Having asked a few questions about the birth narratives of Jesus, it is as good a time as ever to ask some about the last days of Jesus and his resurrection.
Question. Pastor...Hebrews 9:22 says that just about everything is purified with blood and that without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. Ewww...What's with all the blood and why can't God just say, "Ok, that sounds very sincere, I forgive you?"
Question. Pastor...Why don't Christians keep Passover instead of Easter? Doesn't the New Testament make Jesus death a Passover event, like the Lamb of God? (I Corinthians 5:6-8), or was he the Bunny of God? I don't understand how separating Passover by an Equinox, one full moon and the next sunday after as being what was going on there. I mean Christ is our Passover, not our Easter Bunny right?
Question. Pastor...When Jesus needed a donkey to ride on into Jerusalem, Mark 11:2-7 and Luke 19:30-35 say that Jesus intructed the disciples to bring one animal. In Matthew 21:2-6, they are told to bring two, And in John 12:14 Jesus doesn't tell anyone to go get one, he does it himself. Which is it?
Question. Pastor... Mark 11:7, Luke 19:35 and John 12:14 have Jesus riding one animal which is to be expected but Matthew 21:7 has Jesus riding two at the same time! I think Matthew read his Old Testament prophecy wrong about how this would work when he mistook the wording of Zechariah 9:9 for a description of two animals when it was just one to begin with. Wasn't the Donkey a colt, the foal of an ass so to speak and not a donkey and a colt as Matthew thinks? Seems like a pretty big mistake to me. Of course, Matthew is prone to these overreachings as we have already talked about and this one seems to catch up with him. Or am I wrong?
Question. Pastor...Jesus is said to have turned over the tables of the moneychangers in the temple. First of all, why? The money was required to be changed from dirty pagan money to temple money to preserve the purity of the place. What's wrong with that? And wasn't that a rather suicidal stunt to begin with, I mean at Passover with tensions aready pretty high over other issues of the Roman occupation?
Question. Pastor...Mark 11:15-17, Matthew 21:12-13 and Luke 19:45-46 say that this event occurred at the end of Jesus ministry, just before he was arrested. But John 2: 13-16 says it happened much earlier in at the very beginning of Jesus ministry. That's not a minor mistake is it? Which is it? Was on a practice run to see what would happen?
Question. Pastor...About this same time, Jesus went looking for some figs to eat and finding none, Jesus curses the tree and it withers. John and Luke don't mention it, but Mark 11:20-21 says that the disciples didn't notice the tree withered until the next day on a return trip. But Matthew 21:19-20 says that they saw it wither right then and were amazed. Well I would be to! But they can't both be right. On top of that, it even admits that the reason for no figs was that it wasn't fig season. Isn't that like me getting angry at a watermelon field in the winter? I do know that maybe the point was that just as fig trees without figs deserve to wither, so Temples without good fruit do too, but still it not being fig time and two different stories mean it either didn't happen at all and is just a way to make a point, or if it did happen, someone goofed. Of course, one could argue that fig trees that don't have figs due to it not being time for figs don't deserve to be withered. What happened to dunging and digging around it for three years to give a chance?
Question. Pastor...Next Jesus has his feet anointed, or his head depending on the story. Mark 14:3 and Matthew 26:6-13 say that it was at house of a leper named Simon in Bethany. Luke 7:36-38 says it was in the home of a Pharisee in Galilee. That's a long way from Bethany. Was this a leperous Pharisee named Simon who had a summer home in Galilee? They can't both be right unless he got anointed twice in different places. Also, Mark and Matthew say Jesus was anointed with oil poured over his head, but Luke and John say his feet. Which was it and please don't tell me it was both and these men are like four people seeing an accident!
Question. Pastor...Why do Mark, Matthew and Luke not knowwho the woman was, but John 12:3 says it was Mary? And the reactions! Mark says that some got angry at the unnamed woman who anoints Jesus and Matthew 26:8 says it was the disciples who get angry at the woman. Luke 7:3-9 says some Pharisee get's upset because the woman is a sinner, like they weren't. John 12:4-5 is the only one who says it is Judas who gets angry, and then imputes his motive as being the thieving treasurer of the group. I know, all of the above right? It's Judas we remember the most I guess.
