OT: The Theology Thread

[frissonic]

Thanks for the clarification. It is helpful to know.

 

 

 

Interesting. So my understanding check.

 

The Mormon God (in as much as he is a material being) was always around elementally, but not necessarily possessing the divine attributes Judaism/Islam/Catholicism would normally associate with God: e.g. omniscient, omnipotent, all-loving, all-merciful, etc. -- these were attributes that were acquired - and that Mormon disciples also hope one day to acquire.

 

How am I doing?

 

Most excellently. :)

[BagBoy]

I think the full evolution of the human form is that we will become as God is. There's a quote in Mormon-dom that goes something like "As man is, God once was, and as God is, man can become." I know that concept flies in the face of *everything* mainstream christianity teaches, but it is what it is.

That's certainly a much more uplifting philosophy than that of original sin. Mainstream Christianity is overrated.

[Drunkard]

 

That's certainly a much more uplifting philosophy than that of original sin. Mainstream Christianity is overrated.

 

Original sin helps get the process started of keeping the coffers full. Get'em while they are young and you potentially have a customer for life. Promising heaven only gets you so far when most or all of the religions offer it.

 

They all have their tall tales though, whether it's parting the Red Seas or flooding the entire world, to the virgin birth and rising from the dead, golden plates and magic underwear, 72 virgins, or reincarnation. It's all just different ways to answer questions we don't know the answers to. How did we get here? What happens when we die? Is there a heaven? Am I on the list? Etc.

[BuffaloBorn]

Do you believe in a creative spark that started this observable universe as we know it?

 

Do you believe that there was some sort of cause-and-effect behind the "big bang", creating the observable universe as we know It?

 

This idea of creation.. if you believe in a creation to this world, how could you say this isn't God? or at let SOME "god", an architect of intelligent design...... who was responsible for this creative spark as we know it?

 

The answer is God

 

One God

Who exists beyond this universe, transcending the confines of our "reality"

Edited December 4, 2014 by BuffaloBorn

[sabills]

Do you believe in a creative spark that started this observable universe as we know it?

 

I mean, thats the main question, right? Everything after the original moment of creation is details.

[I am Defecting]

It sure would be typical for man to transcribe Atom as Adam, and Sun as Son.

[Randall Flagg]

So, Sabres fan in NS, or anyone else with knowledge on the subject, it seems that animals can go to heaven in Islam? Does Islam put them on an equal level with humans? Can animals sin and be punished for it, or do they all go to heaven no matter what when they die? Is owning animals as pets wrong, then, if they are put on an even level? Is it still wrong even if they aren't? Does Islam see it the way science does, that we are just another animal that has evolved like all other animals, just with capacity for rationality and the other things that make us human?

[Sabres Fan in NS]

So, Sabres fan in NS, or anyone else with knowledge on the subject, it seems that animals can go to heaven in Islam? Does Islam put them on an equal level with humans? Can animals sin and be punished for it, or do they all go to heaven no matter what when they die? Is owning animals as pets wrong, then, if they are put on an even level? Is it still wrong even if they aren't? Does Islam see it the way science does, that we are just another animal that has evolved like all other animals, just with capacity for rationality and the other things that make us human?

 

Hi Arc,

 

I have read this thread and have enjoyed it very much, but have not posted in it. Since you asked ...

 

The Qur'an, which we believe is the direct word of God, does not specifically address that animals will go to Heaven when they die.

 

There is a ayat (verse) which states (I will paraphrase, as I do not have it handy) ... *there is not a creature that walks on the land, or swims in the sea, or that fly on their wings that do not form families as you do. They are all part of Our creation and We will call them all back to Us in the end*

 

Most Muslims take this to mean that all of creation will be welcomed in Heaven.

 

The only real difference between humans and the other animals is that humans have free will and, therefore, able to make choices. All the other animals live by the laws of nature, which are the laws of God. Therefore, only humans are prone to sin and will need to make amends and ask for mercy from God. God also entrusts us (humans) as caretakers of all of His Creation ... ALL Creation ... nature and animals.

