Adam and 4000 BC

I am sorry to hear that. How long were you blind for?

I had an experience somewhat like that one that I won't go into, but it doesn't seem to be the same as what the account describes. At Acts 9:8 "Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing " just says that he could not see anything and that the ' something like scales' that were causing it eventually fell. (Acts 9:18). I have seen it in some videos where his eyes turn completely white or all black and this could of course just be for illustration. Personally, I think that metaphor and action plays an important role in how God communicates with man because it makes sense to me that a spiritual being would use spiritual means along with his real actions. This also follows that, "God cannot lie" (Heb 6:18).

One of the things that I find interesting in this account is that it states that he was blind for THREE days. The number three is used many times in the Bible and seems to be a hint to the reader. The healing also seems to be a spiritual healing on that third day by "a disciple named Ananias" (Acts 9:10-18). In which, this healing had caused him to see, something that seems to be very significant in Jesus' teaching. After all, Saul, before he became Paul (classic name change seen in the Bible, probably signifies how God creates people anew (2 Corinthians 5:17) ), persecuted the Christians. So it follows that this was also a spiritual sight apart from the physical.


Whatever Paul experienced we know that only he was meant to hear what he heard and that he would go without food or water for three days, but would receive his sight through spiritual healing by Ananias. If his blindness was caused by some type of delusion or temporary random illness, then I would doubt that it would last the biblically significant three day period. We could also say that Paul lied or was mistaken, but I do not believe he did or was.

IMO God does not have to break the 'laws of nature', only merely temporary change the complicated habits of nature. The sustainer of the habits can shift them, or by other means... I don't know. I guess the point is that no one really knows, but that bit isn't the most important. The important part is getting the message and it can be difficult to obtain if we complicate the scenario to try to make it fit with our skepticism.

 

What do you think this significance is of, why three days?

 

Some say it represents emphasis. Like, "YOU BETTER CHECK THIS OUT, SON, SH**S TIGHT" but more in a divine way like, "Will you check this out and know my name?"

To pay extra attention to this part, others say it represents the number of man, his fallibility, and thus our need of God.

 

Of all the things in the bible this question has proved most enigmatic to me. I have found Jesus' teachings to be above all practical and universally applicable.
I have yet to discover the practical nature of "three days", although I continue to try and see it's evidence in the world, or to detect some "rhythm" within myself.

 

Just a couple of hours. i really freaked out, and the interesting thing to me is that the emergency room people and my regular doctor had no idea what was going on, but my eye doctor said:"oh, yeah. It's just an occular migraine. No big deal! Now imagine what would have happened if I'd been on my way to persecute a bunch of Christians![/Quot

Exactly. Three, seven forty--and multiples thereof.

Well put!

 

No but it is not recorded in the Bible that he did either.

 

Thanks.

I have found that the Bible is very consistent and coherent and that when people try to give a "alternative view", what they say tends to be inconsistent and incoherent.

Perhaps another time for this, since I'm going to work in a few minutes.

 

I am in full agreement with what the dope has briefly stated about the "Word of God".
With apologies to OWB - I find his views often stiff and unyielding even in the face of reasonable and well thought out differing viewpoints. No one can fully understand the mind of God. We see God's thoughts only thru many self imposed veils and even then his wisdom is so far beyond ours, we understand little.
To call "alternate views" incoherent & inconsistent closes the mind to new, more profound revelations. I find OWB's views as "alternate" but I do listen to what he has to say.

 

The way I was taught is wholly consistent and does not require extraordinary beliefs.

Your view, while consistent with itself, is not coherent in relation to what we know about the world. I find your hierarchical view to be extremely complicated, so much so, that it seems you must have a degree in concordant materials. Jesus' message is utterly simple, love god with all your might and your brother as though he were yourself. Angels and demons need not be involved, but I understand that you are entertained by such things.

 

I listen also. His sincere devotion will ultimately transcend any misunderstanding.

 

Amen, Bro!

 

Some would say a belief in God or the Holy Spirit to be "extraordinary beliefs".

Maybe not coherent in relation to what "you" know about the world but completely coherent in relation to what I know about the world.

I just know what the Bible says and it's not particularly complicated.

Actually no, although Jesus' message is somewhat simple, there is a lot more to it that what you state here.

Perhaps angels and demons need not be involved but the problem is that they are.

As for being entertained by such things, not particularly.

 

Actually it is that simple, these two things fulfill the whole law, just as Jesus said.

If they exist waterbrother, they have nothing to do with your decisions, they are not a practical concern.

 

But why, Olderwaterbrother, aren't such beliefs extraordinary nowadays from most liberal education involving science and art at the same time?

 

As Emerson said, “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. Or as Saint Augustine put it concerning a literal reading of Scripture ,”When I understood literally, I was slain spiritually.” (Yes, I know. Saint Augustine was giving us the foolish thinking of a man, as opposed to the wisdom of God conveyed by OWB).

