Whatever happened to Jesus?
 

I have a question about the whole story of Jesus. Well three questions actually.

First. According to what I have learned from "The Passion of the Christ," God so loved mankind that he gave his only Son to save them. Save them from what, sin? Couldn't God just say, I forgive you?

Second. What do they mean by "gave his only Son?" Mel Gibson made it abundandly clear that Jesus certainly suffered before he was murdered, but 3 days later he was fine. So it isn't like you or I giving up a child permenently.

Third. What happened to Jesus after the resurection? I have a vauge understanding of an impending "second coming" but what's that really all about?

Any insight would be appreciated.

I don't understand it either, which is one reason why I'm not a christian, it just doesn'tt make any sense to me.

according to what i can recall from my learning as a kid...

save them from the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.

Jesus ascended to heaven and sits at the right hand of God.

he will return at the second coming which is at the beginning of the apocolypse.

I'm sorry but I don't understand why I should be saved from a sin that I didn't commit, It's like saying your guilty of murder because a guy you knew in the 1st grade killed someone. It doesn't make sense. And how is God going to give up his "son" when obviously if Jesus is killed and he was "perfect" then he would go straight back up to heaven and be with god again. and my last question is why would God even have a son? If we're made in God's image and God reproduces assexually then why don't we do that too? And why would an immortal being need to reproduce? I just don't get it.

Original sin was passed onto every generation born by Adam and Eve. Thus it's more akin to you grandfather being branded a thief then your going to be treated as a thief.

the reasoning of the theologians for God bearing a son is that He gave up his son as he had asked Abraham to kill his son (in one of the stories of the bible) as the ultimate sacrifice. God did not reproduce asexually, it was the Holy Spirit (one of the piece of mystery of the Holy trinity that God, Son of God, Holy Spirit are one in the same yet seperate.)

The point here isn't to "convert" you or help you make sense of it. You aren't going to get it because you don't "belief" or "suspension of disbelief" as it is in the movies. If you don't accept the premise foundation, then the rest of the movie will make absolutely no sense.

If you look deeper than the bible, the Greek myths, the Hindu texts all have gods that reproduce. If I recall correctly the Hindu teachings start with creation as the Hindu god (forgot his name) basically jerked off and spilled his seed....

Cynthetiq explained the significance of the sacrifice exactly as I understand it, but I would like to expand more about the original sin. When Adam and Eve ate the fruit they were departing from what God wanted them to do, e.g. sinning. Their offspring are not being blamed for the original sin, so much as the sinning they are doing because of their parents.

To put it in context of Cynthetiq's example the children are not branded as thieves because their father was a thief, they are thieves because their father was a thief, and are branded because of that.

1. The answer is typically along the lines of "God's justice wouldn't allow it"; that is, someone had to pay the penalty for sin. There are a lot of difficulties surrounding this issue, and no deeply satifactory answer other than trusting God.

2. Good question. I don't really have an answer other than that it's traumatic enough to be tortured to death and that we are taught that "He descended into hell"; that Christ was, for a while, separated from God.

3. After the resurrection, Christ sticks around for a while before ascending to heaven. Christianity teaches that, eventually, Christ will return and "make all things new." Christians disagree alot on exactly what this entails. The whole rapture/ Left Behind thing is just one view among many.

:) :lol: :crazy:

We are ALL God's 'Son' ( think Sunship ) Remember that Jesus was a Semitic and spoke the Aramaic language. The scrolls that followers of Jesus wrote on were written in the Aramaic language. Later, the scrolls were translated into Greek. The loss of translation began right there. For example, in the original Aramaic Bible, Jesus says on the cross 'Eli, Eli, leman shabakthani ! ( My God, my God, for this I was spared !) Compare this with most English translations (the King James ver) - which defies all logic and reason to arrive at Jesus saying 'My God, my God, why have you forsaken me' ? * Come on ! How could God Forget His Son ? Even I am able to remember my own children ! Surely God is big enough to do the same.

The whole problem is three fold:

I.) What Jesus said and was written about came in the Aramaic language. Miss-translations occurred Heavily when the collection of scrolls were gathered up and translated into other languages ( Greek 1st)

II.) The idioms were both misunderstood and therefore mistranslated: Example:
'If your hand offend thee, cut it off." -- means, in Aramaic- 'If you have the habit of stealing, quit it. For it is better to cut out the habit than lose other members of your body.' It is also true that in American English we say 'He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth ( a saying, not a reality !), or 'He received the information right from the horses mouth'. Do horses talk ? No. It is just a saying, exaggerated to make a big point !

III.) When one thinks from the position of Fear, one sees things differently than when one is calm & peaceful and is viewing things from a position of Love. When ones 'rice bowl' or facility for gaining salary to pay for food & shelter is threatened, then one will naturally choose either the thought system based on fear, or will relinquish that, and accept instead the thought system based on Love. Using the thought system based on Love, we can easily remember that the 10 Commandments that Moses wrote down directly from God - contained not even one punishment or negative penalty ! They simply said, 'Love your God and Creator' and 'Love your neighbor'. That's it. Fear based rulers, Rabbis', Priests & Ministers came along and discovered that Fear was an EASY motivated, since it piggybacked on the illusion of fear and motivate many people then and now to attend 'Church' ( which in Aramaic incidentally means - the throw a party ! ) and to make huge 'sacrifices' to 'The Church' - thereby making the economic lives of the Church leaders & 'employee's easy !

Oh I could go on and on. Jesus is my teacher, but He NEVER taught Fear, Punishment and banishment by God. The complete opposite is true. He taught Love, Grace, Forgiveness without retribution or punishment, and He repeatedly preached the constant and continuous presence of God's peace in our lives, if we choose it !

Amen ! Brother & Sister --- Amen !
:) :) :)

CMC, thanks for the insight. You didn't answer my exact questions but your point on meaning being lost in translation is helpful just the same.

From what I understand, Jesus was pulled down from the cross by his mother, brother, and wife, taken away to recuperate, hustled out of the country to either Gaul or Britannia by Joeseph of Arimathea with his wife, Mary Magdalen, where they settled down and raise a raft of kids who became, in time, the aristocracy of Europe.

As for his memory, Paul met it on the road to Damascus and slaughtered it, dressed it like a sheep at the butcher's, and sold it to disgruntled Jews who parlayed it into a religion that, if it had spread far enough for Jesus to have heard of it before he died (circa 90 CE) he would have never stopped throwing up.

Tophat -- that's quite some claim you make. Got any evidence?

Here's how I understand it.

1) God sent down his only son (who is really God anyway, but don't think about that too long or you'll hurt yourself) not to save us but to better communicate with us. To live with us. This is New Testament God who's all about happiness and knowing your neighbor. So JC comes around and he's all like "hey, let's be nice to each other." Then he was nailed to a chunk of wood. Supposedly he took on all of our sins and all of the sins of our descendants so that we can get back into heaven (Adam and Eve screwed us out of it).

2) Not sure, but probably God meant for JC to live out a whole life with us. Change us into nice, friendly, moral people. Then he died. But since JC is God, he can't die (assuming you believe that God IS. Cannot live or die by our understanding).

3) After JC came back to life, he went around to a few people, then ascended into heaven. According to the Book of Revelation, JC will come back after (I think) 1000 years. Judgment will be passed, Satan will rule earth for 100 years, something something. Disregard all of that. Book of Rev is all code for "JC is gonna come back and smite those Roman bastards. Smite them good. So be a good Christian until then."

Hope this helps.

there's also the problem with oral tradition, which was hundreds of years before it was written down and mistranslated, especially the Old Testament. I'm sure you've played the telephone game and heard the outcome different from the income.

That's just not accurate as far as the NT is concerned, Cyn. Just about everybody agrees that the whole thing was finished by the end of the first century, and the earliest books were done by the 50s. The earliest manuscripts we have are, while I can't remember the exact dates, are far earlier and better (as far as provenance is concerned) that for just about any other contemporaneous works. So what we have is just about exactly what the oral tradition immediately following Christ's death was.

I don't debate that for the NT it does explain why the 4 gospels differ so greatly on some stories, because they weren't written down as they happened, but as an after the fact from memory.

i don't think comparing the ancient oral tradition with a game of telephone is fair to the historical reality. when the oral tradition was the primary means of transmitting sacred texts from one generation to another, it was a scholarly discipline to commit huge tracts of knowledge to memory with perfect accuracy.

surely there were some changes and mistaken recollections... but the system they used, and the seriousness and care they took in using it really has no parallel today. we can record our knowledge in many different formats for the ages unchanged, we don't need to.

while it is very oversimplified you underscore my point quite well, the possibility of mistakes and some changes.

Okay original sin. This is really complicated, so if you don't care, read on.

What is original sin? Original sin is that total corruption of our whole human nature which we have inherited from Adam through our parents. Psalms 51:5 I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (NKJV) John 3:6 Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to the Spirit. Romans 5:12 Sinentered the world through one man, and death through original sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned. Ephesians 4:22 Put off, concerning your former conduct, the old man which grows corrupt according to the deceitful lusts.