 

The Qur'an does not forbid "owing" of animals as pets, or for work / food. The key thing is that the Qur'an and the teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) and the other Prophets (PBUH), provide clear guidance as to how these animals need to be treated (well) and ultimately how they need to be slaughtered if we end up using them for food. Muhammad (PBUH) had several cats as pets. There are stories in the teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) that a woman who did not feed her cat and it died ... the cat went to Heaven, but the woman went to Hell. Another story tells us that a man who gave a dog that was lost in the desert some water went to Heaven, even though he was a bad person in many other ways.

 

If you read the Qur'an there are many verses that confirm the science of nature and, therefore, for Muslims science does not mean that there is not creation and, therefore, a Creator. The science, we believe, confirms the Creation. The Qur'an has many scientific aspects to it that were not known back then (around 620 CE ... CE = Common Era). The Qur'an outlines in great detail human embryology, for example. No one understood it then, but we do now.

 

I humbly suggest you read it with an open heart and mind.

 

Thank you for asking and listening / reading. Fortunately, my students are reviewing for an in class assignment on Monday and I had some time to address your excellent question.

 

I hope I addressed your question in a way that helps you. If you ask more, I will do my best to answer them too.

[Randall Flagg]

Hi Arc,

 

I have read this thread and have enjoyed it very much, but have not posted in it. Since you asked ...

 

The Qur'an, which we believe is the direct word of God, does not specifically address that animals will go to Heaven when they die.

 

There is a ayat (verse) which states (I will paraphrase, as I do not have it handy) ... *there is not a creature that walks on the land, or swims in the sea, or that fly on their wings that do not form families as you do. They are all part of Our creation and We will call them all back to Us in the end*

 

Most Muslims take this to mean that all of creation will be welcomed in Heaven.

 

The only real difference between humans and the other animals is that humans have free will and, therefore, able to make choices. All the other animals live by the laws of nature, which are the laws of God. Therefore, only humans are prone to sin and will need to make amends and ask for mercy from God. God also entrusts us (humans) as caretakers of all of His Creation ... ALL Creation ... nature and animals.

 

The Qur'an does not forbid "owing" of animals as pets, or for work / food. The key thing is that the Qur'an and the teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) and the other Prophets (PBUH), provide clear guidance as to how these animals need to be treated (well) and ultimately how they need to be slaughtered if we end up using them for food. Muhammad (PBUH) had several cats as pets. There are stories in the teachings of Muhammad (PBUH) that a woman who did not feed her cat and it died ... the cat went to Heaven, but the woman went to Hell. Another story tells us that a man who gave a dog that was lost in the desert some water went to Heaven, even though he was a bad person in many other ways.

 

If you read the Qur'an there are many verses that confirm the science of nature and, therefore, for Muslims science does not mean that there is not creation and, therefore, a Creator. The science, we believe, confirms the Creation. The Qur'an has many scientific aspects to it that were not known back then (around 620 CE ... CE = Common Era). The Qur'an outlines in great detail human embryology, for example. No one understood it then, but we do now.

 

I humbly suggest you read it with an open heart and mind.

 

Thank you for asking and listening / reading. Fortunately, my students are reviewing for an in class assignment on Monday and I had some time to address your excellent question.

 

I hope I addressed your question in a way that helps you. If you ask more, I will do my best to answer them too.

Thank you for spending the time to give such detail :) I fully plan on reading the Qur'an at some point, before I take a certain class at my school that focuses on both it and the Bible hopefully (I have read that one, so might as well be as prepared for the class as I can anyway!) If any other questions come to mind I'll be sure to drop them here!

[LastPommerFan]

Bumping in an attempt to redirect the Bylsma Thread :)

[I am Defecting]

"He's a good christian man," said Terrence of Dan.

[TrueBlueGED]

Bumping in an attempt to redirect the Bylsma Thread :)

 

Go to hell!  :devil:

[Doohickie]

Go to hell!  :devil:

 

You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas.

 

 

 

-Davy Crockett

[smj]

Original sin helps get the process started of keeping the coffers full. Get'em while they are young and you potentially have a customer for life. Promising heaven only gets you so far when most or all of the religions offer it.

 

They all have their tall tales though, whether it's parting the Red Seas or flooding the entire world, to the virgin birth and rising from the dead, golden plates and magic underwear, 72 virgins, or reincarnation. It's all just different ways to answer questions we don't know the answers to. How did we get here? What happens when we die? Is there a heaven? Am I on the list? Etc.

