Mark 11:12-14 – "Why did Jesus have an emotional outburst at the fig tree – couldn’t he just have made figs appear?"
This objection is rather a desperate attempt to find fault with Jesus. As Jesus so often does, he uses everyday objects and images as metaphors to teach his disciples a spiritual point.…
<h2 class=”objection”>Matthew 15:26—”Is this not blatant racism, calling a non-Jew a dog?” </h2>
Jews frequently insulted Gentiles by referring to them as pariah dogs, which in ancient Palestine were wild, homeless scavengers. But the form Jesus uses here (κυνάριον <i>, </i>”puppy”) suggests a more affectionate term for household animals.…
<h2 class=”objection”>Matthew 12:40—(Question #2): “Since Jonah was in the belly of a fish alive, Jesus must have been alive in the tomb also, so Jesus never actually died on the cross.”</h2>
<p><a href=”https://www.unchangingword.com/3-days-or-2-days/”>[see here for the related question of duration; 3 days & 3 nights]</a></p>
<p>Deedat only made this argument credible by selectively presenting certain parts of the verse and concealing others.…
<h2 class=”objection”>Matthew 8:28-34 – "Jesus stole a herd of pigs & kills them, so he is a thief”</h2>
<p>Jesus clearly did not "steal" this herd of pigs, for he never even touched them; sending demons into something can hardly be considered "stealing".…
Many critics of Jesus’ path like to point to two passages to indicate that Jesus was only sent for the Jews. This is rather like saying that Muhammad (pbuh) was sent only for the Arabs, because he never went outside of Arabia and the Qur’ān says in one place, “We have revealed to you an Arabic Qur’ān , that you may warn Mecca and those who dwell around it.”…
Attempting to bypass the unique role of Jesus, critics have ignored other verses and focused on this one paragraph (and the rich young ruler account in Matthew 19:16-30) to argue that Jesus simply came to confirm the Law of Moses. This is the standard approach of critics—ignore ninety-nine passages which directly refute their ideas, and selectively present one or two misinterpreted passages which seem to confirm their ideas.…
There is no contradiction here, it is a misunderstanding of the Hebrew term ” yâshab .”…
The first objection—that עלמה ‛almâh only means ‘young lady’, is incorrect. It actually refers specifically to ‘maiden’, that is to a young woman who is unmarried and sexually chaste, and thus has virginity as one of her characteristics.…
This verse is using hyperbolic language to emphasize how disobedience to God will be punished and faithfulness will be blessed—it is not a legal declaration. In fact we find exactly the opposite in the Torah law:
…“Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.”
Interestingly, this story is found not only in the Bible but also in Sahih Bukhari:
…Narrated by Abu Huraira: Abraham did not tell a lie except on three occasion.