All posts by David Stevenson

2021-04-18 David Stevenson

Did Jesus come to bring peace or not?

Matthew 10:34; Luke 2:14; 22:36 and Mark 9:50; John 14:27; 16:33; Acts 10:36

No Peace

(Matthew 10:34-36) – “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35″For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.”

(Luke 12:51,52) – “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; 52for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three…”

Luke 22:36) – “And He said to them, “But now, let him who has a purse take it along, likewise also a bag, and let him who has no sword sell his robe and buy one.”

Peace

(Mark 9:50) – “Salt is good; but if the salt becomes unsalty, with what will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”

(John 14:27) – “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.

(John 16:33) – “These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace…”

(Acts 10:36) – “The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all).”

Context is the key to Jesus’ words. In Matthew 10:34, Jesus is speaking about the divisions that will come, even among family members, over their belief or lack of belief about Him. In that respect, He has come to bring division. This context is also related in Luke 12:51.

Luke 22:36 Jesus is preparing the disciples for His departure. He is telling them that they will need to provide for themselves and even protect themselves. Up to that time, everything they had needed had been provided. But, after the crucifixion and ascension, they would again be “on their own.” They would need to work, provide for their families, and, if need be, protect their own; hence, the mention of the sword. Of course, the Bible teaches that Christians are to be peaceful, loving, and forgiving; however, it also teaches that we are not required to sit idly by when persecuted unrighteously.

The rest of the “peace” verses, teach just that: peace.

Jesus did not contradict Himself. When we look at His words in context, we can see what He was saying and that there is no contradiction at all.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace

2021-04-18 David Stevenson

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword.

At first glance it indeed appears that Jesus encourages violence and calls his disciples to practice it, presumably righteous violence. But appearances can be deceiving. A text without a context often becomes a pretext, as the old saying goes. Once this verse is read in its historical and literary contexts, the meaning will change.

It is time to set the record straight about that verse.

The historical context, we should recall, is Jewish culture, as Jesus ministers to his own people. He sends out the twelve disciples to the “lost sheep of Israel,” not yet to the gentiles, who will be reached after the Resurrection. It is not surprising, historically speaking, that he would spread his word by proclamation to his own, by Jewish disciples. Second, he predicts that some towns may not receive the disciples and that the authorities may put them on trial and flog them. In that eventuality, they should shake the dust off their feet, pray for them, and flee to another city. Third, it is only natural that first-century Jews may not understand this new sect or “Jesus movement” (as sociologists of the New Testament call it), so they resist it. Does this mean, then, that Jesus calls for a holy war with a physical, military sword against his fellow Jewssay, against his own family who wanted to take custody of him because they thought he was “out of his mind” (Mark 3:21)?

Next, those cultural facts explain the immediate literary context, which shows division among family members. The context must be quoted in full to explain the meaning of “sword” in Matthew 10:34 (bold print):

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven. 34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household [Micah 7:6]
37 Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”

The one key element in this lengthy passage is the word “sword,” and its meaning is now clear. It indicates that following Jesus in his original Jewish society may not bring peace to a family, but may “split” it up, the precise function of a metaphorical sword. Are his disciples ready for that? This kind of spiritual sword invisibly severs a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on (Micah 7:6). Given Jesus’ own family resistance early on (they later came around), it is only natural he would say that no matter what the cost, one must follow him to the end, even if it means giving up one’s family. But this applies only if the family rejects the new convert, not if the family accepts him in his new faith; he must not reject them, because the whole point of Jesus’ advent is to win as many people to his side as possible, even if this divides the world in two, but never violently.

Furthermore, we can reference the larger textual context in the Gospel of Matthew. In the Garden of Gethsemane, during the hour when Jesus was betrayed and arrested, Peter struck off the ear of the servant of the high priest in order to protect his Lord. But Jesus tells him to stop.

Matthew 26:52-53 says:

52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?” (NIV)

Jesus denounces violence to accomplish the will of Godat least as Peter imagines the will of God. Then Jesus says that he has more than twelve legions of angels at his disposal. He did not come to crush the Roman Empire. Instead, he willingly lays down his life and dies for the sins of the whole world. Will it accept this wonderful gift?

Now we can appeal to even a much larger textual context. The non-literal interpretation of the sword is confirmed by a parallel passage in the Gospel of Luke.

Luke 12:49-53 reads:

49 “I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50 But I have a baptism to undergo [my death], and how distressed I am until it is completed! 51 Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52 From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

It is entirely possible that these two parallel passages in Matthew and Luke represent two different occasions. After all, when I teach the same topic in two different classes, I also change the wording a little. Neither class knows about the slight change, but this does not matter, for the meaning is essentially the same. Likewise, in the three years that Jesus taught, he most likely repeated this call to commitment several times to different audiences (though recorded only twice in the Gospels), as he crisscrossed Israel. He issued such radical calls often, telling his listeners to pick up their cross and to follow him (Matt. 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27).

Whatever the case, the proper way to interpret Scripture is to let verses clarify other verses, particularly parallel passages. And now Luke 12:49-53 confirms our interpretation of Matt. 10:34. Jesus did not endorse physical violence against one’s own family, but he warns people about possible family division.