That's a very cynical view.  You are talking about a few con-artists and evil people - the vast, vast majority of Christians are not getting wealthy from their church.  The majority of Christians are giving their resources to help other less fortunate in an attempt to follow Christ's teaching (and, yes, all Christians are hypocrites because they are trying to follow a perfect example). 

 

To me the question of God begins with Christ as He claimed to be God (which is why the Jewish leaders at that time killed him for blasphemy) and claimed to be raised from the dead.  That sounds ridiculous and I have tried not to believe it 100 times.  Mostly because while becoming a Christian is the easiest thing to do the paradox is it is also the hardest as you try to follow Christ.  To me, it takes more faith to not believe in the resurrection.  Rome and the Jewish leaders wanted to eliminate Christianity and all they had to do was come up with the body.  They knew He claimed He would raise Himself from the dead so the tomb was guarded and the penalty for roman soldiers falling asleep at their post was death.  The disciples who had abandoned Christ and ran away suddenly were convinced they saw him alive.  So many people saw him alive that those who questioned if it were true would be told to go talk to the ones who saw him alive.  It isn't like today where the disciples would receive fame and fortune for starting the early church - every single one of them suffered and all were martyred but one.  I always wondered why that had to be but I think it was because it presents one of strongest arguments for the resurrection.  At any rate, as hard as the resurrection may be to believe, all the other theories require more faith such as the body was stolen or the disciples imagined everything.   

 

If you accept the resurrection then you understand God as revealed through the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The God of the Bible, or any realistic view of a Creator, is so superior to me I would approach so humbly that I'll leave the answer of creation up to Him/Her/It.  I do think it is ridiculous to think this complex world evolved from nothing without a creator.  Why are people so consumed with the question of a creator if the question wasn't put there by something?  Does any animal evolve a need to understand what happens to them after they die?  Do you really think in a million years our dogs will be sitting next to us mulling over these questions?  The Bible does explain why these things are so and also explains why other answers are posed to keep us from reconciliation through Christ.

 

Please don't flame away.  Just wanted to clearly articulate the position which is unique among world religions.      

[darksabre]

That's a very cynical view.  You are talking about a few con-artists and evil people - the vast, vast majority of Christians are not getting wealthy from their church.  The majority of Christians are giving their resources to help other less fortunate in an attempt to follow Christ's teaching (and, yes, all Christians are hypocrites because they are trying to follow a perfect example). 

 

To me the question of God begins with Christ as He claimed to be God (which is why the Jewish leaders at that time killed him for blasphemy) and claimed to be raised from the dead.  That sounds ridiculous and I have tried not to believe it 100 times.  Mostly because while becoming a Christian is the easiest thing to do the paradox is it is also the hardest as you try to follow Christ.  To me, it takes more faith to not believe in the resurrection.  Rome and the Jewish leaders wanted to eliminate Christianity and all they had to do was come up with the body.  They knew He claimed He would raise Himself from the dead so the tomb was guarded and the penalty for roman soldiers falling asleep at their post was death.  The disciples who had abandoned Christ and ran away suddenly were convinced they saw him alive.  So many people saw him alive that those who questioned if it were true would be told to go talk to the ones who saw him alive.  It isn't like today where the disciples would receive fame and fortune for starting the early church - every single one of them suffered and all were martyred but one.  I always wondered why that had to be but I think it was because it presents one of strongest arguments for the resurrection.  At any rate, as hard as the resurrection may be to believe, all the other theories require more faith such as the body was stolen or the disciples imagined everything.   

 

If you accept the resurrection then you understand God as revealed through the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The God of the Bible, or any realistic view of a Creator, is so superior to me I would approach so humbly that I'll leave the answer of creation up to Him/Her/It.  I do think it is ridiculous to think this complex world evolved from nothing without a creator.  Why are people so consumed with the question of a creator if the question wasn't put there by something?  Does any animal evolve a need to understand what happens to them after they die?  Do you really think in a million years our dogs will be sitting next to us mulling over these questions?  The Bible does explain why these things are so and also explains why other answers are posed to keep us from reconciliation through Christ.

 

Please don't flame away.  Just wanted to clearly articulate the position which is unique among world religions.      

 

Got stats to back that claim up? Because I'm not buying it. 

[MattPie]

 

You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas.

