t of personal time with the earthly Jesus. Jesus for Paul was a cosmic Christ and not a historical figure, it seems. So Paul goes up to see them because he wants to and not because they may have told him to show up. Paul was not a man one told to do anything he didn't want to do. Paul was a much more distrusted figure among the disciples of Jesus than Luke in Acts would have us believe. But that is another story.

Paul may have felt the same way himself and had Luke tell the story of Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5 to send the message that Peter was not worthy of leadership. In that story we find Peter pronouncing death upon two church members who said they would give one amount of money to the Church and ended up giving less. Strange way for the man Peter, who said he would never deny Jesus and then did three times, to act. Peter, who promised to do one thing and then did another just as now these two before him had done. Peter pronounces death upon them for not cou

Answers to Biblical questions are rather relative to the background and the perspectives of the one asked the question. There are answers of course. Often, many different answers given to the same questions. Obviously, a priest may answer much differently than a Baptist minister and a Lutheran pastor differently from an Adventist. A closed mind will answer differently from an open one. Many of the answers that one would hear are listed above. These are questions that have no easy answer along denominational lines. These are questions that ask not so much what does the story mean, but rather, why does it contradict what is said over in another gospel? Why is this here and nowhere else? How can this be in our real world of time and space? These are questions that usually leave the minister or priest wishing he had never gone to seminary and was not sitting at his desk with YOU knowing enough about the book to ask the question in the first place.

An apologist will talk of the contradictions in Paul's conversion accounts as supplemental and not contradictory, but that is what they have to say because the book has to be flawless and perfectly accurate word of God. It would never do to think the accounts are written by people who had human perspectives, made mistakes in transmission of the alleged facts and even a few political reasons for tweeking the story. The usual answer to this inquiry is that Paul did indeed quote Jesus, but even once or in principle is good enough to answer this problem. Or he was preaching Christ crucified and leaving the rest to others. Neither is really a satisfying reason for why the man who gets to write most of the New Testament and inform us all about the reason and meaning of Jesus rarely, if ever, refers to the teachings of the teacher, especially when it would be to his advantage to do so in his writings. Paul could have referred to Jesus and the Lord's prayer, for example, instead of telling people that the Holy Spirit would groan out their prayers when they didn't know what to pray. But he didn't know the Lord's teaching on how to pray, it seems.

There are more serious answers to these questions as well. Some might be that the story is Midrash or Pesher which are terms that few in the pews and far too often in the pulpit have ever heard. Simply put, it is a way to mine the scriptures of the past for meaning in the present. The author of Matthew was very good at this. It doesn't mean the proof text was literally pointing to something in the future, but can be used to tell a story in a way that one wants the story to be told and with the meaning it needs to have for the present time. It is what Matthew as doing over and over when he looked back into the Old Testament to find scriptures to tell his and only his story of Jesus. He found scriptures that never meant in reality what he made them to mean, but it was a way to tell his story. Not unlike my using Lord of the Rings to show how Tolkien, in his time, really spoke of the war in Iraq in our time.

Other real answers might admit that there are politics at play here in the text. For example it is easy to see that Paul had no use for the leadership of the Jewish Church in Jerusalem. In Paul's telling of his story in Galatians 1 and 2 we find a man who learned nothing of his teachings from men. He was called from the womb like Jeremiah, John and Jesus. He got his gospel directly from the risen Christ. After his conversion he went to the wilderness for three years for what he never says. He makes a point of NOT going to Jerusalem to see the Apostles until he was good and ready. He mentions seeing James and Peter for a couple weeks, and then a full 14 years later Paul goes up to see the Peter, James and John, who he labels as men who “seemed to be pillars.” Funny way to describe these Apostles. This is not a man who wanted to hear any teachings or advice from the men who spent a lot of personal time with the earthly Jesus. Jesus for Paul was a cosmic Christ and not a historical figure, it seems. So Paul goes up to see them because he wants to and not because they may have told him to show up. Paul was not a man one told to do anything he didn't want to do. Paul was a much more distrusted figure among the disciples of Jesus than Luke in Acts would have us believe. But that is another story.

Paul may have felt the same way himself and had Luke tell the story of Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5 to send the message that Peter was not worthy of leadership. In that story we find Peter pronouncing death upon two church members who said they would give one amount of money to the Church and ended up giving less. Strange way for the man Peter, who said he would never deny Jesus and then did three times, to act. Peter, who promised to do one thing and then did another just as now these two before him had done. Peter pronounces death upon them for not coug

of the contradictions in Paul's conversion accounts as supplemental and not contradictory, but that is what they have to say because the book has to be flawless and perfectly accurate word of God. It would never do to think the accounts are written by people who had human perspectives, made mistakes in transmission of the alleged facts and even a few political reasons for tweeking the story. The usual answer to this inquiry is that Paul did indeed quote Jesus, but even once or in principle is good enough to answer this problem. Or he was preaching Christ crucified and leaving the rest to others. Neither is really a satisfying reason for why the man who gets to write most of the New Testament and inform us all about the reason and meaning of Jesus rarely, if ever, refers to the teachings of the teacher, especially when it would be to his advantage to do so in his writings. Paul could have referred to Jesus and the Lord's prayer, for example, instead of telling people that the Holy Spirit would groan out their prayers when they didn't know what to pray. But he didn't know the Lord's teaching on how to pray, it seems.