A few questions about the Last Supper Question.
Pastor...In Mark 14:17-21, Matthew 26:20-25 and John 13:21-30 Jesus predicts for the disciples that he will be betrayed before they actually take communion. But in Luke 22:21-23 Jesus predicts this after communion. Can't both be right, right?
Question. Pastor...Mark 14:30 tells us that Peter would deny Jesus before the cock crowed twice. Why then does Matthew 26:34, Luke 22:34 and John 13:38 tell us that Peter would deny Jesus before the cock crowed at all? Since Jesus is the one doing the prediction, just what did he predict? When it finally happened, Mark 14:72 says the cock crowed twice. Matthew 26:74 said it was once, and both Luke and John don't mention any cock crowing. What happened?
Question. Pastor...I have a few questions about this notorious Judas whose name has become a synonym for betrayal in our culture. If Jesus had to die to be our Savior, why do we care who and how Jesus was betrayed to be crucified? It had to be so wasn't Judas just helping things along?
Question. Pastor...Why does Matthew 19:28 say that all Twelve Disciples would sit on Thrones in the Kingdom of God and Judas was surely among this number. I mean by the time Matthew wrote the book, he would know about how Judas messed up and didn't make it wouldn't he?
Dennis Diehl is a former pastor of 26 years, who outgrew the Literalism of Fundamentalism. He writes about Pastoral and Church abuse and is available to speak on such topics or be helpful to any church suffering under abusive religion or pastors.
"On top of that, it even admits that the reason for no figs was that it wasn't fig season. Isn't that like me getting angry at a watermelon field in the winter? I do know that maybe the point was that just as fig trees without figs deserve to wither, so Temples without good fruit do too, but still it not being fig time and two different stories mean it either didn't happen at all and is just a way to make a point, or if it did happen, someone goofed. Of course, one could argue that fig trees that don't have figs due to it not being time for figs don't deserve to be withered."
Esbe: You fail to mention an important part of the story (which is actually a metaphorical lesson): The fig tree had leaves OUT OF SEASON, thus implying that it should also have figs.
It is you (here) who is taking something in a literal manner, and failing to grasp it's occult meaning. The fig tree is the symbol of Israel. Figs are "fruits". Fruits (as everyone who understands scripture knows) are good works. The metaphore is also a prophecy; that Israel would be destroyed for having the appearance of good works (religion), but not the results. Jesus cursed Israel when he cursed the fig tree. If you go on to read his other teachings concerning the false Israel which is to arise in violation of his condemnation (let no man ever partake of it's fruit again), you will see that the fig tree is again used as a measure of the beginning of the end ("last days" or whatever); "When the fig tree putteth forth it's shoots, know that the hour is near".
Anyone who TRULY understands what is recorded as the teachings of Christ in the New Testament, understands that no REAL Christian could EVER support the re-creation of Israel. The correct interpertation of the scriptures leaves one with only one choice: Between rejecting the Messiah as false, or understanding that todays Zionist Jews are the enemy of God and humanity. There is no middle ground in this, all politically correct efforts aside. It may be the Devil, or it may be the Lord, but You're gonna serve somebody. The price of standing grows by the day.
by
Esbe (50 articles, 0 quicklinks, 17 diaries, 85 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 9:33:25 AM
I believe Cecil B. DeMille had it right. It (The New Testament) is "The Greatest Story Ever Told" I don't believe it was finally canonized until the time of Council of Nicea in 325 CE So a lot of editing could have gone on between the canonized St Jerome edition and the time of the Apostles. Note that the four Gospels always begin with "The Gospel According To --------- )
S why nitpick about it?
