Given that many conflate evangelicals and fundamentalists and there are significant overlaps, how have evangelical thinkers responded to James Barr's claim in his 1978 Fundamentalism book that: "For fundamentalists the Bible is more than the source of verity for their religion... It is part of the religion itself, indeed it is practically the centre of the religion, the essential nuclear point from which lines of light radiate into every particular aspect." These excerpts came from someone else's review of that book, instead of from an available copy such as on the Internet Archive. My question has been rephrased from my initial attempt, which was closed, and is edited here in hopes of avoiding the identified issues.

In the following verse, did Jesus in fact say the word, the name of God, that no Jew would dare to say aloud at that time? > As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, > and fell to the ground (John 18:6) If yes, why was He not tried for that before the high priest (there were so many witnesses after all)? If not, why then so many say that here He was quoting Exodus 3:14 (which means He DID pronounce the forbidden word)?

We read in Mtt 16:13-16: > When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”. It is usual for people entering public life to introduce themselves , or to get the introduction done by someone else. We see John the Baptist introducing Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29). We also see Jesus reading from Isiah and introducing himself as the Anointed One ( Lk 4:21). But Mtt 16 suggests that it was Peter who first acknowledged Jesus as Son of God, before which he had been known to the public by other attributes. My question therefore is : When did Jesus first introduce himself as Son of God ?

Some traditional drawings of crucifixion of Jesus show him hanging on the cross with his feet at a man's height above the ground. That seems justified, as we read in Jn 19:28-29: > After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine **on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth.** Given that the convict was prone to give violent and painful jerks on the cross , it had to be positioned in a pre-dug hole say, of three feet on the ground. Let us presume that the vertical beam of Jesus' cross measured 12 feet, considering the portion that went to the ground, the position of his feet above ground and the top portion of vertical beam where INRI was placed. Now, Jesus was made to carry the entire cross, with the lowest end dragging on the path. In terms of geometry, the ideal length of the cross would be proportionate to his height so as to allow enough space between the shoulder and the vertical and horizontal beams built at 90 degree angle. The cross on which he was crucified appears too long for such a proportion. One is therefore, inclined to conclude that Jesus in fact carried a cross proportional to his height, and was crucified on a different cross vertically much longer. My question therefore is: Was Jesus crucified on the same cross he had carried to Calvary? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

We read in John 1:1-2: > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Clearly, John means The Son of God for “the Word who was with God”, as is evident from Vs 1:2. No other Evangelist uses the concept of "The Word was God "; neither do we hear Jesus referring to himself as "The Word". Of course, he speaks of the words from the mouth of God, as in Matthew 4:4: > But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Now, there is a difference between Word that proceeds from God' and Word that was God'. Is it possible that John sourced the concept from an ancient Jewish text, or from Greek philosophy? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic Church, what was the source of the concept "The Word was God " that John the Evangelist introduced in Jn 1: 1?**

In several instances we have a few sentences translated as “if” when clearly what is being said is not conditional and the word if is a clear mistranslation. I’ll give you a few examples and would like experts in Greek to give us the corrected accurate translation. Let’s start with Jesus Christ prayers in the garden of Gethsemane: In both Mark 14:36 Jesus outright says that all things are possible with His Father: > “Abba, Father,” He said, ***“all things are possible for You.*** There’s no if, ands or buts, Jesus is clear, all things are possible. However Matthew 26:39 it’s translated - > “My Father, ***if*** it is possible” It’s impossible for the text to say “if it is possible, as that contradicts the account in Mark as well as Jesus numerous teachings that with God all things are possible, a teaching Jesus stressed multiple times throughout the entire Old and New Testament. Another example would be Paul’s letter in 1 Corinthians 4. In 1 Corinthians 4:18-21 ***Paul says with 100% certainty that he is coming to the Corinthians.*** > Some of you have become arrogant, ***as if I were not coming to you. > But I will come to you shortly,*** if the Lord is willing, and then I > will find out not only what these arrogant people are saying, but what > power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of > power. Which do you prefer? Shall I come to you with a rod, or in love > and with a gentle spirit? It would make absolutely zero sense for Paul to say he is 100% coming, even saying condemning anyone who says he isn’t coming as arrogant in verse 18, to then say “if God wills”, the word cannot be if, because he’s saying clearly that he is coming, even in the same verse/sentence that proceeds the if he reiterates that he is coming. Further it would make no sense for Paul to even say “if God wills” because that would assume he doesn’t know God’s will, which is impossible, the Apostles knew God’s will. So even the notion of them even saying “if” is impossible. I think the word should be translated as Since. When you replace the word “if” with since, the text makes sense, it aligns with doctrine. Father since it is possible. I will come to you shortly, since God wills/desires, and then I will find out..