What has original sin done to human nature? Original sin :
A. has brought guilt and condemnation to all people; Romans 5:19 Through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners. Epesians 2:3 Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.
B. has left everyone without true fear and love of God, that is, spiritually blind, dead, and enimies of God; Genesis 8:21 Every inclination of his [man’s] heart is evil from childhood. 1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, an he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. Ephesians 2:1 As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins. Romans 8:7 The sinful mind is hostile to God. It cannot submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.
C. causes everyone to commit actual sins. Matthew 7:17 Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. Galations 5:19 The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discard, jelousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

What happened to Jesus?
1) If God would have simply said, “I forgive you”, then we’d all be a bunch of non sinning christian robots. Ultimately, God (probably) used His son in this way in order for us to understand his sympathy and love for us. What kind of supreme being would just forgive us for nothing? He needed us to understand that we were, by nature, breaking God’s rules. We sin. You sin, I sin. According to the bible the punishment for sin is death. Just death. That means hell. Eternal life was only given to those without sin, which were aprox. none of us. So God took pity on us, poor sinners. He showed us that He was a God of mercy and a just God. He sent His only Son to suffer for all mankind. All Jesus life on Earth, he was treated very badly. He was able to spread the Word, but the persecutaion and torture he recieved was considered the greatest in history.

What does the Bible teach us about Christ’s life, suffering, and death?
They teach that Christ:
A. endured paverty, contempt, and persecution in His earthly life; 2 Corinthians 8:9 Thought He was rich, yet for your sakes He becamse poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich. Mathew 8:20 Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man [Jesus] has no place to lay His head. Isiah 53:3 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. John 8:40 You are determined to kill Me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Bible narrative: At His birth Jesus had only strips of cloth and a manger (Luke 2:7). Herod tried to murder Him, but He escaped to Egypt (Matt. 2:13). In Nazareth the people tried to throw Him down from the brow of the hill [cliff] (Luke 4:29). In the temple they picked up stones to stone Him (John 8:59).
B. suffered great agony under Pontius Pilate; John 19:1-3 Pilate took Jesus and had Him flogged. The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on His head. The clothed Him in a purple robe and went up to Him again and again, saying, “Hail the king of the Jews!” And they struck Him in the face. Bible narrative: The suffering of Christ (Mark 15:1-20)
C. died in excruciating agony on the cross. John 19:16-18 Finally Pilate handed Him over to them to be crucified. So the soldiers took charge of Jesus. Carrying His own cross, He went out to the place of the Skull (which in Aramaic is called Golgotha). Here they crucified Him. Matt. 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice... “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (He suffere the tortures of the damned in hell.) John 18:30 He bowed His head and have up His spirit. Bible narrative: The death of Christ (Mark 15:21-41).

What do the Scriptures teach about Chirst’s burial?
They teach that Christ’s body was buried in the tomb and remained there until the third day, without decaying in any way. Acts 13:37 The one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay. Bible narritive: The burial of Christ (Mark 15:42-47)

2. Good question! But I think THE BIBLE made it abundantly clear that Jesus suffered before he was murdered, and rose from the grave on the third day (actually only 2 days after the death, thus ‘on the third day’). Jesus, though free of sin, entered hell for that time. There he proclaimed victory over His enemies in hell. The death itself was the punishment. He did give His son. Jesus died after torture and crucifiction. I don’t think it’s fair to compare a person giving his or her child up for death with God giving His son. After all, they are imortal.

3. The ressurection. What do the Scriptures teach us about Christ’s resurrection? They teach that on the third day Christ victoriously rose from the grave and showed Himself alive to His disciples. Acts 10:40-41. Actually, you can read the rest of the Scriptures I list, my hands are getting tired. So, Acts 10:40-41, 1 Cor. 15:4-8, and Acts 1:3.

Why is Christ’s resurrection so important and comforting? Christs resurrection proves that:
A. Christ is the Son of God; Rom 1:4
B. His doctrine is the truth; John 2:19, and John 8:28
c. God the Father accepted Christ’s sacrafice for the reconciliation of the world; Rom. 4:25 and 5:10, 1 Cor. 15:17 and 15:20, and John 11:25-26 and 14:19

After Jesus Christ came back from death, he basically went back to His disciples. He met withy them and showed them His wounds. They were just as they were a few days before hand. Still normally fatal wounds, yet Jesus was alive! He proclaimed His final words to a number of believers, and then, 40 days after his resurrection, Christ, in the presence of His disciples, ascended bodily into the glory of His Father, to prepare a place for us in heaven. He litterally lifted off the ground and into heaven. I wish I was there.

What comfort do we get from Christ’s ascension to the right hand of God? We know that the exalted God-man, Christ
A. as our Prophet sends people to proclaim the saving Gospel by the power of the Holy Spirit; Eph 4:10-12, Luke 10:16, and John 16:7
B. as our Priest pleads and prays for us before the Father; Rom 8:34 and 1 John 2:1
C. as our King rules and protects His church and governs over all the world espically for the benefit of His church; Ps. 110:1

Lastly (I swear) What do the Scriptures teach about Christ’s second coming?
A. Christ will return visably and with great glory on the last day; Matt 24:27, Luke 21:27, Acts 1:11, 2 Peter 3:10, and Rev 1:7
B. Christ will return to judge the world, not to set up an earthly government; Matt 25:31-32, John 12:48 and 18:36, and 2 Cor. 5:10
Note: Milennialists teach the unscriptural doctrine that either before of after the return of Christ the church will experience a literal period of 1,000 years (a millennium) of peace and prosperity. Revelation 20 speaks in picture language of Christ’s spiritual rule on the earth through the Gospel and does not refer to earthly government.
C. Christ will return on a specific day known by God alone. At this point, getting tired of writing verses, ask me for verses if you want.
D. Before Christ returns, there will be increasing turmoil and distress for the church and the world.
E. The return of Christ is a source of hope and joy for the Christian.

I hope I answered your questions well enough. It was pretty much to the extent of my abilities, and energy.

BTW, if you actually read the whole thing all the way through without stopping, congradulations! You probably don't have ADD.

I'm impressed with the quotes, I won't bother to check them for accuracy ;) because they sound familiar enough from what I remember. I don't remember the books, chapters, and verses like I used to when I was actively going to services.

dang will... that was quite a mouthful.

Hahahaha, Thank you irateplatypus. When I get started about religion, I get carried away at times. I think what I put reflects what's written in the bible (or, as I call it, the novelization of the Passion of the Christ), or what I understand of it. It's a really good read, I reccomend it to anyone.

Well I guess I have ADD cause I only made it a little way in before I started just scanning instead of reading, which is when I noticed this:

If Jesus is supposed to be a part of God, and perfect, the only man to be born without sin and to have led a sinless life, then how did he die if death is the punishment for sin? And how is letting man kill the "savior" supposed to save mankind from hell? Mankind is supposed to be saved from hell for sinning by sinning again? And why would God make a creation that was by nature going to disobey him?

I still don't get the idea that every one is born in sin, if God loves us and life then why is the creation of life a sin? If sex is immoral and wicked then why does it feel so damned good? I would like to think that a religion that preaches love and caring for thy neighbor would not say that you sin simply by existing, I just don't see how the idealogies fit together. I especially don't see how burning people alive was supposed to cleanse their souls.

agreed I've read it from cover to cover 3 times in my life. while not belittile it, it has all the same issues that cover modern day TV/Film.

Okay. By death He saved us. It was the way decreed by God (presumabaly the Father) that this was the way to save all of mankind from itself. God did not design nature with opposing rules. Adam and Eve, as probably any of us would have, ruined it. God wanted us to live forever, but to be free to choose. One choice is to sin. Unfortunatally, sin is infectious. Once Adam and eve had it, all of their offspring were doomed to have it.
Man was a tool in the cruxcifiction of Christ. He couldn't have a cow do it, and He couldn't do it. It was also important to know that the lower nature of man was capable of turning on Jesus, and thus God. God loves each and every one of us like we were His own children.
The creation of life, in itself, is not a sin. Sex is not a sin. You know what is immoral about sex. Prostitution, and other immoralities in dealing with sex (please don't say the word gay or homosexual in pertaining to this, as that is a completly different discussion) are the sins.
We don't have to worry about original sin effecting our eternal life as longh as you have faith in God. We are expected to try our best to be good by following the ten commandments. Loving thy neighbor is one of the commandments. Original sin is a simple reality, that can be undone in faith in God. One could call it a loophole. Jesus died for the sins of all, but unless you have faith (according to the bible), you are not getting into heaven. I personally believe that God, being fair and just, recognizes people from many religions into his kingdom. However, according to the NKJV of the bible, it is through faith that you are saved.
As for burning people alive, many atrocities have been carried out in the holy name of God. Wars have been fought, people of other religions (and even Christians!) have been tortured and/or killed, and God is really saddened by it. Burning alive will not 'cleanse your soul'. At least not in any Christian religion I am aware of. Certian other religions may believe this, but I believe that death is not a teacher. I think life is the teacher that eventually kills all of it's students. We learn through our environment and we have opportunities for great good or great evil. If one chooses evil, but realizes the sin and repents to God, he/she is forgiven.
Thanks for asking. Good questions, all!
BTW, I do not have my degree in theology. I am not an ordained pastor or preist. I am the son of one, though. heh.

Cynth, don't forget that the words you read in the bible were written by man. God spoke to people, but you know how doctor doctor can go. The message can be changed or missinterprited. Use common sense, morality, fear and love of God, and love of peace to try and translate it to your own language and sense.

