King is sailing, they say

Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)

57 Responses to “Famous Last Words”

1. joeyanne Says:
   March 21st, 2007 at 8:44 pm
   
     

   I’m sorry, but I have to completely disagree with you on this one. I believe in an omnipotent God who gave us the Bible as His great communication to us. I believe that every word, (down to every last comma) is inspired by God. So if we cannot understand why God had Matthew, Mark, Luke and John write such varied accounts of the same event, we must go to the Author. I believe that He will show individuals who need to know, the answers to some of these questions. But I also believe that He will not get pulled into some petty “playground arguement” and prove that He really is God. He doesn’t need to - for the simple reason that He IS God! And He has the power to preserve every last detail of His great communication to us. I don’t think studying or questioning these things is wrong; I just think we should turn to God for the answers. After all, as God tells us in Jeremiah, “My ways are higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.” We cannot presume to figure out God or his plans or purposes. But He will give us what we need if we ask. This is my humble opinion.
2. Bob Says:
   March 21st, 2007 at 9:41 pm
   
     

   As a former police officer in the military, one of the first red flags that pop up at any event requiring witnesses is testimony that agrees too closely. The closer two or more witnesses testimonies conform to each other, the more likely there is collusion and possibly a cover up. Witnesses will always disagree on details because of personal perspectives, it is from those details that we put together a time line and a story that puts all known details together to explain what exactly took place. In short, it is these very disagreements in the details that make the whole more believable. Blessings, BC
3. JumpingFromConclusions Says:
   March 21st, 2007 at 9:46 pm
   
     

   HeIsSailing,
   Excellent post here. I too have wondered about this. At my college, the Bible professor I have ignores this problem by using your harmonization by omission (he also taught us that Judas hung himself and his entrails burst out without mentioning two different passages– he taught it as if both things happened in the same account). That just seems so dishonest, though. If all those phrases were said, they all should have been mentioned. The “why hast thou forsaken me” phrase is in multiple gospels, so why wouldn’t the others? (I do not understand that phrase in the situation to begin with, although the theological argument you provided seems as good as any.)

   Also, I have never been able to understand why Luke mentions Jesus forgiving one of the criminals he was crucified with, while Matthew and Mark say he is mocked by those crucified with him. You’d think it would be important enough to note Jesus’ forgiveness in Matthew and Mark too, since they both mentioned him being mocked on the cross by those hung with him. That apparent contradiction has bothered me as long as I can remember hearing it; I think it even bothered me in my childhood.

   Joeyanne said: *I don’t think studying or questioning these things is wrong; I just think we should turn to God for the answers.*
   Joeyanne, I’m curious as to how exactly we go about finding out what God meant. If His word is His communication with us, then how do we go above that to find out what He meant. How else does He relay this knowledge to us?
4. societyvs Says:
   March 21st, 2007 at 9:48 pm
   
     

   1) Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing (Luke 23:34)
   2) Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise. (Luke 23:43)
   3) Woman, behold, your son - Behold, your mother (John 19:26-27)
   4) Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? (My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?) (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34)
   5) I am thirsty (John 19:26)
   6) It is finished (John 19:30)
   7) Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46)

   I have very little problem with the various endings - and again this goes book by book and writer by writer. The other thing that has to be considered is intent of the writer (who is the book directed to?).

   First off, John might actually have been there according to his account…which may make his version extremely reliable. He writes a few sentences - also worth noting - John was written to Hebraic people of his day - thus the need to mention ‘it is finished’ - which lines up with the point of Jesus in his gospel (dieing for the sins of the people). John begins with the ‘word of God’ and ends with ‘it is finished’ - nice way to encapsulate the whole book.

   Luke is an interesting character and is not an actual eyewitness to events - actually him and Paul were ‘chumming around’…he’s a convert who writes on the pre-text of other writers. Luke seems to capture the character/personage of Jesus for a more Gentilian crowd. The focus in the end seems to be forgiveness and acceptance from a Messiah Gentiles knew little about. In these final words he records he does not seem to betray the character if Jesus one bit. Where he got the records from - well - we don’t exactly know (likely from a community of faithful). But if someone is embellishing it might be here.

   Matthew and Mark - one was penned in Hebrew originally (according to a church father after the disciples) and one with the words of Peter (according to another church father) - either way these 2 contain plenty Jewish themes (namely Matthew). They have the same ending which is some words from the Tanakh - sensing Jewish followers would get the meaning - and they are fairly consistent one with another. Something tells me because of this they also might be making a meaning with this - and again Peter is someone close to the legacy…so perhaps these words were said - but the general ‘air’ of that moment dictated the idea either way.

   Either way I think none of the finalities that any of the gospels present really change the story in any drastic way - I mean - Christ is still dying on the cross - suffering - hanging from a tree. The final words are recorded in seperate gospels (again written in various communities) and we have the privelege of having them side by side (so as to compare them). I am not sure the last words myself - nor can I ever be - but those final words change the story in no regards - actually they only add commentary and a finish to what a writer has proposed thus far (a wrapping up of the event).

   I can’t find in a single one of those gospel writer’s final sayings anything that detracts from the gospel message or isn’t consistent with the character of Jesus (namely Luke’s forgiving Christ - which seems the most doubtful). But each one has it’s context within the book of the author. Does this make your faith struggle? If so, join the club of the disciples that wrote those books and weren’t there for the death of Christ.
5. HeIsSailing Says:
   March 22nd, 2007 at 4:13 am
   
     

   Now that I am attracting more readers, I should expect to stir up more hornet nests with each one of these articles. But I am grateful for every commentator here, and thank you for contributing. I am writing these articles because as a Fundamentalist, I was taught certain things that, upon reflection don’t make a lot of sense. I looked to God and the Bible for years to clear up a lot of messes, both intellectual and emotional. It did not always work, in fact it rarely worked at all. I am addressing old issues that have always bothered me head-on, looking for alternative viewpoints, and hopefully I will get closer to God in the process. Writing these articles helps me make some sense of these problems and to not be afraid of alternative ideas.

   joeyanne and Bob, I respect your opinions on this one - after all I had the same opinion not too long ago. Maybe I still do, but I am slowly letting go of it. The Bible never claims inerrancy for itself, so why have we given it that attribute? In order to make the Bible inerrant we have to put contradictions in the text through some really creative and sometimes rediculous contortions to make it inerrant. As a Christian who has read most of the Apologetic material out there, and who has also used those same apologetics while witnessing, I just saw too many holes through my own arguments. I had to stop straining, be honest with myself and admit that maybe there was more to the story than our strict ironclad inerrancy doctrine would let us see.

   If you want a better idea of my reasoning on this, see my article “Harmonization by Omission”.

   *****************
   Hello Bob. I guess it makes sense that if separate testmonies agree too closely, you would find them sounding maybe rehersed and therefore unreliable. But what if the two witnesses contradict? You have to draw the line in coherancy somewhere. Consider this, as a police officer, what would you do if you asked two separate witnesses what the victim’s last words were just before he died.

   Witness A said this: “Father, into you hands I commit my spirit. Having said this, He breathed His last.

   Witness B said this: “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

   From these two testamonies, what would you conclude?

   **************************
   societyvs, I have little problems with the endings either, and you are right, none of them detract from the Gospel story. But then again, the Gospel writers could add any number of things to the text and still keep the Gospel message intact. My point of this whole articles and others like it, is fighting against the whole doctrine of inerracy which Fundamentalists seem to cling to in order to keep the Bible sufficient for all our needs, the perfect plan of God, and all other sources of wisdom irrelevant, and even evil. And maybe they have a point there, because I know that is why I needed the whole inerrancy doctrine. Now that I find holes in it, my Chrisitian beliefs are becoming more… shall we say … liberal?
6. joeyanne Says:
   March 22nd, 2007 at 5:04 am
   
     