I've always believed that Jesus was stabbed in his left side. That seems to be the common belief. How is that notion supported? I can't find anything the tells me absolutely in which side he was stabbed, so if there is anyone who says it was the right side, how is that supported?

> The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he > was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was > with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. (ESV) > > Mark 1:12–13 In this verse, the Holy Spirit sent Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Given that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Spirit must have known that Jesus could withstand the temptation. Why did the Holy Spirit do that then?

We read in Mark 15: 42-44: > "When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. " That implies that Jesus'death on the cross happened earlier than had been expected. Some medical professionals theorize that Jesus died of a heart failure, to which extreme mental stress had significantly contributed. They believe that the Lord's psychological trauma did not end with the Sweating of Blood at Gethsemane, rather followed Him to the Cross. Now, one should not expect that the Creed will be re-written to state that Jesus died on the Cross, of heart-failure. But, understanding the theory helps one to look at the mental agony of Jesus with the same gravity as his physical suffering. My question therefore, is: Has the Catholic Church taken cognizance of the theory that the terminal cause of Jesus's death on the cross was heart-failure ?

Acts 1:9–11 records Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Hebrews 1:3 and other passages state that He "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Yet other verses, such as Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25, describe Him as interceding for believers. Revelation 3:21 also speaks of Him sharing His Father’s throne. According to Christian theology, since His ascension, has Jesus been permanently seated on His throne, or is this meant to describe His authority while He remains actively engaged in roles such as interceding, reigning, and preparing for His return? I’m seeking an explanation based on Scripture and Christian doctrine about what Jesus has been doing since He ascended to the Father.

Regarding the passage Mt 2:13-18. Joseph flees to Egypt with Jesus and Mary after being warned by an angel that Jesus’ life is in danger. Herod then kills all the male children less than 2 years old in and around Bethlehem (8 miles *south* of Jerusalem). Matthew calls this tragic event the fulfillment of Je 31:15: > A cry is heard in Ramah… Rachel weeps for her children… for her children are gone. However, OT verses and sources from bibleatlas.org point to Ramah being 8+ miles *north* of Jerusalem. How can the verses in Matthew and Jeremiah refer to the same place if they are 16+ miles apart? What am I missing?

In Matt 16:24 Jesus tells His disciples to pick up their crosses and follow Him. How would the apostles have understood what He was saying? He spoke these words before He was crucified, so the mention of a cross is a bit strange to me. The Greek word is "stauros" or "stauron" which means an upright stake. Jesus does tell the apostles in verse 16:21 what would shortly come to pass (His crucifixion) but the verse doesn't make any mention of crucifixion. We could surmise that Jesus told them that He would be crucified and the text just doesn't explicitly mention it, that could be a reasonable explanation, but what if He didn't give them those details? It creates a dilemma of sorts. I'd be interested in hearing how other people understand this passage.

While walking on a road from Jerusalem to Emmaus, two disciples encountered a man whom they later recognized to be the risen Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ then, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded (διηρμήνευεν ) to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."1 Furthermore, the disciples later said that the Lord Jesus Christ "...opened (διήνοιγεν ) to us the scriptures."2 In addition, it is written that the Lord Jesus Christ "opened (διήνοιξεν ) their understanding, so that they would understand the scriptures."3 According to the doctrine of apostolic succession, the Lord Jesus Christ entrusted and delivered the faith (i.e., the *depositum fidei*) to his apostles whom later entrusted and delivered it to their successors, and so forth. Accordingly, if the Lord Jesus Christ opened the understanding of his disciples (students) by thoroughly expouding the scriptures, wouldn't Jesus' disciples have likewise taught their disciples, and so forth? If so, wouldn't the bishops (apostolic successors to the apostles) in the Catholic Church also possess a thorough understanding of the scriptures about the Lord Jesus Christ in the Old Testament? Would that be part of the *depositum fidei*? **Footnotes** 1 Luke 24:27 2 Luke 24:32 3 Luke 24:45

In the story of the woman caught in adultery, John indicates that the question of the Pharisees was a "trap". > 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people > gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of > the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They > made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this > woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded > us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 **They were using this > question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.**
> [John 8:2-6 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:2-6&version=NIV) What specifically was the trap they were trying to get Jesus to fall into?

Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father and Mary, a virgin. So my question is, have any Christian theologians discussed whether Jesus only resemble his mother Mary, or whether he also resembled his adopted father Joseph? God could easily have arranged it so that Jesus resembled Joseph, even if Joseph played no role in the conception of Jesus.

I am wondering if there are any buildings that are still standing that Jesus visited. Thanks.