God made a creation that had Free Will, angels are devoted to God because they have no choice. Humans have freee will to decide if they want worship God or not. Angels were created without free will and blindly follow God's bidding. He died because he was human. The savior is supposed to save mankind because that's what the prophecies tell us. Yes, mankind is supposed to be saved by sinning again, because they have Original sin anyways thus they are sinners.

You may not agree with why everyone is born in sin, but Original Sin has been described and it is part of the foundation of the why Jesus had to walk the earth can be crucified. Creation of life is not a sin in and of itself. Part of the Original Sin is washed away during batpism, which John the Baptist baptized Christ to give him forgiveness from original sin as well since he was born of man and all men are born with sin.

It's the extreme side that has taken a more fanatical point of view on it, including the buring at the stake, spanish inquisition tortures, and crusades.

Oh, by thee way, Christians capitolize God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, He, Him, The Word, and other words that mean God or Christ. If you are Christian, it is a sign of great respect. Otherwise, it's a judgment call.

I don't think it's such a big deal, will. I mean, Jesus should be capitalized, but that's just proper grammar. God should probably be capitalized so "The Lord God Almighty" doesn't get confused with "the god Zeus". But, eh...

I don't really care for the doctrine of original sin; part of the problem is that it's difficult to explain exactly what the Original Fall would be within the framework of evolution (I've heard some interesting theories based on semiotics, but I digress). The important part, as far as Christianity is concerned, is that all have sinned.

As far as the accuracy of the NT (and the OT, for that matter), some evidence that it remains fundamentally unchanged is just that when we discover earlier manuscripts, they've never said anything radically different from the newer ones. So by the process of induction...

And I don't know what you mean by the gospels contradicting each other. There are obviously some differences, but as far as I know, these can all be explained by one of two things.

1. Its a small difference in fact. Really, I don't care if Christ fed 4000 or 6000.
2. Its two different stories which are similar. Is it so hard to believe that Christ fed a large group of people more than once?

I'm not particularly a fan of the traditional (but slowly degrading) Original Sin explanation. As far as I understand it, even the Catholic Church in Vatican II rejected the former explanation of original sin only to begin leaning towards a more interpretive explanation that original sin is better described as that which is inherently flawed in the human condition - selfishness, greed, fear, etc. I wouldn't say I have a firm belief one way or another yet...still sorting it out and learning...but it seems to me likely that, considering Jesus' message as one of God's unconditional love and life free from fear, his life and death and, ultimately, resurrection, were profound examples of how God is behind us, if we allow Him (Her, It) to be, through even the most extreme evil: death. It seems to be a life of example, coming to the ultimate representative conclusion. He taught, and showed, how to live a life of trust in God and, in the face of death, and on top of that, the most horrible, vile, and evil form of death of the time, he continued to trust God and not let fear control his actions, and His resurrection shows that God IS behind us even in the most evil of times and if God is supporting us even in death - the ultimate evil - there is no reason to allow fear to get the best of us in the face of even lesser evils.

In my opinion, the surest way to screw up understanding the Bible (not that there's a sure way to get it right) is to try and take most of it literally. It's been translated and retranslated, and beyond the obvious fact that figures of speach are lost in those translations is the somewhat less obvious fact that a large majority of the Bible is poetic in nature. Add into the fact that we are not the "intended" audiences that were in mind when the people who wrote it did so and you have a nice little recipe for mass confusion and misunderstanding.

Thankfully, as we evolve as a society, our understanding of how to read scripture is slowly evolving as well.

Answer to all three.......because some guy decided to write it as such.

I have to agree with tecoyah. Since the original question has expanded, and other taken off, I may as well just toss my pennies in while I'm here.

In Christianity, the religion spawned from another, and has also spawned others in it's wake. There is nothing "pure" about Christianity in the sense of theology. Christianity was birthed from the Jews. Christianity also gave birth to Mormonism. Logically speaking (yes, yes, no room for logic in religion), Mormons are to Christians as Christians are to the Jews. If Christians are to say that Jesus was who he was, but (the Mormon guy) was not, they are simply being hypocrites. It's just as likely that some scripture was found on golden tablets (or some such nonsense) as it is that god (or God) gave way to a human child that was needlessly crucified. Frankly, they make equal sense.

The ancient Jewish traditions also make some sense. No eating pork, kosherite laws, etc. Most of them were simple rules that helps keep humanity alive, healthy and doing okay. Today, those laws are not as needed for cleanliness, and many Jews do not practice them as stringently. Also note the distinct change in the god (God) of the old testament and the new. Besides the fact that MANY Christians have little or no knowledge of the old testament (the foundation of their religion) and it is read not nearly as in depth in most churches as the new, there is also the fact that god apparently went through anger management classes.

The spiteful, vain god of the old testament, who punished his people en masse when they disobeyed, gave way to the kinder, gentler, giving up his son for humanity god. This reversal makes little or no sense. Mind you, from a divine perspective, gods from most other religions have not gone through such transformations. Also, the Jews still seem to get punished to this day, much like in the older biblical times. The Holocaust, the ongoing religious wars in Israel, etc. At least the old testament makes logical sense and also tends to play out a little more today.

Mind you, I'm not Jewish. I'm not even a firm believer in the Jewish religion. I just think that Christianity, at least the way it is viewed today (and Catholicism at the top of the chart) breeds greed and intolerance, both inside the service of god, and outside. Very few known religions throughout history have been as intolerant as Christianity.

</rant>

Historically, absolutely. Its simply a matter of interpritation. Which religion is closest to the way that YOU understand the bible? For me it's between Catholocism, Lutheranism, and Methodism. I also practice a pacifist Buddhish lifestyle. I do not, however, practice spelling. Anyway, I have read the whole bible through and through many times. I have also read books written about religion and books relating to the life of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, Laotse (of Taoism), Baha'i, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Shinto, Duuidism, Wicca, Gypsy studies, Native American, Scientology, Unitarianism, prophets, and translations. I've even looked into athiesm. There is a lot of info out there. I decided to base my religious beliefs, mainly, on the bible. I found after reading it, I had a better understanding of a great deal of things, philosophical, physical, psychological, and logical. I see a lot of the religious scriptures as being guide books on how to live a good life. The bible spoke to me more than any of the other books. I enjoyed a lot of the other books, espically the eastern ones (buddhism, taoism), but the system of logic wasn't as important to me as the morals and gospel in the bible. Oops. Went off on a bit of a tengent there.

Anyway, "the Passion of the Christ" was based mainly on Christian beliefs, centering on the bible's retelling of the events surrounding Jesus Christ of Nazareth. I based all of my asnwers in turn from Catholisism, Lutheranism, Baptism, Methodism, Eastern Orthodox, and Presbyterianism. Mostly, I based it on the writings of Martin Luther, the father (so to speak) of modern protestantism.

Isn't that convenient? The people who tell us about this are the only ones who can "save" us from it. Sounds like a big plot to manipulate us.

Again, depends on which Christian denomination you talk to. I reference Catholicism a lot because it's the one I know the most about, but I know there are other denominations which feel the same way. In Catholicism, since at least the 1960s with Vatican II, the Church is no longer considered a broker for "salvation." Instead it is believed that "salvation" can be gotten from nearly any world religion, only that some make it easier than others. So, if it were merely a power play and nothing more, saying that wouldn't make much sense now would it? Unfortunately, it takes time for changes like this to work their way to being accepted and taught by all the people within the Church.

Dude, I thought all you needed was faith. :rolleyes:

So here is a great consideration: according a large number of Christian Religions, God is all powerful. Ok. God creates only like Himself. God is not a 'sinner'. Ok. God created me. Therefore I cannot be a sinner. ( makes sense so far)

Jesus is God like, as you and I, because of who created us and therefore what we are. Backtrack -when Moses received the 10 C's - there was no retribution in them, anywhere. IE - a list of directions, without 'penalties'. Simply - Love God, Love your neighbor, etc.


In Jesus walk - He never called anyone a 'sinner' There was directions to 'repent' which simply means 'choose again'. When I choose to think / act / feel without love ( meaning I'm using the thought system based on fear) - His direction is not to punish me, rather to simply repent, or choose again. And start by seeking God, then loving my neighbor. Finally, the whole weird idea that God sent His 'only Son' - does that mean the rest of us are fatherless bastards ? I think not.

And why would God, who is only of Love, want to have His Son crucified ? Why would - how could God be motivated to pay this demand for ransom ?

And who would He pay it to ?
Who is bigger than God ?
Do I believe Jesus was sent here to die for my sins ? Of course not.

I am not a sinner and he therefore does not need to 'pay' for my sins.

Who would he be paying them to ?

And if, as Jesus directed ' judge not ... pull the plank from your own eye before you attempt to remove the speck from your brothers eye ? who could decide that I had 'sinned' ? God - I think not. The 'devil' ( live spelled backwards) ? I know not. Jesus ? He judged no one. Who ? The 'Church' ? maybe ... and if loosely the 'church' then maybe I can be scared to 'pay' them for my 'sins' Not !

How about this: God created us to Love and be Loving. Their are 2 thought systems. The first is based on fear. The second is based on Love. We can easily relinquish the first and then accept the 2nd. The peace of God is my only goal. From there Life is now, life is love, and kindness, peace and beautiful co-creation is our natural inheritance as the effect of God's love and creation.

'Give up your dreams of sin and guilt and come with me instead to celebrate the resurrection of God's son. And bring with you all those whom He has sent to you to care for as I have cared for you'. Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus may save....but, Religion kills.

