Help!

[chemcatholic]

Recently in a non-religious forum, someone posted a list of 147 questions for Christians to answer in regards to their faith. I’ve begun answering them, but there are twelve questions that I’m not sure how to answer. Here they are with their original numbering -any insight you can give would be highly appreciated!

Peace

1. Why would your god deliberately cause sinners to sin (cf. Romans 9:15-23 and numerous parts of the book of Exodus where Jehovah says, “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart.”). Are these sinners still responsible for the sins which your god forces them, against their will, to commit? Justify your answer.
2. Do you feel that the last words of Christ were significant? If so, why do the four gospels attribute three different sentences to Christ as his last? (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”; Luke 23:46: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”; John 19:30: “It is finished”). -I can reconcile Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but am not sure how John fits in with the first three.
3. If your god is omnipresent, and hell is the absence of (or separation from) your god, how can he be omnipresent? If he is not truly omnipresent, then how can he be omnipotent?
4. Why is 2 Kings 19 exactly identical to Isaiah 37?
5. Matthew 28:11-15 contains an account of a conspiracy between the Jews and the Roman soldiers to spread the story that the disciples stole the body of Christ. How could Matthew have known about this, since no Jews or Romans would have admitted to it? If it was such a transparent conspiracy that an outsider could have seen it, why didn’t the other three gospels mention it? Why didn’t the Roman soldiers get into trouble?
6. If your god is “just and merciful,” why would he take Solomon’s kingdom away from Solomon’s son while not punishing Solomon, when it was Solomon himself who committed the sin of idolatry? What did Solomon’s son do to deserve punishment? (See 1 Kings 11:12).
7. Don’t you think that an anti-sex position (see question #22) is a rather silly position for your sect to take when the biblical book “Song of Solomon” is a piece of erotic poetry? (For instance, in Song of Solomon 8:2, the bridegroom proposes to “drink of spiced wine of the juice of the pomegranate.” The pomegranate was a symbol of the female genitalia, and the “spiced wine” represented menstrual blood). -I’ve got the first part covered in my answer to #22, but I’m not sure how to respond to the alleged symbolism.
8. Matthew says that the prophecy given in Matthew 27:9 was given by Jeremiah. How do you explain that this prophecy was not given by Jeremiah at all, but by Zechariah (in Zech 11:12)?
9. Matthew says (in Matt 2:21) that Jesus dealt in Nazareth so that he could fulfill a prophecy stating that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament? -The answer is that it isn’t in the OT, but how does this fit with Biblical inerrancy?
10. Matthew says that on the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus was riding on an *** and a colt (Matt 21:7). How do you explain that the original prophecy (Zech 9:9) stated that Jesus would be riding on only one ***, and the other gospel writers place Jesus only on one *** (Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:15)? -How do the different understandings of the prophecy fit with Biblical inerrancy?
11. In Matthew 1:23, Matthew has the angel say that Jesus would be born of a virgin. However, the prophecy that Matthew is referring to, Isaiah 7:14, uses the Hebrew word almah, which simply means a young woman. It has nothing to do with sexual purity; the Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah. How do you explain this?
12. Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Where is the fulfillment of this prophecy in the New Testament?

 

[1ke]

Personally, I wouldn’t bother.

This is not a person who actually wants an answer. These types of people lack the proper background to be able to understand the different levels of meaning in scripture, the different types of literature, and theology.

If they were serious, they’d take it one question at a time, not over 100. They are just trying to bait you.

 

[Grayton]

chemcatholic:

1. Matthew 28:11-15 contains an account of a conspiracy between the Jews and the Roman soldiers to spread the story that the disciples stole the body of Christ. How could Matthew have known about this, since no Jews or Romans would have admitted to it? If it was such a transparent conspiracy that an outsider could have seen it, why didn’t the other three gospels mention it? Why didn’t the Roman soldiers get into trouble?

Perhaps one of the apologists on this site has an authoritative answer, but I can guess at several logical reasons that Matthew would have known about the conspiracy:

1. Thousands of Jews and Romans converted during the years following Christ’s death and resurrection. Some of them could have been in on the plot, and then revealed it to the Church. Some Eastern churches have a tradition that even Pontius Pilate converted! He surely would have known.
2. The conspirators could have approached someone who refused to join in the conspiracy. Or someone within the conspiracy could have betrayed his fellows. This is a constant risk of plotters and conspirators in the real world.
3. “Conspiracy” just means “breathing together” - so, they all had the same party line. This would have been obvious to the Apostles, since they knew Jesus was risen and since they heard the Romans and Jewish leaders give this explanation. Literally, and even in some areas of US law (like antitrust) a “conspiracy” can exist without anyone ever agreeing to act together - they just have to act the same way after someone makes the suggestion.
4. The Holy Spirit could have informed the Church, just as He informed the early Church about the deceit of Ananias and Saphira.