 

 

 

-Davy Crockett

 

It's really one in the same, innit? :)

 

That's a very cynical view.  You are talking about a few con-artists and evil people - the vast, vast majority of Christians are not getting wealthy from their church.  The majority of Christians are giving their resources to help other less fortunate in an attempt to follow Christ's teaching (and, yes, all Christians are hypocrites because they are trying to follow a perfect example). 

 

To me the question of God begins with Christ as He claimed to be God (which is why the Jewish leaders at that time killed him for blasphemy) and claimed to be raised from the dead.  That sounds ridiculous and I have tried not to believe it 100 times.  Mostly because while becoming a Christian is the easiest thing to do the paradox is it is also the hardest as you try to follow Christ.  To me, it takes more faith to not believe in the resurrection.  Rome and the Jewish leaders wanted to eliminate Christianity and all they had to do was come up with the body.  They knew He claimed He would raise Himself from the dead so the tomb was guarded and the penalty for roman soldiers falling asleep at their post was death.  The disciples who had abandoned Christ and ran away suddenly were convinced they saw him alive.  So many people saw him alive that those who questioned if it were true would be told to go talk to the ones who saw him alive.  It isn't like today where the disciples would receive fame and fortune for starting the early church - every single one of them suffered and all were martyred but one.  I always wondered why that had to be but I think it was because it presents one of strongest arguments for the resurrection.  At any rate, as hard as the resurrection may be to believe, all the other theories require more faith such as the body was stolen or the disciples imagined everything.   

 

If you accept the resurrection then you understand God as revealed through the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The God of the Bible, or any realistic view of a Creator, is so superior to me I would approach so humbly that I'll leave the answer of creation up to Him/Her/It.  I do think it is ridiculous to think this complex world evolved from nothing without a creator.  Why are people so consumed with the question of a creator if the question wasn't put there by something?  Does any animal evolve a need to understand what happens to them after they die?  Do you really think in a million years our dogs will be sitting next to us mulling over these questions?  The Bible does explain why these things are so and also explains why other answers are posed to keep us from reconciliation through Christ.

 

Please don't flame away.  Just wanted to clearly articulate the position which is unique among world religions.      

 

Good post. The story I remember is he was buried in a cave, behind a large rock. After three days, they moved the rock and the body was gone. I haven't studied it (at all), but that's a little different than what you're saying. And as for "go ask someone that was there", hearsay is a tough one to believe in, as is mob psychology.

 

Got stats to back that claim up? Because I'm not buying it. 

 

Come on, that was a good post. :)

Edited June 2, 2015 by MattPie

[Drunkard]

That's a very cynical view.  You are talking about a few con-artists and evil people - the vast, vast majority of Christians are not getting wealthy from their church.  The majority of Christians are giving their resources to help other less fortunate in an attempt to follow Christ's teaching (and, yes, all Christians are hypocrites because they are trying to follow a perfect example). 

 

To me the question of God begins with Christ as He claimed to be God (which is why the Jewish leaders at that time killed him for blasphemy) and claimed to be raised from the dead.  That sounds ridiculous and I have tried not to believe it 100 times.  Mostly because while becoming a Christian is the easiest thing to do the paradox is it is also the hardest as you try to follow Christ.  To me, it takes more faith to not believe in the resurrection.  Rome and the Jewish leaders wanted to eliminate Christianity and all they had to do was come up with the body.  They knew He claimed He would raise Himself from the dead so the tomb was guarded and the penalty for roman soldiers falling asleep at their post was death.  The disciples who had abandoned Christ and ran away suddenly were convinced they saw him alive.  So many people saw him alive that those who questioned if it were true would be told to go talk to the ones who saw him alive.  It isn't like today where the disciples would receive fame and fortune for starting the early church - every single one of them suffered and all were martyred but one.  I always wondered why that had to be but I think it was because it presents one of strongest arguments for the resurrection.  At any rate, as hard as the resurrection may be to believe, all the other theories require more faith such as the body was stolen or the disciples imagined everything.   

 

If you accept the resurrection then you understand God as revealed through the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The God of the Bible, or any realistic view of a Creator, is so superior to me I would approach so humbly that I'll leave the answer of creation up to Him/Her/It.  I do think it is ridiculous to think this complex world evolved from nothing without a creator.  Why are people so consumed with the question of a creator if the question wasn't put there by something?  Does any animal evolve a need to understand what happens to them after they die?  Do you really think in a million years our dogs will be sitting next to us mulling over these questions?  The Bible does explain why these things are so and also explains why other answers are posed to keep us from reconciliation through Christ.