Don't think about it, it will make your brain explode. Along with "transubstantiation", which is a revolting doctrine if ever I heard one. Just try to avoid eye contact with Christians and keep your kids at home on Sunday...

OK, jk about eye contact. Not kidding about the kids, though. As my wife said, "I am not going to subject an impressionable mind to such twisted thinking."

cmc -- most of your arguments are obviously invalid. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. But you say Jesus never calls anyone a sinner -- well, perhaps. But he calls people "Satan" and "White-Washed tombs", he whips a group of merchants out of the temple, and chides people for actions which they know are wrong. And this is how I try to talk to people about original sin, when it comes up. Not that they are born in sin, but that they have sinned. Most people, when asked if they've ever done anything wrong, will admit that at some point they have.

SecretMethod -- I'm pretty sure that the Catholic Church does not in fact teach that salvation can come through any of the world religions. Do you have a quote from the catechism or a council?

Tophat -- well sure, it's by faith, but it's not like I'm just making this up off the top of my head. There is evidence for the claims I make about Christ, evidence of both the philosophical and the historical sort. The claim that Christ was married, while not directly contradicted by any of the evidence as far as I know, seems a bit far-fetched. Certainly someone would have mentioned this. The idea he was pulled down from the cross before he died also seems far-fetched. Weren't there Roman soldiers watching? And wouldn't they be able to tell whether or not the guy on the cross had died? And I'm tired of the idea that Paul invented something that had nothing to do with what Jesus taught. Peter and John were still alive at the time, and if anyone knew what Jesus 'really' taught, it was them. But by all accounts, they supported Paul's teachings. Sure we read Paul alot. But we also read the best accounts of what Jesus taught, not to mention the OT (Pastor just finished a series on Nehemiah). Don't you think we've noticed the tensions by now?

I think this post is about explaining the story of Jesus to the marq. I don't remember him asking about transubstantiation-the doctrine that the bread and wine of the Eucharist are transformed into the true presence of Christ, although the appearance is the same (the process of Holy Communion). I suggest starting another post. I think that, and correct me if I'm wrong, the marq was simpy string to get more from the Passion of the Christ, information wise.
Thanks for all the thoughts, though.

Excuse my attention span, but I only read three-quarters of the way down the first page. But in response to the whole "God sent down Jesus, who is really God, to mingle with the crowd and teach us better" thing, here comes my $.02:

The thing is, Christians are really Jewish. Hear me out on this. What I've been taught and unerstand, having grown up in a Jewish school my entire life, is that Jesus was Jewish.

Now, in the Old Testament and in the Jewish religion, we anticipate the coming of a Messiah who will save the world and bring us into a new world of peace, harmony, etc., etc. for all those who take Judaism as their faith and practice it properly. This Messiah will be born Jewish and come into his role by communicating with God.

So Jesus was born and he was good. And then he - apparently - began talking to God and preached His words and practiced His advice. Some Jews said, "Huzzah! This is our Messiah! This is the guy we've been waiting for for 3000-some-odd years! Yay!" So they proclaimed Jesus as their saviour.

However, other Jews were doubtful and did not think that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah they had all been waiting for, and there was a clash between the two groups. Believers vs. Non-believers. One group remained Jewish and the other grouped changed their names to Christians - accepters of Jesus Christ as the Messiah.

And Jesus never pulled through on that whole "saving the world bit." Methinks the Christians were wrong about him. He was just such a nice guy, it's a real pity.

However, I'm young and not as educated as I would like to be, so please, if you know better, I'd like to discuss.

And I'm agnostic for those who care to know.

I think it's a bit more complicated then that. Without running the risk of writing another post that takes most people a lifetime to read, I'll just leave it at that. Again, this post is to explain the beliefs surrounding the story told in The Passion of the Christ. If you'd like to add some information that has been left out, plase feel free to do so, but let's not start acompletly different discussion. You will have a better response, and thus a batter conversation or discussion, if you start your own thread. I'd be sure to discuss my thoughts on the matter there, for sure.
Thanks.

I don't have time to look through my class notes at the moment to see if I wrote down the specific document or passage, but I was taught by a Catholic theologian at a Catholic university (I know you know this but I'm saying it for others to be aware I'm not just making this up) that it was stated in Vatican II that the FULLNESS of Truth subsist only in the Catholic Church, but there is REAL Truth in other religions as well, thereby making it so that, naturally, Catholics are considered to have the full amount of tools if you will that lead to salvation, but that salvation can be found through other religions as well - it's only more difficult. Like I said before though, even in my short lifetime and limited experiences within the Catholic Church - one congregation my whole life and 2 Catholic schools, as well as reading various things - I can see that there is great variation in any one person's understanding of the Church and its teachings. Different people within the Church place different degrees of importance on different Church decisions. So, it never surprises me to hear of any person within the Church who still may hold on to something like the tradition explanation of Original Sin and so forth. Personally, however, I prefer and my conscience leads me to agree more with the progressive thinkers within the Church such as Thomas Merton and Andrew Greeley.

I was educated in a catholic church, and i was always told that it didnt really matter what religion you followed, as long as you were a good person. Then again a lot of catholics i know do know believe the same thing as other catholics.

I think I should clarify by the way that what I mean by my statement regarding Truth being found in most religions is not that Buddha provides salvation for a Buddhist, just that a Buddhist can find salvation - yet it still comes through Jesus. Meaning a person who is Buddhist has access to real Truth (although not the "full" truth) and is therefore ale to find salvation - although he or she may not refer to it in Christian terms, Catholics naturally still believe that the salvation comes through Christ - or else the doctrine would be relativism which it surely is not.

EDIT: (primarily for asaris) Vatican II's Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate).

Catholicism by Fr. Richard McBrien summarizes on page 386:

And from the First Plenary Council of India (1950) - and approved by Pope Pius XII in 1951:

on original sin:

the most fleshed out attempt to explain original sin is in augustine's city of god. the argument comes down to this:because you are human and descended from adam and eve, you have a kind of sin chip built into your circuitry. that chip means that you, as a human being, are completely, hopelessly fucked. augustine seems to have some fun outlining just how fucked you are and how much it is a function of a divine justice blah blah blah, so he can talk with great wonderment about how jesus took care of all that. the logic seems to work off itself. i dont think the "logic" of original sin gets addressed anywhere in the main texts--it doesnt make sense, and kind of makes the god in question into something of a tyrant, so its better just to believe. a shut up and swallow kind of thing.

one the gospels: what you read are the gospels selected by the council of nicea in the early 4th century--once constantine converted, and began assimilating christianity to the roman state bureacuracy, tweaks were required to make christianity more hierarchical--it was functional to assume that divine inspiration effectively stopped at a certain, arbitrary point in the past and that gospels stopped being produced that were "real" (some gnostics were still producing gospels, you see) because if divine inspiration was still racing about in 328 or something there would be nothing for the church to mediate....
it was functional to prefer stories about jesus, who seems to have been the main character in what amounts to a minor short fiction industry, that came from a more neoplatonist viewpoint than from other perspectives (for example) because this seemed symmetrical with a bureacratic church.

since it is kind of risky to do this and leave much in the way of traces lying about, the rejected gospels were in the main destroyed (including the gospel of thomas, the story of the teenage jesus, thunder pefect kind and other gnostic texts--they survived in some copies, you can read them in editions like the one elaine pagels put together)....

there are two things that surface even through this readers digest condensed milk version of the council of nicea story:

the gospels you read are as they are not because of any particular accuracy, but because of they were older when the council met, and this alone fit with the idea that divine inspiration had somehow stopped. so you need a church, you see. and because the viewpoint built into the texts were hierarchical or justified hierarchy at some level-----so you can have this kind of church.

second the gospels were not written with reference to empirical acuracy, nor would that have been required: instead, they seems to have been generated with reference to each other, mixed with a kind of divine "inspiration"--so you get a kind of hall of mirrors, something like the french hardboiled detective fiction series le poulpe (the squid) in which lots of different writers make scenarios that conform to certain rules that involve the main character, exploring different aspects of his or her character, etc.

how you resolve your relation to this hall of mirrors around the question of faith is your perogative--i figure there is a way to do it such that the fragments will organize into a three-dimensional image (maybe you need special glasses)---but i am no more or less interested in the stories of jesus than i am in stoires or metastories outlined in any number of other novels.

On Jewishness and Christianity: There is a sense in which Christians are Jews; we do indeed see Jesus as the promised Messiah. Of course, most of us are not ethnically Jewish. But we teach that, for the most part, Jews have misunderstood what scripture teaches concerning the Messiah. He came, not to usher in peace and prosperity, but to suffer and die for our sins. He will come back to usher in peace and prosperity.

On Salvation outside the R.C. Church. Of course, I'm very happy that the Catholic Church no longer teaches that I'm going to hell. And what I say here is something of a repetition of what SecretMethod said, but it's an important nuance. There is truth in other religions, but not saving truth; no one is ever saved because they're Buddhist. Similarly, no one is saved because they're a good person. All who are saved are saved by the sacrifice of Christ. But, the RCC teaches that one does not need to know that one is part of the Catholic Church in order to actually be part of the Catholic Church. So, people who, according to our limited view, are not members of the RCC, can still be "secret members".

