What what day did Yeshua ride on the donkey according to the Bible not today’s calendar? What day did Yeshua die in the cross for my sins, according to Bible not today’s calendar?

Some Christians reject the doctrine that the punishment of hell is everlasting, instead holding views such as annihilationism or conditional immortality. However, this raises questions about how these views are reconciled with Jesus’ own words. In Mark 9:48, Jesus describes hell as a place “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,” language that appears to suggest ongoing, unending punishment. Similarly, in Matthew 25:46, Jesus contrasts “eternal punishment” with “eternal life,” using the same Greek adjective (aiōnios) to describe both outcomes. For those who deny that hell is everlasting: - How are these passages interpreted in a way that avoids an eternal duration? - Is aiōnios understood differently when applied to punishment versus life, and on what linguistic or theological basis? - How do these interpretations remain consistent with Jesus’ teaching as recorded in the Gospels?

In preterist interpretations, many of Jesus’ prophecies—especially those concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (e.g., in the Olivet Discourse)—are understood to have been fulfilled in AD 70. However, I am curious about how preterists treat the prophecies found in the Book of Revelation, traditionally attributed to John. One point of tension I am trying to understand is this: when Jesus spoke about “all things that are written” being fulfilled (e.g., Luke 21:22), the Book of Revelation had not yet been given to John and therefore had not yet been written. This seems to raise the question of whether Jesus’ statement can be applied to Revelation at all, since it was, at that time, still unwritten. Given that, do preterists (especially full preterists) include the prophecies of Revelation among the things fulfilled in AD 70? Or do they distinguish between what was already written at the time of Jesus’ statement and later revelations given to John? Additionally: - Is this one of the reasons partial preterists typically do not see Revelation as fully fulfilled in AD 70? - How do full preterists respond to the argument that Jesus referred only to what had already been written, not to future writings like Revelation? I am looking for answers grounded in specific preterist interpretations, along with scriptural and/or historical reasoning.

Was the encounter of Yeshua (Jesus) with the Samaritan woman that had 5 husbands after any of the times that He talked about divorce and remarriage, like, for example, in the Sermon of the Mount? It is important to know whether His law of divorce and remarriage was already in place when He talked to her.

At Luke 1: 46-55 we see Blessed Virgin Mary singing a song of praise, now known as the Magnificat, while greeting her cousin Elizabeth. I wish to know if the song of Mary was a spontaneous utterance, or was it an integration of prayers from the old Jewish scripts and the Psalms ? What do the teachings of Catholic Church say on the source(s) of the Magnificat ?

As far as I know [there are 4 Gospels](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/18703/what-is-a-gospel-and-how-many-gospels-are-there-in-the-catholic-bible) : Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I am an ex-Christian (currently atheist) who had a debate with a Muslim about a few discrepancies between the Qur'an and the Bible. The Muslims believe that 1. Haman worked for Pharaoh and is building babel tower 2. Mary was a sibling of Aaron 3. Jesus is given "gospel". As a non-Muslim and atheist, I of course think that Muhammad simply made a mistake. Perhaps he didn't get the story right or wasn't consistent with his sources. But of course Muslim apologists will claim that it's a misunderstanding anyway: different Haman, different meaning of sibling, and different gospel. The 3rd point is more interesting though. My Muslim friend pointed out that gospels *already* EXISTED before the Bible was written: - [Mark 1:14](https://biblehub.com/mark/1-14.htm) - [Matthew 4:23](https://biblehub.com/matthew/4-23.htm) - [Luke 8:1](https://biblehub.com/luke/8-1.htm) So it's a bit tricky. In Indonesia the word for "gospel" is "injil". I wonder where that word came from. Muslims seem to think that Jesus got the "gospel" like Muhammad got the Qur'an. But I think that's just not the case. The Gospels we have now, I understand them to be Jesus' late biographies, a bit like Hadith in Islam. However, the fact that the word "gospel" DOES show up in the Gospels themselves is intriguing. **What "gospel" was Jesus preaching because the Gospels as books weren't even written when he was living?** It looks to me that he was a Rabbi who preached typical Judaism stuff that might or might not be reinterpreted by his followers to be something much more than that.

I read Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Now I am presently in Acts and Jesus isn't being quoted. Are there books outside of the King James Bible that have the word of Jesus? Because I love Jesus, I wanted to know if I could read more of his words.

