Bible Questions

[Apostle]

I've noticed that many people who are "Christians" have many misunderstandings of the Bible. If you are a Christian then one of your basics beliefs should be that the Bible is the Word of God. So, on this thread I will take any questions from anyone (Christian or other) to help those who may have been misinformed or just want more of an understanding. I'll do my best to answer them thoroughly and accurately. Objections are also welcome, anything really about the Bible.

~Apostle

[sede-x-teh-bomb]

I do have a question.

How can we take any accounts of what jesus did seriously when everyone who wrote about him never even met him?

and even when they did write about it, it was quiet literally hundreds of years later.

except perhaps paul? never the less.... shaky record.

[+Paranoid Android]

^1 - There is no proof that the writers of the gospels never met Jesus (except for Luke, who acknowledges that he was a historian who gathered his information for first-hand accounts). Mark, the earliest gospel is claimed to have been written by a "young boy" who followed Jesus - based on even the most liberal dating of Mark, this would put Mark in his 50's (at the latest) at the time of writing. With the possible exception of John, depending on how liberal you are, all the gospels could have been written by Jesus' followers.

2 - The gospels written literally hundreds of years later????? I would very much like to hear a source for this. Even the most liberal of secular scholars date the gospels to largely the 1st Century (John in the early-mid 2nd century). Mark, the earliest of the gospels, is dated to 70 AD (conservative scholars will push that even closer towards the 50 AD mark). Liberal scholars date John (the latest of the gospels) to 125 AD, conservative scholars will date it within the 1st century.

Again, I would like your references to suggest that they were written hundreds of years later by people who never knew Jesus.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Paranoid Android

[norwood1026]

I've heard it said that God knows everything we go though & he knows what it is to suffer. My question is how can God know what we go though? Yes, his son Jesus did die but I think that Jesus was more of a deity then he was a man. Perhaps Christians focus on him as a deity more than him as a human. It’s said that Jesus knows what we feel & what we go though but if he never sinned how can he?

I don’t see how he could know what it is to give birth to your child watch them grow up & have their own children so how can he know what it is to feel the same things we do?

Human emotions are very complex & Jesus never experienced things like birth, menopause coming down from a high on drugs? Peer pressure? A beer buzz feeling your heartbreak when someone you love dies or someone breaks your heart. God never loved a women outside of his mom, unless someone here believes that Jesus was married bible never spoke of these things.

So how does God truly know what it is to be human?

[kaiboijin]

The First Commandment says "Thou shalt have no other god before me." Does that mean there really are other deities out there, but we're suppose to put Him first?

Also, is there really magic? When Moses and Joshua were trying to get their people out of Egypt, they had to use a lot of miracles from God such as turning water into blood and turning a rod into a snake. However, it also says that the pharaoh was able to have his "magicians" produce similar results. I understand that the term "magician" could have been used loosely to include primitive chemists and whatnot, but is it possible that they were really able to use magic?

[momentarylapseofreason]

"Why did God not like Cain's vegetable sacrifice but loved Abel's cooked meat?"

[+Paranoid Android]

I've heard it said that God knows everything we go though & he knows what it is to suffer. My question is how can God know what we go though? Yes, his son Jesus did die but I think that Jesus was more of a deity then he was a man. Perhaps Christians focus on him as a deity more than him as a human. It’s said that Jesus knows what we feel & what we go though but if he never sinned how can he?

I don’t see how he could know what it is to give birth to your child watch them grow up & have their own children so how can he know what it is to feel the same things we do?

Human emotions are very complex & Jesus never experienced things like birth, menopause coming down from a high on drugs? Peer pressure? A beer buzz feeling your heartbreak when someone you love dies or someone breaks your heart. God never loved a women outside of his mom, unless someone here believes that Jesus was married bible never spoke of these things.

So how does God truly know what it is to be human?