So what does all of this mean?

History demonstrates that Jesus never wielded a sword against anyone, and in Matt. 10:34 he does not order his followers to fight, in order to kill their family opponents or for any reason. But a true disciple who is worthy of following Christ and who comes from a possibly hostile family has to use a sword of the will (never a physical sword) to sever away all opposition, even as far as taking up his crossanother metaphorical implement for the disciples. It is true that Jesus divides the world into two camps, those who follow him, and those who do not, those in the light, and those in the dark. However, he never tells his followers to wage war on everyone else, and certainly not on one’s family.

There is not a single verse in the New Testament that calls the Church to commit violence to spread the gospel or to plant churches or to accomplish anything else. Rather, the New Testament hands the sword over to the State (Rom. 13:1-6). In any case, Jesus says a spiritual sword, not a physical one, may sever family ties, so his disciples must be ready for that.

Do Palestinians Want Peace

2021-04-18 David Stevenson

Do Palestinians Want Peace? Here Are 5 Facts That Say No.

Here are five demonstrations that the “Palestinians want peace” notion is an outright lie, and that Palestinians actually prefer a continued conflict that maintains the possibility of the full-scale destruction of the Jewish State.

1. Palestinian Response To Kerry Speech. Hilariously, just after Kerry ripped into Israel in unprecedented fashion and declared that if Israel stopped all settlement building and moved to reverse settlements, as well as splitting Jerusalem, Palestinians would embrace peace, the Palestinians openly scoffed at him. Palestinian Foreign Minister Riad Malki immediately stated that Kerry had not proposed anything new, and refused recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. So much for Kerry’s proposed peace deal.

2. Palestinians Have Repeatedly Refused Kerry’s Deal. In 2000, far-left Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered over 90 percent of Judea and Samaria, all of the Gaza Strip, a land-link between the two, Palestinian control over the mosques on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, as well as cash for Palestinian refugees. Arafat ran away from the table. Even useful idiot Thomas Friedman stated about Arafat, “He came with no compromise ideas of his own on Jerusalem. He simply absorbed Mr. Barak’s proposals and repeated Palestinian mantras about
recovering all of East Jerusalem.” Just months later, Arafat launched an
Intifada. In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered nearly 94 percent of Judea and Samaria, plus another six percent of Israeli territory, a link to the Gaza Strip, withdrawal from East Jerusalem’s Arab neighborhoods, and placement of the Old City under international control. Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas walked away from the table.

3. The Palestinian Unity Government Is Rooted In Anti-Jewish Terror. The Palestinian government is committed to the destruction of Israel. It is a tripartite unity government under the control of the terrorist group Hamas, the terrorist group Fatah, and the terrorist group Islamic Jihad. Not one of these groups recognizes Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. All teach, fund, and promote terrorism against Jews, as even Kerry acknowledged. The charters for each of these groups call for Israel’s full destruction.

4. Polls Show Palestinians Are Not Interested In A Durable Peace. Kerry kept saying that Palestinians want peace. That’s not what the polls say. A poll from the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research as of September 2015 found that 51 percent of Palestinians rejected the two-state solution. A plurality, 42 percent, said that the best way of establishing a Palestinian state would be “armed action,” with just 29 percent saying negotiation. Polls also showed Hamas running evenly with the supposedly-moderate Palestinian Authority. Prior polls show that Palestinian willingness to accept a Jewish state would be only
temporary anyway: a poll from 2010 showed that while about 60 percent of Palestinians supported a two-state solution at the time, they also thought that in the end, Israel would disappear. Just 23 percent said they believed in a right to exist for a Jewish homeland in Israel.

5. Israeli Attempts To Uproot Settlements Have Been Met With Violence. Perhaps the best evidence that Palestinians are not interested in peace comes courtesyof actual history: in 2005, the Israeli government forced 8,000 Jews from their homes in the Gaza Strip and handed all control over to the Palestinian Authority. The Palestinians promptly burned down every resource left by the Jews, then turned around and elected the terrorist group Hamas, which proceeded
to arm and then attack Israeli civilians, use funding to build terror tunnels designed for kidnapping and murder, and attempt to ship in more armaments from Iran and Turkey. Again, Hamas was elected. They now sit in the unity government with the Palestinian Authority and Islamic Jihad.

So no, the Palestinians are not interested in peace. They never have been. Israel accepted UN borders in 1947; the Arabs declared war. Israelis accepted the armistice lines of 1949; the Arabs created the Palestine Liberation Organization to “liberate” Palestine meaning all of Israel, including Tel Aviv and Haifa from Jewish rule in 1964, before the so-called “occupation.” In 1979, the Jews handed over the Sinai for promises of peace with Egypt. In 1993, the Jews signed the Oslo Accords. The Jews have made concession after concession, and each new concession has been met with a wave of violence.