by
Bucky the Commoner (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 44 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 1:22:37 PM
remarkably sheltered the US people from the whole genre of ' funny Bible' literature which existed in Europe since 17th century. We can name Leo Taksil or Jean Effeil, we can name Jules Renan, etc. That is Mr. Diehl's questions had precessors and mighty ones! Charles De Costaire comes to mind and his immortal character Ulenspiegel... We can list hundreds down the Pushkin's " Gavriiliad' and Michael Bulgakov's ' Master and Margerite'. The questions above would not be asked ( this one is for gormley) if those pastors would not impose their authority on people. So, back off, hypocrites and people would not fight back with humor and sarcasm. That's the message of the genre. I can vouch that out of hundreds of books on the topic I have personally read there was not a word of mockery towards faith- but there was a lot of witty humor fighting hypocricy and bigotry. Why going so far? Take Mark Twain's 'Innocents abroad' and read his statements about the Church and hypocrites. Or how about " Adventures of Huck Finn" ?That simple.
by
Mark Sashine (51 articles, 19 quicklinks, 244 diaries, 3466 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 1:35:30 PM
We deal with these in undergraduate Biblical Hermnuetics 101. They have been answered and refuted time and again. I would suggest you buy and read Norman Geisler's "Christian Apologetics," or Josh McDowell's new edition of "Evidence That Demands a Verdict," or anything on Hermaneutics or Biblical Critical Interpretation written by F.F. Bruce. Theyare world respected scholars who have spent their lives deal with texts and textual criticism. If you really want a good book, buy and read: "The Bible-Myth or Message?" by Michael Penny who lives in England.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 3:59:45 PM
I agree. I condemn those who "sale" faith to the highest bid. I have never listened to any Tel Evangelist that I was not immensely turned off. The mega churches are doing more to destroy Christianity than any one thing on this planet. The are not ministering to the poor, the widows, the fatherless, nor are they helping the powerless. Their churches and organizations vote straight Republican and oppose every thing in society and government to empower "the helpless," "the poor," "the widows," and "fatherless."
Google up Blue Letter Bible, type in "poor" and see how many verses are brought up on the screen. There will be hundreds; type in "rich" and maybe ten or fifteen verses come up; then notice what the Bible has to say about the "poor" and what the Bible has to say about the "rich" or "powerful." Compare what you find to what you hear from Pat Robertson, D. James Kennedy, Richard Land and on and on it goes. They are millionaires who have no compassion. They come across is messengers of Jesus, but their life style is much like the moneychangers mentioned in the above article.
Mark Twain, Benjmin Franklin, Thomas Paine Ralph Ingersol could condemn the Church time and again for they could see the contradiction of what the Bible teaches, both The tanakh and The New Testament.
I will defend the Bible to my death, but I will not write a word to defend what I see in the denominations and mega churches. There is a lot of difference between Biblical Christianity and the corrupt monster we see paraded around claiming to be Biblical Christianity. We are not at loggerheads on this one at all.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 6:50:03 PM
Your questions are purely subjective. It is what I think or feel over against what someone else thinks or feels; yet you want an objective answer to a purely subjective frame work.
Let us put it in an objective case as far as possible such as; not what God asks because your god or gods are different than my God, but let us ask does the Tanakh (Old Testament) and New Testament teach that blood sacrifice must be given for forgiveness by the God of the Bible, not another God but the God of the Bible.
Now, you can say you do not believe in the God of the Bible or do not believe the Bible means what it says when it says something. You have every right to reject both the God of the Bible and every right to not believe the Bible to be true holy revelation; but if you do, please reject the rest of the Bible. It is either the Word of God or it is just trash; no, it is a very evil book for it claims inspiration and uniqueness. If it is not unique, it is lie and all of it is a lie including the First Sermon on the Mount, the Lord's Prayer, The Ten Commandments, the Twenty-third Psalm. The Bible is a whole cloth woven with one thread. If you take one part of it out, the whole garment is just torn cloth. Do not pick and choose what you wish to be revelation and call it Biblical Christianity. You can call it Christianity, but you cannot call it Christianity. You cannot do that with a secular Book, and cannot do it with the Bible.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 3:46:22 PM
My next to the last line, "You can call it Christianity, but you cannot call it Christianity;" should have read, "You can call it Christianity, but you cannot call it Biblical Christianity."
