atonement, to sprinkle on the mercy seat the blood of the bull and goat sacrificed to atone for the sins of the nation of Israel (Leviticus 16). Many theologians take the rending of the veil as a sign that the blood of Jesus finally satisfied what the blood of bulls and goats could not, the actual covering for sin foreshadowed by the Old Testament sacrifices. And with the requirement fulfilled, universal communion between God and humankind was again possible through Jesus, thus the separation between the divine and the profane was no longer necessary.

quote:

Originally posted by ryan81986:
On that note, and maybe it's been mentioned. But are there any good audio versions of the bible that's easy to understand anywhere? I've tired some of the NIV versions and it just didn't work for me.

Youversion Bible app has 79 English Bible translations with many of them have the audio option to listen to the Bible being read to you.

The danger with movies and shows (like the chosen) is that most of it is added from what the creator thinks happened. There are not enough facts in scripture to make anything like we are sued to (a ply any play account).

People are lazy and will not study the Bible enough to know what is in scripture and what is made up. Then they rely upon the movie or show and take what they saw as facts. I have seen this over and over, someone stating what they saw on a show as fact and most times it is not correct.

If you watch stuff like that (I do not) then be diligent in studying scripture to know what is truth and what is the idea of someone just like you and I.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:

Where the crucifixion is concerned, it's generally held that it was a big deal for Him to take-on the sins of the world. As in it was quite a burden to bear. Surely it was a spiritual burden. If it was effortless for Him to take on that burden, and the only thing for Him to contend-with was his mortal death by crucifixion, as PowerSurge implied was the case with his miracles, then why was He frightened?

A mortal death by crucifixion is nothing to scoff at, of course, but He knew who He was, and where He was going. I don't think He would have hesitated even for a second, if all He was faced with was what a human knows as death by crucifixion.

With regards to the crucifixion, I'm not sure whether "frightened" is an apt description; in any case, we can be certain of his commitment and strength of resolve to go through with it. I can certainly agree Jesus was in deep anguish, distress, and overwhelming sorrow.

First, I claim no knowledge about the spiritual mechanics of the crucifixion. But I can imagine he knew what all he was about to go through and those human reactions would have been in play much in the same way but to a greater extent when he knew what he was about to go through in fasting in the desert and being tempted by the devil for 40 days and 40 nights.

We can figure out all the human experience that Jesus endured from the crucifixion from history records of other crucifixions along with what we know about the body from modern science.

As to what happened spiritually, we can only "speculate" some of the things from what happened in the physical world. From Matthew 27:45 onwards, there was darkness from noon to three PM . Many theologians take this to be the time when God the Father turned His back on the Son and in doing so, Jesus experienced spiritual death (separation from God). Which is why Jesus cried out about 3 PM, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" which wasn't actually a question but it reflected and was a call back to Psalm 22 which is taken to be a prophesy of the crucifixion and describes what a human would go through being crucified long before crucifixions. The psalm also included specific things that happened to Jesus apart from any other crucifixion.

Then there is the account of the temple veil being torn in two at the moment Jesus died (Matthew 27:51). The temple veil served to separate the Holy of Holies from the profane. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies and only on one day of the year, the Day of Atonement, to sprinkle on the mercy seat the blood of the bull and goat sacrificed to atone for the sins of the nation of Israel (Leviticus 16). Many theologians take the rending of the veil as a sign that the blood of Jesus finally satisfied what the blood of bulls and goats could not, the actual covering for sin foreshadowed by the Old Testament sacrifices. And with the requirement fulfilled, universal communion between God and humankind was again possible through Jesus, thus the separation between the divine and the profane was no longer necessary.

Keep in mind that some doubt it was the veil separating the Holy of Holies (inner veil) and just the outer veil.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

Keep in mind that some doubt it was the veil separating the Holy of Holies (inner veil) and just the outer veil.

So here's the thing: If it was any regular curtain being torn in two from top to bottom at the moment Jesus gave up his spirit in Matthew 27:51, would that not have been significant in itself? Add to that, the earth shook, the rocks split, and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

I mean, to the people of the time and shortly afterwards, "temple veil" was taken to be the curtain separating the holy of holies. But, I ask: what would be the significant difference if it was just an ordinary curtain versus the holy of holies? What's the impact to what we believe?

The moment was significant enough that dead people came up alive from their tombs, rocks split open, there was an earthquake but, somehow, the occasion didn't rise to tearing the veil of the holy of holies but just some other ordinary curtain with no spiritual significance? Which makes more sense?