Do rabbits chew their cud

2021-04-18 David Stevenson

The Bible beats the skeptics (again)

by Jonathan Sarfati

The book of Leviticus contains a number of food laws that the ancient Israelites were to obey. Modern medicine has shown that many of them had very good health benefits for people in that time and place. As the Law of Moses was our tutor to lead people to Christ (Galatians 3:24), many of the individual commands are no longer applicable after Christ’s death for our sins and His bodily resurrection from the dead. In particular, the Lord Jesus and His Apostles declared that all foods are now ‘clean’ (Mark 7:18″19, Acts 10:10″15, Colossians 2:16).

Some of the food laws have been attacked by sceptics as ‘proof’ that the Bible makes mistakes, meaning it could not be God’s written word. For example, Leviticus 11:3″6 says:

‘Whatever divides the hoof, and is cloven-footed, chewing the cud, among the animals, that you shall eat.
‘Only, you shall not eat these of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: the camel, for he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.
‘And the rock badger, because he chews the cud, but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.
‘And the hare, because he chews the cud but does not divide the hoof; he is unclean to you.’

We showed a photo of the camel’s hoof in Creation 19(4):29, 1997, proving that the Leviticus 11:4 assertion was right that the camel did not completely ‘divide the hoof’, despite what some sceptics claim. Other sceptics have claimed that the coney (KJV; Hebrew שָּׁפָ֗ן shāphān, = hyrax, rock badger) and hare (Hebrew אַרְנֶ֗’ֶת ’arnebet = hare/rabbit) don’t chew the cud.

In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs.1 Rock badgers and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.
It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants.

Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

In particular, another name for this process is called cecotrophy, because the material is taken in a pouch at the beginning of the large intestine called the cecum or ‘blind gut’ (Latin caecus = blind). In the cecum, a process called ‘hindgut fermentation’ occurs, where bacteria help digest the food by breaking down cellulose into simple sugars. Then the special dropping, called a cecotrope, is expelled and re-eaten. This cecotrope is very different from normal feces, thus cecotrophy is very different from other forms of coprophagy (eating dung) practised by animals such as pigs and dogs.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the sceptics are wrong.

God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.
Addendum

After my article (above) was published in Creation magazine, I came across an article on the Internet with more detail than was possible in a family magazine. This article vindicates what I claimed, and backs it up with detailed lexical analysis. The relevant section is below:

13. Rabbits do not chew their cud

LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

[An obscure bibliosceptic called Meritt claims:]

Gerāh [‘ֵרָ”֙], the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does not mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated ‘chew the cud’ in the KJV is more exactly ‘bring up the cud’. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that’s that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.

[Response by J.P. Holding:]

‘MT’ is the Masoretic text, which is a late Hebrew transmission of the OT.

Meritt is apparently quite proud of himself here, having gone”for the one and only time”to the original Hebrew for answers. (Guess translation issues are important after all.) Too bad he didn’t dig a little further.

Two issues are at hand: the definition of ‘cud’ and that of ‘chewing’. Let’s take a close look at the Hebrew version of both. Cuds first, chewies afterwards.

First, gerah is indeed the word used here, and”this is important”it is used nowhere in the Old Testament besides these verses in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. We have only this context to help us decide what it means in terms of the Mosaic law.
Two issues are at hand: the definition of ‘cud’ and that of ‘chewing’.

Second, the process rabbits go through is called refection, and it is not just ‘dung’ that the rabbits are eating, which is probably why the Hebrew word for ‘dung’ was not used here. Indeed, contrary to Meritt’s assertion, that the word gerah also means 1/20th of a shekel actually gives us a hint here! 1/20th of a shekel is of little worth, but it does have worth. Where the word for ‘dung’ is used in the Bible, it implies something defiled, unclean, or useless. But in lapine terms, ‘dung’ is not useless: It contains pellets of partially digested food, which rabbits chew on (along with the waste material”UGH!) in order to give their stomachs another go at getting the nutrients out. (It’s an efficient way of getting more vitamins and nutrients, we’re told, but I think I’ll stick with my Flintstones chewables, thank you very much.) The pellets have some minute value, much as 1/20th of a shekel has some value.

Contrast this with what cows and some other animals do, rumination, which is what we moderns call ‘chewing the cud’. They regurgitate partially digested food in little clumps called cuds, and chew it a little more after while mixing it with saliva. (This also, presumably, helps them get the most out of their food, but I’m not trying it.)

So, let’s see … partially digested food. Partially digested food. Seems to be a common element here. Could it be that the Hebrew word simply refers to any partially digested food? Could it be that the process is not the issue, just the object?