There are more serious answers to these questions as well. Some might be that the story is Midrash or Pesher which are terms that few in the pews and far too often in the pulpit have ever heard. Simply put, it is a way to mine the scriptures of the past for meaning in the present. The author of Matthew was very good at this. It doesn't mean the proof text was literally pointing to something in the future, but can be used to tell a story in a way that one wants the story to be told and with the meaning it needs to have for the present time. It is what Matthew as doing over and over when he looked back into the Old Testament to find scriptures to tell his and only his story of Jesus. He found scriptures that never meant in reality what he made them to mean, but it was a way to tell his story. Not unlike my using Lord of the Rings to show how Tolkien, in his time, really spoke of the war in Iraq in our time.

Other real answers might admit that there are politics at play here in the text. For example it is easy to see that Paul had no use for the leadership of the Jewish Church in Jerusalem. In Paul's telling of his story in Galatians 1 and 2 we find a man who learned nothing of his teachings from men. He was called from the womb like Jeremiah, John and Jesus. He got his gospel directly from the risen Christ. After his conversion he went to the wilderness for three years for what he never says. He makes a point of NOT going to Jerusalem to see the Apostles until he was good and ready. He mentions seeing James and Peter for a couple weeks, and then a full 14 years later Paul goes up to see the Peter, James and John, who he labels as men who “seemed to be pillars.” Funny way to describe these Apostles. This is not a man who wanted to hear any teachings or advice from the men who spent a lot of personal time with the earthly Jesus. Jesus for Paul was a cosmic Christ and not a historical figure, it seems. So Paul goes up to see them because he wants to and not because they may have told him to show up. Paul was not a man one told to do anything he didn't want to do. Paul was a much more distrusted figure among the disciples of Jesus than Luke in Acts would have us believe. But that is another story.

Paul may have felt the same way himself and had Luke tell the story of Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5 to send the message that Peter was not worthy of leadership. In that story we find Peter pronouncing death upon two church members who said they would give one amount of money to the Church and ended up giving less. Strange way for the man Peter, who said he would never deny Jesus and then did three times, to act. Peter, who promised to do one thing and then did another just as now these two before him had done. Peter pronounces death upon them for not cou

the Holy Spirit would groan out their prayers when they didn't know what to pray. But he didn't know the Lord's teaching on how to pray, it seems.

There are more serious answers to these questions as well. Some might be that the story is Midrash or Pesher which are terms that few in the pews and far too often in the pulpit have ever heard. Simply put, it is a way to mine the scriptures of the past for meaning in the present. The author of Matthew was very good at this. It doesn't mean the proof text was literally pointing to something in the future, but can be used to tell a story in a way that one wants the story to be told and with the meaning it needs to have for the present time. It is what Matthew as doing over and over when he looked back into the Old Testament to find scriptures to tell his and only his story of Jesus. He found scriptures that never meant in reality what he made them to mean, but it was a way to tell his story. Not unlike my using Lord of the Rings to show how Tolkien, in his time, really spoke of the war in Iraq in our time.

Other real answers might admit that there are politics at play here in the text. For example it is easy to see that Paul had no use for the leadership of the Jewish Church in Jerusalem. In Paul's telling of his story in Galatians 1 and 2 we find a man who learned nothing of his teachings from men. He was called from the womb like Jeremiah, John and Jesus. He got his gospel directly from the risen Christ. After his conversion he went to the wilderness for three years for what he never says. He makes a point of NOT going to Jerusalem to see the Apostles until he was good and ready. He mentions seeing James and Peter for a couple weeks, and then a full 14 years later Paul goes up to see the Peter, James and John, who he labels as men who “seemed to be pillars.” Funny way to describe these Apostles. This is not a man who wanted to hear any teachings or advice from the men who spent a lot of personal time with the earthly Jesus. Jesus for Paul was a cosmic Christ and not a historical figure, it seems. So Paul goes up to see them because he wants to and not because they may have told him to show up. Paul was not a man one told to do anything he didn't want to do. Paul was a much more distrusted figure among the disciples of Jesus than Luke in Acts would have us believe. But that is another story.

Paul may have felt the same way himself and had Luke tell the story of Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5 to send the message that Peter was not worthy of leadership. In that story we find Peter pronouncing death upon two church members who said they would give one amount of money to the Church and ended up giving less. Strange way for the man Peter, who said he would never deny Jesus and then did three times, to act. Peter, who promised to do one thing and then did another just as now these two before him had done. Peter pronounces death upon them for not cou

Rings to show how Tolkien, in his time, really spoke of the war in Iraq in our time.