I think "knowing" what we go through is different to "empathising" with what we go through. We can say God knows what we will go through, on the basis of God's omnipotence. And we can probably say that God may even understand what we go through to a certain extent. And Jesus did indeed come down as a human being and died, so God does know in some ways what it means to have gone through pain and loss (and you raise a very good question on how Christians sometimes focus on Jesus' divinity rather than his humanity - while this may be the case, it should be more so a point that Jesus was both fully God and fully man). But God is God, and there has to be a point where we can sit back and say "Does God really know the human perspective"? I can understand how you might come to this conclusion, even though i disagree.

That said, we are created in the image of God (whatever that means, and there are differing points of view on this one). I take two points on this - the first is that being created in God's image there is a certain aspect of God knowing what we know and feeling what we feel. Just as God is much bigger than us and we can't understand everything he does, this does not by proxy mean that God does not understand everything we understand or feel everything that we feel. Secondly, I do take the view that Jesus was both fully God and fully human. I do not believe Jesus sinned, but he still lived in a sinful world. He was still at the mercy of sinful people. He still felt the full brunt of the actions of sinful people. He saw sin affecting people's lives and driving them into sin over and over.

I take the view then that God, who is Jesus, can indeed understand and empathise with us.

[+Paranoid Android]

The First Commandment says "Thou shalt have no other god before me." Does that mean there really are other deities out there, but we're suppose to put Him first?

I would say not. The Bible also clearly shows that the gods and idols which are worshipped by other nations are simply carved pieces of wood and stone (see Isaiah 2:5-8). Hear O Israel, the Lord God, the Lord is one. While you could argue that this passage supports the existence of other gods, it would deny the other scriptures which state otherwise. Therefore, I see it as logical to consider this passage as just a comment against worshipping false idols/gods rather than a veiled comment that other gods actually exist.

That said, anything that we put in our lives as number 1 might be considered to be our "god", and while the Bible does support this, there is not necessarily any indication of supernatural dealings. Money, for example, can be a god to some people.

Also, is there really magic? When Moses and Joshua were trying to get their people out of Egypt, they had to use a lot of miracles from God such as turning water into blood and turning a rod into a snake. However, it also says that the pharaoh was able to have his "magicians" produce similar results. I understand that the term "magician" could have been used loosely to include primitive chemists and whatnot, but is it possible that they were really able to use magic?

My opinion is definitely that magic exists. I believe that there is a realm of spirits that humanity can tap into the power of. These spirits are powerful, and they can cause all sorts of powerful spiritual/supernatural events to happen. BUT, the question you specifically asked refers to an event in the Bible - did the Egyptian magicians use real magic? TO this, I would answer "I don't know". It may be they had real power. However, it is inconsistent with what I know of magic for these magicians to accomplish. Therefore it is possible that these magicians were simply using illusion and sleight of hand. The Bible does not say.

But that magic itself exists, the Bible is clear that it does. God created magic. God created the creatures that govern magic. I don't know if there's a follow-up question you are seeking the answer to with this response so I won't go any further, but I hope this answer helps you. All the best,

~ Regards, PA

[+Paranoid Android]

"Why did God not like Cain's vegetable sacrifice but loved Abel's cooked meat?"

This is a tough question because the Bible is not absolutely clear on the answer. My opinion is based on the way that the Bible describes the two sacrifices given by Cain and Abel. In chapter 4 of Genesis, it describes Cain's sacrifices as: "In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD". (verse 3). In contrast, verse 4 shows, "But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The difference in descriptions is telling, as Cain's sacrifice was not really a sacrifice. he simply brought "some of the fruits", whereas Abel brought the best that he had - FAT portions of the FIRSTBORN.

As I see it, Abel's sacrifice was truly a sacrifice. Cain's was not - it appears he just gave the leftovers, the second-best. In other words, when thinking of his produce, Cain did not put God first.