Our other key word provides us with some hints. Meritt is partially correct when he says that the phrase translated ‘chew the cud’ in the KJV is more exactly ‘bring up the cud’. (The full phrase is ‘maketh the cud to come up’.) By leaving it at that, he apparently wishes for us to believe that ‘bring up’ means, in an exclusive sense, regurgitation. Whoooooa, horsey. Back up. Let’s check those hooves for Hebrew words! The word here is עָלָ” ‘alah, and it is found in some grammatical form on literally (well, almost literally) every page of the OT! This is because it is a word that encompasses many concepts other than ‘bring up’. It also can mean ascend up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. It is a catch-all verb form describing the moving of something to another place. (‘maketh the gerah to ‘alah’)

Now in the verses in question, ‘alah is used as a participle. Let’s look at the other verses where it is used this way (NIV only implies some of these phrases; where in parentheses, the phrase is in the original, sometimes in the KJV):

Joshua 24:17 It was the Lord our God himself who brought us and our fathers up out of Egypt. …
Isaiah 8:7 … therefore the Lord is about to bring (up) the burnt offering …
Nahum 3:3 Charging cavalry, flashing swords (lifted up), and glittering spears!
Isaiah 8:7 … therefore the Lord is about to bring (up) against them the mighty floodwaters of the River …
2 Chronicles 24:14 When they had finished, they brought (up) the rest of the money …
Psalm 135:7 He makes clouds rise (up) from the ends of the earth …
2 Samuel 6:15 … while he and the entire house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouts and the sound of trumpets. (Similar quote, 1 Chronicles 15:28)

OUCH! That last one would hurt if the word meant regurgitation. No wonder people were shouting …

So what have we learned? The Hebrew word in question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement. And related to the specific issue at hand, the rabbit is an animal that does ‘maketh’ the previously digested material to ‘come up’ out of the body (though in a different way than a ruminant does”as Meritt says, with rabbits, it comes all the way through; but again, the word is not specific for regurgitation!) and thereafter does chew ‘predigested material’! The mistake is in our applying of the scientific terms of rumination to something that does not require it.

Do you believe God lied

2021-04-18 David Stevenson

1 Do you believe God lied when he said he would come as a man to defeat Satan

2 Do you believe Jesus lied when he said he will die and had died

3 If Jesus did not die according to Islam, then who died on the cross.

4 If Jesus did not die on the cross then why did God wait 600 years until Christianity had spread all over the know world to tell us this.

5 Who were the witnesses to Mohammad testimony? This is important because God said

One witness is not enough… A matter MUST be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (Deuteronomy 19:15

And ~

“Every matter MUST be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.”” (2 Corinthians 13:1)

Do you question who Jesus is but believe in the Old Testament

2021-04-18 David Stevenson

Do you question who Jesus is but believe in the Old Testament?

People think Jesus was just a prophet and Muhammad was as well but Muhammad is a higher prophet. My question is, if Jesus was only a prophet then why was He spoken of throughout the entire Old Testament?

Why would the entire Old Testament point to a Savior only to have the Savior say their will be another? He didn’t. There is ONLY one way to Heaven and that is through Jesus Christ.

The beginning part is from the New Testament stating that the Old Testament points to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is God the Son.

I hope this helps shed some light.

ALL the prophets wrote about Jesus the Messiah Trusting in the Messiah / the Son / the Lord

When Jesus was walking with Cleopas and Simon in Luke 24:13-35, the bible states in verse 25-27:

25″O fools, and slow of heart to believe ALL that the prophets have spoken.
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and ALL THE PROPHETS, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.”

John 5:46
for had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me

John 1:45
Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Acts 10:43
To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.

Below is what every single prophet in the bible wrote about the messiah / Christ Jesus:

->Moses
(Wrote between 1445 & 1440 BC)
Deu 18:15-19
15 The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
16 According to all that thou desiredst of the Lord thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
17 And the Lord said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.
19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
>(Acts 3:22 & Acts 7:37)
Acts 3:22
22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you.
Acts 7:37
37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear.

->Exod 17:7
17 Thus saith the Lord, In this thou shalt know that I am the Lord: behold, I will smite with the rod that is in mine hand upon the waters which are in the river, and they shall be turned to blood.
>(1-Cor 10:4 / John 4:10)
1 Cor 10:4
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
John 4:10
10 Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.

Num 20:1-13
(Rom 6:10 / Heb 9:28 / 1-Pet 3:18)

Exo 16:4
(John 6:31-35)

Joshua
(Wrote between 1405 & 1390 BC)
Josh 5:13-15

Samuel
(wrote between 1050 & 750 BC)
1-Sam 2:10 (Mat 28:18)
2-Sam 7:12-16 (Mat 1:1)
2-Sam 23:2-3 (1-Cor 10:4)

King David
(wrote between 1040 & 970 BC)
Psa 2 / Psa 2:12 / Psa 8:2
(see Mat 21:15-16)
Psa 8:6
Psa 16:8-11
Psa 49-50
Psa chap 22
Psa 34:20
Psa 38:10-22

King Solomon
(wrote between 970 & 922 BC)
Prov 8:22-36
Prov 30:4-6

Isaiah
(wrote between 755 & 722 BC)
Isa 6:1-10 (see John 12:38-41)
Isa 7:14
Isa 8:14-15
Isa 9:1-2
Isa 9:6-7
Isa 11:1-11
Isa 50:5-6
Isa 52:13-15
Isa Chap 53
Isa 61:1-3

Jeremiah
(wrote between 626 & 585 BC)
Jer 23:5-6
Jer 31:31-34
Jer 33:14-16

Ezekiel
(wrote between 593 & 571 BC )
Eze 17:22-24
Eze 34:23-24
Eze 36:25-27

Daniel
(wrote between 612 & 537 BC)
Dan 2:34-35
Dan 2:45
Dan 3:25
Dan 6:19-23
Dan 7:13-14
Dan 9:25-26
Dan 12:1-2