As to why didn’t the soldiers get in trouble? Well, people are always avoiding punishment. The authorities could have allowed them to “escape.”

 

[Grayton]

131. Matthew says that the prophecy given in Matthew 27:9 was given by Jeremiah. How do you explain that this prophecy was not given by Jeremiah at all, but by Zechariah (in Zech 11:12)?

According to the footnotes by Father Geo. Leo Haydock in his 1859 edition of the Douay-Rhiems New Testament (published by Catholic Treasures, some believe that this prophecy was in a work by Jeremiah that has been lost. St. Jerome who studied the original lanugages when he put the Vulgate (Latin version) of the Bible together, affirms that he found the prophecy in a non-canonical work by Jeremiah that existed during his lifetime.

Others say that the original Gospel just said “the prophet” without naming him, and that some copyist or translator later substituted the name Jeremiah. St. Augustine affirmed that the prophet was not named in some copies of the Gospel in his time, and Fr. Haydock says that the Syrica version of the Gospel does not name “the prophet.”

 

[ccav]

#30
God does NOT cause sinners to sin. That misrepresents Romans 9 and proof texts Exodus.

Backup in Romans 9 and read in context you’ll run into verse 6 “It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children.” Then comes the “infamous” Romans 9:13, “Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” What’s the point? Paul is talking about two groups of people (we see in verse 6), the Israelites and non-Israelites…BUT basically which person belongs to which group is not always obvious, which is analogous to who is a Christian and who is not. Then comes verse 13. This however is a reference back to Malachi 1:2-5 which says,”“I have loved you,” says the LORD .
"But you ask, ‘How have you loved us?’
“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?” the LORD says. “Yet I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated, and I have turned his mountains into a wasteland and left his inheritance to the desert jackals.” **Edom ** may say, “Though we have been crushed, we will rebuild the ruins.” But this is what the LORD Almighty says: “They may build, but I will demolish. They will be called the Wicked Land, a people always under the wrath of the LORD .” [emphesis mine] The prophet Malachi is not talking about the individuals of Jacob and Esau, but rather there descendants. Two groups. Same thing that Paul is talking about in Romans 9. So just as Jacob becomes a figure head of Israel and Esau becomes a figure head of Edom, so also pharaoh becomes a figure head of Egypt. If you go back and read those (boring) geneologies in Genesis you’ll see that the Egyptians broke from the line that would eventually lead to Abram and began worshiping other gods. God did not destroy them however because God had a bigger purpose in mind. No where can one get the idea that God forced this to happen, but rather that He used the free actions of those people to His purpose. Same is true with the Edomite reference in Romans 9, which logically would have to apply in the same way if Paul was to make a proper analogy. So what two groups? Christians and non Christians. God has a purpose for non Christians, whatever that maybe, and we just have to accept that fact.

As for the Exodus and the hardening of pharaoh’s heart, again context gives the key. Although we see references to the Lord hardening pharaoh’s heart we also see pharaoh hardening his own heart as in Exodus 8:15,“But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart and would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said.” Notice how interesting the end of that sentence is “…just as the LORD had said.” Now if one wants to proof text then they can ignore Exodus 8:15 and favor Exodus 9:12 for example. But that would be illogical. BOTH have to be true (unless one wants to deny Scripture outright). So in one sentence you have God saying He is hardening pharaoh’s heart and in another you have pharaoh saying that pharaoh is hardening his own heart. So what gives? If pharaoh is on his own hardening his own heart (Exodus 8:15) and God is also hardening pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 9:12) then unless one wants to deny freewill (as the calvinists effectively did) then the only conclusion is that God knows what pharaoh is going to do and gives pharaoh what pharaoh wants, that is a hard heart. This fits perfectly with the question in Romans 9:14. In verse 15 Paul answers with Scripture, but in verse 16 Paul clarifies by saying “It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” The key word here being ‘mercy’. God was not merciful when he gave pharaoh what he wanted. I believe this position can be born out by the context that I’ve given. Otherwise it ends up being completely a arbitrary decision by God, which I maintain can NOT be born out by the context.

Hope that might help! (tough to answer in only 4000 characters!)

 

[ccav]

89. Do you feel that the last words of Christ were significant? If so, why do the four gospels attribute three different sentences to Christ as his last? (Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34: “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?”; Luke 23:46: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”; John 19:30: “It is finished”). -I can reconcile Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but am not sure how John fits in with the first three.