That said, this is just my opinion based on the wording of the text. There is no actual verse stating exactly why God accepted one but not the other. Assuming then that my interpretation is incorrect, I cannot give you a fallback option beyond the "I don't know" response. I can't give you answers to biblical questions when they are not given in the Bible. This seems the most likely interpretation as I see it, and beyond this, I simply do not know.

Hopefully this helps you with your answer. All teh best,

~ Paranoid Android

[sede-x-teh-bomb]

^1 - There is no proof that the writers of the gospels never met Jesus (except for Luke, who acknowledges that he was a historian who gathered his information for first-hand accounts). Mark, the earliest gospel is claimed to have been written by a "young boy" who followed Jesus - based on even the most liberal dating of Mark, this would put Mark in his 50's (at the latest) at the time of writing. With the possible exception of John, depending on how liberal you are, all the gospels could have been written by Jesus' followers.

2 - The gospels written literally hundreds of years later????? I would very much like to hear a source for this. Even the most liberal of secular scholars date the gospels to largely the 1st Century (John in the early-mid 2nd century). Mark, the earliest of the gospels, is dated to 70 AD (conservative scholars will push that even closer towards the 50 AD mark). Liberal scholars date John (the latest of the gospels) to 125 AD, conservative scholars will date it within the 1st century.

Again, I would like your references to suggest that they were written hundreds of years later by people who never knew Jesus.

how can you say there is no proof that the writers never met jesus? thats the exact same thing as saying there is no proof to show that they DID meet him..the onus of proof is on the person making the spectacular claim lol.. haha im sorry you dont have the luxury of saying thereis "no proof that the writers never met him" you cant just jump to conclusions like that, the bible even makes no reference to this, so all the christians really have is wishful thinking.. o sorry.. faith as you call it.

its all so sus.. and yes we are getting close the the HUNDREDS of years mark, even half a century after the occurrences of what the bible claimed happened would be way to late to honestly give an even mildly accurate account of what happened, lol and thats NOT EVEN taking into account the many "refinements" the good book went through before it appeared as the finalized BIBLE that we know.

how the hell could ANYBODY hold convictions in such shaky subjective fundamentals, its seems more of a case of wanting to believe and have interests invested in needing this to be true rather than looking at it with a clear.. rational state of mind, for if one does that you begin to see this book more for what it is... and less for what you want it to be.

[+Paranoid Android]

how can you say there is no proof that the writers never met jesus? thats the exact same thing as saying there is no proof to show that they DID meet him..the onus of proof is on the person making the spectacular claim lol.. haha im sorry you dont have the luxury of saying thereis "no proof that the writers never met him" you cant just jump to conclusions like that, the bible even makes no reference to this, so all the christians really have is wishful thinking.. o sorry.. faith as you call it.

Actually, only Luke expressly states that he was an historian who didn't know Jesus. The rest indicate they are first-hand accounts of Jesus' life. This is not the same as asking proof that they did meet him (as you suggest). The accounts clearly show that the writers have made that intention that they knew and lived with jesus. You can disagree with that if you wish, I won't stop you. You can even choose to disagree with everything they say. I won't begrudge you that either. But your comment that they never knew him? There is no proof of that beyond your own opinion, whereas the claims made within the gospels themselves are proof enough that they claim they made them. Therefore the onus of proof is not on me making the extraordinary claim (having it based on textual evidence) but on you (who have based it on nothing more than your opinion).

its all so sus.. and yes we are getting close the the HUNDREDS of years mark, even half a century after the occurrences of what the bible claimed happened would be way to late to honestly give an even mildly accurate account of what happened, lol and thats NOT EVEN taking into account the many "refinements" the good book went through before it appeared as the finalized BIBLE that we know.

how the hell could ANYBODY hold convictions in such shaky subjective fundamentals, its seems more of a case of wanting to believe and have interests invested in needing this to be true rather than looking at it with a clear.. rational state of mind, for if one does that you begin to see this book more for what it is... and less for what you want it to be.