As a final point, McBrien is slightly outside the mainstream -- not way outside the mainstream, I mean, he teaches here -- but enough outside that one should be leery of taking what he says to be exactly the teaching of the RCC. His emphases and deemphases are odd. It's worth noting that the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops never gave his book their approval.

RoachBoy -- the picture you give isn't really accurate. Sure, the canon wasn't fixed until the 4th century, but it was widely accepted before then. And books like the Gospel of Thomas weren't rejected because they didn't give the church the power it wanted, but because they were later in date and of more dubious authenticity than the canonical gospels. And what do you mean that the Gospels weren't written with reference to empirical accuracy? As far as I can tell, the writers go out of their way to write realistic stories, things with facts that can be checked up on. Where do you get this idea from.

asaris
i think because i do not believe, the problems of text-generation and select criteria applied at the council of nicea interests me in a different way than it might someone who believes--it would make sense that for someone who believes putting a stop conceptually to the chaos of text-generation--or at least limits on it--is necessary. i just think about it without the requirement that there be any "true" gospels floating about in all of this.

what is evident: christianity in its earliest period was not a unified movement, it had no particular center, if i remember--the imposition of a doctrinal center was another fine result of the council itself (this much is obvious)--so when you talk about anything being "generally accepted" before the council, i think you might be indulging a bit of ex post facto rewriting...

i used the gospel of thomas as an example, nothing more--that because i remembered it for some reason---sorry if i created the impression the argument turned on it.---i dont think there is much argument about the general argument, but if you think i am wrong in this, point me at stuff and i'll check it out (am curious)

maybe underneath it all, the way i see this history is as it is because i have more sympathy for the gnostics than i do for the dominant forms of christianity.

And I have very little sympathy for the gnostics; not just because I'm pretty orthodox, but also because I like my body. That's, to me, one of the high points of Christianity -- that, at its best, it treats the body as something good given to us by God for our pleasure. There's a reason the creeds teach the "resurrection of the body".

But more on topic. I agree that there was no unified center in early Christianity, and that the papacy was a later development. This is one of the chief points we Protestants disagree with RCs on. That's why I said 'generally accepted', rather than speaking of the teaching of the early church. We might disagree on exactly what the scope of 'generally' is, but it seems clear that there was some agreement about the canon among Christians; for example, no one wanted Sappho's poetry in, and no one wanted the Gospel of Luke out. There was, apparently, difficulties regarding Hebrews and Jude; I don't know the history to know well enough what books almost made it.

The end of text generation was not an arbitrary point; the idea of the council was that books written by apostles were in, others were out. From what little I know of contemporary theories, a number of the NT books are no longer thought to have been written by apostles. But the idea that the books written by people who wrote while Christ's contemporaries were still alive are more authoritative seems to me to make sense yet.

Part of it (and looking at the new individualism thread made me think of this) is that I view part of being a Christian as being part of a tradition, and that tradition has a great deal of weight for me. I don't blindly follow it; some of my beliefs are fairly heterodox. But if tradition tends to think a certain way, I won't depart from it without good reasons. It's part of epistemic humility; I might think a certain way, but if lots of people, many of whom are as wise or wiser than I think otherwise, it's only befitting to give their opinions a great deal of weight.

Jesus was a hippie. He just wanted folks to get along. Then people made a religion out of it.

Oh my, I should have paid closer attention to this thread after it took off. As willtravel said above, I was really just interested in the story of Jesus from an academic POV.

I still don't really get what sacrafice He made or what it all meant in the long run. That being said, I have learned somethings about the interpretation of the Bible and as a lapsed Christian I have found it all very informative. I still seem the lack the requisite "faith" that the God seems to demand, but I am getting closer and that is a discussion for another thread.

Trying to get back to the original intent, even what you ask is a matter of interpretation. Some might say that human beings are "afflicted" with Original Sin and Jesus had to die to forgive us of this "Origianl Sin." This is from the decidedly negative (and more increasingly clearly misguided) philosophies of Augustine regarding the nature of humanity.

Another argument can be made that Jesus' death was the ultimate culmination of a life of example. He showed how to live free from fear of reprisal while doing what one knows to be right - loving all of creation - and that even the prospect of death could not prevent him from this love. Add in the resurrection and it makes this argument even strgoner - that even death can not hold down spirit of the good person.

In my opinion, the doctrine of Original Sin is a holdover from a less mature theology and I tend to embrace the reworking of the concept, redefining original sin in more general terms such as the inherent flaws that come with humanity, i.e. selfishness.

For the marq:

This is not christian ideals. This is a theory I have after many years in church and other places, nothing more.

It is usually taken for granted by most people that God all knowing. What I have never seen is anything saying he was all understanding. I could have knowledge of everything ever thought of, and without the context to understand it, it would not be worth much. So, let's say God was all knowing, but did not truly understand what it was like to be one of his creations. He feels like we're pissing him off on purpose, killing each other and causing general havok. after several attempts to fix this problem, he sends down his "son", who is one with god (I think of the Triune god like a family; there are the three parts of god, all together making the christian God. I do not believe any religion is truly monotheistic.) whom we humans named Jesus. Jesus is sent to give God an understanding of what it is to live in a human body, and die for "sins" against the church. In this way, God gains the needed understanding of who and what we as humans really are, and is able to forgive any shortcomings we have as his creations. He also understands what these sins are in context to who we as humans are and how whatever force of hurtfulness exists in the world will attempt to trump up charges against the truly good people. Where he was once frusterated with us, he now asks us to believe in his vessel of understanding, his "son". In this way we accept his understanding of us, and it is this mutual acceptance of God's understanding of our suffering that "saves" us. He will accept us as long as we chose to accept him (thus I do believe that other religions that have the same idea, god asking us to accept him, will be "saved" as well.) His son is not flesh, but was put into flesh, and is resurected as who he was before he became put into flesh. He then rejoined his dad back "up" where they live. The idea is he will come back and ask all the good little people to go up to heaven with him, eventually.

So that's my answer to questions 1-3, marq. Tell me if I went way over what you wanted, or left something out.

Kalnaur: That's a very well-thought-out theory, and I can see where you're coming from, very intriguing.

The questions I would have though, would be: Can you really "Know" something to its full and all-encompassing degree without understanding it?

Plus- and I really hate to do this- but...

Therefore, to have knowledge of something means that one must also understand it. I think that would have to mean that God must also understand everything He "knows".

analog: there is a long tradition in christian theology, formalized in the 12th century by folk like william of ockham--nominalism--the idea is that human understanding, being finite, cannot know or understand god, being infinite. the organized church would be less than happy with this position as it would not give them a postiion to work from--the 12th century counterposition to ockham's was outlined at great great length by aquinas.
many heretical movements were effectively nominalist. martin luther was a kind of nominalist-lite (you cant read or understand the bible except through "grace" which leads you to a kind of unknowing knowing...) pascal was much more hardcore. kierkegaard as well, but he never goes as far as pascal.

most protestant denominations that i am familiar with would reject nominalist positions outright--thge closest i know about would be pentecostals, who emphasize the role of direct spiritual illumination--but they wrap it up in a limited literal general interpretation of the bible, which i have never understood.

if there was ever anything about chrisitianity that appealed to me, it is nominalism. you see some of its implications in nietzsche...the position would lead you to a kind of remaining open to possibilities beyond human understanding while at the same time reducing most existing movements to collections of phrases that refer to the ability to generate phrases and not to anything outside of that.

Just an off-topic point roachboy, but you're misusing the term 'nominalism'. Nominalism is, quoting www.philosophypages.com (because I suck at giving definitions), To the best of my knowledge, no Christian thinker has ever asserted that the human mind can comprehend God; the argument about our knowledge of God has centered around whether it's equivocal (what we mean when we say 'God is good' is not the same as what me mean when we say 'Bill Clinton is good'.) or univocal (when we say 'God is good' we mean the same thing as when we say 'Bill Clinton is good').

True analog, however, notice that that is also our definition as humans. As well, it says that knowledge can be "Familiarity, awareness, or understanding". God could have been aware and familiar with the information without fully understanding it. It is also said that it is gained through experience, thus he would have gained a store of knowledge that he was aware of, knew it inside and out, and yet did not necessarily understand it.

Just a thought. :)

Guess what, the Bible wasn't written in english so none of this matters. For all we know, the Hebrew word that was used meant "all-understanding." (I'm sure someone DOES know, but I do not)

asaris: the theological definition of nominalism comes from ockham--if you tranpose:

into a mideval theological context, you end up with god.
for the christianized platonism of folk like aquinas god is like the container within which the ideas or forms operate--in other words, categories exist because the idea/form exists in god's mind. this framework is why the ontological proof in aquinas at first glance looks bizarre: "that god is is a tautology".....work it out, if you havent already, and you'll see what i mean.
ockham made counterargument, some of which is summarized in the dicto-paragraph you cited above--all you need to do is make the tranposition, and things fit together neat-like.

Boy -- you're really testing my memory here, roachboy. I haven't studied medieval philosophy in years, and when I did, my focus was Philosophical Anthropology, not Metaphysics or Epistemology. But you do seem confused.

1. A further comment on your earlier post: Aquinas did not outline the counterposition to Ockham; at least, not in the sense that he was responding to Ockham. Aquinas lived about a generation before Ockham. Additionally, it was Duns Scotus who was more influential until around the time of the reformation, so to the extent the Church tended towards a position other than Ockham's, it would have been Scotus's.