My question is specifically relevant to a study I am conducting to determine if it was plausibly possible that Luke had contact with Mary while in Paul's company. I know that Mary's death is not attested anywhere in scripture. The closest information we actually have is from Epiphanius, and later Hippolytus of Thebes, though likely derivative of Epiphanius, who both claim that she allegedly lived eleven years after the crucifixion (Epiph. *Pan*. 78.11; Hipp. Theb., *Chron*. *fr*. 48 (*PG* 117, 1029)). Given the average betrothal age of twelve or thirteen years old for a young woman in first century Judaea, if Jesus was born in 3 BCE relative to Luke's deduction from the fifteenth year of Tiberius, then he was born when she was either thirteen or fourteen years old. When you calculate that forward to 34 CE (which is the year I have personally determined for the crucifixion, though that is an entirety different discussion), eleven years later would put her death around 45 CE at approximately the age of sixty. Demographically, this is perfectly normal. While average life expectancy at birth in the Roman world was low, this is largely due to infant and child mortality; those who survived into adulthood frequently lived into their sixties or beyond. Thus, Mary’s surviving to her early sixties accords well with demographic realities, making the patristic calculation historically plausible (Bruce M. Metzger, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content, 3rd ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 2003), 25; Keith Hopkins, Death and Renewal: Sociological Studies in Roman History, Volume 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 225–27). However, for Luke to have had contact with her, either he was in Paul's company much earlier than Troas, which is where most scholars put it, or Mary lived longer than the tradition given by Epiphanius. The latter is not out of the question. A lot of his information is highly questionable. So, I'm trying, as best as I'm able, to deduce a competent approximation of the time of her death to either confirm or deny the plausibility of her having contact with Luke. The relevance of this contact has to do with the intimacy of knowledge Luke has concerning his infancy narrative. He is privy to details that could only have come from someone who knew them. Things like the offset of Mary's and Elisabeth's pregnancies, or that Mary stayed with Elisabeth for three months, are not details that could have been acquired from the public records. I did read somewhere some time ago a passage that I recollect was in a patristic writing, though it's possible it was in one of the New Testament epistles. The scene mentions young women who wanted to meet with and talk with Mary about private, secret, or mysterious things. The implication is that they wanted to discuss her virginity or similar. As best as I can recall, this passage, wherever it is, provides a minor temporal time-stamp that gives a clue to the longevity of Mary's life. I know I read it. It's not my imagination. But I have tried searching for it in every way I can think to word it. I can't find it anywhere. Anyone who knows the source of what I'm looking for, I would be greatly obliged if you would share. Outside of that, any solid arguments on the time of Mary's death would be great. I don't care if it supports or undermines my thoughts concerning Luke's contact with her. I just want a factual conclusion, as best as can be had within the bounds of credible evidence.

According to the theory of the originally anonymous gospels, the titles of the most ancient surviving manuscripts were added later on. I would like to know: **For each gospel, how many different, distinct, "assigners" were there? When did they do the assignment and where were they?** I am not asking about the authorship of the gospels, but supposing there were no titles, **who** assigned them. For example: **The gospel according to Matthew was assigned by:** 1) X1 person or group, in the Y century in the Z region. 2) X2 person or group, ..."" If much of this is not possible at least list the number of the different assigners and whether they may have assigned these texts independently of one another. **The gospel according to Luke... ""** Please give sources, thank you!

Matthew 13:44 reads: > The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which someone found and hid; then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. One is intrigued by the step-by-step action of the finder. He could have easily taken the treasure. That prospect leads one to believing that there was some law which defined the ownership of a treasure, both legal and moral. (These days it usually goes to the Government, whoever be the one who finds it, and whatever be the place it is found in!). Are there any studies into the legal system prevailing at the time of Jesus that defined the ownership of a treasure ?

Jesus, being divine, is portrayed in the Gospels as knowing the hearts and thoughts of men (John 2:25, Matthew 9:4). In the Garden of Gethsemane, Peter draws a sword (or knife) and cuts off the ear of the high priest's servant (John 18:10), only to be rebuked by Jesus and told to put it away (Matthew 26:52). Given that Jesus had divine foreknowledge and perfect awareness of His surroundings, why did He allow Peter to carry or hide the knife in the first place? Was Jesus allowing this act to happen as part of a prophetic fulfillment or a deeper lesson on violence and obedience? Or does this highlight something about the tension between human zeal and divine purpose? How do Christian theologians and commentators interpret this moment in light of Jesus’ omniscience?