Then I ask again - provide me proof that the gospels were written centuries after Jesus. Just to show my good faith, I'll quote for you a decidedly non-Christian source to show the dating of the gospels:

The Synoptic Gospels were originally anonymous. According to questionable 2nd-century tradition, they were written by the immediate disciples of Jesus or companions of the oldest Apostles. Most probably the Gospels were composed between AD 70 and 100.

Copyright © 1994-2001 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.

The Britannica states clearly that the authorship is unknown, which is not something a Christian source would state. It then follows in the text to show that the gospels were written within the 1st Century.

You are making bold statements that no scholars agree with, and all I am asking for is your basis for stating that the gospels were written hundreds of years after Jesus. The fact that you did not provide evidence when I asked the first time is telling.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Paranoid Android

[momentarylapseofreason]

This is a tough question because the Bible is not absolutely clear on the answer. My opinion is based on the way that the Bible describes the two sacrifices given by Cain and Abel. In chapter 4 of Genesis, it describes Cain's sacrifices as: "In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the LORD". (verse 3). In contrast, verse 4 shows, "But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The difference in descriptions is telling, as Cain's sacrifice was not really a sacrifice. he simply brought "some of the fruits", whereas Abel brought the best that he had - FAT portions of the FIRSTBORN.

As I see it, Abel's sacrifice was truly a sacrifice. Cain's was not - it appears he just gave the leftovers, the second-best. In other words, when thinking of his produce, Cain did not put God first.

That said, this is just my opinion based on the wording of the text. There is no actual verse stating exactly why God accepted one but not the other. Assuming then that my interpretation is incorrect, I cannot give you a fallback option beyond the "I don't know" response. I can't give you answers to biblical questions when they are not given in the Bible. This seems the most likely interpretation as I see it, and beyond this, I simply do not know.

Hopefully this helps you with your answer. All teh best,

~ Paranoid Android

I am always impressed by your knowledge, patience & honesty. Thank you anyways

[doktorhook]

Is God infinite?

[hairston630]

Ill take a shot. I am a christian but I would still like to ask a question I have myself. Why, in the gospels, do we have Jesus mentioning to "take up your cross" prior to the disciples and others actually KNOWING that he was to die by crucifixion or even before he took up his own cross? Why would the writers put this phrase before the crucifixion when the people had no idea what "take up your cross" meant?

Hairston

[Apostle]

I do have a question.

How can we take any accounts of what jesus did seriously when everyone who wrote about him never even met him?

and even when they did write about it, it was quiet literally hundreds of years later.

except perhaps paul? never the less.... shaky record.

Actually Matthew, Mark, and John were Jesus' disciples for nearly all of his 3 and 1/2 years of ministry. And obviously Matthew was written by Matthew, etc.. So we do have a record about him by some who did in fact meet him. Though, these were written some years after Jesus ascended into heaven, but I would think a time like that would be hard to forget.

Paul (known as Saul) did not meet Jesus, but did write about his teachings and a lot about the Old Testament. It's actually quite amazing that Paul actually wrote part of the Bible (in fact a miracle) considering how he persecuted all those of "the way" aka Christians.

Are you talking about non-Biblical sources when you say hundreds of years later? Thanks for the response,

~Apostle

Edit: I had something wrong. Luke, though he was not a disciple, has the most complete account of events surrounding Jesus. And by the way, the Gospels do not contradict each other but they compliment each other.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Apostle

[hairston630]

Actually Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were Jesus' disciples for nearly all of his 3 and 1/2 years of ministry. And obviously Matthew was written by Matthew, etc.. So we do have a record about him by some who did in fact meet him. Though, these were written some years after Jesus ascended into heaven, but I would think a time like that would be hard to forget.

Paul (known as Saul) did not meet Jesus, but did write about his teachings and a lot about the Old Testament. It's actually quite amazing that Paul actually wrote part of the Bible (in fact a miracle) considering how he persecuted all those of "the way" aka Christians.

