Biblical questions

GrandNational wrote:

Very cool topic.

1. I have read all of it, a few times over actually.

2. Do I believe everything in the Bible? I believe it is Truth, because it is the inspired Word of God, or as we say in my tongue, The Breathe of God. With that being said, I do not believe everything in it is factual down to the last letter. For instance, I believe that God created this world, but is the 6 day creation fact? Can we truely know if it last 6 human days? Would it matter if you didn't believe it? It still would not change the Truth of God.

It would be dangerous and as history has shown it to be to interpret everything in it literally. After all, how can humanity think that it can put God in a box when He is above all and His mystery's beyond our grasp of understanding? God does not live in a book.

One must realize that the Church came before the Bible was put together in the 4th century when all the inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testament needed to be separated from those deemed less "Christian". For close to 400 years Christians lived without having what we know today as the Bible all nicely put together and bound up.

What bugs me about Christians of today is the lack of historical perspective they have and how they have reduced the Mystery of God to a single book they will follow letter by letter.

Very good point - it's funny how I've brought that up many times in the past among Christians and I was told I had a lack of faith and judged harshly

Untested and unquestion faith isn't a deep, true faith

thejokeriv wrote:

GrandNational wrote:

Very cool topic.

1. I have read all of it, a few times over actually.

2. Do I believe everything in the Bible? I believe it is Truth, because it is the inspired Word of God, or as we say in my tongue, The Breathe of God. With that being said, I do not believe everything in it is factual down to the last letter. For instance, I believe that God created this world, but is the 6 day creation fact? Can we truely know if it last 6 human days? Would it matter if you didn't believe it? It still would not change the Truth of God.

It would be dangerous and as history has shown it to be to interpret everything in it literally. After all, how can humanity think that it can put God in a box when He is above all and His mystery's beyond our grasp of understanding? God does not live in a book.

One must realize that the Church came before the Bible was put together in the 4th century when all the inspired Scriptures of the Old and New Testament needed to be separated from those deemed less "Christian". For close to 400 years Christians lived without having what we know today as the Bible all nicely put together and bound up.

What bugs me about Christians of today is the lack of historical perspective they have and how they have reduced the Mystery of God to a single book they will follow letter by letter.

Very good point - it's funny how I've brought that up many times in the past among Christians and I was told I had a lack of faith and judged harshly

Untested and unquestion faith isn't a deep, true faith

Absolutley brother, God gave us a brain and intended us to use it, and if we don't question Him and follow blindly, who are we really following? For instance, I have a Revised Standard Version of the Bible that also includes at the end the books of the Apocrypha (about 12 or so books and writings that were not deemed as fully inspired by God but rather just a bunch of good stories and so were not included in the original canon). Now, if the 4th century Church Fathers decided to include these books with the rest of the 66 books we have, they would have been part of everyday Bible reading. As such, the Bible isn't a book God threw down from heaven one day all nicely bound up, but rather a book of His inspired Word to be read and have written in our hearts because it is Truth.

So then, Dan Brown is correct/wise in quoting the Gospel of Philip in backing up a theory that Jesus was married?

T-Roy wrote:

So then, Dan Brown is correct/wise in quoting the Gospel of Philip in backing up a theory that Jesus was married?

The Gospel of Philip is not part of the Apocrypha and it is looked as a heretical/gnostic book banned by the Church. Dan Brown doesn't know anything about Church history.

This is exactly my point about people needing to look at history and how it has shaped the Church and the Bible.

Read all and definatly believe all.

T-Roy wrote:

So then, Dan Brown is correct/wise in quoting the Gospel of Philip in backing up a theory that Jesus was married?

But the question is, if Jesus was married, does that really take away anything he did or taught? Does that change anything he said? I would think not.

I haven't read the gnostic gospels, so I can't comment on what they say, or if they have any truth

GrandNational wrote:

T-Roy wrote:

So then, Dan Brown is correct/wise in quoting the Gospel of Philip in backing up a theory that Jesus was married?

The Gospel of Philip is not part of the Apocrypha and it is looked as a heretical/gnostic book banned by the Church. Dan Brown doesn't know anything about Church history.

This is exactly my point about people needing to look at history and how it has shaped the Church and the Bible.

Dan Brown just took theories and turned it into a thriller

GrandNational wrote:

T-Roy wrote:

So then, Dan Brown is
correct/wise in quoting the Gospel of Philip in backing up a theory
that Jesus was married?

The Gospel of Philip is not part
of the Apocrypha and it is looked as a heretical/gnostic book banned by
the Church. Dan Brown doesn't know anything about Church history.

This
is exactly my point about people needing to look at history and how it
has shaped the Church and the Bible.

That was my point. We're
on the same page!

thejokeriv wrote:

T-Roy wrote:

So then, Dan Brown is correct/wise
in quoting the Gospel of Philip in backing up a theory that Jesus was
married?

But the question is, if Jesus was married,
does that really take away anything he did or taught? Does that change
anything he said? I would think not.

I haven't read the
gnostic gospels, so I can't comment on what they say, or if they have
any truth

Yeah, exactly! Brown claims that in one of the texts
in those letters (Philip...written at least 200 years after the eye
witness accounts were gone?) that the disciples were angry that Jesus
was kissing MM on the lips in front of them. Well, if they were
married, why would the apostles be angry?! It would change nothing.

thejokeriv wrote:

Dan Brown just took theories and turned it into a thriller

Yeah. It gets on my nerves when the general public confuses Brown's novel with legitimate attempts at historical exegesis.
If people want to think that Jesus was married or had a child; better to look into the "Jesus Tomb" issues by James Tabor, Hershel Shanks, et.al. Based somewhat on serious scholarship at least, but still very speculative and controversial. Interesting at best, but I don't buy it.

SAHB Healer wrote:

thejokeriv wrote:

Dan Brown just took theories and turned it into a thriller

Yeah. It gets on my nerves when the general public confuses Brown's novel with legitimate attempts at historical exegesis.
If people want to think that Jesus was married or had a child; better to look into the "Jesus Tomb" issues by James Tabor, Hershel Shanks, et.al. Based somewhat on serious scholarship at least, but still very speculative and controversial. Interesting at best, but I don't buy it.

Yep, you don;t have to buy into it - good STORY, but Dan Brown isn;t a great writer - parts of the book seem like they were written by a romance book author

Fat Freddy wrote:

I'd like to learn that turn-water-into-wine trick for myself.

You have no idea how much I wish I could too....

1. I've read the whole thing. Cover to Cover.

2. I trust the Good Book, and believe all of it. Which is sometimes a hard thing to do. But that's why there's faith right.

Read it all and believe it all.