Hosea
(wrote between 792 & 722 BC )
Hos 1:7
Hos 3:5
Hos 11:1

Joel
(wrote between 835 & 586 BC ??? ) Joel 2:32
Joel 2:28-29
Joel2:31

Amos
(wrote between 792 & 722 BC )
Amos 8:9-10

Obadiah
(wrote between 843 & 585 BC ??? ) Oba chap 21
(See Heb 12:16-24 / Rev 4:1)

Jonah
(wrote between 792 & 612 BC )
Jonah 1:17
Jonah 2:6

Micah
(wrote between 752 & 701 BC)
Mic 5:1-2
Mic 4:3-4

Nahum
(wrote between 722 & 605 BC )
Nah 1:7

Habakkuk (wrote between 612 & 586 BC)
Hab 3:13

Zephaniah
(wrote between 640 & 586 BC )
Zeph 1:7-8
Zeph 2:3

Haggai
(wrote between 586 & 515 BC)
Hag 2:7-9

Zechariah
(wrote between 605 & 515 BC )
Zech 3:8
Zech 6:12-13
Zech 9:9
Zech 11:12-13
Zech 12:10
Zech 13:1
Zech 13::6-9

Malachi
(wrote between 536 & 420 BC )
Mal 3:1-6

John the Baptist
Isa 40:3-11

Babylonian Captivity

605 BC = Battle of Carchemish
597 or 587 BC = 1st Deportation
582 BC = 2nd Deportation
539 = Fall of Babylon to Cyrus

The return of the Jews to Jerusalem from Babylon took 3 stages:

1st = Zerubbabel: 538 BC = Rebuilding the Temple

2nd = Ezra the priest: 458 BC = Rebuilding the city walls

3rd = Nehemiah: 458-420 BC (444 BC) = Rebuilding the city walls

–

I am a Christian and I live to serve God!!!

I fight for souls to be saved!

Meaning of Life: Live today as if it is your last but live as if there is a tomorrow through Jesus Christ!!!

Does the of/from your brethren in Deuteronomy 18:15 only include Jews or could it also include the Arabs?

2021-04-18 David Stevenson

Concerning – The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, (Deuteronomy 18:15), does -of/from your brethren only include Jews or could it also include the Arabs? Below are all the references to -of your brethren/brothers and -from your brethren/brothers in the Old Testament. NKJV There are the following Old Testament references to -of your brothers/brethren.

Genesis 42:19 – Joseph, as governor of Egypt, was speaking to his family (42:7) If ye be true men, let one of your brethren be bound in the house of your prison: go ye, carry corn for the famine of your houses: Repeated in Genesis 42:33.

Genesis 50:17 – Thus you shall say to Joseph: -I beg you, please forgive the trespass of your brothers and their sin; for they did evil to you. Now, please, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your father. And Joseph wept when they spoke to him. Genesis 50:7-16 shows that it was Joseph’s own family or brothers who were speaking after they had buried Jacob.

Leviticus 25:1-2, 25 – And the LORD spoke to Moses on Mount Sinai, saying, -Speak to the children of Israel, If one of your brethren becomes poor, and has sold some of his possession, and if his redeeming relative comes to redeem it, then he may redeem what his brother sold. This is speaking to Israelites which also applies in 25:35, 39 and 47.

Deuteronomy 15:7 – If there is among you a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart nor shut your hand from your poor brother, Ishmael’s children lived in Saudi Arabia. ‘Havilah: (2) A district in Arabia-Felix. It is uncertain whether the tribe gave its name to this region or derived its name from it, Genesis 25:17a-18 {- Ishmael : (They dwelt from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt as you go toward Assyria.)} It is the opinion of Kalisch, however, that Havilah -in both instances designates the same country, extending at least from the Persian to the Arabian Gulf, and on account of its vast extent easily divided into two distinct parts. ’ (Easton’s Bible Dictionary). Esau’s children lived in the land of Edom (Gen 36:9 -And these are the generations of Esau the father of the Edomites in mount Seir: 36:21 -the children of Seir in the land of Edom.) The Deuteronomy 15:7 description is: -a poor man of your brethren, within any of the gates in your land and so -your brethren can only refer to the Israelites. The same applies to Deuteronomy 24:14.

Judges 14:3 -Then his father and mother said to him, -Is there no woman among the daughters of your brethren, or among all my people, that you must go and get a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said to his father, -Get her for me, for she pleases me well. -Of your brethren, or among all my people would mean one of two things. Either, and most likely, of your close relations in the clan or among the tribe of Dan, or, of the tribe of Dan or among all Israel.

Deuteronomy 24:14 -And Moses called all Israel, and said to them: (Deut 5:1) You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren or one of the aliens who is in your land within your gates. This refers to the Israelites.

