Understanding the Bible

Dean's World ^ | July 2, 2006 | Dean Esmay

[Dawnsblood]

Would you all please feel free to add to the discussion?

Dean says:

Understanding the Bible Dean In the first few centuries of Christianity, no one had any idea that there was anything called a "Bible." Indeed, at that time, there was no Bible. That didn't happen until the 3rd or 4th century, depending on how you look at it.

Most early Christians were probably illiterate. Indeed, it is very likely that many of the original Apostles were illiterate. There is even evidence in the New Testament that Peter, Paul, and the other apostles were illiterate. Peter and Paul and the other New Testament writers often seem to be dictating to someone rather than writing for themsleves. All you have to do is read the beginnings of most of the New Testament books to see that.

Yet they all had a host of ideas and assumptions that they obviously drew from.

Until Martin Luther in the 1500s said that the Bible was the wellspring of Christianity, no Christian ever believed such a thing about the Bible.

So where do modern American Evangelicals get this idea, do you think?

[Uri’el-2012]

What does it mean when they say Jesus descended from David?

There are four things that are important here:

1 Miriam is a daughter who has no brothers
and is descended from King David.

2 Joseph is descended from King David.

3 The inheritance exception granted for the daughters of Zelophehad
is in effect (Numbers 26,27,36; Joshua 17; 1 Chronicles 7 ).

4 Joseph and Miriam are married ( each descended from King David)
thus providing Miriam with permanent inheritance
of the Kingship of David for her to pass on to her son Y'shua.

b'shem Y'shua

[evangmlw]

Let's not forget Luke was a Doctor.

[Raycpa]

Thanks for your informative outline. However, I don't think the original poster desires the truth. I think the question is asked so that the poster can justify ignoring the gospels without having to ask God for help and do the hard work of actually studying.

[timer]

As with the son, so with the father. GOD the father was crucified in much the same way as Jesus the son was crucified. By who? The 24 "elders" as mentioned in the Book of Revelation, earlier idea-concept-entities who attacked the 25th in the evolutionary series as crazy, blasphemous, a heretic worth of death. Imagine then GOD's loneliness and despair in the eternal darkness, knowing that only through self sacrifice and faith can creation come about. Remember Jesus saying : only when a seed falls to the ground and dies, can it bring forth new life. The crucifiction then is God the father's final lesson to his son : not my will but thy will be done : only through self sacrifice can NEW LIFE come about. Thus in dying, God, the supreme architect of the universe, by his strong right arm, does what today is called the BIG BANG.

[OneWingedShark]

Actually, as I recall, the 'unforgivable sin' is Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

[oppinion]
That is, accrediting the devil the works of the Holy Spirit. And it is unforgivible only because the sinner will not allow himself to be saved, much like the joke wherein the man sitting on his roof during a flood refuses all chances to escape and then, after dying, blames God, who replies "I sent you two boats and a heilocopter."
[/oppinion]

[OneWingedShark]

Why should we be required to reply in Christian kindness to a man that is as much a liar and non-scholar as Dan Brown?

Because Jesus says so.....

---

Indeed, and it bears repeating.

[OneWingedShark]

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1

This is one of my favorite verses. This single sentence contains several key doctrinal statements, as well as several intriguing ideas.

1. Jesus was not a created being.
2. Jesus was with God at the creation.
3. Jesus was/is God.
4. The "bonus" manly ideal that "a man's word is his bond".

and all that from a single sentence.

[OneWingedShark]

"David is not the biological father, so what does it mean when people say 'trace his lineage to David'? I don't get that part."

Well, you see, the bible gives the lineage of Jesus through both parents. Joseph was Jesus' legal father, and therefore it was important that he be a descendant of David. It was also important that Jesus himself be descended from David, and because of the virgin-birth, this requires Mary to be descended from David as well.

[Diego1618]

Born of the Virgin Mary... Immaculate conception,right?

Yes, indeed born of the virgin....but Mary was born of "Heli", [Luke 3:23] and thus descended from King David herself. Heli was the "Father" in law of Joseph.

Joseph's genealogy is shown in Matthew 1 and he is identified as the husband of Mary. The Jews thought Joseph to be the father of Jesus [John 6:42] and legally they required the inheritance to be from the Father's lineage. The problem here is that Joseph had a curse on his line [Jeremiah 22:24-30] and it is identifiable in [Matthew 1:11-12] so Jesus could not inherit the Davidic throne through Joseph.

This is the reason you find two separate genealogies in scripture. One in Matthew to show the legal inheritance through Joseph and the other in Luke to show the bloodline through Mary. The Law required if a daughter were the only heir, she would inherit all rights of her father ....if she married with in her tribe, [Numbers 27:1-8]. Mary had no brothers who could be her father's heir and she was able to transmit David's royal lineage to her husband by marriage. This made Joseph the legal heir of Heli, giving him the right also to David's throne....and this he passed on to Jesus.