2. The statement "God exists" is a tautology for Aquinas, but not for the reasons you aver. God is perfectly simple, according to Aquinas, so he is his own existence. Therefore, the predicate in that statement does not add any meaning to the statement. That's why its a tautology.

3. Aquinas was not a Platonist, he was an Aristotelian. I can't remember exactly how he describes the relation between particulars and universals, and my books on this are at home. I hope to give you a further response later.

As far as most Protestant denominations rejecting nominalism; well, I think this would be hard to say. I do know that my own denomination would count among its Catholic forerunners Duns Scotus, who was more nominalistic than Aquinas (though not as much as Ockham).

ok now we are also far back in my memory banks as well:
on aquinas/ockham: maybe an anachronistic juxtaposition--it helps me keep the alternatives seperate. i taught this stuff but not for a long time, so if my brainhaze has clouded things outside itself, my apologies.

2. or god could be the being that contains the logical conditions of possibility for all beings, which would include the category of being itself, so its tautological. works basically the same way in either case.

3. i know that in general aquinas is an aristotlean, but in this particular case the line is basically platonist. the two are not at all points mutually exclusive.

this memory test thing is kind of fun.
it is hard, though. i wonder if i have reservoirs left on this. i suppose we'll see.

Why is it called the second coming if Jesus already came back if he was resurrected?

hmm, I guess I didn't come to late to the party:

As I understand it, the crucifixion had to occur because the deity's law mandated blood sacrafice for sin. The savior being sinless, violated the contract and nulled it between man and deity.

That's how the teachings go, as I understand them.

Alternatively, as I understand them:

The savior was a fleshly manifestation of the deity. Maybe just an enlightened person--but I suggest that the belief was and is more important than what occurred in that particular point in time and space. While in this fleshly counterpart, he taught people the true meaning of being resurrected--the rabbinical lie that people were locked into sin from birth. As he began to resurrect people in this metaphysical sense, allowing them to directly communicate to the diety (possibly; also I think a reoccuring theme in pentacostals and Lutherans and some similar types of denominations that eschew power solidified in the bureaucratic wings), the religious leaders (also, I understand, synonymous with power we might recognize now as political) set him up and allowed the roman occupiers to execute him for political rabble-rousing.

I've even read some books that make an even further asssertion in regards to evidence that the yeshua was a mason spilling secrets to the commoners. The rest of the bio falls into place as a political manuever to have some other authorities to take him out.

Hi all,

I'm impressed with everyone's "knowledge" and knowing of the "facts" as laid out in the Bible. Similar knowledge of "facts" of a group of followers ( based on their interpretation ) existed in 30,000 BC ( Before Caesar - not Christ ) by the Aboriginies of Australia. This predates many religions and serves up a wonderful story that was passed down by generations of elders who committed the story to memory. Some of the translations were lost in "Chinese Whispers" but the story was feasable - not.

Perhaps any thoughts on whether or not someone or something existed might be better based on 1. Logic, 2. Pure fact, 3. Universal laws ( gravity, life, death etc ) and not on the interpretations by a group of self important clergy in 392 CE of a widely varying "story" of a fictional character 300 years before.

These wise men saw fit to leave out several pertinent facts - such as proof of death of JC ( dismemberment of body and subsequent resurrection would REALLY be impressive - not recovering from a fainting spell after a hard day in the sun. )

Up until the 1400s they all thought that the world was flat. Why wasn't this taught 1,950 odd years ago?

Where does this thread stop?

Cooperricko-- your post is so full of falsity I just have to pick it apart.

The Aborigines believed in similar facts in 30,000 BCE? How interesting. Not that you mention what these 'facts' are, or how this is relevant to the thread in any way whatsoever. And I hate to dash your hopes, but 30,000 years before Caesar is pretty much 30,000 years before Christ.

You are aware, aren't you, that history doesn't proceed by either logic or universal laws? Unless you're a Hegelian or a Marxist, the only way to know what happened in history is to look at historical documents. Logic and universal laws don't really have much to do with it. And pure fact is generally pretty hard to find.

So you claim that Jesus was a fictional character? Gee, you'd think someone would have noticed. Nevermind the fact that there's more historical evidence for his existence than for just about any other historical person of that time period; four biographies written during the lifetime of his contemporaries is about as good evidence as you're going to get.

While we're on this, the council of Nicea, which is, I assume, what you're trying to mindlessly bash, was towards the beginning of the 4th century CE, not the end.

What do you mean by proof of death? You don't think the Roman soldiers executing him for treason would have made good and sure he was dead? Or do you think that after being tortured for most of a day, and laying without food and water, not to mention without medical attention, for about a day and a half, wouldn't have killed just about anyone? And exactly why do you think the disciples would have provided evidence of his death? Once he's dead there's no point -- no one thought he was going to rise again. And, of course, once he's risen it's going to be hard to find evidence of his death.

Up until th 1400s, they thought the world was round. People have known that the world was round for a very, very long time; at least back to the Greeks. It's pretty obvious when you look at a ship going over the horizon. Sure, Joe on the street might have thought the world was flat; but then again, so would you if you hadn't been taught otherwise.

ZING! Thank you so much asaris for pointing out the amazing faults in cooperricko's post. It always throws me off when people start talking about something they think they know about. Don't post unless you have relevent knowledge on the subject or are searching for said knowledge. I mean cooperroclo kinda made a fool of himself. I'm sure this was not his intention, but here we are.

To answer Coop's last question: this post will stop when people realize that this thread was not asking whether the bible was true or false. The original question was about the story or history of Jesus Christ and God. The person had some question about Christianity. I think my answer back on the 9/2 was a decent example of an answer to the question. I check back every few days hoping that someone can have further insite into the answers to the questions posted by marq. If you mean by 'this' the constant battle between those who believe and those who don't it probably won't end until the end of days. We'll see, if God returns or the sun finally snuffs out.

I saw on a documentary the other day where they actually think Jesus was a buddist and they said he is believed to have travelled to India as a baby where he was named the buddah. They (the Indians) have scripts that say that a holy one came from the west he went away and came back 30 years later and became buddah. Makes sense as Jews believe in eye for an eye and etc, and buddist's love all living things

I heard a theory that Jesus studied with the Yogies while in India and learned meditation techniques such has burying yourself underground for days without food or water. Thus he dug himself out after he was crucified.

Dammit, man. I THOUGHT this, and didn't TYPE it out... i thought, "ah, i'll just leave it"... but you're right, it is very important.

Not all of the bible was written in Hebrew. The bible could have beeen written by aliens visting earth for our bounty of heroin. The bible might have been written by steven king in 20 years, and he used a time machine to go back in time to plant it on some dude.
This thread is about explaining in better detail the life of Jesus Christ and His relationship with God the Father. This is not about the orgins of the bible. It's about what's in the bible.

very good point, willravel, thank you for taking us back on track.

I do agree with the point of getting back on topic, however I disagree with the point that it does not matter what language the New Testament was written in.

Parts were written in Greek and parts written in Hebrew. In my studies, I've come to find that the translations to English were extremely generous, and helped make Jesus seem more incredible than he might of been.

One example that comes to mind is the "miracle" he performed of walking on water. In the original Greek text, the word 'epi' was used to describe Jesus' action of walking 'epi' the sea. It was translated into "on the sea." However, 'epi' would more commonly and logically be translated into 'alongside' as in "Jesus walked alongside the sea."

Just sayin' is all.

Still talking about the bibles background, eh?
The background is a matter of faith. I have faith that people will move their opinnions about the bibles orgins to the 'is the bible a valid source' thread.
Marq asked this:
"First. According to what I have learned from "The Passion of the Christ," God so loved mankind that he gave his only Son to save them. Save them from what, sin? Couldn't God just say, I forgive you?
Second. What do they mean by "gave his only Son?" Mel Gibson made it abundandly clear that Jesus certainly suffered before he was murdered, but 3 days later he was fine. So it isn't like you or I giving up a child permenently.
Third. What happened to Jesus after the resurection? I have a vauge understanding of an impending "second coming" but what's that really all about?
Any insight would be appreciated."
Good questions, all.

As much as I'm a fan of on-topic threads, I think the questions raised in this thread are ALL relevant to the original post. See, the fact is there is no single answer to the original questions. In fact, the answers one gives depend largely on one's understanding and belief about the background of the Bible. For example, there are just about as many different interpretations as to what "second coming" means as there are people who believe there will be or has been some sort of "second coming."

Personally, I'd like to leave it up to the_marq to tell us whether or not we're wasting his time with the discussions of background. There's no such thing as a simple answer regarding religion, and it's disingenuous to try and give one.

God could not just say "I forgive you." because of Free Will. Understand that Free Will was also given to Adam and Eve. They chose to disobey God and they needed to ask for forgiveness but were banished from the garden of eden.

Secret Method: The original questions are in pertaining to the stories the bible tells. The questions were, seemingly, asked after viewing of the Passion of the Christ. The Passion was based on Christianity. Therefore, in Catholocism and Protestantism lies the answers to his questions. That eliminates all the posts about Gnostics, Judism, etc. The language of the bible is important, but as far as this thread is concerned it is delving way too deeply into something that will start thousands of side arguments. This thread can be answered simply by reading the NKJV or NIV of the english bible, translated from German, translated from Latin, translated from Hebrew, translated from whatever.
the_marq said this: "Oh my, I should have paid closer attention to this thread after it took off. As willtravel said above, I was really just interested in the story of Jesus from an academic POV."
That's pretty clear, IMO.

