Did Jesus lie ?

I have long heard the arguments concerning the accuracy or lack of accuracy of Biblical passages. I have also heard counter-arguments (mainly from Christian Apologists) that refute the same thing.What can I conclude?

Both sides accuse the other side of intentionally distorting facts to fit an agenda. I can see how this is a rational accusation.

​

IF the Christian worldview is anywhere close to being on point about spirituality, it would make sense for there to be a sort of a spiritual war concerning the identity of Jesus and the validity of competing pantheistic and pagan beliefs.

​

Scholars and laymen can trot out statistic after statistic concerning the validity of the Bible. I now am unimpresed with data from either side. Evidently, the Bible was meant to be shrouded in mystery---there is no clear conclusion.

​

As a Believer, I can only testify as to my feelings and beliefs concerning a living God. In short--I believe that there is one. While I have seen much deplorable behavior by those who call themselves Christians, I can only conclude that there is some sort of a spiritual dynamic that causes a person who claims to be nearest to the truth® to suddenly behave in an almost diametrically oppositional way. This to me suggests that a spiritual war is a valid premise.

​

Too many people who see Christian beliefs as simplistic and flawed are the same types of people who would worship and/or deify self and/or nature and see no harm in doing so.

​

I can and must conclude that human wisdom throughout the ages is not the source for God. (Yes, thats a monotheistic God...not a product of human imagination) Of course, it is also but my individual belief that I am presenting.

Hi, 24:21 is talking about the crucifixion and not the resurrection. I take it you mean Luke 24:21?If you read 24:20 and 21, you get a better idea of the context.The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. It quite clearly says it is the third day since the crucifixion happened.I think they were a bit pissed because for the messiah to be defeated was unthinkable in Jewish thought. The Messiah would free Israel and here we are three days after Jesus died and zip. They say that they had hoped that thiswas Israel's redeemer, but three days later they begin to think they were wrong.Remember, it is written that the messiah would rise on the third day, although this 'prophecy' cannot be found anywhere in Jewish Scripture.On the third day He rose, and in Luke he ascended to heaven the very same day.If we follow events.Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.Luke 24:13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem.Luke 24:29 But they urged him strongly, "Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over." So he went in to stay with them. So, He is still with them the same day.Luke 24:30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them.He had din dins with them.Luke 24:34-35 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.The two went quickly to Jerusalem, notice the day has not changed yet. They exchange tales with their mates.Then:Luke 14:26 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you." As if by magic, Jesus appears!He has a little chat, then leads them out towards Bethany.Luke 24:50-51 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. Brian.

Accusations are a dime a dozen too. It's the evidence behind the accusations you should be looking at. that's just circular reasoning. If people dispute the validity of our belief then that proves our belief is valid ?! so God isn't interested in revealing his word to us clearly and unambigously. That's an honest admission if I ever saw one. It's a shame that so many Christians try to convince others (themselves?) that there really is any objective basis for their belief.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Brian, you crack me up with some of your responses. Keep up the good work. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Yes, thanks for the explanation. I understand the difference. Yep, and I agree that exegeisis, in general, is not a good thing. But, I also think we should not read the Bible literally. You have to interpret what it means, critically, and the intentions of the reader, or there purpose for interpretation, seems to determine if there should be an 'i' in there or not.My Message 163 was exegeisis, but it was only for the sake of argument in this thread. My intention was to pretend the Bible said something else, to exemplify how the verse could be interpreted to prevent Jesus from lying. Of course not everything, but as far as the Bible goes, I'd say we can do that with most things. I also think thats how we are supposed to read it. Thats how Jesus taught, he spoke figuratively and let you figure out things on your own, unless he later had to explain something that people weren't getting, like an obscure parable, or something, 'n stuff... Yes, I don't think he was talking about the transfiguration. The Rapture, i dunno 'cause that is pretty well defined but a 'rapture type thingy', yeah, that's what I think he was talking about too.But I still don't think he lied. Has the event happened yet? I don't think it has. Are the people he was talking to dead? Yes, they are. So, I think he must have been talking about some kind of spiritual death, like when he says if you believe in him then you will never die. After the people he was talking to died, physically, they will witness Jesus' kingdom before they actually die, like spiritually, or something, man. I don't know if it happens on an idividual basis or in a big group event. Its a little too deep for me.That's my exegesis (one 'i').