Are you talking about non-Biblical sources when you say hundreds of years later? Thanks for the response,

~Apostle

While I disagree that the gospels were written hundreds of years later (this is a far fetched fallacy), I do tend to disagree on the naming of the gospels. It is not a secure fact that these individuals are the actual individuals that wrote these books. Alot of scholars question this. While it is an awesome thing to see the conversion of paul, we have to make sure that his encounter with the risen jesus wasnt just a vision. The scales over his eyes seem to give credit that this is supernatural but were not sure if this was "literal"...Pauls vision could just have been that..a vision. People have visions today but with the current knowledge of sciences we can conclude that the complications in the brain can cause these same types of visions and we can go as far as even saying that these experiences can be reproduced in the laboratory. There is textual evidence that Jesus "risen" body was touched by the women but as far as the disciples and paul, there is no mention of "touching" so a vision explanation could be warranted but I have my doubts as paul uses the greek words that promote a flesh and blood body, not a spiritual entity.

Hairston

Edited January 16, 2008 by hairston630

[Apostle]

I've heard it said that God knows everything we go though & he knows what it is to suffer. My question is how can God know what we go though? Yes, his son Jesus did die but I think that Jesus was more of a deity then he was a man. Perhaps Christians focus on him as a deity more than him as a human. It’s said that Jesus knows what we feel & what we go though but if he never sinned how can he?

I don’t see how he could know what it is to give birth to your child watch them grow up & have their own children so how can he know what it is to feel the same things we do?

Human emotions are very complex & Jesus never experienced things like birth, menopause coming down from a high on drugs? Peer pressure? A beer buzz feeling your heartbreak when someone you love dies or someone breaks your heart. God never loved a women outside of his mom, unless someone here believes that Jesus was married bible never spoke of these things.

So how does God truly know what it is to be human?

Thank you for your response, this is a wonderful question. Jesus was 100% man and 100% God, he never sinned. When you look at the Old Testament and at how they were to sacrifice, you will notice that the lamb (bull, ram, etc..) had to be without blemish. They couldn't sacrifice anything with a blemish. Therefore, when we refer to Jesus as the "sacrificed lamb", that's what we are referring to; he was without blemish; he had never sinned and could never sin. And here's where your question fits in.

Have you ever wondered why Jesus cried out on the cross saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46b)

Jesus while on the cross, took on our sin, every bit of it. Every tiny white lie anyone has ever told, is telling, or will tell. He took on every lust of the flesh, every abomination, every curse, every and any sin that has been comitted, is being comitted, or will be comitted was taken on by Jesus. Understand? There could only be a perfect sacrifice and that sacrifice washed our sin away. God cannot sin and cannot be where sin is; Light and darkness cannot coexist, the light will always over take away the darkness, therefore he had to give us away to become light by taking our sin upon himself; and that is why he had to be 100% human too.

If you understand this, then you understand that Jesus knows what it is like to have sin, and to sin.

God experiences emotion too. His heart is broken every time someone goes to hell. He is provoked to anger for our benefit every tiime we disobey him. He knows what it is like to experience emotion and also what it is like to be caught up in sin, but he made a way for us to get rid of sin.

God is love. He knows so much more about love then we could ever know. He gives us the picture of the end time church as his bride, and when he comes back he wants his bride to be ready to go to the wedding feast of the lamb. He is ravished by us. "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends." (John 15:13) Obviously, Jesus never had a relationship with a woman including sexual intimacy. But, he created that for us, obviously he knows about it, if you understand what I mean.

God created us, we were made in his image and we are children of God. I often think God laughs at all the funny things humans do; like parents watching their toddler children. God is "Abba"or daddy, that's the picture Jesus gives us, I think he is able to empathize with parents today. He knows exactly what women feel when they go through with child birth, he created them. He knows literally everything about it.

Anyways, I hope this helped some, if more clarification is needed just ask I would be glad to help.

