AMERICAN ATHEISTS

The quote should be Jn 8:14, anyway. 8:18 is actually the answer! [Oops - watch that ellipsis (…)]. It reads: "I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me. " So, according to Jewish Law (man's, of course) the Father's witness still "counts" for two.

The second quote is referring to John the Baptist as the second (legal) witness: "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is valid."

Modern translations also render 8:14 "Even if I testify on my own behalf…" and "But even if I do judge…"

These may refer to two different lineages - both from David. Mary's is the second in Luke, Joseph's was the second mentioned in Matthew. Talmud mentions "Mary, daughter of Heli…"

The second idea is that both genealogies are Joseph's, but the Matthew is the "legal" lineage of David, and Luke's is the "actual".

Also, the names Jacob and Heli (Eli) could be two names for the same man (e.g. Jacob, Israel).

The quote from Psalms refers to the Jewish leaders of the time, of whom God also said "…but you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler." In other words - they were "like gods" (little "g"). The point was that God called them in David's time also "sons of the Most High" - which Jesus was claiming - and pointing out the Jews hypocrisy for not considering this Biblical reference blasphemy.

Only someone woefully ignorant of the Biblical story could come up with this interpretation. The NIV uses a much better rendering that reflects the meaning: "regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David.

Why would one conclude that Jesus was avoiding stoning out of fear? If Jesus was a coward, he certainly would have escaped the cross by simply denying His divinity in front of Pilate.

His time had not yet come…(John 7:6,8,30, etc.) - it was pure expedience.

These first two are clearly spiritual references - to put God above even family in importance.

This does refer to the physical - said to Peter as he cut off the ear of Malthius.

The first statement probably means simply - "Now that I will be gone - you will need to prepare yourselves to stand alone as men do". Perhaps it refers to a defensive use of the sword, or even as a tool, like a hunting knife - since the passage earlier referred to provisions.

Again - this refers to the spiritual importance of placing God first.

Honoring God first certainly does not imply not honoring parents - the term "hate" is used to establish relative importance.

This was a parable. Jesus wasn't referring to his followers at all, but to those who would enter like thieves into the sheep and steal them from the loving Shepherd - i.e. false teachers (like these atheists!)

This is another idiotic conclusion, purposely drawn out of context - I would certainly pluck out my eye, considering the rest of the quote: "… for it is better for you that one of the parts of your body perish, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell"

Amen?!

One of three explanations is certainly enough to explain this.

1 - Mark could be using Jewish time (from 6 AM), and John Roman (from midnight).

2 - Mark could have referred to the beginning when Jesus was sentenced, and John to when he was actually led to execution.

3 - Could refer to "watch" - dividing day into 8 - 3-hour "hours" or watches. This puts the Third hour, 6 to 9 a.m., Sixth hour, 9 to 12 midday. The crucifixion could have happened around 9:00 AM.

Some feel that this is a legitimate mistake - albeit made by transcriptionists, or even by Matthew himself quoting from memory, since the prophecy is clearly from Zechariah - the Hebrew for the names is similar.

A more likely explanation is that the books of prophecy were arranged in a group starting with Jeremiah - no book, chapter and verse were included then, and Matthew was referring to the whole section of minor prophets, beginning with Jeremiah. McDowell states that the Jews considered the minor prophets as one book. According to Geisler and Nix, the old testament did not get modern chapter divisions until the 13^th century.

Either way, it makes no statement about the whole Bible's validity.

Referred to the spiritual kingdom of God - predicting His own death and resurrection, not the "end of the world".

Jesus was speaking to his apostles (who were able to perform miracles). However, this is also an allusion to the unlimited power of God, available to all believers who pray in His will.

So, why not believe this?

Easily explained by several accounts of the same event. Matt 28:2 does not have to follow chronologically verse 1. Verse 2 says that one angel was sitting on the stone, but not that he was the only one around (the other "man" could have been Jesus - consider John 20:14) . Since Matthew mentions specifically that the guards "shook and became like dead men" when the angel rolled back and sat on the stone, the guards were there at that time. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary may not have looked around if the guards were still there, and so arrived later.

Also - the angels were in the tomb - not outside when they spoke to the women (Mark 16, Matt 28:8, Lk 24:4, John 20:11 - all four Gospels agree.

They ran to tell the others, who ran back to the tomb. None of the four accounts contradicts this sequence.

--Scott Tucker