 

Please don't flame away.  Just wanted to clearly articulate the position which is unique among world religions.

I'm not trying to flame. I enjoy the discussion and outside of a few sarcastic remarks here and there I think this entire thread has remained pretty civil.

 

The problem with your argument is that is all hinges on the Bible being true and I'm not convinced that it is. From there it just goes to circular logic and a tailspin of beliefs without facts or evidence to support them and the further back you go the more outlandish the story gets and it's less and less possible to verify to those of us who don't accept the book as true because the only proof that it is true is the book itself saying it is.

 

It also isn't unique. They are several religions that pre-date both the Jewish and the Christian faiths that claim many of the same things from resurrection to virgin births to creation in general. Claiming uniqueness is simply ignoring these other similar stories/religions and if it's so easy to dismiss them as falsehoods then it should be easier to see why many of us are able to do the same thing with Christianity.

 

I think much of the bible is something along the lines of Aesop's fables. A collection of stories (some of which are highly warped, twisted, and even demented but that's another tangent) that are designed to teach people lessons about right and wrong, devotion, faith, or other concepts. Some of them may even have a basis in reality and some are likely conjured up out of thin air. If it gives meaning to your life and gives your mind and body less stress when you contemplate your own demise, then that's great and I'm happy for you. I personally can't consider something to be fact when the only evidence is the book itself claiming it to be the truth or directly from God or however it's currently being spun.

 

Lastly, if all religion was simply about following your beliefs I wouldn't be nearly so skeptical of it in general. The problem is when religious tendencies infiltrate the government (and in some cases downright overtake it) and try to legislate their beliefs on the rest of us then it only makes me question their motives even further. It's one thing to spread your faith to those who willingly want to hear it and another to enact laws that push a religious agenda on the non-religious.

[Doohickie]

It's really one in the same, innit? :)

 

I think that was the point when it was first said.

[darksabre]

It's really one in the same, innit? :)

 

 

Good post. The story I remember is he was buried in a cave, behind a large rock. After three days, they moved the rock and the body was gone. I haven't studied it (at all), but that's a little different than what you're saying. And as for "go ask someone that was there", hearsay is a tough one to believe in, as is mob psychology.

 

 

Come on, that was a good post. :)

Sure, if you're in to drinking the cool aid. People love to pump their religion's tires as if it somehow sets them apart from the rest of the heathens. It assumes those without faith are greedy and those with it are good and generous.

 

I'll be straight. I don't think religious affiliation is a predictor of charity. And I'm always annoyed when it's implied otherwise.

[LastPommerFan]

Sure, if you're in to drinking the cool aid. People love to pump their religion's tires as if it somehow sets them apart from the rest of the heathens. It assumes those without faith are greedy and those with it are good and generous.

 

I'll be straight. I don't think religious affiliation is a predictor of charity. And I'm always annoyed when it's implied otherwise.

 

It's actually an exceptionally good predictor of charity, something like +25% to the likelihood and amount of giving. I don't have time to look up the studies, but Pew and Hoover Institute have both done extensive and regular looks into this phenomenon.

[Randall Flagg]

It's actually an exceptionally good predictor of charity, something like +25% to the likelihood and amount of giving. I don't have time to look up the studies, but Pew and Hoover Institute have both done extensive and regular looks into this phenomenon.

I wish the sample size in my life were part of this trend...

[darksabre]

It's actually an exceptionally good predictor of charity, something like +25% to the likelihood and amount of giving. I don't have time to look up the studies, but Pew and Hoover Institute have both done extensive and regular looks into this phenomenon.

Interesting. I wonder if they break it down by type of charity/giving? I'd imagine giving to the church itself might skew results.

[dEnnis the Menace]

Interesting. I wonder if they break it down by type of charity/giving? I'd imagine giving to the church itself might skew results.

 

great question actually

 

I'm wondering, has anyone else read Bill O'Reilly's Killing Jesus book?  It isn't fully rooted in religion and was pretty well written.  I really enjoyed it.  

[smj]

It's really one in the same, innit? :)

 

 

Good post. The story I remember is he was buried in a cave, behind a large rock. After three days, they moved the rock and the body was gone. I haven't studied it (at all), but that's a little different than what you're saying. And as for "go ask someone that was there", hearsay is a tough one to believe in, as is mob psychology.

