The Biblical Jesus - John 10:38

[William]

“But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

Q: Should all the actions attributed to the biblical Jesus be taken literally?

[Tcg]

“But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

Q: Should all the actions attributed to the biblical Jesus be taken literally?

The short answer: Yes.

The long answer: Yes, certainly.

The short question: Why?

The long question: Why should it be?


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

The short question: Why?

The long question: Why should it be?


Tcg

I am astonished at how so many non-Christians are constantly concerning themselves about what Jesus said/meant.

[onewithhim]

“But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.”

Q: Should all the actions attributed to the biblical Jesus be taken literally?

Not always. Jesus and Jehovah are "in" each other the exact same way that the disciples are "in" them both. It is a unity of thought, not physical intermingling.

"'I make request, not concerning these [his disciples at that time] only, but also concerning those putting faith in me through their word, so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one. I in union with them and you in union with me, in order that they may be perfected into one, so that the world may know that you sent me and that you loved them just as you loved me." (John 17:20-23)

.

[HarlanGeorge]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #7]

Just for fun, I looked up Mark 13:24-31 in four different Biblical versions and I am going to have to continue to validate my point. Jesus’s disciples believed that God would return within each of their lifetimes. I am unsure of how this could be interpreted any differently. And while I can acquiesce to your point that the Bible is a mixture of parables, facts, and fiction the issue with that is not everyone shares your views. I mean, Protestants as a group, more than forty percent believe that the bible is the literal word of God. Not to mention other religious groups that have similar beliefs such a Christian Fundamentalists that still are searching for the remains of Ark. You seem very comfortable interpreting and deciding which is truth and which was meant to be understood as more of a suggestion but certainly, there are many that do not have your unique abilities. Certainly, a book with a bit more clarity and readability would of no doubt saved the lives of millions of sinners who now will spend the rest of eternity in hell. Not to mention the numerous wars fought over doctrinal quarrels. Do you know that Protestants and Catholics literally fought over the meaning of the Eucharist? One side believes in the conversion of the bread and wine into the actual body of Christ(gross) while the opposing views only felt that Jesus was present in spirit. At some point, an educated person has to reach the same conclusion. Christianity is actually quite dangerous, and I should steer clear of it. Of course, you would have to be careful whom you shared that view with our you very well may have ended up in prison or worse tortured to death.

Maybe the numerous scribes, translations, and authors of the Bible could put a 'JK' after the passages that were not historically accurate or merely a parable. But I have to be honest with you, that Jesus must have had one heck of a sense of humor to specifically tell his most devoted followers that he would return within their generation but here we are more than two-thousands years later and….. well, no JC? I am going to have to side with my man Albert on this one. The Bible is nothing but primitive and childish stories. Written by a man for man(yes I am aware of how misogynistic this is but so is God) and has been altered to accommodate the beliefs of whoever wrote it. So full of contradictions and inaccuracies that I suggest we humans would be much better off without it.

[William]

I ask the question because I think most Christians agree that the Biblical Jesus should be taken literally...so this makes me wonder why they also believe that the resurrection happened, that Jesus could possibly had died - given the superpowers his body had.

That is why I created the thread
"Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based"

[onewithhim]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #7]

Just for fun, I looked up Mark 13:24-31 in four different Biblical versions and I am going to have to continue to validate my point. Jesus’s disciples believed that God would return within each of their lifetimes. I am unsure of how this could be interpreted any differently.

How do you get out of that scripture that the disciples believed that Christ would return in their lifetimes? I don't see it.

Jesus told them a parable that emphasized the fact that he would not be coming back for a long time (Matthew 25:19). The disciples were aware that they would experience death because of their preaching work. Jesus even indicated to Peter "by what sort of death he would glorify God." (John 21:18,19) They were not expecting Jesus to come back in their lifetimes.

.

[HarlanGeorge]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #17]


Book of Matthew also states this..

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

Oh ,and we are now referring to the Gospels as parables? When did this become an acceptable practice?

[bjs1]

[Replying to onewithhim in post #17]


Book of Matthew also states this..

“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“ (Matthew 16: 27, 28)

Oh ,and we are now referring to the Gospels as parables? When did this become an acceptable practice?

The obvious challenge here is that you wrote, “the end of the world” while the text says, “the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

If we take the text literally it would still be difficult to show that the Son of Man’s Kingdom can only refer to the end of the world.

The context of Matthew 16 is Jesus predicting his death and resurrection. Nothing in that chapter or the one that follows provides any clue that Jesus was talking about the end of the world.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to HarlanGeorge in post #18]

Jesus said that some of them standing there would see himself coming in his Kingdom. Peter, James and John saw Jesus TRANSFIGURED before them on the mountain (which Jesus called a VISION). This event was "seeing him in his Kingdom," or as he would be when he returned after establishing his own government. He was shining very brightly, alluding to the future in the distance when he would return from heaven in all his blindingly bright glory as King of the Kingdom.

.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I ask the question because I think most Christians agree that the Biblical Jesus should be taken literally...so this makes me wonder why they also believe that the resurrection happened, that Jesus could possibly had died - given the superpowers his body had.

That is why I created the thread
"Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based"

HE Himself had power (from His Father), but His flesh was just flesh (of a man), capable of being injured and dying.

Peace again.