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 3:51:55 PM
What this author does is set up straw men of his choosing and then shoot them down, meanwhile refusing to accept the argument that the gospels were written by different men at different times to different people to achieve different religious and political results. Matthew, Mark and Luke were all based probably upon the Q gospel as has been speculated by their similar syntax and almost identical word choice in certain passages. But each of these three gospels differ when the writer remembers a specific event differently than it appears in the Q document or an event not in the Q document. John, on the other hand, most probably the last gospel written, relies not at all on the Q document but is the fully developed theology of Christianty as it existed at the beginning of the second century. None of these disciples had much, if any, contact with one another, once they spread out to begin their ministries across the known world, and they wrote their gospels some thirty to fifty years after the events in question.
The more proper question to ask is, "Mr. Diehl, since hundreds of thousands of people existed that were present when the events in question occurred, and the disciples made no secret of their claims of the story of the crucifixion and resurrection, and the Q document and the gospels were around when many non-believers still lived, how is it that not a single document in rebuttal exists?" In fact, the Jews accept the empty tomb, but claim that the body was stolen by the disciples. This claim is tenuous since an entire Roman Guard (approximately 90 men) was assigned to guard it). Jesus is also mentioned in the writings of a number of early Jewish and Roman historians, none of which contradict the fact he was put to death by crucifixion by Pontius Pilate.
I'll take the time to shoot down just a couple of your straw men that are so easy. Judas is no where said to be damned to hell, but clearly repented of his sin and was necessary to the divine plan, and I pray you someday meet him and the other eleven. Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple not because they were providing a necessary service but because they were cheating in the exchange of currency and overcharging for the sacrificial animals; not to mention giving kick backs to the Sadduccees for the privilege of remaining in the outer temple.
It seems to me that you have been a victim of Christian fundamentalism and now harbor a hatred against the theology. Rather than admitting and repenting that you were a stooge for the military industrial complex and learning what your religion truly means, you now try to persuade others from an unbiased examination of Christianity. True Christianity is the hardest of all theologies to follow. When one accepts Christ into his or her spirit, a covenant is made that cannot be broken. The new convert is guaranteed eternal life with others that have been molded to be like Christ, but in exchange he or she gives up free will to the extent that God will actively manage that persons life to begin to mold a spirit as Christ-like as possible in earthly conditions. This usually requires the complete breaking down of the old person through financial or health or job or some other crisis from which only God can deliver that person. Thus breeds the beginning of faith.
And it goes on and on. When two teenagers cheat on an exam, the Christian gets caught, but the non-believer gets his A. In business, the Christian sees corruption all around him. But dare he engage in it, his days are numbered, and the indictment will hold his name and not the others.
On top of this burden, the true Christian must love his enemies and pray for them; must lend $2000 when only $1000 is requested, and must not expect repayment; and when robbed of his wallet must offer his watch additionally.
I commend your recognition of the bankruptcy of the fundamentalist church. It was not always that way though. The pentecostals led the movement to integrate churches, and have been at the forefront of a number of progressive movements. It is the teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture that has corrupted any church that doctrine touches, and, of course, that doctrine is the epitome of selfishness--we won't be here so who cares about those left behind. This belief allows them to forsake caring about the death penalty, global warming, war with Islam, outsourcing, and all of the evils that prevail upon us these days. But it keeps the church coffers full (just like when Jesus threw out the money changers) because people do not want to hear that they may have to lose their lives for their belief in Christ. They do not want to hear all of the sacrifices I listed above. They would just change churches. So it is all a big money game now led by the church hierarchy pushing the pre-tribulation rapture even though there is no basis in scripture for such a doctrine.
You have broken free, but only into another confinement. I suggest you read VELVET ELVIS, REPAIRING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH, Zondervan,2005,Rob Bell, as a beginning step toward taking your rightful position as a leader of the real church. Also, if you want to see how God works around the idiocy of humans, go to 90 AA meetings in 90 days and see real miracles still occurring merely from the words of the New Testament. Right now AA and NA are the real church in America.