 

 

Come on, that was a good post. :)

Mattpie - I took a little liberty for the sake of brevity.  The disciples ran and hid fearing for their lives during the crucifixion.  Mary and other women found the tomb empty (it was way too heavy for them to move - Mark 16:1-8).  At first the disciples did not believe the women that the tomb was empty.  They were clueless as to what happened seemingly forgetting Christ had told them he would be raised after 3 days.  Later Christ appeared to the disciples (without Thomas) while they were eating and, later the famous doubting Thomas incident occurred where Thomas would not believe Jesus was really resurrected until Thomas felt the wounds in his His hands and side (John 20:24-29).  As for heresy, that is when you would believe the person who claimed someone told them they saw Jesus resurrected.  Paul says in I Corinthians 15:6 that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time.  He also said most of them were alive when he wrote that message meaning there were plenty of first-person eyewitnesses someone could talk to if they did not want to rely on hearsay (although Paul also says he saw Jesus resurrected).  Jesus appeared to 12 different groups of people after the resurrection. 

 

Of course, some will say they don't believe the Biblical account but there are good books out there that explain why it is the most reliable historical book available (no one seems to question roman written history yet it is far less historically sound as far as the dating of the texts we rely upon, etc.  You can say all the disciples got together and made everything up but for what purpose?  Someone asked if I had stats to back it up and said they weren't buying it.  That was pretty funny.  Of course, it is a matter of faith but you don't have to turn your brain off to examine the evidence. You sound sincerely interested in the topic so I suggest reading Mere Christianity by CS Lewis or listen to Chip Ingram's podcast Why I Believe which can be found for free in the archives of livingontheedge.org.   

great question actually

 

I'm wondering, has anyone else read Bill O'Reilly's Killing Jesus book?  It isn't fully rooted in religion and was pretty well written.  I really enjoyed it.  

I agree that is a very good book, especially for putting everything into historical context.  And it leaves the reader to come to their own conclusion at the end.

[MattPie]

Mattpie - I took a little liberty for the sake of brevity.  The disciples ran and hid fearing for their lives during the crucifixion.  Mary and other women found the tomb empty (it was way too heavy for them to move - Mark 16:1-8).  At first the disciples did not believe the women that the tomb was empty.  They were clueless as to what happened seemingly forgetting Christ had told them he would be raised after 3 days.  Later Christ appeared to the disciples (without Thomas) while they were eating and, later the famous doubting Thomas incident occurred where Thomas would not believe Jesus was really resurrected until Thomas felt the wounds in his His hands and side (John 20:24-29).  As for heresy, that is when you would believe the person who claimed someone told them they saw Jesus resurrected.  Paul says in I Corinthians 15:6 that Jesus appeared to more than 500 people at the same time.  He also said most of them were alive when he wrote that message meaning there were plenty of first-person eyewitnesses someone could talk to if they did not want to rely on hearsay (although Paul also says he saw Jesus resurrected).  Jesus appeared to 12 different groups of people after the resurrection. 

 

Of course, some will say they don't believe the Biblical account but there are good books out there that explain why it is the most reliable historical book available (no one seems to question roman written history yet it is far less historically sound as far as the dating of the texts we rely upon, etc.  You can say all the disciples got together and made everything up but for what purpose?  Someone asked if I had stats to back it up and said they weren't buying it.  That was pretty funny.  Of course, it is a matter of faith but you don't have to turn your brain off to examine the evidence. You sound sincerely interested in the topic so I suggest reading Mere Christianity by CS Lewis or listen to Chip Ingram's podcast Why I Believe which can be found for free in the archives of livingontheedge.org.   

 

I think the main issue with taking the Bible at its "word" is it was written/compiled well after the fact (at least 70 year I think for the gospels, and only in it's present form after the council of Nicea (I think, I'm no scholar)). There's a lot of myth and "tall tales" that could have slipped in by then. Plus, the people who wrote it had a vested interest in portraying Jesus in as positive a light as possible.

 

As a parallel there are surely people that believe George Washington cut down a cherry tree (which can't be substantiated) and threw a silver dollar over the Potomac, despite the Potomac being a mile wide where Washington lived.