In Mark 4:37–39 (also in Matthew 8:23–27 and Luke 8:22–25), a violent storm arises while Jesus and His disciples are crossing the Sea of Galilee. Jesus is asleep in the boat, and when the disciples wake Him, He rebukes the wind and speaks to the waves, calming the storm: > "He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, 'Quiet! Be still!' Then the wind died down and it was completely calm." — Mark 4:39 (NIV) What stands out is that Jesus rebukes the storm in the same language He often uses when dealing with demons (e.g., Mark 1:25, Luke 4:35). Shortly after this event, Jesus arrives in the region of the Gerasenes and confronts a man possessed by a legion of demons (Mark 5:1–13), who ultimately beg to be cast into a herd of pigs—which then rush into the sea and drown. Some theologians and preachers have connected these events, suggesting that: **The storm may have been a demonic attempt to kill Jesus and His disciples before He could deliver the demoniac.** Question: According to various Christian theological perspectives (e.g., evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, etc.), is there reason to believe that the storm was caused by demonic forces rather than being a natural phenomenon? How do different traditions interpret the storm in light of the nearby exorcism and the association of demons with the sea?

While I understand there are many potential passages in the Bible of Jesus claiming to be a messiah (which I understand to mean "anointed"), a king, or one through whom it is necessary to know God, I'm interested to know if there are any places where He *literally* claims to be God, God-like, or related to God (i.e. the son of God). Taking the Bible to be a reliable record of what He said (for the sake of this question), what Biblical passages illustrate Jesus literally saying He was God? OP Edit: I see that my question has been edited to say "literally" which has caused a bit of turmoil, so I'll just say that for me "literally" is read to mean "literally stated, or inferred without interpretation". So "I intend to put on foot coverings" does not literally mean shoes, as it could mean socks, but "I intend to drive to the capital city of the country England" means you'll end up in London no matter which way you swing it. Interestingly I did try to ask the Biblical Hermenutics group this question and it was suggested I ask here.

The Gospels record many parables spoken by Jesus, often used to teach moral or spiritual truths. Some of these, like the parable of the prodigal son or the good Samaritan, contain vivid, lifelike details. This raises the question: Were these stories based on actual historical events and people known to His audience, or were they entirely fictional narratives created to convey deeper lessons? I’m curious how different traditions or scholars interpret this — are there clues in the texts or historical context that suggest one view over the other?

In multiple passages, Jesus explicitly commands people not to speak about the miracles He performed. For example: - Mark 1:44 – "See that you say nothing to anyone..." (healing of the leper) - Matthew 9:30 – "Jesus sternly warned them, ‘See that no one knows about this.’” (healing of the blind men) - Luke 8:56 – "He charged them to tell no one what had happened." (raising of Jairus’s daughter) Yet these very events were recorded and widely circulated in the Gospels. Why did Jesus initially discourage publicity around His miracles, but the Gospel authors — writing years later — chose to publish them for all to read?

What is the significance of discrepancies between the four Gospels? Some will argue that there are differences but not discrepancies. But I only ask this in order to share my answer with the few people who will see it before it is closed.

### Temple Incident All four canonical Christian gospels record an (potentially more than one, but not pertinent here) incident where Jesus enters the Temple, observes money-changers and merchants selling animals inside the Temple, and drives them out of the Temple with a whip: Mark: > Then they came to Jerusalem. And he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling and those who were buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves, and he would not allow anyone to carry anything through the temple. He was teaching and saying, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a den of robbers.” Matthew 21: > Then Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who were selling and buying in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a den of robbers.” Luke 19: > Then he entered the temple and began to drive out those who were selling things there, and he said, “It is written, ‘My house shall be a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a den of robbers.” John 2: > The Passover of the Jews was near, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple he found people selling cattle, sheep, and doves and the money changers seated at their tables. Making a whip of cords, he drove all of them out of the temple, with the sheep and the cattle. He also poured out the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. He told those who were selling the doves, “Take these things out of here! Stop making my Father’s house a marketplace!” ### Money Changers *Mishnah Shekalim* records that on the 25th of Adar (just before Passover) money-changers sat in the Temple to help Jews exchange currency and pay the required half-shekel donation prescribed in Exodus 30:13–16​. ### Animal Sellers The *Torah* and *Mishnah* teach that animals like doves were offered by poorer worshipers (for example, as sin offerings or after childbirth), and these birds could easily become blemished during travel. Thus it was entirely reasonable to buy the doves in Jerusalem instead of bringing them from home since a blemished animal would be invalid as an offering (Leviticus 12:6–8, Leviticus 5:7, *Mishnah Keritot* 1:7 & *Mishnah Bekhorot* 7:6) ### Question Given that both money-changers and animal sellers were performing vital services required for Temple services, what do various Christian denominations believe the reason was for Jesus whipping them out of the Temple? What sources do Christian denominations use as support for accusations of corruption/robbery occurring in the Temple?

