Preface:

When I say BIBLE, i do not refer to it in the general sense as follows:

bible (n): A book regarded as authoritative in its field

For the sake of my intents, I refer to the only official version of the Bible. The Bible is any collection treated as a complete version of the scripture of either Christianity or Judaism.

The one that is described here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

I must start by saying that I may have developed a reputation for snide remarks, but I am not really like that, I guess I got caught up in the heat of the arguments. I have abandoned the two threads for good.

Meanwhile, seeing that I approached matters of faith from a wrong perspective, I opened this thread to follow this Bible verse

[size=13pt]AMPLIFIED BIBLE
1st Peter 3:15  But in your hearts set Christ apart as holy [and acknowledge Him] as Lord. Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully. [Isa. 8:12, 13.] [/size]

and as such I welcome all questions, no matter your beliefs (or disbeliefs) about God. Please lets leave negativity outside, lest the thread become another battle of illogical fanaticism. Also, I will not answer questions on "errors" or "mistakes" in the Bible and/or Koran, to which I already made a final post on one of the earlier misconceived threads.

P.S> My responses will be based on MY own faith, which is altogether personal.

1Co 1:5  [So] that in Him in every respect you were enriched, in full power and readiness of speech [to speak of [size=13pt]your faith[/size]] and complete knowledge and illumination [to give you full insight into its meaning].

I may not respond immediately because I rarely have time for NL due to busy schedules.

Let's set the ball road-rolling!

Nice!! 

1) The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. . .  what does it mean to you?

2) The Gospel writers- Historians or creative theologians?

3) How do you reconcile the Jewishness of Jesus with modern Christian theology that has little to no connection with the Jewish faith that Jesus was a  part of.

4) Do you think the Gospels paint an accurate picture of Jews and Pharisees? I'm asking because research strongly suggests that the gospel narratives reflect the tensions between these communities when the gospels were written (after the destruction of the temple) and not the situation during the life of Jesus. Jesus's theology is very similar to a "school" of Pharasaic thought- Hillel. This "school" developed a theology that tried to make the Jewish faith more accessible and livable to the average Jewish peasants (about 90% of the population) that were too poor and distraught to be observant Jews. They couldn't eat, talk less of only eating kosher, or staying ritually clean- They couldn't afford to be clean enough to be observant Jews. There was another Pharasaic school, Shammai, that was from i think the Southern part, and they insisted on a strict literal following of the law. An example is the debate Jesus had over the Sabbath (sabbath made for man or man for the sabbath). Jesus's position is very consistent with Hillel theology. In other words,  there was a whole school of pharisees that believed the same things Jesus did. Not all Pharisees were anti-Jesus.

5) Paul's theology is quite different from Jesus's theology which was very Jewish,  and scholars have a difficult time reconciling both. How much of an influence do you think Paul's theology had on the Gospels, and how do you connect that back to Jesus?

6) The exiles exposed Jews to a lot of foreign cultures and ideas, and there is significant shift in some Jewish theology during and after that period. Ideas like after-life (heaven and hell), good and evil forces in a cosmic battle for man's soul etc became central in some Jewish circles even though they were not, previously. Do you believe there is a sort of dialectic between religion and society, or do you think Religions are just revealed by God and that is that. In short i'm asking if you believe Jesus was a product of his surroundings, or someone that lived for thirty or so years before his ministry and was totally detached from all that was around him.

U don't have to answer all. Just whateva u feel comfortable with or have time for. thanks

I will answer them in parts for the sake of time

1) The genealogy of Jesus in Matthew. . .  what does it mean to you?

This question is a little vague to me but I will attempt to answer. The genealogy of Christ in Matthew is in Matt 1:1-17.

Just like the book of Genesis sets out to establish origins (I believe everything of consequence to mankind has a shadow or outline in Genesis), the book of Matthew sets out origins of the New Creation, with Jesus as the last Adam, the second man.

It was promised to Abraham that Christ should descend from him (Gen 12:3; Gen 22:18), and to David that he should descend from him (2Sa_7:12; Psa 89:3, etc.; Psa 132:11); and therefore, unless it can be proved that Jesus is a son of David, and a son of Abraham, we cannot admit him to be the Messiah.

Matthew's genealogy acted only as a reminder to the Jews, setting out facts that were publicly available in Jewish tables and records. He was to take them as he found them. If there were any errors that he discovered, he was not to modify them. This initial part of the book of Matthew 1:1-17 is an excerpt of the Jewish tables of genealogies, with respect to Jesus Christ.

Luke's genealogy of Christ was with respect to his purpose for writing the book of Luke, while that of Matthew too was with respect to his purpose. Luke wrote unto Theophilus (Luke 1:3), the most excellent, a title given to Roman governors. Matthew on the other hand, wrote principally for the Jews. So Matthew had to start with the genealogy, because the Jews would want to know if he was really the Messiah before they listen to whatever Matthew had to saw about Jesus.

Theophilus, on the other hand, who (as the ancients inform us) was a Christian person of eminent quality (presumably a governor, as I said) at Alexandria and whose name means "friend of God", already accepted Christ as the Messiah but he needed to be CERTAIN about facts that had been presented to him (Luke 1:4). Thus Luke only introduced the human genealogy of Christ after his baptism, to show that even as God had identified him as His son, Jesus was also 100% man physically speaking (i.e. as was supposed, so to speak), which was why Luke said, when beginning his own genealogy.

Luk 3:22  And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
Luk 3:23  And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

The important fact about this genealogy and that provided by Luke: they unquestionably prove the grand point in view, that Jesus was of the family from which the promised seed was to come.

2) The Gospel writers- Historians or creative theologians?

What is a creative theologian, I may ask? By my dictionary, that is someone who speculates about the rational and systematic study of religion and its influences and of the nature of religious truth.

On the other hand, a historian is a person who is an authority on history and who studies it and writes about it.

