By the way -- if you claim to be a Christian...

[Sgt. Pepper]

Jesus used all sorts of literary devices in his work. He also referred to Noah and even you have to know that there never was a worldwide flood. If I point to an old lady and say "She is as old as the hills." am I lying? I can assure you that I am not. That is just a way of saying that she is very very old. Jesus could have used the same sort of literary tool to indicate that mankind has always been that way.

I think that it is important to keep in mind that whatever stories are attributed to Jesus in the Bible are most likely fabricated, or they may contain a sliver of truth, but they were greatly embellished for effect in an effort by his devoted followers to make him appear to be more than what he was and to make him appear to be godlike, if not God himself. In my opinion, if Jesus was a real person, then he was an ordinary man and prominent religious leader whose followers fabricated and embellished stories about him by copying and adapting a few myths from Greek mythology and other stories of pagan gods that they were familiar with at the time. I also believe that the Bible is riddled with contradictions, as demonstrated in these articles. In light of all this, I believe it's reasonable to presume that what's written in the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt and that we should not derive our sense of morality from it.

101 Clear Contradictions In The Bible

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection of Evidence

BibViz Project-Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that it is important to keep in mind that whatever stories are attributed to Jesus in the Bible are most likely fabricated, or they may contain a sliver of truth, but they were greatly embellished for effect in an effort by his devoted followers to make him appear to be more than what he was and to make him appear to be godlike, if not God himself. In my opinion, if Jesus was a real person, then he was an ordinary man and prominent religious leader whose followers fabricated and embellished stories about him by copying and adapting a few myths from Greek mythology and other stories of pagan gods that they were familiar with at the time. I also believe that the Bible is riddled with contradictions, as demonstrated in these articles. In light of all this, I believe it's reasonable to presume that what's written in the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt and that we should not derive our sense of morality from it.

101 Clear Contradictions In The Bible

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection of Evidence

BibViz Project-Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

Yep, and if you have a Bible you might even find an example of this. If you remember the parable of the adulterous woman and you can find it in your Bible it probably has a footnote stating that it most likely did not come from Jesus. We often hear Christians brag about all of the "documents" of the Bible that exist. Documents are merely hand written copies of the Bible or parts of it. So for the number one religion in the world to have countless hand copied Bibles and fragments is not all that amazing. But there can be a bit of a hitch here and there. The earliest documents do not have that story. It first appears much later. It first appeared in John in its present location in the fifth century. There are possible sources, including from perhaps one of the banned gospels. Wikipedia has a well researched article on it:

Jesus and the woman taken in adultery - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And as I said, most modern Bibles have some sort of note telling the reader that "Let the one among you that has not sinned cast the first stone" does not appear to be from Jesus.

 

[Windwalker]

Well now, let's take another statement of Jesus to see what Jesus believed and taught.
Going further in Matthew, he said (Matthew 4:4, “It is written ‘Not upon bread alone shall man live, but upon every word that comes out of God’s mouth.’”
Reading that, how do you feel about that? What did Jesus say about that?

Sure, I have no issue with the idea of "thy will be done", which is in essence the meaning of what this is saying. It has nothing to do with the idea that the Bible should be taken as literally instead of metaphorically, of course. God can communicate truth through the use of metaphors and stories with symbolic characters in them, can't he? Didn't Jesus teach in parables, rather than in literal technical language? Don't you believe God's word can be expressed through metaphors?

 

[Elihoenai]

Let me put it this way: He didn't use Genghis Kahn to write any words in the Bible.

Apparently Genghis Khan (Temüjin) Swore an Oath in The Baljuna Covenant with Small Group. Similar to Freemasonry, the Baljuna Covenant Transcended the Individuals Religion. Keeping Covenants and/or Oaths is a Faith Requirement in any Religion and is a Measure of Commitment/Devoutness.


Baljuna Covenant

"The Baljuna Covenant was an oath sworn in summer 1203 AD by Temüjin—the future Genghis Khan—and a small group of companions, subsequently known as the Baljunatu..."


"...Historians have emphasised the social, cultural, and religious heterogeneity of the Baljuna oath-takers. There were no Mongols, apart from Temüjin and his brother Qasar, in the traditional nineteen—they instead included Khitans, Tanguts, Keireits, Naimans, Central Asians, and possibly even South Asians, in a total of nine different clans. Swearing loyalty to Temüjin, a devout worshipper of Tengrism, were three Muslims and several Christians and Buddhists. In transcending traditional avenues of community, the Baljuna Covenant was "a type of brotherhood [akin to] modern civic citizenship based upon personal choice and commitment", in the words of historian Jack Weatherford...."