Through the genealogy in Matthew, Christ was a legal descendant, but because of the curse was unable to receive any inheritance. Through Mary's genealogy in Luke it proves he was born of a virgin, begotten of the Holy Spirit. Luke's account also shows direct lineage through Nathan, one of David's sons, and bypassing the curse down Solomon's line.

I can see where some folks.....who believe in an immaculate conception, would have trouble understanding this clear message. I know there is tradition in some circles that Mary's father was named Joaquin. That is just tradition and now you know his real name......Heli.

[OneWingedShark]

My sister wants the service in her church (the Methodists who believe God could be a woman), and my church - who knows Jesus is the earthly example of who God is .. and a church that believes in celebrating a life.

What is with that whole "God could be a woman" thing anyway? Jesus was asked, as a form of trap, whose wife a certain woman who had married several times (all marriages ending in death) in heaven. He responded that there wasn't male or female in heaven... so considering that, God doesn't have a sex, right? (Also logical when you realize that sex is a function/attribute of physicality, and that without a physical form there is no sex.)

It's my opinion that we refer to God in the masculine for several reasons. One, his humanity on Earth [that is Jesus] was male. Two, out of respect for his power and strength. (considered male attributes.) Three, God made man first and woman as a completion/perfection for him... the implication is that a complete man (who is a reflection of God, the perfect-man being God-in-human-flesh) doesn't need a woman because he is complete within himself. That self-completeness is an attribute of the Trinity; God didn't create us because He needed us.

[Fitzcarraldo]

In the first few centuries of Christianity, no one had any idea that there was anything called a "Bible." Indeed, at that time, there was no Bible.

Hokum.

[CyberAnt]

Thank you! Your kindness is appreciated.

[Diego1618]

In the first few centuries of Christianity, no one had any idea that there was anything called a "Bible." Indeed, at that time, there was no Bible. That didn't happen until the 3rd or 4th century, depending on how you look at it.

Acts 22:1-3 As a very well educated lawyer, Paul would have had at his disposal the entire Old Testament....and I'm sure he kept it with him constantly. Jesus, himself, verifies to the Apostles that the canon consisted of the "Law, Prophets and the Psalms" [Luke 24:44]. Notice that this does not include the Deuterocanonicals included in the Septuagint (Greek) version of the Old Testament.

Peter, himself, canonizes all of Paul's writings....calling them scriptures [2 Peter 3:16]. Paul, on the other hand, makes sure that all of the "New Testament" writings are kept together by instructing Timothy to go to Troas and get all of his books, especially the parchments. Paul had evidently left them behind at Troas and was now in Rome in prison and wanted to make sure all of the "New" scriptures were kept together. This is why he asks that Mark be brought along, as Mark indeed would have all of Peter's letters (copies) as well as Mark's own gospel (dictated by Peter). By this time most of the New Testament had been written (65 a.d.) and after Paul's martyrdom I'm sure Timothy, Mark and Luke, who was with Paul, (gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts) would have seen to it that these letters and gospels would find their way to the Apostle John and thus be safeguarded by the Greeks. John, of course, would have then added his gospel,. letters and Revelation to the canon.

So you see, we really had the entire Bible by mid first century.....and everyone knew exactly what the canon was. As far as Matthew, James, Jude and Hebrews....I'm sure copies were made of them also.....and they found their way to the Apostle as well.

[tang-soo]

I hope you are kidding. You don't know that people copied books by hand before presses?

Of course they did - at the cost of a man's yearly wage per copy of the Bible. Only the wealthy could afford a copy.

[tang-soo]

Why can't those that publically write about The Bible ever take a bit of time and read what it actually says?

[RobbyS]

Paul dictated to scribes for the same reason that an executive dictates to a secretary. besides, a professional scribe could produce multiple copies in no time at all.

[RobbyS]

Good point. The Gospels were meant to be read in church because that his how books were read in those days. The congregations were literally hearers of the Word. Even people who could read sounded out the words. St. Ambrose in the 4th Century was famous because he could scan words on a page without moving his lips.

[Ciexyz]

Stopped reading after the early paragraph that suggested Paul was illiterate. Au contraire, Paul was a student of Gemaliel and therefore an accomplished scholar.

[tang-soo]

Actually the plan was put into action many years previous. The accusations of blasphemy was only the means.

This passage from Isaiah Chapter 53 was written several hundred years prior.

1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied ; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

Also this from Genesis Chapter 3 which predicts the virgin birth ...

And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.

Also Psalms 22 written around 1000 B.C. but I'll leave that as an exercise.

[DeweyCA]

We refer to God in the masculine sense because God chose to describe himself to us in that manner. This is true throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament. There is a recent article by Albert Mohler about God choosing His own name. Google Mohler's website, and see his recent article.