How "easy" it would have been to have witnessed the resurrected Christ!

I say "easy" because there were still people who didn't believe- but I'm not sure there were any who refused to believe once they saw Him, and felt the holes and his side. Talk about proof! What we call "faith"- those disciples like Thomas that were able to get proof- did they really have faith? Why can't we get the same proof- we wouldn't need to wrestle with "big-picture" questions with athiests. Sometimes I think it would make things too easy if we were just handed truth on a silver platter. Seems we would skip a lot of necessary learning (the trip is many times more important than the destination) if Jesus appeared before us today during a church service and let us take pictures of Him ascending back into Heaven along with Peter, Isaiah, and Moses. But wouldn't that be the same as Him coming back and proving to Thomas and others that he arose?

Is God omnipotent?

The question on the poll to the right- 'is God omnipotent?' was meant to address the seeming paradox that God could be so powerful that His actions and past could both fulfill scripture AND match science as we currently understand it (or will, in the future). In other words, if God is so powerful as to be beyond human understanding, then it might be possible that science doesn't contradict Him, but, in fact, is consistent with even scripture- but obviously in ways we don't yet (and maybe never will) understand.

If that is a possibility, then perhaps many of the doctrinal things Christians argue about or debate with secularists is trivial. Take, for instance, whether God made the Earth in 6 days or 6 billion. Does it really matter? And, if it does matter, then is it safe to say that God, being all-powerful, could have both created the world according to scripture AND consistent with how scientists believe it happened? And if that is a possibility then we might have a little more in common with atheists than we might care to admit.

Throwing Palms and singing hallelujah: if they knew who Jesus was, why did they kill him?

Mark 11 and the chapters around it have always concerned me. Something just didn't seem right. Jesus went from being celebrated to crucified in a very short time. The same people who were calling him the Messiah, laying palms and their cloaks in the road, amazed at his speaking ability- very quickly seemed to do a 180 and insist he be crucified- in the place of a criminal. How did that happen? And what does it mean for us today?

Reading between the lines- obviously he upset the religious leaders of the day. He told them that what you put into your body does not defile you- but what comes out does. He told them that they worshiped tradition more than God. He told them to get their monetary interests out of the synagogue.

Also reading between the lines- the people laying palms on Palm Sunday seemed to be celebrating a political leader- "blessed be the kingdom of David". Not only did he threaten the religious leaders- one would think the Roman leaders would also be concerned with anyone who encouraged the people in terms of Jewish tradition. It must not have taken the religious leaders long to stir up the people against Jesus- but how?

My theory is that they just told the people the truth. That truth was that Jesus wasn't a political leader set to overturn Roman rule. They told the people what Jesus had told the Disciples not to tell anyone: that he was a spiritual Messiah that would save everyone's souls- not a political Messiah that would re-establish a Jewish state. If that was what the people were expecting and the Romans fearing, I would imagine it didn't take too much to convince either group that Jesus was a liability. Once the Romans figured out he was "just" a spiritual Messiah- they tried to get out of the spectacle, but the people insisted they follow through.

What makes my theory chilling to me is that I see many parallels to that time and today. I hear religious leaders quoting scripture with the confidence of the Sadduccees as to what it means. I see Christians and Jews convinced that government policies can bring back the Messiah- either the 2nd coming or the 1st- depending on your view. I see religious folk intimately worried with political issues and relating everything on Earth to religion. And I could just imagine Jesus coming around today and saying the same things to the religious today that he said to his disciples and to the Sadduccees and Pharisees he did long ago: 'You do not know the Lord'.

I have a friend who is convinced he can take scripture and understand how God works at the most fundamental level. I have a sneaking suspicion that, just as Jesus was frustrated with the religious of his day, we are still missing the proverbial big picture.

The Afterlife, the purpose of life, the nature of God, how "grace" works, all that stuff is beyond our capacity to understand- even if we had the textbooks on it all (it would be like giving a 2nd grader a college physics treatise). But- there are some underlying principles that DO matter, and I think those are what we should be concentrating on. Problem is, I'd argue we have not really identified those principles, or had the discourse of what they could be. Prior to that we can't even begin to discuss the why- why those principles are important. Would Jesus come back today and say we are still not getting it?

If the answer is "yes"- then what do we do to correct it? First step would be to assume we don't know what Jesus was getting at and to approach the Gospel like it was the first time we'd ever read it- without any assumptions guiding our understanding of it (no approved translations, no assuming it is the infallible word from God, no assuming that it is to be taken literally, etc.).

Second would be to see if there are any similarities in other religions, codes of law, universal understandings, scientific conclusions, etc. We wouldn't be searching for things like "Love God with all your heart"- which is intrinsically impossible to define, but the underlying principle behind it (be unselfish?). Likewise, the underlying principle of Grace seems to also be unselfishness- and modesty.

After a discourse on the underlying principles which seem to permeate all belief on this planet, we could then get into postulating why they might be important. And at the same time we could try to codify how to execute those principles in daily life.

Just a thought- maybe it is wrong, but if the Sadduccees and Pharisees had it wrong, it makes me wonder why we think we would have it right today- especially with so many claiming they have it "right"- and none seeming to be that similiar. Surely our religion has changed a lot since the Apostle Paul was struck blind on that lonely road. I do have a feeling, however, that it has stagnated some since Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses on the door at Wittenberg.

What authority does the Bible have?

A frequent question about the Bible, books such as Genesis and Exodus in particular, is whether they aren't just mythology; tale tails to explain a distant past that no one has experienced.

There have been historical studies done of the Bible, and it certainly has history in it that has been verified. That still doesn't allow one to logically conclude that it is all true.

Like historical novels, why can't clever men record history but also introduce fictional characters? In this case, God, the devil, Adam, Eve, Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.

Are there also fictional places, such as Sodom and Gomorrah?

Can men discern the truth about the Bible, separate fact from fiction, history from fantasy? Should men either accept it all, or reject it all?