Baljuna Covenant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[YoursTrue]

Apparently Genghis Khan (Temüjin) Swore an Oath in The Baljuna Covenant with Small Group. Similar to Freemasonry, the Baljuna Covenant Transcended the Individuals Religion. Keeping Covenants and/or Oaths is a Faith Requirement in any Religion and is a Measure of Commitment/Devoutness.


Baljuna Covenant

"The Baljuna Covenant was an oath sworn in summer 1203 AD by Temüjin—the future Genghis Khan—and a small group of companions, subsequently known as the Baljunatu..."


"...Historians have emphasised the social, cultural, and religious heterogeneity of the Baljuna oath-takers. There were no Mongols, apart from Temüjin and his brother Qasar, in the traditional nineteen—they instead included Khitans, Tanguts, Keireits, Naimans, Central Asians, and possibly even South Asians, in a total of nine different clans. Swearing loyalty to Temüjin, a devout worshipper of Tengrism, were three Muslims and several Christians and Buddhists. In transcending traditional avenues of community, the Baljuna Covenant was "a type of brotherhood [akin to] modern civic citizenship based upon personal choice and commitment", in the words of historian Jack Weatherford...."

Baljuna Covenant - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So do you have any information that Genghis Khan wrote any words as he said they were from God? just wondering...

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure, I have no issue with the idea of "thy will be done", which is in essence the meaning of what this is saying. It has nothing to do with the idea that the Bible should be taken as literally instead of metaphorically, of course. God can communicate truth through the use of metaphors and stories with symbolic characters in them, can't he? Didn't Jesus teach in parables, rather than in literal technical language? Don't you believe God's word can be expressed through metaphors?

That is correct, Jesus would sometimes teach in parables. You got that straight. But again -- let's go over his words as he said man "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God." So he made that clear when he had his conversation with the Devil in the wilderness. This was involving the test in the wilderness after he was baptized.
"Then the Devil took him along into the holy city, and he stationed him on the battlement of the temple 6 and said to him: “If you are a son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written: ‘He will give his angels a command concerning you, and, ‘They will carry you on their hands, so that you may not strike your foot against a stone.’ 7 Jesus said to him: “Again it is written: ‘You must not put the Lord your God to the test.’
Again, we're going over the words of Jesus to see what he said and how he looked at circumstances. Still in Matthew chapter 4, his encounter with the Tempter.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure, I have no issue with the idea of "thy will be done", which is in essence the meaning of what this is saying. It has nothing to do with the idea that the Bible should be taken as literally instead of metaphorically, of course. God can communicate truth through the use of metaphors and stories with symbolic characters in them, can't he? Didn't Jesus teach in parables, rather than in literal technical language? Don't you believe God's word can be expressed through metaphors?

Of COURSE not every word (as in the parables) should be taken literally.
On the other hand -- as we are going over -- what IS literal and what is symbolic? That seems to be a big question for some. Thanks for asking...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of COURSE not every word (as in the parables) should be taken literally.
On the other hand -- as we are going over -- what IS literal and what is symbolic? That seems to be a big question for some. Thanks for asking...

Then wouldn't a literal interpretation of the Bible that ends up calling God a liar be going overboard? Wouldn't that tell you that those verses should not be interpreted literally?

As to your reference to the "word of God" in your prior post, that is a very vague statement. How do you tell which parts of the Bible are the "word of God" and which parts are human works? The Bible is never clear about that.

 

[Windwalker]

Of COURSE not every word (as in the parables) should be taken literally.
On the other hand -- as we are going over -- what IS literal and what is symbolic? That seems to be a big question for some. Thanks for asking...

It should be a question for everyone. To be absolutely certain of your own ideas to where you consider it a sin against God to think otherwise about them, tends to place that attachment to their own beliefs right in the path being open and receptive to greater understandings. This is where beliefs become an obstacle to faith. In effect they become a form of idolatry.

I find my understanding of Jesus' reference to Adam and Eve to be a much more reasonable understanding, one which does not mean you have to read Genesis as a scientific account of natural earth history as opposed to accepting what all the sciences clearly show to be the actual case about the earth and its history. I find no conflict between these views, because I 'rightly divide the word', not reading these things literally, as some insist everyone must, and then questioning if they are believing in God if they don't.

 

[Windwalker]

That is correct, Jesus would sometimes teach in parables. You got that straight. But again -- let's go over his words as he said man "man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God."