2Chonicles 35:3, 5 -Then he (Josiah v1) said to the Levites And stand in the holy place according to the divisions of the fathers’ houses of your brethren the lay people, and according to the division of the father’s house of the Levites. This therefore applies to one part of the Israelites.

When God wants us to realise that -of your brethren/brothers is not referring to Israelites He has said so in one reference: Deuteronomy 2:4 -And command the people, saying, -You [are about to] pass through the territory of your brethren, the descendants of Esau, who live in Seir; and they will be afraid of you. Therefore watch yourselves carefully.

From your brethren

2Chron 19:8-10 – Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites and priests, and some of the chief fathers of Israel, And he commanded them, saying, -Thus you shall act in the fear of the LORD, faithfully and with a loyal heart: -Whatever case comes to you from your brethren who dwell in their cities, whether of bloodshed or offenses against law or commandment, against statutes or ordinances, you shall warn them, lest they trespass against the LORD and wrath come upon you and your brethren. Do this, and you will not be guilty. So -from your brethren must refer to the Jews.

2Chronicles 28:5, 9, 11 -Then he (Ahaz reigning over Judah in Jerusalem 28:1) was also delivered into the hand of the king of Israel, who defeated him with a great slaughter. But a prophet of the LORD was there, whose name was Oded; and he went out before the army that came to Samaria, and said to them: -Now hear me, therefore, and return the captives, whom you have taken captive from your brethren, for the fierce wrath of the LORD is upon you. So this -from your brethren refers to the Israelites in Judah.

Therefore from the other uses in the Bible we conclude that -of/from your brethren/brothers shows that the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:15-18 must be a Jew.

Does The Bible Need Defending

2021-04-18 David Stevenson

Sometimes when someone witnesses to an unbeliever by appealing to arguments and evidence that point to the truth of Christianity, some believers will tell the Christian that The Bible does not need them to defend it. “The Truth does not need to be defended. It is like a lion. All you need to do is let it out of its cage” they will say. A Lion can defend itself. It is ferocious; it has sharp, powerful jaws and razor-sharp claws. Its roar strikes fear into its prey. Its roar carries authority. Why would you need to defend such an animal? You don’t. So these Christians will say that The Bible is the same way. This is supposed to be an argument that Christian Apologetics is a pointless exercise.

Does The Bible Need Defending_

There are several problems with this argument.

Regardless of whether scripture actually needs defending, scripture commands us to defend it nevertheless.

The Bible commands us to do apologetics. 1 Peter 3:15 says “But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be ready to give a defence to anyone who asks for the reason for the hope that you have, yet do this with gentleness and respect”. This verse of The Bible is clear and unequivocal. Always be prepared to defend your faith whenever anyone asks you to give the reasons for why you have placed your hope in Jesus Christ. So even if we concede the premise that the Christian faith doesn’t need to be defended, we are still commanded to defend it. Ignoring this command would, therefore, be sinful.

The Apostle Paul said in his second letter to the church in Corinth “We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5). This is what apologetics is all about. We need to “demolish arguments” like the problem of evil & suffering, the hiddenness of God, supposed contradictions people think they have found in scripture, or simply the claim “There is no evidence for God’s existence.” These are arguments that set “itself up against the knowledge of God” that we need to “demolish.” If we do, then we
might be able to “take every thought captive and make it obedient to Christ.”

In Philippians 1:7 Paul speaks of his mission as “defending and confirming the gospel.” Then he says in Philippians 1:16, “I am put here for the defense of the gospel.” This implies that God placed Paul on this planet to be a defender of the Christian faith, which he was. When you read Acts 17, you see that when Paul and his companions had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a Jewish synagogue (Acts 17:1), and then it says that as was his custom, he “reasoned with them from the Scriptures …” (verse 2), “explaining and proving that the Messiah had to suffer and rise from the dead.” (verse 3) and then after he explained and proved to the Jews that the Messiah had to suffer and rise, “Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and
Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and quite a few prominent women.” This is important because often you will hear some Christians say that no one comes to faith through arguments. But we have an example of some of the people coming to faith after hearing Paul’s arguments. Acts 17:4 refutes that notion.

Then several verses later, Paul was in Athens witnessing to the Athenians. And Acts 17:17 says “he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there.” Other translations say he “disputed” with them, or he “debated” them. Now, he was able to reason from the scriptures with the Jews, but he couldn’t do that with the Athenians. Why? Because the Athenians didn’t accept the Jewish
scriptures as divinely inspired. So he appealed to natural revelation instead (see Acts 17:22-31).

Jude 3 says, “Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.” The people Jude addressed had been assaulted by false teachers, and he needed to encourage them to protect (literally agonize for) the faith as it had been revealed through Christ. Jude makes a significant statement about our attitude in verse 22, which we “have mercy on some, who are doubting.”

So, does The Bible need defending? I think the answer to the question is
irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether God, or The Bible, or Christianity needs defending. The Bible commands us to defend it.

Rational People Naturally Desire Reasons Before They Believe Something. God created humans to reason as part of his image (Genesis 1:26-27, Genesis 9:6). It is by reasoning that humans are distinguished from “brute beasts” (Jude 10). God calls upon his people to use reason (see Isaiah 1:18) to discern truth from error (1 John 4:6) and right from wrong (Hebrews 5:14). The primary standard of rationality is that it should cough up an epistemological warrant for belief.