My overall answer will be, neither, although Luke was written by Luke functioning as a historian. By my understanding, the Gospel writers, except Luke, were present with Jesus, and each one writes an account of the GOOD NEWS i.e. Christ's birth, ministry and death, as seen from the perspective and roles that God allowed each of them to play. Each of the three of them presented their TESTIMONY on the matter.

Luke, as i explained in my last post, was collecting a series of accounts from those who actually experienced the testimonies, and being a doctor, his method was more procedural and thorough with details: inspecting all angles from an external perspective. He gives a bird's eye view of the gospel, so I may count him as a historian, and a teacher of sorts.

For the Gospels, as with all the other books of the Bible, they were inspired of God because they present the truth about God's plans, purposes and man's place in the mix of things. A man may receive inspiration from God to find a cure for cancer, another may receive the exact fraction that is the mathematical pi (even though it has been argued to be non-rational), another may have inspiration to speak a language that everyman will hear in his own native tongue, another may receive inspiration to bi-locate (physically be in more than one location at once), but as for these four, they respectively were inspired to present the details of Christ's ministry on earth, each man from his own perspective, some as a means of testimony and one as a historian.

I hope your question is answered. I really dislike a lot of typing.

3) How do you reconcile the Jewishness of Jesus with modern Christian theology that has little to no connection with the Jewish faith that Jesus was a  part of.

This question is a little involving, so I will need to analyze some background information first of all.

I believe there are a number of phases in which mankind interacted with God (theologians often argue for 7), but I will highlight three phases of particular interest.

The Jewish era, The Era of Jesus' Ministry on Earth, and the New Creation / End-time era.

I will explain below.

Prelude: What happened in Eden was that Adam handed over his authority and role as god of the earth to Lucifer because of Lucifer's deception over the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Ever since then, Adam became a slave to Lucifer, and by the rule of slavery, anything born of Adam would have to be a slave of Lucifer too.

The Jewish era: This spans from the time that Abraham accepted the invitation to serve God, and he was given promises that he believed against all hope even when it all sounded mad, to the times through which the promises were declared and handed down through the ages (so that no one would forget), through David and the other kings, where David found favour with God because he paid attention to God, through the rest of time till Christ was given through Mary. This period had some characteristics: no one was ever sure about what to do, and what God liked and what God disliked. As such, they kept falling into errors. Time and time again, they kept sinning and since the wages of sin is death, they kept dying. The ten commandments were given as the backbone of right and wrong, and there were many other laws of society, justice, worship and interaction with other human beings outlined in Deuteronomy to curb wickedness and sin. But there was still a problem: the fact that the law exists means that it is possible to break it. Which means that even if, say, krayola lives a blameless and holy life entirely, mavenbox may not. Which means that all men will never be saved, which was the divine design. On the other hand, krayola cannot even live a blameless life and escape the hands of the law, because the very seed that produces a human being is corrupted and the sin gets transmitted from parent to child. It's like saying one is guilty before trial. All because of Adam's sin, no one was perfectly made right with God. God would have to send someone who didn't have a bloodline related to Adam, i.e. the seed would have to be divine, it could not have been a natural sperm fertilization because that would make the devil have dominion over him. The holy Jews of old who did their very best, were considered in that perspective by God, and judged by THAT measure while they looked forward to Christ's birth, which was the perfection of their salvation.
e.g. Joh 8:56  Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

The Era of Jesus' Ministry on Earth: This spans from Jesus birth due to Mary's acceptance of God's invitation to be the vessel to serve God, believing the promises that she was bearing the Messiah, and hoping against all hope that it could happen, although once again it all sounded mad, because she was a virgin; through to the birth of Christ, to the ministry of Christ and then his eventual crucifixion. This era was an overlap between the one above and the one below because a sneek-peek of the aftermath was already obvious in Christ's living, even though the Jewish era was still in position. In this era, Christ started teaching people how to live a life well-pleasing to God. However, note that many teachings at this period were PREPARING people for the time after Christ was fulfilled on the cross, which was the most important thing he came to do on earth, not the miracles or healing.

As Christ himself said, predicting the New Creation era:
Joh 4:21  Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
Joh 4:22  Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23  But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
Joh 4:24  God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

The New Creation era:
When Christ was crucified by the Jews, he defined redemption for us all because he substituted himself for us. He re-defined "the people of God" by widening it to include everyone else in the world, not just the Jews like before. This is because he was not given ONLY for the Jews, but for everyone

Joh 1:29  The next day John saw Jesus coming unto him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.

This is what God had to say about this new era, with respect to how Jews and the "new creation" believers in God operate spiritual matters:

Jer 31:31  Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32  Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33  But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34  And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

So, contrary to what you said, the "new" kind of Jews are a fulfillment of what the "old Jews" could not accomplish in God.
Mat 5:17  Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.
Mat 5:18  For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.
Mat 5:19  Whoever then breaks or does away with or relaxes one of the least [important] of these commandments and teaches men so shall be called least [important] in the kingdom of heaven, but he who practices them and teaches others to do so shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Being a JEW has little to do with physical things.
Rom 2:28  For he is not a [real] Jew who is only one outwardly and publicly, nor is [true] circumcision something external and physical.
Rom 2:29  But he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and [true] circumcision is of the heart, a spiritual and not a literal [matter]. His praise is not from men but from God.
Rom 3:1  THEN WHAT advantage remains to the Jew? [How is he favored?] Or what is the value or benefit of circumcision?
Rom 3:2  Much in every way. To begin with, to the Jews were entrusted the oracles (the brief communications, the intentions, the utterances) of God. [Ps. 147:19.]

There are too many things I would like to say to explain here, but Im sleepy-headed right now, I may need to stop now to get some sleep. Yawn. LOL. If something is not clear, please ask and I will clarify. Meanwhile, I will respond to the other questions later.

Cheers!

Question: what makes you so certain the bible was "revealed" by god?