~Apostle

[Apostle]

The First Commandment says "Thou shalt have no other god before me." Does that mean there really are other deities out there, but we're suppose to put Him first?

Also, is there really magic? When Moses and Joshua were trying to get their people out of Egypt, they had to use a lot of miracles from God such as turning water into blood and turning a rod into a snake. However, it also says that the pharaoh was able to have his "magicians" produce similar results. I understand that the term "magician" could have been used loosely to include primitive chemists and whatnot, but is it possible that they were really able to use magic?

Thank you for the reply. Regarding the first commandment, let's look at the verse, Exodus 20:2-3

"I am the Lord your God, which have brought you out of the land of Egypt, out the house of bondage. 2 You shall have no other gods before me."

First he talks about Egypt. In Egypt they were polytheistic and the Israelites knew this. God is not implying that there are other gods (notice the little g). What he is saying is "I am God, I brought you out of Egypt with a mighty hand and I alone am God". The "gods" could be anything that is put before God. Video games, tv, work, sports, cars, friends, anything that is put as a priority over God is an idol, or a "god". He goes on to say in verses 4-6

"You shall no make for yourself any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor them: for the LORD your god am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. 6 And showing mercy to thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."

(I have a feeling some more questions will arise from this verse), but God is saying I am the only God and don't worship other "gods", such as statues and other things.

Regarding your second question. I wouldn't doubt if they were able to use magic. I also wouldn't doubt, though, that they used some science. However, you kind of word something funny, Moses and Aaron didn't have to use miracles from God, that's how God told them to do it. God wanted to show signs and wonders from him that the Egyptians may know that He is God (Exodus 7:3-5). (I'm sure there are also many questions that could come from this scripture refernece, all of which I'll be glad to answer to the best of my ability). If you'll notice, the magicians were only able to turn their staffs into snakes (Exodus 7:10-11) though Aaron's rod swallowed their rods

I'm sorry to leave you hanging but I have to leave, I will finish this later.

~Apostle

[SunDogDayze]

I've noticed that many people who are "Christians" have many misunderstandings of the Bible. If you are a Christian then one of your basics beliefs should be that the Bible is the Word of God. So, on this thread I will take any questions from anyone (Christian or other) to help those who may have been misinformed or just want more of an understanding. I'll do my best to answer them thoroughly and accurately. Objections are also welcome, anything really about the Bible.

~Apostle

Apostle,

As much as I admire your attempt to explain the Bible, I think that the only explanation what the bible means is what you personally believe it to mean. Someone that you believe is misinformed could have just as valid an interpretation of what they read.

The Bible is so full of contractions, unclear meanings, obscure anecdotes, prophesies, and unevidenced occurrences that it is quite impossible to take it literal, word for word. Therefore, individuals must use their own reasoning and intelligence to organize the writings into what they think it means.

[hairston630]

Apostle,

As much as I admire your attempt to explain the Bible, I think that the only explanation what the bible means is what you personally believe it to mean. Someone that you believe is misinformed could have just as valid an interpretation of what they read.

The Bible is so full of contractions, unclear meanings, obscure anecdotes, prophesies, and unevidenced occurrences that it is quite impossible to take it literal, word for word. Therefore, individuals must use their own reasoning and intelligence to organize the writings into what they think it means.

If we were to be literalists then God would have wings and the grass would grow in the morning and would die in the evening

Hairston

Also, in regards to apostles claim of Jesus being 100% man and 100%. This idea derives from the debates of christians from around Jesus time. Christians never 100% agreed on either side so it appears that a happy medium was established, though this doesnt mean that Apostle is wrong.

Edited January 16, 2008 by hairston630

[SunDogDayze]

If we were to be literalists then God would have wings and the grass would grow in the morning and would die in the evening

Hairston

Also, in regards to apostles claim of Jesus being 100% man and 100%. This idea derives from the debates of christians from around Jesus time. Christians never 100% agreed on either side so it appears that a happy medium was established, though this doesnt mean that Apostle is wrong.