As Norman Geisler put it in his article “The Need For Apologetics.”

“People rightly refuse to believe without evidence. Since God created humans as rational beings, he expects them to live rationally, to look before they leap. This does not mean there is no room for faith. But God wants us to take a step of faith in the light of the evidence, rather than to leap in the dark. Evidence of truth should precede faith. No rational person steps into an elevator without some reason to believe it will hold him up. No reasonable person gets on an airplane that is missing part of one wing and smells of smoke in the cabin.
People deal in two dimensions of belief: belief that and belief in. Belief that gives the evidence and rational basis for confidence needed to establish belief in. Once belief that is established, one can place faith in it. Thus, the rational person wants evidence that God exists before he places his faith in God. Rational unbelievers want evidence that Jesus is the Son of God before they place their trust in him.” ” Norman Geisler (emphasis in original) So, I don’t think it’s sufficient to just give an unbeliever a Bible and walk away and “let the truth defend itself.” For one reason, there are many holy books out there claiming to be “the truth.” The rational unbeliever is going to want you to give some reasons for him to think that The Bible should be believed instead of, say, The Koran, or the Hindu scriptures, or the Buddhist scriptures. He may ask you why you disbelieve in all of the other gods of all of the other religions but not the God of The Bible. That’s not too much to ask. And fortunately, we Christians can meet that challenge if we do our homework. If you simply quote The Bible, you’ll rightly be accused of circular reasoning. You Can Make The Same Argument About Preaching The Gospel

If The Bible can defend itself, why can’t it preach itself? Why can’t we just
leave it up to the non-Christian to go to their local bookstore or library,
purchase a Bible, read it, and just hope for the best? Why can’t we do that?
Well, because, like defending the gospel, scripture calls us to “Make disciples
of all nations” (Matthew 28:19). We’re called to preach the gospel to a dark and dying world. We’re called to spread the good news. Does God need us to preach the gospel for Him? No. Probably not. But we’re called to do it anyway. And we’re called to do Christian Apologetics also (see 1 Peter 3:15).

In Conclusion

The Bible, God, Christianity may not need defending. But that’s irrelevant because God commands us to “Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks for a reason for the hope that you have,” (1 Peter 3:15). We are called to defend our faith against the attacks of unbelievers. When someone asks us why we believe what we believe, scripture commands us to give them reasons. Moreover, people need evidence to determine whether The Bible even is the word of God. How
do we know the Bible is God’s revelation to us, as opposed to the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon? One must appeal to evidence to determine this. No Christian would accept a Muslim’s statement that, “the Qur’an is alive and powerful and sharper than a two-edged sword.” We would demand evidence that the Qu’ran is God’s Word. As Norman Geisler put it in his article “Why We Need Apologetics”; the analogy of a lion is misleading. The only reason a lion’s roar has authority is that we have good evidence of what a lion can do. But if you were just born yesterday or came from another planet, would you be fearful of this big lion?
Probably not. You might try to go pet it and have your alien arm ripped off.

In addition to all of this, you could make a parallel argument about evangelism in general. Why did Billy Graham hold all of those crusades? Why did he travel all around the world preaching to people? Why didn’t he just leave it up to the non-believer to go to their local bookstores, buy a Bible, read it, and hope for the best? If The Bible can defend itself, why can’t the gospel preach itself? I’ll end this blog post with a quote from John Calvin.
“Even a dog barks when its master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.”

Like Calvin, I cannot help but bark when I see skeptics attack Christianity.

Does The Death Of Jesus Contradict Ezekiel 18

2021-04-18 David Stevenson

Our Muslim friends are having a hard time accepting the sacrificial death of Christ, they always quote verses from the Bible which say NO ONE WILL DIE FOR THE SIN OF OTHER!
To answer this we have to clarify what kind of death is being discussed in the context. We have three kinds of death:
1). PHYSICAL DEATH is the separation of the body from the spirit and soul – James 2:26
2). SPIRITUAL DEATH:
When Adam and Eve sinned, God said they will SURELY die in the day that they eat of the fruit. But they did not die PHYSICALLY in fact Adam lived up to 930 years before dying – Gen 5:5. Obviously, God had a different meaning in mind than physical death. What God meant is Adam and Eve died SPIRITUALLY. The moment they disobeyed God their sin had separated them from God and they died spiritually!
3). SECOND DEATH OR HELLFIRE/lake of Fire:
The SECOND DEATH is a permanent separation from God. One where there is no return to life:
Revelation 20:11″15
The Great White Throne Judgment
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, …… 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 …….And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. THIS IS THE SECOND DEATH. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
Muslims are using Ezekiel 18:20-21 as evidence that Jesus did not die for our sins because the Scripture says that a person cannot BEAR the sins or INIQUITY of other persons.
Ezekiel 18:20-21
20 The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right,he shall surely live; he shall not die.
Ezekiel 18:20-21 is about SPIRITUAL DEATH which is further punishable by second death if the person physically died without repentance. Ezekiel 18:20-21 means the person who sins shall die SPIRITUALLY. Your father or anybody else will NOT DIE SPIRITUALLY because of your sins. This does not contradict Jesus’ PHYSICAL DEATH, Jesus did not die spiritually, He was sinless. Verse 21 says that if a SPIRITUALLY DEAD PERSON REPENT(TURN AWAY) from all his sins he will live; that though he would die physically he won’t be punished with the second death (Hellfire).
However, we must understand that repentance and forgiveness were made possible only by the PHYSICAL death of Christ. Without the atoning death of Christ that covers the sins of mankind a person who sins cannot call on God and make petition for his sins. The death of Christ gives mankind opportunity to appeal to God for forgiveness when condition is met. The CONDITION is to BELIEVE in the Son (John 3:16). “Believe” here is comprehensive; the person must obey and do Christ’s commandments.
Hebrews 5:9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation FOR ALL WHO OBEY.

