Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

It isn't that hard. If Jesus, as I believe, perfectly embodied the nature of God, then it is clear that there has to be another explanation other than accepting the plain text as written. I have simply come up with possible explanations.

Why do I have to take a plain reading of the text? That is Faith's understanding of things where she makes the Bible her focus of worship whereas I make Jesus the focus. Jesus affirmed the OT and corrected it where necessary. The items He corrected was where it strayed from His message on things like an "eye for an eye". I'm confident that this is a similar case.

It isn’t that hard. Religion is mankind’s attempt at understanding deity. It isn’t all from a book or in the Bible’s case a library of books. Even the Bible talks about the world we live in as attesting to God.
My contention in arguing with Faith that Christianity can essentially focus on an inerrant Bible or the position that Jesus perfectly embodied the nature of God. Just because I reject an inerrant Bible does not mean that I reject it at all. What it does mean though is that I read it in order to understand what God would have it tell us. I think that even non-believers such as yourselves would agree that the event in question if read as plain text is 180 degrees out from the nature of God as we see in Jesus.Incidentally, this incident is recorded only the one time in Acts. It isn’t mentioned in the Gospels or anywhere else in the NT. You guys on the one hand are just like Faith. You cherry pick verses to make your point and then insist that the Bible has to be understood from an inerrancy POV, which incidentally is a largely, though not completely an American understanding of Scripture. The Bible is written by men who were inspired to write their observations about God, what He wanted and what He was doing, but it is written from their perspective and sometimes they get it right and sometimes wrong.One of my favourite Christian writers is the physicist John Polkinghorne who asks the question about how one can square the OT’s claim that God ordered the genocide of the Canaanites with Jesus’ command to love our enemy. He simply answered the question by saying you can’t. I’m asking the question of how can one square the idea of God killing Ananias with Jesus’ message of forgiveness, mercy and love, and the answer is obviously that you can’t. (No matter how hard Faith tries.)

The Bible was written by men who were inspired to write down their beliefs, histories and observations. What they wrote was not dictated by God and in many cases they had political agenda. They were also impacted by the other cultures around them.Howver, throughout the OT there are many references to a God that is not as you depicted. Even as early as in Leviticus they are told to love their neighbour. Beyond that though it is obviously a progressive revelation. As we get to what is written later their understanding of the nature of God has evolved considerably. For example just look at my signature. This progressive revelation then climaxes in Jesus where we can see God's full nature in the flesh. My beliefs are not based solely on the Bible although that is no doubt the predominate source. My belief is also based on life experience and my observations of the world we live in. I would even add that the sciences are part of that.What are the crucial parts of the Bible. From my POV the only really crucial part of the Bible is the resurrection of Jesus. If that is not historical then I would agree with you that Christian theology is based on a lie or a mistake. (It still wouldn't negate the message of love, forgiveness and compassion.) I have heard the arguments for and against that and historically it is the only thing IMHO that makes sense of the rise of the Christian church. All the arguments I have heard in opposition to the resurrection are based on the idea that we know that this doesn't happen so any other explanation is more reasonable.I agree that the Bible is full of contradictions about the true nature of God. However, if one believes, as I do, that Jesus did perfectly embody the true nature of God then we can use that lens to understand where the writers got it wrong and where they were on the right track.The whole NT is consistent in the belief that God resurrected Jesus which is a affirmation of Jeusus' life and message.

I don't know which translation you are using but this is from the NIV.

quote:

---

23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

---

Taken in the context of the whole passage it is obvious that it is about taking life. For example: "29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull is to be stoned and its owner also is to be put to death."Jesus did "correct" that when he says this in Matthew 5.

quote:

---

38 You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
43 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,

---

Well we can go on like this but it really is clear that it is about taking a life.

quote:

---

16 Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession. 17 Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.

---

I suppose but it was obviously correcting what it was that they believed the text said.Another example again from Matthew 19.

quote:

---

6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." 7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?" 8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

---

Jesus not only corrects what was written but confirms that it was Moses, not God, who gave them this law.Here is another major correction.

quote:

---

43 You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

---

This is very clear that Jesus is saying that God is about loving enemies, so if we accept that Jesus perfectly imaged the true nature of God we can be confident that things like the Ananias account, genocide, public stonings etc are from the hearts and minds of men and not of God but contrary to His nature.

This is from Tacitus.

quote:

---

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Juda, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind.

---

Josephus also wrote about Jesus although I agree that one of the quotes may well have been expanded upon later. Josephus on Jesus

The point was that your statement was wrong. Josephus also confirms the execution of John the Baptist. Tacitus confirms the crucifixion. Both historically validate major aspects of the Gospels.

A good example of cognitive dissonance. That actually isn't correct. I accept that the bible is written by fallible humans. I agree that they were inspired to write down what they did, but that does not mean that they were infallible. Mozart was inspired to write great music. I have said that the only absolutely essential element, IMHO, is the resurrection of Jesus and that is my starting point in understanding what is consistent with what we have from Jesus and what isn't.I don't have to rationalize anything. An inerrantist has to rationalize a loving god who performs and commands atrocities.