Right, none of it means that anyone is wrong. There cannot be an incorrect way to interpret the bible, except literally, because it is impossible for it to be a literal true account. The contradictions alone would negate that. However, just as saying that Apostle isn't wrong, it's also saying that he isn't right exactly, either, as there are many other ways to interpret the bible, and we have no way of knowing which way it is that is closest to the truth.

[hairston630]

Right, none of it means that anyone is wrong. There cannot be an incorrect way to interpret the bible, except literally, because it is impossible for it to be a literal true account. The contradictions alone would negate that. However, just as saying that Apostle isn't wrong, it's also saying that he isn't right exactly, either, as there are many other ways to interpret the bible, and we have no way of knowing which way it is that is closest to the truth.

Your right. There are multiple contradictions in the bible ESPECIALLY in the gospel accounts. I will not point them all out but they are numerous and some are unresolvable outside the fact that there appears to be some differences in the oral traditions being passed down. The process of salvation has nothing to do with innerancy but is summed up in the epistles. Those that believe in the resurrection and that Jesus is Lord is saved, not believing that the word of God is innerant. This is equivalent of calling the bible the 4th person of the trinity (infallable). Innerancy, looking at a model of salvation, would be a protective shell surrounding salvation. If the shell is broken,you still have salvation through belief in the resurrection. If the resurrection didnt happen then the salvation portion of the model breaks and as paul says "your preaching is in vain and your still in your sins". One thing that is certain though, as far as agreement goes with the gospels is the fact that jesus died on a cross, was buried, there was an empty tomb, and the disciples thought they seen the risen jesus. Whether or not this really happened is another discussion.

Hairston

Edited January 16, 2008 by hairston630

[sandee]

I have asked this question before in other topics, Why did od put the tree of knowledge there and say dont? Was it a test and if they passed they would have all they cared for? Did satan have anything to do with the tempting? Always a pleasure

[Apostle]

Apostle,

As much as I admire your attempt to explain the Bible, I think that the only explanation what the bible means is what you personally believe it to mean. Someone that you believe is misinformed could have just as valid an interpretation of what they read.

The Bible is so full of contractions, unclear meanings, obscure anecdotes, prophesies, and unevidenced occurrences that it is quite impossible to take it literal, word for word. Therefore, individuals must use their own reasoning and intelligence to organize the writings into what they think it means.

Good point. However, the Bible isn't full of all of that if you just study it. It's really quite amazing at the deepness and the profound connections made in the Bible between the Old and New Testament. So, though I am far from understanding every part of the Bible, I have discovered Christians clearly contradicting or misusing the Bible. I'm sure not all of it can be taken literal, but you would be surprised at some of the things that can be taken literal. The Bible does take clear stands on things, the Bible stands alone and it is not all up to interpretation or reasoning. Though I understand what you're saying, I don't agree with all of it. But, thanks

~Apostle

[ravergirl]

To Hariston and Sundog...When you read the bible do you view the people in it as real people? Can you empathize with people from thousands of years ago...wait back up...

When you read a book with no religious basis can you empathize with the characters, even when it is fiction?

Everything that happened is not written down and not everything written down happened (in the bible and out). These texts are historical documents, geneology charts, poems, songs, laws, teachings, fiction stories (with morals.)

What you have to do is connect the people then to reality today.

There is not someone following you writing down everything you do, and if there was he might miss something. And If you were followed by people all of the time they might write about you later, but that doesn't make what you did during that time any less true. no one watched me pee this morning but I assure you I did. What you don't believe me? Well there is less paper, the water bill went up a little, and there is soap missing. What you have to see it to believe it???

The point im trying to make is that they are real people and not all real things that real people go through have literary merit. The bible doesn't say Jesus pooped but I believe he did.

You have to picture people operating like we do except we can read their course of action and the consequence instead of having to wait it out. those people are us, just shorter, with darker hair and the face is different.