   Jumpingfromconclusions, you asked how we go “above” God’s word to find out what He meant. Good question. And my answer may not be as clear as I would like, because it is not a neat little “doctrine”, but comes from personal experience. If God doesn’t communicate with us personally, what is a relationship with Him about? It would be a pretty one-way relationship, if you ask me. I believe that God puts thoughts in my head, (kind of talking to me without using my ears; just right to my brain) - but not giving Divine revelation or adding to the Bible. If we ever think that we are being led by God and it is contrary to the Bible, we are misinterpreting the message. I’ll give you an example of one time when I asked God for an answer. It was about my (now) husband. I was 18 and was interested in this guy at work. But I had never dated anyone before, and I wasn’t sure. I definitely didn’t want to get my heart involved and then find out God had other plans for me, because I knew that once my heart was involved, I would not be strong enough to follow God in another direction. So I put the question to Him. I asked it in many ways: “is this the man i’m going to marry?”, “should i date this guy?”, “is he the one?”. And, looking back, I can see that God answered me almost right away. But I was only 18, and I didn’t have much experience listening to God. I did little other than work, eat, sleep, pray and read my Bible for 6 whole weeks! I was determined that I was not going to move one step further until I was sure. Many times in those weeks I received answers in the affirmative - little ones; like God saying “trust your heart”. God didn’t answer the exact questions I asked - i mean, He didn’t tell me “You will marry this man.” But He did give me peace about him. But I kept worrying that I was only hearing the answer I wanted to hear. Finally, one day while I was reading my Bible, I was impressed by a verse. And I felt sure that God was making it stand out to me as an answer. The verse was “For you shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace, and the mountains and hills will break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands.” Isaiah 55:12. Obviously this isn’t the context of that verse. But I wasn’t looking for a doctrinal answer either. I am certain that God used that verse to communicate with me. I don’t have as much trouble hearing God as I did back then. The more I listen for Him, the more He is right here! And His words are so subtle that I could easily think that it is my thoughts or a coincidence. So I cannot convince you that this is true, but only my experience tells me it is. (I have been happily married to that man for almost 11 years.) So, give it a try; ask God a question. But be willing to wait for His answer.
7. Heather Says:
   March 22nd, 2007 at 7:43 am
   
     

   **I believe that every word, (down to every last comma) is inspired by God.** Actually, I don’t think the Greek texts had grammar — that was left to the interpreters. For instance, the phrase would look like this: ‘godisnowhere.’

   Which can be interpreted as ‘God is now here’ and ‘God is no where.’ Yes, it would be up to the context and such, but it was still determined by interpretors. That, and it was either written in all capitals or all lower-case, so determining something like ‘Word of God’ was also left to the interpretors.

   **If we ever think that we are being led by God and it is contrary to the Bible, we are misinterpreting the message. ** The thing here is that while the Bible may have objective truths, can we as subjective people see the truths objectively? Just look at the Catholics and the Protestants, in terms of Jesus giving Peter the keys to the church. One side is misinterpreting that. Or the stance on baptism. Then there’s the Jewish interpretation, which says that there are a lot of Messianic prophecies that Jesus didn’t fufill, such as being a Davdic descendent on the father’s side. Or interpreting Isiah 7:14 to read either ‘virgin’ or ‘young woman.’

   Plus, looking at slavery or civil rights, a lot of Christians used the Bible to say that freeing slaves went against the Bible. Or women’s rights — a lot said that went against the Bible. Yes, there were Christians that said the Bible was supporting freedom for all. But both were looking at the Bible subjectively.

   **The Bible never claims inerrancy for itself, so why have we given it that attribute? ** I know the answer here is that all scripture is inspired/God-breathed. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the Bible’s inerrent, just that the writers were communicating with God while writing. And who’s to say the writer’s weren’t misinterpreting due to cultural context, such as a woman shouldn’t speak in church.
8. JumpingFromConclusions Says:
   March 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 am
   
     

   **If God doesn’t communicate with us personally, what is a relationship with Him about?**

   It is funny that you should say that. I asked almost an identical question just a few days ago on my blog. I’ve never understood the whole “relationship with God” thing.

   I respect your experience and belief that God communicated with you through those things. I just cannot give your experience higher precedence in my mind than someone who has prayed hard about something and never got/saw results from it.

   Especially on an issue like this, I find it difficult that a lot of subtle responses can answer a question like, “How can all of these passages be harmonized?” I’m not trying to stir you up; I’m just trying to be honest with you.
9. Kim Says:
   March 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 am
   
     

   I would certainly agree that when testimony from several witnesses is almost exactly the same it will be considered very unreliable in a court of law. However, courts will view physical evidence with much higher reliability than any witness testimony. No mater how good some witness testimony may be, there is always a tendency for people to embellish it and alter it based on their own views and perceptions. In any court physical evidence will always trump witness testimony.

   So it may be nice to think that just because the gospel accounts are different it lends credibility to them, but that is just not the case. There are all kinds of room for the gospel writers to embellish and alter things as they see fit and there is no way to know otherwise.

   I might also suggest people investigate the ‘synoptic problem’ where the gospels of Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark. If the gospel authors were truly eyewitnesses, then why would two of the so called witnesses need to plagiarize the account of the first witness? Could they not come up with an origial account of their own? Any court of law would have serous problems with the testimony of these witnesses when they plagiarized each other. This is a well know problem among Biblical scholars and depending where you fall on your Fundy intensity scale you will either ignore this problem or accept that there are some issues with the synoptic gospels.
10. joeyanne Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 11:17 am
    
      

    Ok, I may be over-simplifying a bit, but…. Either you believe that the Bible is inspired by God - IS, not was, or you don’t. That means He gave the words to the writers, preserved the message, gave divine wisdom to the interpreters (even for the grammar), and basically, the Bible we have today is God’s word. If you don’t believe that it is God’s word, then it is just a compilation of a bunch of people’s views of different events. I really don’t care what happened historically regarding interpretation etc. And another thing I really don’t care about is what any organization believes or doesn’t believe. I wouldn’t presume to be able to answer century-old debates between sects. What matters to me is what’s between me and God. And I think that is the real issue. I grew up in, what would be considered, a very legalistic church, but I had parents who thought for themselves, studied God’s word and didn’t act based on “what the church” decided, but based on their own convictions from God - and they taught me to do the same. I guess that’s why I’ve never understood why people care so much about what the “fundamentalists” or whoever believe. That doesn’t mean I don’t give consideration to other people’s ideas; it’s just that I give ultimate consideration to what God says. A lot of Christians have been wrong about a lot of things. Even interpretation of what God means in His word. But I 100% believe that if we really want to know what He is saying, and we are willing to listen to the answer, He will tell us.
    I can’t prove to you that God will answer these questions for you if you ask Him, but He can prove it. People who don’t hear God answer their questions/prayers either already have the answer and don’t like what it is, or do not have a relationship with Jesus because they have never accepted that He paid for their sins, or possibly, they really don’t believe that God will answer them, so they don’t hear His answer.
11. societyvs Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 11:24 am
    
      

    I agree the bible is not ‘inerrant’ or ‘without errors or contradictions’ - I mean the collection of the 29 NT books/letters shows that there most definitely is. Again, I really like something that was said about ‘the intent of the message’ being key to the issue - which I also agree with. I think Matt, Mark, Luke, and John all disagree one with another in places - but that shouldn’t make their intents any different (or the message did not change). Welcome to the liberal world Heissailing - we all get to ask our questions over here (lol).

    “In any court physical evidence will always trump witness testimony.” (Kim)

    I agree, Have they found the bones of Jesus yet? - can someone say ‘touche’? (lol) What’s even more funny there is over 50,000 manuscripts of these 29 books and letters - and oddly enough they match up quite succinctly with one another - as someone pointed out there is some errors but the majority of the greek interpretation errors consisted of reading context (usually a word or two side by side) and additions via added commentary (which again does not change the story - examples in John 8 and Mark 16). But those additions are noted as not being in the oldest manuscripts. I would say of we go by evidence - the handfuls of manuscripts from an era that shouldn’t have so much evidence speaks a little loud (thus we can compare these manuscripts).

    “There are all kinds of room for the gospel writers to embellish and alter things as they see fit and there is no way to know otherwise.” (Kim)

    Uhm, yeah there is a way (actually a few ways). Some of the early church folks knew the disciples first-hand (or witnesses of the disciples) and they relate some of these ideas via letters (as to consistency of a what gospel ideas were in circulation - there was even councils on the idea based on some of this) - however this is a painstaking endeavor and takes forever to study - but it’s worth the study. Secondly, the manuscripts are still around and can be compared - and are - by teams of people that try to keep the consistency of the texts in tact from those 50,000 manuscripts (and to be honest, I can’t see them lying in a team of people - accountability). Can we be sure we have the most honest form of this NT that we have - I think so but this is for each of us to study and determine.

