Results 1 - 20 of 27
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Jaknik Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who wrote the most Books In the Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Jaknik | 48704 | ||
Actually, God didn't write any of the Books. All a person has to do is to READ the Bible to realize this. It was clearly written by a variety of people, some who may have "claimed" to be inspired, or God's messenger (like Paul does). It was written by the Jewish people, about the Jewish people, for the Jewish people. It is their history, their view of the world, and that world was rather limited. Try to find any knowledge of the "Chinese", etc., in the Bible. It's not there simply because the writers were not aware of the "rest" of the world. | ||||||
2 | Who wrote the most Books In the Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Jaknik | 48735 | ||
The New Testament breakdown: Four Gospels, Mark, Matthew, Luke, John describe the world of Jesus and his mission. What was his "mission"? Mainly to present his message (Good News) to the Jewish people. Inclusion of the "gentiles" was not in the master plan until Paul got involved. 30 to 60 years after Jesus's death, the writers had hindsight and used it to explain how the Good News began to include the gentiles. But again, this did not come about until Paul became involved and when, for the most part, the Jews refused to go along with the "changes" that Paul was trying to institute. Then, the largest part of the New Testament, is letters attributed to Paul, trying to explain, trying to convince and guide the gentiles into this changing Jewish based religion. There is nothing "God-breathed" about Paul's letters. Quite the contrary. Those letters are indicative of a enthused man, literally making "policy" up as he goes along. "No stomachs..." is a good example of Paul simply "blurting out" ideas that bear no support from anywhere else but from him.... |
||||||
3 | Who do we know the bible is realy God's | Bible general Archive 1 | Jaknik | 48738 | ||
That God "wrote the Bible" is a "belief" based upon "faith". No more, no less. To suggest otherwise is sophistry at best, specious at worst. "Faith" as the nucleus is often neglected by those who wish it was more than that. AS many ministers I have heard have ssid: "...it is not our job to question, to wonder, to muse. It is our job to BELIEVE!" This admonition also came from Jesus and later from Paul, the self-described messenger of God. So, one can believe and have faith that the Bible was written by God in some manner, but he cannot "know" that. | ||||||
4 | Who wrote the most Books In the Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Jaknik | 48752 | ||
Remember that it is "Paul" who declares himself the "direct messenger" and spokesman for God and Jesus. Over and over, he states this, pounds this home to all in most of his letters. So, to suggest that anything/everything that Paul says in his letters, is "God-breathed" has no support or relevance, except to the one who wants to, without foundations other than just Paul saying so, accept the notion anyway. And that's where it must lie: if a person wants to accept the word of Paul based upon solely that Paul is the direct link between us and God, simply because Paul says it's true, then so be it. But Paul made a lot of strange, even "loose cannon" statements. Peter even comments on that.... | ||||||
5 | Who wrote the most Books In the Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Jaknik | 48761 | ||
Surely you're not suggesting that "God-breathed" is "fact". If so, then what happens to "faith"? And of course, it's "...my opinion..." Most anything one says is considered his "opinion..." |
||||||
6 | Who wrote the most Books In the Bible | Bible general Archive 1 | Jaknik | 48767 | ||
My question was: "...do you believe that the Bible (letters from Paul) were 'God-breathed' is fact..." Your answer was that you "believe" it to be true. Okay, but "believing" and "having faith" that it's "God-breathed" does not mean it is fact. You have the inclination and right to "believe" for whatever your reasons, as long as "fact" is not part of the parcel. Again, if it were all "facts", there would be no need at all for "faith." (...and I haven't taken anything "...the wrong way..." Never would...) |
||||||
7 | how much water allowed the ark to float? | Gen 1:1 | Jaknik | 48923 | ||
...but may need to amend that to "floated about half a year", the rest of the time (about 8 months was grounded on the side of the mountain, waiting for the water's runoff). So, all in all, the ark, as the only entity left on earth, was in action abour 14 months. It's very interesting to "think" about this scene, and what it all entailed.... | ||||||
