Question #1 -
When the women went to the sepulchre, they found, in the tomb:
C)It varies by each gospel: one man in white, one angel of God, two men in white or two angels
This could be different aspects, all true, or it could be simple human perception which is proven inconsistent under stress.
Question #2 -
Jesus said that if he, or any prophet "bared witness to himself" as the messiah, it would mean that:
C)Again, ambivalent, because in John, he says that if he witnessed himself as the messiah, he would be lying, but he said that John the Baptist's witness of him was true
This one's too easy to let slide. JTB's witness
of Messiah is not ambivalent! Notice Jesus never proclaimed Himself to be Messiah. We've seen a lot of Muslim's make the mistake of saying this means He never claimed to be God.
Question #4 -
Mankind can only be saved:
C)This is what divides Orthodox/Catholic and Protestant basically. The idea of the works themselves having any significant used for salvation is basically not common to Protestantism, except from what I've read of Wesleyanism, where the works you do are something of a manifestation of your being saved by the Holy Spirit and all. But we have Orthodox and Catholics advocating something that also has sense to it with sacraments, that is, actions that reflect a change within, which actually seems similar to Wesley's theology from what I've read, that is, the works themselves are indications, not absolute requirements, they just result naturally.
You just said this is what divides three divisions within Christianity, and explained that by saying they're all the same
Question #5 -
Does God make both evil and good?
C)This is ambivalent too, because the verse that is commonly translated to say God makes both good and evil is more accurately translated as God makes both peace and calamity, which are distinct in some sense from good and evil.
Most excellent! So "good" becomes a matter of perspective ... the same calamity that can further G-d's purpose won't be seen as "good" to the victim, especially not in the short term. Yet even this is shown to be merciful in some instances.
Question #7 -
What does God think about burnt offerings?
C)There doesn't seem to be any verses I could find through a quick search that say God doesn't like burnt offerings. But Christians would clarify at least two things I imagine. One, that God doesn't require the burnt offerings of animals, but at best they would say God requires the burnt offering of our "souls" in a sense to change to faith in jesus and all.
This is where internet search functions lack. If you don't know what you're looking for, you can't find it.
1 Samuel 15:22 Hath 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."
That's the oldest one I can place. About the same time:
"Hear, O my people, and I will speak; O Israel, and I will testify against thee: I [am] God, [even] thy God. Psalm 50:8 I will not reprove thee for thy sacrifices or thy burnt offerings, [to have been] continually before me. I will take no bullock out of thy house, [nor] he goats out of thy folds. For every beast of the forest [is] mine, [and] the cattle upon a thousand hills. I know all the fowls of the mountains: and the wild beasts of the field [are] mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee: for the world [is] mine, and the fulness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats?"
It gets clearer as Israel's sins accumulate:
"Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, [and] we should have been like unto Gomorrah.
Isaiah 1:10 Hear the word of the LORD, ye rulers of Sodom; give ear unto the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah. To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats. When ye come to appear before me, who hath required this at your hand, to tread my courts? Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; [it is] iniquity, even the solemn meeting.
Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hateth: they are a trouble unto me; I am weary to bear [them]. And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil"
(Continuing on in that passage is even more to the point!)
Hosea 6:6 For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."
So we really don't see the dichotomy or contradiction claimed in the OP. Either way, what THN refers to as "the burnt offering of our souls to have in Faith in Jesus" is only half right. The desired effect cannot possibly occur until we've already come to Faith! Jesus is our sacrifice; we are to become
consecrated.
Question #8 -
Is long hair okay?
C) This is especially ambivalent since the only significant person I can think of that was male and had long hair was also a nazirite, a devotee/ascetic who was not permitted to cut their hair, drink wine and a few other prohibitions, one of which he apparently broke. But supposedly with Paul's example, there's an ironic parallel that he's asking them not necessarily to circumsise themselves physically, but then he's asking them to cut their hair for some reason of distinction of sexes.
This is an honest attempt, and not bad! Ya missed it, but I won't chide you for it. If irony = foreshadowing and fulfillment, then it's ironic. For us
today, this process can be humorous.
Question #9 -
Eat pork?
C) This is ambivalent according to the bible, because on the one hand there is the taboo against it in the O.T. and then there's Jesus saying that it's not what goes into you that corrupts you, but what comes out of you, so honestly, it seems to lean moreso towards B, but the bible as a whole seems ambivalent.
Your conclusion is certainly the way Churches have practiced, but this glosses over Scripture. Jesus wasn't referring to non-food items that were declared unfit for human consumption, like pigs.
Question #10 -
How many kids did Abraham have?
D) According to a Wiki search, he had actually 8, one by Hagar, one by Sarah and 6 by his second wife, if we don't count Hagar as one. This all depends on how you count Ishmael though, so it's complicated.
Ishmael counts
8 is a
very significant number, speaking of new beginnings. Anyone actually trying to understand this stuff should key in on this one item; it unlocks a LOT of things throughout the entire Bible!