    “I might also suggest people investigate the ‘synoptic problem’ where the gospels of Matthew and Luke plagiarized Mark.” (Kim)

    I am going to take a wild guess this is based on the ‘Q’ idea (a ‘Q’ manuscript that does not actually exist except in theory - so in some sense this is a hypothesis being tested). There are actual stories from the disciples of the disciples that claim Matthew pre-dated them all (and was originally written in Hebrew)…however this is for some reason not credible (again no manuscript but we do have verifiiable witnesses). Mark being the shortest had to be first (as some of the reasoning goes). I am wondering one simple thing if the ‘plagarizing’ is true - when did the ‘Q’ idea come about and was it prominent amongst early church peoples (as a credible story)? I mean theories are theories and they are subject to crticism. Just weighing on with a few of the obvious questions.
12. Kim Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 12:28 pm
    
      

    societyvs,

    Why wouldn’t all these 50,000 manuscripts agree with each other? They are copies of copies with only some mistakes made through copying. However, we do not have the originals and that is what is at issue here.

    The ‘Q’ idea is only one part of the synoptic problem and it does not even relate to the gospel of Mark. The basic concept of the synoptic problem is that word for word you will find 91% of Mark’s content in Matthew and 53% of Mark is found in Luke. Where ‘Q’ comes enters the picture is where content in Matthew and Luke both agree with each other but is not found in Mark. The idea is that both Matthew and Luke used a common document that theorist call ‘Q’. There has been much written about the synoptic problem and I will not try to rehash things here. If anybody wants to take a look go take a look at the following links:

    http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

    I agree the synoptic problem is just a theory, but they raise serious issues about the authorship of the gospels that just cannot be swept under the carpet.

    IMHO, if I were a witness to the life of the son of God, I am not going to plagiarize someone else’s account (even another witness) when I write about it. I would have been so inspired by what I saw and experienced that I will want to write an account entirely of my own making. I would be loath to use include someone else’s story in my account. The issues raised by the synoptic problem indicate to me that the synoptic gospels in no way could have been written by eyewitness. You can agree or disagree, but that is my view!

    “Uhm, yeah there is a way (actually a few ways). Some of the early church folks knew the disciples first-hand (or witnesses of the disciples) and they relate some of these ideas via letters (as to consistency of a what gospel ideas were in circulation”

    I disagree with you on this one and I think there is plenty of room for the story to be embellished. I will mention the apostle Paul. Biblical scholars believe he wrote his account before the gospels were written, but strangely he does not write about such important concepts such the virgin birth or describe most( if not all) of his miracles. The point is that the story got embellished from the time of Paul’s writings to the writing of the gospels. Of course we can harmonize things and pretend there is not a problem. As for comparing what was written by non biblical sources, sure we can do this but anything that is written was done so quite a while after these initial accounts were laid down. Good discussion, but unfortunately I am out of time to elaborate further and I will have to leave my last point as it stands,
13. JumpingFromConclusions Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 1:25 pm
    
      

    **I can’t prove to you that God will answer these questions for you if you ask Him, but He can prove it.**

    He has the ability, so why would He not answer?

    **But I 100% believe that if we really want to know what He is saying, and we are willing to listen to the answer, He will tell us.**

    I haven’t really prayed about this in particular, but I have prayed about things and have been willing to listen to His answer. I’ve never received an answer that I knew should be attributed to God.

    **People who don’t hear God answer their questions/prayers either already have the answer and don’t like what it is, or do not have a relationship with Jesus because they have never accepted that He paid for their sins, or possibly, they really don’t believe that God will answer them, so they don’t hear His answer.**

    I grew up as a believer, and nearly seven years ago was the time I said a certain prayer and at that point I believed I was definitely saved. So, if that is what you mean by “relationship with Jesus,” I’ve had it for nearly seven years. I’d really like to see your definition of “relationship” or ‘personal relationship.’

    Also, I’m sorry, but I cannot accept your phrasing on the next part– that many people have “never accepted that He paid for their sins.” Do you honestly believe this? I don’t know of anyone (with possibly a select few exceptions) that would reject forgiveness and salvation if they were faced with a clear choice. If anyone is confronted with the clear choice of ‘forgiveness and salvation’ vs. ‘condemnation and damnation,’ it is pretty obvious what almost everyone, if not everyone, would choose. I mean, it’s like a free gift, no reprecussions! If it was that obvious of a choice, almost everyone would be a Christian.

    I can see, if based biblically, God not answering someone who doesn’t believe they will get an answer. But someone not hearing His answer, I’m not sure I understand. For example: If you didn’t believe I would type a comment here, that doesn’t mean you can’t see it now that I did. Belief in something doesn’t make it true or false. So (to me) it seems that if God answers us, we would be able to hear it whether we expected it or not.

    By the way, I am trying to follow Matthew 7:7 (ask–> receive, seek–> find, knock–> opened to you) in my faith journey right now. I am definitely struggling though.
14. Heather Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 1:42 pm
    
      

    **I really don’t care what happened historically regarding interpretation etc. And another thing I really don’t care about is what any organization believes or doesn’t believe.** I may be misunderstanding you, but if you don’t care what happened historically regarding interpretation, then what are you basing your interpretion on? Today’s cultueral context? Because you’re speaking of a book that was written by people who believed the Earth was flat, that Heaven was literally above them and Hell literally below.

    And if you don’t take historical context into consideration, how are you sure God’s speaking to you correctly? For instance, the translation of hell — that is two words. Sheol/Hades and Gehenna, yet the translators combined them into one word, even though they don’t carry the same meaning in the original language. Since Hades/Sheol has a meaning of ‘pit, grave, underworld,’ and we know that there is no underworld, then what does that leave us when it’s used in the OT? Or Gehanna, and learning that it’s dervied from The Valley of Hinnom, where there literally was a worm and fire not quenched. That calls into question of whether Jesus meant a literal hell.

    **People who don’t hear God answer their questions/prayers either already have the answer and don’t like what it is, or do not have a relationship with Jesus because they have never accepted that He paid for their sins, or possibly, they really don’t believe that God will answer them, so they don’t hear His answer** What about the people who were losing their faith, and depressed/terrified, pleaded with God to give them an answer or restore their faith? And the answer turned out to be no? You’re dismissing a lot of people with that statement.
15. HeIsSailing Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 3:50 pm
    
      

    joeyanne sez:
    “So I put the question to Him. I asked it in many ways: “is this the man i’m going to marry?”, “should i date this guy?”, “is he the one?”. And, looking back, I can see that God answered me almost right away. But I was only 18, and I didn’t have much experience listening to God. I did little other than work, eat, sleep, pray and read my Bible for 6 whole weeks!”

    joeyanne, it is good that you spent so much time and effort meditating on a major decision. I also meditated long and hard before asking my wife to marry me. I have found many inspiring things and learned much from reading the Bible over the years. Was that from God? Why not? I have also found great wisdom and edification from any number of things over the years, from listening to my wise parents to remarkable literature, to an uplifting and inspiring musical score. Just last night the lyrics of a song spoke directly to me, and it was revealatory. Is all that from God? Why not? Either that or it was always deep within my own psyche to begin with, and that inspiration sort of dredged it out and made me realize it. Could it be that way with the Bible also? Is it possible that God can work that way - through whatever he wishes and not just this Bible that has been deemed as an infallable tome by humans? Right now I don’t know, but I don’t see why not.

    joeyanne sez:
    “But I 100% believe that if we really want to know what He is saying, and we are willing to listen to the answer, He will tell us.”

    Yes, I believe the same thing, joeyanne. My wife and I, and I am certain my old friends from church are all praying that I find God. Does God answer those prayers? Is it his will that I find who he is? Of course it is, if I am honest with myself and with him. And I have been, even though it means drifting away from the notion of an infallable Bible and my traditional view of Christianity.

    And you know what? I still think my prayers are being answered.
16. Bobo Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
    
      

    Witness A said this: “Father, into you hands I commit my spirit. Having said this, He breathed His last.

    Witness B said this: “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

    From these two testamonies, what would you conclude?

    A good question. For 9 years I did physical security at a national sporting event. In one corner you had drunken revelers listening to the latest heavy metal bar band wannabes. In another corner you had high society sipping champagne, noshing on caviar and judging horse pedigrees. Elsewhere there were cigar chomping bookies, John and Jane Q. Public with their 2.5 kids, stoners, drag queens, Goths, flamers, etc…a regular Lou Reed song in the making.

    Now, pick out any four…twelve…one hundred that stayed through the whole event and ask them what was the last thing the sports announcer—the one guy everyone listened for and heard—said.