8 | Wisdom vs. knowledge | Prov 1:7 | Jaknik | 48942 | ||
Another "old" saying, Hank, this from Shakespeare: "Methinks you protest too much..." Also, the concept of "bible-bashing" is "relative" just like most things. Your assumption that you have garnered the whole truth and nothing but the truth, in your corner of the world, may be true. Then again it may be "relative". Instead of "singling" out people that you have "judged", it might be more conducive to a profitable and positive atmosphere to "discuss". BTW, I'm from (Arkansas), Black Rock, around the Walnut Ridge/Hoxie area... :) and still a Christian, the last time I checked... | ||||||
9 | Priesthood and marriage | Luke 1:5 | Jaknik | 48744 | ||
Yep, Peter's wife was still alive during his ministry--so states "Paul".... | ||||||
10 | Priesthood and marriage | Luke 1:5 | Jaknik | 48778 | ||
I will certainly accept and agree with "ambiguous"...the crux of many of the biblical "problems".... :) | ||||||
11 | Where did Jesus call Simon and Andrew? | John 1:35 | Jaknik | 48736 | ||
Dear Mr. Moran: No "contradictions" in the angel visitations in Mark, Matthew, and Luke, as they apply to Mary and Joseph? And no "contradictions" in all the Gospels as they describe the death, burial, resurrection, number of angels, who saw what where, earthquakes, etc? These are descriptions of the same events but those descriptions are markedly different. |
||||||
12 | Where did Jesus call Simon and Andrew? | John 1:35 | Jaknik | 48747 | ||
Matthew 28: describes an earthquake, one angel coming down, rolling away the stone and sitting on it, speaks to the guards and the women..." Mark 16: women come to tomb, stone is already moved, inside the tomb is the angel (note: no guards or earthquake mentioned. To you, just an omitted "detail"?) Luke 24: huge stone is already rolled aside when the women arrive...inside, no angel yet, but then TWO angels suddenly appear... John 20: describes one woman, Mary, arriving at the tomb, the stone already rolled away. No angel or angels here at this time. Instead, Mary goes to get Peter and John. Then Peter and John go home, and Mary returns to the tomb, looks in and there are now TWO angels who talk to her.... ---------------------- As someone once said: "...the devil is in the details..." Was there an earthquake? Were there two angels, or just one? Were the guards there, too, being spoken to by the angels? How many women were there? Was Peter there? Was John there? The only version that puts John and Peter there is John...and John was certainly available or known when Mark, Matthew and Luke were written...or should have been...should these "details" be dismissed? If so, why should they? At the very simplest, if you were trying to prove a case in a court, this kind of "detailing" would derail your client in a heartbeat. Shouldn't we expect a tighter narrative? Is this the way an air-tight house should be built? Or, is the risk a "house of cards"? Again, when dealing with something as important as a "belief" and "faith", sophistry and speciousness should not be allowed. |
||||||
13 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48692 | ||
I'm not sure that this answer addresses the question: "Did dead people come out of their graves and go into Jerusalem and mingle with the townspeople? Is that truly believable? Or, is that embellishment? If something like that were truly to happen, then I don't think anyone would be in a "questioning" posture. It is this kind of "stretch" that creates the questions. Also, there are a great many variations of the same events, some very puzzling. Example: the perfume on the head and/or feet of Jesus. This event is in all the gospels but with different twists, including different participants. Is a reader to assume that it is actually four different times that someone poured perfume on Jesus's head or feet? |
||||||
14 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48706 | ||
There are "lots" of discrepancies in the Four Gospels, too. Because of them, it's hard to figure out just what is the "true account". For example: the perfume over the head/feet. Are these four different happenings? Or, are they four embellishments? Lots more of this type of thing that requires some careful reading..... | ||||||
15 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48742 | ||