I’m not sure if I fully understand this question. It seems to be a loaded question to me. I don’t recall the Gospels implicitly or explicitly saying that these were the definitive and absolute last words of Christ Jesus. These were words spoken near then end, to be sure, but nothing that indicates an absolute last sentence. I believe that the person who wrote this question is deliberately reading more into the text then what is actually there. A case classic case of eisegesis rather than exegesis. I would say that Jesus said all these things. Which He said first and which He said last the text does not indicate.

 

[JimG]

147 Questions?? Would this person like for us to do the research on his term papers as well? Is he writing a book and is too lazy to do the research? Tell him to read everything on catholic.com and ewtn.com and newadvent and then get back to you. Maybe you should assign homework.

JimG

 

[CANman]

chemcatholic:

1. Matthew says (in Matt 2:21) that Jesus dealt in Nazareth so that he could fulfill a prophecy stating that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament? -The answer is that it isn’t in the OT, but how does this fit with Biblical inerrancy?

Even the OT had Oral Tradition, so this could be an oral tradition; thus the questioner is assuming all prophecy must be written down and inscripturated.

Also, I believe Dr. Hahn explained that there was some sort of connection between Nazarene, and “branch.” Sorry, but his explanation escapes me now. There is a prophecy of the “branch” in the OT (I think Jeremiah) Don’t have the time to verify that now though.

 

[ccav]

1. If your god is omnipresent, and hell is the absence of (or separation from) your god, how can he be omnipresent? If he is not truly omnipresent, then how can he be omnipotent?

There seems to be a misunderstanding here (delberate or otherwise I do not know) between a state and a place. This question categorically assumes a place. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says in 615 “The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.” Seperation is a state not a place. Bad assumption on the part of the questioner.

But hey, that’s just my opionion…

 

[jeffreedy789]

on the omnipresent thing - this is a matter of being separated from God in a sense other than physically. it’s a state, like someone in a church today, who feels out of place and ‘alone’ even though they are surrounded by people. God is here, in this place, right now. but someone who rejects Him will not be ‘in His presence’ here.

one way to understand this answer is to realize that God IS present in Hell. the psalms talk about how we cannot get away from Him, that even if we go down into the depths (of hell), He is still there.

but His omnipresence is not what being ‘separated from God’ is referring to.

i’d like to tentatively agree with the person who said that this person doesn’t necessarily want answers. he may just be making up reasons not to believe, and to cause you not to. but in answering the questions, you can come to understand your faith better, and God can work good from what the enemy intended for evil.

emil zola, it is said, visited lourdes, stating that if he saw someone healed in the waters, he would believe (he was an atheist). he saw a woman go down into the waters with open, horrible wounds on her face and leg. she came out of the water with pink, healing flesh in both places. zola then said ‘even if i saw the whole world go down sick and come up whole, still i would not believe.’ (forgive me if i got the paraphrase inexact) before you can understand some of the depths of the faith (and of life, for that matter) you have to believe.

 

[ccav]

1. Matthew 28:11-15 contains an account of a conspiracy between the Jews and the Roman soldiers to spread the story that the disciples stole the body of Christ. How could Matthew have known about this, since no Jews or Romans would have admitted to it?

They would have known the accusation because they would have been accused of it. They would have found the details easily enough because high profile people such as Paul converted. Paul himself could easily have known because Paul’s teacher was Gamaliel who was a member of the Sanhedrin (see Acts 5:34).

If it was such a transparent conspiracy that an outsider could have seen it, why didn’t the other three gospels mention it?

Who said it was so transparent that an outsider could have seen it? That is more assumption…remember what happens when you assume!

Why didn’t the Roman soldiers get into trouble?

Errr…who said they didn’t get into trouble???

 

[jeffreedy789]

as far as the sex question goes, it’s easy. he’s misunderstanding the christian view of sex. we are not anti sex, contrary to what most non christians believe. we are so pro-sex that we call it a sacrament! it’s a holy thing, too holy to be thrown around and engaged in with whomever one pleases.

so of course the song of songs praises sex. it’s beautiful. it’s fantastic. it’s a great gift from God.

whether or not his metaphor is accurate is a matter of debate. it’s VERY doubtful that a jewish writer was endorsing the idea of drinking blood.

but there’s no problem with Biblical erotic imagery. viva la difference!!

 

[jeffreedy789]

actually, the roman soldiers NOT getting into trouble is one of the strongest arguments FOR the conspiracy. the penalty for sleeping on the job was death. the fact that the body disappeared and the soldiers, by all accounts, were not killed, supports the concept of their being told to keep it under wraps. (pardon my pun.)

 

[ccav]

1. If your god is “just and merciful,” why would he take Solomon’s kingdom away from Solomon’s son while not punishing Solomon, when it was Solomon himself who committed the sin of idolatry? What did Solomon’s son do to deserve punishment? (See 1 Kings 11:12).