    It wasn’t much different at a Roman public execution. Raging Pharisees, mocking crowds, gambling soldiers, weeping women, blood and gore…in the end, with all the distractions, they’re still giving an honest personal testimony that does not necessarily contradict the whole. It only reveals the individual perspectives of the writers that, when properly assembled, makes for a coherent, believable story.

    Blessings, BC
17. joeyanne Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 7:12 pm
    
      

    Yes, Jumpingfromconclusions, I do believe that many people have never accepted that Jesus paid for their sins. Not because they choose Hell, but because they do not agree with God on one or more of many points. Firstly, to accept that Jesus paid for my sins, I must first accept that I am a sinner - that there even is such a thing as sin. Secondly, I must accept that He is a just God, that I do not deserve to go to heaven and that I can never earn my way there. Then there is the whole issue of Jesus being God’s Son, which is the only way He could have paid the price for my sin - some people just do not beleive this; they think He was a great prophet. There are many, many reasons why people who would choose heaven, do not put their trust in Jesus. And it is not just a beleif about God, or in the story of Jesus. Accepting Him as the sacrifice for my sin is belief in Him, essentially, faith. Christianity is not “belonging to a church” or believing that the stories in the Bible happened.

    I also wanted to say that the Bible is not just a book that was written many years ago. It is living. (that does not mean you can hear your Bible breathing :)) What that means is the God who put words into men’s minds and had them put them on paper is as involved in the Bible today as He was when it was being written. No, I do not presume to know all the doctrinal answers that people get all wrapped up in. But what I do know is that the Bible is relevant to me today, just as it is. And the God who wrote it wants me to know Him, not solve Biblical mysteries. If I am searching for things to question and quibble about, I will find lots of them in the Bible. But if I am searching for God, I will find Him - in the Bible, in creation, in myself (not meaning that I am God, but that I am created in His image, and He put a desire to know Him right in me when He created me.) The question behind all the questions is “can I put my trust in the Bible, in God?” The answer is not found in picking it apart, piece by piece. If you cannot trust the validity of the Bible, start with what you do trust. The beauty of the sunrise, the vastness of the starry sky at night, and from those, a deep, undeniable knowledge within your soul that there is a God. It doesn’t so much matter whether you agree with the Catholics or the Baptists or the Pentecostals about the fine details - just start with what you do know.
18. HeIsSailing Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 8:11 pm
    
      

    Bobo sez:
    “It only reveals the individual perspectives of the writers that, when properly assembled, makes for a coherent, believable story.”

    I’d buy that for a dollar. Seems reasonable enough to me. Then these testamonies get embellished over time, and witnesses do the best they can. My explanation seems reasonable enough too. I think strict Fundamentalists don’t like these explanations though because God is kind of left out of the picture, or at least working very passively.

    **********************
    joeyanne sez:
    “The answer is not found in picking it apart, piece by piece. If you cannot trust the validity of the Bible, start with what you do trust. The beauty of the sunrise, the vastness of the starry sky at night, and from those, a deep, undeniable knowledge within your soul that there is a God.”

    I think these are very wise words, joeyanne. One purpose in the articles that I have written which show Biblical contradictions is to show the fallacy of struggling to piece them together so as to make the Bible something I don’t think it is. I am speaking for myself here - I had all kinds of crazy arguments to rid the Bible of contradictions, all the while knowing that those arguments were laughable! But I believed I had to because I was afraid to make the Bible fallable, to allow it to contradict in places, to allow it to be human in places. Enough! I agree with you, God is not found by tearing these things apart, trying to repair the troublesome stuff, or trying to convince myself that I can hold a house together with glue. I never find God like that. I get more Divine Revelation out of, like you say, “the beauty of the sunrise”, or “the vastness of the starry sky at night”.

    joeyanne, I am writing these articles, not to convince anyone who happens to read of anything, but more as messages to myself, a way for me to sort these old beliefs out and decide what to do with them. And if anyone who happens to read is helped along the way, well then that is a bonus!
19. joeyanne Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 8:38 pm
    
      

    Thank you, Heissailing. I have been helped along the way. Not because I have changed my mind on anything, necessarily, but because your questions have caused me to think about important things (not just how good the newest laundry detergent is - I’m a mom of 3). I tend to become stalled in my searching for God because I don’t always ask the questions. Thanks for letting me explore and grow because of your posts.
20. Jim Jordan Says:
    March 22nd, 2007 at 10:05 pm
    
      

    Quite a dialog again, HeIsSailing. You’re good!

    There is one perspective that I have not seen in the previous comments that may be pertinent. Jesus cries out to God, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” This is a rather clear statement, however, it is something much more also. It’s the first verse of Psalm 22, written 1000 years before by David. Here are some excerpts from that Psalm:

    Verses 6-8: But I am a worm and not a man,
    scorned by men and despised by the people.

    7 All who see me mock me;
    they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

    8 “He trusts in the LORD;
    let the LORD rescue him.
    Let him deliver him,
    since he delights in him.” (see Matthew 27:40-42)

    verses 14-18
    I am poured out like water,
    and all my bones are out of joint.
    My heart has turned to wax;
    it has melted away within me.

    15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
    and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
    you lay me in the dust of death.

    16 Dogs have surrounded me;
    a band of evil men has encircled me,
    they have pierced my hands and my feet.

    17 I can count all my bones;
    people stare and gloat over me.

    18 They divide my garments among them
    and cast lots for my clothing.

    verses 24-27
    For he has not despised or disdained
    the suffering of the afflicted one;
    he has not hidden his face from him
    but has listened to his cry for help.

    25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
    before those who fear you will I fulfill my vows.

    26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
    they who seek the LORD will praise him—
    may your hearts live forever!

    27 All the ends of the earth
    will remember and turn to the LORD,
    and all the families of the nations
    will bow down before him,

    This is how Psalm 22 ends:
    30 Posterity will serve him;
    future generations will be told about the Lord.

    31 They will proclaim his righteousness
    to a people yet unborn—
    for he has done it. ["It is finished"?]

    A thousand years after this was written, it describes the scene very well. It is quite impossible, but that’s the point. When something happens that is impossible God is usually the culprit. In this case, Christ inspired David to write those words a thousand years before He became flesh.

    God’s revelation to man is called the Word, but it is much more complex than that. The Word is God’s meaning, God’s intent for humanity. I think we stumble when we say “Oh, that couldn’t be! That’s obviously contradictory, etc.” That seems anything but a show of humility, even a little arrogant.
    Obviously, Sailing, if you become “comfortable” with the idea that the Bible is flawed you will have begun to stop seeking Him.
21. HeIsSailing Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 4:55 am
    
      

    Jim Jordan sez:
    “A thousand years after this was written, it describes the scene very well. It is quite impossible, but that’s the point.”

    Messianic Prophecy was something that I held a lot of faith in. I felt some of them absolutely proved that The Bible has divine authority. And Psalm 22 was a biggie. I no longer hold that view. I have not brought up that topic in this website, I at some point will talk about it, but in the meantime here is a teaser for my view on most Messianic Prophecy. Think plagerism.
22. JumpingFromConclusions Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 6:56 am
    
      

    Jim Jordan: **for he has done it. [”It is finished”?]**
    I don’t understand why “it is finished” should be associated with this passage. If you hadn’t written that right beside the actual verse, I do not think many people would associate the two phrases.

    Jim Jordan: **That seems anything but a show of humility, even a little arrogant.
    Obviously, Sailing, if you become “comfortable” with the idea that the Bible is flawed you will have begun to stop seeking Him.**

    Jim, I think if you look at HeIsSailing’s posts here objectively, you will realize he is trying to be honest with himself. He does not come off as “arrogant,” and I think he shows humility– he doesn’t claim to have all the answers.

    Also, if you read his other posts, it will become obvious that he has not stopped seeking God; I think one of his other posts mentioned that he is trying to grow closer to God.

    Jim, you strike me as someone who is quick to find a speck in someone else’s eye. You also come across as someone who ‘has all the answers.’

    I respect your opinions about the Bible; I just don’t feel you should act like your interpretations and beliefs are definitely the right ones.
23. Heather Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 7:46 am
    
      

    **And Psalm 22 was a biggie.**

    Oh, yes. Heissailing, I think I have an excellent idea in what you’re referring to regarding this. Sobering, isn’t it.