But if the Bible were "consistent and coherent" and is also clear enough to be understood by "babes", as you've often told us, it's meaning should be evident without a lot of convoluted explanations. For example, when Matthew 27:51 says that: "The graves broke open and many of God's people who had died were raised to life. They left the graves and after Jesus rose from the dead, they went into the Holy City, where many people saw them" we should be able to take that at face value and not read it to mean the dead bodies were dislodged from their tombs in an upright position by an earthquake and people walking by saw them and went on to the Holy City, as you once told us it means on the basis of the translation of a spirit medium. Apparently the literal “Night of the Living Dead” suggested here is too much even for you to defend, especially since no other witnesses, including the other gospel writers, confirm the happening. Of course, we mustn't take this the way I would, as a metaphorical conveyance of cataclysm.

What did the voice say at Jesus’baptism?
Matthew: “This is my son, in whom I am well pleased.” (Speaking to the crowd.)?
Mark “you are my son, in whom I am well pleased” Speaking to Jesus?
Luke (oldest versions): "You are my son, today I have begotten you (3:22), quoting Psalm 2:7?".
Or is the non-canonical Gospel of the Ebionites right that the voice spoke three times? If so, why do the canonical Gospels record only one statement?

Who is against Jesus? Matthew 12:30: "Whoever is not with me is against me. Mark 9:40.Whoever is not against us is for us. Can they both be right?

What are we to make of the apparent discrepancy concerning the ripping of the curtain in the temple? Did that happen after Jesus died ( Mark15:38), or while he was still on the cross (Luke,23: 45-46)? Or was it torn twice? Or were these, as I believe, symbolic statements? God no longer separated from His people (Mark), God’s repudiation of the Temple (Luke)?

There are some other details I'm not clear on. What happened to Judas? Did he hang himself? Matthew, 27:3-10)? Fall headlong off a cliff and burst open in the middle, bowels gushing out (Acts,1:18-19).Or did he try to hang himself, the rope broke, and he fell off the cliff? (But that's not what Scripture tells us)

Who went to the tomb? Mary alone (John 20:1, Mary and another Mary (Matthew, 28:1) two Mary’s & Salome (Mark 16: 1). Had the stone already been rolled away? (Mark 16:4) or was it rolled away by an angel while the women were there (Matthew 28: 2)? Do the women tell the disciples, as instructed (Mark16:7), and as Matthew 28:8 tells us they did? Or not tell anyone (Mark 16:8)? Whom do they tell? The eleven disciples? (Matthew 28:8, or just Simon Peter and an unnamed disciple (John 20:2)? What do the disciples do? Dismiss the tale as idle women talk”(Luke 24:11) Or go to the tomb to see for themselves (John 20:5)?

In Matthew, after the women tell the disciples, they go to Galilee & meet Jesus. In Luke’s, they never leave Jerusalem. Jesus appears to two disciples on the road to Emmaus, & they tell the others & Jesus appears to all (24-3649)

In Acts, Jesus tells the disciples not to leave Jerusalem (Act1:4) until they receive the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, 50 days after Passover. If Matthew is right & the disciples immediately go to Galilee & see Jesus’ ascent, how can Luke be right that the disciples stay in Jerusalem the whole time, see Jesus ascend from there, and stay on until the day of Pentecost? Did these both happen?

I'm also puzzled about the genealogies for Jesus given by Matthew and Luke. First of all, why are these even relevant, since Joseph was not his real father? Second, why the differences? Who in each genealogy is Joseph’s father, grandfather, & great grandfather? In Matthew, it's: Joseph to Jacob to Matthan to Eleazar to Eliud. In Luke: Joseph to Heli to Mathat to Levi to Melchi. Is Mattherw’s a genealogy of of Joseph & Luke’s of Mary. But Luke explicitly says it’s Joseph’s. (Luke1:23; Matthew 1:16).

Matthew stresses the numerological significance that there are 14 generations from Abraham to David, Israel’s greatest king.;14 generations from David to the destruction of Judah, Israel’s greatest disaster; 14 generationsf from that to the birth of Jesus. (1:17) Why 14?. Seven was thought to be the perfect number.Twice 7 is twice perfect. Also, in ancient languages letters functioned as numerals & no vowels. D=4; V=6 ; D=4. So 14=DVD (David). But in the third set (from the Babylonians to Jesus), there are only 13 generations & Matthew left out 3 generations from David to the Babylonians. In 1:8 he indicates that Joram is the father of Uzziah, when we know from 1 Chronicles 3:10-12 that Joram was Uzziah’ great-great grandfather. If he included those generations, he couldn’t claim something significant every 14 generations. If Matthew was right there would be 42 names between Abraham and Jesus. But Luke’s genealogy gives 52 names. I guess all my book larnin' has corrupted my mind so that I can't make "consistent and coherent' sense out of all this. Please enlighten me.

P.S. I still think that God and Jesus are real and the Bible needs to be taken seriously. But not literally.

 

What I mean by entertained is that these things occupy space in your mind. They evidently have meaning for you. For me they represent characters of the human psyche, ex., In the kingdom of heaven we are as the angels.

 

So when you are in the kingdom of heaven are just a characters of the human psyche?

 

Since most of these things have already been answered several times and you know that. So I'll just say that it seems like you think taking the Bible seriously means believing that the Bible means anything you want it to mean and that serving God is doing anything that doesn't inconvenience you.

 

Really, then why Jesus bother to say all the other things recorded in the Bible?

If they exist? Good luck with that.

 

Angels and demons are characters of the human psyche. Heaven is the perception of the world as God created it. The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
Repentance is the reorientation of the five senses to be vigilant only for God and his kingdom.