SLD

But that's just it, either the Bible is the word of God and we should all bow down to Jesus or it's bunk and we should throw the whole thing out the window.

I used to think like you. A liberal, non-fundamentalist almost metaphorical view of the bible but the basics of Christianity were true because . . . well just because. But then I got "saved" by a beautiful fundamentalist christian who challenged me that the Bible was either God's word or it wasn't. (actually, I confess I was hoping to get inside her pants). In any event, I had to grant her that point, and after much investigation, I was appalled at what I believed. It's not God's word, it's bunk.

Why would God do this? It's ridiculous. Why would God have a variety of different endings to the most important story ever (supposedly)? Why would he have one of the gospels end one way originally, and then in later versions add to that ending? Did it not sell enough copies with that ending? We're supposed to take this story metaphorically only? Well, there are, with all due respect, a lot of other stories, I'd rather take metaphorically given the choice. As Thomas Paine said, Christianity is the only religion where the torture and murder of a human being is celebrated as the redemption for the sin of eating an apple. This is not a good metaphorical story. This is an incredibly ridiculous difficult story that is utter nonsense the more I think about it.


SLD

aikido7

Dear gilly54,

Have you read "Aesop's Fables"? What do you take from them? Do you think animals back in Aesop's time could talk? Or do you believe merely that thousands of years ago a stupid writer named Aesop actually thought animals could talk?

aikido7

Either/or thinking may be useful in some situations, but this is not one of them.

And I used to think like YOU!

Your rant is fast becoming the new cry of Job. The aggravation is understandable, given the world of common Christianity over and against the findings of biblical scholarship. Popular piety is the sin; critical historical investigation is the cure. The gospel accounts are reconstructions overlayed by interpretations, and unfortunately our cultural lens has become one more interpretation. That's why I am hopeful that the recent (the last quarter-century) work on the parables is a promising antidote to the "iconization" of the iconoclast named Jesus.

mike_decock

Why not? There's lots of claims of divine authorship and if we offer them all the same amount of leniency your are asking for here, they would all stand up to the test.

-Mike..

godfry n. glad

Bzzzzt...You have constructed a false dichotomy. I don't think either, and I doubt gilly54 does, either. They are moralistic tales to teach and enlighten. Despite being fictional in nature, they illustrate human foibles and failings and instruct on correct behavior....much like much of the material in the NT.

You should talk... You believe in angels, but not talking animals. Why is that?

godfry

TangTsu

I personally believe in angels AND talking animals...

Numbers 22:28

mike_decock

Hey, if God can speak through Balaam's ass, He can speak through mine.

-Mike...

godfry n. glad

Oh... Well, excuse me. I sit corrected.

I must admit I'm not surprised. But I am curious ...if that's the case, why are you so negative about Aesop?

godfry

TangTsu

I never said anything regarding Aesop, just that I believed in both angels and talking animals. It was intended as a joke but if you wanted to pick it apart I suppose the difference would be that Aesop never makes the claim to be nonfiction or that his stories ever literally took place. The Bible does make this claim and I would assume that that is why it is under such scrutiny. Regardless, Ive always enjoyed Aesop and wouldnt count myself as negative towards his stories other than I dont belive they actuallly occured... a belief Im fairly certain that Aesop would share.

Back to the questions...

10. None of these passages give any indication of chronological order. For the purpose of proving an inconsistency as to where he appeared first, these passages do not suffice as it is possible that Jesus appeared to the disciples multiple times in both Jerusalem and Galilee. Chronologically its a safe assumption that He appeared first in Jerusalem since after He left Jerusalem he never returned.

11. For choice B I assume you mean Matthew 26:32 instead of Mark. To answer, both choices are correct. In fact, Mark 16:7 includes the phrase 'as He told you' implying that Jesus had already told the women that He would be in Galilee.

12. Choice A & C are similar enough that I will lump them together. As for Jesus not wanting to be touched, this requires a look at the Greek. The Greek term for 'touch' that is used here can mean physical contact but it can also mean a clinging to. In short, Jesus could have been saying 'Dont cling to me, instead go and spread the good news'. We know that Mary was weeping immediately before this so it is not unreasonable to think that she was clinging closely to Him, not so much for physical touch but for emotional support.

13. The only chronological indicator came from Acts. The account in Luke lists Jesus doing a number of things between His resurrection and ascention, as does Mark (if you allow 16:9-20 which answer choice A does but answer choice C does not), however neither of these lists his ascention as being on that same day, they merely fail to mention the passage of time in quantitative terms. So the answer would be that Jesus ascended 40 days after the resurrection.

14. Perhaps I need clarification on the refrences in Acts for this one. Jesus did tell them to recieve the Holy Spirit on the first day of His resurrection. However, in Acts 1:3,9 I saw no mention of the disciples and the Holy Spirit. Verse 5 mentions that they will be baptized in the Holy Spirit 'not many days from now' which was probably referring to Pentacost when 'they were all filled with the Holy Spirit...' in Acts 2:4. On a deeper study of the Holy Spirit we see that this does not contradict itself. The disciples had the Holy Spirit in them the day after the resurrection however on Pentacost the Spirit which was already in them began to work through them in a new way, the speaking of tongues.

Time for more class, Ill finish up later.

God Bless!

aikido7

I believe people make sense of events within a cultural mythology and, except for Mickey Mouse and a few other heart-warming characters, I do not believe in talking animals. In addition, I also do not believe in angels, empty tombs or people getting up to walk around alive after three days dead.

Aside from that disclaimer, we agree: a major function of the gospel accounts were devised to teach and enlighten. Jesus was left behind and a cosmic Christ was fashioned from bits and pieces of a developing tradition and mythology.