    Plus, the Psalms weren’t written to be prophecies. It seems that half of the OT verses used in the NT to prove the Messiah are distorted from their actual context.

    **Obviously, Sailing, if you become “comfortable” with the idea that the Bible is flawed you will have begun to stop seeking Him. ** Is there any place in the Bible that directly says if something contradicts the Bible, it’s not from God? Because when the Bible refers to the Logos, it’s referring to Christ, not to Scripture. Paul, the Apostles, the converts during those first 200 years — when referring to the Word, they were having a direct interaction with God. When did people start saying that one can only interact with God through the Bible? The Pharisees sought out God in words as well, which was the Torah and the Old Testament. And that blinded them to the living example of Jesus, because they were too focused on the written word, and said that Jesus contradicted the written word from God.
24. Heather Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 8:00 am
    
      

    **Is there any place in the Bible that directly says if something contradicts the Bible, it’s not from God? ** I’m going to kind of answer my own question here, which occured to me three seconds after posting. Go figure. Yes, there are a lot of mentions of Paul saying beware those that each the false Gospel. And so one could say that if a statement contradicts the Bible, then it’s a false Gospel, so yes, the Bible says that if something contradicts it, then it’s not from God.

    So the question should be more phrased towards does the Bible say if something contradicts the written word. Because I don’t think Paul wrote his letters with the understanding that they’d play such an importance 2,000 years down the line. Each letter was written to a specific concern/occurance at that church, not at Christians as a whole. And in Timothy saying all scripture is given by God, is it referring to the New Testament as well, or just the Old? Because there was no NT at that time, and I’m of the belief that Timothy wasn’t written by Paul.
25. Jim Jordan Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
    
      

    Hi folks,
    I do not claim to have all the answers either. Don’t put words in my mouth, por favor. My complaint was specifically with this quote from the original post:

    “So is the Bible the inerrant, wholly inspired word of God? I think not. And I am getting more comfortable with that idea.”

    The question is who has the “case closed” mentality here? “I don’t think so” is not an argument, particularly when it leads to a conclusion that is far less ambiguous than mine.
26. societyvs Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
    
      

    “I agree the synoptic problem is just a theory, but they raise serious issues about the authorship of the gospels that just cannot be swept under the carpet” (Kim)

    I agree Kim I find the work done quite interesting but your wrong about it being ‘a’ theory - actually within 1 theory there is 4 alternatives - then there are 4 other theories (or more) - according to the links. So your guess is as good as the next guy’s about which of the theories to actually believe (if any) - and they didn’t even arise until the 1860’s (not found in early church history whatsoever as a problem).

    “The basic concept of the synoptic problem is that word for word you will find 91% of Mark’s content in Matthew and 53% of Mark is found in Luke.” (Kim)

    As for authorship, what does the statistics actually prove? They are very similar that’s for sure. But if they were ‘copying’ as the theory thus proports why didn’t Luke or Matthew just use Mark and not write a single iota (I mean as for need to write another - well there seems to be no reason whatsoever to do so - since they have a gospel already in their hands - ready for distribution).

    Or one could also hypothesize a few other things also. Maybe Mark is a short copy of Matthew for quick use - made under rushed circumstances (after all Jerusalam was under siege in AD 70). Maybe Luke used Mark’s account plus other eyewitnesses to the event to construct a more larger picture for the Gentile crowd.

    Fact is both Mark and Luke travelled with Luke (as is seen in Paul’s letters and within Acts) - maybe they saw the need to spread the ‘good news’ to others within the larger Roman territory - Mark as a rushed job by Peter and Mark (in collobaration) makes sense since Peter was headed to Rome (likely to be tried and crucified) - and Mark and Peter might see the reason to bring a ‘writing’ with them.

    Also the funny thing is Luke and Paul’s version of the ‘last supper’ are exact one with another since they both only include ‘in rememberance’ as part of the Last Supper - was Luke already written when Paul spoke with the Corinthians or was in the process? There is some great reasons to believe the disciples were writing these things already and Paul seems to refer to a lot of the ideas from the gospels (contrary to what some historians might think - example is the word ‘gospel’ in many letters; even mentions ‘bring the parchments’ in one of his letters). So if Paul is keeping a track of his stuff - wouldn’t it make logical sense the others might be also - mainly for distribution purposes. We have letters from James, John, and Peter - proof they were writing in some regards to the churches in the Roman regions.

    I think the synoptic problem is only a problem we have created and we disregard a community of early believers that testify (again a community that holds ‘lying’ as a sin) to the disciples writing these things. They never say Peter/Mark never copied - but that he actually wrote and verified the account as ‘true’. Matthew is also said to be the written in Hebrew first - attested to by a disciple of the disciples (who have no reason to lie). I guess the real question is ‘did the early church disciples lie’? If not, why then are they not credible and never throw out theories about a ‘Q’ or common manuscript they all copied? Even if they did copy - they are eyewitnesses and approve what is written in the first gospel anyways - whether that’s Mark, Matthew, or Luke. No contention arose because of these writings. John could of very easily condemned them outright as falsities — since he lived quite long after they all died.

    Even Eusebius makes a church history in 324 AD - an account of what has transpired up to that point - and he testifies to the validity of the writers and never mentions a ‘Q’ document. I mean this is someone making an honest report of what he had available to him in his day - only 200 years after all the apostles are dead. But again this takes a lot of time to go back that far and see what these early church folks actually thought about the manuscripts - and he isn’t alone. Iraneus, Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius and others also verify a lot of these writings -within their own writings. But I suppose they could all be ‘lying’ also. Maybe someone in 1860 has the right theory - it is a bit removed from the event but I guess there could be more ‘enlightenment’ in them (but if I have to be a betting man on this thing - I am gonna with early ideas less removed from the actual events of the day).

    But these are questions any ardent student should check into - if only for sake of the whole picture.
27. Heather Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
    
      

    **and they didn’t even arise until the 1860’s (not found in early church history whatsoever as a problem). ** You could argue, though, that for most of history, people were illiterate and thus couldn’t read the Bible. The Church told them what they needed to know. And textual criticism of the Bible seems to correspond with scientific discoveries. Until that time, it wouldn’t have occured to most to question what the Bible says. That, and something can be true without being literally true. One argument used for John not being factual is that it was written as how the church viewed Jesus — the light of the world, the bread of life.

    ** But if they were ‘copying’ as the theory thus proports why didn’t Luke or Matthew just use Mark and not write a single iota ** One possible answer is what type of community the gospel was addressed to. Matthew was more Jewish oriented, while Luke was more Gentile.

    **example is the word ‘gospel’ in many letters** But doesn’t gospel literally mean ‘good news?’ As in, it isn’t necessarily a reference to the Gospels themselves.

    **I guess the real question is ‘did the early church disciples lie’? If not, why then are they not credible and never throw out theories about a ‘Q’ or common manuscript they all copied?** The thing is, in those times, plagerism wasn’t considered what it is today. In those times, a lot of people didn’t consider it lying to write something and then put a well-known person’s name on it.
28. societyvs Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 3:23 pm
    
      

    “Until that time, it wouldn’t have occured to most to question what the Bible says.” (Heather)

    In the earliest times (and even within Paul’s letters and Acts) the question about what the faith says has been an issue. Marcion and others tried to formulate ideas (and writings) that early church people outright denounce as falsities. The church held various councils (around 3 or more) to discuss biblical validity in the 300’s and on. I would say the question has always existed and church history shows this.

    “But doesn’t gospel literally mean ‘good news?’ As in, it isn’t necessarily a reference to the Gospels themselves.” (Heather)

    I would tend to agree if the context wasn’t considered - Paul seems to make such comparisons of his personal ‘gospel’ vs. the ‘gospels’ of others (or the teachings) - mostly those other ‘gospels’ included ideas about Jewish ideas about circumcision. Those gospels are mainly ’spoken word’ and ‘teachings’ - but he is using the word (noun) as it used by us this day - ie: the gospel of Matthew. Which I find quite interesting - just funny that these other books of the NT would be called and outlined as ‘gospels’ (identical usage of the noun ‘gospel’).