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

Keep in mind that some doubt it was the veil separating the Holy of Holies (inner veil) and just the outer veil.

So here's the thing: If it was any regular curtain being torn in two from top to bottom at the moment Jesus gave up his spirit in Matthew 27:51, would that not have been significant in itself? Add to that, the earth shook, the rocks split, and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

I mean, to the people of the time and shortly afterwards, "temple veil" was taken to be the curtain separating the holy of holies. But, I ask: what would be the significant difference if it was just an ordinary curtain versus the holy of holies? What's the impact to what we believe?

The moment was significant enough that dead people came up alive from their tombs, rocks split open, there was an earthquake but, somehow, the occasion didn't rise to tearing the veil of the holy of holies but just some other ordinary curtain with no spiritual significance? Which makes more sense?

To consider the outer curtain was the one torn actually has merit. Do you consider the outer curtain and the inner court insignificant? I don’t. It wasn’t a “regular curtain”. Besides the inner veil wasn’t visible without the outer veil being torn and it did say that the centurions witnessed it.

What’s the impact? That the priesthood is open to more than levites. The inner court was the court of the priests.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
[To consider the outer curtain was the one torn actually has merit. Do you consider the outer curtain and the inner court insignificant? I don’t. It wasn’t a “regular curtain”. Besides the inner veil wasn’t visible without the outer veil being torn and it did say that the centurions witnessed it.

What’s the impact? That the priesthood is open to more than levites. The inner court was the court of the priests.

The passage doesn't say the centurions witnessed the veil being torn. Matthew 27:54 says "When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened...." So the centurion and those with him were guarding Jesus. If they were guarding Jesus at Calvary, they wouldn't have witnessed the veil being torn at the temple, right? So the veil getting torn would not have been part of "all that had happened" that the centurion and those with him saw.

So you say the impact of the actual curtain being torn in two from top to bottom being the outer veil means that the priesthood is open to more than Levites. Okay.

If, instead of the outer veil being torn, the inner veil was torn, would you disagree with the general understanding that the need for a human high priest has been removed since it was only the high priest that was allowed to go inside the Holy of holies and only but once each year?

I can understand that believers have become priests; Revelations 1:6 says as much, "and (Jesus) made us kings and priests to His God and Father."

Which do you think has the bigger and more important impact: that the priesthood now extends to all believers and not just Levites or that the human office of high priest has been done away with because it is no longer necessary as he is the only one who is allowed to go past the inner veil into the Holy of holies?

And before you answer, I'll bring up Hebrews 9:11 which says, "But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

For the sake of brevity, I'm going to skip some equally important verses because I want to get to verse 24: "For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us, not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another... but now, once at the end of the ages, he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

In light of Hebrews 9, do you think it was the outer veil that got torn allowing non-levites to become priests or the inner veil doing away with the partition that only the human High Priest can traverse but once each year?

To me, Hebrews 9 clarifies the yearly sacrifices made by the human High Priests were only copies and foreshadowing of the sacrifice by Jesus (verse 24). But since He has entered the Most Holy Place once for all (verse 12) then no more annual sacrifices and sprinkling blood on the mercy seat by a human high priest going through the inner veil once a year is no longer necessary. So the inner veil being torn has much more significance than if it was the outer veil and is more in keeping with the symbolisms of the curtains.

The outer veil being torn means the priesthood is not exclusive to the Levites but that still leaves the inner veil which can only be entered through by the one High Priest once each year. The inner veil being torn means God's presence can be accessed by anyone who becomes a priest through faith in Jesus (which symbolically is the outer veil) and everyone can enter without a blood sacrifice because it has been offered by Jesus once for all.

quote:

The moment was significant enough that dead people came up alive from their tombs

When it comes to deferring to the gospels, what do we do with things like this? As best I can tell, based on internet research, these resurrections aren't corroborated in any other gospels, and are given only the single passing mention in Matthew.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:
[To consider the outer curtain was the one torn actually has merit. Do you consider the outer curtain and the inner court insignificant? I don’t. It wasn’t a “regular curtain”. Besides the inner veil wasn’t visible without the outer veil being torn and it did say that the centurions witnessed it.

What’s the impact? That the priesthood is open to more than levites. The inner court was the court of the priests.