And never forget, that in America, the path to power is through the church. The failure to recognize this fact is the reason for the post WWII progressive movement's failure to have any substantial impact on public policy except for the Reverend Martin L. King.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 333 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 4:06:12 PM
1. God had declared that disobedience would bring death. Adam chose death. Adam was offered a way to escape eternal death by offering a lamb as a sacrifice. The lamb would be a picture of the seed of the woman who would never sin, yet He would die for sin.
It is why Adam's fig leaf apron was rejected and he was given an animal skin to cover (kippur) his sin. It is why Cain's sacrifice was rejected and Abel's accepted; it had nothing to do with Cain being a farmer or Abel being a shepherd. One other thing, the sacrifice had to be given with faith and a changed lifestyle. As Samuel told King Saul (I Samuel or Samuel in the Tanakh 15:22)—"And Samuel said, 'Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.'").
When King David committed both murder and adultery he wrote in Psalm 51:17, "The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken spirit and a contrite heart, O God, Thou will not despise." Isaiah 1:11-17 is even more emphatic; as is Jeremiah 7:22-23; Hosea 6:6; Amos 5:21-24; Micah 6:6-8; and a dozen others in the New Testament. Blood sacrifice was demanded by the God of the Bible, but only with faith and repentance.
Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth was the prophesied "seed of the woman," and the final Lamb to be offered; thus John the Baptist's words when he saw Jesus standing on the banks of the Jordan River, "Behold! the Lamb of God Who takes away the sin of the world." The Book of Hebrews in the New Testament is very clear on this matter.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 4:10:36 PM
Question #2. Why Christians keep Easter and not Passover.
Your sarcasm verges on the silly and is disrespectful. I can see why you had trouble if you were a minister in a church.
If you are going to attack Biblical Christianity with any authority, I suggest first of all you learn a little history and a lot of Koine Greek.
Easter is no where mentioned in the Bible. If you had minimal church history, you would know that when Constantine converted so conveniently to Christianity, he declared the whole Roman Empire to be Christian and the Roman Empire to be a Holy Roman Empire. Citizens of Rome were forced to conversion to Christianity on pain of death. All the non-Christians did was rename their gods to names of angels and saints: Jupiter as Peter, Mercury as Paul, Aphrodite as Mary. Christian events were changed to match the non-Christian calendar. All this forced a marriage between Christian beliefs and non-Christian beliefs. The forced blending of Church and State grew worse until the Bishop of Rome dominated all Christianity; laws were passed outlawing any heresy against the Bishop of Rome's teaching which went on for a thousand years culminating in the Reformation with Martin Luther. This is basic Church History 101.
Easter is mentioned one time in the King James Version of the Bible (The Authorized Version or AV). You do not even need to know Greek to see it is mistranslated by the Church of England in 1507, but if you know the Greek, look up Acts 12:4, "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Look it up in any good modern translation such as the New King James Version, New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Hebrew Names Bible, New Revised Standard Version to name a few. All translate it as Passover. Easter is not in the Bible.
King Herod Agrippa has arrest Peter right after he beheaded James bar Zebedee. The word for Easter in the original language (Greek) is a transliterated word from Hebrew, Pascha (pi, alpha, sigma, chi, alpha). Passover or Pascha became known as Easter because it matched the goddess of fertility (your Bunny Rabbits) sometime around 500 CE (or AD).
Any pastor with any seminary could handle this question easily, in fact so could most of my high school students of which all but one goes to a typical secular high school.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 4:42:58 PM
I am well aware of Easter vs. Passover. I taught Passover in a christian context over the paganism of Easter...As well as other Jewish Holydays over Christmas etc...
by
Dennis Diehl (68 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 55 comments)
on Friday, June 22, 2007 at 8:36:54 PM
After reading several comments from believers I think you missed who this article is pointed at. This is pointed at the people who will tell EVERTHING ING THE BIBLE HAPPENED EXACTLY THEY WAY IT WAS WRITTEN. My brother in law comes to mind. He almost lost his mind when I brought up the fact that jesus was not his hebrew name its this greek way of saying it. According to him if its in the king james version thats the way it happened. Its these people that want the bible taught as science
by
mike (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 90 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 4:55:28 PM
I've enjoyed your series on: Questions your Pastor will Hate.