> Matthew 17:3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, > talking with Jesus. > > 4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you > wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one > for Elijah.” I am wondering how Peter recognized that the men were Elijah and Moses? Photographs and portraits didn't exist back in those days. If they did, Peter being a fisherman wouldn't have been to school to see them. And I doubt Moses and Elijah began their conversation by saying - "Hello Jesus, I am Elijah and this is my buddy Moses." So how would Peter know it was Elijah standing there?

Some of those who subscribe to the theory that the Jesus traditions were not published until decades after the resurrection assert that authorized tradents were responsible for accurately preserving the traditions via "oral tradition" methods. For example, Richard Bauckham contends that > Of crucial importance for our whole argument in this book is the role of individual authors and tradents of Jesus traditions. We have suggested that the traditions were originated and formulated by named eyewitnesses, in whose name they were transmitted and who remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions. **In local Christian communities which did not include eyewitnesses among their members, there would probably be recognized teachers who functioned as authorized tradents of the traditions they had received from the eyewitnesses either directly or through very few (authorized) intermediaries.**1 Which leads to the question: What percentage of the 1st century Christian population is assumed to have served as (Bauckham-style) authorized tradents of the oral tradition, who would have accurately memorized something comparable to what would one day be contained in Matthew's Gospel? [Reference to a published estimate would be most appreciated.] Ultimately, am trying to establish whether this is a greater percentage than those who were literate (at least able to read) within the early Christian population. ___ 1 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 290.

Many who theorize concerning Gospel origins claim that the material which was ultimately published in the four Gospels was preserved almost exclusively as oral traditions, carefully tended by local tradents, until the Gospels began to be published thirty to fifty years after the ascension. For example, Richard Bauckham contends that > Of crucial importance for our whole argument in this book is the role of individual authors and tradents of Jesus traditions. We have suggested that the traditions were originated and formulated by named eyewitnesses, in whose name they were transmitted and who remained the living and active guarantors of the traditions. In local Christian communities which did not include eyewitnesses among their members, there would probably be recognized teachers who functioned as authorized tradents of the traditions they had received from the eyewitnesses either directly or through very few (authorized) intermediaries.1 Accordingly, how long is it theorized that it would take to teach the Jesus traditions, such as what would one day be contained in Matthew's Gospel, to new tradents who would be responsible for accurately preserving such via oral tradition methods? [Reference to a book/article on the topic would be greatly appreciated.] On Paul's second missionary journey he makes it out to Macedonia (Acts 16–17). However, his visits to Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, etc. are characterized as being both brief and mostly evangelistic, rather than instructional (i.e., training a tradent). Relative to Thessalonica, Acts 17:2 indicates that Paul reasoned in the synagogue for a mere three Sabbaths; although, Paul's epistles suggest that he was in the city for more than two or three weeks. Even if for a slightly longer period, Paul's letters from Corinth applaud the Thessalonians for their grasp of the traditions (2 Thess. 2:15) and their dissemination of the word (1 Thess. 1:8). But was he there in each of these cities long enough to train up a tradent? > To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thessalonians 2:14–15 ESV) Am trying to draw a comparison between how long it would take to help someone accurately memorize a set of material akin to Matthew, without recourse to a written document, as opposed to simply making a copy of a document. It would seem much more effective to instead leave behind a copy of a Gospel, given that Matthew could be copied within a week. (A related question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/105788/what-percentage-of-the-1st-century-christian-population-served-as-authorized-tra) P.S. I do recognize that some scholars deny that there were formal tradents or that anyone necessarily preserved anything accurately. ____ 1 Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2017), 290.