Ha Ha Ha! I’m sorry but this one is really funny. Poor poor Rehoboam, Ha Ha Ha!

If you read 1 Kings 12 you will see that Rehoboam was, for lack of a better way of putting it, a jerk. He was not going to undo the bad things that his dad Solomon did. If you read the post I put up on question 30 this relates right back to that. Rehoboam, just like pharaoh, had a choice and chose badly. God used that bad choice for God’s own purposes. Bad kings easily produce bad heirs.

And remember, it was only for King David’s sake that God let it pass to Solomon’s son, not for Solomon’s sake. A choice God could easily make because God knew Rehoboam would be worthless.

 

[ccav]

1. Don’t you think that an anti-sex position (see question #22) is a rather silly position for your sect to take when the biblical book “Song of Solomon” is a piece of erotic poetry?

This is the classic straw man arguement. Christianity is not anti-sex. “Be fruitful and multiply” wasn’t referring to trees.

 

[jeffreedy789]

1. In Matthew 1:23, Matthew has the angel say that Jesus would be born of a virgin. However, the prophecy that Matthew is referring to, Isaiah 7:14, uses the Hebrew word almah, which simply means a young woman. It has nothing to do with sexual purity; the Hebrew word for virgin is bethulah. How do you explain this?

this is not difficult to understand, but it will not be easy for the nonbeliever to accept. it’s the idea of multiple fulfillment of prophecy. the initial prophecy was not talking about a sexual virgin, but only a young woman, as he says. however, the WORD used can also mean a sexual virgin. and the ultimate fulfillment of that prophecy - Jesus - took the word in it’s fullest meaning, that of a sexually pure young woman. the word used here means ‘young woman’ because almost all young women were virgins at that time. losing your virginity before marriage wasn’t frowned on, it was stoned. today we have to have different words because it’s so often not the same case. it’s like saying the bride is wearing white. it USED to mean virginity. now it just means bride. same change in meaning.

1. Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Where is the fulfillment of this prophecy in the New Testament?

i don’t think it’s really necessary to justify someone else’s poor interpretation of scripture. in this case, the multiple prophecy is the case. the ‘land of the two kings’ is in the original prophecy, and refers to israel and samaria, not to Jesus’s time.

 

[jeffreedy789]

1. Matthew says that on the triumphant entry into Jerusalem, Jesus was riding on an *** and a colt (Matt 21:7). How do you explain that the original prophecy (Zech 9:9) stated that Jesus would be riding on only one ***, and the other gospel writers place Jesus only on one *** (Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35, and John 12:15)? -How do the different understandings of the prophecy fit with Biblical inerrancy?
   this is one of the more ridiculous questions about scripture. good grief! if He was riding on an ***, and a colt was following Him, one writer would say He rode an ***, and speak truly. another would say He rode both, and speak truly. it’s difficult to believe someone could take this question seriously.

 

[jeffreedy789]

1. Matthew says (in Matt 2:21) that Jesus dealt in Nazareth so that he could fulfill a prophecy stating that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament? -The answer is that it isn’t in the OT, but how does this fit with Biblical inerrancy?

---

well, an answer that says ‘it doesn’t say it’s an OLD TESTAMENT’ prophecy seems to be splitting hairs. but then, so does the question. in any case, the prophecy could have been part of jewish tradition not contained in scripture, or it could be a prophecy popular at the time of Christ that we don’t know of, not even included in jewish teachings. who knows? now, if the OT said He would come from jericho and He actually came from bethlehem, THEN we’d have a problem. this is also a silly question.

 

[ccav]

1. Matthew says that the prophecy given in Matthew 27:9 was given by Jeremiah. How do you explain that this prophecy was not given by Jeremiah at all, but by Zechariah (in Zech 11:12)?

OOOPPPSSS!!! In an above post I talked about eisegesis versus exegesis. This is exactly what I am talking about. Matthew 27:9 says that this prophecy was spoken by Jeremiah. Spoken does not mean written. Jeremiah spoke it and Zechariah wrote it down. So what?

Oh, and by the way, I’d call this another arguement against sola scriptura.

 

[ccav]

1. Matthew says (in Matt 2:21) that Jesus dealt in Nazareth so that he could fulfill a prophecy stating that the Messiah would be called a Nazarene. Where is this prophecy in the Old Testament? -The answer is that it isn’t in the OT, but how does this fit with Biblical inerrancy?

The actual Biblical verse says,'But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: “He will be called a Nazarene.” ’ (versus 22-23-emphesis mine).

The fact that the word is “prophets” plural, not singular, illustrates that Matthew is not pointing to any one singular verse. So why would the questioner try to make it do just that? This was pointed out by Saint Jerome when he commented on this.