I'm hesistant to post again in this thread for fear of killing it. This kind of rational healthy debate is not only informative to me, but highly entertaining. It's also this sort of thing that I like best about the TFP. I started the thread just because I was curious about where Jesus went after the resurection. That was purely academic, and if you will allow me to say so, factual. IE: The bible says he did ....'whatever.'

My other 2 questions were more POV orriented. Depending on where you stood on Christianity and basic religious principles, why or how God and/or Jesus did what they did is highly debatable.

From where I stand Jesus is no different a figure than Hercules or Thor. Yet I doubt a debate about the reasons Hercules did what he did would generate nearly has much debate.

So don't stop that debate on my account. I have a clearer understanding of what might have happened 2000 years ago, but every post and different POV on Chrisitanity teaches me a little more, and that's why I am here.

Hahah okay. Gotcha. I think you gave the thread a longer life by posting actually.

Some people think he survived (never died) and went on to India. Others think he survived and went _back_ to India. Some scholars point to a particular tomb in North India's as being Jesus'.

For a whole lot of speculation, click this Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

And this article from the fairly level-headed Fortean Times is a good introduction to the whole matter:

http://www.forteantimes.com/articles...suseast1.shtml

Also, the Mormons believe he went to North America to preach to the Native Americans.

The traditional Christian belief is that he ascended bodily into heaven. Exactly what that means, I don't really know, though there's a certain interpretation of the resurrection of the dead that might help.

Thanks to Asaris and Willtravel for pointing out the apparent falsities and faults in my post. I was probably expecting some respect for my point of view - which is what I provided you in your postings.

Looking closer my view point was that "unless you were there - at that time " it would be virtually impossible for anyone to speak with any authority on the matter. This includes "facts" in historical writings. No matter how educated or learned one is, one can only make up their mind and develop a viewpoint using pre-programmed moral indicies, logical thought processes and community influence.

It is not logical for a dead person to arise.
It is not logical for the 6 odd billion on the planet to be descendant from Noah and the kids.
It is not logical for a group of 200 to walk across the Red Sea.
ETC ETC ETC

Once a person starts to free think it is amazing how many will arise from their myopic couches and decry the theory or thought.

By the way, who set the counter back to zero when Christ was born? My understanding ( please correct me if I am wrong ) is that the modern day year count started by a Ceasarian edict. I just don't comprehend that someone said " Oh!, Chist has just been born - let's make this year 1 !

I'm not sure when they set the clock to the alleged year of Christ's birth. I'm pretty sure it wasn't the Romans; they, IIRC, used the founding of the empire, or perhaps the founding of Rome, to set the year.

What you have to understand is, while the things you mention are perhaps not logical (I'm not sure what that means in this context), they are not illogical either. That is to say that, while they are not the sorts of things that usually happen in this world, there's nothing about them that goes against the laws of logic.

I didn't mean to disrespect your point of view...no, wait, I did. There are a number of different sorts of posts on this messageboard. The ones that are intelligent, well thought out, and well argued, I respect, whether or not I agree with them. The banal I tend to ignore. The interesting but riddled with errors of fact and completely lacking any justification for their position, I give the respect they deserve. Your point of view might be well thought out, it might be deserving of respect, but your post wasn't.

I'm not quite sure as to how you came to this conclusion.

For an object to be supported on the surface of a body of water the downward force of the object under gravity over the area touching the water must be less than the force provided by the surface tension of the liquid over this same area.

The force created by a human body (it's weight) is much greater than the surface tension of water. Therefore a man cannot walk on the surface of water.
Funny how that logic stuff actually makes sense.

This board seems to be full of people who would rather bend the world to fit their beliefs than change their beliefs to fit how the world actually works.

Actually, I thought it was the Romans who decided to use the year 0 when we use it. Of course, I don't really see why it matters when it happened, I don't think anyone actually claims that the people of Jesus' time are the ones responsible for it. Especially considering that, if they were, we now know that they were likely off by a few years because based on astronomical data it is likely that Jesus was born around the year 4 BC.

There is one major flaw in cooperricko's argument that "unless you were there" you should not believe something. I was not there when Einstein discovered relativity. I have not done the math to prove it myself. Yet, I believe in the relative (no pun intended) accuracy of his theory because other people whom I respect have told me that it makes sense. I don't really KNOW that it does, but I do know that if all humans ever did was go off their immediate knowledge we would get nowhere - we would constantly be reinventing the wheel.

It would seem the point cooperricko is making has to do with scientific theory, and not logic per say. Granted there is much in the scriptures that is virtually impossible to explain scientifically, and in fact bypasses many scientific laws/theories. These are some of the same reasons I have placed said writtings into the "Myth" category. As for the "unless you were there" statement , I would agree for the most part, but many accept information on faith, and we must respect this descision.
Faith has its place in the human psyche, just as logic does. Is it not illogical to disreguard anothers faith, having never experienced it, as this would amount to a closed mind, and failure to evaluate all possibilities.

Thanks to Adysav & Tecoyah for supporting at least some of my view point. I have resigned myself to the position that many - including Asaris - consider that my thoughts on this subject are flawed.

However, it is important to my grasp and understanding of life to find some reference point to go by. The accepted point of view is that Jesus Christ's birth is the beginning of the common era. As I previously posted, we would ( perhaps ) be more correct in calling the pre anno domoni period as "Before Caeser" as it appears as though the edict for reference "1" came from the Roman empire ( not 0 as this doesn't appear to exist in common idealogy - ie 3,2,1 BC to 1,2,3 etc AD bypassing the year zero ).

My ( albeit to some - misguided ) postings have been clouded by my personal need to understand where this nomenculture comes from. All the great dynasties of the Chinese, the Aztecs, the Egyptians etc etc were somehow re-referenced against a date of questionable deduction ( I've heard the redefintion of 4 AD in many theories ). all of a sudden their rich and colourful time line was distorted and rewritten by a group of self important senators in togas, who may have thought that their world was all encompassing. we know that the Chinese, for example, predate most of the OT writings.

So, in an atmosphere of " let's rewrite history to suit ourselves" why wouldn't certain facts and proofs be left out of certain stories.

A favourite of mine is the statement " Never let the truth get in the way of a good story". Perhaps it happened 2004 years ago. Who knows for absolute certain? Who was there to verbatim record the events. James didn't even get a guernsey for his version of the events.

The Koran entertains the idea of suicide bombers living in Paradise with 40 odd virgins!! Now there's a good theory. That is writen down somewhere - supposedly as truth and straight from the horse's mouth. Can we conduct a quick poll to ascertain the numbers on that little idea?

Faith may take you a long way - but fact, logic, universal law and scientific theory may be the only way to cut to the chase and get to the truth of the matter.

Unles you've read the Q'uran, I'd avoid making that assumption. Like any other piece of scripture, it can be abused and read in ways directly opposite of its intended purpose.

In general, I think it's far too easy for people to focus on the negative interpretations of scriptures and use that to denounce them. I can take almost any religion in the world and use a few interpretations of their sacred text to show that their religion is illogical, conflicting with what we know about the universe, and generally hateful and self-centered. Likewise, I can take almost any religion in the world and use a few interpretations of their sacred text to show that their religion is inclusive, logically fitting with our limited knowledge of existence and physics, and generally peaceful and caring. If you've already decided what you're looking for when you begin a search for truth, all you'll find is the truth that fits your own ideals.

Incidentally, I don't disagree that the Bible contains much myth. In fact, many theologians would agree (and many would disagree of course) with that, and I personally know many "faithful" people who would agree with that. That something is myth does not mean that it lacks truth.

Adysav -- To clarify what Tecoyah said, the laws of nature are not necessary truths, so there is no contradiction entailed by the surface tension of water being other than it is, so there is no contradiction with someone walking on water.

First. God is pure and absolutely without sin. And the price of sin is death, there's no other way out of it. Jesus died for our sins, so we didn't have to. So anyone who believes in this and accepts it. Can receive what salvation offered to us by God through Jesus Christ's blood.

Second. There is God the father, God the son, and God the holy spirit. God is absolutely pure and 100% without sin, there was no reason for him to die, and sins are only forgiven with blood, so God the son said I will go and die in for them. It's not just as simple as him dying for us. He, a God who has done nothing wrong in his presence here, was subject to what man suffers through. Sin, mockery, temptations and such. He overcame it all. He definitely didn't deserve any of it. But he wanted to. When Jesus passed away on the Cross, he descended into hell to and defeated death and Satan by resurrecting. To show that he is in fact God.

Third. Jesus returned to heaven to build a new Earth. And the second coming is. As I know it... when everyone on Earth hears the message that is written in the Bible, Jesus will return to end Earth. And the saved will be dwelling in the Kingdom which God is preparing for us. And the lost, those who heard the message of God and refused it, will be casted into Hell to suffer(which i understand it to be, just pain and sorrow for not being able to be with God) And i am sure, in Hell all hope and light is completely non existant. You will feel sad at its utmost worst.




In my OWN personal belief, I believe that God loves everyone too much to indeed cast them into Hell. But who knows, He sent Lucifer there, who was his favored Angel. Not my fault that dumb angel tried to overthrow God.