    I am not saying there is any concrete answers and mine are as much a theory as the next persons - but I have considered both sides and if the ‘Q’ one is right then I am more than willing to concede any point I have made - since I am human - and prone to err. But I am not looking at anything without considering all the facts (history, archealogy, hypothesis, and testimonies) - and I would even further contend what do ‘Q’ people do with some of the early church people’s testimonies - about these gospels existing from the actual apostles themselves? I am not saying plagarism didn;t exist in that day (authorship and questionability) - it did - but these 4 gospels are chosen as texts for the NT in the councils based on some of that ‘testimony’.
29. Heather Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 3:38 pm
    
      

    Societyvs,

    **I would say the question has always existed and church history shows this. ** Very true, and I wasn’t clear on how I phrased that. Sorry. I was speaking of quetioning whether the Bible is literally true, such as the authorship into account, whether something ‘literally’ happened. After all, look at the story of Adam and Eve. Evolution has caused a lot of people to take that myth/allegory. Or the ‘Q’ theory, which arose because a lot more people have access to the oldest texts compared to the times prior to the 1860s. I was also thinking more of the times after Constantine made it an official state religion — for a very long time after that, the common person got their information directly from the Catholic Church. They couldn’t read the Bible on their own, and so there was only one way to interpret it, and if you didn’t interpret it that way, you were killed.

    **and I would even further contend what do ‘Q’ people do with some of the early church people’s testimonies - about these gospels existing from the actual apostles themselves?** That, I’m unable to answer for you. However, in my readings, if I come across an answer, I’ll share — and it will no doubt be in a random comment in no way related to the topic at hand.
30. JumpingFromConclusions Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 9:30 pm
    
      

    **The question is who has the “case closed” mentality here? “I don’t think so” is not an argument, particularly when it leads to a conclusion that is far less ambiguous than mine.**

    1. I think it is obvious who has the “case closed” mentality here. HeIsSailing obviously doesn’t.

    2. Why does HeIsSailing have to come to an unambiguous conclusion? Ambiguity does not determine a lack of truth. Look at the Bible– it is very ambiguous at many points. There are many, many different interpretations of it. But that doesn’t make the Bible untrue, does it?

    3. “I don’t think so” is valid if reasons are given as to why that belief is held. HeIsSailing has done that here. He gave reasons why he doesn’t think the Bible is necessarily inerrant.
31. Jim Jordan Says:
    March 23rd, 2007 at 9:51 pm
    
      

    He gave reasons why he doesn’t think the Bible is necessarily inerrant.

    What reasons were they? I don’t believe certain things my local newspaper says, but I can state why and where they spin the news. Where did the apostles spin the gospel and how can you be sure they did? Please copy and paste whatever it was I missed.

    I think it is obvious who has the “case closed” mentality here. HeIsSailing obviously doesn’t.

    How cute, it must be me. It’s “pin the tail on the fundamentalist” and I’ve lost again!

    But if I am to believe what I am reading, the conclusion has been made, or dare I say “jumped to”, that the gospel was revised to fit the Messianic prophecies.

    Did the apostles alter the truth? If so, how? I know nothing. Please illumine me. Thanks…
32. societyvs Says:
    March 24th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
    
      

    I am the 32nd comment on this blog - I think HeisSailing has officially made this as a ‘place to be’ (hee haw!!!). I think there is reason for some celebration in that - your bringing together some of the minds from within the faith for discussion - dare I say ‘council’? Either way, I love it.
33. HeIsSailing Says:
    March 24th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
    
      

    33
    SocietyVs, are you old enough to remember that old Steve Allen PBS show called “Meeting of Minds”? If not, look it up on Wikipedia or something. It was the coolest concept for a show, and the idea of that, a civil chat amongst wildly differing viewpoints, I still think should be emulated. Too bad that show never really took off.

    But that kind of sharing of ideas is what I am lookng for here - these are real, and sometimes delicate issues with people - this may be Al Gore’s internet, but we are all real people behind these keyboards just trying our best to figure out what these crazy beliefs are all about.
34. JumpingFromConclusions Says:
    March 24th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
    
      

    **What reasons were they?**

    He gives his reasoning throughout his entire blog post.

    **How cute, it must be me. It’s “pin the tail on the fundamentalist” and I’ve lost again!**

    I don’t know where this is coming from– I have not used the term “fundamentalist” this entire string of comments. I did not deride Fundamentalists at all.

    **But if I am to believe what I am reading, the conclusion has been made, or dare I say “jumped to”, that the gospel was revised to fit the Messianic prophecies.**

    HeIsSailing is thinking along those lines now– that doesn’t mean he just jumped to that conclusion out of nowhere. He said himself that he hasn’t made it a topic on here (yet). Just because he hasn’t written about it at length yet doesn’t mean he just made up his mind that way one day.

    **Did the apostles alter the truth?**

    I don’t know!! I wish I did, though! Anyway, I don’t know if the apostles altered the truth. I also don’t know if we CAN know if they altered the truth. But to look at the issue objectively, one cannot just dismiss the idea that they may have. Just like we can’t dismiss the idea that they kept a straight story.
35. marie Says:
    March 26th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
    
      

    WOW–this is the best read in a long time!! I am at the public library and I keep being like “oh!” “interesting!” “good one!” “huh” etc. out loud. Anyway, I have a couple comments and questions…

    1. if we are going to say that the bible has errors but at least the intent is the same…WHY couldnt and didnt God make a perfect Bible? If it is going to be this complicated with this many loopholes, and he is the creator of the whole earth—why couldnt he just make a text that is clearly inerrant and SAY it is his word? if he “inspires” us all, then why didnt he “inspire” all the Bible’s authors to the same exact accounts–or at least perfectly complementary accounts–why didnt he have the scribes and copiers never make mistakes? I mean, if our whole existence is in HIS best interest, why wouldnt he do this as well??

    ALSO–I think that some people are forgetting that this is a blog. HeisSailing is not publishing a book and making millions of dollars off of this–he is posting on a blog. I wont speak for him, but a blog to me is where you put your thoughts and musings and others can kick them around with you. Who cares if his conclusions are right, wrong, ambiguous, whatever–essentially this is his house that we were invited in, so we dont have to trash him for being honest.

    I am really excited about all the new people on here too–what can we be if we cant just be honest about what we think. I am agnostic and some are christian and some are “fundamentalist”, etc.–who cares?! we can all ask these questions together as humans.

    i would post more, but i kind of forgot what I read with all these comments–such interesting stuff though. I really look forward to reading your future post about Messianic Prophecy

    …marie…
36. Heather Says:
    March 26th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
    
      

    **WHY couldnt and didnt God make a perfect Bible? If it is going to be this complicated with this many loopholes, and he is the creator of the whole earth—why couldnt he just make a text that is clearly inerrant and SAY it is his word?**

    This is what I’m wondering — if someone read the Bible as though it were a regular history text, would that person conclude that the Bible had no errors/contradictions/inconsistencies? Would they conclude that it’s an accurate historical text when comparing it with other historical texts?
37. HeIsSailing Says:
    March 26th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
    
      

    Heather n’ Marie both sayeth:
    “**WHY couldnt and didnt God make a perfect Bible? If it is going to be this complicated with this many loopholes, and he is the creator of the whole earth—why couldnt he just make a text that is clearly inerrant and SAY it is his word?**

    This is what I’m wondering — if someone read the Bible as though it were a regular history text, would that person conclude that the Bible had no errors/contradictions/inconsistencies? Would they conclude that it’s an accurate historical text when comparing it with other historical texts? ”

    I am pretty convinced that people cannot read the Bible with a clean slate, and come out of it believing what a Baptist believes. Everyone interprets the Bible with the filter of their particular church creed or Bible teacher’s interpretation.

    I have noticed that a lot of people who comment here who acknowledge what Marie says, “if we are going to say that the bible has errors but at least the intent is the same”. But what if the Bible’s INTENT contradicts, is incoherant or makes no sense? Consider the resurrection accounts of Jesus. This is perhaps the most crucial story in the Bible, the foundation of our Christian faith, and I would expect God to keep all these stories straight - compare the resurrection stories though - they are a jumbled mess and I see no way of harmonizing them. What are we to make of THAT intent?
38. marie Says:
    March 27th, 2007 at 1:33 am
    
      

    “This is what I’m wondering — if someone read the Bible as though it were a regular history text, would that person conclude that the Bible had no errors/contradictions/inconsistencies? Would they conclude that it’s an accurate historical text when comparing it with other historical texts?”