The passage doesn't say the centurions witnessed the veil being torn. Matthew 27:54 says "When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened...." So the centurion and those with him were guarding Jesus. If they were guarding Jesus at Calvary, they wouldn't have witnessed the veil being torn at the temple, right? So the veil getting torn would not have been part of "all that had happened" that the centurion and those with him saw.

So you say the impact of the actual curtain being torn in two from top to bottom being the outer veil means that the priesthood is open to more than Levites. Okay.

If, instead of the outer veil being torn, the inner veil was torn, would you disagree with the general understanding that the need for a human high priest has been removed since it was only the high priest that was allowed to go inside the Holy of holies and only but once each year?

I can understand that believers have become priests; Revelations 1:6 says as much, "and (Jesus) made us kings and priests to His God and Father."

Which do you think has the bigger and more important impact: that the priesthood now extends to all believers and not just Levites or that the human office of high priest has been done away with because it is no longer necessary as he is the only one who is allowed to go past the inner veil into the Holy of holies?

And before you answer, I'll bring up Hebrews 9:11 which says, "But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption."

For the sake of brevity, I'm going to skip some equally important verses because I want to get to verse 24: "For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us, not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another... but now, once at the end of the ages, he has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself."

In light of Hebrews 9, do you think it was the outer veil that got torn allowing non-levites to become priests or the inner veil doing away with the partition that only the human High Priest can traverse but once each year?

To me, Hebrews 9 clarifies the yearly sacrifices made by the human High Priests were only copies and foreshadowing of the sacrifice by Jesus (verse 24). But since He has entered the Most Holy Place once for all (verse 12) then no more annual sacrifices and sprinkling blood on the mercy seat by a human high priest going through the inner veil once a year is no longer necessary. So the inner veil being torn has much more significance than if it was the outer veil and is more in keeping with the symbolisms of the curtains.

The outer veil being torn means the priesthood is not exclusive to the Levites but that still leaves the inner veil which can only be entered through by the one High Priest once each year. The inner veil being torn means God's presence can be accessed by anyone who becomes a priest through faith in Jesus (which symbolically is the outer veil) and everyone can enter without a blood sacrifice because it has been offered by Jesus once for all.

My first point would be that it doesn’t matter what has a bigger impact, it matters what scripture says. I try to remove feelings from my studies. Second “… and all that happened …” includes the tearing of the veil. The temple was visible from the place of crucifixion. Considering Hebrews 9, the entire temple was demolished something like 6 years after its completion. The functioning priesthood is no longer available.

This isn’t a salvation issue, I’m just disagreeing with your readings in the New Testament.

I’m still discovering things like this such as the withered fig trees in Matthew and Mark could be separate events and not just two people telling the same story. And there were two times that Jesus entered into Jerusalem a day apart and they’re often compressed into one event.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

y first point would be that it doesn’t matter what has a bigger impact, it matters what scripture says. I try to remove feelings from my studies. Second “… and all that happened …” includes the tearing of the veil. The temple was visible from the place of crucifixion. Considering Hebrews 9, the entire temple was demolished something like 6 years after its completion. The functioning priesthood is no longer available.

This isn’t a salvation issue, I’m just disagreeing with your readings in the New Testament.

I’m still discovering things like this such as the withered fig trees in Matthew and Mark could be separate events and not just two people telling the same story. And there were two times that Jesus entered into Jerusalem a day apart and they’re often compressed into one event.

It's fine with me that we disagree. I have open spots in my understandings that I carry - one of them was when you pointed out the priests didn't want to enter Herod's palace because they didn't want to defile themselves for the Passover when it's generally considered the Last Supper that already took place was the Passover. I'll carry that until it gets resolved for me.

You say you try to remove feelings from your studies; I'm not aware of anything that I expressed was based on my feelings. Impact for me is what makes the most rational sense in line with everything else. If we limit ourselves to what scripture says, then both of our interpretations are indeterminate. You maintain that the soldiers would have seen the outer veil torn while being near the crucifixion on Calvary. That's a hard stretch because Calvary would not have been on the temple grounds and the veils themselves would be inside the temple's enclosed structure which itself would be surrounded by the outer courts.

Sorry, I took your “more impact” statement to mean emotions.

We’re baptizing my son at around 11:20ish today. Eastern time.
Livestream if anyone wants to celebrate with us. Service closes with his baptism.

https://www.youtube.com/live/9...?si=FVqEuyQSbiZOnZBG

Tony.

Awesome, Benny. I checked the thread after getting home from church, and managed to tune-in just in time to see your family give their remarks before the baptism. Congratulations, Anthony. God is good.