2. Which bible are you talking about, the catholic, protestant, mormon or any other one out there?

@mavenbox. Thanks for ur responses. I won't challenge them because that isn't the point of this thread, and besides this thread will probably  become battle-royale by the time others get here. I just accept them as ur honest opinion. However, if u want to know what i think feel free to ask . looking forward to reading ur responses to the other questions. Thanks again

Tudór:

Question: what makes you so certain the bible was "revealed" by god?

2. Which bible are you talking about, the catholic, protestant, mormon or any other one out there?

OMG!! Battle royale don start. Why u no fit just ignore the thread? 

Here we go again. . .another thread down the drain. .   

LOL your "new post" mail notification dings on my yahoo messenger woke me up ! Forgot to log out of it, but I will do that this time

@Krayola: Thanks, please post your opinions as well that we may learn. I will resume my answers probably later today.

@Tudor: Going by your argument, bible may as well refer to any book of sorts.

bible (n): A book regarded as authoritative in its field

For the sake of my intents, I refer to the only official version of the Bible. The Bible is any collection treated as a complete version of the scripture of either Christianity or Judaism.

The one that is described here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Let me go and modify my initial post to make such matters as this very clear.

@Krayola: LOL there's no going down the drain. All questions are welcome.

mavenbox:

@Tudor: Going by your argument, bible may as well refer to any book of sorts.

bible (n): A book regarded as authoritative in its field

For the sake of my intents, I refer to the only official version of the Bible. The Bible is any collection treated as a complete version of the scripture of either Christianity or Judaism.

The one that is described here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

This just begs the question. Who has the right and authority to declare what should be scripture and what is not? Are you saying the bible as it is isn't open to new additions inspired by the so called "holy spirit" to incorporate modern day challenges that we face and gods position on them. Coz frankly the archaic scriptures are pretty vague on some issues and thats why we have over 30,000 sects of christianity each with its own beliefs.

And pls kindly tell us how you seem to know for certain the bible was revealed by god

I don talk am

Subscribing

The terms bible are scripture are not the same,the term bible could be used to describe the set of scriptures that were canonised at the synod of hippo in 393 CE ,this decisions were ratified by the council of carthage in 397 CE.

In all there are 73 books of the christian bible.The bible that has 66 books are what I would refer as the hybrid bible i.e a a combination of the jewish bible and the christian NT.

The first time the christian bible was created it had 73 books,I am not saying in essence that these 73 books were the only scriptures that were written,the fact remains that there are scriptures that were not canonised because the then religious authourities were not sure of their authenticities.

After the creation of the bible some christians (orthodox churches) went on to add to these 73 boks while others(protestants ) removed from them.The Roman catholic church and some few orhodox churches are the only churche that still stand by the 73 books canonised in the fourth century

This concept of belief in the bible is faulty and not necessarily "christian" i think what is more important is belief in the gospel of our lord Jesus christ and obeying his commandments. that is what makes us christians and not belief in the bible which contains so many things that is not in tune with the gospel of christ[especially in the old testament]. The jewish religion and practises which forms most part of the old testament is quite different from the teachings of christ. As christians i believe we should focus more on the gospel of christ than the bible as a whole which is just a collection of books cannonized by religious leaders in their opinion. I am not discounting the bible here but it would help if christians get the focus of their beliefs right. The bible is just a tool to help us develop our faith it is not meant to be what we believe in.

Why do you believe and accept that the bible is true and not other religious books?

Hi there,

What is it said in the Bible regarding an apostate; and his punishment? Thanks

muhsin:

Hi there,

What is it said in the Bible regarding an apostate; and his punishment? Thanks

allah says u shld kill them, what else do u want?

Tudór:

This just begs the question. Who has the right and authority to declare what should be scripture and what is not? Are you saying the bible as it is isn't open to new additions inspired by the so called "holy spirit" to incorporate modern day challenges that we face and gods position on them. Coz frankly the archaic scriptures are pretty vague on some issues and thats why we have over 30,000 sects of christianity each with its own beliefs.

And pls kindly tell us how you seem to know for certain the bible was revealed by god

ure guilty of the same offense, what gives you the right to declare what is scriptural or not?

@Mavenbox

Thank you for inviting me here and my question would start from doctrine of trinity. Mind, I do not like posting in this section apart form my own section but did that since you drew me here.

Please:

Is there any OT prophet that preached trinity and I would need the verse(s)?

If Jesus is God, who did he shout to that' My Lord, why has thou forsaken me?

If Jesus is God, why did he say that God is greater than him?

Kindly note this please:

In "The Dictionary of the Bible," John L. McKenzie, S.J., p. 899  bearing the Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, and Imprimi Potest (official Church seals of approval), we read:

"THE TRINITY OF GOD IS DEFINED BY THE CHURCH AS THE BELIEF THAT IN GOD ARE THREE PERSONS WHO SUBSIST IN ONE NATURE. THAT BELIEF AS SO DEFINED WAS REACHED ONLY IN THE 4th AND 5th CENTURIES AD AND HENCE IS NOT EXPLICITLY AND FORMALLY A BIBLICAL BELIEF.

This polytheistic (believing in more than one god) Trinitarianism was intertwined with Greek religion and philosophy and slowly worked its way into Christian thought and creeds some 300 years after Jesus. The idea of "God the Son" is Babylonian paganism and mythology that was grafted into Christianity. Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage, was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one being of substance with the Father.

The Jews also reject the trinity, in addition to the very first groups of Christianity such as the Ebonites, the Corinthians, the Basilidians, the Capocratians, and the Hypisistarians never know about trinity doctrine at all. The Arians, Paulicians and Goths also accepted Jesus (peace be upon him) as a prophet of God and against the trinity.  

Also note that this verse you normally hide under:

John 5 v 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Here is the explanation:

The above is in King James Version authorised in 1611 and formed the strongest evidence for the Doctrine of the Trinity. But now this part, 'the father, the word and the holy ghost; and these three are one' has been expunged in the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 and in many other bibles as it was a gloss that had encroached on the Greek test.

I john 5 v 7 and 8 in the New American Standard Bible read as follows; 'and it is the spirit who bears witness because the spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, and the water and the blood and the three are in agreement.

Also in the New World Translation of Holy Scriptures used by Jehovah Witness, you will find 'for there are three witness bearers, the spirit and the water and the blood and the three are in agreement'.

Also

Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and engrafted on the Christian faith."

The Encyclopedia Americana comments: "Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching.

Finally:

John 7:16 Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me

John 12:49  For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

John 8:26  I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him.

John 14:24  He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

1 Corinthians 11:3: Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is YHWH [Jehovah or Yahweh]

Ephesians 1:3-Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

1 Peter 1:3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

Revelation 1:6 -Jesus has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father—to him be glory and power for ever and ever! Amen.  

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.

I tell you the truth, w[b]hoever hears my word and believes him who sent me [/b] has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.  (John 5:24)"

Did he send himself?

I lifted the above from one of my responses to your friends here.

Here are my questions again:

1. Did any OT prophets preach Trinity?

2. Who did Jesus shout to that, why has thou forsaken me?

3. Who did he pray to more than two times and his sweat were like blood?

4. What did he mean when he said father is greater than him?

5. Did he send himself from the above verses?

6. Why is there forgiveness for the sin against son of man but no forgiveness against Holy Spirit?

em em em em


Take you time to reply and I would waiting to read verses supporting your response.

Have a lovely day.

KunleOshob:

This concept of belief in the bible is faulty and not necessarily "christian" i think what is more important is belief in the gospel of our lord Jesus christ and obeying his commandments. that is what makes us christians and not belief in the bible which contains so many things that is not in tune with the gospel of christ[especially in the old testament]. The jewish religion and practises which forms most part of the old testament is quite different from the teachings of christ. As christians i believe we should focus more on the gospel of christ than the bible as a whole which is just a collection of books cannonized by religious leaders in their opinion. I am not discounting the bible here but it would help if christians get the focus of their beliefs right. The bible is just a tool to help us develop our faith it is not meant to be what we believe in.

you should not ignore the fact that the gospel of Christ can ONLY be expunged from the bible. it takes an imminent understanding of the bible to gasp the gospel of the kingdom.

@krayola: LOL you are a comedian! Im still expecting your own perspectives on those I have answered by the way, before I proceed.
@Tudor: Im answering you next
@Babs: Your answers will come after Tudor's

@Pharoh:  

@Everyone else: thanks for joining the thread. Please if you are asking a question, denote it clearly to avoid confusion. If you are refuting or corroborating an earlier post, or introducing a new perspective, it may be good to quote the author so that we will not lose track on the thread.

Okay now let me type out my first response and paste it here, i prefer that to typing directly in this box. Please be patient with me, I dont really like typing and Im not very fast at it!

God will grant you the wisdom and strength to answer the questions perfectly. I am a novice who is here to learn so God bless everyone.

I'm sorry for the delay, I had to attend to some urgent things. Here's my first post.

I proceed by saying that it may be necessary for anyone following this conversation to consider my responses deeply, because Im trying to sound as logical as possible, and make the discussion LOGICAL as much as possible. Although I know that maybe not all spiritual things may be logically expressed, but I will make a good attempt.

@Tudor:

Q2. Which bible are you talking about, the catholic, protestant, mormon or any other one out there?

The Bible is any collection treated as a complete version of the scripture of either Christianity or Judaism.
The one that is described here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

This just begs the question.

Inasmuch as I was half-asleep at the time I responded, LOL, I was not begging the question. I answered Question 2 first. Note that from my boldened words, it is ANY collection TREATED AS a complete version of the Scripture of CHRISTIANITY or JUDAISM. You asked me WHICH bible I am talking about, so I responded by telling you that when I say the God who revealed the Bible, I refer to the one who revealed the Judaism and Christian scriptures, whatever the Jews and Christians consider those scriptures to be. Whether some books are considered apocryphal or not, whether some are accepted by Catholics or Protestants or not, is not the object of this discourse.

Do not forget, I said you should ask me Questions about my beliefs in the God, and not about the Bible I said He revealed. I only chose the title rather than saying "Ask me my beliefs about the Christian God (?)" or mentioning one of His names, or something.

What I was saying in essence is that if you are a Catholic, YOUR own Bible is the Catholic Bible. Talk to me about my beliefs about that God who revealed the Catholic Bible to Catholics. If you are a Jew, talk to me about my beliefs about the God who revealed the Bible-that-is-your-own-scripture-of-Judaism. And if you are neither, go ahead and do similarly. If you do not believe in anything that has to do with the Bible, ask me about the God who those that believe in it, believe revealed it to them.

So, in my opinion, you didn't consider the topic procedurally before continuing.

Who has the right and authority to declare what should be scripture and what is not?

Does it not come to mind, Tudor, that in every belief system, there are axioms, that are widely accepted on their own merits? Faith is the unit of measurement of a man's belief system. So that is exactly how matters of faith go. But as with all axioms, they are considered infallible until one of the theorems built upon the axiom shows that the axiom is false, lacking in tangible veracity. Then, like a pack of cards, the axiom falls and is reconstructed. Once again, the process begins.

For example, a scientist begins with an hypothesis, which he has to keep moulding based on relative AXIOMS of science, proven over time and considered infallible. If his hypothesis negates a fundamental axiom, it will not even be given a chance in the first case, he wouldn't bother researching it; but if the hypothesis is in line with the axiom, he uses it to build another foundation upon the axiom, which is the theory. There are many examples over time of great engineers, doctors and scientists who were considered as heretics and/or mad men because their declarations opposed fundamental axioms. Until later, when the axioms were re-adjusted because of empirical evidence. So even science works by a type of faith. All fields of human endeavour work with a kind of faith, a belief system of sorts, until an even more evident truth is found to displace it.

What is scripture, by the way? It is, by general definition, any writing that is regarded as sacred by a religious group. Such scripture is venerated because they are, in the group's belief system, the words or deeds of their deity, authorized to serve as a guide for their own practical experience. So they are axioms, so to speak, and are infallible.

In a nutshell, the one who has the "authority" to declare what is the scripture, is the very one who provided it in the first case. Absolutely speaking, a piece of evidence can only be as true as the one who makes it manifest, who in turn has the authority to declare what is to be believed as truth. That piece of evidence presented is considered the base axiom, upon which the religious group proceeds to build their further beliefs. If any of those beliefs are INCONTROVERTIBLY found to deny the base axiom provided by the original testator, then the so-called scripture ceases to be scripture for that religious group. In other words, what the Jews consider to be scripture may not correspond to what the Catholics or the Protestants (i don't like that word, let me say Non-Catholic Christians) consider to be true scripture. And that in turn will define their own individual experiences.

A simple analogy to explain the above is a ray of light, splendid in its magnificence, incident upon a prism and splitting into the variegated colours. What is the source that revealed the colour red? That very light. What about the one that revealed the colour orange, or yellow, or green, or the others? It's the self-same light. You agree with me on that because by fundamental axioms in optics, it is known to be so. If I claim that I have a prism that produces an extra five colors; ox-blood, pink, fuchsia, royal blue and turquoise, would you not tell that I lie indeed, otherwise my eyes are faulty?

So the question then is, how do we know what exactly came from that original source of light, or what was added by the observer of the light rays either in error or deliberately with ulterior motives? It's simple, the light rays would all speak of the source. What I mean is that if Catholics are CERTAIN that some books are a part of the Bible, and non-Catholic Christians believe those books are apocryphal, then it is easy to deduce that they are NOT serving the same God, or a party has deliberately or erroneously manipulated details. Also, if Jews and Christians have different perspectives about the accuracy or relevancy of some scriptures (e.g. the fulfillment of the Messiah), then it is obvious that it is either that they are serving two different Gods, or else one party or the other cannot "see the diffracted light clearly" as it emanates through the prism. Consider the Baptists with the Anglicans and Protestants, for instance. In their own case, their BASE AXIOMS which define their relationship with God, are all the same. Therefore, it is a thing of certainty that they have faith in the one same God. There may be differences in doctrine, but those doctrines are built on the base axiom.

Are you saying the bible as it is isn't open to new additions inspired by the so called "holy spirit" to incorporate modern day challenges that we face and gods position on them.

This is where you get it all wrong, sir Tudor. Why do I say so? You mention the Holy Spirit, and you refer to Him as possibly further incorporating other works of scripture into the Bible? You need to do some more research there, for the Bible is complete in itself. Rather than add a single letter to the Bible, the Holy Spirit will take the self-same scripture and explain it to you, applying it to the particular experience you need to address. It is like saying when you see a poem by Shakespeare and it appears not to be descriptive enough, you need to ask him to add some words to paint in the perspective that you do not understand. No! Rather, Shakespeare or someone who understands the heart of his work so much that we might refer to him as an authority, will take the same poem and explain to you between the lines. The Holy Spirit is the ONE and only resource person available to man who knows the intents of the Bible's heart inside out, and can refer it to you own experience. I put it to you that there is no present-day issue that the Holy Spirit cannot reveal His perspectives to me with respect to the Bible.

Coz frankly the archaic scriptures are pretty vague on some issues

And also, in additionn to the above, please note that unlike a number of religions, Christianity is different. I do not refer to Christianity as a religion except for secular purposes because in Christianity, we are a part of God and His life flows in us. I have no religion. What I have is the Life of God.

See it this way, man cannot communicate with a lizard. Why? They have different forms of life. A sparrow communicates perfectly with other sparrows, because they have the same life. God cannot relate to man, neither can man worship God without a significant attenuation of communication and identity. And that is why God had to come as a man, he came down to our level. Like a man becoming a lizard, after which the man makes it possible for all those other lizards to follow a new path to become men, even though the lizards-become men may need some guidance to find their way. So Jesus opened up a path that enabled us to exist in God as Spiritual men, and left the Holy Spirit as our guide in the God-life. God can relate directly to man now through His Holy Spirit because His Holy Spirit talks to Us in Our spirits, unlike the days of old when so many instructions were given and man would just keep falling short of them all, just like a circus-trained lizard will eventually misbehave or fall below expectations. The lizard just cannot understand that it is a circus, and it needs to behave appropriately.
Lest I lose myself in analogies, I reiterate, we receive instructions directly from the Holy Spirit, bypassing (but not contradicting) the Bible. This happens time and time again. So there needs be no addition or removal. Your argument there is not valid, Tudor.

and thats why we have over 30,000 sects of christianity each with its own beliefs.

I object to the use of the word sect, i would prefer denominations because a sect is a dissenting clique of a larger religious body. As I explained above, these so-called sects of yours have the same AXIOMS as the basis of their faith, even though they have different doctrines. Are there over 30,000 denominations of Christianity? I am just hearing that, but I won't mind if you produce proof.

In my honest opinion, why are there many denominations? It is because there are many types of human beings, and not ONE of them is to be excused for rejecting the message of Christ. THERE IS A CHURCH FOR EVERY KIND OF HUMAN BEING UNDER THE SUN, so no one has an excuse. If you consider yourself elite, or you do not, or whatever, there's a type of church (denomination) that will accurately suit your purpose. But the END POINT of it all is that when you truly get to know God and you live by His Word, you will understand why the other denominations exist as well, and you will stop discriminating, if you used to.

And pls kindly tell us how you seem to know for certain the bible was revealed by god

I assume you meant by God, and not god. As I wrote above, it is a fundamental axiom of faith. It has not been disproved by the self-same people who use it as a means of understanding the intial testator's (their God's) interactions with mankind over the ages, his interests, His plans & purposes and motives. But I assure you, immediately the Bible-believers find out that it was not revealed by God, or someone else has considerable empirical evidence, you will be the first to know.

Phew. I will continue with the next question later.

@Pharoh: Gee, thanks!

@mavenbox
why are you a christian?

With respect to your current understanding and position on God

1.Is Noah an ark(or a ship builder by profession)

2.The Ark was taller than a 3-story building and had a deck area the size of 36 lawn tennis courts. Its length was 300 cubits (450 feet, or 135 meters); its width was 50 cubits (75 feet, or 22.5 meters); it had three stories and its height was 30 cubits (45 feet, or 13.5 meters) according to units conversion and it's a bit longer and wider than a soccer pitch.

3.The largest ship ever built with hi-tech is Knock Nevis  458.5 m / 1,504 ft     http://www.knock-nevis.com/knock-nevis-information.htm    about 3 times the size of Noah's ark.

Historically speaking, with the technology and labour available to Noah ,Please explain how he managed   to complete the construction  in his life time a ship of that size and strenght that was able to survive a flood?Do you believe in a God that made all these "possible" for "mr holy" Noah and a situation where today it takes centuries for the numerous "mr devils" to achieve what noah presumably achieved .

davidylan:

allah says u shld kill them, what else do u want?

With due respect, this is not what I asked. Qur'an is my guide, thus you don't have to tell me what is said therein. And for your info. nothing like that is said; and if you think otherwise produce the verse. While Bible is yours. . .therefore I ask the Poster/you/any Christian a very simple question.

I repeat: what is it said concerning an apostate and his punishment in the Bible? Thanks

mavenbox:

@krayola: LOL you are a comedian! Im still expecting your own perspectives on those I have answered by the way, before I proceed.

haha. i was hoping this thread wouldn't turn into a war-zone, and it looks like we are headed in that direction so I didn't want to waste my time.  I'll post my views later today. . .I have a test today and I need to do some last minute cramming  .

But this isn't a "prove-it" session so I won't go out of my way to explain anything cause experience has shown me that that is a pointless exercise on Nairaland. I'm also not a "Christian" anymore (even though I subscribe to some of Jesus's teachings)  so I try to avoid theology because it makes me have to debate on terms that i don't subscribe to. . .and while i can do that, I feel like it isn't a sincere way to debate religion. I don't believe in "fantastic" stuff so I won't try to analyse such. I'll just give u my understanding of what they represent, and why I feel the way i do.  ttyl. 

Are you still here mavenbox,can we continue with our discussion and could you please answer  my question or if the question need to be reframed please let me know.

Thanks

So the question then is, how do we know what exactly came from that original source of light, or what was added by the observer of the light rays either in error or deliberately with ulterior motives? It's simple, the light rays would all speak of the source. What I mean is that if Catholics are CERTAIN that some books are a part of the Bible, and non-Catholic Christians believe those books are apocryphal, then it is easy to deduce that they are NOT serving the same God, or a party has deliberately or erroneously manipulated details

Let me reproducew what I wrote before on the christian canon

To understand the meaning of the word bible it is pertinent to draw a distinction between the terms scripture and bible.These two terms do no mean the same thing.

The christian bible is a collection of 73 canonised scriptures.What these means is that there are scriptures that were not canonised because the religious authourities then were not sure of their authenticity.Scriptures has always existed centuries or even milleniums before the advent of christianity ,but the bible was created in the fourth century ,precisely in hippo (present day Tagaste in Tunisia) in 393 CE by a church council presided by st Augustine the then bishop of hippo.That church council examined the scriptures and selected 46 books in the OTand 27 books in the NT.These decisions were later ratified by the council of carthage in 397CE.

Pope Innocent 1 in 405 CE,declared the christian canon closed restricting it to these 73 books.What these means is that no one should add to them,like wise no one should remove any from them.These decisions were maintained until 1885 when the archbishop of canterbury removed 7 books from the OT.These books were removed because they were not canonised by the jewish council of jamniain 90CE[b].IT MUST BE STATED[/b] THAT THESE COUNCIL WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN COUNCIL RATHER IT WAS JEWISH.These council obviously had no input from the holyspirit since it equally rejected Jesus and the entire NT.


The septuagint which was the basis of the christian bible was used by the Apostles including Peter and Pauland the early chuch fathers.The discovery of some of the additional books of the septuagint alongside other known and unknown jewish writings has further laid credence to the authenticity of the septuagint.

While the total no of scriptures might never be knownit is pertinent that christians should stick to the 73 books canonised at the synod of hippo in 397CE.ANY BIBLE CONTAINING ANY NO OF BOOKS OTHER THAN THESE 73 BOOKS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CHRISTIAN BIBLE

The collections of books protestants call the bible is mixture of the jewish canon and the christian NT,These is what I call the THE HYBRID CANON.
You either stick to the christian bible or you adopt the jewish canon ,you cannot morally justify the combination of the jewish canon with the christian NT.

I Decided to post this because I discovered that more than 70% of protestants are not aware of these facts.It is a pity many christians are not aquainted with JUDAS MACABEES and his historic importance in jewish history.
Important events like the desecration of the temple by Antiochus epiphanes prophesised by prophet Daniel are covered in the accounts of the macabees

TO THE MUSLIMS I SAY THIS

It is not possible for a widely circulating document like the scriptures to be destroyed without leaving any trace.We have heard of ancient biblical scrolls being discovered but no mention of ancient quranic scrolls discovered anywhere.Also there is no mention of Islam in the writings of secular historians who lived before prophet Mohamed.

Islam obviously never existed before prophet mohammed,if islam and the quran had existed,it would not have been humanly possible to destroy it without leaving a trace.

I must also state here that there were attempts by Antiochus epiphanes and the roman emperor diocletan to toally destroy the scriptures but these moves failed because of their divine nature.

THE CHURCH AND THE SCRIPTURES ARE IMMOTAL,THEY HAS NEVER BEEN DESTROYED NOR WILL THEY EVER BE DESTROYED.

Patience, people, please. And a little response at a time, because I have become even more busy this week than I ever imagined I would be!

@Muhsin:

Hi there,
What is it said in the Bible regarding an apostate; and his punishment? Thanks

Sorry I skipped your post. I will answer yours next before babs787. Your question came before his. Cheers.

@babs787: Right after Muhsin, I will respond to you too!

@alex0026: Yes I am still here, but you will need to be patient with me, please. My hands are full, and there are pending questions!

@manmustwac: Will be responding to you ASAP, after the previous sets of questions.

@chukwudi44: thanks

@kunleOshob:

This concept of belief in the bible is faulty and not necessarily "christian" i think what is more important is belief in the gospel of our lord Jesus christ and obeying his commandments. that is what makes us christians and not belief in the bible which contains so many things that is not in tune with the gospel of Christ [especially in the old testament]. The jewish religion and practises which forms most part of the old testament is quite different from the teachings of Christ. As christians i believe we should focus more on the gospel of christ than the bible as a whole which is just a collection of books cannonized by religious leaders in their opinion. I am not discounting the bible here but it would help if christians get the focus of their beliefs right. The bible is just a tool to help us develop our faith it is not meant to be what we believe in.

The only part where I agree with you is that in THIS dispensation, our major focus should be on Christ i.e. the anointed one and His anointing. Your statement seems to assume that everybody has a knowledge of God sufficient to develop their faith to maturity, but this cannot be so because everyone at a point in time needs to learn and get taught. How will people get on the road to knowing God if they do not believe the Bible that describes that God? As I always say, the Bible is a starting point.

Concerning discerning various sections of the Bible, I have this for you:
2Ti 2:15  Study and be eager and do your utmost to present yourself to God approved (tested by trial), a workman who has no cause to be ashamed, correctly analyzing and accurately dividing [rightly handling and skillfully teaching] the Word of Truth.  AMPLIFIED BIBLE.
In the KJV, with Strong's concordance, I observed that the word "dividing" there is the Greek Word orthotomeo¯ which means to dissect, to distinguish. I will explain by means of an analogy:

If KunleOshob, Noetic15, Chukwudi and MavenBox all go to a Restaurant, and they give instructions to the waiter: KunleOshob wants Rice, Noetic15 prefers solid pounded yam, Chukwudi wants some Cake and Ice-cream, and MavenBox, as usual just takes an ounce of peanuts and a glass of chapman. When the waiter arrives, bearing all the meals on a meal-trolley, will MavenBox reach out for Pounded yam? No she won't, because, rightly dividing amongst the provided things, she knows that the peanuts and chapman is hers. THAT is what the dissection refers to, its not discarding, its dissection.

AMPLIFIED BIBLE
2Ti 3:16  Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action),

All parts of scripture are useful but by dissection, you need to know what is useful for YOU at a point in time, what YOU have required from the scripture at that point in time. The Bible likens itself to a mirror

1Co 13:12  For now we are looking in a mirror that gives only a dim (blurred) reflection [of reality as in a riddle or enigma], but then [when perfection comes] we shall see in reality and face to face! Now I know in part (imperfectly), but then I shall know and understand fully and clearly, even in the same manner as I have been fully and clearly known and understood [by God].

Jas 1:23  For if anyone only listens to the Word without obeying it and being a doer of it, he is like a man who looks carefully at his [own] natural face in a mirror;

which means that when you look into it, as a serious person, you know what you expect to see, and you are ready to change by focusing on what you need to adjust. e.g. your hair, your lips, eyelashes, dimples, whatever it is.

I hope you get it now. That's my own perspective!

@toneyb:

Why do you believe and accept that the bible is true and not other religious books?

Can you please be a little more explicit? For a human being to profess faith in a Deity, he/she must definitely believe the Divine material that introduces that very same faith to him/her, since it defines their experience with the Deity. If it was not true to them, they would not be professing trust and reliance on the Deity.
I believe and accept that the Bible is true to me and other Christians, as well as the Koran is true to the devoted Muslims who believe in it, and the Ijinle-Ifa is true to Ifa Worshippers. So, for the sake of correctness, what is your question, can you rephrase it?

Regards.

d bible is divine but then divinty can only matter to u if u understand it.

I couldn't really organize my thoughts cause i'm drawing this stuff from all over the place so it might look a bit all over the place.   And they're probably a shitload of typos in there so make una no vex. But I can't type or read anymore. I don tire.

mavenbox:

Matthew's genealogy acted only as a reminder to the Jews, setting out facts that were publicly available in Jewish tables and records. He was to take them as he found them. If there were any errors that he discovered, he was not to modify them. This initial part of the book of Matthew 1:1-17 is an excerpt of the Jewish tables of genealogies, with respect to Jesus Christ.

I think the genealogy was symbolic. I'm goin to try to make this short and direct (yeah right   ). . . even though i know that won't quite do the job.

The Hebrew bible (The New Testament too, but that is a touchy subject on NL so I'll just leave that out for now) is not a document that should be taken completely literally. It never has been, in the Jewish community. It is a tradition. Key word here is TRADITION. Lessons are molded into stories, certain symbols are adopted to both point out the significance of something, and make it easy to remember. That way, significant events, or lessons, being passed down by the elders, about God and how he works in the world, are easily passed down through generations. Understanding the implications of this is, in my opinion, priceless. So while the Bible is believed to be the eternal word of God, it isn't believed to be a literal document. e.g Noah's flood. Jews (most- don't wanna over-generalize cause there are always exceptions) really couldn't give a shit about whether that actually happened or not. Mainly in Christian circles will u hear such things being debated. For Jews the significance is that the elders of the tradition, from however many hundred generations past, were trying to teach them a lesson from the story. . . that God that creates, can destroy, and destroys those that mess with him. They don't get caught up in whether the flood happened or not, that is meaningless to them. They are looking for the MORAL OF THE STORY.

Now, that doesn't mean everything in the Bible is "legend" or "myth". There is a lot of accurate historical data in there as well. But they are all fused together in such a way that u really have to be schooled in this stuff to make sense of it. That is what Rabbis do. The Jewish community understands this, and Matthew, being a Jew, is a part of this tradition. The "legend" (Aggadaah) is important in understanding  and interpreting the law (Hallakah). The Torah (old Testament) itself isn't read literally. . .  I'm oversimplifying but I just want u to see where i'm comin from

Now to the genealogy.  (Remember this is all just my opinion, check the stuff out for yourselves. And don't dismiss it JUST because u don't agree with it)

Certain interesting things in the genealogy.

1) It is broken down into 3. Abraham to David, David to the Babylonian Exile, and from the exile to Jesus.
2) There are 14 generations in each of these sections.
3) 14 is the numerical value of David (d=4, w(v)=6. . 4+6+4=14. No written vowels in hebrew)
4)Certain women show up in the genealogy, and there is something unique about the women who happen to be there. I'll discuss this a little as I think it is central to why I hold my view.

These are the women that show up.
- Tamar (Read genesis 38) :  twice widowed, then was impregnated by her father-in-law Judah who mistook her for a temple prostitute. The product of this incest were the twin boys Perez and Zerah.  Perez is an ancestor of David (see Ruth 4:18–21)

- Rahab  is both non-jewish, and a lying slut who hid Hebrew spies and sold-out her native Jericho to Joshua and his invaders. She is mentioned again in the old testament in the following passages http://eliyah.com/cgi-bin/htgrep.cgi?file=search.htm&isindex=rahab , none of which mention her having children for an Israelite, or being anyone's ancestor . In the new testament she shows up three times once as a hero of faith (Hebrews 11:31), as an example of good works (James 2:25), and as the great-great-grandmother of King David (Matthew 1:5). (U said something about the genealogy records being available to the author of Matthew. Can u please refer me to where I can get info on this. . .thanks)

- Ruth Another non-Jew, a Moabite, to be precise (Moabites had been cursed by God), whose dedication to her mother-in-Law, Naomi, brought her to Israel. . .and whose "ingenuity" gets her to marry wealthy Boaz, King David's great grandfather.

- Bathsheba I'm sure we are all aware of David's escapades   (David was a bad guy   ). She was also non-Jewish. David fukced her and tried to cover it up. When that failed he had her husband, Uriah, murdered, fukced her some more (David is a legend in my book   ), and they bore a child, Solomon who is also an "ancestor" of Jesus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Mary teenager that is impregnated by someone other than her husband, isn't accommodated  by inn-keepers so she has to have a baby(the messiah) in a  barn, and then has to run away from home to avoid Herod.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just a brief detour  

[size=15pt]PERSONALLY[/size], I find it highly unlikely that there just happened to be exactly 14 generations each, in 3 pivotal periods in the history of Israel. And that 14 just happens to be the numerical value of David. I think Matthew is putting emphasis on the significance of the Protagonist of the narrative he is about to give. That he is as important in the History of Israel as David.

oya, back to those scandalous women.

When 1st century Jews thought  "Messiah", they thought David, King, Great, Liberator; and not Peasant, Carpenter, Dead. Matthew is about to tell a very compelling story about a peasant Messiah born under "scandalous" circumstances, who gets nailed to a cross by the people he is supposed to be delivering them from. The genealogy is the method by which he prepares his audience (1st century Jews rooted in the tradition of Torah) for what is about to come. There is a reason why scholars believe Matthew to have been a thorough-bred Jew. . .it is because of how genuinely Jewish the Gospel of Matthew is, and how brilliantly he draws on Jewish symbolism in getting his message across to his 1st century audience, whom would have understood exactly what all this symbolism was pointing at.

1st point he is trying to get across is that God uses the most unlikely of people sometimes to perform his greatest works.

2nd point is that Scandal,  cheating, prostitution, can be used for God's work.  In Jewish thought at the time, the idea of a peasant messiah that gets murdered was in itself scandalous, even almost blasphemous. Imagine an annointed one getting nailed by the Romans. At that time that was a ridiculous claim to mke. If u didn't make a really good case, fukc you very much!! WHat Matthew is saying in that genealogy, IMO, is that“God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before him” (1 Corinthians 1:27–29). If God can use a prostitute from Jericho to give his people the promised land, or If a cursed Moabite was "ancestor" of David, who the fukc is anyone on Nairaland to rebuke someone for not agreeing with them.    Matthew is telling us that there is nothing that can separate us from God's love. and that regardless of the hardships and horrors that we come across, it can still all be integrated into God’s providential, redemptive plan for us, his children. This is a main part of what the Legacy of Jesus is about, IMO.

3rd point is the inclusive nature of the Gospel. He is pointing out that all are included in Gods promise. Even non-Jews, however "lost" they may be.

There is more but i'm tired. E be like say I juss write exam finish.   But, there. . .that's what i think.

But to be honest, for me. . .just the fact that there are 14 generations in each section, and 14 = david, and the kind of women that show up, raise my "symbolism" antenna.

Thank you very much for the above Krayola. You also forgot to mention that from Adam to Abraham is also 14 generations. Not only that but the people who wrote these texts were very aware that they were employing symbolisms. These facts go totally over the head of most of those christians that like to do bible bashing. The unfortunate fact is that the bible belongs to a tradition and it's books were written within this tradition and it must be understood within the contexts in which it was written. Alas, most of our bible school pastors are ignorant of this tradition. The bible is full to the brim with symbolism drenched with meaning. But meaning only to those who know how to extract it.

That is why when people point out the contradictions in the bible I often reply that don't they think the writers were aware of such glaring contradictions while they were writing it. If they were interested in writing factually accurate history free of contradictions then I'm sure they would have done a much better job.

Personally I think that to be a 'pastor' (in the preacher sense) all these guys need to first go and do rabbinical studies.