    I think they might–but if one reads it as a history text written by several authors, then the differences wouldn’t be that significant–or at least the small discrepencies. The issue here is that the text is supposed to be one thing–the Word of God–so it has one original author. If the Bible was written as a historical document by one person, then they probably would see it as inconsistent.

    and to HeisSailing–very interesting about intent. Since God has always existed and is supposed to be the only constant, then it would seem that his Word, teaching–intent would have to be constant and perfect as well…so how did it get so messed up and unclear? Human error–humans aren’t perfect, etc…but why would he settle for an imperfect text when it is the best chance or one of the best chances he has at communicating with humans? i still dont know.
39. joeyanne Says:
    March 27th, 2007 at 5:25 am
    
      

    This line of thinking brings to mind something that I struggled with, even while I was still quite young. It is with regard to something Jesus says to His disciples after He tells the parable of the sower. In Luke 8:9, His disciples ask what the parable is - they don’t understand. Jesus says, “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God; but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.”
    I always questioned - Why did Jesus say this? Why doesn’t He want us to understand? Doesn’t He want a relationship with me? Why didn’t He speak clearly so that I could never doubt His meaning? And this is the answer that God gave to my young mind. (God, not my parents or church teachers, because I never asked them…I didn’t want anyone to think I was questioning God - I was young and didn’t realize the value in questioning God) “I am God. Of course, I can make these things perfectly clear. And of course I want a relationship with you. But, because I am God, if I had said things as clearly as is possible, people would have no choice but to choose Me, and I want them to have choice. I am available to those who would search for Me, but I do not take away the choice of those who would choose not to search.” Basically, I believe that finding God goes beyond intellect. That is not to say that He is not reasonable or intellectual. The “scientific” answers are there for those who need them and search for them, but we cannot just “figure God out”. This is the reason I have problems with books proving God - my answers can never be your answers, and putting them on paper actually cheapens them. A book proving God is like saying, “God, you didn’t do a very good job of proving that You are real, so I’m going to write one and help You out. This will prove you really exist!” Finding God is a very personal thing. Jesus could have come to earth in all the Glory and Splendor of Heaven. Who could question He was God then? But He didn’t because those are not the kind of followers He was looking for. I am not saying that the Bible does not stand up to reason. I believe it does. But I think this is the reason for it’s hidden meanings - why it is not clearer and “perfect” in our eyes. For then, everyone would have to believe, not only those who really chose to search for God. I am not saying this to prove that the Bible is “inerrant” or that you should just believe it. I think questions are good and we are all on our own personal journey in finding God.
40. Heather Says:
    March 27th, 2007 at 7:02 am
    
      

    ** But, because I am God, if I had said things as clearly as is possible, people would have no choice but to choose Me, and I want them to have choice.** The difficulty there is that this doesn’t always match up in the Bible. God ‘foreknows’ and ‘predestines’ a lot of people who will choose Him. Now, one can say that God is still demonstrating free will because He simply knows who will pick Him – except there’s Paul’s conversion story. He received a direct vision from God which turned his life around and make him a follower of Christ. Before that vision, the Bible makes it clear that Paul was adamant in trying to wipe every last Christian off the Earth. The disciples didn’t really choose until they had proof of Jesus’s claim to the Messiah – which was the resurrection. Then their entire lives were transformed and they were willing to die for this, because it was made perfectly clear to them.

    And even when they were preaching, they were also proving their claims through signs and wonders and raising the dead, which converted thousands. We don’t see much of that today. Moses had the burning bush, Elijah/Elisha (I get those two confused) confronted the followers of Ba’al with spectacular results.

    I agree that finding God cannot be an intellectual journey only. But if one read the Bible with no knowledge of Christianity or who Jesus was, I think they might have a lot of difficulties. For instance, Jesus comes across as almost two different people sometimes between the Synoptics and the Gospel of John. James and the Synoptic Gospels say that works are necessary, as well as faith, in order for salvation, whereas Paul says differently. Jesus makes statements that can show he expected to return within the disciples lifetimes. The actual day of the Last Supper, or Jesus appearing after the Resurrection. All of those can be harmonized, but some of the harmonization comes across as a really complicated process. Should a book that is said to be inerrant require that much effort to be harmonized, and would that amount of effort be spent on any other book? Or shouldn’t one be able to compare all the stories, have no problem saying that they match, and then investigate further from there? Jesus did say a lot of mysterious things. But the difficulties with inerrancy aren’t because of the mysterious statements made in the Bible, but because many things come across as not adding up in terms of chronology and such.
41. marie Says:
    March 27th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
    
      

    ** But, because I am God, if I had said things as clearly as is possible, people would have no choice but to choose Me, and I want them to have choice.**

    I think it was on JumpingtoConclusion’s blog that the question was posed, “Why would God prefer “free will” over saving the millions/billions/however many souls who will be eternally damned to hell?” or something like that–essentially, people say that God didn’t want robots to worship him, he wanted people to make the choice to worship him…but in this, he also knew he was then going to have tons of people not choose him (for a myriad of reasons) and then be eternally burning in Hell.

    So free will wins out over the salvation of the damned? Some God of Love, huh? Some God of forgiveness, right?

    And it doesnt seem a fair choice– we are born and not really exposed to God stuff much–just some weird people at work who tell me i am a sinner constantly. I live my life, maybe suffer a lot or a little, try to be a good person or bad, consider the christians on TV–but they are mostly whack…and then I die–POW!!! I get to burn eternally in Hell with the Devil and plead for a death I will never receive–all because I didn’t choose God.–>Not only did I never have the opportunity to meet THE REAL GOD, face-to-face, I never got to really see that Hell was going to be like that….People that are non-christians (like myself) dont have the true, unguarded opportunity to make a choice between God and damnation…so if it is true that that is our choice and free will is the greatest thing–then I am going to Hell and God isn’t very fair.

    but who am i to say i am just a puny human
42. HeIsSailing Says:
    March 27th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
    
      

    joeyanne sez:
    “I am God. Of course, I can make these things perfectly clear. And of course I want a relationship with you. But, because I am God, if I had said things as clearly as is possible, people would have no choice but to choose Me, and I want them to have choice. ”

    If Geneis is taken seriously, God made his presence and existance perfectly clear to Adam, Abraham, Noah, Moses, etc. Did they sin? You bet they did! It seems the flesh does just fine in rebellion on its own. But it makes it harder when God seems so shy and his nature so ambiguous.
    I have never understood why God requires us to have faith in his existance while he remains incognito. I understand having faith as a form of trusting, but that is not what I mean. That God would ask us to have faith in the form of gullability makes no sense to me. What righteous moral good possibly comes out of believing in an invisible God?
43. marie Says:
    March 27th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
    
      

    HIS said : “I have never understood why God requires us to have faith in his existance while he remains incognito. I understand having faith as a form of trusting, but that is not what I mean. That God would ask us to have faith in the form of gullability makes no sense to me. What righteous moral good possibly comes out of believing in an invisible God?”

    and I say: wow, that is well put
44. societyvs Says:
    March 27th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
    
      

    “I have never understood why God requires us to have faith in his existance while he remains incognito.” (HIS)

    From the Midrash:

    “Abraham, Job, Hezekiah, and Messiah found God out for themselves without being previously instructed.–Numb. Rabba 14.”

    If they can do this - then I am guessing we can also (in some senses). I mean I have went so far in this faith to the point of re-questioning and finding God all over again (dumping old theologies for sincerity of my belief system). Maybe, in some senses, we can find God in the beauty of this world around - even in between the connections we have one with another (in the same breath we can find hell in those interactions) - all I know is some things happen in between 2 people (interaction) that is not completely understood - or possibly ‘God can be sensed in between our breaths of life’.
45. Ed Lynam Says:
    March 27th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
    
      

    I agree, there is a factor of interaction that is completely critical in finding God. There is no point to trying to pin down a theology of exact belief in a being so vastly transcendent than ourselves. If that were all that we needed, it seems we’d have gotten it. No, God seems more concerned over who we become than what we profess. He doesn’t leave us without witness, there are the miracles and ancient writings, but those are not the destination, only signs along the way. The destination is relationship, but we waste a lot of time chasing after our own thoughts, rather than resting in the relationship. Is my marriage about understanding my wife? or her, me? or the larger question of human romantic love? or greater mutual happiness? or the production of a home life for our family? Not really, those are just fringe benefits. The real point is the joy of relating with one another through good times and bad, creating in this life something that is greater than two people’s separate existence.
46. marie Says:
    March 27th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
    
      

    Ed, I like what you say about the relationship–but what if your wife was not there physically? what if there was no evidence she existed except some journals her brothers wrote 2,000 years ago about her. How would you have a relationship? You would have to sit and close your eyes and whatever thoughts came to your mind was her talking to you–and she would not answer your questions sometimes…

    i just dont see how we have relationships with God–at least in ways that are comparable to those with other human beings.
47. jennypo Says:
    March 27th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
    
      

    HeIsSailing sez:
    I have never understood why God requires us to have faith in his existance while he remains incognito. I understand having faith as a form of trusting, but that is not what I mean. That God would ask us to have faith in the form of gullability makes no sense to me. What righteous moral good possibly comes out of believing in an invisible God?