Well written post Faith. I understand your position but how is it justice for anybody in the example of the Canaanites or the Amelkites, where we are told that God commands the Israelites to slaughter men, women, children, infants, beasts etc. How is that justice? How can killing a new born be justice? How is that justice for the Israelites with what we know that slaughter will do to their hearts and minds. The same goes for public stoning. Look what recent wars have done to our own people. This way of life is not from God in spite of what The Bible says. These actions are simply evil, and about as evil as men can get.Jesus talks about forgiveness and repentance. Where is the opportunity for either Ananias or Sapphira to repent? The account is in total contradiction to Jesus' teaching.

I apologize. You are correct when you said I had misread your post. I seem to recall you saying previously that you didn’t think He had existed at all. In the OT there are stories about the Israelites being told by God to go and attack their enenmies. As history I’m confident that these wars happened. However the idea that God told them to enter into these wars I would agree is political motivated. There were at least 12 messianic movements within roughly a hundred years either side of Jesus’ crucifixion. In each case the revolt was quashed brutally by the Romans and the hoped for messianic candidate was brutally executed by the Romans. Some of these movements had achieved a fair amount of military success but in the end when the hoped for messiah was executed he was just considered to be a failed messiah and they went on looking for another candidate.Jesus was executed in a way that was meant not only to torture and kill, but in a way that was meant to shame and humiliate. H was nailed and hung naked on a cross for people to taunt. The Gospels agree that His followers deserted Him not wanting to share the same fate. There is no benefit whatsoever for the disciples, or anyone else for that matter, to concoct a story that is completely contrary to Jewish belief, that Jesus had been resurrected. There is less than zero political motivation for them to do that.There are numerous people involved in the accounts and many would still be alive at the time of the first Gospels and of Paul’s letters. Nobody was able to produce a body. Paul who had previously been an enemy of the movement was convinced of the truth of the resurrection.Yes, the accounts are written by fallible men and no doubt some of the details are wrong and there likely are some exaggerations in some cases. However the various accounts are consistent that Jesus was resurrected. As I said, all of the arguments against the historical claim that Jesus was resurrected are based on the idea that it just couldn’t happen. Well, it does occur to me that if there is an intelligence responsible for our existence then it is not unreasonable to believe that this intelligence could have resurrected Jesus. I know that as an atheist you reject the whole notion so of course you would reject the resurrection as well. The bit in the Bible about it happening within a generation has been badly misunderstood. Jesus’ message was very much against the revolutionaries. He said things like those who live by the sword will die by the sword. He used typical Jewish hyperbole about stars falling etc to denote great upheaval including the destruction of Jerusalem and it’s temple. I am not even saying that He knew what would happen supernaturally but He knew that this is how the Romans always handled things. It did of course happen in 70AD. Science is a discipline that tells us how things happen and has gone to amazing lengths in doing just that. Philosophy and religion attempt to answer why questions. Science can tell us how we came to exist but it can't answer the question of why we exist. Science is agnostic as when it comes to religion. It can demonstrate as in evolutionary theory that some religious beliefs are wrong but that isn’t the point.The Biblical accounts show that as time went by that there was a progressive revelation about the nature of God right up to the time of Jesus. It only makes sense that we continue to learn and adapt. So yes, religion does adapt, as does science.

The point wasn't just that Jesus corrected Moses but that He also does not say the Yahweh told you this but that it was Moses. Nonsense. The whole point is to understand the Bible in a way that is consistent with what Jesus taught.

That makes zero sense. In the first place the revolution that Jesus was leading called for them to live a life of service and sacrifice as opposed to the life of power and prestige they had been looking for.Other messianic movements from the Maccabees reign, to the Bar kokhba rebellion saw various degrees of actual success in leading revolts against the Romans but when the leaders were brutally executed nobody suggested that the leaders were anything but dead. Here was a comparatively small pacifist movement almost exclusively from among the peasant class. It called for sacrifice of their time and their meager assets. In some cases it cost them their lives.The Gospels are not anything like what a 1st century Jew would concoct. The leaders are consistently shown in a bad light. There was a group that believed in resurrection of some sort but that it would occur at the end of time but there was no belief that anyone would be resurrected in the middle of time. Jesus doesn't come back as a figure surrounded by light or with a company of angels. It is very clear that the compilers of the Gospels believed that what they were writing was based on something that had happened historically. The only question is whether they got it right or wrong. Well, actually it does and I explained it.

You start from the point that something written many years earlier than the Gospels is more reliable than what we have from Jesus' teaching. Yes i believe God's judgments are just and consistent with what Jesus taught. You can't both follow Jesus and an inerrant Bible. The two aren't compatible.

In my view it reads like a committee deciding what they have to do to please Yahweh. They are influenced by the partial revelation of God, their own understandings of God's nature and by their non-Jewish neighbour's practices.