To illustrate what I just said above, should we read that passage to support the view that God has a literal mouth, with lips and teeth and a tongue? Some believe God has a physical body, and might choose the cite this verse as proof of that, since why else would Jesus refer to God's mouth, if God didn't have a literal mouth? Was Jesus lying? Was Jesus mistaken? And so forth.

You see my point? Jesus referring the story of Adam and Eve no more supports the idea that he necessarily was meaning something that can be used to settle the question of their historical existence to the modernist today with questions about evolution, as he was meaning to say "God's mouth" was meant to support the view of Mormons who believe God has a literal body and lives on a planet near the star Kolob in the Orion constellation. That's just poor hermeneutics.

 

[YoursTrue]

I think that it is important to keep in mind that whatever stories are attributed to Jesus in the Bible are most likely fabricated, or they may contain a sliver of truth, but they were greatly embellished for effect in an effort by his devoted followers to make him appear to be more than what he was and to make him appear to be godlike, if not God himself. In my opinion, if Jesus was a real person, then he was an ordinary man and prominent religious leader whose followers fabricated and embellished stories about him by copying and adapting a few myths from Greek mythology and other stories of pagan gods that they were familiar with at the time. I also believe that the Bible is riddled with contradictions, as demonstrated in these articles. In light of all this, I believe it's reasonable to presume that what's written in the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt and that we should not derive our sense of morality from it.

101 Clear Contradictions In The Bible

The Bible is Fiction: A Collection of Evidence

BibViz Project-Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized

First of all, Jesus never said he was God. Anything he said that even looks like he might have said something like that has been grossly misinterpreted, even at the time when he was accused of making himself into something the religious leaders thought he was not. Speaking of which, if it wasn't a made up story, why bother to record the reactions of his opposers? To make it look more verifiable? That's nuts.

 

[YoursTrue]

It should be a question for everyone. To be absolutely certain of your own ideas to where you consider it a sin against God to think otherwise about them, tends to place that attachment to their own beliefs right in the path being open and receptive to greater understandings. This is where beliefs become an obstacle to faith. In effect they become a form of idolatry.

I find my understanding of Jesus' reference to Adam and Eve to be a much more reasonable understanding, one which does not mean you have to read Genesis as a scientific account of natural earth history as opposed to accepting what all the sciences clearly show to be the actual case about the earth and its history. I find no conflict between these views, because I 'rightly divide the word', not reading these things literally, as some insist everyone must, and then questioning if they are believing in God if they don't.

Jesus was not referring to Adam as a parable. Since he was the son of God who came from heaven he would know who or what Adam was, the first man on earth. The expression 'literal word of God' is misleading anyway but the question remains -- how much is believable. And not myth. From the written word, it does not seem likely and reasonable to believe that Jesus viewed biblical history as perhaps partial myth. In fact, let's be honest -- many who claim to be believers of one sort or another (depending on sect or religion) believe that Moses/Jesus/Abraham never even really existed as written. So?

 

[YoursTrue]

To illustrate what I just said above, should we read that passage to support the view that God has a literal mouth, with lips and teeth and a tongue? Some believe God has a physical body, and might choose the cite this verse as proof of that, since why else would Jesus refer to God's mouth, if God didn't have a literal mouth? Was Jesus lying? Was Jesus mistaken? And so forth.

You see my point? Jesus referring the story of Adam and Eve no more supports the idea that he necessarily was meaning something that can be used to settle the question of their historical existence to the modernist today with questions about evolution, as he was meaning to say "God's mouth" was meant to support the view of Mormons who believe God has a literal body and lives on a planet near the star Kolob in the Orion constellation. That's just poor hermeneutics.

To believe that Jesus believed Adam was mythical perhaps is to then believe that (1) he was lying, (2) he did not know about the theory of evolution, and (3) he did not come from heaven with knowledge of creation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First of all, Jesus never said he was God. Anything he said that even looks like he might have said something like that has been grossly misinterpreted, even at the time when he was accused of making himself into something the religious leaders thought he was not. Speaking of which, if it wasn't a made up story, why bother to record the reactions of his opposers? To make it look more verifiable? That's nuts.

Religions all tend to be a bit nuts. That tells us that they are human inventions since so many people are more than a bit nuts.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To believe that Jesus believed Adam was mythical perhaps is to then believe that (1) he was lying, (2) he did not know about the theory of evolution, and (3) he did not come from heaven with knowledge of creation.