    The idea of faith from the Biblical standpoint is never “believing that God exists”. I have never personally seen Tom Cruise. I have seen evidence that he exists - pictures, articles written by people who have talked to him, movies that he is said to star in. It’s plausible to me that he exists. But don’t think for a minute that I have any faith in him!
    Quite simply, you can believe that God exists without putting a scrap of faith in him. Faith is what we know as “trust”. It has nothing to do with God’s existence, and everything to do with his nature.
    You can’t have any faith in God if you don’t know who he is, no matter how hard you may believe that something called “God” is in existence.
    Find out who God is - you can always decide later whether or not he exists.
48. jennypo Says:
    March 28th, 2007 at 1:12 am
    
      

    Heather sez:
    God ‘foreknows’ and ‘predestines’ a lot of people who will choose Him. Now, one can say that God is still demonstrating free will because He simply knows who will pick Him – except there’s Paul’s conversion story. He received a direct vision from God which turned his life around and make him a follower of Christ. Before that vision, the Bible makes it clear that Paul was adamant in trying to wipe every last Christian off the Earth. The disciples didn’t really choose until they had proof of Jesus’s claim to the Messiah – which was the resurrection.

    Heather, you continue to give me great questions and thoughts! I know that numerous Christian leaders who have taught that God chooses who will be forgiven by him. This is nothing short of ridiculous considering the teachings of the Bible, and it comes (as do most of these kinds of ideas) from taking pieces of the Bible at the expense of others.
    “God…is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish…” (2Peter 3:9)
    Both Old and New Testaments refer to people who are “chosen” or “set apart” by God. The question we have to ask is, what were they “chosen” for? In the Old Testament, the Jews are God’s “chosen people”. They become chosen at birth because they bear Abraham’s blood, and God promised Abraham that he would make Abraham’s descendents a blessing to the nations of the world. The New Testament marks an expansion of God’s plans for human beings, and it is no longer only Abraham’s descendants who are chosen. Under the new covenant (or testament), they are “chosen in Christ”. Those who are born into God’s family because of the blood of Jesus are immediately ushered in to something more than mere forgiveness - they are “elect” or “chosen” for a great purpose… They are not only forgiven, but God reveals that his plans for them are much bigger and that he has been planning their future since before he laid the foundations of the earth. They are destined (predestinated) to become the children of God. “…he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. He destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ…” (Ephesians 1:4-5)
    God, unlike any other creator, has designed a peer - someone who will be able to love him back as he loves, at a cost and at will. In the context of the chapter, the word “predestinated” means that the future for those who have chosen Christ is non-negotiable. It isn’t dependent on their faithful church attendance, on their dedication to God. Quite simply, it isn’t going to be taken away if they mess up. God has already made his plan, and it applies to all who have accepted forgiveness in Jesus.
    I hadn’t even considered Paul’s conversion in relation to our free will until you brought it up, but Heather, doesn’t it just demonstrate God’s understanding of our choices? God doesn’t zap Paul into hell for torturing his followers - instead, he looks at the choice Paul has made within his heart. Why has Paul been persecuting Christians? Because he believes they are blaspheming and misrepresenting God! It is his love to God that moves him to protect Judaism in this way. He is wrong, but God doesn’t read his actions - he reads Paul’s heart. Were Paul acting out of hatred, I don’t believe he would have been convinced, even by the vision of a blinding light, to sit on his pride and go join the people he has just been beating up. God will read our hearts, too. That’s why Thomas got answers, while Simon (the smug Pharisee who invited Jesus to dinner and mocked him in his heart for associating with a “bad” woman) got rejected.
    As for the disciples’ choice, how about Peter in Luke 9:20 - “‘But what about you?’ [Jesus] asked. ‘Who do you say that I am?’ Peter answered, ‘The Christ of God’.”
    As a side note, one of the most convincing aspects of the whole Bible for me is the fact that its main characters (and those who would seem to be its greatest promoters), including Jesus’ disciples, are portrayed in such great weakness and confusion. Were the Bible a piece of propaganda (or let’s face it, even an ordinary historical account!) it is amazing that its greatest propagators, from the Jews of the Old Testament to the disciples of the New Testament, should have been content to allow the world to see them so faithless. Is there a Christian living today who would allow such an embarrassment? Where are the revisionists and the spin doctors? Could they have been so unselfish as to have promoted their dead friend at their own expense? Could they have allowed such a threat to the credibility of their message?
49. Heather Says:
    March 28th, 2007 at 2:37 am
    
      

    **I have never personally seen Tom Cruise. I have seen evidence that he exists - pictures, articles written by people who have talked to him, movies that he is said to star in. It’s plausible to me that he exists.** The difference is, though, that if you wanted proof, you could get on a plane and go physically meet Tom Cruise. It’s not quite the same with trying to find God through Jesus, especially when we really only have the Bible to find out about Jesus. We don’t have pictures or interviews, and depending on how one views the Bible historically in terms of when the Gospels were written, we don’t even have eye witnesses to what Jesus said.

    **God has already made his plan, and it applies to all who have accepted forgiveness in Jesus.** The problem I have with this, and I may be misinterpreting, is that it sounds like God can only forgive if one admits that Jesus died for one’s sin. That goes against the Synotpic Gospels, in terms of Jesus saying, “Forgive and you shall be forgiven.” It also goes against the parable of the Prodigal Son, when the Father didn’t say, “I can only forgive you if you do this.” The Father never said there was a debt to pay, he simply forgave. The disciples say, “Repent, turn from one’s sins and to God.” And ‘repent’ doesn’t mean to feel sorry for in Biblical context, but to ‘go beyond the mind that you have’ or ‘to change one’s perspective.’ Otherwise, this leaves me with the fact that God can only forgive as long as blood was shed. And one can argue that God is just and one must be punished … but a huge theme of justice in the Old Testament was liberating the oppressed, not punishment.

    ** doesn’t it just demonstrate God’s understanding of our choices? ** Except my point here was that it was said earlier if God revealed Himself in a stunning fashion, one would have no choice but to follow God. Here, God revealed Himself in that stunning fashion, plainly saying to Paul, “Look what you’re doing.” Jesus plainly revealed who he was, and said, “Look at my works for proof as to who I am and who sent me.” Peter learned that Jesus was the Christ, but that was also built up to, through definite proofs. We don’t have that today. We’re first told to believe, and then we’ll understand the Bible or then we’ll find God. But that doesn’t apply to the Bible — God actually spoke with Abraham and Moses and the Prophets, and then they had the option of acting.

    And we should still have many of these proofs today, as Jesus said, “These signs shall follow them that believe …” and he goes onto to list the handling of snakes and healing the sick and such. In many ways, we don’t even have those signs.
50. joeyanne Says:
    March 28th, 2007 at 4:56 am
    
      

    Heather: I know I cannot do your thoughtful questions justice. But one thought I have that I would share is this. John 3 talks about being born of the Spirit. God has given us something to guide us to Himself. And it is something as real as you and me, but, like the wind, it cannot be seen, only felt. It is the Holy Spirit. In Matthew 25:1-13, Jesus likens the kingdom of heaven to ten virgins. All of them had lamps, but only five of them took oil. The oil is like the Holy Spirit, without whom we have no light to understand the things of God. For, although we are made in His image, we are not God; we have human minds that cannot possibly understand the things of God except they are revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. That is why Jesus promised to send Him when He left for heaven (John 14). I feel like I am trying to describe something that cannot be described, only experienced, but I cannot convince anyone. I only hope you will find the answers you are looking for.
51. joeyanne Says:
    March 28th, 2007 at 9:06 am
    
      

    Heather, I have been thinking of your comments on forgiveness all day (thank you for that!). I think you hit the nail on the head with the story of the prodigal son. Only, I think, you missed one important point. The father in that story did forgive without any “action” on the part of the son. But, and this