Right! "Once upon a time in a far away land there was a man named Jesus"No historical relevancy at all. Right?
What does B.C. and A.D. stand for?Why is history on the planet cut into two portions this way? Is it because of some daydreams of some Galilean fishermen? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Brian,Thanks for reminding me that I really really need to spend more time reading the Bible to get to know it better. That's the best indirect advice I've heard all day.You're right. I simply have not gotten into this Book the Bible enough. One half hour study first thing every morning every day is hardly scratching the surface. I have to look forward to many more years of really getting into the Bible. That is exciting to me. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

ActSci wrote:

quote:

---

Yes, thanks for the explanation. I understand the difference.

---

Cool, we're communicating!

quote:

---

Yep, and I agree that exegeisis, in general, is not a good thing. But, I also think we should not read the Bible literally. You have to interpret what it means, critically, and the intentions of the reader, or there purpose for interpretation, seems to determine if there should be an 'i' in there or not.

---

I agree that a literal reading is not always right (see esp the song of solomon). However, I don't think the intentions of the *reader* should ever change what the *writer* meant. Think if we approached any other document this way. It could go like this:"Yes, judge O'Connor, that is what the Constitution says, but since my intentions as the reader differ, I decided that it should mean that having a King of New York is OK....."If the intention of the writer is important for ANY document, I'd think that Christians would consider the Bible to top the list - after all, the writer is supposed to be God, and deciding to put an "i" in there, and read in what you want, seems terribly disrespectful at best, indeed, blasphemous at worst.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Sure (CatSci), jesus does use figurative language - but that doesn't mean we can just call anything we don't like "figurative language" and proceed to creatively "interpret" it.

---

​

Of course not everything, but as far as the Bible goes, I'd say we can do that with most things. I also think thats how we are supposed to read it.

---

Most? The Bible is over 80% old testament, with Jesus's parables occupying only a small fraction of the whole Bible. I think there are many clear places of figurative language where the author's intent is clearly figurative (parables, song of solomon, Daniel, etc). I don't think that's "most". For instance, it seems clear both from the text and from acts that the stories of Jesus' miracles were intended to describe real events, same for the exodus, the egyptian plauges, the ascension etc. Whether they are real or not is another discussion, but it seems clear that the author *inteneded* them to be believed.

quote:

---

Yes, I don't think he was talking about the transfiguration. The Rapture, i dunno 'cause that is pretty well defined but a 'rapture type thingy', yeah, that's what I think he was talking about too.

---

I think we are close enough here to agree.

quote:

---

But I still don't think he lied.

---

As I mentioned before, since I think Jesus was a human and not an omniscient God, I don't think he lied either, any more than Einstein did when he objected to Quantum Mechanics by saying "God does not play dice with the universe." Einstein was just plain wrong - QM works and has stood the test of experiment after experiment. That doesn't mean Einstein is some dummy - it just means that he guessed incorrectly in that case.

quote:

---

Has the event happened yet? I don't think it has. Are the people he was talking to dead? Yes, they are.

---

Ah, and there is the crux of this whole discussion. It goes like this:1. The evidence shows that the statement in 16:28 is incorrect.
2. The original text is the correct word of God.
3. The Bible has been preserved uncorrupted since the books in it were written.These three cannot all be true because they contradict each other. Since #1 stands up to scrutiny, that makes a logical, rational person look critically at #2 and #3. However, BOTH #2 and #3 are asserted to be true by fundamentalists, and logically BOTH must be true if one is to use the Bible as a guide to one's life or as an unquestionable source of faith/worldview/etc.SO - what to do???? One can either abandon the dogmatic belief in #2 and #3, OR, one can abandon logic and rationality. It's a choice each of us can make for ourselves.From

quote:

---

So, I think he must have been talking about some kind of spiritual death, like...