No. Using a literary tool does not man a person a liar. But you do regularly claim that God is a liar so why should you worry if Jesus was a liar too? You are being inconsistent with your reasoning again.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

First of all, Jesus never said he was God. Anything he said that even looks like he might have said something like that has been grossly misinterpreted, even at the time when he was accused of making himself into something the religious leaders thought he was not. Speaking of which, if it wasn't a made up story, why bother to record the reactions of his opposers? To make it look more verifiable? That's nuts.

Fictional stories usually feature heroes and villains, so I don't think the stories in the Bible about Jesus facing opponents are out of the ordinary.

 

[Windwalker]

Jesus was not referring to Adam as a parable.

If we understand a parable to mean, "a simple story used to illustrate a moral or spiritual lesson," then his referring to them most clearly fits that definition. He cites the story of them as an example of marriage. Just like we cite the story of the Good Samaritan as an example of compassion. Both times, the purpose is not to debate the literalness of the characters, but as illustrations of a moral or spiritual lesson". That does fit within the broader meaning of parable.

Since he was the son of God who came from heaven he would know who or what Adam was, the first man on earth.

Are you certain of your theology here? While Jesus may be understood as both fully God and fully human (the doctrine of the hypostatic union), aren't you overlooking he was fully human? Being fully human means he didn't know everything. Scripture teaches Jesus grew in wisdom. He learned things he didn't know. He even says there are things he didn't know, "Of that day and hour know no man... nor the Son, only the Father".

So you don't think it is possible within the scope of your theology to see that Jesus did not know earth sciences and natural history as a man living 2000 years before the advent of modern science? So what if he didn't know something? Does that destroy your faith that he may not have had the idea of modern science in mind when he referenced common stories of his people and his culture as a way to illustrate a spiritual lesson, or as a "parable"?

I'm really curious to understand your thinking on this. Could Jesus have been ignorant of some things, or even possibly technically wrong about something because he was unaware of information we have that he did not? Would that destroy your faith in him if you were to think that to be possible?

The expression 'literal word of God' is misleading anyway but the question remains -- how much is believable. And not myth.

Myths are simply stories or parables that teach truths. The story of Adam and Eve contains many great truths about humanity, even if the entire story has no basis in scientific fact. Again, Romeo and Juliet speak volumes about undying human love, yet them being historical or not is entirely, completely, and utterly beside the point, isn't it?

From the written word, it does not seem likely and reasonable to believe that Jesus viewed biblical history as perhaps partial myth.

I disagree. He as a human male living on earth in a premodern culture and society 2000 years in the past would not know what we know today. This does not diminish his spiritual Wisdom and insights however. If he truly had all knowledge in that human brain of his, then how on earth can any human being alive possibly hope to relate to him? "We have not a high priest who cannot be touched with hands, but was in all points tempted (or human) like us".

 

[Windwalker]

To believe that Jesus believed Adam was mythical perhaps is to then believe that (1) he was lying, (2) he did not know about the theory of evolution, and (3) he did not come from heaven with knowledge of creation.

I do not believe he would be lying, of course. But I can accept number 2 quite comfortably. Why can't you?

And number 3 is again an issue of theology. You assume the Jesus did not "empty himself and take upon him the form of a [human]." You assume he was not fully human at all then, and that makes a theological problem for you on your end. For me, I have no problem theologically accepting the the human Jesus was fully human.

On the other hand you see him more a god, than a human in that regards, which I think goes against what scripture portrays him as. He could be fully God, or Divine, yet as a human his brain did not contain all knowledge of all things, past, present, and future. Do you believe it did? And if so, how can you as a human possibly hope to relate yourself to that?

 

[YoursTrue]

I do not believe he would be lying, of course. But I can accept number 2 quite comfortably. Why can't you?

And number 3 is again an issue of theology. You assume the Jesus did not "empty himself and take upon him the form of a [human]." You assume he was not fully human at all then, and that makes a theological problem for you on your end. For me, I have no problem theologically accepting the the human Jesus was fully human.

On the other hand you see him more a god, than a human in that regards, which I think goes against what scripture portrays him as. He could be fully God, or Divine, yet as a human his brain did not contain all knowledge of all things, past, present, and future. Do you believe it did? And if so, how can you as a human possibly hope to relate yourself to that?

I cannot imagine he knew about the contrived theory of evolution that became so popular later on. Interestingly enough though, he had powers in him given by his Father. Remember though that two prophets prior to Jesus raised the dead. No one considered them as God or God in human form.

 

[YoursTrue]

Fictional stories usually feature heroes and villains, so I don't think the stories in the Bible about Jesus facing opponents are out of the ordinary.

The problem or difference of stories ike Paul Bunyan or whoever is the details. And longevity of the account passed on and preserved.