One could make the case that it is not Independency that is central, but simply each writer writing for a different audience for different circumstances. For example, assuming that Mark was the first gospel written, it is clearly bareboned. Much is left out or not explained fully. Also, Mark was not a Jew, and clearly is not that well versed in the OT. Matthew apparently notes these ommisions. And Matthew is a Jew, unlike Mark, and sees the necessity of addressing more directly his own Jewish brethren, in order to keep them aboard for the new changes. Ditto for Luke, who is probably not a Jew, but now sees the expansion going full tilt out into the gentile communities. Thus his changes, enhancements, embellishments are geared for the non-Jewish. The most "independent" of all the Books is JOHN. John sees the need to redirect the current emphasis and thought of the 2nd Coming, that was believed by the New Christians to be imminent. The only problem with that was that Jesus never came back when expected. And that's where John tries to divert or change this belief, by explaining that the REAL 2nd Coming was that of the Holy Spirit being sent after Jesus ascended to heaven. So, in many ways, the writings of the four gospels were progressions that were propelled by the governing realities and changing dynamics of the various time periods. And of course, they weren't the only versions, but simply the versions kept by the two councils who voted them in, during the latter part of the 4th century AD (or thereabouts)... One has to wonder why the councils did not deem it more appropriate to "edit" these four in some fashion, to make them more compatible. At least, to agree on some basic tenets, such as the number of "angels" at the tomb, etc.... |
||||||
16 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48751 | ||
You're engaging is "sophistry"... | ||||||
17 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48755 | ||
Contradiction: a) to assert the opposite of b) to deny the statement of c) to be contrary to; be inconsistent with Obviously our "problem" is under the umbrella statement: "...the meaning you get out of something, depends upon what you bring to that something..." Think about that. Here's an example: In Matthew, John the Baptist baptizes Jesus, knows who he is, witnesses the dove, hears the voice from above declaring Jesus as the Son. But then, when John is thrust in prison, and hears about the miracles that Jesus is doing, sends some of is disciples to ask Jesus if it's really true, that he is the real Son. Hmmmm....no questions here? Nothing of interest? Is there a non-sophistical answer to clear this up? Not to "explain" it away, but to CLEAR it up. That should be fair... |
||||||
18 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48765 | ||
That would be a mighty big "doubt" for John the Baptist to have, especially when he is Elijah the prophet (according to Jesus). 1. John (was) Elijah 2. John knew who Jesus was 3. John baptizes Jesus 4. John witnesses the dove 5. John hears the voice from heaven And you suggest that John STILL would have doubts? Most folks would look at the above and not arrive at your conclusion at all. Be honest. Isn't is puzzling that the alleged prophet Elijah would not know the score? And not know, especially after the direct confrontation he had with Jesus, the dove, and the voice? It stretches credulity to suggest otherwise..... |
||||||
19 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48773 | ||
Well, Joe, it's always back to basics: you can believe anything/everything you wish, but believing anything/everything you wish, does not make anything/everything true. You wish to believe in Balaam's talking donkey? Okay, so believe. But so what? You wish to believe that Jesus walked on water? Okay, but so what? In fact, the walking on water episode creates a good question: Jesus is striving to convince people (Jewish only) that he is the Messiah. What's the problem? All he had do to was to walk on (run on) the water in front of those he wanted to convince. Easy enough. Put me in the audience, let me see Jesus, from start to finish, walk out into the lake, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. But, things like that didn't happen, of course. The walk on water was for the disciples only. So, your stance would be that it is not legitimate to ask questions? To analyse? To want to know more? Again, in church sermon after church sermon, I have heard the admonition: "It is not our job to question, to wonder, to muse, to doubt. Our job is to BELIEVE!" That may be acceptable to a lot of folks, but not to all. In fact, by asking questions, by wondering with the brain God gave us, sometimes faith can be strengthed--or at least the whole understood better.... |
||||||
20 | When Jesus died, did dead people really | John 11:43 | Jaknik | 48776 | ||
John 14: 25 "I am telling you these things now while I am still with you. But when the Father sends the Comforter instead of me--and by the Comforter I mean the Holy Spirit John 16: 5 thru 24 |
||||||
Result pages: [ 1 2 ] Next > Last [2] >> |