Though I agree everyone has the right to have "faith" in whaterever they believe the Bible has always made me ask questions because of the conflicting scriptures.
DO I believe in Christ, Jesus, and the Bible? No
Why? For that specific reason.
I mean, lets get real here, if the scriptures can't agree on what happened why would I be inclined to believe them?
Oh yes, I remember, faith. :.)
Troubled Texan
by
TroubledTexan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 88 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 5:05:40 PM
You really need to learn Greek if you are going to be the hypercritical authority of destroying Holy Scripture. The "and" in Greek is "kai" (kappa, alpha, iota). It is a common Greek conjunction and is usually translated "and" in English, but is translated by various English conjunctions. The great monster error is removed by simply translating the "kai" as "even;" making Matthew 21:5 read, Tell ye the daughter of Zion, Behold, thy King comes unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, "even a colt the foal of an ass."
Your sarcasm is duly noted, but you are do need to be truthful. John 12:14 does not say Jesus went and fetched the donkey Himself. It said he found a young ass." Last month, my daughter wanted to purchase a used car and asked me to be on the look out for one. A few days later I talked to my mechanic who knew of a car she might want to buy. I looked at the car, told Beth about it, and she went by the seller's home, purchases the car, and drove it home. I found the car, but I did not bring it home. Jesus found the "ass" but someone else drove it home. How silly can we be? Just about as silly as trying to make Matthew say Jesus was riding the ass and the foal of an ass at the same time. How silly. Matthew says nothing of the sort if you know Greek 101,
I can guess your questions about the signs on the cross. Heard them many times and are answered by any good Bible Dictionary or Commentary. Answer to the two and one is simple. If they brought the two, they had to bring the one; picky, picky, picky, but yes, you are wrong.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 5:38:49 PM
The money was not exchanged from foreign money to the Jewish money. People were buying animals for sacrifice. The moneychangers were charging exhorbant prices for the animals and many of the animals were unclean (broken limbs, sick, blind, and so forth). A little reading of Flavius Josephus and Alfred Edersheim would benefit you greatly.
You are right. Jesus came to Jerusalem to die as fulfillment of prophecy (Isaiah 52-53, Psalm 22, Zechariah, etc).. He diied for you sins. It is a shame you do not believe He did.
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 5:47:28 PM
Notice that the Bible was not written by God or Jesus. It was written by men. Even though they were disciples they all lied and denied him before the cock crowed thwrice! Showing the inconsistencies between Matthew, Mark Luke, John, is the point that even in the Lords time, and even being a disciple beside him...they still made mistakes. Are the inconsistencies mistakes, or out right lies? Were the books written at the time the events unfolded, or were they written from memory. These issues do not make the Bible untrue, or not legitimate. In fact the examples of the inconsistencies go to prove how real and true it is. If every word was the same by each writer wouldn't it raise questions of authenticity? Wouldn't we suspect plagerism? I don't think these are questions to ask your Pastor. They are questions you should ask the Lord himself. He will tell you, as he has told me here this morning. Thank You Lord.
by
Dom Jermano (20 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 930 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 5:48:30 PM
I am afraid we do not learn lessons very easily.I lived with my grandmother on a farm in Pike County, Kentucky when I was a child. One day "Mommy" caught me smoking. I was five years old and had "rolled my own" Prince Albert cigarette. She chewed me out and told me a spanking the next time. A few days later I was playing down at the creek and smoking a cigarette. As I was huffing and puffing, my grandmother was looking down at me from the bank of the creek. I got a switching on my legs all the way to the house. I never quit smoking until in high school. Jesus' public ministry was three years long and much of it spent in Jerusalem. I would not be surprised if He did not drive them out time and again. Maimonides has many interesting things to say about the corruption of the money changers in the Temple (see Lightfoot,vol. 3, p. 45, Pittmans Pub.).
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 962 comments)
on Thursday, June 21, 2007 at 6:07:31 PM