Relative to research I'm doing, I wanted to pick the brains of the community at large and see if anyone had an answer to a question. Josephus states that Pompey took Jerusalem in the third month (Sivan) of 63 BCE during the solemn fast. He then later states that Herod captured Jerusalem in the third month, on the same day, also on the solemn fast, in 37 BCE. >**Taken by Pompey:** [...] the city was taken on the third month, on the day of the fast, upon the hundred and seventy-ninth olympiad, when Caius Antonius and Marcus Tullius Cicero were consuls [...]. (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66) >**Taken by Herod:** This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls at Rome, on the hundred and eighty-fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day [...]. (Joseph. *AJ* 14.487-88) To head certain responses off at the pass, Josephus did not say that it was the Day of Atonement (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66, 487) as some are wont to suggest. In a careful examination of both instances, that of Pompey and Herod, you will find, first, that Pompey started his war with the Jews in the spring (Joseph. *AJ* 14.38). It was a three-month siege that ended in the “third month,” on a day of fasting (Joseph. *AJ* 14.66; *BJ* 1.149). In the case of Herod, he started his siege toward the end of winter (Joseph. *BJ* 1.343; *AJ* 14.465). It was a five-month siege that ended in the “third month,” on a day of solemn fasting (Joseph. *BJ* 1.351; *AJ* 14.487-8). In the case of Pompey, a three-month siege beginning around the “beginning of the spring” would have had its conclusion in late spring, coincident with the third month of the Jewish ecclesiastical calendar. In the case of Herod, a five-month siege, which he began in winter, puts the fifth month likewise in the vicinity of late spring. So, to be clear on the subject, by context, neither instance can be even remotely construed to have occurred in autumn, which is where Tishri and the Day of Atonement fall. Concerning the third month, Sivan, I can find no record in any of the Jewish literature to pinpoint what fast this might have been. Nor can I definitively establish a day of the week. For the fast, the 23rd of Sivan is the closest example I could find, observed in modern times as the fast for omitting the offering of the first fruits in Jerusalem during the days of Jeroboam (*Shulchan Arukh*, Orach Chayim 580.2). However, it is suspect, since the circumstances surrounding the incident of Jeroboam interfering with the sacrifice of the people in Jerusalem looks to be coincident to Tabernacles rather than anything occurring in Sivan (1 Kgs. 12:25-33; Joseph. *AJ* 8.225-230). The earliest reference I could find to corroborate such a fast was the *Shulchan Arukh*, by Joseph Karo, 1563, as noted. Meanwhile, his most significant predecessor, Maimonides, made no mention of this fast in his *Misneh Torah*, c. 1168-1178. Nor are there any such references in the Talmud. I did find another reference to weekly fasts on Mondays and Thursdays (Tosef. to Ta'an. 2:4), but I couldn't determine their origin in terms of date, whether this was a regular practice in the first century BCE, or if it was something that came in vogue much later, as so many other observances did. For the day, there is an inference that Pompey took the city on the sabbath (Joseph. *AJ* 14.64), but regular, ritual fasting is prohibited on the sabbath (bErub. 41a, bTa’an 27b), so this inference is likely just a coincidence of wording. Dio Cassius also tells us that Jerusalem was taken on the Day of Saturn, or Saturday, in the instances of both Pompey and Herod (Dio Cass. 37.16.1-4, 49.22.2-5). However, I suspect, because of the prohibition against fasting on the sabbath (apart from occasional exceptions), that he merely inferred the Day of Saturn because of Pompey's tactics. Soooooo, I'm at a bit of an impasse. I can live with the conclusion that there was some unnamed fast in the month of Sivan if I can't find an answer. That Josephus says there was one is proof enough for me that a ritual fast in the third month existed in the first century BCE. The lack of a specific answer will neither make nor break the conclusions of my research. However, I've seen some intelligent people on here already. I'm hoping someone might be able to point me in the right direction to discover the identify of this enigmatic fast. It would be nice icing on the cake. And I would be much obliged if responses were confined to the question. I know the temptation is great to expound upon the various death of Herod hypotheses. But I just want to know about the fast if anyone can provide me with some useful information. The relevance of this question concerns the birth and life of Christ. It is part of a greater study on the death of Herod, which has a direct impact on the nativity, and by extension the ministry of Jesus Christ.

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?

Trinitarians assert that Jesus was fully God and fully human. That the two "persons" were separate and not intermixed (one could die, get hungry, feel physical pain and the other wouldn't). Which of these two was sent by "the father"? Which of these two received authority as spoken in Matthew 28:18-19?

In the Old Testament, we can see several places that portray God as the most gracious and the most merciful. However, when God accompanied the Israelites to their promised land, he said that he would destroy the seven nations of that area (Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Hivites, and Jebusites) so that the Israelites could take their place. Why does God love the Israelites so much that he can also show his mercy and love to all the other nations and people he created? Are only Israelites entitled to his love, and not modern-day Christians who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? If not, then why did Jesus say he came to fulfill the laws of Moses? (In Matthew 5:17, Jesus says, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.") Are other people not worthy of God's love?