See, and here is my point where the questions in this thread go far beyond simple answer. I have read Christian theologies which disagree with some part of all three answers in the above post.

1) Some Christian theologies believe that one does not need to explicitly believe that "Jesus died for our sins, so we didn't have to."

2) I've read theology which disagrees with just about everything in the second answer given. That blood is not necessary to forgive sins, and that the mysticism of Jesus descending into Hell, etc is not necessarily the most likely occurance. Instead, I have also seen this question answered that (in a nutshell) fear, et al leads to sin, and by Jesus living a courageous life, disregarding the consequences of being a good person, even when that consequence was death, he led a life of example that fear should not dominate our actions, and not even fear of death, because goodness conquers all (as would be seen by the resurrection). Note, that's a HUGE simplification, but my point is just that it's a very different answer.

3) Again, I have read different theologies regarding this as well. That the Kingdom of God is not something that is "coming" and something that is necessarily a "place," but, rather, it is something that is in the conversion of one's own heart. That the Kingdom of God is something that is here and now in the hearts of all people who are creating change in the world, making it a better place. Something that is here already, provided by the freedom from fear and hate that Jesus gave through His perfect example of His life. (Again, a definite simplification)

Now, as far as I know, numbers 2 and 3 are not part of the official stance of any churches at this time, however they are theologies that have been put forth by current and past priests and done so apparently without consequence from the church.

Ultimately, I'm not looking to debate here which is correct, only my point is to get across that the discussion of the background of the Bible is intrinsic to the discussion of Jesus and "what happened" to Him, because there are as many answers to the question of "what happened" to Jesus as there are different understandings of the Bible's purpose and origins.

I don't understand how you can so easily dismiss thousands of years of observation of the natural world, found to be consistent a million times over, yet you can take the words written in one book as being absolute and unwavering truth.
I would take what you read in the Bible with a pinch of salt, the only other place in the world where the laws of nature are broken is the fantasy section at the library.

First, you should note that I'm not trying to prove that Christ's miracles happened. Sure, I believe that they did, but that's not what I'm trying to prove. All I'm trying to prove is that they're not logically impossible.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that what you are arguing is that logical impossibility is co-extensive with natural impossibility; that is, that everything that is impossible according to the laws of nature is impossible according to the laws of logic, and vice versa. This seems to me to be an improbable position. Drawing a round square seems to be a different order of difficulty than walking on water. But even if you're right, there's still an epistemological problem.

We just aren't sure about what the laws of nature are; we think we have some idea, but of course, people have thought that in the past and been shown to be wrong. Some things that were impossible under Newtonian physics are possible under Einsteinian physics, and so it might be the case that some things impossible under Einsteinian physics turn out to be possible under some new physical theory. In fact, if I understand the theory (and, not being a physicist, I could be wrong), walking on water is in fact possible. Sure, it's very, very, very unlikely. But it's possible.

I'm not entirely sure how you're going to do that, but it seems like you're going to just talk about how you're right and everyone else is wrong.

It's not a case of something being impossible, but that they are not covered by the physics involved. Yes one day we might enter into some Star Trek-like age where we tunnel through subspace to reach far parts of the galaxy. But we aren't talking about something on the fringes of science, yet to be described by the foremost minds of tomorrow.
We're talking about a man in sandals and a robe skipping across the surface of a lake. For thousands of years people have observed gravity and it has become somewhat taken for granted, rightly so I would say.

Perhaps there is some phenomenon regarding the contact of a particular type of sandal material and israeli water, but I would have thought someone would have caught onto this in the ensuing 2000 years.
By your reasoning it is possible that I could wake up tomorrow morning and be able to fly using my mind.

The whole process of logical reasoning breaks down when you say "well there might be something we can't possibly think of or discover", and assume that this has to be factored in to every argument. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of arguing because noone could ever be proved right or wrong.

adysav: Are you looking for a right or wrong answer here? Really? A little food for thought...

Jesus, who walked the earth a long time ago (let's just assume this is true, for the sake of argument), had abilities that people then could not explain. Let's just say He was ahead of them on one level (science) or another (supernatural). Now we live in an age that has developed a basic knowledge that is fundamentally evolved from what they knew at the time when Jesus walked the earth. We are able to explain things that occoured in the bible with possible explainations that occour in nature. In the book of Genesis (1:3-2:3), there was light on the first day (big bang), land seperating from water (solid planets and stars seperating from gasses and open space), let the water be gathered (formation of the earth), let there be lights in the sky (formation of an atmosphere), let the water team with living creatures (first biological entities), let there be living creatures on the land (life evolves to be landworthy), and God created man (evolved from land creatures). There are parts of that we couldn't explain away 50 years ago. Does that make them not true?

Just because something hasen't been explained away by science does not make it invalid; whether science-based or religion-based. Logical reasoning does not 'break down' because of the possibility that the answer isn't here yet. Right now a lot of what's going on in quantum physics is borderline madness. We have answers that do not match logic. Does that make them untrue?
If you are coming at Christianity from a purely scientific standpoint (unbeliever, of sorts), you have to assume that the stories of Jesus aren't true. At least that is what you seem to believe. What if Jesus was a magician? I've seen David Blane lift off the ground, using a technique called kings rising (btw, this technique does not require anything that was not available to people 2000 years ago), and fool everyone into honestly believing that he lifted off the ground. What if Jesus was such a person? What if he decided that the best way to get his opinions on life out was to make people believe that he fit the prophesies? I'll bet I could, using only things that were available 2000 years ago, seem to walk on water. All it takes is an imagination.

All this whole discussion takes is a bit of immagination.

Adysav writes: Yes. Yes it is. It is logically possible that you could wake up tomorrow morning and be able to fly using your mind. That is to say, you cannot derive any contradiction from the statement "I can fly using my mind". Similarly, you cannot derive any contradiction from the statement "Jesus walked on water." The only way you could derive a contradiction is if you claimed that the laws of nature are necessary truths. But that's quite a claim, and certainly not one you've been making, much less arguing for.

Just a word on burden of proof: You are the one making a claim (said claim being "It is logically impossible that Jesus walked on water.") That being the case, the burden of proof is on you, and I've yet to see you try to derive a contradiction from that. And, again, that's just what a logical impossibility is -- a statement from which it is possible to derive a contradiction. Just so we're perfectly clear, a contradiction is a statement of the form "p and not-p".

But, upon re-reading your post (I should do that more often), it seems you're willing to give up the claim that it's illogical that Christ walked on water, but that, given the laws of nature, it couldn't have happened. Your support for this claim is that, in the 2000 years since, we haven't observed anyone else walking on water. But what about the Jews living at the time of Christ? Surely they hadn't seen anyone walk on water. Surely it was as unusual for them as it would be for us. And in any case, IF there is a God, and IF he visited the earth in the way the scripture claims, surely it's not unreasonable to think that he could break/bend the rules He Himself set into place. That is to say, given the other beliefs Christianity holds, it's not unreasonable for a Christian to believe in miracles.

I think most of the people here are taking the view that their faith isn't based on a con artist. I'm not arguing against it as if he were a con artist or magician. Obviously he could trick people into thinking he could do some weird and wonderful shit, but the point is that most people believe that this stuff is genuine and actually happened without the aid of waterskis or wires.

Answers that do not match logic? The results are attained by a process of logical deduction and experimentation, how can they not match logic when they are a result of logic?
What you mean is that these things do not match your intuitive view of the world.

Who timed how long the first "day" took? With there being no Earth the concept of the "day" would not exist. I doubt anyone with any knowledge of astrophysics would agree the universe as we know it came into existence in a week.
Also, is it just me or do the next 3 events and their explanation not fit together in the slightest? How could anyone mistake land separating from water as the planets forming.

If in 2000 years time a person dug up a copy of a book or newspaper or poem from today, chances are they would be reading a biased and incomplete account with a distinct touch of sensationalism or political slant. How is it that noone can imagine this is what happened with the stories of the Bible, most of which were handed down orally for several generations before becoming a written history. Even after they were documented they were selectively edited.
If you take the Bible as truth you are just gullible.

Next week on TFP, "Is God sleeping on the job? A discussion on why there are no other records of him interacting with human kind for 2000 years".

This relies on the false premises:
1) A human being could fly.
2) There is some property of my mind that enables me to fly if I want to.

Which leads to the clearly false conclusion above.
Just because there is not contradiction in the conclusion does not mean that the logic used to create it is not flawed.

Someone beat me to this one... 2000 years ago, give or take a few, someone wrote that Jesus walked on water. I would imagine that the burden of proof is on that person, or the people defending the original claim.


Yes I understand logic, but saying that a statement is true unless you can derive a contradiction is incorrect. This is where that ugly thing called reality comes into play.
There is no contradiction in the phrase "tomorrow is Monday". That doesn't mean that tomorrow actually is Monday, as indeed it isn't. Since there is no contradiction however, you must believe that tomorrow is in fact Monday.

This is the meat of it. It is all a question of faith to Christians. People walking on water, parting water, talking serpents in a perfect garden etc.
If that's the case why do you try to defend some aspects of it in a scientific manner?
Don't let any observation of the real world compromise the integrity of your holy texts.

If you think Eden was about produce...

If you think the passover is about waterflow and armies...

If you think the calming of the storm is about weather patterns...

You may not have been reading for details, and not for the plot.

I don't read fiction.