Other real answers might admit that there are politics at play here in the text. For example it is easy to see that Paul had no use for the leadership of the Jewish Church in Jerusalem. In Paul's telling of his story in Galatians 1 and 2 we find a man who learned nothing of his teachings from men. He was called from the womb like Jeremiah, John and Jesus. He got his gospel directly from the risen Christ. After his conversion he went to the wilderness for three years for what he never says. He makes a point of NOT going to Jerusalem to see the Apostles until he was good and ready. He mentions seeing James and Peter for a couple weeks, and then a full 14 years later Paul goes up to see the Peter, James and John, who he labels as men who “seemed to be pillars.” Funny way to describe these Apostles. This is not a man who wanted to hear any teachings or advice from the men who spent a lot of personal time with the earthly Jesus. Jesus for Paul was a cosmic Christ and not a historical figure, it seems. So Paul goes up to see them because he wants to and not because they may have told him to show up. Paul was not a man one told to do anything he didn't want to do. Paul was a much more distrusted figure among the disciples of Jesus than Luke in Acts would have us believe. But that is another story.

Paul may have felt the same way himself and had Luke tell the story of Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5 to send the message that Peter was not worthy of leadership. In that story we find Peter pronouncing death upon two church members who said they would give one amount of money to the Church and ended up giving less. Strange way for the man Peter, who said he would never deny Jesus and then did three times, to act. Peter, who promised to do one thing and then did another just as now these two before him had done. Peter pronounces death upon them for not cou

t of personal time with the earthly Jesus. Jesus for Paul was a cosmic Christ and not a historical figure, it seems. So Paul goes up to see them because he wants to and not because they may have told him to show up. Paul was not a man one told to do anything he didn't want to do. Paul was a much more distrusted figure among the disciples of Jesus than Luke in Acts would have us believe. But that is another story.

Paul may have felt the same way himself and had Luke tell the story of Annanias and Sapphira in Acts 5 to send the message that Peter was not worthy of leadership. In that story we find Peter pronouncing death upon two church members who said they would give one amount of money to the Church and ended up giving less. Strange way for the man Peter, who said he would never deny Jesus and then did three times, to act. Peter, who promised to do one thing and then did another just as now these two before him had done. Peter pronounces death upon them for not coughing up the shekels when Peter got to be an Apostle after dening he ever knew Jesus. Those who read the story would not miss the irony. This is the story behind the story of Peter punishing with death these two members of the young church for saying one thing and doing another. It was more a political statement against Peter's duplicity and disqualification in leadership than an event that probably really happened. Politics.

Questions to ask about the Birth Narratives of Jesus.

Question. Pastor...What difference does it make for Matthew and Luke to show us Jesus family connections from Mary and Joseph back to King David and Adam, when God was his real Father? Aren't geneologies meaningless since Joseph was a stop father, and all coming before him would be step ancestors to Jesus. So Jesus can't be connected back to King David as the line breaks between Jesus and Joseph. Right?

Question. Pastor... If the Holy Spirit, which I think you said was a person in the Trinity, begot Mary, isn't the Holy Spirit really Jesus literal father?” Would this not then make God Jesus uncle of sorts, or Jesus his own Father, since they are three in one, coequal and co...oh you understand. This is a mystery isn't it?

Question. Father... Why do I have to call you Father, when Jesus said to call no man “Father” except his?

Question. Pastor... Matthew 1: 17 says that Jacob was Joseph's father, but Luke 3:23 says that Heli was Joseph's father. Was Joseph's father Jacob Heli Rubinstein or something?

Question. Pastor...Why does it always seem that women in the Bible who give birth to important men, like Elizabeth being John the Baptist's mom, are always barren and really old. (Luke 1:7). But then, women who give birth to gods are never barren but always pure virgin, and really young like her relative Mary.

Question. Pastor... Why in Luke 1:18-20 does the Angel make the old husband of Elizabeth unable to speak for not believing that he would have a son? Seems like a normal thing not to believe at his age. And yet, in Luke 1: 34 Mary tells the Angel she can't believe that she will have Jesus the King because she doesn't even have a husband. At least Zechariah had an old wife. Yet, the angel doesn't make her mute for not believing him. Do you think the Angel had a quota on how many people a day he could make blind and mute?

Question. Pastor... In the same story, in verse 41, old Elizabeth praises Mary for being the mother of her Lord. How did she find out that Mary was going to give birth to a god? Is that the kind of story you think the family passed on to her prior to Mary coming for a visit? And pastor, do you think it is strange that an old woman who is just now in life having her first son would instinctively praise a young virgin for being pregnant? Just a thought.

Question. Pastor... In that same account in Luke 1:46, “and Mary said, 'My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for he has regarded the low estate of his handmaiden,'” sound more like something that Elizabeth would say since she was doing all the talking up to that point? And don't you think it amazing that this bursting into song of Mary is so much the same as the story of Hannah, an old barren woman in I Samuel 1, who gave birth to Samuel? And isn't it interesting that a razor was not to come on Samuel just like Elizabeth's baby John? And how about that part where Hanna can't speak either, just like Elizabeth's husband Zechariah? Oh and how about when Elizabeth said in verse 18, “Let your maidservant find favor in your eyes.” Wow, sounds a lot like what Mary just said about herself in Luke. Could it be that Luke is using the Hannah story to tell the Mary and Elizabeth story. And could it be that it was really Elizabeth, the old barren woman, still speaking in Luke and not Mary at all about her joy like the old barren Hannah, but someone attributed what El