Given that you take the Bible literally: (if you don't, this really doesn't apply to you)

1. Given that racism is clearly wrong (I hope) explain the comment of Jesus to the Greek woman in Mark 7:25-29.

2. Does Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 11:14 constitute a condemnation of Jesus,who is always portrayed as having long hair?

3. Given that slavery is clearly wrong, explain the exhortation in Peter 2:18.

4. If personality resides in the soul, how can things like drugs and brain damage affect someone's personality?

5. Why do the four Gospels disagree on the last words of Christ? Only Matthew and Mark agree, Luke and John each say differing things. Which is truth?

6. If one takes Genesis 2:17 literally, (as required if you're going to insist on taking the rest of Genesis literally), God told Adam and Eve (regarding the Tree of Knowledge) "For ON THE DAY that thou eatest thereof, you will surely die." Isn't this a bit of a fib? They didn't die that day, they died MUCH later. They were only CURSED to die that day. That's not literal.

7. Matthew and Luke give differing geneaologies for Jesus. How?

8. Matthew says that the prophecy in Matthew 27:9 was given my Jeremiah. How do you explain that the prophecy was not given by Jeremiah at all, but by Zechariah (in Zech. 11:12)?

If you assume Jesus was using a metaphor here, and not talking about literal children and dogs that were in the house with him, I'd say that it's because the Jews got top priority. When they rejected Jesus, He went to the Gentiles.

I Cor. 11:14

Simple answer here: Jesus didn't have long hair! And before you ask how he got it cut, go talk to a Hebrew historian, 'cause I don't know. And this is a Christian thing anyway. Jesus was a Jew (paradoxical, I know...).

I (I assume) Peter 2:14

Well, I may take a lot of flak for this, but the Bible doesn't say slavery is wrong. Isrealites took slaves, at the directive of God. Check verses 13 & 14: "Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every autority among men... ...who are sent by him to punish them who do wrong and commend them who do right." Slavery is only wrong because the laws of this country (and every other) say it is. At least from a religious standpoint. I wouldn't participate in it anyway.

Who said personality resides in the soul, anyway? My personal belief is that the brain is just an interface between your body and your mind (wherever it may be). If the interface is damaged, then the body gets the wrong signals. Thus it's not the personality that's affected, but the output. If your moniter couldn't display red, you might think there was something wrong with the computer, just because the moniter is the only evidence you have that the computer is working.

Matthew and Mark say He cried out, not that he didn't say anything. As far as we know, John is the only eye-witness account for the crucifixion. Thus if Luke had to get his info from other sources, the person he interviewed could easily have been wrong. John was standing near the cross, thus if Jesus had said "It is finished" quietly, after crying out "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit", it fits quite nicely.

Sorry, don't know ancient Hebrew. Might be able to give you a more accurate answer if I did. May be that it could be translated as "for when you have". Here's my interpretation: He was refering to death of the spirit, or of innocence, which is what Christ died to undo.

Matthew also missed four names mentioned in I Chronicles. The Jews weren't interested in complete geneaologies. All they wanted was a list to establish what family the person came from. It was common pratice to remove names of people that weren't important or unflattering to the line. (Of course, the unflattering part doesn't hole here, as Matthew includes Tamar, who was guilty of prostitution and incest, Rahab, a foreign harlot, and Bathsheba, and adulteress. This is probably to illustrate the grace of God.) Matthew's geneaology is divided into three parts: Abraham, David, and exile, with 14, 13, and 14 names, respectively. As David is the key to the entire geneaology, and is mentioned in verses one AND six, you could count him twice, making 14/14/14, and the numerical values in David's name add up to 14. It's
also possible that one is the geaneology of Mary, and the other is of Joseph.

That same field was bought in Jerimiah for a similar price. Could also be an error on Matthew's part. He was probably writing from memory, and the names are quite similar. It isn't word-for-word in either case, anyway.

Next.

I can assume Creation was a metaphor, too. You are doing exactly what you accused us of, which is not taking the Bible literally when it doesn't fit with reality.

"Jesus was a Jew (paradoxical, I know...)."

Not at all. In fact, it would've been utterly IMPOSSIBLE for him to have been "the first Christian" as some claim. The definition of a Christian is "one who believes in Jesus Christ". That's it. To believe in something is to have faith that something is true. This also means that that something cannot be exactly proven to be true, or else it would be called a FACT. Jesus could not have (nor was there the need) "believed in" himself because he KNEW he was the Son of God and all that stuff. He knew it for a plain fact.

"Slavery is only wrong because the laws of this country (and every other) say it is."

I'll bet you wouldn't say that if you were black.

"He was refering to death of the spirit, or of innocence"

That ain't takin' it literally, now is it?

" It's also possible that one is the geaneology of Mary."

If I lived in those days, I'd hardly consider recording the geaneology of a property.

------------------
"I told you. You're dead. This is the afterlife. And I'm God."
--Q to Picard, "Tapestry".

When you don't admit that, again you fall back on interpretation, again denying your literalist beliefs.

"I can assume Creation was a metaphor, too. You are doing exactly what you accused us of, which is not taking the Bible literally when it doesn't fit with reality."

As I have said before, this is a record of one man speaking, trying to teach someone else a lesson. That's completely different from saying that what is intended to be an historical account is all metaphor.

As for slavery, just because all slaves in the last few centuries of the practice were black doesn't mean slavery was exclusively practiced on black people. Slaves during that period were taken during wars or, I believe, due to debt. More like what we'd consider an indentured servant or a POW sentenced to labor.

"That ain't takin' it literally, now is it?"

And again, the difference is one word being a metaphor, not a whole story.

"If I lived in those days, I'd hardly consider recording the geaneology of a property."

Matthew included four women in his geneology. Why not? Joseph wasn't Jesus' biological father, so if you wanted a record of his family, you'd go through his mother.

1of2:

Sorry. In the first case, I forgot to add "or might not have heard that last sentance". In the second case, it could also be a copying mistake. Someone copying the original manuscript could have misread, or been distracted, or what have you. I never said that the authors were infallible. In the millions of verses in the Bible, there've got to be a couple of clerical errors. Nothing too serious, though. And neither Jeremiah nor Zechariah gave that prophecy in any book we have. Zechariah mantioned giving thirty pieces of silver to a potter, and Jeremiah mentioned buying the field.

If this is the best you guys can do, you must really be desperate.

Some of them aren't as relevant, such as:

"Describe which types of people your sect has chosen to persecute, and why."

or

"God often commands his followers to wage merciless war against unbelievers (citations would follow), so why aren't you out waging merciless war against unbelievers?"

or

"If God appeared to you and told you to kill someone, would you do it? Why or why not?"

In any case, when I drag out the list again, there'll be more.

------------------
"We shall not yield to you, nor to any man." -- Freak, The Mighty.

And I look forward to smashing that list apart.

------------------
�From Me all things proceed and unto Me they must return. Let My worship be in the heart that rejoices, for behold � all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals. Let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and humility, mirth and reverence within you. ... Know the Mystery: for if that which you seek, you find not within yourself, you will never find it without. For behold, I have been with you from the beginning, and I am that which is attained at the end of desire.�

------------------
"I see you have the ring. And that your Schwartz is as big as mine!
-Dark Helmet, Spaceballs

--Baloo

------------------
You can only take offense if you brought some with you.
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

This is unfortunate. But to tell the truth, the entirety of this and related threads have become rather tedious.

Therefore, this will be my last post to this thread.

However, I will leave you with this thought:

If the Bible's science is so accurate, why does God think a bat is a bird? (Deuterotomy 14:18)