---

Does that answer feel honest to you? From that answer, it seems that the choice I just talked about has been made in favor of the Bible and not in favor of logic, evidence, and rationality. The mental gymnastics and wiggling needed to keep it up are things that I'm very familiar with - I did it myself for years. As more and more things like this surfaced, it became more and more mentally uncomfortable for me to say to myself that I was intellectually honest, while twisting the words as the need arose. I finally couldn't fake it anymore, and gave up on the idea that the Bible is all good and all correct. It felt like finally admitting a lie to a spouse.That admission need not destroy one's faith - even one's Christian Faith. Many Christians have freed themselves from the dogmatic belief that the Bible is inerrant. To each his own. Since I know how it feels, I don't want to give someone a really hard time about where they are. To be on the other side feels raw, scary, shameful, and guilty. Have a great weekend everyone-

that's not what I meant. I'm not disputing the historicity of Jesus. I am disputing the notion that belief in him as a God/Son Of God is the inevitable conclusion of studying the Bible, especially when on occasions like this thread it's fairly easy to show that Jesus was, at best, confusing and ambiguous and, at worst, plainly wrong.Phat, as far as I understand it, has the honesty to say that he believes because he wants to believe, not because he is compelled into it by reading the Bible.The rest of you are doing the mental equivalent of a double-backflip-with-360-inward-spinning-somersault trying to convince us that Jesus didn't really mean what he said because that would make him wrong and we can't have the God/Son of God being wrong now can we, because that would mean that the Bible is not really the word of God and oh-my-god how are we going to justify our belief now !? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

What does B.C. and A.D. stand for?

​

Why is history on the planet cut into two portions this way? Is it because of some daydreams of some Galilean fishermen?

---

Since A.D./B.C. was developed 500 years after the alleged birth of the mythical Christ, I fail to see how this is at all relevant. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." -- Thomas Paine

quote:

---

I'm not disputing the historicity of Jesus.

---

Which isn't to say the historicity of Jesus can't be disputed, of course. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

---

"My country is the world, and my religion is to do good." -- Thomas Paine

But in the gospels Jesus is repeatedly associating the coming of the kingdom with repentance, judgement and watchfulness (Matt 4:17, Mark 1:15, Matt 24). This is clearly an event that will happen suddenly and will have immediate impact on Jesus's audience. The church was established gradually, like you say, and Jesus's audience was dead and rotting by that time, so why has he been warning them ?The author of Matthew also associates Jesus coming in his kingdom with judgement, in the same passage which is the subject of debate :
(Matt 16:27) "For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works."
In Matt 25, the parables of the kingdom, the same two verses are more or less repeated, this time with more details:"30 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory.....33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left."So Jesus coming in his kingdom is clearly linked with the Judgement / End of days and therefore cannot be referring to the church.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Ofcourse! But that's the subject for another thread I'm afraid.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

I don't think anyone is saying that Legend.The New Testament tells believers to be ready to give an answer to someone who asks about the hope that is within them. When someone says "What about this passage. This seems wrong or a lie or somthing." Some of us give a reason why we don't see it that way.This question about Matthew 17 is close to me because it was THE very same question I had when as a younger person I wandered down into Christian coffee house and asked one of the Christians. And I was not just trying to pick a fight. I honestly wanted to know about that passage. My thoughts were similiar to what I have read from some people here.Anyway, I think that it is God's mercy that I believe. Sometimes I can't hardly believe that I actually believe. I think God has to have mercy to cause a person to escape the labyrinth and endless maze of our natural reasoning.Maybe that is what Jesus meant - "And He said, For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been given to him from the Father" (John 6:65)And again He said - "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44)For this reason I consider it a revelation granted by God's mercy for a man or woman to be unveiled to realize Christ is the Son of God. But we still keep explaining and teaching just the same. I was a little disappointed that you did not go on to torture test my expanation to see if it held.Let's call it the Preview Theory. I'm willing to dub it that - "The Preview Theory."Now, I am ready to elaborate on it to wager that it is the best way to consider the matter. But I will wait for you to mention what problems you have with what I wrote first.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Truthlover,The church of Christ is still glorious. Not only 300 years after the resurrection.The church of Christ is victorious and glorious in spite of many failures. Don't let the Balaam type accusations rob you of this truth.We're still here. And we will woo the Lord back with out love and devotion to Him as His bride. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning