The Bible (Jesus, moral, testimony, Creator, Earth)

[lew0049]

I am making this thread to hopefully shed light on some issues about the Bible and the resurrection as well. I am only putting information on the table and hopefully you will look at this information objectively. These are just a few things I ran across on my journey from atheism to being a believer in Jesus. (I don't have the time at the moment to go into great detail about every issue)

I will start by saying that in a broad sense, I find it foolish for people to claim that Jesus was a great moral teacher yet refute His claim to be God. Please know, I am not trying to degrade anyone's beliefs; however, Jesus's teachings/miracles/atonement of sins in the Bible indicate that Jesus was either God or a complete lunatic - I don't see the possiblity of any middle ground. His teachings do not leave this option open to us. Christ says he is 'humble and meek' yet his claims in the Bible are far from that of someone with these traits. Additionally, Jesus claims to forgive sins: ANY sin (also that he is going to judge the world and that he always existed. This is not the same as a man saying to his wife "sorry for lusting after another woman" or a man forgiving sins he has committed. He acted as if he was the one who was upmostly concerned yet mostly offended by sin. Now, if Jesus was not God, it is ridiculous to believe that He would respond like this because the scriptures illustrate that Jesus acted as if His laws were broken and His love was wounded w/ sin. A great 'moral' teacher would not say such things or act in this manner - he would be considered a fool.
As a follower of Jesus, I believe that God puts his love into us with the purpose of loving one another. I believe C.S Lewis compared this to a teacher holding a childs hand as he/she learns to write letters. The child learns to write letters yet the teacher is the instrument forming them. But I will say that mankind has gone wrong, we need Gods help because we have gone astray. We need His help "to surrender, to suffer, to submit and die." So we need help from God thru something that in His nature - he does not possess. Now, supposing God became a man, he could surrender his will and make the ultimate sacrifice and do it perfectly. Mankind can only go through this process if God is in us, yet God can do it only if he as to become a man. Only God can pay our debt because we could not share it otherwise.
C.S Lewis stated some of these points in various books.

Getting on w/ points about the Bible:

1. People claim that the Bible has changed so dramatically over time through either translation errors or changes due the church, but the strange thing is that why are there so many contraversial issues still in the Bible. Looking specfically at the Gospels - it would be 100% fullish for the authors to 'make-up' stories that contained miracle after miracle. Additionally, an issue such as the Trinity, one would think that the authors/church (who has supposedly changed the scripture over time) would eliminate saying such as "the father" or what Jesus said on the cross "Forgive me father for they not know what they do." Verses like this cause conflict about Jesus and his relationship to God, yet it is still contained within the Bible. It would seem logical that over the centuries, statements like these would be eliminated and God = Jesus verses would be much more abundant, but that is not what we find.

2. Motives of the Gospel writers. Well, I don't consider a motive for the writers/disciples/apostles to start a myth about the life of Jesus, his death and resurrection - only to be degraded, looked down upon and ultimately killed. 10/11 disciples were killed due to there actions. Now please, note the difference between the death of these disciples and extreme Islamics. The attackers on 9/11 died in martyrdom because they believed in what Muhummad wrote and that they were justly correct in their actions - it was on an act of faith. On the contrary, the disciples died because they were trying to restore an historical event - the Resurrection. If the resurrection was a 'myth' made up by the disciples - one would imagine they would not be moronic enough to keep spreading the myth after the first disciple was killed. It was not b/c of faith that they died, it was b/c of there eyewitness testimony.

3. The discovery of the empty tomb. In ancient times, women were severely looked down upon and men had much more authority. Yet, the greatest miracle in the Bible, the Resurrection, has women as being the first the discover the empty tomb. If the writers were trying to start a 'myth', then again this would be incredibly stupid of them b/c followers would not believe the testimony from women. And yet, this is not what is contained in the gospels.

4. Medical evidence
Some Biblical evidence that I find to be VERY important regarding the death of Jesus and its validity is found is the Gospel of John.
First, take note the physical and mental anguish and anxiety Jesus would have been experiencing over the 24 hrs leading to his crucifixion. A word was actually invented to describe the amount of pain one would feel while being crucified - excruciating (meaning "out of the cross").
Now, medicially speaking Jesus would have probably died by cardiac arrest. As ones breathing slows, he would probably go into "respiratory acidosis - which leads to an irregular heartbeat. Additionally, the hypovolemic shock that Jesus experienced would have caused a rapid heartbeat - in turn, this would have caused a clear fluid in the membrane to collect aroudn the heart and in the lungs called pericardial effusion.

OKAY, so relating this to the Gospel of John. John states that Jesus was pierced on the side after he was dead that caused a "sudden flow of blood and water." John mentions blood first in his writings because there still would have been more blood than water. Again, the water poured out of Jesus due to the hypovolemic shock he was in. Obviously, for John to record such an event saying that "blood and water" came out of someone after being pierced on the side in amazing. If the story was not true, then a common writer would have simply said "blood" instead of "blood and water." The arguement that "water" was added after John wrote his gospel is impossible because the results of hypovolemic shock were not known until recently.

For skeptics that believe Jesus "faked" his death, this literally would have been impossible because of the hypovolemic shock He was already in from the massive blood loss. Plus, you can't fake not being able to breath.
After having 4-6 inch nails driven into you and experiencing near death clogging, it would have been impossible for someone to overcome to trauma and blood loss of such an invent.

Additionally, the Gospels state that Jesus was sweating blook the night before at the Mount of Olives. Again, this is a medical condition known as hematidrosis which is associated with a high degree of psychological stress - something that was not discovered until recently.

I am solely writing for people to look at issues that he/she may not have known. There are MANY other things I have to say about the Bible, however, it has taken me long enough to write the above! I know this does not 100% "prove" the Bible reliable, but I just thought I would share these points with everyone. ALso, I know there are some translation errors in the Bible. Anyways, have a good day and I will try to find time to write more later.

[doppelgänger]

The middle ground is quite easy for me to see - Jesus is an archetypal character in several works of creative mythology. Some of these are in a collection we call "the Bible" (with a bunch of other materials).

[FatMan]

A couple of points:
1) I find it foolish to call others foolish when debating an interpretation of a work. Most likely one side has a little of the interpretation right and wrong, and so does the other side. This act as if there is a black and white answer of something being patently "True" or "false" is not only improbable, it is an ideal expectation, that will not be met.

2) Determining medical evidence off of a written interpretation from a time where exaggeration was a normal means of describing something is not only disgenuine, it is with all liklihood, completely off the mark.

Trying to prove the bible to be reliable shouldn't be the point. Following whatever faith you have to better your life should.

[Booko]

[quote=lew0049;888874]

Please know, I am not trying to degrade anyone's beliefs; however, Jesus's teachings/miracles/atonement of sins in the Bible indicate that Jesus was either God or a complete lunatic - I don't see the possiblity of any middle ground.

And yet, many people do.

His teachings do not leave this option open to us. Christ says he is 'humble and meek' yet his claims in the Bible are far from that of someone with these traits. Additionally, Jesus claims to forgive sins: ANY sin (also that he is going to judge the world and that he always existed. This is not the same as a man saying to his wife "sorry for lusting after another woman" or a man forgiving sins he has committed. He acted as if he was the one who was upmostly concerned yet mostly offended by sin. Now, if Jesus was not God, it is ridiculous to believe that He would respond like this because the scriptures illustrate that Jesus acted as if His laws were broken and His love was wounded w/ sin. A great 'moral' teacher would not say such things or act in this manner - he would be considered a fool.

So perhaps Jesus is not just a moral teacher, nor God, but is God's agent on Earth -- which means He has the authority God gave him. That doesn't make Him God, though. There's a bit of middle ground.

We need His help "to surrender, to suffer, to submit and die." So we need help from God thru something that in His nature - he does not possess. Now, supposing God became a man, he could surrender his will and make the ultimate sacrifice and do it perfectly. Mankind can only go through this process if God is in us, yet God can do it only if he as to become a man. Only God can pay our debt because we could not share it otherwise.

Sorry, but I have a difficult time understanding the nature of sin in economic terms. But if we owe a "debt" to God -- it's to follow the instructions of those Divine Teachers He sends us. It doesn't need to be turned into some sort of unnecessarily confusing economics problem more connected to a culture that performed animal sacrifices than to anything we would understand today.

Hm, it would be better if I addressed numbered points individually.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by lew0049

1. People claim that the Bible has changed so dramatically over time through either translation errors or changes due the church, but the strange thing is that why are there so many contraversial issues still in the Bible. Looking specfically at the Gospels - it would be 100% fullish for the authors to 'make-up' stories that contained miracle after miracle. Additionally, an issue such as the Trinity, one would think that the authors/church (who has supposedly changed the scripture over time) would eliminate saying such as "the father" or what Jesus said on the cross "Forgive me father for they not know what they do." Verses like this cause conflict about Jesus and his relationship to God, yet it is still contained within the Bible. It would seem logical that over the centuries, statements like these would be eliminated and God = Jesus verses would be much more abundant, but that is not what we find.

Actually I would find it more astounding if someone attempted to tamper with the texts in such a perverse way. There were multiple copies about -- how would such a thing be undetected? It strains my imagination, truly.

Bible texts, like religious texts generally, are quite *literary* -- which means they are often open for multiple "true" interpretations and lessons. Any good poem will mean different things to different people. How much more so might religious texts be?

I can read the same passage in one decade of my life and take a useful lesson from it, and a decade later take a completely diffferent, but still useful, lesson from it.

To me, this is the true mark of the Creative Word. If one posits a Creator, it would be ludicrous indeed to believe He is such a poor author that the texts would have no depth to them.

There is a saying repeated in my religions texts that comes through Islam via Judaism:

For every verse there are 70 meanings, only one of which is commonly known among the people.

*This* is the mark of a true religious text.

For those who demand cut-and-dried in all things, honestly, stick with science and never venture into the humanities.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by lew0049

2. Motives of the Gospel writers. Well, I don't consider a motive for the writers/disciples/apostles to start a myth about the life of Jesus, his death and resurrection - only to be degraded, looked down upon and ultimately killed. 10/11 disciples were killed due to there actions. Now please, note the difference between the death of these disciples and extreme Islamics. The attackers on 9/11 died in martyrdom because they believed in what Muhummad wrote and that they were justly correct in their actions - it was on an act of faith. On the contrary, the disciples died because they were trying to restore an historical event - the Resurrection. If the resurrection was a 'myth' made up by the disciples - one would imagine they would not be moronic enough to keep spreading the myth after the first disciple was killed. It was not b/c of faith that they died, it was b/c of there eyewitness testimony.

I'm content to make comparisons between Gospel writers and 9/11 terrorists by the simple yardstick of "By their fruits shall ye know them."

Um, I suggest it isn't difficult to tell who's who using that measure.

I don't ascribe evil motives to Gospel writers. I see no need to do so, and more indication that they loved their subject so much that it would be a stretch to imagine they would willfully do anything to harm it.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by lew0049

3. The discovery of the empty tomb.
4. Medical evidence

OK, this may lend weight to the idea that the stories are not made up of whole cloth (not that I believed that anyway), but I don't see where it does anything to prove that Jesus had a Message From God.