Does the name Jesus actually mean Hail Zeus

2021-04-18 David Stevenson

Question: “Does the name ‘Jesus’ actually mean ‘Hail, Zeus’?”

Answer: There are several strange and misleading teachings that make their rounds concerning the name of God and of Jesus Christ; one such false doctrine is the idea that the name of Jesus actually means “Hail, Zeus.” Promoters of this bizarre concept claim that anyone who uses the name Jesus is offering praise to a false god and is not saved. They go so far as to say a person must use only the Hebrew name for Jesus, since there is only one name by which we can be saved (Acts 4:12).

First, we will explain the “Jesus-means-hail-Zeus” theory, the best we can. Then we will look at the truth of the matter from a biblical perspective.

Those who teach that the name Jesus means “Hail, Zeus” usually start with the name of God, YAH (see Isaiah 26:4, NET). From that name of God, they take the Messiah’s name to be YAHSHUA, which they say means “YAH Is Salvation.” They contend that is the name used by the apostles and by the Messiah Himself; however, after the apostles were dead and gone, the Roman Church took over Christianity. In order to make their brand of religion more palatable to the pagans, the Roman leaders changed the name of the Messiah into a Greek/Latin hybrid, Iésous, which (supposedly) means “Hail, Zeus.” Since Zeus (or Jupiter) was the chief god in the Greco-Roman pantheon, the pagans had little trouble accepting this new demigod. By changing the Savior’s name, Christianity had been effectively stripped of its Hebrew roots, and the melding with paganism was a success. The Greeks’ savior could still be Zeus. In time, the word Iésous was further corrupted into Jesus in English.

As “proof” for their conspiracy theory that Jesus means “Hail, Zeus,” advocates point to the fact that the second syllable of Jesus (-sus) sounds similar to the name of the chief Greek god. Especially when Jesus is pronounced in Spanish, it becomes “evident” that people are “actually” saying “Hey, Zeus.” Added to these “proofs” is the fact that ancient sculptures of Zeus show him with a beard”just like modern-day pictures of Jesus!

What can we say to such far-fetched nonsense? First, not everyone who has a beard is trying to take the place of Jesus. Second, just because a certain word or word part sounds like another word is no proof of commonality. Basing theories of word origin on pronunciation is preposterous. Humorous sounds exactly like humerus, but there’s nothing particularly funny about the bone that goes from the shoulder to the elbow. Third, the Messiah’s Hebrew name is Yeshua, not Yahshua”the latter being a fabrication in order to make the name sound more like YAH.

Fourth, the Hebrew name Yeshua translates into Greek as Iésous. This is the name that the angel Gabriel commanded Joseph to name Mary’s child: “You are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). The name Jesus is a simply a Greek form of Joshua, a common name among Jews. The same verse also alludes to the meaning of the name: the Lord was to be named Jesus because “he will save his people from their sins.” The name Jesus means “The Lord Saves” or “The Lord Is Salvation.” Whether you spell it Jesus or Joshua or Yeshua, the meaning stays the same, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with Zeus.

Names can and do translate. Changing a name from one language to another does not change the meaning of the name, nor does it change the character or identity of the person. Elizabeth becomes Elixabete, Isabella, Zsoka, or Eliska, depending on the language. But she remains the same girl. A man named Stephen can be called Stephanos, Stefan, Estevao, Teppo, or Estebe, depending on where in the world he is. But he is the same person, regardless of what we call him. Similarly, Jesus and Yeshua refer to the same Person”and it’s not Zeus.

We use the name Jesus, an Anglicized transliteration of the Greek, because Greek is the language that Matthew and Mark and Luke and John wrote their Gospels in and because English is the language we speak. The best translation of Iésous into modern English is “Jesus.”

Part of Timothy’s work as a pastor was to “command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths” (1 Timothy 1:3″4). Paul was concerned that “such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work”which is by faith” (verse 4). Conspiracy theories and myths regarding the etymology of Jesus’ name are distractions from the true work of God. We should not pay any heed to claims that the name Jesus means anything but what Scripture says it means: “The Lord Saves.”

A defence of my faith